Talk:Indoor tanning/Archive 1

Helping Hand?
I have done a great deal more work on this piece, but for some reason the text always cuts off after the opening paragraph and the first citation. I've gone through the notes I received when I first became a member of Wikipedia, but I'm stymied. Any help would be appreciated -- either here or on my personal Talk page. Thanks in advance. FuturePresent 09:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Working on it
For full disclosure, I have worked in the industry for over a decade, but promise to keep my contributions balanced. I have added to article, and will get some more history with exact dates, as well as citations soon.Pharmboy 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced content
I replaced the first paragraph, and corrected the spelling of Friedrich. I had to remove the link on his name, as the article it points to is NOT him. Might need that name to point to a different page that lets the user choose which Friedrich Wolff they want to read about. Added other neutral content as to history, including about Jorg Wolff, Friedrich's brother and owner of Cosmedico, one of the largest tanning bed lamp makers in the world. Added internal link to 21CRF1040.20 which is the federal law that covers tanning beds most directly.

The lack of cites are due to the fact that the information is "common knowledge" for those of us who work in the industry. I don't work for any of the companies named, and will get more details and cites later. I want to add a list of state regulatory agencies, but don't think it appropriate to link to the site of the company I work for, even if the page has no ads or products. Not sure if this should be a seperate page here or what. I made the list and am authorized to put it in the Public Domain, but the list would actually be useful since every state has different laws on commercial tanning. Input on how to do this appropriately is welcomed. Pharmboy 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I cleaned up the first paragraph of the entire article, which was a little confusing and not entirely correct, and added some information. Pharmboy 19:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved
I have moved the main article over to Tanning bed since there was no opposition and regular members supported the move. Any new discussion should be directed to the discussion page of Tanning bed. Not moving any of the discussion memos to the new name. Pharmboy 10:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * NO! NO! NO! See Moving pages — never do a copy/paste move. An administrator will close the poll when the time comes and move the article properly. You've killed the history of the article entirely and talk pages are not moved. I'll revert the move. Why the hurry? Duja 12:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon, my misreading of the article I added back the request for move at the top of this page as well. Wasn't in a particular hurry, but had read that the moves were backlogged, which suggested 'be bold and just move it' to deal with the backlog.  Will wait.  Pharmboy 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Request to change article title to "Tanning Bed"
I would request this article be changed to "tanning bed" rather than "sunbed" for the english version. From my experience, the vast majority of people in the US use the term tanning bed, and the term sunbed is almost never used (less than 3% based on search terms, relative to "tanning bed"). This is based on being in the business 13 years. I am confident Wikipedia gets more hits/redirects from "tanning bed" to here than people who search "sunbed". Pharmboy 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. I'd really expect a "sunbed" to be accompanied with an umbrella :-). I'll trust your judgment and research about the "tanning bed" being the most common term. Duja 09:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Peter O. (Talk) 08:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sunbed is certainly the most common name in Britain. Pharmboy's concerns could be taken care of with a simple redirect from Tanning bed. -- Asterion talk 17:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have some data on usage on Britain vs. the US? -- nae'blis 00:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sunbed is preferred by the BBC, for example . A search discrimating by UK results only at google.co.uk shows almost as twice number of results for sunbeds than tanning beds. When the latter is used, it is generally in conjuction with the word sunbed. I also photographed the instructions of the sunbed in my local gym, which I could upload as evidence if needed. Regards, Asterion talk 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per Duja. -- nae'blis 00:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate images
I removed nude image that was recently added, as it adds no context to the topic. Nudes just for the sake of nudes are not appropriate, as is any image that doesn't add meaning to the actual article. Pharmboy 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert, plus cite request
Reverted several changes, including the "tanorexia is a myth" segment by users 67.184.196.241 and 69.255.254.108. (I sell the beds and smart enough to know that tanorexia is a very rare, but very serious problem for some) Too many changes over too many edits, so I reverted the whole lot, including the user changing the meaning of content and making multiple sloppy edits that are just hard to track down.

