Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Follow Us

NHI Newsletter

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

“Tan Ban” Weighed

by Melinda Tuhus | Mar 16, 2010 7:10 am

(9) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Health Care, State

Melinda Tuhus Photo Milena Kotara (pictured) stepped into Tommy’s Tanning on Whalley Avenue one day last week to get a head start on her tan before heading to Florida for spring break. The SCSU student said said she isn’t concerned about the warnings from dermatology experts that she may have increased her chances of getting cancer.

“I don’t like being pale,” she explained.

Some health experts are worried. They’re trying to get a bill through the state legislature that would that would tighten restrictions on what kind of in-store tanning customers like Kotara (pictured) use. It would require tanning salons to post warnings about the health dangers of tanning and require clients to sign a waiver with explicit health warnings.

That has pitted public-health advocates against participants in an established local business community.

In an interview in his Whalley Avenue salon, Ed Kelleher (pictured), president of Tommy’s Tanning (and brother of founder Tommy Kelleher) cited various reasons his customers come: mostly cosmetic, but also for relaxation and even for health, i.e., for treatment of conditions like psoriasis and eczema. He said many patients with certain skin conditions realize they can treat their ailments with UV radiation more economically and more conveniently in tanning salons than by going to medical specialists.

The company recognizes the potential dangers of ultraviolet radiation—and warns of them in its waiver, on the walls of the tanning booths, and on the beds themselves. Kelleher said use is strictly controlled to prevent an overdose, which he believes makes them safe. Potential clients must fill out a form to determine their skin type, their past experience with tanning salons, medication they’re taking, before they can sign up. Those with the lightest of six skin shades are not allowed to use the beds. And the company goes above and beyond the state law requiring that those 16 and under get written permission from their parents: It requires those 18 and under to get written permission from a parent who is present.

“We think we do it in a responsible, smart way to minimize the potential risks and maximize the potential benefits,” Kelleher said.

Since joining two months ago, Kotara said, she has come in every day, “but once I get a little color, I’ll come in two or three times a week.”

She exemplifies what dermatologist James Spencer said is the typical tanning salon client—a young, white female who tans both indoors and outdoors. Studies show up to 70 percent of users fit that demographic.

“The National Institutes of Health declared indoor tanning a known carcinogen,” he said in a phone interview from his office in sunny St. Petersburg, Florida. “The reason people go is for a cosmetic tan; the down side is the more you do it, the more you increase your risk of developing skin cancer.

“An irony of indoor tanning is that ultraviolet light is what causes wrinkling and leathery skin, so you’re doing something for beauty and in the long run it makes you look old and ugly. People ask, ‘Is one worse than the other?’ and the answer is, Nobody does just one. People who are indoor tanners go to the beach, too. The most popular bulbs in tanning beds mimic the sun, which is 95 percent UVA rays and five percent UVB.” In other words, whatever is harmful about the sun’s rays (about which there seems to be no dispute), is also harmful about the UV radiation in tanning beds.

The World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Dermatology have all determined that indoor tanning—as well as exposure to the sun outdoors—is carcinogenic. The Academy is running a public service campaign about it. 

The tanning industry rebuts those claims.

Joe Levy, executive director of the International Smart Tan Network, which represents tanning salons, argued in a phone interview that those professional and scientific associations are misleading the public, by cherry-picking data or reporting it out of context. He is the go-to guy on the subject, since Bernard Ackerman, the dermatologist who was the bete noir of his profession (and a hero to the tanning industry), died in 2008. Levy insisted that no correlation has been proven between UV exposure and melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

Spencer, who is also an associate professor of dermatology at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, said since no lab animals get melanoma, the only way to show a correlation is through epidemiological studies, which look at the distribution and determinants of disease.

Spencer said one example is when British or Irish individuals move to sunnier Australia, their incidence of melanoma skyrockets. As for the Vitamin D issue, he said fair-skinned individuals can absorb enough in just a few minutes a day outside, obviating the need to lie in a tanning bed.

Spencer responded that inflammatory skin diseases like psoriasis and eczema improve under UV light because the radiation reduces inflammation by suppressing the immune system. But, he added, “There’s no question that it increases your risk of both squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma—no question; but your psoriasis is ruining your life.” So the patient can consider the pros and cons and provide informed consent, and the dermatologist can prescribe the minimum dose to get results. “In my opinion,” he said, “doctors shouldn’t send people to tanning salons.”

