Tanning salon owners feel burned by tax | ajc.com
Posted using ShareThis
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
An open letter to President Obama and our Congressional Representatives
Dear President Obama,
Dear Representative Lewis,
Dear Senator Chambliss,
Dear Senator Isakson,
“The Tan Tax” proposal in the U.S. Senate health care bill is based on total misinformation. Regardless of your stance on health care reform, a tax on indoor tanning services will hurt more people than it helps, unfairly targets women and women-owned businesses, was proposed with no due-diligence whatsoever and makes no sense at all in this bill.
Specifically:
This tax unfairly targets lower- and middle-class female consumers with a 10 percent tax, as compared to the “Bo-tax” which would be a 5 percent tax on wealthy consumers.
This tax unfairly targets female business owners. An estimated 67 percent of tanning facilities are owned and operated by women.
The math does not add up – the proposal overestimates tanning revenues by 40-50 percent. It will not raise the revenues the government says it needed.
This will cost every community in America jobs and tax revenue. In a weak economy, this large, double-digit tax will hurt thousands of small, largely female-owned businesses, forcing many to close and/or lay off employees.
Dermatology lobbyists insisted that cosmetic phototherapy procedures in their offices – which use the same equipment as tanning businesses – be exempted from the tax. By targeting indoor tanning salons, they are attempting to drive 1.5 million phototherapy clients back into their businesses.
This was a back-room deal. This tax was added into the bill without studying its affect at all when those who sell Botox injections, phototherapy procedures and cosmetic surgery lobbied lawmakers to remove a much-better studied 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery procedures from the bill — a tax that would have had less of an impact on society and would have raised more revenue to pay for this bill.
Sincerely,
Hollywood Tans of Atlanta
Dear Representative Lewis,
Dear Senator Chambliss,
Dear Senator Isakson,
“The Tan Tax” proposal in the U.S. Senate health care bill is based on total misinformation. Regardless of your stance on health care reform, a tax on indoor tanning services will hurt more people than it helps, unfairly targets women and women-owned businesses, was proposed with no due-diligence whatsoever and makes no sense at all in this bill.
Specifically:
This tax unfairly targets lower- and middle-class female consumers with a 10 percent tax, as compared to the “Bo-tax” which would be a 5 percent tax on wealthy consumers.
This tax unfairly targets female business owners. An estimated 67 percent of tanning facilities are owned and operated by women.
The math does not add up – the proposal overestimates tanning revenues by 40-50 percent. It will not raise the revenues the government says it needed.
This will cost every community in America jobs and tax revenue. In a weak economy, this large, double-digit tax will hurt thousands of small, largely female-owned businesses, forcing many to close and/or lay off employees.
Dermatology lobbyists insisted that cosmetic phototherapy procedures in their offices – which use the same equipment as tanning businesses – be exempted from the tax. By targeting indoor tanning salons, they are attempting to drive 1.5 million phototherapy clients back into their businesses.
This was a back-room deal. This tax was added into the bill without studying its affect at all when those who sell Botox injections, phototherapy procedures and cosmetic surgery lobbied lawmakers to remove a much-better studied 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery procedures from the bill — a tax that would have had less of an impact on society and would have raised more revenue to pay for this bill.
Sincerely,
Hollywood Tans of Atlanta
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
New Study Shows Tanning and Melanoma Link Scientifically Flawed
A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal "Dermato-Endocrinology" shows that there is no statistically significant connection between sunbeds and melanoma in those who can develop suntans (skin type II-VI), with increased risk centered only on those whose skin is so fair it cannot tan (skin type I).
William B. Grant, PhD, a former NASA atmospheric research scientist and founder of SUNARC, Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), re-examined the same epidemiological data used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) group from their findings in 2007 titled, "The association of use of sunbeds with cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers: a systematic review." Grant's study strongly challenges this review and argues it is both flawed and cannot be used as the basis for U.S. health policy.
The IARC review originally claimed a 15% increased risk of melanoma for ever use of sunbeds and a 75% increased risk in melanoma for respondents who had ever used or first used a tanning bed prior to age 35. Grant's findings show that with the removal of those with skin type I who possess the greatest genetic risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), there fails to be any statistically significant link between ever use of indoor tanning facilities and CMM.
ACCORDING TO GRANT'S ANALYSIS:
-- The reported 75% increased risk of melanoma for those ever having
used a sunbed prior to age 35 drops to a 25% reduced risk of melanoma
in the United States based on a scientifically-centered reanalysis of
the data in the IARC report.
