Banning Sunbeds

bleg

Do you agree that sunbeds should be banned?

Vorsprung

Sunbeds are described as "carcinogenic to humans" by the WHO only (as far as my quick Google search can tell me), and as probably carcinogenic by the American Cancer Society.

I probably wouldn't ban them altogether to be honest. I would ban them for those under 18 though, on the same basis that smokes are banned for that age group. If people want to use, that's their choice. Tax the life out of them though to help pay for skin cancer treatment, and put health warnings on them, but that's as far as I'd go. I reckon it would be hypocritical to ban them while still allowing cigarettes to be sold.

My 2c.

drzhivago

bleg wrote: »

Do you agree that sunbeds should be banned?

Ban them
why do we all need to look orange

PhysiologyRocks

drzhivago wrote: »

Ban them
why do we all need to look orange

Exactly! Orange people just look silly and it doesn't make anybody more attractive.

They seem to be dangerous, and I just don't see the benefit.

2Scoops

Why not ban everything that is carcinogenic and see how far we get? And while we're at it, let's put as many people out of work as possible. This is the most important health issue facing the Irish people at present. Well done to Ms. Harney and all those involved with this sensible, non-reactionary, non-knee-jerk legislation.

bleg

I'm no fan of hers, however she was at the livestrong cancer conference today and was asked a question about it by the press.

We're not going to ban everything carcinogenic because for example: cigarettes are easy to smuggle and quite easy to set up a black market, it's harder to smuggle a sunbed in, the amount made from duty on cigarettes is huge.

2Scoops

So, if tanning beds made more money, they would be an acceptable carcinogen? Let's send all that money to the UK instead. And let's put ~100 people out of work and onto social welfare. And why, why, WHY aren't we banning sunlight, that dangerous cancer-causing agent?!

peanuthead

Vorsprung wrote: »

Sunbeds are described as "carcinogenic to humans" by the WHO only (as far as my quick Google search can tell me), and as probably carcinogenic by the American Cancer Society.

I probably wouldn't ban them altogether to be honest. I would ban them for those under 18 though, on the same basis that smokes are banned for that age group. If people want to use, that's their choice. Tax the life out of them though to help pay for skin cancer treatment, and put health warnings on them, but that's as far as I'd go. I reckon it would be hypocritical to ban them while still allowing cigarettes to be sold.

My 2c.

I agree 100 pc with this. I would never use them personally, but you can't ban them and continue to sell cigarettes/alcohol. Its a bit stupid really.

Also there are skin cancer cases that are a result of direct exposure to real sunlight here. Irish people need to be more educated on proper protection against the sun too

Fremen

Banning is a bit of a ham-fisted way to go about dealing with something like this. People should be educated about the dangers, and if they still feel like growing a melanoma or two, so be it.

bleg

2Scoops wrote: »

So, if tanning beds made more money, they would be an acceptable carcinogen?

No, because there are loads and loads of reasons why other carcinogens aren't banned apart from the amount of money they make. For example, if sunbeds were banned only a tiny portion of the current users would still want to use them, therefore there would be a tiny market, therefore it wouldn't be profitable to set up a black market. Therefore sunbeds are a lot easier to ban than other carcinogens.

2Scoops

bleg wrote: »

No, because there are loads and loads of reasons why other carcinogens aren't banned apart from the amount of money they make. For example, if sunbeds were banned only a tiny portion of the current users would still want to use them, therefore there would be a tiny market, therefore it wouldn't be profitable to set up a black market. Therefore sunbeds are a lot easier to ban than other carcinogens.

So we should ban it because it's easy to ban?

bleg

2Scoops wrote: »

So we should ban it because it's easy to ban?

No, I was merely explaining why it is more bannable than other carcinogens such as cigarettes.

We should ban it because it is harmful and causes cancer.

Kevster

... ...but, bleg, then alcohol, cigarettes, internal combustion-engined vehicles, pesticides, etc should all be banned too. The tanning industry is an easy target right now because it's not as large as the others. If you banned cigarettes and alcohol, every government would miss out on a huge amount of revenue. If you banned pesticides, then billions would go starving around the world.

So, anyway, my point is that they shouldn't be banned at all, but just that people should know of their ill-effects.

PhysiologyRocks

I can think of reasons to ban it, but none not to.

In terms of keeping people in jobs, couldn't the salons be restocked with safe artificial tanning machines?

Alun

drzhivago wrote: »

Ban them
why do we all need to look orange

I think you'll find the orange 'oompa loompa' look is generally from the use of tanning sprays/creams not from sunbed use or 'normal' tanning.

biko

drzhivago wrote: »

Ban them
why do we all need to look orange

Think you got that backwards. Banning sunbeds will make orangeism worse because orange sun spray will be the only option left.

On the other hand, moderate use simulates walking in the sun which is perfectly normal.
Btw, the sun can give you the same kind of cancer as a sunbed.

Edit: Alun got there before me

imported_guy

im tan by race, so ban away , on a more serious note i wouldnt use one they are too dangerous, even if supervised/moderately used

cuckoo

If they were banned then I think there would be back street tanning salons set up, with possibly faulty machines, dodgy electrics and no training.

