ALBANY, N.Y., Dec. 31 (UPI) -- Businesses providing indoor tanning services in New York state are subject to new requirements in 2011, meant to reduce potential hazards. officials said.
Richard F. Daines, state health commissioner, says the health risks associated with tanning are well documented and include skin cancer, burns, injury to the skin and eyes, premature aging of the skin and allergic reactions.
Under state law, New York businesses with indoor tanning facilities are now subject to the following requirements:
-- Operators must take steps to ensure that children under age 14 cannot use indoor tanning facilities.
-- Operators must ensure that children ages 14-18 have signed, in person, parental consent prior to the children using the facilities.
-- People 18 and older must be provided information on the dangers of indoor tanning, must sign statements indicating they are aware of the hazards and receive adequate instruction in the operation and use of tanning devices.
-- Operators must ensure that every patron has adequate protective eyewear for use with ultraviolet tanning devices at no additional charge.
"UV radiation produced by indoor tanning devices can cause the same damage to the skin as natural sunlight," Daines says in a statement. "Because the harmful effects of UV exposure are cumulative over time, indoor tanning devices pose the highest risk to children and young adults by increasing their overall lifetime exposure."
if you own a private tanning bed for personal use you cannot purchase bulbs in NYS....
1.your choice 2. support by state for cosmetic industry 3. sunscreen is nano-tech no different than the egyptians coating their bodies with metals to look cool,,,,alot of them went crazy 4. it's YOUR responsibility to make your own choices regarding your health 5. how the F'K did the earth get populated?
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Tanning beds, although artificial, still project the same harmful UV rays as the sun. Now my only question is...........if the government makes a parent responsible for kids under 18 who want to use tanning beds..........will they also start 'forcing' parents to put sunscreen on their children when they are at the beach on in their swimming pools or just outside on a sunny day?
Funny but a doctor told my mother to sit in the sun every day for at least 20 minutes to get vitamin D. If she doesn't, her alternative are those bone strengthening drugs like fosamax which come with their own side effects.
It's all bullcrap! TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT CONTROL! And folks are actually buying into it! SCARY!
How the hell did the population of this earth get so huge????
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Tanning beds, although artificial, still project the same harmful UV rays as the sun. Now my only question is...........if the government makes a parent responsible for kids under 18 who want to use tanning beds..........will they also start 'forcing' parents to put sunscreen on their children when they are at the beach on in their swimming pools or just outside on a sunny day?
Funny but a doctor told my mother to sit in the sun every day for at least 20 minutes to get vitamin D. If she doesn't, her alternative are those bone strengthening drugs like fosamax which come with their own side effects.
It's all bullcrap! TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT CONTROL! And folks are actually buying into it! SCARY!
How the hell did the population of this earth get so huge????
CHA-F'EN-CHING!!!!!
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Sunscreen market flourishing Friday, 22 April 2011 From Issue Vol. XIX No. 16 By NNT
Be the first to comment!
The Sunscreen market is flourishing this Songkran Festival with a projected value of not less than 1.2 billion baht this year owing to climate volatility, according to Kasikorn Research Center (KResearch).
KResearch reported that people usually leave the cities during the long Songkran holidays, and many go to the sea. Therefore, KResearch predicts, sun cream will be one of the products that will enjoy rising sales this summer, and will remain popular for the foreseeable future.
KResearch estimates that the domestic sun block market this year would be worth no less than 1.2 billion baht, an expansion of 15% year-on-year. Climate volatility and rising temperatures are the major positive factors boosting the sales.
KResearch indicated that choosing the right marketing strategies, like adjusting prices and product sizes to suit the market, are necessary amid the ongoing economic slowdown.
Hence, KResearch suggests entrepreneurs should closely observe and monitor consumers’ behaviors and attitudes in order to seek new opportunities or marketing channels as well as develop newer products to win more consumers.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Monograph or no monograph, the sunscreen industry should take it upon itself to refrain from escalating the SPF race any further.