-- When skin type I is omitted from the IARC analysis, the reported 15%
increased risk in melanoma fails to remain statistically significant.
This is based on a meta-analysis of the 14 studies not from the UK,
where skin type I is most prevalent.
-- The IARC study inappropriately combined four studies from northern
Europe, one from the UK, one from Canada, and one from the U.S. in the
analysis of first use of sunbeds before the age of 35 years. There are
vast differences between American and European sunbed regulations and
use. US regulations do not allow Skin Type I patrons to tan, European
tanning beds are often used at home or are unsupervised and do not
follow the regulations in the U.S. The study fails to state that its
findings are not, and should not be considered "universal findings."
"The reason this 'Skin Type I' distinction is so important is that we now know that UV avoidance among people who can develop a tan has contributed to epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency in North America, with 3 out of 4 Americans being vitamin D deficient today," said Grant. "Our public health messages about the benefits of UV radiation from any source need to recognize this."
The IARC report was a meta-analysis of epidemiologic surveys -- questionnaire surveys designed to retrospectively identify correlations, but which do not by nature identify causation. As stated in the IARC report, "Epidemiologic studies to date give no consistent evidence that use of indoor tanning facilities in general is associated with the development of melanoma or skin cancer."
Melanoma's connection with UV exposure is controversial, as research clearly shows it is more common in indoor workers than in outdoor workers and is more common on parts of the body that aren't regularly exposed to sunlight, implicating sun burning rather than regular tanning.
THE IARC REVIEW ALSO NEGLECTED TO:
-- Find a dose-response relation between the amount of sunbed use and
risk of melanoma -- which would be key to establishing a causal
relationship.
-- Recognize a growing body of literature that shows that non-burning
UVB exposure reduces the risk of CMM, and that recreational exposure
and sun burning increases risk
-- Cite other potential reasons for increases in melanoma, including:
geography, differing sunbed regulations in various locations, gender,
increased travel to sunny places, greater levels of sunscreen use, or
the nature of solar UV exposure.
IMPORTANCE OF SUNLIGHT AND VITAMIN D TO OUR SURVIVAL
Another recent study from Grant, "In Defense of the Sun," published in Dermato-Endrocrinology, suggests that raising vitamin D blood levels to 45 ng/ml could reduce mortality rates in the United States by 15% and prevent up to 400,000 premature deaths from vitamin D deficiency-related diseases annually. Such diseases include many types of cancers, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, respiratory infections, diabetes, and falls and fractures.
Vitamin D researchers today recommend vitamin D blood levels should be maintained above 40-60 ng/ml. At least 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily in addition to dietary sources and casual solar UV irradiance are required to maintain those levels. According to peer-reviewed, published research, indoor tanners have those levels, but non-tanners do not.
Indoor tanners: 42-49 ng/ml
American average: 23-25 ng/ml
In addition, two 2009 Swedish studies of indoor tanners showed a reduced risk of endometrial cancer and thrombotic events. A recent study at Boston University School of Medicine also found that blood levels of D3 were almost twice as high in sunbed users as in non-users. Sunbed users' bone densities at the hip were also significantly higher.
"There is conclusive evidence that indoor tanning in a non-burning fashion offers a tremendous source of vitamin D," Grant says. "The benefit of regular UV exposure as the body's only true natural source of sufficient vitamin D production easily outweighs the manageable risks associated with overexposure to sunlight," Grant says. "We know now through more than 2,000 papers published in 2009 that smart UV exposure and increased vitamin D levels will not only save lives, but also extend and increase our quality of life."
About Dr. William Grant:
Dr. William Grant is a former NASA PhD and founder and current Director of SUNARC (Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center). SUNARC, www.sunarc.org, is devoted to research, education, and advocacy relating to the prevention of chronic disease through changes in diet and lifestyle. Grant was formerly a senior research scientist in the fields of optical and laser remote sensing of the atmosphere and atmospheric sciences at SRI international, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the NASA Langley Research Center. Grant is author and coauthor of over 70 articles on ultraviolet irradiance and vitamin D and 100 articles on other topics in peer-reviewed journals and has contributed half a dozen chapters to additional books. He was elected fellow of the Optical Society of America in 1992. Dr. Grant is known for publishing the first paper linking diet to Alzheimer's disease, presenting strong evidence that sweeteners are an important risk factor for coronary heart disease for women, and identifying the risk of vitamin D deficiency for ten internal cancers among other ground-breaking research. Grant graduated with a Ph.D. in Physics from U.C. Berkeley.
