to tan or not to tan

In path, we're currently (or more accurately, just finished) learning about skin disorders, including skin cancer. This has left me with quite the predicament! If you've ever seen me, you'd know that I'm a pretty pale person. In fact, if I haven't been outside in a while, it's probably best not to look at me in direct sunlight, if you wanna keep your vision. When I was younger, people used to joke that it was hard to tell where my socks ended and my legs began. So, before coming to St. Maarten, I used to go tanning every other day or so. My roommate actually thought I was black the first time he saw my picture on facebook (which is ridiculous, because I was never that dark)! When I return home, I plan to start tanning again, so that I don't look so much like Casper.

But, that's where the problem comes in. UVB rays are the best kind to get you darkest the fastest, and so most good tanning beds have bulbs that put out primarily UVB. Unfortunately, these waves are also the best at causing all kinds of skin cancer. Some of them are pretty benign, others are not. So, do I continue looking tan (and much better, in my opinion), running an increased risk of developing skin cancer, or do I stay pale and maybe not develop skin cancer? Say what you want, but I'll probably keep tanning....

My logic may be totally off, but I do at least have some logic. If you burn, you greatly increase your risk of getting skin cancer, particularly melanoma, which is very nasty. If I remain pale, I'll most likely burn when I'm outside. But, if I tan and control my sun exposure, there's a much slimmer chance that I'll burn, and thus a lesser chance of skin cancer. Although continued UV radiation is a risk factor for squamous cell carcinoma, it's the burning that leads to melanoma. If given a choice, squamous cell carcinoma is definitely the better of the two. If I am wrong, please allow me to continue to bask in my ignorance, as I bask in the UVB rays of the tanning bed :)