Steven Q. Wang, MD Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Dermatology Division
In March 2009 during the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in San Francisco, I noted that the sun protection factor (SPF) of all types and brands of sunscreen keeps climbing higher. That observation, while not just a recent trend, occurred while shopping in a large drugstore and I faced shelves crammed with products bearing SPF labels of 30, 45, 55, 60, 70, 75, 85 and 90+.
First, there is a predictable pace for the increases in SPF value. Each year, without fail, the industry launches “superior” products with slightly higher SPFs. Second, the numbers have become staggering. Not long ago, many large brands maxed out at SPF 45. In the space of just two or three years, that figure has essentially doubled. Most companies have a product with SPF 85. Naturally, at the time, I pondered will there be a product with an SPF of 100?
Neutrogena Tops 100
Surely, why stop at 90+? With the industry’s track record of delivering higher SPF products every year, it seemed the only real question was when and which company would achieve this “milestone” in the U.S. Three months later, an advertisement appeared on television. Neutrogena had done it, launching a product with an SPF of 100+. The race to 100 is over in the U.S.
The U.S. is not the first country to enter this SPF race. In Japan and Europe, similar competitions occurred many years ago; different companies were jockeying for market eminence and continually pushed SPF values higher. In fact, Japan was the first country to introduce products with SPFs above 100. From a marketing perspective, it is understandable that companies have focused on increasing the SPF values of their products. To date, SPF is the only numerical gauge for a sunscreen product’s effectiveness in the U.S.; thus, for many consumers, it remains the key determinant in their purchasing decisions. The majority of consumers mistakenly believe that SPF, as its full name suggests, represents the degree of protection for the entire ultraviolet (UV) spectrum. The general public and perhaps even some health care providers are largely unaware that SPF value refers mainly to UVB protection, offering little guidance on UVA protection. Currently, the U.S. sunscreen industry is still awaiting approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on standards for testing and labeling UVA protection.1
Without any regulations, manufacturers can claim “broad-spectrum” coverage on their products, whether or not the UVA protection they offer is truly adequate.2 Other meaningful decision-making factors, such as texture, smell or color, may not be available to consumers before their first purchase of a specific product. Yet other factors, such as packaging, size and cost, usually play a smaller role in consumers’ minds. Therefore, left without other accessible, objective criteria to differentiate their products, companies naturally attempt to bolster their market share by increasing their SPF values.
Science Behind Higher SPFs
Aside from commercial reasons, the sunscreen industry has a scientific justification for raising SPFs. It is well known that the effective SPF value; i.e., the actual SPF achieved in real settings when used by the public in their daily lives, is significantly lower than the labeled SPF value. Consumers do not apply an adequate amount of sunscreen to their bodies. Instead of the 2mg/cm2 concentration used in the test setting, most people use only 0.5 to 1 mg/cm2. To compound the problem, most people fail to apply sunscreen uniformly, leaving some areas of the body covered with little or no sunscreen. Furthermore, some products on the market today may not be photostable. All of this considered, it is estimated that the effective SPF value of most sunscreens is one-third of the labeled SPF. Hence, a product with a labeled SPF of 15 may really offer only an effective SPF of 5. Thus, by using a product with an SPF of 100, consumers may really attain an SPF of 30 to protect themselves. The higher SPFs offer somewhat of a safety margin.
Some suggest that sunscreen alone doesn’t provide enough UV protection.
So, what is the harm in having products with very high SPF values? Three answers come to mind. First, a product with a very high SPF value may result in unbalanced, non-uniform UV protection, providing high UVB but low UVA protection.Ideally, sunscreens should reduce the magnitude of UVB and UVA transmission equally, as do other photoprotection strategies, such as wearing hats and clothing and seeking shade. These methods do not preferentially reduce UVB penetration while permitting a disproportionate transmission of UVA. In fact, companies adopted the UVB-dominant protection strategy only with the advent of sunscreen in the past century. Adequate UVA protection is also needed. A large body of evidence demonstrates that UVA can induce DNA damage via oxygen radical species, and that it plays a part in induction of photoaging as well as skin cancer.
