|
|
03-08-2006, 09:27 PM
|
#24 (permalink) | |
|
OFFICIAL BFF member
 
Join Date: Jan 2 2005
Location: BFFland
Posts: 3,331
Rep Power: 36
  |
Re: Sudbury, Ontario Health Unit
Quote:
__________________
~I'll try to be nicer if you try to be smarter.~ |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2006, 09:13 AM
|
#26 (permalink) |
|
I love Derf!!
 
Join Date: Dec 10 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 47
Posts: 895
Rep Power: 9
|
Re: Sudbury, Ontario Health Unit
Exact same word for word info that Health Unit near us published in the paper as well. Must be a mass flyer for all health units. Get ready to attack.
__________________
Tanning the World, 1 butt cheek at a time |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2006, 09:16 AM
|
#27 (permalink) |
|
Who The **** is Derf?
 
Join Date: Oct 28 2001
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,110
Rep Power: 11
|
Re: Sudbury, Ontario Health Unit
Here was Joe Levy's response:
Below is my response, sent to the paper electronically today. Best, Joe ---------------------------- February, 16, 2005 TO: Editor, The Brantford Expositor FROM: Joe Levy, Smart Tan-Canada RE: Letter to the Editor Dear Editor -- Please consider the letter attached below for publication in an upcoming issue. I am vice president of International Smart Tan Network, the North American educational institute and association for professional indoor tanning facilities. Our Canadian office is in Winnipeg. If you have any questions about the source or content, please contact me or my colleague Steve Gilroy, director of Smart Tan-Canada, in the Winnipeg office at 866-795-3755. Sincerely, Joseph Levy, vice president International Smart Tan Network - Canadian Division Winnipeg, Manitoba - - - - - - - - - SKIN CARE - NOT 'SUN SCARE' Lisa Gilmour and Tara Vyn's Feb. 8 "Healthy Bytes" column in this paper contained factual misstatements about tanning and skin care that need correcting. Foremost, there is no denying that a suntan is the body's natural protection against sunburn -- it is what your body is designed to do. Gilmour and Vyn incorrectly allege in their column that "base tans do not protect against sunburns." Even if their intent was well-meaning, their heads are buried in the sand and their statement ignores human biology. As millions of indoor tanning customers know, a base tan prior to a sunny vacation -- in conjunction with sunscreen usage on the vacation -- is more effective in preventing sunburn than sunscreen usage alone. That's because a base tan multiplies the effectiveness of the sunscreen used outdoors. When your skin tans, melanin literally enshrouds each skin cell -- much like the hard-shell coating of an M&M candy protects the chocolate. This natural tan protects the skin cell from receiving too much ultraviolet light. In conjunction with sunscreen usage, this protection is multiplied and is more effective than mere sunscreen usage alone. That is one reason why indoor tanners -- once they begin tanning -- are less likely to sunburn outdoors as compared to non-tanners. The other reason, ironically, is that professional tanning studios today do a better job teaching proper outdoor sunscreen usage than those who preach blanket over-use of the product. Consider, Gilmour and Vyn state in their column that "a minimum SPF of 15 is still recommended at all times." That overstatement is misbranding a product that was never intended to be used daily as it is today in most women's cosmetics. Make no mistake: Sunscreen is only intended to be used to prevent sunburn, and while it's use is absolutely necessary when people go outdoors for extended periods in seasons when sunburn is a possibility, it is unnecessary and most likely unhealthy to wear it "at all times." No doubt this is the reason that sunscreen usage in the general population is declining today, according to the Sun Safety Alliance -- a consortium of sunscreen manufacturers and drug store owners. Instead of teaching people proper and practical sun care habits, public health officials are promoting "sun abstinence" -- an unwarranted message that is falling on deaf ears. People are smart -- they know better. The antiquated notion that "any tan is a sign of skin damage" that Gilmour and Vyn perpetuate in their column is a prime example of such deception. To call a tan "damage" to the skin is using a micro-definition to describe a macro-phenomenon. Here's what I mean: It is akin to calling exercise "damage" to your muscles. As a fitness trainer will tell you, exercise, on the micro-level, tears tiny muscle fibers that your body is designed to rebuild stronger than before. To call that "damage" would be misleading because it is what your body is designed to do. Similarly, your skin's outer layer naturally rebuilds itself every 30-60 days -- to call sun exposure "damage" is more misleading than it is accurate. Finally, in an era when research has shown that a majority of Canadians are deficient in Vitamin D -- made naturally when the skin is exposed to sunlight -- it is myopic and misguided for health care providers to suggest that people completely avoid sunlight. It is plausible that over-use of sunscreen is contributing to vitamin D deficiency. The professional indoor tanning industry is part of the solution in this ongoing discussion. We teach people sunburn prevention and proper balance rather than impractical over-statement and hyperbole. Joseph Levy Smart Tan-Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba |
|
|
|
03-11-2006, 10:51 AM
|
#28 (permalink) |
 
Join Date: Mar 7 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 298
Rep Power: 4
|
Re: Sudbury, Ontario Health Unit
They're against tanning altogether it seems, be it indoor or outdoor? What i don't understand is, if UVA and UVB are so bad, then how come people weren't dropping dead left right and center centuries ago when people didn't know about sunscreen and spent hours upon hours working outdoors in the sun?
We're smarter today but more people are dropping dead daily..........go figure? |
|
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
