The reality behind Reality TV: Hell’s Kitchen Edition
[Updated: June 15, 2019 — Michael Wray has a GoFundMe under Where are they Now?]
[Previous update: August 2, 2018 — Jessica Vogel, Season 12 contestant dead at age 34.]
[Previous update: February 10, 2018 — Seasons 14 thru 17 and Where are they now?]
Hell’s Kitchen
For those of you who like Reality TV shows like Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares and Hell’s Kitchen, realize there is even more reality than what you see on the tube. For example, in the first two seasons of Hell’s Kitchen, the winners didn’t actually win what the show promised during the seasons. The first season winner, Michael Wray, was to win his own restaurant, but the show didn’t deliver on that award. Instead, he was awarded kitchen equipment and a trip to the UK to study under Ramsay. He first accepted and then later declined the trip. The second season winner, Heather West, was promised a newly built restaurant in Las Vegas in which she would have an investment stake and help design it. This prize also never materialized. Instead, she signed a one year contract to be Senior Chef at Terra Rossa (an existing restaurant) in Las Vegas. After her contract terminated, she left and became Sous Chef on Hell’s Kitchen during Season 6. Still, not the prize she had won.
It wasn’t until the third season that Hell’s Kitchen actually awarded the prize to Rock Harper that it had announced all season. He became Head Chef of Green Valley Ranch’s Terra Verde. Of course, the question remains, was it just a limited stint for Rock like it was for Heather? Only time will tell. Fast Forward… The award for Season 6 was to be ‘Head Chef’ at the Araxi in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the restaurant began to get cold feet at the start of Season 6 after seeing the contestants. So, Ramsay apparently had to talk with the owner to quell any fears that there would be a competent winner. Unfortunately, Araxi had already made up its mind. The winner of Season 6 (Dave) will simply become an ’employee’ and not ‘Head Chef’. So, once again, Hell’s Kitchen has not delivered on its announced award.
I also have to wonder about those other award winners (see updates below). Did they only somewhat win or slightly win? At least Hell’s Kitchen should award cash and tangible prizes. As long as the sponsorship remains, the prizes will be there. Top Chef got that one right at least.
Winners List Seasons 1 through 4
Season 1 winner
Michael Wray
Prize: Tatou in Los Angeles
Status: Not Awarded
Alternate: Study under Ramsay in London + Kitchen Equipment
Season 2 winner
Heather West
Prize: Her own custom designed restaurant in Las Vegas.
Status: Not Awarded
Alternate: Terra Rossa at Red Rock Resort Spa and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada
Season 3 winner
Rahman “Rock” Harper
Prize: Terra Verde at Green Valley Ranch in Henderson, Nevada
Status: Prize Awarded
Season 4 winner
Christina Machamer
Prize: London West Hollywood in Los Angeles (Chef Ramsay owned) + $250k yearly salary
Status: Prize Awarded
Kitchen Nightmares
Kitchen Nightmares, on the other hand, is its own nightmare. Of course, it doesn’t help that Ramsay attempts to save restaurants on the brink of collapse. Needless to say, in the first 2 US seasons of this show and of the 13 he’s tried saving in New York, only 5 are still in business. Sebastian’s in LA has also closed. Most of the failed restaurant owners blame Ramsay and Ramsay blames the owners for not following his advice. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle combined with the economy. The downturn has taken its toll on lots of places, including restaurants. Fine dining is quite expensive. People are cutting back and eating more frugally. It doesn’t help that most of these ailing turned failing restaurants really had no regulars anyway. So, giving it a coat of paint and a new menu is probably not enough. Their reputation was already tarnished.
Of course, Kitchen Nightmares also pays to have people dine at the restaurant so that it appears as though it might succeed. The reality, of course, is far different. This is all Hollywood smoke and mirrors. After the cameras stop rolling and the production is no longer paying diners, the restaurant goes back to its old dismal self (bad sales and all). Basically, polishing poop doesn’t make it better. Kitchen Nightmares is now moving into its fifth season and counting.
Update for Kitchen Nightmares – 2010 Edition
Joseph Cerniglia found dead in Hudson River. According to witnesses, they saw someone jump from a bridge. Joseph was the owner of Campania restaurant that was featured on Kitchen Nightmares. At the time when Ramsay stepped in, Joseph’s restaurant was in debt by more than $80,000 to his suppliers. Ramsay tried to get Campania back on track, but we know how this works. After the cameras stop rolling and the paid diners stop, as stated above, the restaurant goes back to is old dismal money-losing self and falls back into the death spiral. Whether or not KN is responsible, in any way, for his apparent suicide has yet to be determined, but this is definitely a shocker.
Campania Episode on Hulu [Defunct Link: Here for historical purposes only]
Warning: Contains explicit language
Update for Kitchen Nightmares — June 2014
As of June 2014, Daily Mail UK reports that the Kitchen Nightmares series has officially ended. I’d say, it’s really about time. During its run, KN has tried to help many restaurants survive, recover and prosper. KN was primarily smoke and mirrors, TV cameras and paid diners. The truth is, more than 60% (and counting) of the restaurants Kitchen Nightmares has tried to save have folded. That’s not a particularly spectacular track record and just points to the fact that not all is a perfect shade of deep fried golden brown in Gordon Ramsay’s world.
Makes You Wonder
I have to wonder just how many more reality game or fix-it shows really work after the dust settles and the cameras are gone. With shows like Trading Spaces and Bridezilla, is it only about the cameras and drama? Does the ‘reality’ really mean anything. After the cameras stop, it’s really not that exciting. In fact, when the cameras are rolling, it’s not that exciting. That’s why they hire excellent editors to take random shots and intercut them together. For that reason alone, that’s how Tek, who was eliminated much earlier in Hell’s Kitchen, can reappear in an episode where she shouldn’t have been.