On another note, the "cite" requested for tanning bed prescriptions is being hard to find without using original research, as I have handed several over the years, but haven't found others neutral sources that have published the fact that this happens. The reason is almost always for skin disorders, but have even seen it for athritis. Pharmboy 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would an insurance company list of "approved durable medical equiment" be appropriate? I think that might be easier to find.  I don't know if you consider that "commercial" though because if it is from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, etc...that's a company.   Just out of curiousity - they have actually reimbursed for the bed, fully?   Like, wheelchairs, etc... I never imagined tanning beds would be covered.  I thought that was interesting.  By the way thanks for staying on top of & reverting the latest (bad) edits...  Angelatomato 06:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In that context, I wouldn't consider that a 'commercial' link. WebMD is commercial, but is a valid site to reference, for instance.  'Commercial' is more the intent of the link than the purpose of the site.  Good idea, I have no idea if they list tanning beds tho, as it is uncommon circumstances that allow them to be prescribed.  And yes, they found it was cheaper to buy a $2000 bed than someone to get monthly $400 treatments, and for many people with psoriasis in  particular, they are quite effective and cost effective.  I have even seen "tanning salon monthly packages" covered by insurance in some circumstances.  As to the edits, as always, I just want neutral info that is accurate, and sometimes (such as with SAD) I am wrong and will admit it and correct for it.  thx.  Pharmboy 01:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Benefits Needs Rewriting.
I have edited out most of "benefits" since it was being used as a soapbox against tanning, thus what the subtopic even indicated. Also, links were broken or did not say what was indicated. To keep a NPOV, this article shouldn't be turned into someone's private playground to preach against tanning. We need both risks and benefits explained honestly. Pharmboy 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just fixed the text of the benefits that were there before.  You deleted a link that clearly stated that tanning does not alleviate SAD.  That is not POV. That's a fact. http://newcms.aafp.org/afp/980315ap/saeed.html  Before I came here, it said that tanning alleviates SAD - so I wanted to point out that was a misconception.  Also, tanning does NOT create vitamin D - another misconception that tanning salon owners claim.  Beds filter out UVB, so the fact (NOT POV) is that you can't create vitamin D from a tanning bed that is mostly UVA.   If you go in an older style  higher UVB bed, then you can create vit D.