Regulations Around the World
Appreciating the biological importance of UVA protection, a consensus of regulatory agencies around the world now emphasizes the need for more balanced UV protection in sunscreen. The European Commission3,4 recommends that all sunscreens have a UVA-to-UVB protection ratio of 1:3. In Great Britain, the Boots’ star criteria5 uphold a similar if not more stringent standard. In these European countries, specific guidelines are in place for testing and labeling UVA protection. Partly for this reason, these countries capped the SPF of sunscreens at 50+ more than three years ago, coinciding with the start of the SPF race in the U.S. Here, we are still waiting for similar regulatory guidance from the FDA.
It is also worth to mention that U.S. companies do not have the active ingredients necessary to create sunscreens at very high SPF values while comparably reducing UVA transmission. The best active for UVAI (340 to 400nm) protection available in the U.S. is avobenzone, but this compound must be stabilized by other actives such as octocrylene. Ingredients such as Tinosorb, which improves UVA protection, have not been approved by the FDA. Given the lack of UVA regulation as well as the paucity of UVA actives, sunscreens with very high SPF values may not offer the desired balanced of UV protection.
Aside from the potentially disproportionate UVA exposure, a second reason to eschew ultra-high SPF values is that they reinforce misprioritized photoprotective behavior. Most public health organizations issue their photoprotection directives in the following order: 1, sun avoidance; 2, seeking shade; 3, wearing clothing and hats, and 4, using sunscreen. However, the public tends to reverse this, using sunscreen first, then thinking about wearing sun-protective clothing, sunglasses, and hats, with shade-seeking and sun avoidance bringing up the rear.
In fact, many people use sunscreen as their only sun protection strategy when outdoors. The availability of high SPF sunscreen may push people even further in this direction. It may create a false sense of security, prompting some to stay out in the sun longer. The truth is, high-SPF products can delay sunburn, but there is strong evidence showing that DNA and other cellular damage can take place with sub-erythemal doses of UV exposure.
A third rationale against very high-SPF sunscreens is that introduction of innovative sun protection products to the market may be delayed as long as the industry continues to concentrate on SPF values. If SPFs are capped at 50+ as suggested in the FDA’s proposed final monograph, companies will have to rely on other strategies to distinguish their products from those of their competitors. The shift in focus might drive product improvements, such as more balanced UVA and UVB protection and enhanced photostability. Resources could be devoted to developing new formulations that are less oily or greasy, thereby increasing user compliance. And just maybe, limiting SPF values might turn research in new directions, catalyzing efforts to provide DNA and cellular repair functions in sunscreen rather than just UV protection.
The FDA plans to announce its much-anticipated sunscreen proposals any day now, although the monograph was proposed more than 30 years ago. One of the key provisions is limiting SPFs to 50+. If the FDA adopts this change, following the trend set by other countries, the SPF race should end quickly in the U.S. But if the FDA abandons the restriction, the sunscreen industry should take it upon itself to refrain from escalating the race any further. This restraint will better serve the public, and perhaps the sunscreen companies too. In the meantime, we dermatologists should focus on better educating our patients and the public about sunscreen protection, and about the potential pitfalls of using products with very high SPF values.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
As a defense against UV radiation, the amount of the brown pigment melanin in the skin increases when exposed to moderate (depending on skin type) levels of radiation; this is commonly known as a sun tan. The purpose of melanin is to absorb UV radiation and dissipate the energy as harmless heat, blocking the UV from damaging skin tissue. UVA gives a quick tan that lasts for days by oxidizing melanin that was already present and triggers the release of the melanin from melanocytes. UVB on the other hand yields a tan that takes roughly two days to develop because it stimulates the body to produce more melanin. The photochemical properties of melanin make it an excellent photoprotectant.
Sunscreen chemicals on the other hand cannot dissipate the energy of the excited state as efficiently as melanin and therefore the penetration of sunscreen ingredients into the lower layers of the skin increases the amount of free radicals and reactive oxygen species (ROS).[6]
Some sunscreen lotions now include compounds such as titanium dioxide which helps protect against UVB rays. Other UVA blocking compounds found in sunscreen include zinc oxide and avobenzone. There are also naturally occurring compounds found in rainforest plants that have been known to protect the skin from UV radiation damage, such as the fern Phlebodium aureum.
