Super Tan, Cancer free! (what if...)

So, tomorrow some company invents a way to induce a tan artificially via somatic gene therapy (or equivilant). FDA has done numerous tests, and these guys are as far as anybody can tell, perfectly legitimate and not seriously detrimental to your health (don’t take if using Viagra, have heart conditions, or are on any MOA inhibitors or blood thinners).

This method involves you going to their place of business, getting blood work done and looking at some color samples. Say the whole blood lab work takes 1 day, you come in the next day and look over a computer generated image of what you will look like at that color. They inject you with the custom made “tan in a can” and when you wake up tomorrow and you will be the shade of tan you selected. This process lasts 6 months. Would you do it? What if it cost over $1000? Would you do it if it lasted 18 months?

I’m brown to start with, so that’d be a big fat NO!

Hehe, I tend to be a pale fishbelly, and don’t like to tan due to dangers of skin cancer, so personally I would love to rid myself of the risk, and the glow in the dark skin.

For $1000? No. Unless, by somehow inducing a fake tan, my skin cells became more resistant to skin cancer, it’s just too much money.

Being in the same boat as Anaamika, I’ve never understood the desire to tan. I’m sure that’s extreme ignorance on my part, so feel free to educate me. I have more than one friend who would be self-described as “pasty,” and yet each of them looks just fine.

Are there health benefits to being a darker shade? Or is it purely a matter of visual perception?

I wouldnt, I just plain dont see what difference a tan makes. Well, other than in people who regularly lay in the sun and fry usually have really leathery ugly skin

and that is just nasty looking.

Nope. I’m pale and I LIKE it that way, thank you! And I’m not pasty, I’ve ivory!

I love golden brown skin and I’d love to have a long-lasting tan, but I wouldn’t pay anywhere near that kind of money for it. Maybe as much as $1,000 if it would last my entire life, but even then I’m not sure.

I don’t know, 1000 dollars isn’t too much for vanity in many ways. People spend 200-600 dollars to have their teeth whitened or 3,000 dollars to have their breasts augmented or eyesight corrected.

I picked a high price deliberately. to see who would pay such a high price. If it were 1000 dollars and lasted your whole life, I would say it was worth it. Even if it only lasted 20 years. If it was temporary, I could see people paying 200-300 dollars every year for it, as they spend that much just to bask under some UV lamps.

Well, assuming that the tan had the same protective benefits that a natural tan did, both in preventing skin cancer and preventing burns, then I definately would. Though the $1000 price tag would be at about the max I’d spend, if it lasted for 12 months it’s be a easier sale.

I look a lot better tan and spend enough time golfing, at ball games and boating to warrant some sunburn insurance. As it is I get a couple burns every year.

Yeah, the assumption is that it isn’t merely for vanity, but that it actually conveys the same benifits that a real tan would, it is in fact, a REAL tan, sans the harmful rays.

Wherever did you get the idea that a natural tan prevents skin cancer? :dubious:

Pay for a tan? Hell, I can tan for free! On accident!

. . .I look wretched with a tan, trust me. I get dark, dark, dark brown. I look much better pale, thanks. Goes better with black. :wink:

Well, a tan develops to protect the body from the harmful rays of the sun. If less UV rays get through, isn’t it less likely that you will develop skin cancer?

Ah, this site supports my (sketchy) memory:

Now, correlation doesn’t mean causation, and genetics play a big part in the development of skin cancers, but whether this is due to genetics or the actual skin pigments protecting the lower levels of the epidermis is unknown to me.

Seems logical to me though that if the body produces pigments to protect the body from the rays, that having those pigments naturally awards you some protection. Tanning doesn’t prevent you from getting cancer, it increases the risk, but if it is induced without UV radiation, then the benifits would outweight the damage.

(Epithemus is right, BTW. Everything in moderation!)

And I’ve rethought. I might do this for the sole reason that i am not universally the same color. Arms & legs are dark, and other parts much lighter. It’s be nice to be a uniform golden brown.

I will keep my lovely peaches and cream complexion. Even with no side effects, I’ve never really seen the advantage of a tan, or desired one.

Not from what I’ve been told-that any tanning is dangerous. Sure, you don’t burn, but you’re still getting those harmful rays.

Now, if you mean darker skin, yeah, you’ve got more protection (more melanin, I think that’s it.) BUT…if you’re super pale, you’re better off with plenty of sunscreen and hats, because even just a “base tan” isn’t good for you.

True, by my hypothetical company provides a service that gives you more melanin, darker skin, without the sun or harmful UV rays, and has been tested by the FDA to provide no risk for cancer. :smiley:

I spend most of the summer trying to avoid tanning (I do it easily, but it’s never uniform, and anyway I like being semipasty), so no, I wouldn’t do it. Fake tans (and even to some extent real tans that people have nursed religiously) never look real anyway. Hint: if you’re pale-eyed and have a snub nose, you’re meant to be pasty. Live with it.

Except this isn’t a spray on tan or a rub on tan. This would be a REAL tan, sans the wrinkly, dry skin. You would be able to see what you look like, and alter the tone and contrasts of the tan to specific levels, and see the result in a computer simulation before getting an injection.