I remember a time when I visited tanning salons and was assured by those working the front desks that tanning beds were safer than the sun. Many years later, I know this is entirely untrue.

Think about this:

The New Zealand Cancer Society experts say sunbeds should never be used as a tanning method because the risk of skin cancer is too great.

Tanning bed UV radiation is five times stronger than UV from the sun, says one doctor who also suggests people wrongly assume sunbeds are safer than the sun. Instead, they place individuals at significant risk for harm. In fact, the risk of developing melanoma, the deadliest from of skin cancer, increases by 75 percent for those who use a tanning bed before the age of 35.

The Cancer Society, wishing to ban the use of sunbeds for anyone under age 18, has commissioned further research into the use of this deadly practice.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) of Ohio has filed a lawsuit challenging the state's workplace smoking ban. The ban exempts some military veterans' halls and other private clubs -- and the ASC says this is not OK.

The exemption waters down the law and exposes people to secondhand smoke, say ACS spokeswoman Wendy Simpkins.

The smoking ban was approved by 58 percent of voters in November, took effect in December, and will result in fining beginning the first week in May. The law prohibits smoking in most public places, such as restaurants, bars, and office and excludes tobacco shops, designated hotel rooms, and enclosed areas of nursing homes. Halls and clubs can be excluded from the law only if there are no employees.

Jay Carey, spokesman for the state Health Department, says public health officials have the authority to set rules for enforcement. They ultimately decided that VFW halls and other private clubs were exempt if they had only members as employees. For the exemption to apply, such clubs also must be nonprofit and in a freestanding building. No nonmembers or children under age 18 can be present.

The ACS argues that the state rules are confusing and make the law unworkable.

Vincent Rennich, veteran casino worker and non-smoker, is suing the Atlantic City Tropicana Casino and Resort because he claims a quarter-century of inhaling secondhand smoke gave him lung cancer. And if that's not enough to make this man upset, getting fired seals the deal.

"They threw me under the bus," Rennich said yesterday, the day after a supervisor told him he was terminated from his job. "How can you fire a guy with lung cancer who's suing you? Maybe they don't realize the ramifications. Or maybe they're heartless. Or maybe all of the above."

Tropicana officials say that Rennich was not singled out in any way, that he was just one of many let go due to a restructuring of the company. Since last January, more than 200 people have been laid off.

Rennich, 49 and a table games supervisor, has been a vocal advocate of a total smoking ban in Altantic City's 11 casinos. He has been speaking out on behalf of everyone working on the casino floors, and for himself personally.

Rennich had a third of his right lung removed in September 2005 and sees a doctor every three months to ensure his cancer does not reappear. Now that he's been fired, his health insurance will lapse in 30 days, leaving him with a monthly payment of $800 in medical bills.

Atlantic City was slated to ban all casino smoking this past January. But fierce opposition from the casino industry, predicting an estimated revenue loss of 20 percent and job losses of more than 3,400, led to a compromise. And now, effective April 15, smoking will be restricted to no more than 25 percent of the gambling floor.

Rennich is not happy about this -- or his cancer or his termination. And while he is not sure what his next step will be, he says he is definitely not backing down from his anti-smoking platform.

Secondhand smoke rears its ugly head once again -- this time in the form of study results revealing high levels of secondhand smoke in the workplace can double the risk of lung cancer for non-smokers.

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago looked at results from 22 studies conducted in the United States, Canada, Europe, India, Japan, and China. What they found -- and published in the American Journal of Public Health -- is a lung cancer risk 50 percent higher than normal for non-smokers exposed to smoke on the job for more than 30 years. They also found risk increases with level of exposure.

"We believe that our study provides the strongest evidence to date that smoking in the workplace does present a substantial risk to workers -- and particularly to workers who are working in highly exposed areas such as bar workers or restaurant workers," lead researcher Leslie Stayner said.

Previous evidence for increased lung cancer risk caused by secondhand smoke comes from studies of non-smokers married to smokers.

Secondhand smoke -- also known as passive smoke and environmental tobacco smoke -- is smoke from a cigarette, pipe, or cigar as well as smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers and inhaled by non-smokers. It can cause cancer, respiratory problems, and asthma in non-smokers and is leading to increased efforts by communities to ban or limit smoking in the workplace.

This week in France, bans begin in offices, stores, schools, and hospitals. Come January 2008, cafes and restaurants must also comply with bans. For now, smoking in these areas is permitted in hermetically sealed rooms without any services.

A new year. A new law. Effective today, smokers are banned from lighting up in most public places in Washington DC .

Restaurants, bars, and indoor workplaces are now considered smoke-free in the District. The new law takes full effect today -- January 2, 2007.

More than half of the nation's population now lives in areas where smoking is banned in public places, according to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.

In 2006 alone, nine statewide bans were adopted by lawmakers. In total, 22 states have passed smoking bans. And 16 states have passed laws banning smoking in bars.

