{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Smart Tan News","provider_url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com","title":"California Amendment Spares Derms from Ban - Smart Tan News","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bMi6pMnDGZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/california-amendment-spares-derms-from-ban\/\">California Amendment Spares Derms from Ban<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/california-amendment-spares-derms-from-ban\/embed\/#?secret=bMi6pMnDGZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;California Amendment Spares Derms from Ban&#8221; &#8212; Smart Tan News\" data-secret=\"bMi6pMnDGZ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"Lawmakers in California this week added an amendment specifically exempting phototherapy in dermatology offices from proposed legislation that would ban those under 18 from using professional tanning salons \u2014 an amendment that makes no scientific sense at all. \u201cPhototherapy has been shown by IARC-reviewed research to have 16 times the risk of commercial tanning facilities, according to IARC\u2019s own data,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cIf California lawmakers and the California Dermatology Society believe there is a danger, why are they exempting their usage of sunbeds to treat cosmetic diseases that don\u2019t kill anyone? It\u2019s pure deception.\u201d Evidence suggests the answer is financial \u2014 not scientific. More than 5 out of 6 indoor tanning businesses report having clients who patronize the salon as a less-expensive alternative to sunbed phototherapy in a dermatology office, according to a SmartTan.com poll conducted in August. According to the poll, 86 percent of salons say they know they have clients who patronize the salon mainly because a $5 sunbed session is much less expensive than the insurance copayment of a $100 sunbed phototherapy session in a dermatology office. Only 14 percent said they didn\u2019t know of clients whose main reason for tanning was to avoid dermatology fees \u2014 which doesn\u2019t mean those salons don\u2019t also have clients tanning for that reason, just that the salons didn\u2019t know. Many dermatology offices use sunbeds virtually identical to those used in indoor tanning businesses to treat purely cosmetic skin conditions \u2014 primarily psoriasis. Some dermatologists even refer patients to tanning salons in lieu of more-expensive phototherapy in their offices. An International Smart Tan Network survey of 6,881 indoor tanning clients conducted in January 2010 showed that an estimated 1.5 million American utilized sunbed salons to informally treat psoriasis in lieu of phototherapy in a dermatologist\u2019s office. Phototherapy procedures use the same equipment found in tanning salons. In fact, the Mayo Clinic cites UV light therapy as the standard of care for treating these ailments. According to the 2010 Smart Tan survey, 11 percent of tanning clients say a doctor referred them to a tanning salon for therapeutic reasons and that 28 percent of those referring physicians were dermatologists. Dermatology\u2019s usage of phototherapy sunbeds is defended as \u201csafe\u201d by dermatology leaders who simultaneously attack indoor tanning. Ironically, phototherapy protocol often involves higher dosages of UV light than are administered in tanning salons. Dermatologists using phototherapy often intentionally induce a mild sunburn to treat the cosmetic skin condition, according to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Tanning salons, in contrast, always deliver dosages designed to be non-burning based on a client\u2019s skin type. In 1993 dermatologists administered 873,000 visits for phototherapy sessions. By 1998, that number dropped by 94 percent according to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which in 2002 described phototherapy sessions as \u201ca safe and effective treatment for psoriasis.\u201d Patients figured out that indoor tanning was often just as effective, used the same equipment and was 20 times less expensive. \u201cIf any UV exposure were as dangerous dermatology lobbyists contend, then dermatologists would be guilty of violating their Hippocratic oath for using UV in what they describe as burning dosages to treat purely cosmetic skin conditions,\u201d said Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy. \u201cProfessional tanning facilities are trained to deliver non-burning dosages of UV light to create a cosmetic tan, but a side effect is that people are treating all sorts of conditions informally and effectively. What we\u2019re really seeing is dermatology\u2019s anger for the loss of billions of dollars in phototherapy treatments in their offices, as consumers choose a more economical and convenient method of self-care.\u201d Professional indoor tanning facilities promote a balanced message about UV exposure \u2014 acknowledging the risks of overexposure. In contrast, AAD continues to mislead the public by suggesting in its statements that any UV exposure causes melanoma, which completely misrepresents the science. \u201cThis has never been a health care debate,\u201d said Levy. \u201cThis is the cosmetic dermatology industry attacking indoor tanning for strictly financial gain.\u201d The AAD has come under fire from within its ranks for its position on melanoma. In 2008, Dr. Bernard Ackerman \u2014 a pioneer in dermatology pathology recognized as a Master Dermatologist by AAD \u2014 backed up Smart Tan\u2019s position about the complex relationship between UV and melanoma in the Dermatology Times stating, \u201cThere is no compelling evidence that sun tan parlors have induced a single melanoma,\u201d and that any regulation of the tanning market \u201c\u2026should be predicated on evidence and not on accusation.\u201d In fact, AAD spokesperson Dr. James Spencer admitted in a May 2008 article in Dermatology Times that, \u201cWe don\u2019t have direct experimental evidence,\u201d referring to the fact that research has not shown a causative mechanism between indoor tanning and melanoma. The studies the AAD has referred to do not show causation \u2014 only weak correlations that are confounded by study design. The organization continues to omit refuting evidence and studies and the fact that most studies don\u2019t show a correlation. Further, while AAD is lobbying to restrict indoor tanning, its lobbying efforts have always called for phototherapy treatment in dermatology offices to be exempted from further restriction. \u201cIt\u2019s time that researchers and the media start asking tough questions about why dermatologists refuse to talk about these issues and their real motivations around their attacks on indoor tanning,\u201d Levy said.","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/2011-08-31-Dermatologists-Happy-with-Amendment-copy.jpg"}