In Brazil, the tanning was banned

[yonooah]

Hi
I am one of many people who are suffering with this prohibition.
Here in Brazil we do not have a strong association to address certain abuses against those who work in this area.
I ask if anyone knows some influential people and you can publish something about this ban to the whole world knows what is happening here, that's not fair.
No country has adopted the ban after the IARC published their research.
Please help us, we are not able to work.

[Chris]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

[Chris]

Brazil outlaws tanning machines | GlobalPost

[yonooah]

Thank you for showing other people what is happening to us.

[Beat]

Hello yonooan,

where are you from exactly? Could you tell us more about Brazilian tanning market?

It seems that since they (ANVISA) haven't control on tanning biz instead put rules they simply shut down the business.

[yonooah]

I AM from Brasil, i live in são Paulo.
My mom has a beauty salon in Balneário Camboriú, and we bought a tanning bed about five months ago.
I already use tanning since 2002.
What ANVISA not speak for the people is that UV rays are the same as the sun, so people think something is harmful to health.
We are trying to reverse the situation legally.
What I asked you was to make a larger number of people in the world know what is happening here, that's not fair.
We are fighting for the right to choose.
Excuse my English, because in reality I speak Portuguese and I hope you understand.
Thank you .

[yonooah]

And you are right, they don't have an effective control, so it's easy shut down the biz.

[Beat]

I'm from Italy, so don't worry about not perfect English ;-)

I've been in Brazil and it seems that your government have bigger problem than tanning market.

You can find a good document to submit to ANVISA: http://www.tantoday.com/forums/tanni...therlands.html

[yonooah]

Thank you.
When I tried to open the lik this was the answer:
yonooah, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Please send the text to my e-mail: yonooah@gmail.com
Thank you.</SPAN></SPAN>

[eileen]

Originally Posted by yonooah

Thank you.
When I tried to open the lik this was the answer:
yonooah, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Please send the text to my e-mail: yonooah@gmail.com
Thank you.</SPAN></SPAN>

You can go directly to this link instead. If for some reason you can't open it I'll send you the full text.

http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/...es/200911E.pdf

[yonooah]

I did it, thanks

[PL2]

Yonooah, please keep us updated.

[yonooah]

I'll.
Thank you.

[Jon Engen VBG]

I just don't understand how the country of Brazil could allow this with no concrete evidence of anything. Doesn't seem right

[Ezliving_Jim]

Originally Posted by Jon Engen VBG

I just don't understand how the country of Brazil could allow this with no concrete evidence of anything. Doesn't seem right

I almost reacted to your comment with a lobbed political bomb... but you probably wouldn't understand.

In any conflict between politics and science, science loses. I'll leave it at that.

[engfant]

Originally Posted by Chris

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

I like it!

[dougl020]

Originally Posted by Ezliving_Jim

In any conflict between politics and science, science loses. I'll leave it at that.

I guess maybe that's why Sarah Palin doesn't push the positive effects of indoor tanning onto the public...its sad

[solarmeter®]

Originally Posted by Chris
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
I like it!

Is that the first time you've heard that famous quote Egg? If so your public schools in MA have miserably failed you. That is half the reason us right-wingers keep fighting government power grabs... and why we defend bearing of arms as a last resort.

Jesus... no wonder you've been a liberal so long... you've been deprived of a proper historical perspective by worthless schools run by libs.

Yonooah: I will post to you an excellent paper from Netherlands refuting the rediculous IARC propaganda. Maybe you will need to translate it on AltaVista bablefish... Here is a copy in English:

Gezondheidsraad
H e a l t h C o u n c i l o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s
To the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning
and the Environment (VROM)
P.O. Box 16052 V i s i t ing Address
NL-2500 BB The Hague Parnassusplein 5
Telephone +3 1 ( 7 0 ) 340 57 30 NL-2511 VX The Hague
Telefax +31 (70) 34 0 7 5 23 The Nethe r l a nds
E-mail: e.van.rongen@gr. n l www.gr.nl
Subject : Advisory letter UV radiation and sunbeds
Our reference : U 5556/EvR/iv/062-G21 Publication nr. 2009/11E
Enclosure(s) : 1
Date : November 12, 2009
Dear Minister,
On 29 July 2009, various media reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) had classified the use of tanning devices (sunbeds) that emit ultraviolet (UV) radiation as
‘carcinogenic to humans’.1 Since 1992 the classification for ‘the use of sunlamps and sunbeds’ and
for UV radiation was ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’, whereas solar radiation was classified as
‘carcinogenic to humans’.2
The Health Council of the Netherlands published advisory reports on UV radiation in 1986
and 1994, the first of which also contained recommendations for responsible use of tanning
devices.3,4 In the light of these earlier advisory reports, the Health Council would like to address
your ministry’s request for further details on the background and significance of the revised IARC
classification and of the scientific knowledge available on the effects of UV radiation.
This advisory letter has been drawn up by the Standing Committee on Radiation and Health;
details of the standing committee's composition are provided in annex A.
It should be noted first that practically the entire population is unavoidably exposed to UV
radiation from the sun. Only people who are practically always indoors and people whose entire
body is almost completely covered by clothing are subject to minimum exposure. People also
intentionally expose themselves to UV radiation when sunbathing and when using sunbeds.
Medical exposure to sources of artificial UV radiation is not dealt with in this advisory letter.
Previous Health Council advisory reports
In the advisory report of 1986 the Health Council concluded that exposing the skin to UV radiation
had both positive and negative effects on health.4 The production of vitamin D is a positive effect,
whereas negative effects include the formation of erythema (sunburn) when a certain threshold
dose is exceeded; acceleration of the skin’s aging process; certain effects on the immune system;
and increased risk of skin carcinomas. A relationship to increased risk of melanomas was also
Gezondheidsraad
H e a l t h C o u n c i l o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s
Subject : Advisory letter UV radiation and sunbeds
Our reference : U 5556/EvR/iv/062-G-21 Publication no. 2009/11E
Page : 2
Date : November 12, 2009
P.O Box 16052 V i s i t ing Address
NL-2500 BB The Hague Parnassusplein 5
Telephone +31 (70)340 57 3 0 NL-2511 BX The Hague
Telefax +31 (070)3 40 75 23 The Nethe r l a nds
E-mail: e.van.rongen@gr. n l www.gr.nl
suspected but, owing to a lack of quantitative data, the Committee that drafted the report did not
consider the formation of melanomas in the exposure limits it proposed. The advisory report of
1994 confirms these conclusions and indicates that more information is available on factors that
possibly play a role in the relationship between exposure to UV radiation and the formation of
melanomas.3
Both advisory reports stated that exposing the eye to UV radiation exceeding a threshold dose
results in inflammation of the cornea and conjunctiva (snow-blindness or welders’ eyes). Exposure
to UV radiation also increases the likelihood of cataracts.
The Health Council’s advisory report of 1986 proposed that the annual radiation dose from
the use of tanning devices should not exceed 20 kJ/m2 (= 200 SED1); this dose is equivalent to 28
hours exposure to UV index 8, which is a measure of the maximum achievable dose of UV
radiation from sunlight in the Netherlands.6,7 At the time, this annual dose amounted to
approximately half of the difference in radiation dose between the exposure levels of indoor and
outdoor workers in the Netherlands. The risk of skin carcinomas for indoor workers would
therefore remain much lower than that for outdoor workers, who are generally not interested in
additional tanning.8 Besides limiting annual exposure, it was also deemed important to limit
individual exposure to avoid sunburn, as sunburn can increase the risk of melanomas in particular.