In addition to Washington DC, smoking bans also go into effect today in Bloomington and Normal, Illinois.

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a ban on over-the-counter (OTC) sales of skin-lightening products containing hydroquinone. Hydroquinone is found in skin bleaching products used primarily for lightening age spots, skin discoloration from years of excess tanning or dark under-eye circles. Research has indicated a possible link to increased cancers.

In the US, there are over 65 companies selling more than 200 skin-bleaching products that contain hydroquinone. Hydroquinone has been banned in Japan, the European Union and Australia. The FDA now wants all OTC and prescription skin-lightening products containing hydroquinone to be classified as new drugs and companies making the skin-bleaching products would need to seek FDA approval to sell them. Likely, the products would stop being available as an OTC product. The proposed ban means that the FDA will take public comments until the end of this year before making any final action.

Although under pressure to do so, Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) wrote in an editorial that medical journals cannot ban researchers from having research papers published that do not disclose commercial ties to pharmaceutical companies -- for fear of antitrust lawsuits. DeAngelis also stated that, "rooting out conflicts of interest is nearly impossible given that for-profit companies often provide the funding to discover, test and market advances in medicine."

What does potential conflicts of interest and lack of required disclosure mean for the public? That scientific research reports on research into new drugs and various treatments for disease is, and will remain, open to suspicion as to the scientific integrity of research, if it is not transparent in who is writing the check to have the study done. Even DeAngelis admits that honest disclosure of financial support for researchers is essential information for the public. This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved in a better way than is currently being suggested -- public confidence and health depend on it.

The White Rock city council has asked the city's social and economic development committees to study a proposal that would ban the sale of all tobacco products in their small idyllic seaside town, and report back on its feasibility.

Councilman Matt Todd, who proposed the ban, said "I got tons of calls and e-mails from people who are asthmatics or just allergic to cigarettes or had family members die from smoke, or were cancer researchers or worked in cancer wards. Clearly this is a public dialogue that people are wanting to have."

According to news reporting, if the city council approves the ban, White Rock will become the first city in Canada to ban outright the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. White Rock is located on the southern coast of British Columbia, Canada.

Let's start this out by saying that Richard Young of the Soil Association, which opposes the use of hormones in farming, is not saying that British consumers are eating dangerous meat -- but he is calling for an updated and reactivated testing program that will ensure imported beef does not contain hormones linked to increased cancer risks. While the European Union has banned the use of growth or sex hormones in cattle for 20 years, cattle from many countries outside the EU, including the US and Canada, are given both naturally occurring and synthetic hormones to boost the quantity and quality of beef produced for human consumption.

The safety of hormone-treated beef that can lead to sexual abnormalities and raise the risk of hormone-driven cancers, is disputed by some in the scientific community -- and according to the Soil Association, there might be an additional business and political element at work when it states that, "The EU imposed a ban on the importation of hormone-treated beef, but under pressure from the US and Canada the World Trade Organization ruled that the ban was not based on sound science and therefore an illegal barrier to trade. As a result the EU is forced to pay more than 120 million US dollars a year in compensation."

To read detailed background information on the issue of hormone-treated beef and the concern over imported beef not being tested for growth or sex hormones, go here. We'll say it again. Young is not saying that the beef presently sold is unsafe, only that the Soil Association is calling for a testing program to ensure the safety of imported beef sold and consumed.

The Soil Association is the UK's leading campaigning and certification organization for organic food and farming.

In television ban on junk food ads, I posted about UK's Food Standards Agency, FSA, recommendation for a ban on television advertising of junk foods in an effort to curb the continuing weight gain of children. The Telegraph UK is reporting that the FSA will be taking the ban one step further by suggesting that the ban extend to all forms of media, including websites, computer games, cinemas, packaging and school sponsorship.

This is a brainstorming effort of potential actions that might be taken in the campaign against childhood obesity. Other suggestions being batted about is a store loyalty card that rewards consumers for choosing healthy foods over junk food containing high levels of salt, fat and sugar.

According to the Telegraph UK, there was a White Paper published two years ago in which the government promised to take action against food advertisers who target children by early next year. In what has been called a draconian regime, the FSA has devised a system of nutrient profiling to identify offending food products. The obesity issue is real. Is this the answer?

UK's Food Standards Agency, FSA, is suggesting a ban on television advertising of junk foods in a continuing effort to curb the rising number of overweight children. The FSA's three possible actions that could be taken in relation to television food ads, as reported by Reuter are:

1. Ban all food and drink ads during television programs that are made specifically for children, or that appeal to children of nine and under, which covers a broad range of programs like The Simpsons.
2. The first ban option except the restricted food advertising would simply be for junk food high in fat, salt or sugar.
3. Limits on the number of food and drink ads shown per hour at any time when children are likely to be watching.

