Utah lawmakers restrict teen tanning bed use

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bill Jr Sandy, 00
    March 1, 2012 4:02 p.m.


    Your assuming that there is conclusive evidence that UV light or sunbed usage is harmful to the human body. There is much research that would suggest just the opposite. In fact if the use of a Sunbed was so dangerous, why do such a large percentage of Dermatologist use them in their practices on a daily basis? Many of these sessions for pearly cosmedic conditions, non life threatening. Charged to an insurance company at approx. $100 per session. 20 times the cost at a salon. With millions being spent each year by sunscreen/SPF companies in sun scare campaigns it is easy to see why people questioning UV exposure. If these same companies had a patten on the sun or sold sunshine, I would suggest we would be recieving a much different message from them????? So when these different groups throw statements around about a 75% increased chance of getting melanoma if these young people use sunbeds in their teen years, we all should take the time to look at the facts and understand them before jumping on the Government can make better decisions for our children band Wagon. Approx. 175,000 diagnosed melanoma cases in the US in 2011, Far less than 1% of population, even using the 75% greater risk if using a sunbed in teen years, would still result in basically a less than 1% chance of melanoma. Not quite the epedemic that most would lead us to believe.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    March 1, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    @Bill Jr

    Your notions are admirable, but what if parents won't be parents? What happens next? Do we let those unfortunate kids destroy themselves and we shrug our shoulders and say "oh well"? Or do we owe it to them to try to help?

  • Bill Jr Sandy, 00
    Feb. 29, 2012 9:50 p.m.

    With the current law being in place now for 5 years, without any effort on the government's part to perform any enforcement, There was no funding for the current law for enforcement and there is none for the new proposed bill.
    Surely with occasional enforcement (sting operations) by the Board of Health, the current law would achieve what was intended. The result of the governments lack of enforcement of their own bill is actually what is supporting the oppositions argument for the need of a new bill. We know this makes no sense because they will not enforce their new bill either........Someone needs to point out this nonsensical thinking.

    Because legislation was originally passed, but not enforced, further bad legislation is the result which further supports the fact that they are creating an unfair business advantage for non adhering salons. If these 2 arguments were presented, I would like to have thought that this bill could have been stopped in the House Committee. For a legislator to have voted for this bill, after hearing these arguments, they would have:

    1) ignored the fact that the current bill is not being enforced
    2) be willing to support a bill that has no funding for enforcement
    2) be willing to pass legislation that supports an unfair advantage of one business over another.

    Our Government continues to over step their bounds. Parents should parent, Government needs to step aside and quit trying to fix everything for us, we all know how that Ends

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 29, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    Where is the article about the legislators shelving the smaller classroom bill?