Sunbeds to be banned in Ireland!

lubie76

Mary Harney looking for an outright ban on Sunbeds but has to get the okay through Eu approval first...
As skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in Ireland she states this could save millions in the health budget.

RTE report: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0824/cancer.html

I say about time! What do other people think?

KTRIC

If it'll stop the orange Umpa-Lumpa people I'm for it.


I like my pasty white Irish skin the way it is.

maggy_thatcher

And the nanny state bites again.

The only person these sunbeds potentially harm is the user of them -- why should it be up to the government to control who does what?

geuro

all for it, it's common sense..

lubie76

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

And the nanny state bites again.

The only person these sunbeds potentially harm is the user of them -- why should it be up to the government to control who does what?

Ya, but what about the millions spent on skin cancer services every year that could be spent in other areas.

Orion

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

And the nanny state bites again.

The only person these sunbeds potentially harm is the user of them -- why should it be up to the government to control who does what?

I agree wholeheartedly. As long as people who get skin cancer and who have used sunbeds forego any public health care. Feel free to use them but don't expect others to pay for it.

TheInquisitor

I think sunbeds are a load of crap and very dangerous when used excessively but im sick of everything we do being monitered and curtailed. Humans by their nature always use things to excess. Should we ban chocolate, beer and pretty much regulate everything we irish are allowed do. According to a study done by the Israelies. Ireland is the most regulated nanny state in the world and I for one am sick of it!

maggy_thatcher

lubie76 wrote: »

Ya, but what about the millions spent on skin cancer services every year that could be spent in other areas.

Introduce a clause in health services...if it's a self-inflicted injury, you have to pay for it yourself (or let your health insurance cover it).

As long as the person using these sunbeds is kept informed of the risks (the same way as smokers and drinkers are), I don't see what harm it does.

Miaireland

Macros42 wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly. As long as people who get skin cancer and who have used sunbeds forego any public health care. Feel free to use them but don't expect others to pay for it.

I totally agree. I have been spending lots of time in the Oncology section of our local hospital recently and am seeing lots of young people coming in with skin cancer. I have spoken to lots of them and many were regular sun bed users.

cruizer101

lubie76 wrote: »

Ya, but what about the millions spent on skin cancer services every year that could be spent in other areas.

I agree to a certain extent, but its still not going to stop idiots going out in the sun and exposing themselves witout suncream.

What is really needed is education. Like when you used to get talks about drugs in school, they should go in and shock the young with pics of what can happen.

Also I had heard of and age limit which I would be in full favour of, its a disgace when mothers get their daughters tanned for communion and the likes.

idunnoutellme

I think it is ridiculous.
It is up to the user to decide for themselves if they want the risk.
Sure the pill carries a risk of cancer, cigarettes do, alcohol, cured meat, cosmetics......what will they propose to ban next? :mad:

pinkheels88

I think they should be banned. Any step to prevent cancer is a step forward. However I can't see this coming in without a lot of hassle, the most dedicated of users, have sunbeds in their home :eek:

maggy_thatcher

pinkheels88 wrote: »

I think they should be banned. Any step to prevent cancer is a step forward. However I can't see this coming in without a lot of hassle, the most dedicated of users, have sunbeds in their home :eek:

Any step? So you'd be in favour of banning aircraft (each flight is equivalent to a chest X-ray of radiation), alcohol, tobacco, living anywhere there is even a trace of radon gas, going outside, cars, pretty much any form of food can have carcinogens in them...essentially good luck trying to "prevent" cancer.

In an ideal world, I believe we should have a live and let-live policy. If you aren't doing anybody else any harm, then go and do what you enjoy.

Orlee

Too right ...

maggy_thatcher

Also - I took a look at the WHO mortality fact sheet -- skin cancer doesn't even make the top 10 in terms of causes of death in this country. Why not focus our efforts on heart disease and respiratory infection first?

Tabnabs

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Any step? So you'd be in favour of banning aircraft (each flight is equivalent to a chest X-ray of radiation), alcohol, tobacco, living anywhere there is even a trace of radon gas, going outside, cars, pretty much any form of food can have carcinogens in them...essentially good luck trying to "prevent" cancer.

