{"id":5158,"date":"2010-12-22T04:00:37","date_gmt":"2010-12-22T08:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/"},"modified":"2010-12-22T04:00:37","modified_gmt":"2010-12-22T08:00:37","slug":"how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/","title":{"rendered":"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"weknowcopy\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The University of Minnesota study published this week in the Archives of Dermatology attempts to build a case that no one is getting the message that too much UV is a bad thing and that indoor tanning is to blame for all this confusion. They also attempt to paint the picture that millions of indoor tanning clients are being duped into seeing any value for their tanning experience.<\/p>\n

About 12 percent of the population has ever visited a sunbed center \u2014 this is nothing new. But the Minnesota group is clearly reverse-engineering the nature of their questions to make it appear that sunbed users don\u2019t understand that there are risks of overexposure. Of course they do. Consider:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Minnesota group alleges \u201conly 13.3% of women and 4.2% of men suggested that avoidance of tanning bed use could reduce their risks of skin cancer in an \u201copen-response format\u201d (the subject has to VOLUNTEER an answer in his\/her own words). This is COMPLETELY misleading. Check with any polling group you want about the \u201copen-response format\u201d (or Google it). \u201cOpen-response\u201d can be used to manipulate data \u2014 to make it appear that subjects don\u2019t know the answer because they didn\u2019t offer it themselves, as opposed to being asked a true-or-false answer.<\/li>\n
  2. Our data show the exact opposite. International Smart Tan Network (the educational institute for the North American professional sunbed community) conducted a survey of nearly 3,000 tanning clients, when asked specifically if they believed \u201cthat any tanning may cause skin damage and skin cancer\u201d fully 85.4 percent said yes, it can. Only 12.4 percent said that they believed tanning will not cause skin damage and skin cancer.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Bottom line: It is clear that tanning clients understand that overexposure to UV carries risks \u2014 we teach them to practice moderation and sunburn prevention and to properly understand the risks of overexposure. To suggest otherwise \u2014 after 15 years of marketing by \u201cSun Scare\u201d groups to vilify any\/all UV exposure \u2014 doesn\u2019t make any sense.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The University of Minnesota study published this week in the Archives of Dermatology attempts to build a case that no one is getting the message that too much UV is a bad thing and that indoor tanning is to blame for all this confusion. They also attempt to paint the picture that millions of indoor […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\nHow Bad Was New Sun Scare Study? - Smart Tan News<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The University of Minnesota study published this week in the Archives of Dermatology attempts to build a case that no one is getting the message that too much UV is a bad thing and that indoor tanning is to blame for all this confusion. They also attempt to paint the picture that millions of indoor tanning clients are being duped into seeing any value for their tanning experience. About 12 percent of the population has ever visited a sunbed center \u2014 this is nothing new. But the Minnesota group is clearly reverse-engineering the nature of their questions to make it appear that sunbed users don\u2019t understand that there are risks of overexposure. Of course they do. Consider: The Minnesota group alleges \u201conly 13.3% of women and 4.2% of men suggested that avoidance of tanning bed use could reduce their risks of skin cancer in an \u201copen-response format\u201d (the subject has to VOLUNTEER an answer in his\/her own words). This is COMPLETELY misleading. Check with any polling group you want about the \u201copen-response format\u201d (or Google it). \u201cOpen-response\u201d can be used to manipulate data \u2014 to make it appear that subjects don\u2019t know the answer because they didn\u2019t offer it themselves, as opposed to being asked a true-or-false answer. Our data show the exact opposite. International Smart Tan Network (the educational institute for the North American professional sunbed community) conducted a survey of nearly 3,000 tanning clients, when asked specifically if they believed \u201cthat any tanning may cause skin damage and skin cancer\u201d fully 85.4 percent said yes, it can. Only 12.4 percent said that they believed tanning will not cause skin damage and skin cancer. Bottom line: It is clear that tanning clients understand that overexposure to UV carries risks \u2014 we teach them to practice moderation and sunburn prevention and to properly understand the risks of overexposure. To suggest otherwise \u2014 after 15 years of marketing by \u201cSun Scare\u201d groups to vilify any\/all UV exposure \u2014 doesn\u2019t make any sense.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study? - Smart Tan News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The University of Minnesota study published this week in the Archives of Dermatology attempts to build a case that no one is getting the message that too much UV is a bad thing and that indoor tanning is to blame for all this confusion. They also attempt to paint the picture that millions of indoor tanning clients are being duped into seeing any value for their tanning experience. About 12 percent of the population has ever visited a sunbed center \u2014 this is nothing new. But the Minnesota group is clearly reverse-engineering the nature of their questions to make it appear that sunbed users don\u2019t understand that there are risks of overexposure. Of course they do. Consider: The Minnesota group alleges \u201conly 13.3% of women and 4.2% of men suggested that avoidance of tanning bed use could reduce their risks of skin cancer in an \u201copen-response format\u201d (the subject has to VOLUNTEER an answer in his\/her own words). This is COMPLETELY misleading. Check with any polling group you want about the \u201copen-response format\u201d (or Google