NSW To Ban Solariums: 'Equivalent To Asbestos'

Sure, they look cool and futuristic, but here's a startling fact: Tanning beds are categorised as a grade one carcinogen by the International Agency for Research in Cancer. Arguing that Australia has enough skin cancer problems as it is, New South Wales is the first state in Australia to ban tanning beds from December 31st, 2014.

Photo: Donald Miralle / Getty Images

The Australian Cancer Council says that those who first used a tanning bed before turning 35 have doubled their risk of developing melanoma. That’s why the Greens want the ban to be immediate – not three years away. Still, the Cancer Council has welcomed the ban as it’s been outlined, while NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker says the time is needed to give tanning businesses a chance to "diversify". Seems to me that if they realise it needs doing, they should just do it now and save lives. Then again, it's not like cigarettes are being truely "phased out". But that's a whole other story.

Have you ever used a tanning bed? I did once – years ago – and it definitely wasn't for me. I felt like a piece of meat slipping around on a glass cooking surface. Apparently that wasn’t far from the truth. [ABC News]



    Is it really more important that businesses diversify than to prevent people dying needlessly and horribly?


      Plus wouldn't all of this publicity and the three year wait make people feel like they should use them before they can't anymore...with a three year wait which gives them a chance of doing that. I mean, there is the age-old saying 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'.

      no, laws like this take away from peoples freedoms. people should be allowed to make their own choices in what they do. if it means getting cancer which they knew the consequences before hand then they get cancer. just like cigarettes, poker machines, weed, ect, these things should never be "banned" . the government is so quick to "ban" us from things these days that in a few short years the things that we can still do wont be that much and it will because us, the people, never stopped them along the way. and its people who make the comments like you just have that cause it. people are not dying needlessly they are dying cos they are idiots and being Australians or even human we have a right to be idiots if we want. why take away our liberty and freedoms and give the government even more power over us, so that they can protect us from ourselves?

        Yeah, I hear what you're saying.
        Reminds me of what I studied years ago at uni: The Harm Principle. "The actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals."
        That is, if you're the only one hurt then you should have the right to free will.

        The only problem I see with that in this specific case is that we have universal healthcare in Australia -- and in the end, the taxpayer will wear the bill. That's harmful, beyond the individual.

        Interesting nevertheless.

          I agree that we should be allowed to do whatever we please, if it is going to harm us or not. But what I don't agree with, and this is probably what the government are thinking about too, is when the people who end up giving themselves cancer rely on and expect to be treated with the upmost care by the country's health care system. Cancer and smoking induced health problems are costing the country way too much.

            In the same way I hope this ban paves the way for a ban on cigarettes, or an "Are you a smoker?", sorry your smoking related diseases are not billable to public money clause.

            I was watching the ABC show "The Drum" the other day. The panel was debating health policy and the general consensus was that it's an extremely expensive and sensitive area of government spending.

            This ban will, in the future, reduce the cost of "avoidable/self inflicted" illness / disease, so that the money which would have been spent can go towards those other items like dental.

          Yeah that was my first thought too.
          Sure I get the whole freedom perspective and agree with it in a lot of ways but then these people will end up in hospitals using taxpayer funds for their "choice".

            Don't forget the taxes these people pay and also the tax that is imposed on their smoking, really just making it one large circle of life when it comes down to it.... Also it would be interesting to see a study on how many people who develop skin cancer actually used a solarium i think you might find the results would shock you in that the rays emitted by our harsh australian sun are far worse....

          Wouldn't Universal health care mean Dental was covered too? Just saying:)

          I would agree, provisional on immediately mandating Health Warning stickers on all tanning beds saying "This bed doubles your risk of cancer".

          We don't need more nanny-state laws, but we DO need public education, so that adults can make their own informed choices.

    "Cancerous salon beds being banned..."
    "...Effective as of 2015"

    Well another Solarium headline. Well we all know cigarettes , alchol , pokies etc make the goverment so much money so lets just sweep that under the carpet. How about obesity?? So do we close the McDonalds ,hungry jacks , KFC etc down?? I mean obesity is Australia's worst epedemic right now. So it all comes down to CHOICE and the freedom as Australians to do this. We have a goverment who is pledgeing dictatorship. I mean where does it stop. Soon we will be a communist country and not allowed to even think for our selves. I sit on a beach whilst wtiting this and how many people do i see getting burnt. The goverment will ban beaches next.... Comunisim i say.

      "So do we close the McDonalds ,hungry jacks , KFC etc down?? I mean obesity is Australia’s worst epedemic right now."

      A single serving of McDonalds doesn't increase your risk of obesity. There are lots of people that eat fast food that aren't obese.

      A single trip to a solarium does increase the risk of cancer, and doesn't actually provide any benefit. At least fast food provides some nutritional value.

      I think cigarettes should be banned.

      Alcohol is trickier, because there have been numerous studies showing that an occasional drink has positive health effects.

      I don't think there is anything wrong with pokies. If I spend $50 on the pokies I am not doing any harm to myself or anybody else.

        If the government tried to restrict me from drinking a bottle of red I would definitely go crazy. I don't think banning is the solution to anything because there will always be people willing to go out of their way to get it. And the people using solariums will just have to go outside more - tans are not going to go out of fashion (at least in a certain type of people) any time soon. Sure some people become addicted to certain legal things - but they are the minority and we shouldn't be punished for their actions. It's like alcohol - it creates a lot of problems, but that is because a lot of people are stupid and don't know how to drink. Whatever.

