Monday, August 14, 2006

Wow...fake bake can be fatal. Concern Over Minors' Unregulated Use of Tanning Beds...

Wow...that fake bake can be fatal.

Studies have shown an increase in skin cancer among the population, but experts are most concerned about its incidence among young children. The goood-guys have been lobbying for laws restricting access to tanning salons for anyone under 18 or to have information posted in salons showing different types of skin cancer. Louis DiGioia, a tanning bed distributor, compares proposed legislation to telling people how to raise their kids.


But, is the analogy fair?


Some people don't just let their kids ride in the bed of a pick-up truck; they make ride in the bed of a pick-up truck. It's still dangerous, even if parents don't recognize the danger. Paul Vitello, The New York Times 08/14/2006 Read Article: The New York Times

2 comments:

Ian McGibboney said...

This is one of those regulations that wouldn't exist if parents far and wide would fulfill their duties. But they don't, so stuff like this must be passed in order to prevent spiraling medical costs down the road.

Personally, I don't get fake bake, because that's exactly what it is--fake, and it shows. And the fact that it's generally the playground of rich teenage brats garners no sympathy from me.

Fake bake shouldn't be outlawed, but as far as I'm concerned it's up there with smoking and guns in terms of health risk, and should be regulated accordingly.

Mr. Bean said...

I'm Louis DiGioia...I made that statement because to some extent it is true and a very fair analogy when it comes to this situation....my biggest argument at that time to the legislators was their need for regulation of indoor tanning, a controlled environment, but their lack of willingness to discuss the regulation of controlling how much time minors spend in the local parks/lakes laying outside in the summer sun. You see , I was not a tanning bed distributor as the reporter from the NY Times decided to label me (just proof of the media controlling the perception) but rather I taught an FDA mandated certification known as International Smart Tan. I used to travel to salons along the Eastern Seaboard teaching the long and short term biological effects of UV Radiation on the skin. That having been said, I know for a fact that in this particular area of the country laying outside for about 3 hours in the middle of the hottest day of the hottest month (8/15) you are getting the equivalent a 30-lamp 100W unit indoors. I wont use this post to break out the math and justify the formula but its real. Anyway, my point was that there are plenty of teenagers and adults that spend two to three times that amount outside sometimes 3 or 4 times a week in the summer. Now if the FDA says I can not tan indoors in less than 24 hour increments and the above formula I presented holds water, what about the people that are outdoors all summer long? What are the local legislators in any county/state doing to ensure their well being against skin cancer from the sun? My biggest gripe with this is that the local parks in my county, Rockland NY (where I debated) is the fact that the county makes money by charging for parking and park passes. So of course they will not make any strides towards reducing the number of people that PAY THEM to go their parks live free. Do you see the hypocrisy?