The advisory report also provides recommendations for the intensity and frequency of consecutive
exposures and the requirements which tanning devices should meet.
1 The SED (Standard Erythema Dose), 100 J/m2, is approximately half of the UV dose that causes reddening
of white skin that has not been exposed to UV radiation for a considerable period of time. This is currently
the internationally accepted measure for the erythema-effective dose.5 The Health Council’s various
advisory reports used various definitions. For example, the Minimum Erythema Dose (MED) was used in
the 1986 report and was defined as ‘the radiation dose that produces erythema in a white person’s lightly
pigmented skin that has not recently been exposed to UV radiation.’ The report recommended that a value of
200 J/m2 should be adopted for this. Because the individual minimum erythema dose depends on many
factors, the Health Council’s advisory 1994 report recommended using the ‘Standard Minimum Erythema
Dose’ (sMED) as the unit for the erythema-effective dose. It was stated that sMED exposure within a period
of 8 hours generally resulted in noticeable reddening of the skin of white-skinned subjects who had not been
exposed to UV radiation for a considerable period of time. It was recommended that a value of 250 J/m2
should be adopted for this.
Gezondheidsraad
H e a l t h C o u n c i l o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s
Subject : Advisory letter UV radiation and sunbeds
Our reference : U 5556/EvR/iv/062-G-21 Publication no. 2009/11E
Page : 3
Date : November 12, 2009
P.O Box 16052 V i s i t ing Address
NL-2500 BB The Hague Parnassusplein 5
Telephone +31 (70)340 57 3 0 NL-2511 BX The Hague
Telefax +31 (070)3 40 75 23 The Nethe r l a nds
E-mail: e.van.rongen@gr. n l www.gr.nl
Given that exposure to UV radiation from sunlight is almost unavoidable and certainly cannot
be regulated, the Health Council’s opinion was and continues to be that sunbathing should be done
sensibly and in moderation, and this advice also applies to the use of tanning devices. The
information issued by Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding) is in line with this advice.9
Recent scientific developments
Science has progressed since the Health Council’s last publication on UV radiation in 1994. More
information is now available about the negative effects and particularly the relationship to the
formation of melanomas.10 There is still considerable uncertainty about the degree to which UV
radiation and especially sunbeds may be the cause of melanomas.11-13 Various epidemiological
studies have found a link between the occurrence of melanomas and the use of tanning devices,
especially after their use by young people below the age of approximately 35.10 This finding was
one of the main reasons for the IARC’s reclassification of the use of sunbeds.1
On the other hand, more information is also available on possible positive effects. Vitamin D
production in the skin during exposure to UV radiation is an established fact. In 2008 the Health
Council produced an advisory report on vitamin D in which it concluded that limited exposure to
UV radiation from sunlight is an important source of vitamin D, in addition to that obtained from
dietary intake, whether or not fortified with vitamin supplements.14 The required duration and
degree of exposure in the Netherlands to ensure an adequate vitamin D supply depends on the
intensity of the UV radiation; the area of skin exposed; the type of skin; and the extent to which
the skin is accustomed to exposure to UV radiation. The vitamin D report states that daily
exposure of the head and hands to the midday sun for around 15 minutes in the period from April
to October results in sufficient vitamin D production for people with white skin that is
unaccustomed to exposure. In practice this situation can only occur on a cloudless day in April or
May. In all other cases people must be exposed for a longer period or must expose a larger area of
skin.
There are also increasing indications that exposure to UV radiation may help counteract some
forms of cancer other than skin cancer, possibly as a result of vitamin D production.15-18 However,
the details on this are not sufficient to enable an estimate of the required degree of exposure to UV
radiation from the sun or from artificial sources.
Gezondheidsraad
H e a l t h C o u n c i l o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s
Subject : Advisory letter UV radiation and sunbeds
Our reference : U 5556/EvR/iv/062-G-21 Publication no. 2009/11E
Page : 4
Date : November 12, 2009
