At Majestic Tan & Spa we
offer a wide variety of services. We have five different levels of
tanning beds including: SUPER BEDS, BRONZING BEDS, and HOT BEDS. We have
two levels of vertical STAND-UP units as well. Our beds vary in
intensity and maximum exposure times depending on which bed you choose.
They range from 8 minutes maximum exposure to 20 minutes maximum
exposure to satisfy every skin type and every preference. We also offer
UV-FREE tanning in our MYSTIC BOOTH. We have 4 different levels of
Mystic solution to choose from including: Glow, Light, Medium, and Dark.
At Majestic we also offer UV-Activating Teeth Whitening. Whiten your
teeth while getting your perfect tan! We now offer UV-FREE RED LIGHT
THERAPY. Red light therapy helps to reduce fine lines and wrinkles, and
diminish the appearance of stretch marks in only 3 sessions per week!
Come in today and try it out. You will be amazed at the results!!! Don’t
forget our FORMASTAR BODY WRAP treatment room. Lose yourself to
relaxation, rejuvenation, detoxification, for an hour while you lie in a
comfortable message table & lose up to 1400 calories in the process.
We offer spray tanning in a
private booth or custom air brush
Benefits of Red Light Services
Spray On Tan in
Sunshine is free – it has
no marketing department for its life-giving benefits. If a
pharmaceutical company patented and sold sunshine, the public message we
receive about it would be completely different. Instead, the
professional indoor tanning community is the only entity in a position
to challenge the $35 billion anti-UV industry’s total sun abstinence
messaging. This explains why indoor tanning is under attack from this
powerful coalition of industries who profit from the exaggerated and
largely unsubstantiated anti-UV message.
The cosmetic dermatology’s powerful fear-based marketing message, which
drives millions of customers into their offices, has helped grow their
businesses by 320%. And the existence of the indoor tanning industry is
competitive to dermatology’s multibillion-dollar phototherapy industry.
Consider, according to the Journal of the American Academy of
In 1993, 873,000 phototherapy sessions were delivered in dermatology
offices in the U.S. By 1998, sessions had fallen off 94 percent to just
The cost of a single phototherapy session – which utilizes indoor
tanning equipment in a dermatologist’s office – is nearly $100 per
session, about 20 times more than an indoor tanning session. An
estimated 1.5 million indoor tanning clients today successfully treat
psoriasis in indoor tanning facilities.
If tanning salons were closed, the cosmetic dermatology industry would
gain up to $5 billion in phototherapy sessions which would be charged to
health insurance companies and the Medicare system. (According to
dermatology's own reports, psoriasis patients average 35 sessions per
year at an estimated average of $85 per session.)
The dermatology industry is in a hypocritical position when it comes to
According to the phototherapy industry’s own practices, dermatologists
use sunburning dosages of UV light for the clinical treatment of
psoriasis, a non-life threatening disease. If any UV exposure were as
dangerous as a recent statement from the AAD claims, then dermatologists
would be guilty of violating their Hippocratic oath for using UV in
burning dosages to treat purely cosmetic skin conditions.
Melanoma mortality is increasing in men over age 50, but dermatology is
targeting its anti-sun campaign almost exclusively at women under age 50
– the group most likely to visit cosmetic dermatology practices for its
The American Academy of Dermatology and other skin-care groups get much
of their marketing budget directly from the chemical sunscreen industry.
The AAD receives millions for putting endorsement logos on chemical
sunscreen products – a much-criticized "pay for play" program.
Chemical Sunscreen Industry
Chemical sunscreen is mis-marketed as a daily use product – as a
"fear-based purchase" – designed to be worn 365 days a year (in daily
cosmetics for women) – which has turned chemical sunscreen into a $5-6
billion business controlled by a handful of major players. Sunscreen
also block as much as 99% of vitamin D production. Consider:
Sunscreen does not prevent melanoma, according to the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force, which makes policy recommendations for the federal
government, "The evidence is insufficient to recommend sunscreens for
the prevention of skin cancer."