Bullsh*t, scaremongering and sensationalist of the source. :rolleyes:

lubie76

idunnoutellme wrote: »

I think it is ridiculous.
It is up to the user to decide for themselves if they want the risk.
Sure the pill carries a risk of cancer, cigarettes do, alcohol, cured meat, cosmetics......what will they propose to ban next? :mad:

Yes but Skin Cancer is by far the most common cancer in Ireland and also one of the most preventable. Ban sunbeds = Cut risk.
Imagine the amount of money it would cost the government to cut smoking,drinking etc related cancers whereas what would be the big deal if sunbeds were banned. A few beauty salons, gyms etc would be down a few quid. So what if it saves thousand of lives?

Might also have the effect of making people realise than sun exposure must be dangerous if government are actually banning them.

maggy_thatcher

Dyflin wrote: »

Bullsh*t, scaremongering and sensationalist of the source. :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/380274.stm

Molly30

Well by the same logic, they should definitely at the very least ban cigarettes and alcohol as they cause as much cost to the health service., probably more! They won't do that though because they bring in too much money in duty!

lubie76

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Also - I took a look at the WHO mortality fact sheet -- skin cancer doesn't even make the top 10 in terms of causes of death in this country. Why not focus our efforts on heart disease and respiratory infection first?

In terms of mortality it may not be in the top 10 but in terms of morbidity it is still the most common cause of cancer. While it is quite easy to cure if caught early there is still a huge amount of money been used to cure it.

Suzannem

I hope that they are banned.
I went to a sunbed place in town with a friend and was waiting for her, I seen all these people come out within 10mins of waitingm they looked like regular sunbed users. they had tans but there skin looked so dry...if they want to look good in the long term they should quit using them, because they will all have lots wrinkles by there 30's & 40's

EJLL

I don't think an outtright ban on sunbeds is acceptable. Proper education in relation to usage and possibly imposing time limitations per session within salons would be more appropriate. Obviously people could just top up their credit again, but at least they are made aware when paying for a session that there is a health risk with longer time periods under UV. It's unfair for those who moderately use sunbeds to see an outright ban. A small amount of UV exposure can exhibit positive effects on people suffering from acne.

Kintarō Hattori

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I think sunbeds are a load of crap and very dangerous when used excessively but im sick of everything we do being monitered and curtailed. Humans by their nature always use things to excess. Should we ban chocolate, beer and pretty much regulate everything we irish are allowed do. According to a study done by the Israelies. Ireland is the most regulated nanny state in the world and I for one am sick of it!

Have you a link?

maggy_thatcher

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Have you a link?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/wersquore-the-ultimate-lsquonanny-statersquo-1304258.html

pinkheels88

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Any step? So you'd be in favour of banning aircraft (each flight is equivalent to a chest X-ray of radiation), alcohol, tobacco, living anywhere there is even a trace of radon gas, going outside, cars, pretty much any form of food can have carcinogens in them...essentially good luck trying to "prevent" cancer.

In an ideal world, I believe we should have a live and let-live policy. If you aren't doing anybody else any harm, then go and do what you enjoy.

While I can agree with your "live and let-live policy", I don't appreciate your scepticism. I'm sure anyone who has a relative/friend diasgnosed with cancer would agree that we should be trying our best to prevent new cases. I'm not saying we should impose bans on cars/planes etc. (reality check) but where we can do something we should. Sunbeds are NOT a necessity. We can live without them.

maggy_thatcher

pinkheels88 wrote: »

While I can agree with your "live and let-live policy", I don't appreciate your scepticism. I'm sure anyone who has a relative/friend diasgnosed with cancer would agree that we should be trying our best to prevent new cases. I'm not saying we should impose bans on cars/planes etc. (reality check) but where we can do something we should. Sunbeds are NOT a necessity. We can live without them.

All I think is that as long as the user of the sunbed knows the risks they are taking, then if they get cancer as a result; it's their problem and theirs alone. It's not the rest of the worlds responsibility to say "it's for your own good - we're not going to let you do that". I do sympathise with friends/relatives of those who get cancer, but it's exactly the same as friends/relatives of smokers - or those who simply go out without sunscreen - the solution to the problem is education, not control.

pinkheels88

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

All I think is that as long as the user of the sunbed knows the risks they are taking, then if they get cancer as a result; it's their problem and theirs alone. It's not the rest of the worlds responsibility to say "it's for your own good - we're not going to let you do that". I do sympathise with friends/relatives of those who get cancer, but it's exactly the same as friends/relatives of smokers - or those who simply go out without sunscreen - the solution to the problem is education, not control.