P.O Box 16052 V i s i t ing Address
NL-2500 BB The Hague Parnassusplein 5
Telephone +31 (70)340 57 3 0 NL-2511 BX The Hague
Telefax +31 (070)3 40 75 23 The Nethe r l a nds
E-mail: e.van.rongen@gr. n l www.gr.nl
The IARC classification
IARC has divided a large number of chemical substances, complex mixtures, workplace
exposures, physical and biological agents and lifestyle factors into particular classes on the basis
of scientific evidence on whether or not they are carcinogenic to humans.2 Five groups are
recognised:
�� Group 1: carcinogenic to humans
�� Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans
�� Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to humans
�� Group 3: not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans
�� Group 4: probably not carcinogenic to humans
IARC evaluates whether a given agent (such as UV radiation) or process (such as the use of
sunbeds) is capable of causing cancer under certain conditions. An agent or process that can do so
constitutes a hazard, but no statement is made about the extent of the hazard. IARC does not
determine the risk in terms of the risk of cancer.
The designation of an agent or process as carcinogenic to humans means that it may cause
cancer in certain, but not necessarily in all circumstances. The risk of cancer depends on the nature
of the agent or process and the exposure circumstances, while the types of cancers and their
mortality rate will differ. It would therefore be incorrect to simply compare the risks of agents and
processes that have been placed in the same group. The risk asbestos poses to public health is
completely different from the risk associated with the use of sunbeds: although both asbestos and
the use of sunbeds now have been placed in IARC group 1, the nature of the exposure is different;
the size of the risk is different (a relative risk of less than 2 for UV radiation, as against a relative
risk of approximately 10 for asbestos and mesothelioma and approximately 2 for asbestos and lung
cancer); the distribution of exposure among the population differs and the nature of the severity of
the related forms of cancer is different.
Epidemiological data
IARC’s decision to classify the use of sunbeds as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ is based on an analysis
of scientific literature by a working group IARC set up for that purpose.10 The analysis was
Gezondheidsraad
H e a l t h C o u n c i l o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s
Subject : Advisory letter UV radiation and sunbeds
Our reference : U 5556/EvR/iv/062-G-21 Publication no. 2009/11E
Page : 5
Date : November 12, 2009
P.O Box 16052 V i s i t ing Address
NL-2500 BB The Hague Parnassusplein 5
Telephone +31 (70)340 57 3 0 NL-2511 BX The Hague
Telefax +31 (070)3 40 75 23 The Nethe r l a nds
E-mail: e.van.rongen@gr. n l www.gr.nl
published as a review and was mainly based on data from (a few) epidemiological studies of the
incidence of melanomas among sunbed users.
However, the Health Council takes the view that it is not possible to state with certainty that
the use of sunbeds is responsible for an increased incidence of melanomas and, if it is, under
which circumstances this applies with regard to, for example, the frequency of use, the age and
skin type of users, and the types of sunbed lamps. However, it has become apparent that there is a
higher incidence of melanomas among people in higher social classes,19 possibly because people
in those classes can more readily afford to take holidays in sunny climates and to use sunbeds.
Nevertheless, it is also conceivable that other characteristics may explain the increased incidence
of melanomas among sunbed users. Available data confirm the suspicion that people who use
sunbeds also display behaviour in the sun that is associated with an increased risk of melanomas.20
This may therefore make it more difficult to distinguish between these risk factors. Contrary to
IARC’s classification, the Health Council therefore has reservations about the scientific evidence
that the use of sunbeds significantly contributes to the incidence of melanomas, regardless of the
type of equipment and how it is used.
The UV spectrum of sunbeds and solar radiation
UV radiation from the sun or sunbeds may affect health positively as well as negatively. The
nature and intensity of UV radiation determine whether an effect occurs; these variables differ
considerably in time and place. In the case of the sun, the time of day (sun’s height), time of year
and atmospheric conditions such as cloud cover are important. For sunbeds the type of lamp and