According to the independent Environmental Working Group – a consumer
watchdog group that has analyzed hundreds of sunscreen ingredients,
"Most sunscreen chemicals are far from innocuous. In sunlight, some
release free radicals that can damage DNA and cells, promote skin aging
and possibly raise risks for skin cancer. Some act like estrogen and may
disrupt normal hormone signaling in the body. Others may build up in the
body and the environment."
A 2008 Centers for Disease Control study showed that 97 percent of
Americans have the sunscreen active ingredient oxybenzone in our urine.
This ingredient has been linked to killing coral reefs, changing the
gender in fish and potentially causing cancer.
Chemical Sunscreen manufacturers are not allowed to advertise that
chemical sunscreen prevents melanoma. So chemical sunscreen companies
pay Dermatology groups millions of dollars to endorse their product and
make that claim on their behalf. The AAD received an estimated $6-8
million in 2009 to help misbrand chemical sunscreen as a daily-use
The Skin Cancer Foundation is a marketing front group organized by
sunscreen manufacturers to create a "Skin Cancer Foundation Seal of
Approval" which appears on sunscreen products to convince consumers into
thinking their products prevent melanoma, which they are not allowed to
claim themselves. The SCF website says: "For adequate protection against
melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and photo-aging, everyone over the
age of six months should use sunscreen daily year-round, in any
Saying that sunlight is harmful and
therefore should be avoided is as misleading as saying that water causes
drowning, and therefore we should avoid water.
Professional indoor tanning facilities promote balance and educate their
patrons about the potential risks of UV overexposure. Consumers are
required to read and sign consent forms that include warnings about
potential eye damage, photoaging and skin cancer. Warning labels are
found on every tanning device and almost always in other general areas.
Professional tanning facilities require parental consent for teenagers
who tan even though most states don't require this measure.
While this serious approach to caution is just good sense, it needs to
be noted that understanding the risks of UV exposure is not as
straightforward as some suggest. Consider: Research has not established
a "causal" relationship Between Melanoma and Indoor Tanning.
Melanoma skin cancer is the most aggressive of the three major
categories of skin cancer, accounting for only 5 percent of all skin
cancer cases each year, but responsible for a majority of skin cancer
fatalities (Approximately 8,000 annually).
While melanoma has captured a great deal of public attention in the past
15 years, much of the discussion has been oversimplified in stating that
melanoma is caused by overexposure to sunlight. In fact, the exact
nature of the relationship between melanoma and ultraviolet light
remains unclear, and the mechanism by which the two are related is still
unknown – which is why some independent dermatology researchers even
question whether the two are related at all.
While it is believed that melanoma is somehow related to ultraviolet
light exposure, this relationship is not straight-forward and the
photobiology research community still does not know how it works. That’s
because while a minority of associative survey-studies have suggested a
correlation between UV from indoor tanning and melanoma, no direct
experimental evidence exists to show a causative connection. Even
American Academy of Dermatology spokesperson Dr. James Spencer admits,
"We don’t have direct experimental evidence" connecting indoor tanning
Melanoma is more common in people who work indoors than in those who
work outdoors, and those who work both indoors and outdoors get the
fewest melanomas. Because this is true, the relationship between
melanoma and sunlight cannot possibly be clear-cut. If it were a
clear-cut relationship, outside workers would have higher incidence than
inside workers. But the opposite is true.
Melanoma most commonly appears on parts of the body that do not receive
regular exposure to sunlight. Again, because this is true, the
relationship between melanoma and sunlight cannot be clear-cut. If it
were, melanomas would appear most often on parts of the body that
receive the most sunlight.