There are tanning beds in both the men’s and women’s locker room at Planet Fitness in Hamden. David Itchkawitz (pictured), who works the front desk, said he believes indoor tanning is harmful and tries to impress the dangers on members who want to use them. The women’s beds allow for a maximum of 20 minutes. “Just yesterday,” he said, “a young woman came in and wanted to go for 20 minutes, but it was her first time so I told her she had to start at five minutes.” Long story short, he held his ground, she went in for five minutes, and she cursed him on the way out.

He’s holding the special eye protection (either reusable or single use) that clients are required to wear to avoid damage to their retinas. “One time a guy came in and said he’d just lay a dollar bill over his eyes,” Itchkawitz said, “but I told him that wasn’t good enough.”

Nancy Alderman (pictured in her North Haven home), president of Environment and Human Health, Inc., supported the bill that had a hearing in early March before the General Assembly’s Public Health Committee. But she testified that it should be stronger. “What the legislature should do is ban tanning beds for anyone 18 or younger,” she said, because the younger a person is exposed to UV rays (whether in a tanning bed or outdoors), the greater the chance of health problems later in life.

Jane Campo knows that from experience. She also testified at that hearing. The Stamford resident, now 49, said she was “a big sun person, so when I couldn’t go out in the sun, I went to the tanning salons,” which she did at least three times a week between the ages of 16 and 22. “I just didn’t know they were carcinogenic,” she added. Last summer she was headed to Hawaii with her daughters, and went to a tanning salon for the first time in a long time, to get a base tan. “I went to the tanning booth, thinking technology was better [than the sun]. I had moles and I saw one on my leg change to shiny. I thought that was odd. I covered it when I went back to the tanning booth. Then I saw a spot on my other leg. I asked my husband [a physician] to look at it and he said it had to be removed. I was literally driving to the airport to go to Hawaii and I got a call on my cell phone and was told I had melanoma. When I got back I had to have them excised; I had two melanomas and 18 biopsies. Every three months I have to have my body scanned for new melanomas. The diagnosis was just devastating; melanoma is the worst skin cancer you can get—it’s lethal. I caught them before they went deeper, which would have been likely a worse prognosis.”

Planet Fitness manager Frank Proscino said tanning bed users at his facility are about half female and half male (though the males tend to be older), and that about 20 percent of their gym members pay extra to use them. He said he’d support a bill requiring more warning labels but would oppose any “tan ban” on those 18 and under. “No one is going to say you can’t go out in the sun,” he reasoned.

Meanwhile, Tommy’s Tanning operates a dozen tanning salons around the state, and is planning to open more.

Rep. Betsy Ritter, co-chair of the Public Health Committee, said the committee heard testimony from all sides at the recent hearing, but she was somewhat doubtful that the bill would make it through the entire legislative process in this year’s short session, which must focus by law on budget issues.

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: City Hall Watch on March 16, 2010  9:40am

The nanny state and those who perpetuate it are determined to reduce our freedoms, limit our choices and harm business. This is another fine example. It’s amazing to me that any of us survived childhood without all these zealots caring for our wellfare. Tanning like everything, in moderation, is not bad. Personal choice and personal responsibility are the characteristics we should be teaching our young people. Advocating for careful use of tanning beds or even non-use is fine. But proposing state laws that force your beliefs on me or others, is quite another matter and a negative one too.

posted by: William Kurtz on March 16, 2010  10:22am

My own thoughts on this overlap some with CHW’s, but let’s be clear that this isn’t a matter of “beliefs” coming into conflict, but ignorance (willful or not) of the risks described by established science.  Miss Kotara may not be “concerned,” Mr. Kelleher may “believe” he has made tanning beds safe, and Mrs. Campo may “think” that “technology is better than the sun” but they’re at odds with the evidence.  So clear warnings and requiring informed use seems to be in order, but bans—except for children, who society sometimes has a responsibility to defend against the ignorance of their parents—are probably inappropriate.

posted by: so-called nanny stateq on March 16, 2010  11:20am

The “nanny state” would be one where officials declare bedtimes and enforce them. Getting more than 8 hours of sleep helps people lose weight, after all. (see CNN.com for that story).