 * The other links were not broken. I am in a university so I can access the articles on Elisiver. If you are not, then you will only see the headline page.  Or, you can go to a library and access them there. I wasn't on any soap box against tanning (i go tanning, but I don't go in high pressure beds because of the research I have been exposed to) -- I just really needed to clear up the outright lies that were in the "benefits" section when I first read the article... which are just like the benefits that tanning salon owners post all over their salons that are completely false.   I explained everything honestly as possible.  All of the links cited were accurate to the best of my ability - I did a review of 32 articles in 3 hrs....so if a few got mixed up, then that's my bad...but they all were not wrong.  Angelatomato 09:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also - why did you think that I was overstepping the article that found that intermittent tanners were more likely to get skin cancer than people who lived in sunny climates year round? That is *exactly* analogous to people who go tanning intermittently.  The study was just done on people who lived in (say) the midwest and went on winter & spring vacations to (say) Mexico.  They were at higher risk of skin cancer.  Burning was factored out of that study...the interesting part was the intermittent nature of the exposure vs. constant exposure - demonstrating that the sun is not harmful unless you get too much out of the blue (exactly what a tanning bed does).   Whatever, i'll let people draw their own conclusions - but it is a pretty obvious logical deduction.Angelatomato 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Article that I just reverted refers to how tanning beds can be calibrated to change the UV, which is patently absurd. The article is an oversimplification from someone that doesn't understand how they work and is misleading.  I didn't say you were overstepping anything, I said benefits belong in benefits, and the article needs NPOV, and several have been editing.  The link WAS broken, the other was not stating what was linked.  As to SAD, there is controversy on that point and the article should state that.  Not everyone thinks it doesn't or does prevent SAD.  That is the idea of NPOV.   I will be the first to say that there are risks (and have written more on the subject that you can imagine), but there are also benefits and the article should be balanced, and should NOT be loading more "risks" under benefits.  The whole article is a bit sloppy, but the balance is the main problem.  Pharmboy 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Patently absurd? Just google "high pressure tanning bed" and you'll see that they can change the UVA/UVB ratios.  For ex:  "The great thing about high-pressure tanning beds is that they use lighting designed to filter out most of the UVB light while letting just enough shine through to stimulate the melanocytes. The result is that more UVA light reaches the melanin, which provides a great tan with less risk of skin problems." http://www.tanning-advisor.com/high-pressure-tanning-beds.html.  It would be nice to see empirical studies that show tanning alleviates SAD bc so far there is just stuff that says it does not.  24.60.28.30 08:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The UV ratio of a system is relative to the lamp used, there is no "calibration" done. It doesn't matter that some commercial site gets it wrong.  High pressure beds are a tiny minority of systems used, while the vast majority are low pressure with UV ratings in the 5-6.5% ranges, which is more than the sun.  Most european lamps are in the 1.3-2.6 range, which is more sun similar (note: they use a different scale to measure UV than the US, the cutoffs for UVA/B are different).  In short, the beds do NOT change the ratios, the ratios are set by the lamp design.  Also, the filters on high pressure beds are to filter out UVC, as they use a quartz tube that does not do this.  Fluorescent style, low pressure lamps use a glass that automatically filters out UVC.  I can go on and on, but the point is that the article is inaccurate and spreading inaccurate info is not the purpose of wikipedia.  THIS article is about "tanning beds", not "the dangers of suntanning".  It should present a neutral point of view and show both the risks and benefits, like any other wikipedia article.  Pharmboy 13:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've watched this article get edited a lot lately and very good facts were added in and deleted. As to your point above about "balance" -  if you were writing an article on - say... arsenic in water, adolph hitler, or nuclear waste, then you would also require these articles to be "balanced"?  Like...equal numbers of good qualities about everything or its "POV".  One of the most important thing about tanning beds ARE the risks.  Would you write an article about hitler and leave out the whole fact that he killed 6 million jews cuz that's unpleasant and negative about him?  And - UVA, UVB and UVC rays all go equally "deep" into a person's body regardless if they come out of an electric bulb or the actual sun.


 * UVA 400 nm - 320 nm
 * UVB 320 nm - 290 nm
 * UVC 290 nm - 100 nm


 * Does not matter if the UV comes from the sun, a bed, or my ass - the light has the same wavelength and therefore penetrates the skin to the same depth. UVA goes deeper than UVB. Do tell - what is your prolific background writing about tanning beds...Todaytoo 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have over 14 years direct experience, including working with engineering lamp design and manufacturing in USA and Europe, plus technical research in several related fields such as high frequency ballast design. I have written and published more than hundreds of articles, including the original wikipedia article on Tanning lamps and Buckboost transformer and others. These cover the benefits and dangers of UV, technical design and more, including a purely technical blog and over a dozen websites, both commercial and nonprofit.  That, isn't important as I don't use my original research here, just experience.  By any standard, I am an expert in the field of "tanning beds", having more experience than over 95% of the people in the tanning industry.  I have also been an outspoken advocate for regulations, not allowing teens to tan, and requiring salon owners be trained and certified. (I am certified for all 50 states, which is easy and I did to just learn.)


 * You can't compare "arsinic in water" to "tanning beds" or you already are showing a bias against them. I don't use the article for the purpose of glorifying tanning beds, nor should be used to talk people out of using them.  First, "sun tanning" would be the better place to discuss the most indepth dangers of UV, with the most important sections quoted here.  "Tanning Beds" is about the device, a FDA regulated radiological device which produces metered UV in a controlled method and carries considerable risks and but offers real benefits as well.  That is balance.  Not preaching for or against, or stacking the article with 90% negative.  You may believe they are the worst thing in the world, but that is not the standard for "balanced", just as my personal beliefs about them (which I haven't published here) are not important either. And again, you do NOT put a list of risks in a subtopic called "benefits" unless you have an agenda.