18 of 23 epidemiological studies ever conducted attempting to correlate
indoor tanning and melanoma incidence show no statistically significant
association – including the largest independent study, a 2005
multi-ethnic international European study which reported, "The
relationship between UVR and melanoma is very complex and, despite many
studies on the topic, remains a controversial issue. Some patterns of
sun exposure may also offer protection, as some studies have suggested
that people with heavy occupational exposure to the sun exhibit a lower
risk for melanoma compared to individuals with intermittent sun
exposure. In conclusion, sunbed and sun exposure were not found to be
significant risk factors for melanoma in this case–control study
performed in five European countries."
A 2009 opinion paper published by an ad-hoc working group representing
the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on
Cancer has been widely misrepresented in the media. That report’s actual
conclusion stated, "Epidemiologic studies to date give no consistent
evidence that use of indoor tanning facilities in general is associated
with the development of melanoma or skin cancer." While the report
attempted to suggest that performing a meta-analysis of the old data
showed a 75 percent increased risk for those who started tanning at an
early age, the authors failed to disclose that conclusion failed to take
into account that removing those with skin so fair it cannot tan –
called Skin Type I – from the analysis made the overall results
Dr. William Grant, founder of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health
Research Center in San Francisco, published a peer-reviewed critique of
the IARC report showing that, after adjusting for skin type, the
analysis showed no increased risk with indoor tanning.
Closer analysis of IARC report data (by Dr. Mia Papas and Dr. Anne
Chappelle) – when separated by unsupervised home tanning equipment
verses usage in indoor tanning facilities and medical usage of tanning
equipment in doctor’s offices – reveals that no statistically
significant increase in risk (6 percent) was attributable to commercial
tanning facility usage, while larger increases (40 percent and 96
percent) were attributable to home and medical usage of tanning
A 2010 University of Minnesota study on fair-skinned Minnesotans claimed
to show a connection between tanning and melanoma but actually supported
Grant’s point that UV-related risk seems centered on the fairest skin
type. But the study also showed that those who got the most outdoor sun
exposure had the lowest risk of melanoma – a divergent conclusion to the
rest of the paper underscoring that whatever relationship UV and
melanoma may have is still not understood.
The relative risk of melanoma is very small – much less than 1 percent
and very close to the relative risk for non-tanners – and is often
misreported. As reported in the Wilmington News Journal, "Even the
IARC’s strongest study – which followed more than 100,000 women over
eight years – found that less than three-tenths of one percent who
tanned frequently developed melanoma, while less than two-tenths of one
percent who didn’t tan developed melanoma. Almost all the other studies
in the report did not establish a strong link between the two. The
overall risk of contracting melanoma – whether using tanning beds or not
– remains well under 1 percent. For that reason, using the 75 percent
statistic is misleading, said Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz, general internist at
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in VT and co-author of "Know Your
Chances," a book on understanding health statistics..."Melanoma is
pretty rare and almost all the time, the way to make it look scarier is
to present the relative change, the 75 percent increase, rather than to
point out that it is still really rare."
"Absolute risk just tells you the chance of something happening, while
relative risk tells you how that risk compares to another risk, as a
ratio. If a risk doubles, for example, that’s a relative risk of 2, or
200 percent. If it halves, it’s .5, or 50 percent. Generally, when
you’re dealing with small absolute risks, as we are with melanoma, the
relative risk differences will seem much greater than the absolute risk
differences. You can see how if someone is lobbying to ban something –
or, in the case of a new drug, trying to show a dramatic effect – they
would probably want to use the relative risk."-Ivan Oransky, M.D.
The American Cancer Society’s key document measuring cancer rates in the
United States – "Cancer Facts and Figures" – says that melanoma rates
have not increased since 2000 and that rates are declining for women
under age 50 - the opposite of what anti-tanning lobbying groups claim.
"During the 1970's, the incidence rate of melanoma increased rapidly by
about 6 percent per year. However, from 1981-2000, the rate of increase
slowed to 3 percent per year and since 2000 melanoma incidence has been
stable," the ACS "Cancer Facts and Figures 2008" reports. "The death
rate for melanoma has been decreasing rapidly in whites younger than 50,
by 3 percent per year since 1991 in men and by 2.3 percent per year
since 1985 in women."