When consumers are led to believe certain products or services are safe when they clearly are NOT, the government has been authorized by the people to set the record straight, and this includes regulation.

If tanning beds are “known [to the World Health Organization] carcinogens” then the consumer should expect regulation to ensure safety. There are informed consumers and uninformed consumers. Waivers aside, no one should be made to suffer unnecessarily because a known effect of the “treatment” is printed illegibly on a product label.

I have fair skin, but it’s healthy skin. I wear sunscreen and appreciate the vital function my skin has in protecting myself from foreign substances, and holding my body together. Why anyone would enjoy paying someone to give them cancer (why are cigarettes still being purchased in 2010?!) is absurd.

Value your health, value your personal attributes, and stop paying TWICE for future medical problems (pay to acquire it, pay to treat it)!!!

posted by: if you're acting like a child, you might need a na on March 16, 2010  2:11pm

“so-called nanny stateq” raises a good point.  Let’s go further and point out that that Ms. Kotara won’t be the only one paying for her cancer.  The rest of us pay, too—through higher insurance premiums and taxes (Medicare/Medicaid and grants to hospitals to fund care for the uninsured).  Until we force people to internalize the cost of their stupidity by making them pay for avoidable illness, we have the right to regulate behavior that costs us all money.

posted by: Xavier Onassis on March 16, 2010  5:08pm

Interesting the Ed Kelleher, president of Tommy’s Tanning, doesn’t seem to have a tan…

Nobody’s forcing their beliefs on anybody in this case—they’re just forcing a little truth in advertising.  Moderation, yes, but ultraviolet light, from the sun or a machine, damages skin and damages DNA, thus causing cancer.  You pays your money, you takes your chances.  But know what the chances are.

posted by: Nancy Alderman on March 17, 2010  6:24am

Among all the states we have information on, Connecticut ranks in the lowest group for regulations on tanning beds in tanning salons. Almost all states have tighter restrictions than Connecticut.

The World Health Organization now ranks tanning beds with cigarettes and asbestos for their ability to cause cancer.

Connecticut’s regulations need to catch up with the science.

posted by: laws on March 17, 2010  10:16am

Tanning beds are known carcinogens.

Cigarettes are known carcinogens.

Tanning beds are available to minors.

Cigarettes are NOT available to minors (to purchasse).


What’s wrong with this picture? Besides, why pay for something you can get for free?

posted by: The Tamster on March 18, 2010  8:35am

Birth Control pills and Salted fish are also in the same carcinogenic category. Shows you how silly the WHO rating system is. Speaks to how much of these things your get. Moderation makes sense.

posted by: Xavier Onassis on March 19, 2010  8:05am

Uh, Nancy, “Solar Radiation” is on the IARC list of Group I (most dangerous) carcinogens, along with alcoholic beverages and saw dust.  Maybe in our rush to “catch up with science,” we should ban ol’ Sol, too.  Where do I pick up my parasol?  Perspective: the 8,600 new cases of skin cancer each year compares with 35,000 deaths from automobile accidents and 400,000 from smoking.  I don’t know where booze and saw dust come in.  When do we start banning all that?

Are tanning beds dangerous?  ABSOLUTELY!  Should people know what they’re getting into?  Certainly.  Should children be banned from them?  Certainly.

But, that “almost all states have tighter regulations (on tanning beds)” is not a reason Connecticut should follow the lemmings.  Next, we’ll have to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

get ANDI

Events Calendar

view the full calendar »

SeeClickFix »

Parking spaces unusable due to weaving traffic illegally passage turning vehicles at intersection
Feb 11, 2012 9:20 pm
Address: Blake St And Valley St New Haven, CT 06515, USA
Rating: 2

Traffic flow is poor many crashes, moves dangerously fast. Should be reclaimed...

more »
dangerously fast traffic
Feb 11, 2012 4:05 pm
Address: 528 Chapel St New Haven, CT 06511, USA
Rating: 3

There is a constant stream of dangerously fast traffic on Chapel Street in Wooster...

more »

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design