 * Also, regardless of how UVA/UVB is defined technically, in Europe they do use a different scale for the purpose rating the UVB ratio of lamps. This is not new, and they have always done this, even before the 1988 regulations in the US took effect, as anyone in the industry knows.  In particular, they cut off UVB at 280nm rather than 290nm, which shifts the ratio of the spectrum, so that a US rated 2.6% lamp might be called a 3.5% in Europe.  This isn't that important for the FDA, which doesn't use the UV ratio anyway (or even lamp TE), they use the 4 MED standard.  But I digress.  The problem is balance, which happens to also be the solution.  Pharmboy 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you finished it up... should we delete this discussion here? Angelatomato 06:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally, we wouldn't delete, we would archive, which is fine with me. Pharmboy 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge risks with suntanning
I have nominated the section on risks to be merged with suntanning. We need to keep a synopsys here, but most of the risks are not limited to tanning beds, but UV exposure. This article is supposed to be about the device, not UV in general. I think we can hit the main tanning bed only risks, touch on the UV risks in general, and then sun tanning really needs to have the risks expanded. This will also balance the POV issues we have here, and improve the sun tanning article, which is lacking the info even tho it applies more to it. Also removed the "tanning beds on tv" section. This is clearly trivia, which is strongly discouraged on wikipedia per policy. Pharmboy 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then benefits have to be edited too... also, the risks of tanning in a tanning bed are different than tanning in the sun because the rays are more intense. You can't think that a tan you get in 10 minutes that would take a full day to get outside could possibly be as safe.  And even if you do think it is as safe, the research would say you are wrong.  So, the risks that should be left are specifically those related to tanning in high pressure beds or in beds that give you a tan equivalent to a whole day in the sun in 5 minutes (if you must edit them).  The other risk is simply that tanning beds havent been around long enough to fully KNOW the risk....and it's hard to separate the risks from people who tan indoors and outdoors.  The science is not perfect.  Tanners dont want to participate in studies and admit they caused their own cancer. It's not easy to study.  From the beginning of editing this piece, there has been an effort to minimize the risks of tanning - and here we go again.  If u have an agenda, just make it clear.  I don't work for tanning salons.  I am a graduate student w/ an undergrad degree in biochemistry & cell biology.  That's why i am focused on the risks because I know the science behind how they occur at a cellular level. The body is not designed to absorb the radiation that is given off by a tanning bed - we evolved under the regular sun, not under florescent bulbs.  We're abusing our melanocyte system every time we step into a tanning bed - creating overgrowth and overstimulation (which lead to cancer) - far more than the regular sun because of the intensity.  I'm not gonna argue this anymore because the research is available and it's common sense regardless.  Do whatever you want with the article cuz i dont really care.  just know that this agenda based editing is a little ridiculous. I know that any other web search for tanning beds or tanning dangers will give people the info they need - so whatever.  wikipedia is turning into a wasteland anyway... and i rarely come here to write or look things up anymore.  as predicted by many, this site has regressed to the mean intelligence of the population - not improved over time with each revision.  this site will probably die in the next 2 yrs bc of this business.  every damn article on here has controversy and "needs to be reviewed" or "this is in dispute" tags.  pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Your opinion of the article and wikipedia noted. Key is to put all the accurate info in one spot, then quote and link to it in smaller articles (like this).  Sorry if your own original research or vastly superior intellect and education finds fault with Wikipedia's methods.  Not everyone that disagrees with you is wrong, after all.  Pharmboy 22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

