If there's any damage to the hair, that damage will not be present in the additional growth from the hair shaft in the scalp.

As with most things, safety and moderation make a difference. A few minutes careful (no such thing as safe)tanning a couple times a month won't significantly raise your risk of melanoma or cataracts

" I've never had a 'bad' orgasm "

http://www.aad.org/media/background/factsheets/fact_indoortanning.html

There's no need to declare anyone here as "ignorant" or imply or denote anything unkind or adverse.

I stated the shields are "provided" or available without any comment on whether or not there is subject compliance.

Now, if goggles or UV absorbing material is not used, then the UV rays will inflame the lids. UV will not pass through the lids and promote cataracts or retinal disease. This if a comment is made that the "eyes" are damaged if one doesn't use protective eyewear, that is not precise if the eyes are closed. The eyelids, not the eyes, are injured.

As for the hair, there was never a denial that the hair exposed to the radiation could be damaged. There was only the statement that new hair growth would be unaffected by such prior radiation.

There is no valid reason for anyone to use a tanning bed or booth which uses UV radiation to tan. Tanning is a response to injury, and UV light, especially before the age of 18, poses risks and damage.

In the alternative, chemical tanning via spraying, or by DHA lotions (Clinique Self Tanning Cream is excellent - - - no fragrance, applies easily and smoothly, tans in a few hours, lasts for a few days)

By the way, when one cuts open an apple and the fruit turns brown, that is due to melanin, the same melanin which is involved with tanning. The browning reaction results from the oxidation of phenolic compounds in the fruit aided by an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase or "PPO".

" I've never had a 'bad' orgasm "

Show me one shred of qualified evidence that UV rays pass through closed eyelids and are harmful to the cornea, aqueous humor, lens, vitreous humor, and/or retina. Links please.

A small "burn" is required to disperse/stimulate melanin, but proper booth technique will not produce a symptomatic "burn". Remember, tanning is a response to injury.

Now, instead of displaying anger and hostility, please provide us with credible on-point educational URLs.

I have already stated that no one should use a tanning booth. However, controlled man-made UV exposure is useful for a few diseases, such as psoriasis.

To expand on the obvious to stubborn fool-
1.Damaged Hair: Of course, hair is not called hair until it emerges from the scalp. People only care about the 12"-36" protruding from their scalps. To hide behind the attitude "I said it doesn't damage new hair" is silly. UV's damage what is commonly refered to as hair and tanning booths exude UV's in massive concentrated quantities.

http://womenshair.about.com/od/healthyhairmaintenance/a/UVprotection.htm

2. Damaged Eyes: UV's penetrate eyelids (after burning the thin skin of the eyelid) and damage the eye both short term and long term. Eight minutes in a tanning booth can equal a full days exposure to sunlight.

http://www.eyecarecontacts.com/home_first_aid_kit.html

3. Burn to Tan: A "burn" is not required to "tan" your skin. Low level exposure to UV's over time will darken your skin without burning.

http://www.ehow.com/how_996_tan-without-burning.html

4.Burns increase risks of cancer.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/skin-cancer/DS00190/DSECTION=risk-factors

5. Tanning is a response to damaged skin: There is no such thing as a healthy tan.

http://www.mastertanning.com/tips/25/tanning-process/

6. 'Tanning' does have limited medical benefit. The Vitamin D excuse is not true if you have at least a decent diet. It can help with other skin issues as stated.

http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/tanningBeds.htm

The thread started as a tax going to pay for skin cancer treatments. It will not. Doesn't even address the eyecare issues. Folks on federal government backed insurance will get treated with the tax or without. People on private plans don't benefit from the tax. How much will be raised? It's the same as Social Security-They will grab and spend the money now and worry about paying for treatments later.

http://dailyme.com/story/2010061400000666/federal-tanning-tax-starts-july-money.html

You are not a stupid person as you write well and have excellent grammar. I'm sure there are many subjects people would consider you as an expert. You know very little about this subject. If you take the time to read the links, you will have a better understanding of the subject but still lack experience. Sadly, you are an example of someone who has a little bit of knowledge being dangerous. Please take the time to educate yourself before opining on this and other subjects.

PS
This was written while relaxing on the back porch in partial sunlight

" I've never had a 'bad' orgasm "

Glad you didn't mean it.

Sometimes I wish I had a lack of knowledge, but you are in no position to judge that nor is that the issue here.

Unclear why you posted those links. Are you suffering from sunstroke ? We agree on everything except the extent of UV transmission through the eyelids and through protective goggles. The tanning booth sources and consumer sites are divergent from true credible medical sources. The plain truth is that NEGLIGIBLE UV radiation passes through the intact normal upper eyelid. Check the Medline sources, not consumer sites. Negligible = not clinically significant and/or not a cause of pathology.

Please post your source (see message #7) which proves that UV goggles do not substantially reduce UV radiation. Even simple polycarbonate lenses for human eye wear can eliminate 99.9% of all UV radiation, so it is painfully obvious that goggles designed to eliminate UV radiation should do the same or better.

=============================

Present status of eyelid phototherapy.
Clinical efficacy and transmittance of ultraviolet and visible radiation through human eyelids.

Prystowsky JH, Keen MS, Rabinowitz AD, Stevens AW, DeLeo VA.

Department of Dermatology, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy for the eyelid has not previously been recognized as a safe and effective treatment of photoresponsive dermatoses of the eyelid, such as atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, psoriasis, lymphomatoid papulosis, and parapsoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

METHODS: Two cases are presented to demonstrate clinical efficacy. In addition, a retrospective eye evaluation of seven patients receiving a combined total of greater than 1300 eyelid phototherapy treatments was performed. To determine whether potentially harmful UV radiation is significantly transmitted through eyelid skin, an in vitro study was conducted to measure the percentage transmittance of ultraviolet-visible radiation through five excised eyelids.

RESULTS: In the two cases presented, remarkable improvement occurred without adverse side effects, suggesting that it is possible to deliver incremental UV dosages to eyelid skin to achieve clearing of skin disease. Retrospective analysis of patients’ records revealed no ocular disease from the phototherapy. In vitro eyelid examination produced data that indicated negligible quantities of UV radiation were transmitted through eyelid skin compared with the visible spectrum, in which up to 77% of the radiation was transmitted through the tissue.

CONCLUSION: The combined clinical experience and transmittance data suggest that eyelid phototherapy is a safe and effective treatment in selected patients.

PMID: 1597547 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]