Ah see, you sound much more sympathetic in this post. Sorry, I thought the opposite. You're making a fair point.

idunnoutellme

lubie76 wrote: »

Yes but Skin Cancer is by far the most common cancer in Ireland and also one of the most preventable. Ban sunbeds = Cut risk.
Imagine the amount of money it would cost the government to cut smoking,drinking etc related cancers whereas what would be the big deal if sunbeds were banned. A few beauty salons, gyms etc would be down a few quid. So what if it saves thousand of lives?

Might also have the effect of making people realise than sun exposure must be dangerous if government are actually banning them.

If you want to ban sunbeds you'll have to ban sun holidays too...how dare people go out and put themselves under the risk of skin cancer *sarcasm*

The Big Red Button

I've never used a sunbed, and would discourage my friends from using them.

However I think banning them altogether can't really be the best solution. Aside from anything, being practical, where are they all going to go?! Can you imagine the cost and logistics of collecting and disposing of every sunbed in the country? I'd imagine a fair few of them would end up in peoples' homes, where they would be used by the owners without due care or supervision.

I would however be in favour of very strict regulation of the sunbed industry. Strictly enforced age limits, strict limitations on the time spent on them, and plenty of education on how dangerous they are. How can this be paid for? Perhaps it wouldn't a popular choice, but how about a tax paid per minute on a sunbed. This would deter use of sunbeds particularly amongst younger people, and raise revenue for the government at the same time.

Also, the owners of the tanning places should be trained to check users' skin for signs of damage (irregular moles etc) and be obliged to do so at each visit.

Erica-smiley

I use sunbeds a good bit..... But its my choice, like it would be if I wanted to smoke or drink!! :rolleyes:

Carawaystick

pinkheels88 wrote: »

I think they should be banned. Any step to prevent cancer is a step forward. However I can't see this coming in without a lot of hassle, the most dedicated of users, have sunbeds in their home :eek:

Why doesn't the independent TD Harney introduce the cervical cancer vaccine - like she said she would?
Or ban smoking tobacco - these two things would reduce cancer also.

rororoyourboat

Like others have said, so so so many things cause cancer. Cigarettes and alcohol for example. Why not ban them? Because the government makes too much money from them. Cancer is indeed such a tradgedy and I hope I'm not offending anyone with this post but...

I really don't know why they are targeting sun beds in particular. Education and stricter licencing would work better, in my (very humble!) opinion. Maybe the government could tax them or something, sure wouldn't they only love to take more money from us? :pac:

If they were banned, something else would just replace them - I've heard of people injecting stuff into their skin to make them more tanned :eek:

renraw

I used to work for a "particluar" company that had sunbeds all round the country and I have to say, its about time they did ban the things. They are highly addictive and do irreparable damage to the skin and if goggles are not worn to cover eyes, retinal damage is highly possible. Banning them is a great idea.

Red Alert

It's not so much the larger operators I worry about - it's the unsupervised coin-operated units like in the gym that are an accident waiting to happen.

There are also an awful lot of dodgy machines operated by dodgy operators down the country, particularly in the back of hairdressing salons. Many of these have non-existent maintenance, poor staff training and don't have any electronic means of enforcing maximum exposure times.

In short, they should ban them all! One option might be to refit some of them with neon tubes, like this thing called Rejuvasun I saw. There's no UV, just relaxing deep heat.

28064212

By far the most sensible solution is much stricter regulation (no under-18s for a start) and taxes (on a per-use system). It's very hard to justify banning them without banning a host of other things, but children should be protected and people using them should be contributing to the health-care system, same as smokers and drinkers

maggy_thatcher

28064212 wrote: »

By far the most sensible solution is much stricter regulation (no under-18s for a start) and taxes (on a per-use system). It's very hard to justify banning them without banning a host of other things, but children should be protected and people using them should be contributing to the health-care system, same as smokers and drinkers

It's the responsibility of the child's parents to do the protection, not everybody else. I think it's about time we stopped expecting the government to act as the universal babysitter, and re-introduce personal (and familial) responsibility!