Those who spend hours in the sun perfecting their golden tans may snicker at orange-faced folks who opt for a tan in a can, but it could be the Oompa Loompas who are making the wiser choices. A study published in the Archives of Dermatology suggests that fake-tanners spend less time in the sun, leading to less exposure to cancer risk-increasing UV rays. [More]
In case you needed any more reason to protect your kids from the sun, skin care experts say sunburns in childhood and adolescence double victims’ chances of suffering skin cancer later in life. [More]
Yesterday, a Food & Drug Administration advisory panel suggested that the FDA begin making it a requirement for children and teenagers who want to get a golden glow from a tanning bed that they must first obtain parental consent on a form documenting that the parents are aware of the potential hazards of tanning. Since I get my sun the natural way — from the backlit screen of my laptop — I’d like to know from y’all whether you think this is a sensible idea that will help prevent skin disease and cancer in the long run or if it’s just more mandated mollycoddling… [More]
The difference in UVB protection between an SPF 100 and SPF 50 is marginal. Far from offering double the blockage, SPF 100 blocks 99 percent of UVB rays, while SPF 50 blocks 98 percent. (SPF 30, that old-timer, holds its own, deflecting 96.7 percent).