After all, why did noone refer to Prof. Michael Holick's book " the UV advantage " ? The research isn't so unanonimous to state that a moderate use of tanning beds without sunburn causes skin cancer. Aganist scientific arrogance, as a layman I only would like to remember that twenty years ago, all researchers preached against consumation of butter ( false ) ; they preached a few years ago that moderate coffee consumtion causes heart deasese ( false ) ; they preached other so - called well known and totally justified medical facts that we all nowadays have to recognise as : false. So I would like to know how we can be so convinced after the poor research we have that tanning beds cause serious harms when used moderately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.18.215 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the research that is coming out now points this out cleanly: the risks are associated with overexposure rather than moderate exposure, and the risks are greatest when overexposure happened as a child.  The most recent studies out of the UK are now indicating that people who get zero UV are highest of risk for cancers across the board, ie: we evolved to get some UV.  This has been linked to the Vit. D deficiency that didn't exist until people started preaching against UV exposure of any kind.  This isn't revolutionary, people who live in Northern Europe have a higher incidence of skin cancer as well.  And yet another study just came out demonstrating that UV exposure may help people heal after surgery, ie: people who get it done in winter have a lower recovery rate.  The reason I haven't incorporated more into the article is that every dermalogist under the sun would freak out, and I'm not in the mood for a battle with a few know-it-alls right now.  Every time you try to promote moderation, someone freaks out with either 'save the children' or other knee jerk reactions using old science.  Pharmboy (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job, thanks a lot for your comment. New deseases so as fibromyalgia seem to be linked to a lack of Vit. D too. And research shows that tanners do have about 25 % more Vit. D than not-tanners. But you're right, there are serious financial interests in solliciting skin cancer - panic all the time even if this risk exists indeed in the case of excessive tanning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.60.40.137 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs Discussion About Hidden Cameras
There is a wide-spread rumour (in this country anyway) that its common for tanning beds to have hidden cameras connected to the internet. Could someone state whether this is just an urban myth or this happens from time to time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.55.119 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the fact that "there is a wide-spread rumour" itself is an urban myth. There have been but a couple of cases in the 25 or so years of tanning salons, that I am aware of.  And I keep up with this stuff.  Pharmboy (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite references for the section on the "typical" tanning pattern of patrons or remove it.
The section that says the typical tanning patron visits the salon 3 times a week should be cited, removed or marked as   anecdotal observations. There is plenty of evidence that patrons to tanning beds do not have the same tanning patterns. A great majority of patrons in fact tan for a special event. Leaving the section as it is is misleading and  lets the consumer think that it is the norm to do it three plus times a week.


 * do you have a citation that the majority only do it for special events? Pharmboy (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in the middle of rewritting and reorganizing much of the article, including adding new citations. It will take a little while.  Pharmboy (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is lotion necessary?
Is it necessary to use sun lotion when using a tanning bed? I don't mean the special "bronzers" that are referred to in the article, as they appear to be an optional extra with a special purpose of their own, but ordinary lotion to protect against burning, as is used on a beach. Or do people just go in without anything on their skin? Postlebury (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

wanted to read about lights for growing plants
What article is that under? I searched sun lamp and was redirected here, with no see also to what I wanted to find. You know, the strong lights used for growing plants indoors. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's Grow light. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a redirect notice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pest control

 * Although rare, it is possible for tanning beds to be a vector for infections of pubic lice, also known as crabs.[18] If the surface of the bed is not properly cleaned or if towels provided by the salon are not washed in hot water, crab lice can survive for several days on these surfaces. Crab lice are difficult to see on the acrylic of a dimly lit tanning bed, and they are not killed by anti-bacterial or anti-viral cleaning agents used in salons.[citation needed] They can only be killed by physical removal or by the use of insecticides such as pyrethrin.

Wouldn't turning the bed on without a person present and leave it like that for say 2 hours be an effective method to kill most pests? Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, it wouldn't. The spectum that kills organisms is UVC (shorter, more energetic waves in the 280nm to 200nm region), which is automatically filtered out of the lamps by the type of glass that is used.  UVC is also quite bad for humans, although it is handly for serilizing water in municipal water systems and for sterilizing medical instruments.  In the 14 years I have been involved with tanning beds, I have never seen or heard of lice being an issue.  Since they prefer warm, humid areas and tanning beds are generally dry cold areas (except when on, then hot and dry with internal ambient temperatures that run from 104 to 140 degrees) they are actually a poor vector for lice.  It is possible, but not probable.  Additionally, the average time between clients using the beds is 10 minutes or more.


