Share.

    28 Kommentare

    1. SuperMonkeyJoe on

      Sunbeds are going to be one of those things future generations point to to show how dumb people in the past were.

    2. seeitshaveitsorted on

      Fuck me, just give people the information and let them decide what to do.

      Yeah. People will fuck up. That’s the price of freedom.

    3. MilesyBoy303 on

      I need to use light sunbed use for my psoriasis. It’s the only way that’s affordable and practical. And yes the trade off is by damage but that’s why I use them lightly

    4. jammythesandwich on

      Why is the go to position to ban everything?

      I have no stake in this game as never been on a sunbed in my life and hope to continue that streak but wtf.

      Let people have some form of QoL and stop nanny statism at every turn

    5. ZealousidealHealth48 on

      Mandatory warning posters in every salon, advertising restrictions, spot checks, and big fines for anyone flouting the rules. See if that moves the numbers before going full nanny state.

    6. And for those who may need them for, as an instance, psoriasis? This doesn’t help at all, just perpetuates the problem.

    7. IlIIIllIIlIlllII on

      How much crime and healthcare money is directly associated to alcohol? Virtually ZERO benefits to smoking besides tax.

      Must we ban everything?

    8. I get the idea and they are obviously very bad for your skin, Ive known of people who have gotten skin cancer from them. However, deaths caused by alcohol are still far higher amd we dont regulate that into the floor.

    9. I think they should have a legal limit to how powerful they can be, so instead of nuking yourself for 6 minutes it takes 30-60 minutes to get the same effect.

      Let’s people make their own choices, but also restricts the convenience of being able to smash a load of UV at yourself on your lunch break every day.

    10. As an Australian living in the UK for the past 5 years I couldn’t believe they were still legal here. They are so damaging for skin cancer

    11. Expensive-Wealth9576 on

      This report is a bit vague. Doesn’t specify if the report is done with UV protecting creams. And I’m not justifying sun beds, but when you do research, again numbers are different but it’s around 15 minutes in a sunbed equates to anywhere between 1-3 hours in direct sunlight.

      So if we are saying that, again different studies say different things, some say 1 some say 3 hours. And if cancer is such a risk without even identifying if creams are being used in this study, then why are we trying to bad something which a average person would walk in sun for 3 hours or longer with no sun cream on anyway.

      The report is just stupid. We might aswell ban all fast food aswell as that leads to cancer aswell.

      I wish they did better studies

    12. Fuck that, I’m in Scotland and those are the closet we get to seeing daylight between October and March.

    13. I mean people know it’s bad for you, but people should be free to make the poor choices.

      Obviously there are examples where limits, and rulings are needed but it is always a balance. Maybe limit age of sunbed users, but same argument could be made making in illegal to not use suncream

    14. NurseRatched96 on

      Allow them but make it mandatory that photos of post MOHs surgery scarring and metastatic cancer patients are all over them as a warning, just like cigarette packets

    15. mikethemaniac on

      It does wonders for people with psoriasis, so I hope it will be medically available.

    16. Sunbeds are terrible…
      Cigarettes, alcohol, vapes, drug use, obesity etc etc.
      I tend to see more of those?

    17. If health risks are as extreme as they are (like always cause harm no healthy use) it should be banned or heavily regulated with licensing.

      Its not as if tanning is banned but companies shouldn’t sell products that always cause harm. We would ban food or other items that have cancer causing effects

    18. Interesting_Bit_5013 on

      At least needs a tax to let the gov pay for the long term effects of skin cancer. Smokers pay their way mostly should be the same

    19. PhobosTheBrave on

      Controversial, but add a nominal £5 NHS surcharge to the prices for these kinds of services. Same for anything else deemed excessively damaging.

      Makes people more conscious of the health impact while attaching a cost to users without burdening other non-users.

    20. A girl I used to see used to frequent sunbeds.

      More than anything I couldn’t believe how cheap it is, surely there’s a huge opportunity for taxing them to high heavens?

    21. Negative-Date-9518 on

      But we’ve known how damaging they’ve been for at least 20 years lol

    22. chickenman3332 on

      All these people saying „a ban would stop unnecessary strain on the NHS!!“ are forgetting that the NHS works for *us*.

      My life does not revolve around decisions that are best for the NHS the same way I do not decide my travel plans based around what is the best for the Department for Transport, even if it saves taxpayer money.

      The fact is the biggest strain on the NHS is old people. Therefore people dying of sunbed-induced skin cancer in their 40s is what _saves_ the NHS money. If „reducing strain on the NHS“ was our number one priority in life, NHS should be encouraging unhealthy behaviour like sunbeds, smoking, binge drinking, etc. because it saves them money in the long run.

    23. Deadliftdeadlife on

      You don’t need to ban them, just tighter regulations

      Make it so no one can use sun beds without an account at the shop and make it so you can only use it 3 times a week and no more than 12 minutes a go, or something

      It’s my skin, if I work inside all the time I’d like to get a little tan sometimes

    24. Classical_Lighthouse on

      feels like we’re approaching a nanny surveillance state with all this banning, just enforce disclaimers/tighter regulations and make sure people know the risk

    Leave A Reply