Local news feed
Local news e-mail
HJN local mobileYouth tanning ban goes before council
(Comment on this story)
Thursday, September 14, 2006
HAMILTON — A proposal to prohibit anyone under 18 from using a tanning salon in Hamilton is causing concern for local business owners and some statewide groups within the industry.
On Wednesday night a draft proposal aimed at amending the city's health ordinance governing tanning parlors came before the Hamilton City Council. Currently, Hamilton allows minors to use a tanning facility as long as written consent is provided by a parent.
Extras
Hamilton's laws mirror Ohio's regulations, which also requires that parents give consent in person for teens who cannot drive.
The draft ordinance was prompted by Councilman George McNally, who said he was contacted about the issue by local physicians.
Those physicians, who represent the Butler County Medical Society and the Hamilton-Fairfield Academy of Medicine, told members of the council that the selling of a tanning facilities' ultra violent rays to minors should be regulated just as the government regulates tobacco and alcohol.
"The primary issue is regulating a potentially dangerous product, in my mind no different than other dangerous products that minors can be exposed to," said Dr. Bradford Woodall a physician with Mercy Hospital Fairfield. "It's part of our society to regulate dangerous products. ... There's certainly precedence made for regulating a dangerous product."
Woodall backed his statements with data which indicated skin cancer is closely associated with excessive ultra violent rays before the age of 18. Other statistics presented Wednesday night showed that one in every five children exposed to excessive ultra violent rays develops skin cancer later in life.
However, several among the crowd said those figures are debatable.
Rob Quinn was among nearly 20 individuals within the tanning industry who turned out in opposition of the change. An owner of several tanning salons and the mayor of Kelleys Island in northern Ohio, Quinn flew in from his hometown Wednesday after being contacted by a local tanning facility owner.
"This hasn't been done anywhere in the nation," he said. "Ohio is the toughest regulated state, and I'm concerned about legislation like this at the local level."
Aside from the impact to local business owners, Quinn said he's concerned that such regulations would drive teens toward "black market" tanning operations. Hamilton tanning salon owner Karen Martin said teens account for at least 10 percent of her business. She said taking such a hit would drive her out of town.
Following more than two hours of discussion, the council voted to bring the legislation forward at its Sept. 27 meeting. Second and third readings are planned in October. A vote on the issue could be taken by Oct. 25.
Contact this reporter at (513) 820-2186 or lbernard@coxohio.com.
Comments
By Drew
September 26, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this
Pools don’t have an exposure schedule and no one helps you NOT BURN. Which by the way is where we get skin cancer from, not from moderate exposure. There are more studies backing this up than to the contrary!
By Drew
September 26, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this
A tanning bed in a professional facillity can’t stay on for however long some kid is swimming or playing frisbee. Skin cancers come from severe sunburning and also has a strong genetic link. A salon is way way better to get a tan if indeed, you are going to get one anyway! (and pools don’t have exposure schedules)
By George
September 26, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
It’s Ultraviolet you idiots, not Ultra Violent. Who is the editor of the rag?
By Kristin
September 25, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Tanning in moderation is completely acceptable. By banning indoor tanning for 18 and under only means they are going to lay in the sun longer to achieve the same results they would if they tanned indoors with a Certified Tan Consultant in a CONTROLLED environment. We frequently turn minors away who have tanned too much that week and explain it is will not get you a better tan. You have to wait a day or 2 in between to get the best results. Education is the answer, not banning!
By Bart Bonn
September 19, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Ridiculous! What is Hamilton’s sun exposure policy at the local swimming pool? I’m sure the children and the teen life guards employeed by the city are falling over dead. What is the city council’s policy regarding minor’s and their exposure to water? Teen death by UV exposure is exactly ZERO, yet teen death due to drowning is hundreds annually. What kind of a Nanny state are we becoming? I accept responsibility for my life and I accept reponsibility for my children’s welfare, so bud out.
By Libby D
September 15, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this
What’s next, a ban on highschool football? Parents, not McNally, should decide what activity their children participate in. Are the parents in Hamilton too stupid to decide whether to allow their 17 year old to tan or not. Isn’t a signed consent by a parent enough? Come on McNally, aren’t there other things more important than taking away parent rights…contrary to what you think, us parents aren’t stupid.
By Holly G.
September 15, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this
I don’t think that the council members should have the right to take away the right to tan for a minor, especially if the parents sign for them. Tanning can be used for those people with skin disorders, to tan for school dances, and to prepare for vacation- these things aren’t excessive. Why shouldn’t they be allowed? What’s next…will the government be monitoring how many times a minor eats at McDonald’s because fast food is bad for you?
By Tracie
September 15, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Yeah, that’s great everyone! Let’s just give the governemt control over everything we do! Tan with ‘government approved tanning products?’ Give me a break! Don’t you realize that OUR tax dollars pay for that? In addition, a little bit of our freedom gets taken away with each ‘government’ intervention. Wise up, people!
By A Concerned Mother
September 15, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
I find it extremely offensive that the city council of Hamilton thinks they can take away my parental rights. As a parent, I’m intelligent enough to decide whether or not my daughter can tan. With crime, drugs, gangs, etc. running rampant in our schools, I would think that councilman McNally would have more important issues to focus on. What’s next Mr. McNally…will I need your consent before I allow my daughter to go to the pool…after all, there’s a chance that she may get a sunburn?