possibly the housing are important.
The UV spectrum is divided into three wavelength ranges: UV-A (315-400 nm2), UV-B (280-
315 nm) and UV-C (100-280 nm).21 On the longwave side the UV range is delimited by violetblue
light (wavelengths exceeding 400 nm) and on the shortwave side it is delimited by the range
of X-ray and gamma radiation (wavelengths of less than 10 nm).
Radiation from the sun reaching the earth’s surface does not contain UV-C: this radiation is
filtered out by the ozone in the stratosphere. UV-C is also filtered out of the radiation emitted by
sunbed lamps and the same generally applies to a large percentage of the UV-B radiation.
2 A nanometre (nm) is one thousand-millionth (10-9) of a metre.
Gezondheidsraad
H e a l t h C o u n c i l o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s
Subject : Advisory letter UV radiation and sunbeds
Our reference : U 5556/EvR/iv/062-G-21 Publication no. 2009/11E
Page : 6
Date : November 12, 2009
P.O Box 16052 V i s i t ing Address
NL-2500 BB The Hague Parnassusplein 5
Telephone +31 (70)340 57 3 0 NL-2511 BX The Hague
Telefax +31 (070)3 40 75 23 The Nethe r l a nds
E-mail: e.van.rongen@gr. n l www.gr.nl
Radiation in the UV-B band has the largest impact with regard to biological effects such as
sunburn, the occurrence of skin carcinomas, tanning and vitamin D production. On the other hand,
the amount of UV-A radiation energy emitted by the sun and sunbeds is much higher than the
amount of UV-B radiation energy emitted.
Protection of the skin against UV radiation is primarily achieved by skin thickening; this
makes it less easy for UV radiation to reach the sensitive cells in the lower layers of skin. Skin
thickening mainly arises through exposure to UV-B and hardly at all through exposure to UV-A.
Tanning also provides some degree of protection through screening and the absorption of UV
radiation by the pigment, and especially through the capture of reactive substances (radicals)
generated by UV. Rapid tanning is caused by photochemical conversion of pigments under the
influence of UV-A. This type of tan disappears quickly and provides no protection against later
exposure to UV radiation. Slow tanning is caused by an increase in the production of pigment,
especially under the influence of UV-B. This type of tanning provides some protection against UV
radiation (but less protection than skin thickening in white skinned people) and it only disappears
over several months.
The solar spectrum falling on the earth’s surface when the sun is high comprises
approximately 95% UV-A and 5% UV-B. The traditional sun lamp radiated UV-B percentages in
the tens and higher. With the emergence of sunbeds in the 1980s the tendency was towards purer
UV-A sources: tanning without burning. However, this type of tanning provided no protection
against UV radiation during sunbathing. In recent years lamps have therefore started to be used in
sunbeds that emit a limited amount (around 1%) of UV-B radiation and solarium operators point
out the similarity to solar radiation.22
Conclusions
A reasonable reduction of the risk can be achieved by using sunbeds in accordance with the
guidelines that the Health Council set out in 1986, and which were also accepted by the sector at
the time.23 Given the practical considerations, the Health Council’s opinion was and continues to
be: sunbathe sensibly and in moderation. As yet, there is no justification for making a distinction
between sunbathing and the use of sunbeds.
Gezondheidsraad
H e a l t h C o u n c i l o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s
Subject : Advisory letter UV radiation and sunbeds
Our reference : U 5556/EvR/iv/062-G-21 Publication no. 2009/11E
Page : 7
Date : November 12, 2009
P.O Box 16052 V i s i t ing Address
NL-2500 BB The Hague Parnassusplein 5
Telephone +31 (70)340 57 3 0 NL-2511 BX The Hague
Telefax +31 (070)3 40 75 23 The Nethe r l a nds
E-mail: e.van.rongen@gr. n l www.gr.nl

[engfant]

First off ol man, I'm not any of your infantile labels that work for porno whores who make jack off movies and claim to be good Christians.

Second, MASS SCHOOLS are the problem??? Did you have books in your school or was the good word passed on verbally like in times past? (where did your buddy Bush go to school again? My home town of Andover? Yeah that's right)

Actually I think your response from the abyss speaks for itself.

[solarmeter®]

Huh? Have you had too many beers tonight?

Then they came for EggFant and....

ol man © minituretanman on tansquawk. Now you are copying him.. copycat.