Source: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/new-study-by-sunarc-shows,1205000.shtml#
William B. Grant, PhD, a former NASA atmospheric research scientist and founder of SUNARC, Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), re-examined the same epidemiological data used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) group from their findings in 2007 titled, "The association of use of sunbeds with cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers: a systematic review." Grant's study strongly challenges this review and argues it is both flawed and cannot be used as the basis for U.S. health policy.
The IARC review originally claimed a 15% increased risk of melanoma for ever use of sunbeds and a 75% increased risk in melanoma for respondents who had ever used or first used a tanning bed prior to age 35. Grant's findings show that with the removal of those with skin type I who possess the greatest genetic risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), there fails to be any statistically significant link between ever use of indoor tanning facilities and CMM.
ACCORDING TO GRANT'S ANALYSIS:
-- The reported 75% increased risk of melanoma for those ever having
used a sunbed prior to age 35 drops to a 25% reduced risk of melanoma
in the United States based on a scientifically-centered reanalysis of
the data in the IARC report.
-- When skin type I is omitted from the IARC analysis, the reported 15%
increased risk in melanoma fails to remain statistically significant.
This is based on a meta-analysis of the 14 studies not from the UK,
where skin type I is most prevalent.
-- The IARC study inappropriately combined four studies from northern
Europe, one from the UK, one from Canada, and one from the U.S. in the
analysis of first use of sunbeds before the age of 35 years. There are
vast differences between American and European sunbed regulations and
use. US regulations do not allow Skin Type I patrons to tan, European
tanning beds are often used at home or are unsupervised and do not
follow the regulations in the U.S. The study fails to state that its
findings are not, and should not be considered "universal findings."
"The reason this 'Skin Type I' distinction is so important is that we now know that UV avoidance among people who can develop a tan has contributed to epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency in North America, with 3 out of 4 Americans being vitamin D deficient today," said Grant. "Our public health messages about the benefits of UV radiation from any source need to recognize this."
The IARC report was a meta-analysis of epidemiologic surveys -- questionnaire surveys designed to retrospectively identify correlations, but which do not by nature identify causation. As stated in the IARC report, "Epidemiologic studies to date give no consistent evidence that use of indoor tanning facilities in general is associated with the development of melanoma or skin cancer."
Melanoma's connection with UV exposure is controversial, as research clearly shows it is more common in indoor workers than in outdoor workers and is more common on parts of the body that aren't regularly exposed to sunlight, implicating sun burning rather than regular tanning.
THE IARC REVIEW ALSO NEGLECTED TO:
-- Find a dose-response relation between the amount of sunbed use and
risk of melanoma -- which would be key to establishing a causal
relationship.
-- Recognize a growing body of literature that shows that non-burning
UVB exposure reduces the risk of CMM, and that recreational exposure
and sun burning increases risk
-- Cite other potential reasons for increases in melanoma, including:
geography, differing sunbed regulations in various locations, gender,
increased travel to sunny places, greater levels of sunscreen use, or
the nature of solar UV exposure.
IMPORTANCE OF SUNLIGHT AND VITAMIN D TO OUR SURVIVAL
Another recent study from Grant, "In Defense of the Sun," published in Dermato-Endrocrinology, suggests that raising vitamin D blood levels to 45 ng/ml could reduce mortality rates in the United States by 15% and prevent up to 400,000 premature deaths from vitamin D deficiency-related diseases annually. Such diseases include many types of cancers, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, respiratory infections, diabetes, and falls and fractures.
Vitamin D researchers today recommend vitamin D blood levels should be maintained above 40-60 ng/ml. At least 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily in addition to dietary sources and casual solar UV irradiance are required to maintain those levels. According to peer-reviewed, published research, indoor tanners have those levels, but non-tanners do not.
Indoor tanners: 42-49 ng/ml
American average: 23-25 ng/ml
In addition, two 2009 Swedish studies of indoor tanners showed a reduced risk of endometrial cancer and thrombotic events. A recent study at Boston University School of Medicine also found that blood levels of D3 were almost twice as high in sunbed users as in non-users. Sunbed users' bone densities at the hip were also significantly higher.
