It's a healthy response, but still damage. The suntan is just
a lower version of sunburn. Sorry, but you need to do some
research on this. You're wrong and you'll regret it eventually.
One of my best friends is a dermatologist. He has no financial
incentive to tell me otherwise.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I agree with Moroon. Of course a dermitologist will say
a tan is unhealthy. They make money foisting off that
ignorant view upon their clients. They know everyone
gets out in the sun for long enough periods for untanned
skin to become damaged. They make a living off said
damage.

A tan is the body's healthy response to exposure to
the sun. A burn is the body's adverse reaction to not
having a tan and being exposed to the sun's rays. The
sunburn is the cause of skin cancer - not the suntan.

I hope this helps.


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Putting aside Neal's racism, tans (any tan) is not healthy.
Ask any dermitologist.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
| It's a healthy response, but still damage. The suntan is just
| a lower version of sunburn.

No Jon.... a tan is not a lower version of a sunburn. A sunburn is a
radiation burn and should be avoided. A Tan is the result of melanin in the
epidermal layer. You can tan and not burn.

I'm not the one requiring research here..... you are. I have an allergic
reaction to sunlight. I have discussed this with many specialists and none
of them have suggested that a tan is bad for you. All of them have warned a
burn is bad for you. You can tan without burning by limited exposure and a
good sunscreen.

CM