 * I know people who have used "tanning beds" as an excuse for what was actually marital infidelity, which is more probable. As a side note, the disinfectant used to kill germs on tanning beds is FDA recognized and EPA registered to kill most anything, and is strong enough to cause skin reactions if not properly cleaned off a tanning bed acryic.  Is is similar to what barbers use to clean combs (the blue liquid the combs sit in).  Because most people use lotion in a tanning bed, it is very obvious if the bed isn't properly cleaned.  Lice is a theoretical possibility and generally falls under the category of urban legend or infidelity excuse.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know someone who got crabs at 16 from a tanning bed...never had any sexual activity. Then, he got them again at 25 when he wasn't with anyone for months. It's not an urban legend.  People with crabs go tanning bc they think it will kill the crabs.  He's also very hairy though...and he said they were mostly in his upper leg hair...they cant infect someone w/ minimal body hair that easily.  Crabs dont even come off your bathroom counter that easily if you spray clorox and wipe them off. you have to use force. they have a glue-like substance on their underside.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic fields
I'd like to see a discussion about the magnetic fields one is exposed to in a tanning bed. Also how the type of ballast affects the magnetic field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.109.61 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Typical Usage
This section needs to be re-written. The structure is poorly laid out and confusing and the facts are debateable at best. Europe is a large place as is the US, Italy and France get more sun than Seattle and New York for instance, not every american lives in California or Flordia. In addition there is no metion of the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.24.196.21 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The section about UV tanning being "quicker" is POV and misleading. The incident power flux on a user in a tanning booth is 5-10 times lower than the incident power flux on a user tanning outdoors, so the claims of a faster tan, plus a lower burn threshold are contradictory. I propose replacing the following:

"The tan produced by a tanning bed is just as deep as a tan produced in the sun. This is because tanning beds have similar levels of UV than the sun on a typical summer day. Exposure times are shorter than the average session spent in the sun to achieve the same amount of tan due to the proximity to the UV source."

With:

"A tanning bed produces light similar to that of the sun, and can provide a similarly deep tan. The incident power flux on a user is about 5 to 10 times less in a tanning bed than it is outdoors, despite the proximity to the light source.  Exposure times may seem shorter due to the light surrounding the user, but this is not backed up by quantitative analysis."

My own analysis to reach these conclusions are as follows:

The average instantaneous solar flux at the surface of the earth is about 1400W/m^2.

Say a tanning bed uses 20 100w UV lamps. Assume the lamps are 100% efficient and 100% of the rated power output is reflected through a surface defined by a plane where the user lies. Assume the tanning bed is 2.2m x 1.3m (~7'x4'), then our plane has a surface area of 2 x 2.86m^2 = 5.72m^2 (we must consider the flux through the top of the plane as well as through the bottom of the plane since there will be an opaque slab in the middle). This gives us an effective maximum power flux of 2000w/5.72m^2 = 350w/m^2. Doubling the rated power still only gets you to half the energy flux of the sun.

I will give 1 week for discussion before making the change. Thank you. unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.179.83 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make the change if you can find a source for what you just said. The source must come to the same conclusion that you do. Sperril (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Advert
This article is ridiculous, and despite the protestations of other users, reads essentially like advertising copy for the indoor tanning industry. There are numerous unsubstantiated claims of "benefits", as well as a poorly worded rebuttal of the proven FACT that indoor tanning significantly increases one's possibility of getting skin cancer. Whole sections are uncited and make unsubstantiated claims of a "growing market" for such devices.SiberioS (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the stuff written about seasonal affective disorder, and the use of tanning beds, is absolute tosh. In fact, the citation that alleges to support such a thing, also shows up on other websites, essentially the same, under a different "author. (Citation in article)(Copycat Article), neither of whcih cites or explains exactly where this is coming from. I'll search through the professional literature, but I doubt I'll find anything. SiberioS (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The section was trimmed down. The SAD treatment is pretty old news, there should be plenty of newspaper articles on it.  As to time savings, that was trimmed but it IS a benefit for people who tan.  The purpose of the article isn't to take a stand on tanning in general (that would violate NPOV rules) but to instead explain what a tanning bed is.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 10:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't read like an advert to me. There is sufficient coverage of the drawbacks to put most people off. (And I have nothing to disclose. I've never used a tanning bed, certainly never will, and I have no investments in the industry). Postlebury (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose shouldn't be to put people off or to entice them. The current article is sufficiently NPOV for the task.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 13:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but no one was alleging that the article contained insufficient positives to give a balanced view, so there was no reason to address that side of the balance issue. Postlebury (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any other mention in the comments of a sentence that is definitely problematic. Where is the citation or proof for this statement: "Also, most tanning beds generate a large amount of heat, including infrared, which has deep penetrating action that can relieve minor muscle aches." 71.113.197.95 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives for healthy skin
I've removed the "Alternatives for healthy skin" section for the following reasons: Arthree (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It has nothing to do with tanning beds
 * 2) Most of the text is copied verbatim from one of the sources
 * 3) The source linked on that page actually contradicts some of the claims (such as that diet makes an impact on melanoma risk)