A paper published by the British dermatology community in 2009 showed
that "diagnostic drift" and more aggressive screening are responsible
for the increase in "reported" melanomas, but that there isn’t an actual
increase in thick melanoma lesions, which explains why the mortality
rate is not increasing. According to the authors, "These findings should
lead to a reconsideration of the treatment of ‘early’ lesions, a search
for better diagnostic methods to distinguish them from truly malignant
melanomas, re-evaluation of the role of ultraviolet radiation and
recommendations for protection from it, as well as the need for a new
direction in the search for the cause of melanoma.
Many scientists and dermatologists have taken firm positions that
melanoma's connection to UV light is unclear or doesn't exist at all. Dr
Bernard Ackerman – a pioneer in dermatology pathology who was recognized
as a master dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology – the
Academy’s highest honor – insists there is no evidence connecting UV and
melanoma in his monograph, "The Sun and the Epidemic of Melanoma: Myth
on Myth. According to Ackerman:
"The American Academy of Dermatology, for decades, has kept up a
drumbeat on behalf of faith in an epidemic of melanoma and rays of the
sun as the major cause of it, at the same time that it has flayed,
incessantly, the tanning bed industry. Although the organization is
termed an Academy, never has it presented in fashion academic a whit of
evidence, available readily, contrary to its position entrenched,
namely, there is no epidemic of melanoma and that tanning beds have not
been proven to be a cause direct of melanoma."
"There is no proof whatsoever that blistering sun-burns, no matter the
number and even in childhood, enhance risk for development of melanoma
and there is no evidence at all that sunscreens prevent development of
melanoma. What is more, it has yet to be established that exposure
excessive to sunlight (or sun lamps and tanning beds) alone, in the
absence of inclination genetic, causes melanoma."
Dr. Sam Shuster, Emeritus Professor of Dermatology at the University of
Newcastle, penned "The Skin Cancer Cover-Up" to point out that there is
no hard evidence that UV is the cause of melanoma or that there is an
actual increase in melanoma incidence.
Dr. Arthur R. Rhodes, Professor of Dermatology at Rush Medical College,
in Chicago, believes that melanoma’s public message needs to stop
focusing on UV light – pointing out that UV-melanoma campaigns are
killing people who get melanoma who failed to recognize the disease
because they never spent time in the sun.
UV Light Does Not Deserve the Blanket Label of 'Carcinogen'
The U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program in
2000 placed ultraviolet light on the federal government’s list of known
human carcinogens. In July 2009 the World Health Organization wrote a
brief report also declaring that UV light is a Class I carcinogen – a
list that also includes red wine, birth control pills, salted fish and
other highly used substances that, when experienced in their intended
dosages, do not elevate cancer risk. Much like the NIH listing in 2000,
WHO erred in not pointing out that the "list" doesn't mean a substance
is dangerous in every-day dosages, but only potentially in
The listing does not mean that moderate tanning will cause skin cancer.
The NIH listing criteria shows us why: "The Report does not present
quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risk. Listing of substances in
the Report, therefore, does not establish that such substances present
carcinogenic risks to individuals in their daily lives." This exclusion
– in the absence of any direct experimental research on indoor tanning
and melanoma – makes this listing almost meaningless.
The list does not take into account that there are positive effects to
ultraviolet light exposure. Many forms of cancer – including breast,
colon, prostate and ovarian tumors – now appear to be retarded or even
prevented by regular exposure to ultraviolet light. This omission on the
NTP list is conspicuous, given that positive effects are listed for
other substances in the government's list of carcinogens that have
positive effects, such as the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, which is a
Class I carcinogen.
