Indoor tanning is making a comeback in California's Central Valley, and a Fresno dermatologist is speaking out about the health risks that follow the trend.

The warning comes as ABC30 Fresno reports renewed use of tanning beds in the region. The resurgence places a familiar public-health concern back in front of dermatologists who have spent decades documenting the connection between artificial ultraviolet exposure and skin cancer.

For dermatology practices, the report is a reminder that indoor tanning has not disappeared as a clinical issue, even as professional attention has shifted toward biologics, immunotherapies and device-based aesthetics. Patients who use tanning beds remain a distinct risk cohort, and clinicians who take sun-exposure histories should keep the question of salon use on their intake checklist.

The Fresno dermatologist's warning echoes the position of major professional bodies. Dermatology societies have long classified indoor tanning as a carcinogenic exposure, and campaigns aimed at younger patients have targeted the behavior specifically because early and repeated UV exposure compounds lifetime skin-cancer risk. A resurgence in use suggests those messages are losing traction with at least some segments of the public.

Clinicians in the region say the trend warrants renewed patient education. Melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers remain among the most common malignancies dermatologists diagnose, and UV exposure — whether from the sun or from artificial lamps — is the chief modifiable risk factor. Patients who view tanning beds as a controlled or "safe" alternative to outdoor sunbathing represent a particular education gap, since the devices deliver concentrated UV doses in short sessions.

The report also lands at a moment when public awareness of skin health is otherwise rising. Interest in skin-cancer screening, sun protection and preventive dermatology has grown alongside the broader visibility of the specialty. A rebound in tanning bed use cuts against that current, and it may translate into a future burden of actinic damage and skin malignancies that will surface in exam rooms years from now.

For dermatologists, the practical response is straightforward. Screening histories should ask about indoor tanning directly rather than relying on patients to volunteer it. Counseling should be concrete about the carcinogenic classification of the devices and about the cumulative nature of UV injury. And patients who continue to tan despite counseling merit closer surveillance for changing lesions and early signs of photoaging.

The Fresno report does not quantify the resurgence, and no regional incidence figures accompany the warning. But the signal from clinicians on the ground — that patients are returning to tanning salons — is consistent with what dermatologists describe as a cyclical pattern: public caution around UV exposure erodes over time, and indoor tanning regains appeal, particularly ahead of summer and special events.

How the profession responds — through screening, counseling and renewed public messaging — will determine whether the current uptick remains a local anecdote or becomes a measurable epidemiological shift in UV-attributable skin disease.