Guns and Sunscreen

Summer is coming.  Traditionally this is a time for vacation and for visiting the beach.  But even these activities require a little thought, a little critical thinking to avoid the consequences of poor behavioral choices.

Critical thinking about vacation means more than just planning the itinerary.  A recent news headline read:  “TSA Hits New Record After Confiscating 73 Guns In One Week From Carry-on Bags.”  Wow, guns are not allowed on an airplane?  These are not terrorists, just travelers.  Apparently people either forgot or were distracted or didn’t check their bags themselves before leaving for the airport.  Not only were they confiscated but the TSA carry-on screeners found that 68 of them were loaded and more than two dozen had a round in the chamber.  People inadvertently trying to take loaded weapons onto an airplane is crazy, but not in a funny way.  If they were surprised to find out there was a gun in their luggage, they were probably more surprised to be facing a citation of up to $11,000 or in some cases even being arrested, regardless of their intent or degree of inattention.  All that lack of thinking can put a really damper on that highly anticipated and well deserved vacation.

Besides flying, another activity associated with summer (but often throughout the year) is getting a nice, healthy-looking tan.  To those who are so inclined this news will come as an unpleasant surprise.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has permanently banned an Illinois company from marketing or selling indoor tanning systems.  These systems, the term tanning systems sounds more modern and scientific than tanning beds, were intended for home use and ranged in price from $1200 to $4000.  The FTC objection is that the marketers “ran ads claiming that their indoor tanning systems are safe, that research proves indoor tanning does not increase the risk of melanoma skin cancer, and that their systems which deliver both ultraviolet (UV) light and red light can ‘reverse the appearance of aging.’” The FTC labeled these claims as “false, misleading, or unsubstantiated.”  The company “also falsely stated that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has endorsed the use of indoor tanning systems as safe.”

It takes about 30 seconds of Internet research to find the facts.  American Academy of Dermatology website states, “Evidence from multiple studies has shown that exposure to UV radiation from indoor tanning devices is associated with an increased risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, including squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma." [They include 9 citations in footnotes to back up this statement].

Several other sources tell us the following: 

• ·      Researchers estimate that indoor tanning may cause upwards of 400,000 cases of skin cancer in the U.S. each year.  That’s more than smoking.
• ·      There is no such thing as a safe tan and the beds may be more dangerous than the sun. 
• ·      Tanning can cause permanent structural damage to the skin, including wrinkling, age spots, and loss of elasticity, not make the skin younger.
• ·      A base tan does not protect skin from damage. In fact, people who base tan are more likely to report getting sunburned, perhaps from overconfidence.
• ·      Some who become addicted to tanning also are more likely to suffer from anxiety or mood problems.
• ·      Indoor tanning has been banned by a number of countries.

Surprise, surprise!  Even a simple thing like a summer vacation requires a modicum of critical thinking.  One of these errors will have immediate consequences and the other will have a delayed effect.  In any case, check the carry-on.  Pack the sunscreen and unpack the revolver. 

Anti-Aging?

When I happened across this item from CBS news last week I had several thoughts about the points made.  The story, in brief, is about Americans spending $60 billion per year on cosmetics, creams and anti-aging products.

In the course of the article it covered a number of different, almost unrelated, subjects.  One was about ingredients.  “A Senate Committee is expected to consider new regulations on what goes into cosmetics.”  A second point was about the wide variation of prices.  Their expert dermatologist commented on two moisturizers – “one that costs about $10 and other that costs $170” saying “there was no difference that accounted for the price gap, so much so in fact, that she would go for the cheaper moisturizer.”  A final point was about the sales tactics.  “Anti-aging is a marketing term. Science has never yet found an ingredient that slows or reverses the aging process."  They wrapped up by reinforcing the importance of sunscreen, the closest thing to an anti-aging product you can buy.

The first point about ingredients took me back to June of last year when I wrote about the food police warning not to buy “products with more than five ingredients or any ingredients you can’t easily pronounce.”  How few people realize that substances can also be absorbed through the skin?  If they are foolish enough to take that simplistic advice about food, they should not even get near a jar of night cream!  Even the most generic creams have many ingredients, some difficult to pronounce.

I thought the second point about vast price discrepancies for little or no benefit was old news.  Consumer testing organizations have for years been telling us that the common brand is usually a much wiser buy than the luxury brand, whether it’s cosmetics or shampoo.  With so much of the population in debt, don’t we have better things to do with a large portion of that $60 billion than throw it away on supposed miracle remedies from exclusive brands?

On the marketing side, I happened to pick up a recently published book called My Adventures With Your Money.  It is about an accomplished conman who lived early in the last century and made most of his money selling worthless mining stock.  At one point it said:  “Anyone who lost money would have a hard time finding…any place where he actually misrepresented…He freely indulged in opinions, promises and exaggerations.  These are the tools with which he ensnares his victims.”  This sounds familiar not only in the get-rich-quick schemes of today, but also in a fair share of legitimate advertising, especially in the health and beauty market.  Much of it is about hype, opinions, celebrity endorsements, or reliance on a reputation or brand associated with exclusivity and luxury goods.

Finally, comes the importance of sunscreen.  It’s true.  But how many people continue to go to the beach (and tanning salons) unprotected?

It’s not like we don’t know most of this stuff already, yet they keep presenting it as “news,” and many continue to ignore it.  Americans want to make themselves beautiful.  But instead of staying in shape and sticking to a diet, getting enough sleep and avoiding the sun, we turn to the miracle in a jar and money is no object.