As a result, thousands of news reports suggest that "sun tanning is as
dangerous as tobacco" – a blatant misrepresentation.
Smoker’s risk of lung cancer: 15 percent – or 2,000 percent higher than
that of non-smokers. Smoking introduces up to 60 man-made known
carcinogens into the body – substances the body was never designed to
process. Smoking is related to 1 in 3 cancer deaths.
Tanner’s risk of melanoma: 0.3 percent – compared to 0.2 percent for
non-tanners (a difference of 1 in 1,000) The body needs ultraviolet
light to survive – calling it a carcinogen without that caveat is
One thing we know for certain: You would be dead today if you did not
receive any ultraviolet light.
Indoor tanning equipment, like outdoor sunlight, emits
UVA (ultraviolet A) and UVB (ultraviolet B) light. Of the UV light
emitted by the sun at noon in the summer in the United States: 95
percent is UVA and 5 percent is UVB.
More than 90 percent of professional indoor tanning units
emit about 95 percent UVA and 5 percent UVB in regulated dosages similar
to summer sun. Recommended exposure schedules developed by the U.S. FDA
in cooperation with the tanning industry allow trained indoor tanning
operators to set incremental exposure times, based on the "skin type" of
a patron, that deliver consistent non-burning dosages of UV light to
allow a tanner to gradually build a tan.
The statement that "indoor tanning units are more intense
than sunlight" is misleading and inaccurate because the total output of
a tanning unit is measured the following way:
Total UV Output = UV Intensity x Duration of Exposure
While tanning units may be 2-3 times as intense as summer
sun, the duration of exposure is controlled, and thus the total UV
output is controlled, to minimize the risk of sunburn. Exposure times in
the more intense tanning units are calculated in similar fashion.
A typical indoor tanning exposure schedule (below) allows
a professional indoor tanning operator to gradually increase the
exposure times of a tanner over the course of the tanner’s regimen based
on the individual’s skin type.
Recommended Exposure Schedule
Skin Type I
Unable to tan. Do not expose Skin Type I to
Skin Type II
Skin Type III
Skin Type IV
Skin Type V
Skin Type VI
Less than 5 percent of North Americans are what is called
"Skin Type I" – which includes people of Northern European heritages
(some Irish or English people, for example) whose skin is so fair that
it cannot tan without burning. North American indoor tanning protocol is
not to allow these people to tan in salons, and our skin type
questionnaire identifies them. If they wish to tan, they are advised to
use non-UV self-tanning products.
In professional North American tanning facilities today:
operators control all tanning exposure times, minimizing a client’s
risk of overexposure and sunburn, and require tanners to use
FDA-compliant protective eyewear, which eliminates the risk of eye
All clients undergo comprehensive evaluations,
including identifying their sun sensitivity (skin type). Clients
also are taught about photosensitizing medications, which can
potentially make a person more susceptible to sunburn.
Clients are taught sunburn prevention and the
appropriate use of outdoor sunscreen. Combined with the fact that a
tan is nature’s protection against sunburn, this is why indoor
tanning clients are up to 81 percent less likely to sunburn outdoors
as compared to non-tanners, according to Smart Tan surveys.
Clients are presented with material outlining the
potential risks of overexposure to UV light and sign informed
consent agreements acknowledging this.
Because of all these safeguards, the professional indoor
tanning has an exemplary safety record: From an estimated 6 billion
indoor tanning sessions from 1985-2006 only 142 adverse events are
reported in U.S. federal records – most occurring before 1997. That’s an
injury rate of 0.0000000236 – or less than one report in every 44
million sessions over a 21-year period, with most of the reports coming
in earlier years.
Professional indoor tanning salons understand that it is
inappropriate to make direct health claims about indoor tanning or to
suggest there are no risks associated with UV exposure from any source.