        Your understanding of communism is woefully poor.

    Does anyone complaining actually like/use solariums or is it purely from a 'No I should be allowed to do whatever I want' approach, even though what they want doesn't include using a tanning bed, it's just great to say the government is going to far.

    People have known about the issues with these things for years, but they just keep using them. Plus three years is a joke, it should just be stopped now! Those people that still run these things should have well and truly gotten the message by now!

    In my opinion the simple reason to ban these cancerous contraptions is simple.

    Even if the individual who uses the solauriam gets cancer, and dies from it. The result of this action is that persons loved ones have to be subjected to seeing a person they love, cheerish and care for go through a horrible ordeal. It also effects each and every tax payer as it creates a burden on the health system, not to mention the extra strain on an overcrowded, over worked under staffed health care system.

    If by using these beds, only one singular person were effected then I would say yes banning is nonsense. But for EVERY action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's impossible for the action of an "idiot" that leads to their death nt having a reaction on another part of the human race.

    It truly is that simple. When was the last time you saw someone go "my (insert relation here) died of cancer (or by their own stupidity). By don't feel sorry for me, it's their fault. No loss to me, now what's for dinner"

    Wake the hell up!

      yes when someone dies people are sad, but going out of our way to keep morons alive just because some people might be sad for a little while is ridiculous. what the government is supposed to manage our feelings to? people have to die, just like Darwins theory, the dumb have to die somehow so the intelligent can multiply thus improving the human race, evolution. (if u get technical) . there is a point to the cost on our health system but apart from that?.. keep the beds, fuck thos people.

        "But for EVERY action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

        I read this and wanted to poke my eyes out. Seriously, you should not speak.

          i never said that.. crazy up there did ^

    I never liked the idea of these things anyway. Exposing your body to extremely intensive rays of light for a long period of time.... why don't you just go to Japan near the nuclear sites and expose yourself to that for a long time. At least that way you can just die and we don't have to pay to keep you alive as a potato. I say the people using them are probably the types of people that I don't affiliate with anyway (tossers) so give them 3 more years in these death beacons. (Lol beacons made me think of bacon, mmmm bacon strips)

    Gee, did anyone here think that UV rays actually elevate mood? When you have 4 weeks of grey and wet weather, it can do alot to make people feel good. Also, Vitamin D comes from sunlight. Don't the GREENS have anything better to do than to shove another nanny state ban down our throats? I like sunshine, and the cancer is more likely a result of having no ozone rather than pointing the finger at tanning beds. Everything in moderation - let people do what they want. This banning is dumb, dumb, dumb - next thing you know the Greens will be charging you a fee to fart in public.

    If i may add to the VitaminD comment. World wide vitamin d defeciency is on the rise, even in Australia. WE slip slop slap so well we have a high rate of Vitamin D defeciency. google what health benefits Vitamn D has and you will be shocked. Australians who dont have time to lay in the sun, choose solariums and if solariums were gone sun baking would be back. Wheres the controoled UV light exposure now. Slapping sun screen on blocks Vitamin D production. banning indoor tanning will have a massive effect not on the tanners but vitamin d levels in those tanners. Its about free will and choice, let people choose the beach or solariums.

      I totally agree with VitaminD. Low vitamin D levels is now linked to causing many other cancers and diseases, including breast and colon cancer. Its surprising how uneducated most of the people commenting here actually are towards UV light. seems to me most people here have watched one today tonight report and are suddenly experts on UV exposure. Maybe do some research on UV light and the benefits it provides, end of the day no life would exist on earth without it.
      i would like to hear how suffers of psoriasis, eczema and seasonal affected disorder feel about tanning beds now being banned. they can now go to a dermatologist and pay $200 for 3 sessions to use their "light Box" what a joke!
      Heres something else to consider for all the haters of UV light, since the slip slop slap campaign began in the mid 80's skin cancer rates have not dropped!

      Maybe the NSW government shouldnt have caved in to biased campaigners who are looking for someone to blame for genetic mutations and actually looked at the research being done in many countries that have shown benefits of uv that far outweigh the negatives.

      in relation to this rubbish and UV lamps being listed as a group 1 carcinogen, red wine and salted fish are also listed in that group! and is the only item in that group that has proven health benefits!

      One last thing, lets get this straight as of 2015 u can not go and use a tanning bed in a controlled environment after having a complete skin analysis done, but u can lay in the midday sun for hours at a time! and u are still able to buy a tanning bed for home and tan all day everyday!

    Some good responses here. I have mixed feelings on the subject.. I think when used in moderation, like everything in life. But some are obsessed and go regularly, ignoring the waiting periods, burning their skin deliberately and using lotions to speed up the healing etc. I have used the beds about 25 times in total, each time it was main ly because my exposure to sun was so limited (ie: living in London in winter, or summer for that matter!). But mostly the feeling of warmth and wanting some layer of an initial tan before I went on holiday..

    There are health y ways of getting sun, therefore vitamin d etc. 15mins in the morning, go for a short walk etc. Again at lunch or in the afternoon. Its not an exact science as there are many factors etc.. We are fortunate to have the natural healthy option right outside.. in moderation I repeat.

    Are the motivations for uusing solariums tanning or health or obsession or all of the above.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now