Ban them for under 18s by all means, force salons to train their staff and get the Health and Safety crowd to do spot checks.

Vorsprung

At the rate the world is heating up, sunbeds are going to become redundant anyway!

Kevster

Does any guy here actually believe that [Irish] girls look MUCH prettier/stunning when they don't use fake-tan and/or use a sunbed? My reference is pale skin all the way.

imported_guy

Kevster wrote: »

Does any guy here actually believe that [Irish] girls look MUCH prettier/stunning when they don't use fake-tan and/or use a sunbed? My reference is pale skin all the way.

i prefer natural tan, or fake tan is ok as long as you dont look oompa loompa, otherwise natural skin is not too bad

Traumadoc

Jeremy Clarkson:

" Not that long ago every girl on the Emerald Isle had a face the colour of straw and orange hair. Now it’s the other way around."

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=712

Seriously where do we draw the line? Should parents be banned from bringing children on Family Holidays to Spain?

karlog

Sunbeds are about the same as being in the sun right? So do people use sun tan lotion when using these tanning beds?

Kevster

karlog wrote: »

Sunbeds are about the same as being in the sun right? So do people use sun tan lotion when using these tanning beds?

It's not really the same. In a sunbed, the UV light is focussed more intensley on your body than it would be under natural light. In natural light, UV becomes absorbed by many molecules in the atmosphere too, and it's intensity is not as much as in a sunbed.

To be honest, w should be questioning why people want to be tanned in the first place, instead of questioning he safety/validity of a sunbed.

2Scoops

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

I can think of reasons to ban it, but none not to.

It will results in lost jobs (lost revenue + increased social welfare).

It will have a negligible effect on cancer incidence. How many skin cancer cases in Ireland have been linked, even tenuously, to sunbed use?

It is a ridiculous double standard when far more potent carcinogens are ignored because they aren't as 'easy' or 'inexpensive' to ban.

Perhaps most irritatingly, it is a needless infringement on the freedom and liberty of the Irish people to do something completely stupid if they want to (doesn't harm anyone else etc.). Maybe that doesn't bother you, but many people object in principle to handing over new powers to the government for no good reason. You never get them back. Look at teh Patriot Act in the US. Yes, tanning beds are easy to write off as trivial and stupid and, sure, let's ban them. But do you think it's really appropriate or necessary to make owning or using one a crime? An actual crime. Really? This is what we need to legislate? Give me a break.

RobFowl

Why start with sun-beds. If you really want to make a difference ban cigarettes :rolleyes:

PhysiologyRocks

2Scoops wrote: »

It will results in lost jobs (lost revenue + increased social welfare).

It will have a negligible effect on cancer incidence. How many skin cancer cases in Ireland have been linked, even tenuously, to sunbed use?

It is a ridiculous double standard when far more potent carcinogens are ignored because they aren't as 'easy' or 'inexpensive' to ban.

Perhaps most irritatingly, it is a needless infringement on the freedom and liberty of the Irish people to do something completely stupid if they want to (doesn't harm anyone else etc.). Maybe that doesn't bother you, but many people object in principle to handing over new powers to the government for no good reason. You never get them back. Look at teh Patriot Act in the US. Yes, tanning beds are easy to write off as trivial and stupid and, sure, let's ban them. But do you think it's really appropriate or necessary to make owning or using one a crime? An actual crime. Really? This is what we need to legislate? Give me a break.

I see your point. I suppose I agree with most of it. A bit of an odd crime.

That said, I'd be all for banning cigarettes etc.

Maybe tanning salons could be kept open with safer tanning methods (maybe not feasible, but I'm a bit of an idealist!).

karlog

According to a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said the tanning machines can increase the chances of tumours by 75% and pose the “highest” risk of cancer – equal with smoking.

RobFowl

karlog wrote: »

According to a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said the tanning machines can increase the chances of tumours by 75% and pose the “highest” risk of cancer – equal with smoking.

Can you reference that please,

karlog

RobFowl wrote: »

Can you reference that please,

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/07July/Pages/TanningOnSunbedBadAsSmoking.aspx

http://www.4ie.ie/irish_news.asp?id=97158

2Scoops

karlog wrote: »

According to a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said the tanning machines can increase the chances of tumours by 75% and pose the “highest” risk of cancer – equal with smoking.

For the record, this means that the IARC have reclassified sunbeds as "carcinogenic to humans." This is the same classification as smoking; it does not mean that they have the same relative risk for causing cancer, as the RR for smoking is far greater than 75%.

eth0_

No. Some people do use them responsibly, and AFAIK they're good (when used in moderation) for people with acne and other skin conditions.

However, if you're going to ban them - only if you simultaneously ban cigarettes. Way more people suffer illness/die because of cigarettes. It would be the height of hypocrisy to ban sunbeds and not cigarettes.

Amnesiac_ie

I hate sunbeds and I think many young impressionable image concious people will regret their use of them in years to come but the libertarian in me could not agree with an outright ban. I have to respect the freedom of adults to make choices that I as a doctor feel are insanely stupid. The use of sunbeds does not interfere with other adults in the same way as passive smoking does. I think the government should educate the public and enforce rigorous health and safety regulations in tanning shops.