Some sunscreen chemicals produce potentially harmful substances if they are illuminated while in contact with living cells.[27][28][29] The amount of sunscreen which penetrates through the stratum corneum may or may not be large enough to cause damage. In one study of sunscreens, the authors write:
The question whether UV filters acts on or in the skin has so far not been fully answered. Despite the fact that an answer would be a key to improve formulations of sun protection products, many publications carefully avoid addressing this question.[30]
In an experiment by Hanson et al. that was published in 2006, the amount of harmful reactive oxygen species was measured in untreated and in sunscreen-treated skin. In the first 20 minutes the film of sunscreen had a protective effect and the number of ROS species was smaller. After 60 minutes, however, the amount of absorbed sunscreen was so high that the amount of ROS was higher in the sunscreen-treated skin than in the untreated skin.[6]
George Zachariadis and E Sahanidou of the Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, at Aristotle University, in Thessaloniki, Greece, have now carried out an ICP-AES analysis of several commercially available sunscreen creams and lotions. "The objective was the simultaneous determination of titanium and several minor, trace or toxic elements (aluminum, zinc, magnesium, iron, manganese, copper, chromium, lead, and bismuth) in the final products," the researchers say. They concluded that "Most of the commercial preparations that were studied showed generally good agreement to the ingredients listed on the product label." However, they also point out that the quantitative composition of the products tested cannot be assessed because the product labels usually do not provide a detailed break down of all ingredients and their concentrations. They also point out that, worryingly, their tests consistently revealed the presence of elements not cited in the product formulation, which emphasized the need for a standardized and official testing method for multi-element quality control of these products.[31]
Some epidemiological studies indicate an increased risk of malignant melanoma for the sunscreen user.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Despite these studies, no medical association has published recommendations to not use sunblock. Different meta-analysis publications have concluded that the evidence is not yet sufficient to claim a positive correlation between sunscreen use and malignant melanoma.[40][41]
Adverse health effects may be associated with some synthetic compounds in sunscreens.[42] In 2007 two studies by the CDC highlighted concerns about the sunscreen chemical oxybenzone (benzophenone-3). The first detected the chemicals in greater than 95% of 2000 Americans tested, while the second found that mothers with high levels of oxybenzone in their bodies were more likely to give birth to underweight baby girls.[43]
Concerns have been raised regarding the use of nanoparticles in sunscreen.[44] Theoretically, sunscreen nanoparticles could increase rates of certain cancers, or diseases similar to those caused by asbestos.[45] In 2006 the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia concluded a study and found:
"There is evidence from isolated cell experiments that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide can induce free radical formation in the presence of light and that this may damage these cells (photo-mutagenicity with zinc oxide). However, this would only be of concern in people using sunscreens if the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide penetrated into viable skin cells. The weight of current evidence is that they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin." [44]
[edit] Vitamin D
The use of sunscreen interferes with vitamin D production, leading to deficiency in Australia after a government campaign to increase sunscreen use.[46] Doctors recommend spending small amounts of time in the sun without sun protection to ensure adequate production of vitamin D.[47] When the UV index is greater than 3 (which occurs daily within the tropics and daily during the spring and summer seasons in temperate regions) adequate amounts of vitamin D3 can be made in the skin after only ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen. With longer exposure to UVB rays, an equilibrium is achieved in the skin, and the vitamin simply degrades as fast as it is generated.[48]
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Egyptian makeup is a very interesting subject. The Egyptians believed beauty and fashion were very important. Men and women both wore makeup. Eye makeup was probably the most characteristics of Egyptian cosmetics. Before 4,000 B. C. the Egyptians wore makeup. The art of makeup was highly skilled and widely practiced. The makeup was usually black or green to signify fertility and rebirth in the next life. They painted their lips red or blue black.
The ancient Egyptian makeup tradition of outlining the eyes with pigment to create an almond or feline shape and the importance placed upon this practice, however, transcends the Western concept of eye makeup. As we have seen to be typical of the ancient Egyptians, they took a truly holistic approach to the concept of eye makeup. Not only was it decorative and ornamental, the practice also served medicinal, magical and spiritual practices.
