Sheila in Minnesota

Gene states:It was only during the last meeting that push came to shove with Dr Cyr said what we all feared, that it is the FDA's opinion that any UV is too much (just like anti-tanning dermatologists preach). And Dr. Cyr
looked around the room and threw his arms up said, "Come on, everyone knows that!" . . .


Holy Hanna! How had I missed that?? Has this comment been posted somewhere before?

Here I was really thinking that Dr.Cyr and the work group were really in a difficult postion ~ trying to sift through the fact and fiction of Sunlight and UVR used indoors . . . Is it possible to get a "fair and unbiased" opinion when the belief is that UVR is BAD and EVERYBODY knows that????

AAAAahhhhh! Solar Meter - did you have this somewhere and I missed it???

See Don ~ it was better for the Hussey NOT to be there . . . the ITA would not be so open to paying for my bail money ~ I am sure!

ouch!


Sheila

MJ

Quote:
On 2002-05-10 22:25, Don Smith wrote:


(no one else read this, please, because this is just between Sheila and I)(OK, Robbie, you can read this too).

State and federal regulators DO pay attention to letters, phone calls, faxes and e-mails from real, live tanning salon owners. And they pay MORE attention when they get LOTS of letters, phone calls, faxes and e-mails about the same subject from LOTS of tanning salon owners.




Don

Oops....
Mj

MJ

Quote:
On 2002-05-10 22:25, Don Smith wrote:


(no one else read this, please, because this is just between Sheila and I)(OK, Robbie, you can read this too).

State and federal regulators DO pay attention to letters, phone calls, faxes and e-mails from real, live tanning salon owners. And they pay MORE attention when they get LOTS of letters, phone calls, faxes and e-mails about the same subject from LOTS of tanning salon owners.




Don

Oops....
Mj

Gene

I am surprised that no one has commented on the substitution of "Caution" rather than "Danger" on the propsed FDA warning. Is this because the IEC uses this word? Maybe we can derive some benefit from the FDA slavishly following the Europeans.

This has a history. In the FDA Amendment
CFR Part 1040 that became effective in 1986, a comment was received suggesting the change of wording from "danger" to "caution." The commenter said that "Danger" connotes an implied or immediate and serious threat to life, a conditon not commonly associated with tanning units. The FDA replied:

The agency believes that the word "DANGER" as used on the warning statement is apporpriate. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation can be an immediate threat to life for people using photosensitizing medications or cosmetics and for people with a medical condition that causes them to be sensitive to ultraviolet radiation, for example, photoallergies.

Sheila in Minnesota

Gene ~ The agency believes that the word "DANGER" as used on the warning statement is apporpriate. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation can be an immediate threat to life for people using photosensitizing medications or cosmetics and for people with a medical condition that causes them to be sensitive to ultraviolet radiation, for example, photoallergies.

** Is this not insane then ??? ~ The push to basically SHUT DOWN Professional Tanning Salons (world wide) ~ that monitor their clients and educate them on the smarter ways to use UVR . . .

And yet the Basement Tanner (and their 3.4 friends tanning in that same home unit) and the Apartment Tanner with the unsupervised token eater . . . the slim ball Tan, Bait & Dry Cleaners ~ ~ these will be allowed to remain unmolested ~ ~

WHY???

Because it is in the best interest of the Co-Pay seekers / Insurance provided payments for the medically provided UVR sessions chaaaaa ching!

Behind every agenda stands a few good men (and women) with an agenda of their own.

I am feeling kinda crabby about this one.

Sheila

BooBop

Great job in sending these emails to them gang. I will pop one off myself.

Keep them going friends, we are fighting for our industry.

Don Smith

Sheila:

Quit sugar coating your comments and tell us what you REALLY think about these regulations. LOL

Don

BooBop

Oh Don, you have done it now!

Sheila, your emails to Cyr are in good taste. Let's not get to lemmony

Robbie

Dr Cyr seemed genuinely concerned for fishing for input on the exposure/overexposure conundrum.

I email him this:

Dr Cyr,

I’ve noticed you have been receiving input on the upcoming label language and I could resist the opportunity to help clarify the “exposure/overexposure” issue.

Your “one man’s exposure is another man’s overexposure” theory is troubling. This label is to accompany a recommended exposure schedule that clearly defines the parameters of what exposures should be. Exposure times in excess of these would be OVERexposure.

To merely state or imply that “exposure may cause” these conditions is to imply that one may be injured in the RECOMMENDED use of these units. Is that your position?

Sincerely,

Robbie Segler
Darque Tan
281-932-0230

Don Smith

Robbie:

How dare you point out that the emperor isn't wearing clothes? LOL

You are "dead on" in what you have pointed out. What is "sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR" for one individual may be "overexposure" for another. FDA has "mandated" skin typing since 1986 but has failed to do anything about it. Could it be because they have never had to determine a real, live exposure schedule that neither overexposes nor underexposes a real, live client?

In addition, FDA seems to be constitutionally incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that there are benefits derived from sensible, moderate and responsible exposure (with the "dose" based upon the individuals tolerance to UVR) to UVR NOTWITHSTANDING a growing body of hard scientific evidence to support that position.

Thanks for pointing out these "anomalies" to Dr. Cyr!

Don