History?
Does anyone know who invented the sunbed, what country it was used in, how it came to popularity, etc? Thanks. Deco 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps add something comparing use of sunbeds to outdoor tanning (e.g. for a given level of tanning, a sunbed seems to be typically debated as equally or less dangerous than outdoor tanning).


 * I added a whole section on this 66.30.14.122 10:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The history section implies there was no history before tanning beds were introduced into the USA. Presumably there is a history in Germany beforehand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin D Supplements
"However, the use of Vitamin D supplements provides a more reliable, cheaper and clearly safer way to obtain needed Vitamin D." I don't think this is correct. The safest and best way is to get your vitamin D via the skin. The consensus seems to be that supplementation might even be harmful if you try to achieve the correct levels that way. 94.194.89.118 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree in fact the whole section lacks the NPoV, I think the author lives below latitude 45, try those of us nearer the Artic circles see if we get sunburn --90.197.8.180 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is pretty hard to say a pill is better than evolution when it comes to Vitamin D, unless you have an agenda, so I tend to agree as well. Feel free to modify it being careful to keep it neutral and balanced.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mood
I see that this article says that Europeans tan for 'mood benefits' but I read somewhere else that tanning doesn't have medically accepted mood benefits. Is this just marketing hype? There are no citations. I'm new- should I just remove stuff like this with no citations or what? OK, I've read more of the article, and when you get to "benefits" it gets absurd. The phrasing is totally 'salesmanship' and completely distorts any objective take on the 'feel good' benefits of tanning by using a negative citation in a positive light.Universalss (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dopamine, serotonin, and endorphins are a few examples mood changing/regulating chemicals that occur naturally in the brain and the levels can be changed by drugs, exercising, exposure to sunlight, etc. There is also light therapy for people who experience seasonal affective disorder which is depression that occurs when there is less sunlight during the winter months. However, this therapy uses UV-free lights to avoid the risks of UV exposure but any kind of light would be beneficial. Vitamin D is also linked to mood and can only be absorbed by sunlight or by a vitamin supplement. 209.129.115.6 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Films and shows
I deleted this text, posted as "Films and shows" in the "Risks" section, because it is not only unsourced and misplaced, but utterly inappropriate in a discussion of a serious health-related topic. It's just silly. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced material
There was a lot of unsourced material, some marked for years, in this article. I trimmed some of it. Please do no restore any without adding sufficient sources. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is a reliable source: . Is Wolff System the same thing as the Indoor Tanning Association? It looks like an individual company doing a questionable survey. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed the attribution to "Tanning bed manufacturer Wolff System Technology". 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wolff is not the same as the ITA. The ITA is an industry organization for promoting the interests of the industry as a whole. Wolff is a company that contract manufacturers lamps, originally built by Sylvania, but they may be getting done by Narva now, I'm not sure. Many people things Wolff is something more than it is, but many companies used the name Wolff by paying royalty and using Wolff lamps in their beds. So you call Wolff a tanning lamp manufacturer, but it is incorrect to call them a tanning bed manufacturer. I'm not around a lot right now, but I've been in that industry over two decades, and while my words are original source and I have to be careful putting in copy, I can usually steer you in the right direction simply due to experience. And Wolff has a COI, but for this kind of survey, the source is probably fine if you qualify it as "According to Wolff System Technologies...blah blah blah". Their name still has clout and value. At one time, they were the big boys, they do know a thing or two and have the reach to do a decent survey that isn't focused on their particular product. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Call Wolff whatever you want, but the survey was misrepresented as having been done by the ITA when the link made no mention of them. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is original research, so can't be used, but it is factual and perhaps worth noting: 2004 was near the peak of indoor tanning. Since then, over 90% of the companies have gone out of business, and new FDA regulations that went into effect this summer have made it virtually impossible to enter the market.  Realistically, the number of people tanning is probably way less than half of what it was 10 years ago, and perhaps only 1/4.  The newspapers act like tanning is still growing, but that is ignorance borne from the fact that all manufacturing is by privately held companies, so no real data is available.  