This sounds well and good, but just like anything else, you have to try to think about unintended consequences. Ban or not, teens will continue to seek tans and they will seek out unmonitored home tanning units and unsafe habits in the natural sun. Research shows that the risk of using home tanning beds is far greater than using them in salons - presumably because of exposure time and because salon workers are trained to not allow clients to overexpose. As much as doctors would like you to believe it, research has not shown a statistically significant correlation between tanning in salons and melanoma - only with home use and medical phototherapy. Melanoma is clearly a very sad thing, but when talking about legislation, emotion and anecdotal evidence must be put to the side. Unfortunately, a very small percentage of young people have always gotten melanoma, and continue to. But melanoma in young people is not on the rise according to National Cancer Institute data.

Dereck, you can twist the research any way you want but the facts are that tanning beds cause cancer. Yes, all minors should be banned from tanning beds because the health dangers are not worth the use of this UV radiation equipment for vanity. There is NO reason why our kids should be spending time in these death traps. Yet your spin on the "benefits" (misinformation and lies) have made it so that parents can't make an informed decision for their children ... so unfortunately, parental consent doesn't work. Perhaps legislators should do their own research on the web sites of the WHO, CDC, NCI, AAD, IARC, FDA, FTC, AIM, and other prestigious medical authorities to see what they say about the dangers of tanning beds. Dereck, if emotion and medical opinions/research are not what legislative decisions on this issue should be based ... what should they be based on? Perhaps the $$$ the indoor tanning industry is raking in while they put children's lives in danger?

Please note, this bill deals specifically with the deadly effects of indoor tanning beds which emit ultraviolet rays. Medical research has shown the light from these indoor tanning beds to be carcinogenic. "Sunless tanning" which utilizes spray-on tanning would be exempt under this proposal. Senator Radogno

Why not concentrate on trying to help the residents of Illinois with the ridiculous high gas prices, high unemployment rates, high food prices and high homeless rates, instead of these petty bills, if a parent choose to sign a waiver for their kid to tan it should be their right! This country is forgetting the reasons of the declaration and constitution, FREEDOM !!!! Stop taking the Freedom from the people and start helping.

Minors most certainly should be banned from indoor tanning beds.

A youth Tanning Bed ban sends a clear message UV radiation is a recognized carcinogen. It encourages responsible sun exposure.

This quote from age 9 of the U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE Investigative Report titled 'False and Misleading Health Information Provided to Teens by the Indoor Tanning Industry', indicates parental consent does not reduce youth tanners.

"Studies of compliance with parental consent laws in Texas, North Carolina, and Minnesota and Massachusetts have found tanning salon compliance rates of 11%, 13%, and 19%, respectively. Despite an increase over the last decade in states requiring some form of parental permission for indoor tanning, researchers have found no measurable decrease in indoor tanning among older adolescent girls."

http://www.aahperd.org/aahe/about/updates/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=169705

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly supports a ban:

" Federal, state, and local governments should work toward passing legislation to ban minors' access to tanning salons. Governments should work to ensure that such legislation is enforced."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/3/588.full

American Academy of Pediatrics:

" Although they agree that vitamin D is important for good health, leaders in skin cancer prevention oppose intentional sun exposure to induce vitamin D production, because UVR is a known human carcinogen. There have been no studies of children suggesting a level of sun exposure that would negate the need to comply with dietary vitamin D recommendations."

(NO studies of children)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/3/588.full

Canadian Paediatric Society:

"While the precise roles of specific UV wavelengths in both melanin production and carcinogenesis are still to be fully elucidated, DNA damage appears to be the key intermediary for both. Tanning induced by UVR that is devoid of carcinogenic risk may be scientifically impossible."

"Relying on UVR as a source of vitamin D has been challenged because of the substantial overlap of DNA damage from such exposure and the production of vitamin D. Moreover, exposure to UVR is complicated by the quantity of skin exposed, the darkness or pigmentation of that skin, the wavelength or energy of the source (which varies with the time of year and latitude), and the degree of one's vitamin D deficiency. Artificial UVR exposure further compounds matters with the mix, intensity and variability of UVA and UVB generated by tanning bed emitters and is neither a reliable or advisable source of vitamin D."

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/tanning-facilities

FDA quote:
"In an NCI-sponsored study published in September 2009 in the Archives of Dermatology, the study researchers hired and trained college students to pose as 15-year-old, fair-skinned girls who had never tanned before. By telephone, the students asked more than 3,600 tanning facilities in all 50 states about their practices.

Less than 11 percent of the facilities followed FDA's recommended exposure schedule of three or fewer sessions the first week. About 71 percent said they would allow a teen to tan all seven days the first week, and many promoted frequent tanning with "unlimited tanning" discount price packages. "

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm186687.htm

In my humble opinion we have bigger fish to fry Mrs. Minority Leader. How about pressing the Dems to fix the debt or pension woes in this state. Just a thought.

There is NO such thing as a " sunless tanning bed". Once again misinformation has been stated. I am an advocate for teen banning of UV tanning 18 and under, it is dangerous. Please check your facts before throwing out seeds of doubt on the SUNLESS industry.

Sunless tanning is where you get spray tanned by a harmless solution, not laying in a UV bed getting baked!!!

Christine,
You are just another Hypocrite!! I don't know how you sleep at night. You are a piece of work trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't do. Regardless, of the harmful effects of tanning beds, you shouldn't try to legislate every aspect of our lives. Perhaps you haven't noticed but getting out of bed and leaving your house these days could be deemed dangerous!! I find it interesting that you are against the harm tanning beds create but not against the harm cigarettes and the smoke they give off create. Maybe it's because you received 20k from Altria Client Services. What if a minor. aged 14-17, lives in a home with an adult smoker? Aren't YOU allowing them to be harmed by second hand smoke? You are just another hack who sells her votes to the highest bidder. How about you use your time and energy on something more relevant that will affect a majority of people, like pensions, job creation, crime, fraud, etc.? I guess you are waiting for one of these industries to support you in the way that you have become accustomed to. Then you could create and or sponsor a bill that would be in their favor. You don't deserve to represent a group of pigs, IMHO. Oh wait, you are representing that group!

Just to clarify, the "sunless tanning bed" phrase was one used by Sen. Radogno's office. I used it for the sake of consistency.