A new about.com article alleges to answer a question from a reader about base tans, which the author calls mythical and suggests don’t exist even though many dermatology leaders insist otherwise.

“It is a commonly believed myth that getting a ‘base tan’ before going on a vacation will protect you from sunburns. Visit any cruise forum on the internet and you will read about cruisers who swear by getting a base tan before a cruise. Their testaments of not being sunburned are likely due to diligent sunscreen use while cruising, rather than getting tan beforehand,” Lisa Fayed, a cancer educator and freelance medical writer, wrote on about.com. “From my experience, onboard sunscreen use by passengers is high — the fear of burning is a great motivator to be more diligent about applying sunscreen. What many people do not realize is that a tan is actually evidence of skin damage caused by UV ray exposure, artificial or natural. When people are trying to establish a base tan to protect their skin, they are actually doing more harm than good. They are often surprised that they still get sunburned, despite having a ‘base tan.’

Fayed’s anecdotal assertions completely ignore biology, which shows that a suntan is natural, does help protect against sunburn and multiplies the effectiveness of sunscreens.

Dermatology Professor Dr. Sam Shuster from Newcastle University in Great Britain chastised those who slam base tans on political grounds while ignoring biology.

“We still have a lot to learn about what may be the silent benefits of sun exposure. We do not know the significance and purpose of the profound changes in immune mechanisms, the extraordinary improvement in mood and the alleged decreased risk in bowel and prostatic cancer experienced after sun exposure. We may do more harm avoiding these advantages than anything we might gain from the uncertain benefits of sun avoidance,” Shuster wrote.

He continued, “But not all of the sun’s benefits are uncertain, particularly the protective effect of a suntan. Since there is some epidemiological evidence to suggest that sunburn in children may be more harmful later in life, parents have been told that sun exposure must be avoided in childhood. However, if you take a close look at people who were sunburnt as children, you will see areas of white skin that doesn’t tan because the pigment cells have been lost by the sunburning. Such skin will always be oversensitive to sun. It is evident that the original sunburn, and subsequent damage, would have been less had there already been a protective tan.”

“Excessive avoidance and UV screening is a danger because it does not allow a tan, nature’s own sun block, to develop and as a result exposure is likely to cause sun-burn. The dogma, now fossilized in print, is that any tan is a sign of skin damage. Tell that to Darwin. Pigmented melanocytes in the skin are a system that protects it from excessive UV, which evolved long before the advent of sunscreens. Even if there was hard evidence that melanoma was UV-induced it would be all the more important to keep a protective tan.

It must now be evident that the effect of the sun on the skin is in desperate need of illumination, and that the prophylactic message, particularly on melanoma, is unreliable. By presenting the fragility of the case against the dangers of UV I hope I will provoke consideration of real cause of melanoma.”

Here is Fayed’s about.com article.