I know because the tradeshows are 1/10th the size, and I know many of the players personally.  I also know the lamp manufacturers and what they tell me in private.  That is one of the best indicators, since you can't build a bed without a lamp. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, but let's focus right now on the non-original research that we can use. Otherwise this article is toast. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs sources, and there are a few industry trade mags and other sources that just aren't there, but I'm pretty sure it isn't toast. Anything controversial or contentious that isn't sourced should be removed, but most of the facts are pretty mundane things, so taking an axe would be outside of our goals. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, find those sources. Per WP:V, our goal is to provide verifiable information, as established by cited sources. This article isn't going to disappear, but the unsourced material may. The related articles, OTOH, may not have a reason to exist since they're virtually reference-free.
 * It's not clear from your statements whether you think any of the unsourced material is verifiable according to WP standards. Industry magazines would be fine, assuming they're archived somewhere. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I get it now. You wrote all this stuff a long time ago. Nobody cared about sources back then. But now - if you look at the material objectively - it's not so hot. Can't you take care of this yourself? Make this a good article. Consolidate the material from too many side articles with sketchy sourcing. Use those industry sources that meet WP standards. Make it something to be proud of. You're the one who can do it best. Just sayin'. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Expounding on your discussion of the industry contraction, this may be the best time to record its rise and peak. In a rigorous way, while the web sources are still archiveable and industry magazines are still on hand. The health effects, pro and con, are handled in peer reviewed journals. But the business and technical aspects are much harder to source, apparently. That could lead to a big over-emphasis on health over commerce. So we need to try harder to find some decent sources for those aspects of the topic. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the standards have changed, and I did write much of it when it wasn't a big deal. I have a minor COI here, so I try to not overdo my prose on it anymore, and agree it needs updating and improving.  I'm just saying we have to be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.  It's also why most of my edits are on the talk page, where I can provide real information that isn't related to my pocket, and let someone else write the prose where possible.  Being that I'm an admin, I have to take extra care to insure it doesn't look like I'm trying to edit against policy, ie: for my own personal benefit. I want all these articles to be fully sourced and as accurate, same as you, I promise, but sources are hard to come by and require effort, do to the fact that it is a niche industry that mainly gets negative press instead of objective coverage.  They don't care about the mechanics of what we do, they just want to overstate the risks.  Most journalists aren't very good at getting facts, just telling stories. ;) Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you provide links to online sources, or citations to library sources, on the talk page then me or another editor can add the material. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:35D2:4BDB:A6:D594 (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is one of timing, I'm supposed to be on break here, but dragged back due to some requests from other re: an election coming up. And like I said, sources are hard to find.  Most of the tanning publications are now out of business, sans Island Times, and maybe something else that is really less independent. If I can, I will see if I can dig up some general sources this weekend, but I can't promise.  Not trying to punt, it really is a bad time for me.  Worse comes to worse, I can check back in the history and restore stuff later.  Some of the stuff is probably a bit too promotional, that was back when I was new, I completely understand removing that. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Tanning bed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111119050134/http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca:80/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02027.html to http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02027.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110303072918/http://www.aap.org:80/advocacy/releases/feb2811studies.htm to http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/feb2811studies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tanning bed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520045455/http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/scotland/article737683.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/scotland/article737683.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism
The first paragraph of the history section is plagiarized from one of the reference links at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.123.253 (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)