5 Comments

1. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-17 21:23:18

   Pish, posh. They're always declaring things unhealthy.

2. Posted by Lee "Or you'll *WHAT*, hmm?!!?!?" Quod on 2009-11-17 21:15:46

   In an earlier era, I'd have asked what the punishment was for defying the ban, suggesting (since the linked article doesn't say) that it would be appropriate to "take 'em out back and tan their hides." Alas, whippersnappers these days probably wouldn't get the joke. Sigh... // The Captcha image has the letters "DIEUI", which parses to "DIE, U, I" - appropriate for the above post, but also a reminder that Roberto has not yet posted his own review of 2012. Given hectic schedules and, for that matter, the state of the world, nothing is certain, especially treasures, so one can only hope that something thoughtful and very well written will be forthcoming - before it's too late...

3. Posted by Billy Atwell on 2009-11-17 15:56:52

   Interesting--children are protected from tans, but not from abortion.

4. Posted by Kim Moreland on 2009-11-17 11:08:52

   From personal experience, tanning beds can cause something... I decided to try artificially tanning to start a baseline tan before going on a cruise--I hated the idea of burning or exposing others to my very white skin. I was in the booth for about 6 minutes, but the effects lasted weeks and cost a bundle. I say about $150 dollars--$20 or so for the tanning booth, the rest in doctor bills and medication. I had to take prednisone for two weeks to combat a reaction and something else. Once the swelling and redness abated, I was poorer and still had white skin.

5. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-11-17 10:44:06

   Maybe Safko was just being a long-term thinker - in the sense that, there's no safe anything... because we'll all die?