"There is conclusive evidence that indoor tanning in a non-burning fashion offers a tremendous source of vitamin D," Grant says. "The benefit of regular UV exposure as the body's only true natural source of sufficient vitamin D production easily outweighs the manageable risks associated with overexposure to sunlight," Grant says. "We know now through more than 2,000 papers published in 2009 that smart UV exposure and increased vitamin D levels will not only save lives, but also extend and increase our quality of life."
About Dr. William Grant:
Dr. William Grant is a former NASA PhD and founder and current Director of SUNARC (Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center). SUNARC, www.sunarc.org, is devoted to research, education, and advocacy relating to the prevention of chronic disease through changes in diet and lifestyle. Grant was formerly a senior research scientist in the fields of optical and laser remote sensing of the atmosphere and atmospheric sciences at SRI international, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the NASA Langley Research Center. Grant is author and coauthor of over 70 articles on ultraviolet irradiance and vitamin D and 100 articles on other topics in peer-reviewed journals and has contributed half a dozen chapters to additional books. He was elected fellow of the Optical Society of America in 1992. Dr. Grant is known for publishing the first paper linking diet to Alzheimer's disease, presenting strong evidence that sweeteners are an important risk factor for coronary heart disease for women, and identifying the risk of vitamin D deficiency for ten internal cancers among other ground-breaking research. Grant graduated with a Ph.D. in Physics from U.C. Berkeley.
Source: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/new-study-by-sunarc-shows,1205000.shtml#
Vitamin D From Sun Exposure Reduces Cancer Risk, Ecological Studies Find
From http://www.cancermonthly.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=244
Getting enough vitamin D can significantly reduce the risk of several different types of cancer, and ecological studies done over the past decade have confirmed that sun exposure is a critical source of this vitamin, according to a recent report in Annals of Epidemiology.
Researchers have been looking at the connection between vitamin D from sunlight and cancer risk since 1980, when researchers Cedric and Frank Garland looked at geographic maps of cancer deaths and found that mortality from colon cancer was highest in places where residents got the least amount of sun exposure (such as in high latitudes).
William B. Grant, PhD., Director of the Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center (SUNARC) in San Francisco, California, has been one of the foremost researchers on vitamin D and cancer incidence since 2000. In a 2002 study, he identified 14 different types of cancers that were linked to insufficient UVB exposure, and estimated that between 17,000 and 23,000 people die prematurely each year in the U.S. due to a lack of vitamin D from the sun.
The strongest associations between vitamin D from the sun and cancer have been with colon and breast cancers, but links have also been found with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ovarian cancer, and kidney cancer. Studies have also connected vitamin D to a reduced incidence of other diseases, such as colds and flu, coronary heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure.
People can get vitamin D in two ways: from the diet (in foods such as salmon, milk, and eggs) and through sunlight exposure (the skin produces vitamin D when exposed to the sun’s UVB rays). Yet diet supplies only about 200 to 300 IU of vitamin D each day; a fraction of the recommended dose for cancer prevention, according to Dr. Grant. “The amount of vitamin D in diet is just not sufficient to have an impact, he says.
The sun is a much more potent source of vitamin D. “In the United States in the summer, people can make 1,500 IU of vitamin D just from casual [sun] exposure,” Dr. Grant says. For people who are relatively young, as little as five to 10 minutes of midday sun exposure without sunscreen is enough to produce the 4,000 IU of vitamin D he recommends daily for disease prevention. Those who are over age 60 may need to spend a few extra minutes outside each day because their bodies don’t produce the vitamin as efficiently.
Despite the mounting evidence that a few minutes of daily sun worshipping is good for the health, dermatologists and cancer investigators have been at odds when it comes to sun advice. For years, dermatologists have been warning Americans to stay out of the sun when possible, and to wear sunscreen when exposed, to avoid developing melanoma—the deadliest form of skin cancer. Yet Dr. Grant says melanomas tend to be caused by UVA rays, which are highest during the morning hours, rather than the cancer-protective UVB rays, which increase at around 1 p.m. “You go out for a shorter time at midday and make your vitamin D, and then cover up,” he advises.
During the winter months or in more northern climates where sun exposure is generally lower, Dr. Grant advises taking vitamin D supplements to ensure that you’re getting enough.
To learn more about getting the optimum levels of vitamin D for your individual situation talk to your licensed healthcare provider.
