Search

Issue Addressed: The causal link between ultraviolet radiation from solarium use and skin cancer is well established. In 2012 and 2013, state governments across Australia announced plans to ban commercial solarium use from 31 December 2014. The present study examined the responses of solarium and non-solarium users to the ban on commercial solariums in Australia.Methods: Participants (n = 488; 388 females, 100 males; mean age = 26.02, s.d. = 9.95) completed an online questionnaire during the summer prior to the ban relating to solarium usage and their opinions about the ban.Results: Overall, 49% (n = 237) of participants were aware of the impending ban; 17% (n = 83) had used a solarium at some point in their life. The response to the solarium ban was positive; however, some current solarium users intended post-ban to use privately owned sunbeds and or spend a greater amount of time sun-tanning.Conclusions: These findings indicate a high level of public support for the solarium ban, which has removed a risky source of ultraviolet radiation in Australia. SO WHAT? Further steps are now needed to monitor the tanning behaviours of previous solarium users post-ban and their access to private sunbed use and other potentially dangerous methods of tanning (e.g. tanning injections). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increased use of solariums worldwide has led to health concerns linking regular exposure to ultraviolet light with skin cancer. Most studies have attempted to delineate attitudes and motivations of users, with little inquiry into those entrusted as "service providers." Methods: A questionnaire was designed specifically for the survey on the basis of World Health Organization guidelines. Twenty-one solariums in major cities from each country were randomly chosen via telephone directory and visited in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. A prospective customer asked a series of questions to assess conformity with these guidelines. Results: Solariums in Australia were most successful at adhering to World Health Organization guidelines, followed closely by those in the United Kingdom. Overall, solariums in New Zealand did not comply as well, especially with the use of consent forms, and did not adequately inform customers of the potential adverse side effects including skin cancer risks. Conclusions: Our data have shown several differences in the way solariums conform to guidelines in our 3 chosen countries. A plausible reason for these differences is the difference in solarium regulations worldwide. The limited number of solariums selected for the survey, together with individual country variation, does not enable firm conclusions to be drawn about the operations of solariums in each country. However, it does provide knowledge of the variation between solariums and further suggests the need to evaluate the workings of these service providers in each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assist in the development of the 2008 Australian/New Zealand standard on solaria and related regulations, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency scientists visited a number of tanning establishments during 2008 to measure the intensity and spectral distribution of the ultraviolet radiation (UVR) emissions from a range of solaria. The 2002 Australian/New Zealand Standard 'Solaria for cosmetic purposes' (AS/NZS 2635) allowed a maximum UVR output from solaria of UV Index 60, a compromise between the solarium industry who wanted no upper limit and the health agencies who wanted to limit intensity. Of the 20 solaria examined in detail, only one had emissions of intensity less than UV Index 12, typical of mid-latitude summer sunlight, 15 units emitted more than UV Index 20, while three units emitted at intensities above UV Index 36, the maximum allowed by the new standard, AS/NZS 2635 (2008) and would thus not comply. UVA emissions ranged from 98 W · m up to a maximum of 438 W · m, more than six times the UVA content of mid-latitude summer sunshine. The results indicate that solaria users in Australia have access to solaria that are high intensity units with both significantly higher UVB and UVA emissions than sunlight, with implications for resultant adverse health effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issue addressed: To assess the compliance of solarium centres in metropolitan Adelaide with the Australia/ New Zealand Standard, specifically determining the access of different groups, skin cancer warnings and the use of consent forms. Methods: Three groups of research assistants approached 30 solarium centres by telephone and in person. Centres were assessed on recommendations/claims made, warnings given and access to a solarium. Results: There was an extremely low level of compliance with the standard. Sixty per cent of centres allowed access to under-aged clients, 93% of centres allowed access to fair-skinned clients, and only 53% consistently required clients to sign a consent form. Restriction of under-age and fair skin access was greatly over-reported over the telephone compared to actual access. Conclusions: The results highlight the need to increase adherence to the standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]