Interesting announcement from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on Subed use. They had previously classified sunbeds as "probably carcinogenic to humans", but have announced they have changed this to definitively "carcinogenic to humans".

Potentially bad news for sunbed owners, but opportunity for marketing for tanners.

Story on BBC News

Mat

The sun bed association are saying the opposite though from the very brief snippet that i heard this morning on gmtv

Vanessa Feltz is covering it on her show this moring for BBC London on the radio. Sadly now I am at work so won't be able to listen to the listeners views but I heard that they were comparing it to asbestos and smoking which of course we no longer use so it may be an interesting topic of dicussion, on the media and on here!

I will listen/read/wait with baited breath (isn't that a strange expression!)

Lx

On BBC brekky,
they had a lady from Cancer Research on, & also a Sunbes assoc. representitve ,

& according to the research quoted, sunbeds can increase your chances of getting skin cancer by 75%

Obviously the Sunbed assoc. woman said thats untrue etc. & that abuse is the problem.
But imo, the facts seem to speak for themselves.

They said that really, sunbeds should be considered as dangerous as cigarettes & asbestos.

(& I am tired of seeing women who've turned their skins into something resembling leather.)

I really hope all you spray-tanners get extra custom from this

Her you go, a bit of info for you
World Wide Words: Bated breath

Just checked the Sunbed Association and they have a press-release about this:

Odd...
on the BBC this morning, Cancer Research said that they now have catagorical proof that SB's do infact cause cancer, especially in the under 30's.

LOL you beat me to it there!
Posted via Mobile Device

This would be a perfect opportunity for all you spray tanners to get in touch with your local media & tell them about how you do spray tanning instead which ultimately is healthier.

Grab this opportunity for some free publicity!

i watched that but they also qouted the sunbed association about sensible use etc

Good call! You could say that the UV rays from sunbeds penetrate deep into the skin, where they cause cell damage, leading to premature aging of the skin and an increased risk of skin cancer.

Whereas a spray tan works by darkening the outermost layer of skin by means of a harmless chemical reaction. The tanning solution is non-toxic and does not get absorbed deep into the skin. So no premature aging or increased risk of cancer!
Posted via Mobile Device

lol Its the name, all Ruth's are known for their fabulousness, lol
Posted via Mobile Device
hmmm, i must have chosen to ignore that bit (the slaps for me, not you x)

LOL, I will second that!
Posted via Mobile Device

the thing is here that there are a huge amount of people who generate an income from this sector and as professionals we should respect others..providing they are working within the constraints of the law and sensibility.

A individual heavily involved in the UV sector would counter argue that sunless tanning is also dangerous if inhaled over a long period of time.....here is a thread on a UV biased forum..intresting to see what the UV sector has to say about the sunless sectors and the possible dangers consumers face (rightly or wrongly)

http://tantalk.com/sunless/2379125-n...o-first-8.html

there is no doubt that as a human species we need exposure to UV and that when this happens there are many positive benefits to be had.

Good lord exposure to UV light is used in many many treatments for skin complaints.

The problem is one of misuse and over exposure and that tougher measures are needed to ensure over exposure is something that doesn't occur.

Sunbed manufacturers as well as salons all have a responsibility to ensure that users only derive the positive benefits of using these devices.

Of course the consumer also has a responsibility to ensure that they to do not abuse the use of sun beds...many users jump between salons in an attempt to bypass sound exposure limits salon operators place on them.

Its time we all took stock of how we conduct ourselves....currently it is the UV sector that is being targeted by the media with adverse coverage...but rest assured they could well focus their attention on the sunless sectors in time...isnt it time we all worked together within a sector that generates our income revenues.

Pleas remember and promote...... sensible tanning(sunless or UV) is safe tanning

If we all start to tear each other apart there will be no industry left as the media will have a feild day with us all.

Remember guy's and gal's...its not only UV tanning,spray tanning but the media has also provided inacurate adverse coverage of even the nail sector and the use of UV lamps

All potentially harmfull stuff to us all

It is not just the media - we are talking medical research here - which has ALWAYS advocated no such thing as a safe tan! As I go on about on here a lot (yawn) - I know - sorry!

It is no suprise that the sunbed association (or whatever they call themselves) dispute this - frankly this is appauling. There is a difference to UV exposure (environmental or controlled) ie psoriasis treatments IN A MEDICAL SETTING and the everyday Vit D we obtain from UV, so it really is pointless pointing out this and using it to justify sunbed exposure.

I agree Collin, we do all need to work together - however, I will hark on again - NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE TAN. MEDICAL FACT. I really do fail to see the positive benefits. And I will NEVER, ever promote UV tanning as safe OR sensible. To do so, would be unprofessional and totally unethical within my profession. How can anyone justify PROMOTING sunbed use. It is not sufficient to say - its ok, if controlled in a managed setting - it simply isn't.

I do not wish to upset anyone - but dressing this up and putting a 'safe practice' angle to sunbed use is ridiculous.

There is absolutely no problem in putting across personal views...

What is not the right thing to do is to advertise treatment "A" off the back of treatment"B" simply because an individual doesn't agree with treatment "A"and use the dangers of its use as your marketing angle.

It simply becomes fodder for the media to further fuel the frenzy in the news and can only damage the long term stability of our industry.

A good example would be the dreaded ear candle issue..in some countries its banned..in others its not...in the countries where it is banned those therapists cant for the life of them see why other therapists in countries where it is not banned are stupid enough to offer the service....after all its banned in their country so why are you doing it kind of thing

It is essential that no matter what our personal beliefs are that we recognise other professionals may have differing ones and that they derive their income from what it is they do....of course within the parameters of the law and good practice of course.