by frog
Sue Kedgley has just put out a press release calling for regulation of the sunbed industry in NZ. This follows a damning research report out of Australia that calls for an end to voluntary codes and strict regulations. The report makes a compelling medical and financial case for regulation. The report, speaking about Australians and in Australian dollars states:
Results from a meta-analysis of 21 studies investigating the association between solarium use and risk of skin cancer show an increased 4 risk for developing melanoma (by 22%) and squamous cell carcinoma (by 78%), an increased risk of melanoma for first users under 35 years (by 98%) and for women (by 71%).
If the Government were to regulate the industry, we estimate that around 20-35 melanomas and 240-320 SCCs would be avoided and 35 life years gained per 100,000 persons. The corresponding cost-savings generated from avoided health care costs are expected to be approximately $300,000 per 100,000 persons. For all young Australians, we could expect that over their lifetime, over 1,000 melanomas and 12,000 SCCs would be avoided and at least $12.2 million would be saved. These estimations are sensitive to the relative risk estimates for skin cancers and solarium use and discount rates.
Reports indicate that there is market failure in this industry as operators are unaware of and/or failing to comply with the voluntary code of practice which aims to minimize these increased health risks. Given the huge burden imposed by skin cancer in Australia now, growth in the solaria industry will inflate this human and economic burden in years to come. Results from a cost effectiveness analysis suggest that by enforcing solaria regulations the government can expect favourable cost and health benefits.
It’s pretty compelling. The report also states that using a sunbed just once in your youth increases cancer risk by 22%. Ouch. That’s me! (Once was enough.)
Published in Campaign | Health & Wellbeing by frog on Fri, January 18th, 2008
Tags: australia, economic, Kedgley, regulation, solaria, sunbed
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
One question, how long before going to the beach is banned? I hear that increases you chance of getting skin cancer as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nick – nice shot, but no-one is talking about a ban, just firmer regulations than the voluntary code that the study shows most solaria don’t even know exists. As for the beach, well the study says it’s much safer than the solaria, so have at mate! I guess it’s patently obvious when you’ve had enough at the beach but harder to sense the damage from a sunbed. Who knows?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good god NO Sue!
I liked you, you were one of the Greens that I would listen to but this is silly.
You CANNOT legislate for stupidity and you should not go sticking your beak into our lives anymore than need be.
If dumb and vain people want to bake themselves so be it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
that must be about the 63rd time that BB has said on this blog “I used to like you but” or “I used to vote for you but” or such like. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bb is a bit of a ‘richard’..
but..from my readings..his animal rights sympathies far exceed most others..
so..at least on those grounds..he has reason/cred to moan..
and as for sunburn/cancers..?
how many times do the morons have to be told..?
to take their hands out of the fire..?
special laws for stupid people..
phil(whoar.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil, judging by the fact that it’s taken 35 years to get 90% of people wearing their seatbelts in front seats, I would hazard a guess that morons have to be told an innumerable number of times. Judging from the general apathy to global warming I think we may have to face the possibility that morons are a majority of the population.
I thought, from Frog’s post, that the intention is to regulate an irresponsible industry rather than it’s customers, morons or otherwise.
Although the fact that the original research is from Australia it does tend to prove the maxim that “A fool and his money are soon parted.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
scary thought, but i would agree with BB on this one in part, we can legislate against stupidity but we shouldint, if through their own stupidity people injure themselves, with knowledge of possible consequences, thats their own fault, and so long as nobody else is injured and we dont have to pick up the bill then thats fine by me, call it ‘natural selection’.
having said that we should insure that the stupid who cannot extrapolate the possible damage have the possible damage laid out infront of them, so how about compulary warnigns on the scanners, like on smokes, at the same time we can shove it on booze and maybe even food that is pumped full of MSG and such
Sapient
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Problem is in a decent society medical costs are socialised while sun bed clinics are run for private profit.
Could tax the sun bed clinics a special ‘cancer’ tax. Probably better to enforce a code of conduct. Other sectors have codes they have to follow, why not them?
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog wrote:
>It’s pretty compelling. The report also states that using a sunbed just once in your youth increases cancer risk by 22%. Ouch. That’s me! (Once was enough.)
Surely not! Sunburn susceptibility among frogs is way higher than among humans (or kahikateas, for that matter).
But on a more serious note, we all know about the risk levels from natural sun exposure. The sunbed industry have been trying to tell us their machines are safer. Clearly they shouldn’t be allowed to do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How anybody in their sane minds could ever treat the greens seriously ever again is beyond me, as they have just been foot stools for the corrupt liarbour party . New Zealand can do without such jellyfish utopian dreamers , because enough damage has been inflicted on society by incompetent fools !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So articulate, so convincing, so compelling, so relevant to the thread!!! I’ll never be the same again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
D4J
Is it your intention to be banned from EVERY blog in NZ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do what ya what ya like, as you’re bloody liars !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow….hang on D4J, basically I am on your side but please respect that this place (unlike most sites) is almost free of personal abuse.