Eygptian makeup Eyes:
Eye make up provided psychic protection as well. The Egyptian word for eye-palette seems to derive from their word for "protect." An unadorned and thus unprotected eye was believed vulnerable to the Evil Eye. Outlining the eyes thus became a personal protective amulet drawn right upon the skin; an amulet that once applied could not be lost or misplaced.
The most popular colors of Egyptian makeup were green and black. The green was originally made from malachite, an oxide of copper. In the Old Kingdom it was applied liberally from the eyebrow to the base of the nose. In the Middle Kingdom, green eye paint continued to be used for the brows and the corners of the eyes, but by the New Kingdom it had been superseded by black. Black eye paint, kohl, was usually made of a sulfide of lead called galena.
Eygyptian makeup Galena:
Galena is still used in Egypt under the name kohl. It is easily and inexpensively purchased in the marketplace. Outside of Egypt, it is easily purchased through vendors that supply accessories to Eastern dancers. Galena possesses disinfectant and fly-deterrent properties. It is believed to offer the eyes protection from intense sun. The medical papyri frequently prescribe mesdemet for assorted complaints of the eye.
While other cosmetics such as rouge and nail polish were considered exotic body décor for special occasions, eye makeup was thought to be a necessity and an important status symbol. There were two different types of makeup generally used on the eyes, and both were not only meant to improve physical beauty, but to serve spiritual purposes as well.
Mesdemet:
Dark grey in color and usually made out of lead, you would find Egyptians wearing this on the Red Sea Coast. It was also among the materials brought back by Pharaoh Hatshepsut's famed expedition to Punt and was given in tribute as a gift to many. Of course in this day and age we would never use a lead derivative on our skin, however, in ancient times it was an acceptable and unassuming practice.
Udju:
Created from green malachite (derived from copper), this was found near Sinai. The Sinai area was considered to be ruled by the Egyptian goddess of beauty, love, and women. This made the makeup especially treasured and symbolic to female wearers, who believed it worked almost as an anti-depressant, releasing positive energy of love and happiness.
Most non-Egyptians need a lot of practice before applying traditional makeup correctly, however, the result can be truly beautiful and perfect for your African travels or for a classy costume party. Egyptian eye makeup has a permanent spot in beauty and cosmetics history, and becoming skilled in the way of the ancient queens and other rulers is a unique and fun skill to have.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Tanning beds, although artificial, still project the same harmful UV rays as the sun.
I say we shut the sun off, as it is far more dangerous than any tanning bed.
Dr.Soren's Trilithium missile should do nicely...
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
The Nayboobs fear government and its regulating and calming hand. Progressives and moderates understand government is important to keep the negative factors and unhealthy threats at bay.. Perhaps we can get rid of Nayboobs and the businesses that they operate by using the law to prove what threats they are to rational thinking, and compassion for all...... We can start by getting rid of that Hitler - loving candy man and some of the others who refuse to operate within the confines of civil discourse...... Perhaps Golub can also be brought to his knees for his work against progress too.
The Nayboobs fear government and its regulating and calming hand. Progressives and moderates understand government is important to keep the negative factors and unhealthy threats at bay.. Perhaps we can get rid of Nayboobs and the businesses that they operate by using the law to prove what threats they are to rational thinking, and compassion for all...... We can start by getting rid of that Hitler - loving candy man and some of the others who refuse to operate within the confines of civil discourse...... Perhaps Golub can also be brought to his knees for his work against progress too.
unhealthy threats....? would you go tanning at a salon or sit in the sun?
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
unhealthy threats....? would you go tanning at a salon or sit in the sun?
Sit in the sun! It's REAL!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
unhealthy threats....? would you go tanning at a salon or sit in the sun?
or shall we all read the national healthcare handbook that will enact by law, all those choices that you will be covered for.....or maybe you can opt out because you like a cigar once in a while,,,but the taxpayer doesn't want to pay for your choice....or maybe you opt out because you drink and the taxpayer doesn't want to pay for that.....or maybe you decide to take a 'dangerous job' working with asbestosis and the taxpayer doesn't want to pay for you.....
we should be very very careful what is control of commerce and what is personal choice being used as podium pucks.....just sayin'
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