Source:
Grant WB, Mohr SB. Ecological studies of ultraviolet B, vitamin D and cancer since 2000. Annals of Epidemiology, 2009.
Other sources:
Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? International Journal of Epidemiology. 1980;9:227-231.
Getting enough vitamin D can significantly reduce the risk of several different types of cancer, and ecological studies done over the past decade have confirmed that sun exposure is a critical source of this vitamin, according to a recent report in Annals of Epidemiology.
Researchers have been looking at the connection between vitamin D from sunlight and cancer risk since 1980, when researchers Cedric and Frank Garland looked at geographic maps of cancer deaths and found that mortality from colon cancer was highest in places where residents got the least amount of sun exposure (such as in high latitudes).
William B. Grant, PhD., Director of the Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center (SUNARC) in San Francisco, California, has been one of the foremost researchers on vitamin D and cancer incidence since 2000. In a 2002 study, he identified 14 different types of cancers that were linked to insufficient UVB exposure, and estimated that between 17,000 and 23,000 people die prematurely each year in the U.S. due to a lack of vitamin D from the sun.
The strongest associations between vitamin D from the sun and cancer have been with colon and breast cancers, but links have also been found with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ovarian cancer, and kidney cancer. Studies have also connected vitamin D to a reduced incidence of other diseases, such as colds and flu, coronary heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure.
People can get vitamin D in two ways: from the diet (in foods such as salmon, milk, and eggs) and through sunlight exposure (the skin produces vitamin D when exposed to the sun’s UVB rays). Yet diet supplies only about 200 to 300 IU of vitamin D each day; a fraction of the recommended dose for cancer prevention, according to Dr. Grant. “The amount of vitamin D in diet is just not sufficient to have an impact, he says.
The sun is a much more potent source of vitamin D. “In the United States in the summer, people can make 1,500 IU of vitamin D just from casual [sun] exposure,” Dr. Grant says. For people who are relatively young, as little as five to 10 minutes of midday sun exposure without sunscreen is enough to produce the 4,000 IU of vitamin D he recommends daily for disease prevention. Those who are over age 60 may need to spend a few extra minutes outside each day because their bodies don’t produce the vitamin as efficiently.
Despite the mounting evidence that a few minutes of daily sun worshipping is good for the health, dermatologists and cancer investigators have been at odds when it comes to sun advice. For years, dermatologists have been warning Americans to stay out of the sun when possible, and to wear sunscreen when exposed, to avoid developing melanoma—the deadliest form of skin cancer. Yet Dr. Grant says melanomas tend to be caused by UVA rays, which are highest during the morning hours, rather than the cancer-protective UVB rays, which increase at around 1 p.m. “You go out for a shorter time at midday and make your vitamin D, and then cover up,” he advises.
During the winter months or in more northern climates where sun exposure is generally lower, Dr. Grant advises taking vitamin D supplements to ensure that you’re getting enough.
To learn more about getting the optimum levels of vitamin D for your individual situation talk to your licensed healthcare provider.
Source:
Grant WB, Mohr SB. Ecological studies of ultraviolet B, vitamin D and cancer since 2000. Annals of Epidemiology, 2009.
Other sources:
Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? International Journal of Epidemiology. 1980;9:227-231.
Sunbathing 'boosts men's sex drive'
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7127197/Sunbathing-boosts-mens-sex-drive.html
A spot of sunbathing boosts men's sex drive, reveals a new study.
Testosterone levels in men's blood rise accordingly with doses of vitamin D.
The vital nutrient is produced in the body after exposure to sunlight and can also be obtained from eating oily fish and meat.
Researchers at the Medical University of Graz in Austria found men with more vitamin D per millilitre of blood had much more of the main male sexual hormone circulating than those with less.
And the average amount of testosterone over the course of the year was subject to the same fluctuations as the vitamin D level.
Both decrease from October - at the beginning of the winter months - and reach their lowest level in March because of the weaker solar radiation during this period.
Ad Brand, spokesman of the Sunlight Research Forum in Veldhoven in the Netherlands, said: "Men who ensure their body is at least sufficiently supplied with vitamin D are doing good for their testosterone levels and their libido among other things."
The new findings back up previous research that found an hour of sunshine can boost a man's testosterone by 69 percent.
Testosterone is the most important male sexual hormone. In males it is mainly responsible for the development of the sex organs, the formation and maintenance of the typical male sexual characteristics, sperm production and the controlling of male desire.
