Finishing up on H.R. 2092

Let’s look at the section in last week’s sentence: “High doses of ultraviolet radiation, etc. Oops, I spelled doses incorrectly last week. Did anyone else notice that? It probably made no sense to you with the word “does” instead of “doses”. LOL
When the author wrote “high doses” were they analyzing it by the electromagnetic spectrum? If you look at the spectrum for ultraviolet radiation, tanning beds give off 400 NM. In the same spectrum as tanning beds are: black lights, germicidal lamps and welding arcs. All of these categorize as “non-ionizing radiation”. This just means, “When non-ionizing radiation gets into a person’s skin, it raises the energy level of that person’s skin cells. This process is called a photochemical reaction or change” according to Smart Tan.
X-ray machines, CT scans, TV sets, and Computer Monitors are actually higher than tanning beds in NM and are categorized as “ionizing radiation”. Defined in Smart Tan’s Basic Technical Certification manual it states, “When ionizing radiation enters a body, it separates things that were not designed to be separated.” This could start scaring everyone into believing that our computer monitors and televisions are harming us. Did you think that way? Of course not! The bottom line is our earth is well equipped to filter out ionizing radiation.” So, looking at it from this perspective, which I am hoping the writer had intended, he is barking up the wrong tree. Bowzer, there are no cats up there!THE END!

H.R. 2092 revisited

Speaking from the heart on H.R. 2092 will be the best way to ensure that anybody reading my blog will not give up on me when I say I will return to address this issue. Yes, there are a group of Republicans who are fighting for us. It is because they understand sound principles for small businesses and growing the economy.
The first thing that I notice is there are no democrats on board with H.R. 2092. The sneak attack, 10% Tan Tax, was added by Harry Reid since they were not going to feature a 5% tax on cosmetic surgical procedures. This has nothing to do with health, but everything to do with burdening taxpayers more to pay for unwanted programs, Obama Health Care.
The next thing, which needs mentioning from the article, is how little money was given to these supporters of H.R. 2092. This BOTHERS ME! It is not even worth mentioning. I could see if it was millions of dollars like Obama received for his 2008 campaigning.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
Now, this is worth mentioning, or should I say reminding the American public so we can do a better job of electing the next president.
According to That’s My Congress “Indoor tanning salons are places where people who want an artificially-induced change in their skin coloration pay to lie down in electronic devices that expose them to high does of ultraviolet radiation that produce a systemic injury that includes the reaction of a temporary darkening of the skin that is commonly known as “tanning”. Yes, this is the photochemical reaction or change, which takes place either in the natural sun (UVA & UVB) or an indoor-tanning unit, a controlled environment. In Smart Tan’s Basic Technical Certification “It is our body’s natural defense against sunburn and overexposure.”
There are a few more statements that I would like to address, but I do not want this to be too long. Hopefully, next week I will be done.

Keeping small businesses open

Well, I just purchased for the first time vitamins from an on-line vitamin company. I cannot believe that my little health food store asks 4 times as much for the same item. I understand that it has to do with overhead, but that is too much for me. Why I understand is, I am a small business owner too. I sell tanning lotions. I have even gone down in price TREMENDOUSLY! I found out today, that I am still $10 too much. Hey, that's not bad. Does everyone want to keep their tanning salon in business? Someone came in today just to purchase AG Accelerator. WOW! I thanked her for coming back this year to purchase again, and she said and I do not remember the exact words, but I wanted to give you some support. I know that you pay for tanning, but if you saw the electric bills, payroll, and lamp costs, you might just say "$10 is not bad!" PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR TANNING SALON! THANK YOU!