by peter5427

I just read all the exhibits submitted to this bill. I find them deficient in the following ways:

  • None describe how UV can alter DNA sufficiently to cause melanoma.
  • One of them specifically calls for deleting the word “harmful,” yet doesn’t bother to explain why not-harmful non-ionizing radiation should be regulated anyway.
  • None explain what portion of melanoma cases are due to tanning beds vs. the naturally higher UV levels here in the high desert.
  • None offer any ideas how in the name of cancer prevention they propose to regulate natural exposure.¬† I don’t see anyone proposing we all wear burkas, or reviving the Victorian era parasols for the ladies and wide-brim hats or cowboy hats for the men even if they are not ranchers.
  • None explain why tanning beds should remain legal, if they are so dangerous and there are so few of them in the state.
  • None explain why UV should be lumped in with x-rays for the purposes of regulation.

The fact is, EM radiation at all frequencies is likely to match some quantum energy state of a nucleus, atom, molecule or chemical bond — some of it very harmful but most of it harmless. There is the entire field of health physics devoted to this topic. You’d think anyone dabbling in this issue, such as the proponents and supporters of this bill, would start with the basic science.

As a physicist in a former life and a life-long conservative libertarian in this one, I see no need for this bill. If a person is so determined to get a tan, they can lie or run around naked in their backyard. The state can’t do anything about that, yet the financial impact would still be there to deal with when the victim is indigent.