Now you know how it works, you can enjoy your tanning experience!

It’s a great way to get people to listen – just use terminology they are not familiar with; carefully select words or phrases that you know to be incorrect, but sound as if they are correct and you are half way there. Work on the principle ‘who is going to check anyway’ and hey bingo, you have a whole new set of followers thinking you are very clever. This may well be the case for some people, but not one we care to follow thank you very much!

You see, for years there has been a bogus argument floating around – that sunbeds are more dangerous than natural sunshine. To give more ‘supposed sway’ to this argument, the word intensity has been added. It also gives a bit of extra weight behind the idea – and why? Because most people wouldn’t have a clue what ‘more intense than sunlight’ actually means! So the dermatologists, lobbyists and the anti-tanning brigade are banking on the fact that most of you won’t know the answer and just believe whatever you are told. The fact that we absolutely need to differentiate between dosage and intensity is not likely to enter the head of most people. However, there is a crucial difference and one that needs to be understood if you want to know the real truth.

Generally speaking, the majority of modern, professional, indoor tanning equipment emits around the same UVA and UVB as the noontime sun. With this in mind, trained, certified operators can base their incremental exposure times of a patron on their skin type (which will have been established during the consultation and detailed form filling stage at the first visit) and the emissions of their equipment to build up non-burning dosages to slowly and gradually build a tan.

To state that indoors tanning equipment is more intense than sunlight is both misleading and inaccurate since the total output is measured thus: Total UV Output = UV Intensity x Duration of Exposure. So, if tanning equipment were to be say, two or three times more intense than summer sunshine, the duration of exposure will be controlled – (in the case of megaSun beds this is from 1-18 mins lying down and 1-12 mins vertically). The total UV output is always controlled to minimise any risk of sunburn. The more intense the output, the shorter the session will always be.

Research has not demonstrated that intensity of sunbeds is the issue; the number of photons delivered to the skin and how fast they are delivered is the key. To support their bogus claims, some anti-tanning lobby groups claim that it is possible that intensity could be an issue.

So the big question is this: if intensity really is the issue, why oh why hasn't dermatology BANNED all of its dermatologists from using their ‘phototherapy’ devices? Bearing in mind, these machines are more intense than sunbeds – and they are used to treat ‘cosmetic skin conditions’ – yes psoriasis is classed as a cosmetic skin condition. So if intensity is such a danger, why is dermatologists equipment still being used to ‘treat’ these purely cosmetic skin conditions with what is effectively burning doses of UV light – and breaching the Hippocratic Oath of ne’er do harm?

Would you like the answer? Here it is in a nutshell. The answer is MONEY!!!

In America alone, more than 1.5 million people use sunbeds (and they have not all been killed off), to informally treat ‘cosmetic skin conditions’ of their own volition at very little cost. Now, If the same people were to use the dermatologists office for the same condition, they would be paying the normal average cost of $100 per visit.
If intensity were such a big, genuine issue, then this kind of treatment would have been banned 16 years ago by dermatologists, when they first suggested that commercial sunbeds should be banned.

So you see how clear this all is – it is about the money not about the science!

Will Common Sense Prevail?

The slamming of sunbed users getting a 75% increase in cancer if using tanning beds under the age of 35 has been totally discredited by one of the world’s leading experts on sunlight, UV and vitamin D. Dr William Grant. The database used made the 'increase' possible due to the following statistics being erroneously and deliberately included; thus making a mockery of the study:
a) skin type 1 people.
b) unsupervised individuals (ie unknown factors which may include some or all of the following: where they tanned, whether they were suitable for tanning or had a skin type which would allow tanning, how long and how often they tanned).
c) dermatologists own ‘phototherapy’ tanning units; (there are no rules banning anyone from their equipment)
d) home tanning units.

In professional tanning salons skin type 1 individuals do not get past the skin analysis point and are not allowed to use sunbeds. Dr William Grant has proven that when the analysis and stats are torn apart, the results are totally erroneous. – in fact once the four factors which should NOT have been included in the first place are removed from the equation, the melanoma risk actually Decreases! Melanoma and mortality has been continually decreasing since 1985 especially in women aged 20-44. The only major increases have been in male, indoors workers. Interestingly, in Canada they don't have an increase in derms like most other countries and their level of skin cancers and melanoma are not increasing but in fact are decreasing as time goes on.

It is a known fact that at least 1.5 mill people have attended a minimum of 39 sessions per year of ‘phototherapy’ at a dermatology clinic – ie sunbeds under another or ‘medical’ name in the last year. This netted the derms [dermatologists] a nice tidy profit of $5billion – so it is no wonder they want the sunbed competition removed as they could increase this by untold amounts if operators had to hand over all business to them!

Dr Marc Sorensen states the only real reason that people are against sunbeds, are for nothing more than money – money for derms to have it ALL to themselves and money for derms and other societies who want to profit from ‘phototherapy’ sessions and sales of sunscreen. Some derms, have been sent to prison for cutting off skin or sending samples of unknown origin for ‘analysis’ and claiming they are melanomas or other skin cancers and consequently they are being used in data and statistics that blame sunbeds for increases that do not even exist! Dr Michel Rosin was sentenced to 22 years in prison for fraud – for removing ‘lesions’ he said were melanomas but were a variety of materials, not all of which were human tissue even!

The number of derms in the USA alone has increased 320% DUE TO SUN SCARE MESSAGE! We could therefore state they are exposed and their motive is pure profit. Insurance companies worldwide are paying for lesion removal under the title of ‘melanoma removal’- even when they are not melanomas. The reason for making such claims is that the insurance companies would not pay the dermatologists for other types of lesion removal. Consequently, it appears on the surface that melanomas are on the increase, when in fact non-malignant and other lesions are being referred to as melanomas to ensure the dermatologist gets paid. This is a fact confirmed by the eminent professor Sam Shuster of Newcastle University in the UK.

Another ridiculous statement made by a well known dermatologist in America:
“I see us moving to underground shelters and perhaps living underground” a claim made by – Dr Wilma Bergfeld former AAA president, She also predicts that by 2012 skin cancer will be biggest cancer killer; it is well documented breast cancer leads this table and cannot be overtaken in this timeframe making her predication impossible. This kind of scare tactic encourages depletion of vitamin D. It is fortunate that the public at large are starting to realise just how important controlled UV exposure is for health – just as nature intended! Vit D from controlled, non-burning exposure to UV light could prevent a minimum of 300,000 deaths a year!

You be the judge – and the jury. Read the facts, ask the questions and draw your own conclusions; I hope using common sense!