|
Tanning Equipment From Low pressure to High pressure tanning equipment. |
| LinkBack | Thread Tools |
04-26-2002, 02:12 PM | #2 (permalink) |
Lamp Geek Join Date: Dec 21 2001 Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,913
Rep Power: 23 | No, I don't believe that there is anything like that going on. If they pass the new regulations, every lamp ever made will have to be retested for compatibilities. What a pain in the rear that will be. |
04-27-2002, 09:32 AM | #3 (permalink) |
Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,643
Rep Power: 26 | Mori: The "dispute" over "compatibility claims" hasn't reached the "flashpoint" whereby the situation will be resolved in a courtroom YET but, IMHO, it will get there very soon if FDA doesn't grow some cojones and take some action. I presented data on 2/7/02 showing that 23 of the 24 100 watt lamps we tested "claiming" to be compatible to the "target" sunlamp were, in fact, not compatible (i.e., +/- 10%). Most of them were not even close to being compatible with the "average" variance being 32%! The problem can be solved by (1) the manufacturers themselves simply "agreeing" to quit making claims that THEY know are not correct, or, (2) FDA taking action to show that their published standards MUST be followed. There is too much money at stake for the first alternative to happen and the FDA "Office of Compliance" is totally ineffective so NOTHING is going to happen! Thus, legal action WILL soon be launched and tanning salon owners will (as usual!) be the losers. Why? Because when this "mess" is known by the re-insurers who "support" the 5 companies who insure most tanning salons, they will WITHOUT QUESTION raise their rates (or decide to quit reinsuring the tanning industry). The "net effect" will be that our insurance rates will double or triple in cost if this problem is not resolved ASAP! In addition, what do you think the enemies of the indoor tanning industry will do with this information once it becomes public? Once again, tanning salon owners are being "sold down the river" by greedy manufacturers and a "toothless" FDA. The "ironic" thing is that both the sunlamp company(s) that market most of the "non compliant" sunlamps AND the FDA are saying that there is "no problemo" because (are you ready for this?) there has not been many "claims" made to FDA because of sunburning. The REAL reason, IMHO, that there havn't been more claims is because (1) tanning salon owners have learned through experience that we can't believe ANY claim made regarding sunlamps and (2) because, increasingly, we skin type/subtype our new clients and adjust their exposure times accordingly. [Note: The FDA "logic" would indicate that you don't have to stop at any stop sign where there hasn't been an accident.] The "bottom line" is that there ARE FDA rules in place regarding "sunlamp compatibililty" and EVERYONE knows that the rules are being broken! Therefore, it is high time (actually, past time!) for FDA to enforce them OR tell everyone that the rules will not be enforced! Don [ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-04-27 09:52 ] |
05-02-2002, 12:59 PM | #4 (permalink) |
Waiting Confirmation Join Date: Dec 8 2000
Posts: 169
Rep Power: 0 | You have accurately stated the problem that has vexed me for years. Hear are a couple more twists. The FDA imposed maximum exposures (4 MED) but didn't state many of the parameters of testing. How much warm up before testing? What portion of the lamp should be tested? What powere whould drive the lamp? And you can add more of your own. Few people realize the implications of a maximum standard that allows adulteration of the UVB component which largely determines Te. Many tanning beds put out less than 4 MEDs with the installed lamp. That's OK with me for I might want "softer" beds for certain clients. But salon onwers deserve the right to know what they are buying! It is only in the last few years that some bed manufacturers have expoited the maximum allowed MED and that more than anything has resulted in higher performance machines. In regards to revisng schedules, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, why not improve what we already have? 1. Bed manufacturers would have to state in the manual what percentage of the maximum allowable timer is on the bed and in what time 1 MED is reached. Then salon owners would become informed consumers who could fashion their bed choices with intelligence rather than with a flip of a coin. 2. Revise exposure labels that take into account the actual measured 1 MED. It makes no sense now to have two different 20 minute beds with wildly different potencies to carry the same step-up. Today's label exposures (with 3 or 4 minute beginning times) only make sense with a fully exploited maximum timer. This would restore credibility to the on-bed label and would be an accurate guide that salon personel could count on. 3. Have the FDA spot test bed systems and compatible lamps. (This won't happen, but if the FDA won't delegate resources, how serious are they on this issue?) Bed manufacturers have earned by distrst and that goes deep. Even with the above improvements, with no independent party monitoring the process, "creative" testing procedures will conintue. |
05-04-2002, 08:17 AM | #5 (permalink) |
Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,643
Rep Power: 26 | Gene: You are (as usual!) absolutely correct. The problem is, the FDA is still "struggling" with the problem of recommending a standardized protocol for the testing of sunlamps in a test stand. They have not even started looking at the complexity involved in testing the complete "array" - i.e., the sunbed. FYI, we have now developed a means by which we can make a spectroradiometric reading each minute of the tanning session and "plot out" the performance degredation over time. No one but you and I want to face up to the simple fact that "all 20 minute sunbeds ARE NOT created equally." Some so-called 20 minute MTI sunbeds should be (if truth in advertising meant anything anymore) be "listed" as 25 minute MTI sunbeds. So, Gene, IF the te (time to 4.0 MED) time is REALLY 25 minutes but the manufacturer sells it as a 20 minute MTI sunbed, what "performance" must a lamp meet in order to be "compatible" with the original? 20 minutes? 25 minutes? Don |
05-04-2002, 08:44 AM | #6 (permalink) |
Join Date: Apr 19 2001
Posts: 2,262
Rep Power: 23 | How many tanning bed users are getting ripped off? They pay for a full exposure and don't get it. We need to have the bed makers brand names and models that produce these rip off beds. This true session lenght rip off added to the problem of over heating causing uv drop off adding yet again old acrylics further blocking uv rays ,the output effected must make some beds produce less then 1/2 the normal max exposure of 4 med. No wonder they don't tan! |
Bookmarks |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking to relamp my Ovation 134 - 20 minute - | Hotrocks | Tanning Equipment | 10 | 09-21-2005 01:15 PM |
Light Source - 100W Beach Sun Lamps | dhgranstrand | Tanning Equipment | 8 | 04-30-2005 01:56 PM |
How Long Do Your Light Source Midday Suns Last? | dhgranstrand | Tanning Equipment | 7 | 03-29-2005 10:03 PM |
what is the % of visable light to uv light coming from a tanning lamp? | Chippp | Tanning Equipment | 16 | 09-13-2002 02:48 PM |