However you do need to chill out a bit mate, you are without doubt the easiest person to wind up that I have ever seen on the net, if you bite the sods will simply keep teasing you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
Anybody who has not worked out that over exposure to the sun (or sun lamps) can cause cancer is indeed a moron.
I am usually against govt funded “public service ” messages as they are often nothing more than electioneering in drag (see WFF) but the campaign for skin cancer has been a roaring success and on going.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Speaking of Death….
Yes I know this is off topic but I have just finished watching the outstanding dramatization of the 1960′s Moors murderers Hyndley and Brady.
How anybody could have lived through that or watched that program and not be in favour of the death penalty is beyond me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes cancer tax on sunbeds sounds like a good move, also turn all supermarkets into multi-storey buildings putting all the junk food at the top, healthy stuff at ground floor with no elevators, so all the lardarsses have to walk up the stairs to buy their 100 litres of coke. Maybe we should fine/re-educate parents who don’t put sunscreen on their kids at the beach.
Talking of death, I read the “state of planet” speech http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech11547.html and was most entertained, Jeanette points out all the problems which we are most likely to destroy most of the worlds population from, my favourite line was definately “The tragic thing is that GDP does not measure human happiness or wellbeing. It mainly measures the rate at which resources are turned into trash.”
haha classic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well GDP’s inventor (Simon Kuznets) wasn’t that keen on using GDP as the sole measure of progress either…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is there anything Sue Kedgley doesn’t think should be regulated, banned or made compulsory because consumers are too stupid in her opinion to decide for themselves what they want?
She could always lead a voluntary campaign to encourage people – encourage not force – new concept for Sue – to not use sun beds. She could use her OWN money to do it.
Far too hard though, just pass a law, new laws can fix everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Looks like it’s something to do with not following the voluntary codes of practice libertyscott – see page 14 of the report on stuff that perhaps people should know about which tanning salons are not necessarily telling them – presumably requires regulation of the industry…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but don’t those sunbed statistics say more about the kind of people who use sunbeds, rather than what the sunbeds are actually doing? The kind of people who would pay for even more UV exposure than they would get normally are probably not that worried about how much UV they are getting from the day-to-day Sun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
libertyscott said Is there anything Sue Kedgley doesn’t think should be regulated, banned or made compulsory because consumers are too stupid in her opinion to decide for themselves what they want?
So, Scott, do you think there should be no limit for breath/blood alcohol levels for drivers as well? That is the logical conclusion of your argument.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Scott, treatment for metastatic melanoma is expensive. Because of the high cost of anti-cancer drugs and radiotherapy machines, it more expensive than setting fractured bones caused by drunk drivers having car accidents.
What Sue is proposing here is really just the State mitigating its risk. Unless, of course, you propose that there be no public health system and that anyone who can’t afford health insurance and gets sick or injured is left to die, which I suspect from your posts on this blog you may also support.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well public health can be a ‘tyranny’ of sorts, if restrictions are made to people’s freedom of choice in the name of the cost to the taxpayer – however in this case it looks merely like the tanning businesses are not necessarily providing correct information to those using their business. If people want to tan the hell out of themselves, fine, as long as they are made totally aware of ALL the risks by the business (‘information assymetry’ is the relevant term here). Cancer tax may have a place in a public health system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The amount of alcohol in a drivers blood can very seriously affect other people, I think theres an obvious difference here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Scott, do you think there should be no limit for breath/blood alcohol levels for drivers as well?”
That should be up to the road owner, currently the state, and it is a legitimate way of mitigating risk to others. People who tan don’t harm others, it is their own risk.
You can make up arguments that the state should mitigate the costs of taxpayer funded healthcare by regulating what people should do, in which case as biotechnology takes off, and more and more expensive treatments emerge will see growing waiting lists and endless demand for so called “free” treatment.
You can argue public health vs private care as much as you want, but if there was private health care (as there is already and plenty of people pay to make sure they don’t die or are in agony while they wait) I’d ask YOU whether YOU’d let people without health insurance die. If you’re answer is no, then why do you expect other people to do so? The UK before 1945 did not have this happen, and it didn’t happen in NZ before 1935 either, so why would it happen again now? Of course numerous people die waiting for treatment under the public health system as well, I personally know two people who have died let down by the public health system that “missed” a couple of large tumours.
Now if you want to tax people using tanning beds then we go down a path than means we may as well shift everyone to an insurance model, and vary the premiums according to risk. This suddenly becomes a clear incentive to change behaviour (due to cost), but I doubt the Greens want to let people pay for their self destructive behaviour, but rather want everyone else to bear that cost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It may be easier to tax salons, spas, or tanning bed owners rather than natural sunbathers, but consumer education is a better measure toward harm-reduction. Over-exposure to the sun is responsible for many more cases of melanoma (especially in the Southern Hemisphere) than the brief vanity glow induced by indoor tanning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)