it). \u201cOpen-response\u201d can be used to manipulate data \u2014 to make it appear that subjects don\u2019t know the answer because they didn\u2019t offer it themselves, as opposed to being asked a true-or-false answer. Our data show the exact opposite. International Smart Tan Network (the educational institute for the North American professional sunbed community) conducted a survey of nearly 3,000 tanning clients, when asked specifically if they believed \u201cthat any tanning may cause skin damage and skin cancer\u201d fully 85.4 percent said yes, it can. Only 12.4 percent said that they believed tanning will not cause skin damage and skin cancer. Bottom line: It is clear that tanning clients understand that overexposure to UV carries risks \u2014 we teach them to practice moderation and sunburn prevention and to properly understand the risks of overexposure. To suggest otherwise \u2014 after 15 years of marketing by \u201cSun Scare\u201d groups to vilify any\/all UV exposure \u2014 doesn\u2019t make any sense.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Smart Tan News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-22T08:00:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"smarttan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"smarttan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"smarttan\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b\"},\"headline\":\"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study?\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-22T08:00:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/\"},\"wordCount\":332,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/\",\"name\":\"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study? - Smart Tan News\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-22T08:00:37+00:00\",\"description\":\"The University of Minnesota study published this week in the Archives of Dermatology attempts to build a case that no one is getting the message that too much UV is a bad thing and that indoor tanning is to blame for all this confusion. They also attempt to paint the picture that millions of indoor tanning clients are being duped into seeing any value for their tanning experience. About 12 percent of the population has ever visited a sunbed center \u2014 this is nothing new. But the Minnesota group is clearly reverse-engineering the nature of their questions to make it appear that sunbed users don\u2019t understand that there are risks of overexposure. Of course they do. Consider: The Minnesota group alleges \u201conly 13.3% of women and 4.2% of men suggested that avoidance of tanning bed use could reduce their risks of skin cancer in an \u201copen-response format\u201d (the subject has to VOLUNTEER an answer in his\/her own words). This is COMPLETELY misleading. Check with any polling group you want about the \u201copen-response format\u201d (or Google it). \u201cOpen-response\u201d can be used to manipulate data \u2014 to make it appear that subjects don\u2019t know the answer because they didn\u2019t offer it themselves, as opposed to being asked a true-or-false answer. Our data show the exact opposite. International Smart Tan Network (the educational institute for the North American professional sunbed community) conducted a survey of nearly 3,000 tanning clients, when asked specifically if they believed \u201cthat any tanning may cause skin damage and skin cancer\u201d fully 85.4 percent said yes, it can. Only 12.4 percent said that they believed tanning will not cause skin damage and skin cancer. Bottom line: It is clear that tanning clients understand that overexposure to UV carries risks \u2014 we teach them to practice moderation and sunburn prevention and to properly understand the risks of overexposure. To suggest otherwise \u2014 after 15 years of marketing by \u201cSun Scare\u201d groups to vilify any\/all UV exposure \u2014 doesn\u2019t make any sense.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\",\"name\":\"Smart Tan News\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Smart Tan\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":164,\"caption\":\"Smart Tan\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/SmartTan\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b\",\"name\":\"smarttan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"smarttan\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/author\/smarttan\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study? - Smart Tan News","description":"The University of Minnesota study published this week in the Archives of Dermatology attempts to build a case that no one is getting the message that too much UV is a bad thing and that indoor tanning is to blame for all this confusion. They also attempt to paint the picture that millions of indoor tanning clients are being duped into seeing any value for their tanning experience. About 12 percent of the population has ever visited a sunbed center \u2014 this is nothing new. But the Minnesota group is clearly reverse-engineering the nature of their questions to make it appear that sunbed users don\u2019t understand that there are risks of overexposure. Of course they do. Consider: The Minnesota group alleges \u201conly 13.3% of women and 4.2% of men suggested that avoidance of tanning bed use could reduce their risks of skin cancer in an \u201copen-response format\u201d (the subject has to VOLUNTEER an answer in his\/her own words). This is COMPLETELY misleading. Check with any polling group you want about the \u201copen-response format\u201d (or Google it). \u201cOpen-response\u201d can be used to manipulate data \u2014 to make it appear that subjects don\u2019t know the answer because they didn\u2019t offer it themselves, as opposed to being asked a true-or-false answer. Our data show the exact opposite. International Smart Tan Network (the educational institute for the North American professional sunbed community) conducted a survey of nearly 3,000 tanning clients, when asked specifically if they believed \u201cthat any tanning may cause skin damage and skin cancer\u201d fully 85.4 percent said yes, it can. Only 12.4 percent said that they believed tanning will not cause skin damage and skin cancer. Bottom line: It is clear that tanning clients understand that overexposure to UV carries risks \u2014 we teach them to practice moderation and sunburn prevention and to properly understand the risks of overexposure. To suggest otherwise \u2014 after 15 years of marketing by \u201cSun Scare\u201d groups to vilify any\/all UV exposure \u2014 doesn\u2019t make any sense.