Manassas Park Business Owner Reacts to Tanning Bed Legislation
Some Virginia tanning bed owners say lawmakers have bigger things to worry about.
Roger Yelvington has owned Sunbright Tanning Salon in Manassas Park for more than three years and is confident the service he provides isn’t dangerous to his patrons.
So he and other Virginia salon owners wonder why the Virginia Senate is occupied with creating new laws concerning the industry.
The bill also requires those 15 and older to get parental consent before using such facilities. The bill cleared the senate on a majority vote of 34-5 earlier this month.
“Does a 15-year-old girl have to get permission from her parents to get oiled up and go lay down at the beach?” Yelvington said. “(The tanning bed) is replicating what you get outside from the Sun.”
Overall Yelvington said he's fine with a teen seeking his or her parents permission to tan, but the negative connotation presented by a law requiring parental consent is what gives him pause.
“It can make people think it’s really bad for you because it’s something that requires your parent’s permission,” he said. “ … I feel pretty strongly that I’m not providing a service that is a danger to people’s health.”
Nothing has changed in the tanning industry in the last 30 years, Yelvington said.
Tanning bed supporters say it hasn’t become more dangerous, so he and others wonder why lawmakers are even spending time creating new laws concerning tanning.
“They’ve got bigger fish to fry,” Yelvington said.
His tanning salon provides all the appropriate lotions as well as recommendations for exposure times. The recommendations are based on the type of skin the client has, Yelvington said.
In the middle of Winter, a time when many people feel down and blue, tanning could be helpful in improving one's mood, he said.
“If you get it in moderation, it releases endorphins and Vitamin D,” he added.
As far as business is concerned, Sunbright tanning has been steady and has increased by about 40 percent since it opened in 2009, Yelvington said.
Business has increased this year since a tanning salon in Manassas shuttered, he added.
Meanwhile, the bill that some say could throw some shade at tanning could become a law if it passes in the Virginia House of Delegates.
What are your thoughts?
Steven Burgess
8:03 am on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The tanning industry doesn't have the money to "donate" to our elected legislators in order to control what laws are passed. The oil industry, gun manufactures, the pharmaceutical industry are a few of the ones with deep pockets that basically buy voting, and in a lot of cases actually write the laws for the legislator to present.
Roger Yelvington
10:30 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Steve - well said Sir.
paleskinner
4:55 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
Minors most certainly should be banned from indoor tanning beds.
A youth Tanning Bed ban sends a clear message UV radiation is a recognized carcinogen. It encourages responsible sun exposure.
This quote from age 9 of the U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE Investigative Report titled 'False and Misleading Health Information Provided to Teens by the Indoor Tanning Industry', indicates parental consent does not reduce youth tanners.
"Studies of compliance with parental consent laws in Texas, North Carolina, and Minnesota and Massachusetts have found tanning salon compliance rates of 11%, 13%, and 19%, respectively. Despite an increase over the last decade in states requiring some form of parental permission for indoor tanning, researchers have found no measurable decrease in indoor tanning among older adolescent girls."
http://www.aahperd.org/aahe/about/updates/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=169705
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly supports a ban:
" Federal, state, and local governments should work toward passing legislation to ban minors' access to tanning salons. Governments should work to ensure that such legislation is enforced."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/3/588.full
paleskinner
4:57 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
American Academy of Pediatrics:
" Although they agree that vitamin D is important for good health, leaders in skin cancer prevention oppose intentional sun exposure to induce vitamin D production, because UVR is a known human carcinogen. There have been no studies of children suggesting a level of sun exposure that would negate the need to comply with dietary vitamin D recommendations."
(NO studies of children)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/3/588.full
Canadian Paediatric Society:
"While the precise roles of specific UV wavelengths in both melanin production and carcinogenesis are still to be fully elucidated, DNA damage appears to be the key intermediary for both. Tanning induced by UVR that is devoid of carcinogenic risk may be scientifically impossible."
"Relying on UVR as a source of vitamin D has been challenged because of the substantial overlap of DNA damage from such exposure and the production of vitamin D. Moreover, exposure to UVR is complicated by the quantity of skin exposed, the darkness or pigmentation of that skin, the wavelength or energy of the source (which varies with the time of year and latitude), and the degree of one's vitamin D deficiency. Artificial UVR exposure further compounds matters with the mix, intensity and variability of UVA and UVB generated by tanning bed emitters and is neither a reliable or advisable source of vitamin D."
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/tanning-facilities
paleskinner
4:57 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
FDA quote:
"In an NCI-sponsored study published in September 2009 in the Archives of Dermatology, the study researchers hired and trained college students to pose as 15-year-old, fair-skinned girls who had never tanned before. By telephone, the students asked more than 3,600 tanning facilities in all 50 states about their practices.