Stimulated by UV radiation, 90 per cent of vitamin D in the body is produced by the skin. An average vitamin D level of 30 nanograms per millilitre of blood (30 ng/ml) represents the scientific value from which vitamin D has a sufficiently positive effect. Optimal values are between 40 and 60 ng/ml.
A spot of sunbathing boosts men's sex drive, reveals a new study.
Testosterone levels in men's blood rise accordingly with doses of vitamin D.
The vital nutrient is produced in the body after exposure to sunlight and can also be obtained from eating oily fish and meat.
Researchers at the Medical University of Graz in Austria found men with more vitamin D per millilitre of blood had much more of the main male sexual hormone circulating than those with less.
And the average amount of testosterone over the course of the year was subject to the same fluctuations as the vitamin D level.
Both decrease from October - at the beginning of the winter months - and reach their lowest level in March because of the weaker solar radiation during this period.
Ad Brand, spokesman of the Sunlight Research Forum in Veldhoven in the Netherlands, said: "Men who ensure their body is at least sufficiently supplied with vitamin D are doing good for their testosterone levels and their libido among other things."
The new findings back up previous research that found an hour of sunshine can boost a man's testosterone by 69 percent.
Testosterone is the most important male sexual hormone. In males it is mainly responsible for the development of the sex organs, the formation and maintenance of the typical male sexual characteristics, sperm production and the controlling of male desire.
Stimulated by UV radiation, 90 per cent of vitamin D in the body is produced by the skin. An average vitamin D level of 30 nanograms per millilitre of blood (30 ng/ml) represents the scientific value from which vitamin D has a sufficiently positive effect. Optimal values are between 40 and 60 ng/ml.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Hollywood Tans named Best Tanning Salon 2009 by INsite Magazine
Hollywood Tans was honored by INsite Magazine by being named Best Tanning Salon 2009 (http://www.insiteatlanta.com/bestof2009.asp). The Best of Atlanta awards were apart of the November 2009 edition of INsite. Publishing since 1992, INsite serves as one of the longest running alternative papers in Atlanta.
Is there such a thing as "responsible tanning"?
At Hollywood Tans, we are firm believers in "responsible tanning." Responsible tanning consists of:
1. Moderation: All human activity presents risk, especially if not done in moderation. At Hollywood Tans, we recommend doing everything you can to avoid sunburn. This includes tanning in moderation, avoiding all UV exposure until a sunburn has completely healed, avoiding UV exposure entirely if you are a skin type 1 as per the Fitzpatrick Skin Type Test ("highly sensitive to UV exposure, always burns, never tans"), using SPF when tanning outdoors, and allowing our staff members to determine your exposure time when tanning. For indoor tanning, we recommend you tan only as much as needed to achieve your desired beauty / health goals, no more than once per 24 hours for no longer than the recommended exposure time as determined by your skin type.
2. FDA Regulated Equipment: All of Hollywood Tans' UV tanning equipment is regulated by the FDA and controlled by a computer operated point of sale system that regulates and records all tanning time. As a result, no tanning booth in our salon will exceed the maximum allowed exposure.
3. Parental Consent for Minors: Any customer under the age of 18 who wishes to UV tan will be required to have a parent sign their release form in person.
4. Protective eyewear: As per Georgia and federal requirements, customers must wear approved protective eyewear while tanning indoors. When proper eyewear is not used during the tanning process, the potential for eye injury is greatly increased. Some eye injuries and disorders include Photokeratitis (Cornea Sunburn), Cataracts, Pterygium (Abnormal tissue growth) and damage to the cornea. Towels, scarves or closed eyelids do not adequately protect eyes from ultraviolet exposure.
5. UV-Free Tanning: While we at Hollywood Tans promote responsible UV tanning, we also offer the 100% UV-Free Instant Tan powered by Mystic in each of our salons.
Hollywood Tans of Buckhead named Best Atlanta Tanning Salon 2009 by Citysearch
Hollywood Tans of Buckhead was recently honored by Citysearch.com by being named Best Atlanta Tanning Salon 2009 as part of the Best of Citysearch 2009 awards!Citysearch is the essential local guide for living bigger, better and smarter in your city. Covering more than 75,000 locations nationwide, Citysearch combines in-the-know editorial recommendations, candid user comments and expert advice from local businesses. Citysearch keeps users connected to the most popular and undiscovered places all over Atlanta.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)