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study? - Smart Tan News","og_description":"The University of Minnesota study published this week in the Archives of Dermatology attempts to build a case that no one is getting the message that too much UV is a bad thing and that indoor tanning is to blame for all this confusion. They also attempt to paint the picture that millions of indoor tanning clients are being duped into seeing any value for their tanning experience. About 12 percent of the population has ever visited a sunbed center \u2014 this is nothing new. But the Minnesota group is clearly reverse-engineering the nature of their questions to make it appear that sunbed users don\u2019t understand that there are risks of overexposure. Of course they do. Consider: The Minnesota group alleges \u201conly 13.3% of women and 4.2% of men suggested that avoidance of tanning bed use could reduce their risks of skin cancer in an \u201copen-response format\u201d (the subject has to VOLUNTEER an answer in his\/her own words). This is COMPLETELY misleading. Check with any polling group you want about the \u201copen-response format\u201d (or Google it). \u201cOpen-response\u201d can be used to manipulate data \u2014 to make it appear that subjects don\u2019t know the answer because they didn\u2019t offer it themselves, as opposed to being asked a true-or-false answer. Our data show the exact opposite. International Smart Tan Network (the educational institute for the North American professional sunbed community) conducted a survey of nearly 3,000 tanning clients, when asked specifically if they believed \u201cthat any tanning may cause skin damage and skin cancer\u201d fully 85.4 percent said yes, it can. Only 12.4 percent said that they believed tanning will not cause skin damage and skin cancer. Bottom line: It is clear that tanning clients understand that overexposure to UV carries risks \u2014 we teach them to practice moderation and sunburn prevention and to properly understand the risks of overexposure. To suggest otherwise \u2014 after 15 years of marketing by \u201cSun Scare\u201d groups to vilify any\/all UV exposure \u2014 doesn\u2019t make any sense.","og_url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/","og_site_name":"Smart Tan News","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan","article_published_time":"2010-12-22T08:00:37+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"smarttan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@SmartTan","twitter_site":"@SmartTan","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"smarttan","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/"},"author":{"name":"smarttan","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b"},"headline":"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study?","datePublished":"2010-12-22T08:00:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/"},"wordCount":332,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg","articleSection":["News"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/","name":"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study? - Smart Tan News","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg","datePublished":"2010-12-22T08:00:37+00:00","description":"The University of Minnesota study published this week in the Archives of Dermatology attempts to build a case that no one is getting the message that too much UV is a bad thing and that indoor tanning is to blame for all this confusion. They also attempt to paint the picture that millions of indoor tanning clients are being duped into seeing any value for their tanning experience. About 12 percent of the population has ever visited a sunbed center \u2014 this is nothing new. But the Minnesota group is clearly reverse-engineering the nature of their questions to make it appear that sunbed users don\u2019t understand that there are risks of overexposure. Of course they do. Consider: The Minnesota group alleges \u201conly 13.3% of women and 4.2% of men suggested that avoidance of tanning bed use could reduce their risks of skin cancer in an \u201copen-response format\u201d (the subject has to VOLUNTEER an answer in his\/her own words). This is COMPLETELY misleading. Check with any polling group you want about the \u201copen-response format\u201d (or Google it). \u201cOpen-response\u201d can be used to manipulate data \u2014 to make it appear that subjects don\u2019t know the answer because they didn\u2019t offer it themselves, as opposed to being asked a true-or-false answer. Our data show the exact opposite. International Smart Tan Network (the educational institute for the North American professional sunbed community) conducted a survey of nearly 3,000 tanning clients, when asked specifically if they believed \u201cthat any tanning may cause skin damage and skin cancer\u201d fully 85.4 percent said yes, it can. Only 12.4 percent said that they believed tanning will not cause skin damage and skin cancer. Bottom line: It is clear that tanning clients understand that overexposure to UV carries risks \u2014 we teach them to practice moderation and sunburn prevention and to properly understand the risks of overexposure. To suggest otherwise \u2014 after 15 years of marketing by \u201cSun Scare\u201d groups to vilify any\/all UV exposure \u2014 doesn\u2019t make any sense.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/weknowcopy.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/how-bad-was-new-sun-scare-study\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"How Bad Was New Sun Scare Study?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/","name":"Smart Tan News","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization","name":"Smart Tan","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png","width":500,"height":164,"caption":"Smart Tan"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan","https:\/\/x.com\/SmartTan"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b","name":"smarttan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"smarttan"},"url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/author\/smarttan\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}