Tofu Turkeys? No way! Fat Boy is pure bull(****)

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
Look Buckwheat...... I wouldn't use those things..... something that
gives
you an orange tan can't be good for you. But heck.. you're in La La Land
anyway. Nuke-A-Tan is a fashion victim enterprise.

Heh look Wheat Germ..... if you like alabaster white... that's just fine
by me, go for it. Just don't try to justify your fashion trends by
erroneously stating that natural light and unprotected exposure to natural
elements is unhealthy..... you'll start sounding like one of those Tofu
Turkeys from California...... OOPS!

CM








"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
| No. UV is bad for the skin. A lot of people think
| that those tanning booths are better because you
| can get a controlled tan. They're wrong.
|
| "Simple Simon" wrote in message
| ...
|
|
| Simply absorbing UV does not harm the skin. If this were
| the case evolution would have provided scales or something.
|
| Too much UV can harm the skin and too much UV causes
| a burn. Acceptable amounts of UV cause a tan which is
| NOT harmful in any way. What you are seeing is a pigment
| and not damage.
|
|
| "Bobsprit" wrote in message
| ...
| Okay Mooron, enough of this. Tanning is a bad thing. Tan sking
ALWAYS
| indicates
| some level of damage.
|
| Providing a definition of "tanning" isn't as stupid as it seems.
A
| tan
| occurs when the skin absorbs ultraviolet radiation (commonly called
"UV
| rays").
| As a response, the skin produces a substance known as melanin, which
| darkens
| the skin's outer layers. While many believe that a tan makes us
appear
| healthier, a tan is actually a sign that the skin has been damaged.
It's
| similar to the beginning stages of a burn.
|
| And there you have it.
|
| RB
|
|
|
|