Less than 11 percent of the facilities followed FDA's recommended exposure schedule of three or fewer sessions the first week. About 71 percent said they would allow a teen to tan all seven days the first week, and many promoted frequent tanning with "unlimited tanning" discount price packages. "
http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm186687.htm
Sunbright Tanning
9:57 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22017922
Cambridge University
"CONCLUSIONS: The overall health benefit of an improved vitamin D status may be more important than the possibly increased CMM risk resulting from carefully increasing UV exposure. Important scientific facts behind this judgement are given."
Bloomie
10:21 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
I would think a child would benefit most by drinking more milk to get their Vitamin D, as well as the other benefits.
paleskinner
3:31 am on Friday, February 22, 2013
Emphasis on the word may.. our knowledge of Vitamin D is a work in progress
The Institute of Medicine says the “the data just aren’t there”
JAMA: IOM Endorses Vitamin D, Calcium Only
for Bone Health, Dispels Deficiency Claims
http://www.sstans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/12-IOM-JAMA+editorial+1-111.pdf
Study;Ultraviolet radiation: a hazard to children and adolescents.
"Skin cancer is a major public health problem; more than 2 million new cases are diagnosed in the United States each year. Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) causes the 3 major forms of skin cancer: basal cell carcinoma; squamous cell carcinoma; and cutaneous malignant melanoma. Exposure to UVR from sunlight and artificial sources early in life elevates the risk of developing skin cancer."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21357345
paleskinner
8:23 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/GeneralandPlasticSurgeryDevicesPanel/UCM205687.pdf
FDA Executive Summary
"Cannell et. al. has stated that there could be situations where
the risk benefit of the usage of tanning beds in the prevention of other cancers potentially might outweigh the risk of skin cancer but also stated that the same benefit can be gotten from using dietary supplementation."
"Doctors Woo and Edie, two dermatologists from the Henry Ford Hospital, recently conducted an extensive review of the available literature on Vitamin D and tanning beds and concluded that: Tanning bed proponents cite the health benefits of vitamin D to support indoor tanning, including concerns that reduced vitamin D levels or certain vitamin D receptor polymorphisms may be associated with increased incidence of various cancers, including cutaneous melanoma. However, most tanning devices primarily emit ultraviolet A, which is relatively ineffective in stimulating vitamin D synthesis. Health benefits can be fully dissociated from the ultraviolet exposure risks with vitamin D supplementation, although optimal levels remain to be established. Indoor tanning represents an avoidable risk factor for skin cancer."
Roger Yelvington
10:33 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
Bloomie - Among many other benefits, tanning provides Vitamin D - but the study and article are important, not because ithey discuss Vitamin D. But because it shows that even the small benefit of Vitamin D that UV tanning provides is enough to offset the very minimal (and extremely exaggerated) increased risk of skin cancer (CMM).
Bloomie
10:01 am on Friday, February 22, 2013
If you were a smoker, would you consider taking a Chantrix in spite of the potential side effects? Sometimes those potential side effects are worse than the disease. As an adult, it would be irresponsible of me to put my child at risk for something that isn't necessary.
paleskinner
3:34 am on Friday, February 22, 2013
our knowledge of Vitamin D is a work in progress
The Institute of Medicine says the “the data just aren’t there”
JAMA: IOM Endorses Vitamin D, Calcium Only
for Bone Health, Dispels Deficiency Claims
http://www.sstans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/12-IOM-JAMA+editorial+1-111.pdf
Study -Ultraviolet radiation: a hazard to children and adolescents. ( minimal and exaggerated are not words that come to mind...)
"Skin cancer is a major public health problem; more than 2 million new cases are diagnosed in the United States each year. Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) causes the 3 major forms of skin cancer: basal cell carcinoma; squamous cell carcinoma; and cutaneous malignant melanoma. Exposure to UVR from sunlight and artificial sources early in life elevates the risk of developing skin cancer."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21357345
Roger Yelvington
10:13 am on Friday, February 22, 2013
Bloomie - limiting you or your child's activity to only those functions that are a nessecity without any known risks is an interesting approach.
The Cambridge study stated that the risk of tanning (which is also in nature, and part of the worlds creation) can be negated with the benefits.
It's hard for many things we do in life to say the same. Their are far nobler topics to stand tall on if a soapbox is what you'd like.
Bloomie
11:37 am on Friday, February 22, 2013
That's easy to say when you are standing on a soapbox yourself. Isn't that what message boards are all about, exchanging opinions or information?
I'm not recommending treating children like veal. They need to get out and exercise and take acceptable risks associated with those activities. Broken bones and torn muscles generally won't shorten your life. Cancer usually will.
Roger Yelvington
11:47 am on Friday, February 22, 2013
Bloomie - you're right, they do need to get out and excercise... which they will likely do outside. Do you limit their playtime? The soapbox wasn't created by me, it was created by legislators looking at ways to pad tax dollars. It's an easy target, because it's associated with "vanity" and written off.
