Don Smith

I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at the "impact" of the 0.3 MEIL because I believe that this "directive" will surface here in the USA later this year, primarily because the vendors have shown (in Europe) that they won't fight it. [Is it possible that both the vendors and the dermatology community will be in favor of adopting the 0.3 W/m^2 MEIL in the USA?]

Here is what happens when sunbed equipped a traditional and a new era (160w) sunlamps are replaced with 0.3 W/m^2 compliant sunlamps.

Traditional:

- Goes from 0.549 W/m^2 to 0.3 W/m^2

- The Te (4.0 MED) time (FDA EAS) goes from 13.8 minutes to 24.5 minutes

- The Tt (Tanning) time goes from 18.4 to 28.6 minutes.

New Era:

- Goes from 0.556 W/m^2 to 0.3 W/m^2

- The Te (4.0 MED) time (FDA EAS) goes from 13.8 minutes to 26.4 minutes

- The Tt (Tanning) time goes from 7.9 to 15.3 minutes.

Does that look like a step in the right direction?

If your "point" is that new era 0.3 W/m^2 compliant sunlamps have more tanning power than 0.3 compliant traditional sunlamps, you are correct. If, however, your "point" is that the 0.3 W/m^2 new era sunlamps will be acceptable to USA clients (who want shorter session times), you are sadly mistaken.

And to those "misguided" individuals who believe that the 0.3 W/m^2 MEIL will result in a reduction of the efforts of the anti-tanning coalition to destroy the European indoor tanning industry, I have some ocean front property here in AZ to sell you. The sad fact of life is that a small group of rabidly anti-tanning regulators have won a major victory in Europe and this "win" will embolden them to enact more onerous provisions.