But regardless of what a facility can say about its services, surveys
show many indoor tanners utilize tanning for more than just the cosmetic
Tanning: Nature’s Sunscreen
One reason so many people enjoy the professional indoor
tanning experience is that trained operators can give a tanner
controlled UV exposures to gradually develop natural sunscreen – often
called a "base tan" – while minimizing the risk of sunburn. The tanning
process actually creates two different forms of natural protection
pigment produced when UV light meets the skin literally enshrouds
and shields skin cells in the skin’s epidermis, protecting each cell
from getting too much UV exposure. Melanin is a powerful
anti-oxidant, helping the skin naturally eliminate free-radicals
that can cause damage.
As the skin tans, the outer layer thickens (a
natural process called acanthosis) which is nature’s design to make
the skin naturally more resistant to sunburn.
The value of a base tan, as any indoor tanner knows, is
that it adds another layer to your sun protection arsenal – making
sunscreen worn outdoors for outings on sunny days even more effective. Here’s
how that works:
A typical new
client begins tanning with 5-minute sessions, gradually develops a
tan and can work her/his way up to 20-minute sessions. At this
point, she/he becomes naturally FOUR TIMES more resilient to sunburn
than when she/he first started tanning. (5 minutes x 4 = 20
minutes). So that tan has an SPF 4 value.
When someone with a base tan uses sunscreen
outdoors, they essentially multiply the effectiveness of the
sunscreen. In other words, an SPF 15 product applied to the skin of
a person whose base tan has already made her four times more
resilient to sunburn creates a net SPF of 60. (SPF 15 x 4 = SPF 60).
In sunny environments many fair-skinned people can
sunburn during normal outdoor activities even while wearing sunscreen.
But with a base tan their sunscreen becomes more effective and they are
much less likely to sunburn.
Casual Self-Treatment of Cosmetic Skin Conditions
Millions of indoor tanning customers frequent U.S. indoor
tanning salons for their own self-treatment of cosmetic skin conditions
and other non-cosmetic tanning reasons - physiologic benefits that can
occur when one follows the cosmetic regimen at a tanning facility.
According to a 2010 Smart Tan survey:
three million consumers frequent tanning salons for self-treatment
of psoriasis, eczema, acne, vitiligo, seasonal affective disorder
(SAD) and to increase vitamin D levels.
Approximately one million indoor tanners said they
were referred to tanning facilities by their dermatologist.
Could Indoor Tanning Be a Surrogate for What Nature
Vitamin D production is one of the benefits that has been
associated with human exposure to ultraviolet-B (UVB) emitted in
sunlight and by an estimated 90 percent of commercial indoor tanning
equipment. While the North American indoor tanning industry conducts
indoor tanning as a cosmetic service, an undeniable physiological side
effect of this service is that indoor tanning clients manufacture
sufficient levels of vitamin D as a result of indoor tanning sessions.
Vitamin D is a
hormone produced naturally when skin is exposed to UVB in sunlight
or indoor tanning units. Scientists through thousands of studies now
recommend vitamin D blood levels of 40-60 ng/ml. Only those who get
regular UV exposure have those levels naturally:
Indoor Tanners...........................42-49 ng/ml...........................Sufficient
Vitamin D sufficiency is linked to a reduction in
105 diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis
and most forms of cancer. It is believed that vitamin D deficiency
contributes to nearly 400,000 premature deaths and adds a $100
billion burden to our health care system.
77 percent of Americans are considered vitamin D
deficient according to government data and overzealous sun avoidance
is the only plausible explanation for the 50 percent increase in
that figure in the past 15 years.
The indoor tanning industry believes that, for those
individuals who can develop tans, the cosmetic and vitamin D-related
benefits of non-burning exposure to ultraviolet light in appropriate
moderation outweigh the easily manageable risks associated with
overexposure and sunburn. Many doctors agree: "I believe the health
benefits of exposure to UVA and UVB rays greatly outweigh the
disadvantages, even if that means using a sunbed during winter months."
-British Oncologist Dr. Tim Oliver -