Discrimination by Skin Type

[Lickszz 10]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13117694,00.html

 

Surely this is up to the people to decide not some consumer group?

 

If I was a Type 1 I would be furious.

[max 13]

.....code of practice says people with type 1 skin should be turned away.

 

 

These are people with freckles and red hair, typical indiginous celts. Yet again discrimination against our own people.

[*Twinkle* 10]

To be honest, people with type one skin should have the common sense to realise that the sun bed is going to fry them alive.... As a type one myself, I would never dream of using a sun bed, it puts me at risk of skin cancer, and judging by the burns I get on my shoulders during a British summer, I don't want those burns on the rest of my body.

[mr.blaze 10]

I'd rather just look unhealthy and pale lol.

[Edd 10]

Originally posted by caprice

To be honest, people with type one skin should have the common sense to realise that the sun bed is going to fry them alive....

 

Too right Caprice - unfortunately these days people can sue if they are not protected from their own stupidity. A tragic state of affairs - Charles Darwin is probably turning in his grave...

[Fletch 10]

i wunder why we have different skin?

 

and why do red heads have more chance of burning?

 

i am broen haired and slightly tanned and no matter hw long im out in the sun i never burn or go red! i went to turkey about 4 years ago now and came back looking like a turd. and i didnt burn there either i hardly used suncream either

[magicgem 10]

Originally posted by Fletch

i wunder why we have different skin?

 

and why do red heads have more chance of burning?

 

i am broen haired and slightly tanned and no matter hw long im out in the sun i never burn or go red! i went to turkey about 4 years ago now and came back looking like a turd. and i didnt burn there either i hardly used suncream either

 

Im exactly the same! I actually dont like my skin tanned it looks horrible and unatural. On top of that I find it difficult to sit still and therefore Im rubbish at sun bathing! (The added bonus of skin cancer after sun bathing has never appealed either)

[SilentStatic 10]

Originally posted by Fletch

i wunder why we have different skin?

 

and why do red heads have more chance of burning?

 

 

Think it's something to do with levels of melanin in your skin?

(the stuff that reacts to turn skin brown)

[Titian 10]

I too am skin type 1 and would be probably greatful if turned away and respect their integrity. Not that I use sunbeds anyway.

[Titian 10]

Originally posted by max

These are people with freckles and red hair, typical indiginous celts. Yet again discrimination against our own people.

 

I don't really understand the discrimination there. Why do you feel this is discrimination?

[robh 10]

Originally posted by Lickszz

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13117694,00.html

 

Surely this is up to the people to decide not some consumer group?

 

If I was a Type 1 I would be furious.

I don't understand.

 

You would be furious that, because sunbed industry don't abide by their own code of practice to warn type 1 in particular of the risks of burns and cancer, there are calls for tighter regulation?

 

It is up to the individuals to decide whether to use a sunbed but how can they make an informed decision if they are not aware of the risks. The code of practice requires that customers are given information on sunbed risks, it's then up to them, with the benefit of that information, to decide. CA found that 5% of shops visited provided advice that the code of practise regards as "adequate", none reached the "good" standard and of the 95% that failed to reach the "adequate" standard several gave "misleading" advice - i.e. all that mattered to them was getting your money. Type 1 are at particular risk and permitting them on sunbeds might be compared to a pub landlord urging you to have a couple more pints before you drive home. If type 1 want to disregard the fact that they are at particular risk they can expose themselves to natural sunlight or buy a sunlamp (which will include written warnings) but for a tanning shop to provide the service for them is at the least irresponsible.

 

Should tanning shops be free to make money by knowingly exposing members of the public to something which, in the case of type 1, is going to harm them?

 

As for the Consumers Association being scathingly dismissed as "some consumer group" I think you should look at their record, especially in respect of food, medicine and health. They have brought dozens of medical & food industry scandals to public and government notice (and got government policies changed) and all funded by CA members. To eliminate any risk of partisanship CA don't accept any funding or advertising at all. Perhaps you'd prefer to believe you can trust government and industry to act in a responsible manner and protect out best interests at all times, even if doing so is not in their best short-term interest.

 

But if you want to disregard CA, Cancer Research UK considers the skin cancer risk so high that under 16's should be banned from using sunbeds and has called for licensing of sunbed parlours.

 

If people like the appearance of tanned skin then they have the option of using fake-tan which, as far as I am aware, has no known health risks.

 

Do you have some kind of family or financial interest in the sunbed industry?

 

I would be furious if I found I had been exposed to a health risk by someone who knew their product was putting me at risk but chose not to tell me hiding behind an excuse that it would constitute discrimination were they to give me the appropriate information.

[Lickszz 10]

There is a world of difference between keeping someone informed and turning them away.

 

Who decided it was for this unelected consumer group to reverse the tide of history and re-introduce the nanny state?

 

Freedom from the health nazis. It should be up to the people.