By Roberta Randall
September 15, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
I am personally offended by Mr. McNally’s implication that I am not intelligent enough to make an informed decision whether or not to allow my minor child to use an indoor tanning facility. The Ohio state regulations are more than adequate to address the issue of tanning by minors by requiring parental consent.Taking away our parental rights through legislation is a dangerous precedent and could very well open Pandora’s box. What’s next, Mr. McNally?
By Jeff H
September 15, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
I am offended that councilman McNally is trying to take away my parental rights. I feel I am intelligent enough to make a decision as to if my child can tan or not. So, when our family takes our much needed vacation, we are going to have to worry about whether my son is going to get a sun burn (from the sun) because he is not able to tan in a tanning bed before we go on vacation. There are definately more concerns for our teenagers than tanning.
By ANONYMOUS MC
September 15, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
This is a perfect example of Hamilton’s finest at work. Let us move on to firing the person who contacted the paving of Route 4. I think we should build another awesome bridge so when the other three fall from age it will almost be built. Rednecks in suits. LETS MAKE SOME LAWS BOYS.
By sara newberry
September 15, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
since “they” are so concerned about illnesses and cancers, why not regulate all the other crap people are using that spread toxins? ie: deoderants, perfumes,all the stuff people put in the air and on their bodies are full of toxins. where are the “stats” on all that? enough is enough of all the blame throwing. we are responsible for ourselves alone, and we are responsible for those consequences of our own choices. we are all born in this life with free will, and i would like to keep mine.
By Concerned citizen
September 15, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
It’s important to note that the physicians who approached the council are attempting to hekp prevent kids who tan from experiencing life-long serious health issues and pain and suffering. They will not be receiving any benefit from this—in fact, one of the physicians who approached the council is a dermatologist, who would actually end up seeing LESS patients as a result of this type of ordinance. I think it’s important to realize that skin cancer is not a joke and can be very serious.
By larry b.
September 14, 2006 11:25 PM | Link to this
definitely should not let youths in tanning beds without written consent of there parents. they should also have tanning police at munincipal pools to make sure youths dont over stay in sun unless protected by goverment approved tanning products.
By Summer Adams
September 14, 2006 09:51 PM | Link to this
Here is what I think, I dont think that you should be able to choose if Minors Tan in Hamilton, and i’m not just saing that because im a minor. Im saying it because it should be up to the Minor and his or her mother or father to decide wether or not they can tan or they cant, it shouldnt be up to people who are not their parents. Even though you can get spray on tans, it’s alot cheaper to but minutes for most people. Your going to be making buisness owners angry and the minors and there parents!
By James C. Imfeld
September 14, 2006 07:24 PM | Link to this
Isin’t “big brother” getting into the parental responsibility area? What’s next water intake? There certainly are other areas of Council business that are more important. JC
By Bill Gallagher
September 14, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Woodhall has mis-quoted the artciles he has presented. Upon reading the articles he submitted they don’t say Skin Cancer has been linked to indoor tanning beds. Woodhall also stated that UV emmitted from tanning beds pentrate deeper than those emmitted from the sun. This statement is false and unfounded. The DR’S present at the meeting claim that they stand to gain nothing for there efforts. This statement is false. They told the council that tanning under the age of 18 should be perscribed.$$
By Marty Gallagher
September 14, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
After reviewing the article that Dr.Woodall is refering to he misquoted the facts about 1 in five children aquiring skin cancer, according to the documents he supplied to city councel. I question his intention. This article was published by the World Health Organization. The article he referenced says nothing about children and nothing about tanning beds causing skin cancer. With his credentials he should not mislead the general public as he did.
He is trying to take away parental rights.
By Rob Quinn
September 14, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
I remember having some horrible sunburns when I was a child, prior to the introduction of sunscreens. None of this damage however took place in the controlled enviornment of sun bed. Sun Burn is not good, however Sun TAN is natures way of helping prevent the body’s suseptability to burning. State and Federal regs along with responsible salon owners and parents demand moderation to exposure and do not allow overexposure. Sun is essencial for life.
By Brenda N. Clark
September 14, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
I am opposed to passing this kind of a law. Not everyone gets skin cancer by UV exposure just like not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking. I venture to say the ingredients in sun block and tan lotions are toxic enough to cause the cancers. Statistics may even support an uprise in skin cancer rates in direct proportion to the invention and marketing of these toxic chemicals rubbed into the skin.
By Tim Stubbs
September 14, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Moderate UV exposure promotes health. It is accepted by the dermatological community and this NBC report talks about it. The vitamin D, serotonin, and endorphins that are created in skin cells ward off osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, MS, psoriasis, and cancers of the breast, prostate, and colon. The danger is from EXCESSIVE UV exposure, not all exposure. See this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13716359/
Moderation in all things.
By Jim Hazelton
September 14, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
WHEN I WAS YOUNG AND KNEW IT ALL I RAN AROUND WITHOUT A SHIRT ALL SUMMER(BEFORE TANNING BEDS)AND THOUGHT IT WAS COOL TO HAVE A TAN. I’M NOW 65 AND I HAVE TO HAVE SKIN CANCERS CUT OFF TO OFTEN. I NOW HAVE A SCAR WHERE THEY HAD TO PUT 11 STITCHES ON MY FACE. DON’T EVER THINK IT CAN’T HAPPEN TO YOU. BECAUSE I USETO THINK THAT WAY . NOW I’M PAYING FOR IT.