Don Smith

FYI To Ask Don's Army:

I have had several e-mails and phone calls this weekend challenging my characterization of the spray "fake tan" process as a "staining" of the skin.

Needless to say, these challenges came from the proponents of spray tanning ONLY, and especially (I learned) from a radical "fringe group" who are REALLY uneducated (clueless is a better word!) about the benefits of PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION (photo-protection, thermo-protection, immuno-protection and enhanced cellular repair). Sadly, they really do think that COSMETIC SKIN STAINING is the same as PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION and believe that the "fake tan" they sell provides the same protection as UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION.

[Note: I believe even more strongly that FDA must IMMEDIATELY step in and regulate the various COSMETIC SKIN STAINING products in order to protect the American public. At the very least FDA must "mandate" that the manufacturers of COSMETIC SKIN STAINING systems require the salons purchasing their COSMETIC SKIN STAINING system to inform their clients IN WRITING that COSMETIC SKIN STAINING provides little or no protection from sunburn.]

So, the following is for the "newbies" who think that they must "badmouth" UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION in order to make a few bucks with their COSMETIC SKIN STAINING systems. You know, the ones who are so uninformed that they think that a "stain" that happens to be tan in color is the same thing as PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION (i.e., a "real" normal, natural tan).

An article by Z.D. Draelos (of the Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest University) titled "Self-tanning lotions; are they a healthy way to achieve a tan" was published in a recent issue of the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology and it COMPLETELY substantiates Ask Don's position.

Here is what Dr. Draelos had to say:

"Sef- tanning products utilize dihydroxyacetone (DHA) as an active agent to produce a TEMPORARY STAINING of the skin."

Later in the article, he states that "Lower concentrations of DHA produce lighter SKIN-STAINING, while higher concentrations produce darker SKIN-STAINING, resulting in the simulation of a tan for persons of all skin types."

So, sceptics, whether you like it or not (and it was clear that you do not like it!) skin staining is what it is!

Furthermore, you will note that Dr. Draelos correctly states that COSMETIC SKIN STAINING results in the "simulation of a tan" and not the creation of PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION.

Any questions, sceptics?

Don "Telling It Like It Is About COSMETIC SKIN STAINING" Smith

solarmeter

The coating industry has over the years added "UV stablizers" to their paints and stains, to protect against fading and weathering. You may have noticed how badly the 60-70's model red cars faded rapidly in the AZ sun. Stabilizers are also added to plastics and fabrics, although they are less efficient.

There is an big test program in AZ and FL to accelerate aging of materials under full spectrum sunlight. As you might expect, IR wavelengths play a major role as well as UVR.

The chemical stabilizers protect the coating pigment, not the substrate under the paint/stain. I doubt that any such additive to DHT based spray would protect skin under the spray... but I'm no chemist, so who knows? Regardless, the depth of any such penetration might pale in comparison to UVR induced tan pigmentation.

Also, additives must be proven "not harmful" somehow. Remember the fire-retardant chemicals in kid's pajamas?