Washington is currently one of eleven states that have no regulations on indoor tanning, but carte blanche baking may soon come to an end. Two bills introduced in Olympia—House Bill 1363 and Senate Bill 5593—seek to put barriers between Washingtonians and that all natural, sun-scorched look.
If passed, the legislation would impose age restrictions (over 18 in the house bill, over 16 in the senate), staff training to identify at-risk skin types, stipulate that warning signs are made easily visible, and new cleanliness and safety standards on the tanning industry. Tanning salons would also need a $500 annual license to be able to operate in the state.
The Washington State Dermatology Association supports both bills, pointing to evidence of a link between indoor tanning and skin cancer (.pdf).
Shockingly, tanning overlords oppose the legislation.
John Overstreet, Executive Director of the Indoor Tanning Association, says that the salons already self-regulate—they don’t want to burn their customers. “People tan to achieve a certain look,” Overstreet says—and burnt isn’t the look most people are going for. The look most people are going for is called “healthy.”
Overstreet also says that what people are calling “skin cancer” are actually benign lesions (which sounds much sexier, doesn’t it?). He says there is no credible link between indoor tanning and skin cancer, but there is a strong link between skin burning and skin cancer. Therefore, when tanning under the guidance of an indoor tanning professional, there is less risk of burning than when basting outside the traditional way. Overstreet basically argues that indoor tanning is a healthy alternative to being outside.
There are 54 indoor tanning facilities in Seattle (compared to only 26 McDonalds), according to data from the advocacy organization Controlling Indoor Tanning in Youth (CITY). It seems a mix-use condo building can’t go up in this town without a tanning salon moving into the ground floor (right next to a Quizno’s).
It remains to be seen if tighter regulations will curb people’s enthusiasm for a “healthy” tan, benign skin lesions and all.
Moral of the story – the sunscreen industry, which makes kabillions of dollars selling the idea that OMG PANIC THE SUN WILL KILL YOU!!!!, is way larger and more influential than the tanning bed industry.
love that deep orange tan in a nw winter.
Well, this is just ridiculous. Everybody knows that it’s the purpose of a free society to ban exposure to harmful rays, or carcinogens, or alcohol, or sex with livestock.
There should be exceptions in the age limits for persons with prescriptions from their doctors. There are a couple of rashes/skin conditions that benefit from short tanning sessions.
Isn’t it always technically skin damage when the color of your skin changes, be it a burn or tan? I think I read that somewhere. Anyway, the overly tan look I see on a lot of females is not very attractive.
Perhaps they should also pass laws that you must have a seatbelt fastened and wear a helmet while in the tanning beds… you know, just to be nanny, er, safe.
Had this bill been enacted while I was in high school, it would have looked like a very different place.
true, dougsf!
i agree that there should be an age restriction, but other than that, just like with alcohol and cigarettes, adults should be able to make their own choices whether to use a legal product, and how much.
If you’re trying to invoke the MPAA adults-only rating, then you mean NC-17.
@5: I’m sure you did read that somewhere, possibly on the back of your SPF 10000 sun block, but it’s not true. Tanning is simply the skin releasing melanin, which protects against burns. If melanin == skin damage, than black people’s skin is completely ruined.
It’s impossible to maintain healthy levels of Vitamin D without a moderate amount of exposure to the sun (or an alternative the UV light source).
@9: Yeah, you’d think that with, what, at least 3 different film reviewers on staff at The Stranger, that mistake wouldn’t happen. Well, I guess Ryan won’t be getting his journalism credit from this internship if he can’t think to ask a film reviewer or even google it.
@10
the darkening of the skin in response to ultraviolet damage is an injury repsonse in the skin. So when a light complected person’s skin darkens it is an attempt to portect itself from further damage from ultraviolet radiation.
People of darker races have better protection from Ultraviolet damage that lighter races. to begin with
Please don’t make insulting statements about black people’s skin.
Actually ingestion of Vitamin D is a far better and more predictible way to get Vitamin D than is ultraviolet light. It seems to be one form of supplemenation that works well. In fact if you try to protect yourself from damage from UV rays, taking a vitamin D supplement every day is a very good idea.
@1
over 12,000 people will die this year in the United States from Melanoma
The World Health Organization recently showed that tanning in tanning beds increased a persons risk to develop melanoma by 80%.
So yes, ultraviolet radiation and tanning beds does kill people. Sadly, I have known some of them.
People do all sorts of things that are not good for them. We try and protect our children from smoking and drinking, but let adults make their own choices. Seems like protecting children from radiation damage and letting adults make up their own minds would be similar.
Wow, the ignorance of the tanning defenders is astounding. That color your skin gets when you step into the sun? Is from the BURNING. If your skin did not get BURNT in those tanning beds, then you didn’t get a tan.
If you believe tanning should be banned for people under 18, you probably also believe that driving, eating fast food, eating sugar, playing contact sports, and sex should be banned for people under 18. Statistically, factually, all of these activities are more dangerous to your health than tanning. It’s amazing to see how brainwashed people are about the “threat” of the sun and UV light.