" September 2013 (UTC)

I love how I specifically tried in a polite manner to engage in meaningful dialogue here, and asked you to respond in a way to help me understand why you refuse to accept the submission.  Your 2-line response was the equivalent of ""nana-nana boo-boo,"" as far as I am concerned. Let's dissect these 2 lines.

""::you don't understand propaganda.""
That is a loaded statement if I ever read one. I have read up on the term propaganda, thanks very much, and my readings are not simply limited to this website, which I feel is narrow in its scope. I have been on a program that toured the death camps of Poland and studied the use of propaganda in Nazi Germany. I am currently awaiting a response from a PhD who has lectured and studied the use of propraganda in the media/industry, and it is with respect to our point of contention here. Funny, I can't find any work you have done on this subject, Mr. Jensen, yet you seem to be trying to claim superior academic grounds here. I have made an attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue, and you response above clearly shows you cannot or will not make an effort to present factual arguments to prove such a comment. 

""You use the word to denounce advertising for products you consider harmful.""
I am not denouncing advertising for products I consider harmful, and this is what you need to understand, because I have stated this on multiple occasions in many different ways. This statement you have just made is a personal attack. Additionally, it is incorrect. I don't consider the product to be harmful. It is harmful. This is not an opinion, but a restating of facts by the IARC/WHO, and health organizations worldwide, based on the overwhelming body of evidence that is available. If it were simply an opinion, I can understand why you could be frustrated. But the irony, Mr. Jensen, is that the fact that you and others believe that this is simply an opinion is possibly the result of hearing or reading propaganda used by those in the tanning industry to cloud the picture. Tanning bed exposure is strongly associated with skin cancer, among other health risks (please take the time, I urge you, to read any or all of the references I quoted in my submission, all from established medical journals). The industry claims that these risks are not existent or are insignificant, says that UV exposure is more controlled in a tanning bed (not proven whatsoever), and claims health benefits of tanning bed use that are either unproven (e.g. cancer prevention, ""base tan""), exaggerated, and can be achieved through safer means (e.g. Vitamin D exposure). 

So please enlighten me, Mr Jensen, as to what propaganda is? Is propaganda not ""a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument?"". That's the definition on the wiki page, right? I am sure you have head of a systematic review - that is when an established researcher evaluates all of the evidence for and against an exposure, and concludes if the body of evidence favours a hypothesis. It is the most balanced and unbiased way to assess an intervention or exposure. Well, that's what I use, and that's what the World Health Organization used, when they came to an unbiased conclusion that UV exposure from tanning beds (as well as the sun) is a carcinogen, in the same class as cigarettes. In my submission, I think I clearly showed that there are many in the tanning industry and their associated organizations who have reported only the small studies that show their point of view, but neglect to mention the overwhelming amount of evidence that goes against their points, including the systematic reviews I mention. Is this not the same as ""presenting one side of an argument"" to ""influence the attitude of the community""? Or, is it that, as you say, I just ""don't understand propaganda""? 

I have to say it yet again to you, because I think this is such an important point that I have to drive home - this is not my ""opinion"". 1) Tanning beds cause more harm than good, fact. 2) Tanning industry sites present the good (which is partly true) and negate the bad (partly false), and this is also a fact. If you can find me a tanning industry association that clearly presents a balanced view, you show it to me because this would run counter to the principle of ""good business"" - its impossible for an industry that causes harm to remove a conflict of interest when weighing evidence for or against their product, and the result is advertising that is propaganda. 3) The industry has used scapegoats/diversion tactics (e.g. suggesting that Cancer Society and Neutrogena are connected in an elaborate scheme to sell skin products through fear mongering, stating that the government is taking responsibility away from parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, blaming o