Excercise doesn't cause cancer, but I'm guessing you and your children are commonly exposed to many forms (over 100) of known carcinogens - the SUN being one of them, that are much more dangerous than a tanning bed. You can check below. Just tired of facts being contorted, and industries being tainted as easy ways to satisfy a political agenda.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens?sitearea=PED
paleskinner
4:05 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
"Roger Yelvington has owned Sunbright Tanning Salon in Manassas Park for more than three years and is confident the service he provides isn’t dangerous to his patrons."
Roger Yelvington; "I feel pretty strongly that I’m not providing a service that is a danger to people’s health.”
I feel pretty strongly that it is. The medical professionals agree.
And they are not telling us to avoid going out and getting exercise, just to avoid lying in tanning beds (trying to look like we have been outside getting exercise..) And importantly -to keep the children out.
Where are your peer reviewed and published studies showing your product is safe to sell to children Roger?
( until you have them, expect parents and others to question your pretty stronglies.. )
Roger Yelvington
11:54 am on Friday, February 22, 2013
And please make sure they don't eat the following:
Hot Dogs
Processed Meats / Bacon
Doughnuts
French Fries
Chips/Crackers/Cookies...
NOT because of obesity (which, if we want to earn tax dollars...why not here instead??) - but because eating these items too often will significantly increase your risk of cancer. Particularly because of hydrogenated oils and sodium nitrate contents:
http://www.naturalnews.com/021808_cancer_prevention.html
paleskinner
4:11 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
The issue in question is avoidable skin cancer Roger; the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) highlights costs here..
“Exposure to UV radiation, either from sunlight or indoor tanning devices, is the most important, avoidable known risk factor for skin cancer. Annually, skin cancer costs an estimated $1.7 billion to treat and results in $3.8 billion in lost productivity. Reducing the proportions of adolescents and adults who report using artificial sources of UV light for tanning are Healthy People 2020 objectives.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22572978
Roger Yelvington
4:19 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
Its things like that - where you take a number and skew it completely. It's the root of the problem, for instance you say: "Skin cancer costs an estimated $1.7 billion..." But it's obvious you mean it to read "Tanning costs an estimated..." which isn't the case. So again, please try not to exaggerate the numbers for impact.
paleskinner
1:07 am on Saturday, February 23, 2013
Roger Yelvington " But it's obvious you mean it to read "Tanning costs an estimated..." which isn't the case. So again, please try not to exaggerate the numbers for impact."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/indoor-tanning-tied-170000-skin-cancers-annually/story?id=17380395
Indoor Tanning Tied to 170,000 Skin Cancers Annually
"By comparing the data linking indoor tanning and skin cancer, researchers estimated that the activity may account for more than 170,000 cases of non-melanoma skin cancers -- basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas -- in the United States each year. In particular, exposure to indoor tanning before the age of 25 was linked to an increased risk for basal cell carcinoma, according to the study."
"Specifically, Linos and her colleagues found that those who reported ever using indoor tanning had a 67 percent higher risk for developing squamous cell carcinoma and a 29 percent higher risk for basal cell carcinoma."
"These findings show that "indoor tanning is dangerous, especially for young people," said study senior author, Dr. Eleni Linos, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California San Francisco. "
-re photo Kim Benz- Kim "had been a regular indoor tanning bed user since the age of 17. She was first diagnosed with skin cancer -- normally seen in older adults -- in her early 20s... Benz, now 39, still has disfiguring skin cancer lesions over her entire body"
paleskinner
1:09 am on Saturday, February 23, 2013
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/indoor-tanning-tied-170000-skin-cancers-annually/story?id=17380395
Indoor Tanning Tied to 170,000 Skin Cancers Annually cont
"With this study, we finally have strong evidence that tanning beds contribute to all types of skin cancer including basal cell, squamous cell and melanoma," Linos said. "The risk of all three types of skin cancer is significantly higher in young people. This means there is a clear cancer risk for teenagers who use tanning beds, and it's hard to argue with regulations to protect children from cancer."
She said that while non-melanoma skin cancers are less deadly, their impact is enormous.
"Their treatment adds up to the fifth-most costly cancer for Medicare," she said, citing research that showed that the cost of diagnosing and treating these types of skin cancers ranges from $1,200 to $2,100 per case.
And the cancers can also be disfiguring, as Benz's case shows.
Cancer experts not involved with the study called the findings startling."
paleskinner
4:44 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
Roger Yelvington: " Its things like that - where you take a number and skew it completely. It's the root of the problem, for instance you say: "Skin cancer costs an estimated $1.7 billion..." But it's obvious you mean it to read "Tanning costs an estimated..." which isn't the case. So again, please try not to exaggerate the numbers for impact."
Did you notice the CDC includes UV radiation from indoor tanning devices as one of the most important, avoidable known risk factors for skin cancer?
Skin cancer costs are rising, where is your research proving UV radiation from indoor tanning devices is absolved of responsibility?(Particularly in the case of children.. the real root of the problem)