Global Harmonization Analysis #1: FRANCE - tanTALK

Don Smith · 08-22-2002, 11:06 AM

"Forewarned is forearmed; to be prepared is half the victory."

The words above by Cervantes (Don Quixote II.IV) are apropos to the topic of "Global Harmonization" that will be covered in this "International Regulatory Information" forum.

This first analysis covers the sad anti-tanning regulatory situation in France.

Click on the "View Printable Document" link below to read and print out "Global Harmonization Analysis #1: FRANCE."

The second article will cover the new Australia/New Zealand regulations.

Don

[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-08-22 19:46 ]

solarmeter · 08-22-2002, 12:48 PM

Regarding these proposed instantaneous irradiance caps (which IMO are misguided because they characterize dose rate not dose), please don't think of the numbers in terms of what you see on a model 5.0 or 6.0 meter reading. They do relate (in a roundabout way) to model 6.5 & 7.0 readings however.

In Don's paper you see .3 or .6 W/m^2. That's only .03 or .06 mW/cm^2 - tiny compared to what you read on a model 5 or 6. The reason is because the "caps" are in Eeff (erythemally weighted irradiance), and as such are very small in absolute terms compared to unweighted values.

The French number (.3 W/m^2) does relate directly to model 6.5 UV Index meter as follows:

0.3 W/m^2 = 300 mW/m^2 Eeff. Divided by WMO factor of 25 = 12.0 UV Index. This is no stronger than typical June Tucson sun !! Using CIE MED of 210 J/m^2, you can divide UVI by 2.33 which = only 5.15 MED/hr. Then Te = 240/5.15 = 46.6 minutes to 4 MED.

The FDA number (.6 W/m^2) also relates to UV Index - just double the above numbers and divide Te in half. But - since FDA isn't yet sure if a MED will be 156, 180, 200 or 210 - I will not attempt to relate UVI to MED/hr and Te at this time. Australia is considering 250, and I'm not sure about Canada (156 I think).

As this all gets sorted out, it might require a bunch of different MED/hr meter versions... Aaaarrrgh.

Steve

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For people who think everything is OKEY DOKEY	electricparadise	Say What ?????	0	10-11-2005 01:08 PM
Global Harmonization Analysis #2: Australia and New Zealand	Don Smith	Tanning Salon Management	3	08-23-2002 07:27 PM

08-22-2002, 11:06 AM	#1 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,643 Rep Power: 26	"Forewarned is forearmed; to be prepared is half the victory." The words above by Cervantes (Don Quixote II.IV) are apropos to the topic of "Global Harmonization" that will be covered in this "International Regulatory Information" forum. This first analysis covers the sad anti-tanning regulatory situation in France. Click on the "View Printable Document" link below to read and print out "Global Harmonization Analysis #1: FRANCE." The second article will cover the new Australia/New Zealand regulations. Don [ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-08-22 19:46 ]

08-22-2002, 12:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
solarmeter Join Date: Nov 13 2001 Location: MI Posts: 861 Rep Power: 23	Regarding these proposed instantaneous irradiance caps (which IMO are misguided because they characterize dose rate not dose), please don't think of the numbers in terms of what you see on a model 5.0 or 6.0 meter reading. They do relate (in a roundabout way) to model 6.5 & 7.0 readings however. In Don's paper you see .3 or .6 W/m^2. That's only .03 or .06 mW/cm^2 - tiny compared to what you read on a model 5 or 6. The reason is because the "caps" are in Eeff (erythemally weighted irradiance), and as such are very small in absolute terms compared to unweighted values. The French number (.3 W/m^2) does relate directly to model 6.5 UV Index meter as follows: 0.3 W/m^2 = 300 mW/m^2 Eeff. Divided by WMO factor of 25 = 12.0 UV Index. This is no stronger than typical June Tucson sun !! Using CIE MED of 210 J/m^2, you can divide UVI by 2.33 which = only 5.15 MED/hr. Then Te = 240/5.15 = 46.6 minutes to 4 MED. The FDA number (.6 W/m^2) also relates to UV Index - just double the above numbers and divide Te in half. But - since FDA isn't yet sure if a MED will be 156, 180, 200 or 210 - I will not attempt to relate UVI to MED/hr and Te at this time. Australia is considering 250, and I'm not sure about Canada (156 I think). As this all gets sorted out, it might require a bunch of different MED/hr meter versions... Aaaarrrgh. Steve

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)