No celebrities or animated figures will be allowed in food commercials aimed at children. What happened to the parental NO? Unless you have your child doing the grocery shopping alone, how is junk food making it into the home? I can understand a need to make certain lunch programs at school are regulated to ensure healthy foods are being served to our kids while they are away from home, but are we really all that incapable as parents of saying no when asked for the latest sugary-treat? Or, while the regulatory agencies wrestle over the fine print of the new proposed bans, why don't we just turn off the television, get up and go take a walk with our kids?

The tricksters of tobacco are up to old and new tricks. Even with the global efforts to raise awareness about the life-threatening health risks of smoking, and outright bans on smoking, did anyone even slightly believe that the tobacco industry was going to fold its carnival tent, give up its magic act and go home. Selling nicotine-addicting cigarettes is a billion gazillion dollars in profit business. Joe Nocera, in Is it just smoke and mirrors? sums up one of the fundamental business practices for the tobacco industry by referencing a Warren Buffett statement, "You make a product for a penny, you sell it for a dollar and you sell it to addicts."

In a second excellent article I found published today about the tobacco industry, Tobacco industry: Smoking isn't bad for your health reveals the current focus shift of tobacco companies in gaining new markets in the continuing effort not to lose too much business due to smoking restrictions being implemented in much of the Western world and the resulting decline in the number of smokers. Eastern Europe, Africa and the Far East are the new frontiers. According to the article, tobacco companies are being accused of turning a blind eye to cigarette smuggling in order to flood new markets with their product. In addition, they face criticism for launching aggressive marketing campaigns, which would be banned in the West, linking tobacco with sex, youth and glamour.

The Canadian Cancer Society, concerned with the potential long-term effects associated with the ornamental or cosmetic use of pesticides, has launched an email Take Action! campaign to support a ban on the ornamental use of pesticides in the City of London.

According to the the cancer society, the majority of Londoners support a ban on the use of ornamental pesticides. In a recent poll, 81 percent of Londoners want to phase-out pesticides in city parks and 74 percent support a phase-out on private residential property; 71 percent of Londoners feel cosmetic pesticides are a health threat to children and pose a health threat to pets such as cats and dogs and 74 percent of Londoners believe pesticides are a threat to the environment, including wildlife, air quality, and ground water.

If you would like to participate in the campaign to support the ban, the Canadian Cancer Society has provided an advocacy action page where you can send an email to the Mayor and London City Council. The deadline is June 12.

Several months ago, we posted the news The Canadian Cancer Society was calling for a ban on the use of pesticides in private gardens, lawns, parks, recreational facilities and on golf courses because of the potential cancer risks associated with the chemicals used in maintaining ornamental gardens and lawns in Canada.

Five years ago, President Bush restricted federal funding for any new human embryonic stem cell research. Many believe the objections are based soley on religious convictions, and without scientific or true ethical merit. The argument against Bush's stand has been that creating embryonic stem cells from a patient's tissues, correcting the genetic defects, and get the repaired cells back into the patient, opens the door to many cures for diseases. At one time or the other, Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox and Lance Armstrong have all spoken out against the federal funding ban -- as have many intelligent scientists and respected members in the medical community who see the devastating effects disease or profound physical injury can have on a patient.

Harvard University researchers are going around the federal funding ban by using only private funds and will begin research in an effort to clone human embryos as a source of stem cells. The researchers do not go into this lightly. They have visited the ethical issues at length and created strict standards for the research work and as they said, "to separate out all funding so that not a penny of federal money is spent on the effort." I honor and respect a person's personal religious beliefs -- there are many religions and many different religious beliefs to honor and respect -- but I do not feel it should ever dictate government policy -- especially if it means depriving patients of potential cures to disease.

The World Cup, called by some the mother of all international soccer competitions, is held every four years. Hosted this time in Germany, national teams representing 32 countries will compete for the world championship title. World Cup fever is rising, as the first day of the tournament approaches, but the heat is not all due to the frenzied excitement of the three million fans who will attend the games. Cancer advocacy groups and health organizations are none to happy about the fact that while the FIFA will ask fans to voluntarily refrain from smoking, they will not issue a straight-out ban on smoking. According to the low-down on the reasons for the strong objection on the polite request that smokers not smoke with no legal enforcement, it is noted that cigarette lighters and ashtrays will be sold at the games. So, are they asking smokers not to smoke, but just in case they forgot their lighter or need an ashtray, smokers will be able to purchase them at the games?

The World Health Organization, WHO, signed a deal with FIFA four years ago to make the 2002 World Cup games tobacco-free in a deal it hoped would set a precedent for future tournaments. But FIFA declined to renew the agreement for the 2006 event after discussions with the German government and the local organizing committee. According to WHO, billions of people are expected to watch the televised matches around the world and they are concerned, as are all the health organizations and health advocates, that this will send the wrong message about smoking. I know I am sort of confused.