Smoke and Mirrors
Remember, Hollywood is all about appearances. Appearance is the only thing that matters. As long as its glitzy and offers some drama, Hollywood assumes people will watch. To some degree, I guess that thinking is valid. But, once you realize that it’s only smoke and mirrors, then it becomes just fluff. For me, that’s not really enough to keep watching.
Hell’s Kitchen Updates
Season 5
Winner: Danny Veltri
Prize: Head Chef at Borgata’s Fornalletto in Atlantic City
Status: Not Awarded
Offered: Sous Chef position
Danny Veltri was to have won the head chef position at the Borgata’s Fornelletto restaurant in Atlantic City and, unfortunately, ended up as sous chef at the restaurant under head chef Stephen Kalt. Danny didn’t immediately appear disappointed in the change according to this NY Daily News story and wanted to learn from Kalt. Apparently, Danny stayed for only several months and then, after frustration set in, departed back to Florida to work at Flip Flops, his own and previously operating restaurant. So, once again, HK didn’t deliver its announced prize fully as described.
Season 6
Winner: Dave Levey
Prize: Araxi in Whistler BC for the Olympics
Status: Not Awarded
Offered: Line Cook
Dave Levey didn’t stay long at the Araxi in Whistler, BC. After not receiving the head chef position that he was promised, he apparently only stayed just long enough to help with the 2010 Olympics. After that, Dave packed up and has returned to his native New Jersey to work at the Il Giardino restaurant where he had been previously employed prior to HK.
[Update 2013] Dave has since left Il Giardino and has moved to The Publick House as Executive Chef which is located in Chester, New Jersey or visit their direct web page at The Publick House Tavern and Inn. Apparently, both Il Giardino and The Publick House Tavern and Inn are owned by the Lubrano family according to this 2009 nj.com article. Apparently, this family also owns a third restaurant named Provesi in Morristown. Effectively, Dave is still working for the same restaurant family.
Season 7
Winner: Holli Ugalde
Prize: Savoy Grill in London
Status: Not Awarded
Offered: Undisclosed sum of money
[Updated: 11/30/2013] Reader Morten writes in saying that, according to this Daily Mail UK article, Holli was not awarded the Savoy Grill position and apparently she’s ‘fuming’ and feeling ‘betrayed’ by Ramsay. Not sure what’s going on between these two, but whatever it is doesn’t seem appetizing.
The finals came down to Holli and Jay. Drum roll please… Holli Ugalde wins. This time the prize is likely something that can actually be awarded as this is a restaurant owned by Ramsay himself. Hell’s Kitchen always seemed to get in trouble when awarding jobs to contestants where Ramsay had no ownership stake in the restaurant. This season, the prize is a head chef position at Ramsay’s newly opened (reoponed?) Savoy Grill restaurant in London. Because Ramsay will own and operate this restaurant, HK will likely be able to actually award the prize fully.
Of course, that depends on the Savoy’s successful reopening launch to work. We’ll have to see, though, if that promise holds true for Holli. Of course, Ramsay may end up hiring both Holli and Jay should the Australian trip turn out better than expected. I’m quite sure Ramsay considered this in his decision when not only picking the winner, but also when he picked the two finalists this season. Pulling Holli and Jay together through an Australian trip may mean Ramsay will get 2 chefs for the price of one if the relationship holds and they both move to London together. It’s a long shot for Ramsay, but if it works, it will work out great. If it doesn’t work out, he still gets Holli.
But wait, there is now speculation that Holli is a lesbian. I’m not specifically seeing it in the photos from this web site. But, you can visit and be the judge. Is she or isn’t she? If so, then the Jay and Holli romance thing was all a sham as Ramsay (and HK) would likely have known this fact. You might also want check out Holli’s MySpace page which may have more details about this.
Oh, and if you didn’t watch the final episode closely, you might want to watch it again. Dave Levey makes a cameo complete with chef’s outfit, knit cap and arm cast. Although, if his arm hasn’t healed in 12 months, he needs to see a specialist.
Season 8
Winner: Nona Sivley
Prize: Head Chef at L.A. Market
Status: Awarded
Season 8 has now been over for quite some time, but I’ve been lax on updating this article. The winner is… drum ro.. nevermind, this season is not worth getting excited over. Between Russell and Nona, Nona wins, for whatever that’s worth. This season was an unmitigated disaster. The professionalism of this show dropped tremendously. The drama went way up and the fighting was at a boiling point nearly every episode. Yet, there was little actually boiling in the kitchen, other than Ramsay. Anyway, I guess Nona gets the position at L.A. Market, even though there’s was no clear executive chef material in any of the contestants. Good luck Nona, you’re gonna need it. With that said, between Jillian, Russell and Nona, Jillian was the most consistent cook of the bunch. Russell had a big mouth and liked to run it, but when it came down to meals, he just couldn’t cut it (or, in this case, cook it). We’ll see if Nona hangs around long at L.A. Market. My guess is that, like past HK winners, she’ll do a couple months there as a token prize and then be off back home. Note that Nona apparently started work at the L.A. Market on January 1, 2011 January 25th, 2011. So, Nona should now be working there as of this [latest] update.
Season 9
Winner: Paul Niedermann
Prize: Head Chef at BLT Steak in Manhattan
Status: Awarded
Season 9 has now concluded. The winner turns out to be Paul Niedermann who began his career flame broiling burgers at Burger King. He has won the spot as Head Chef at the BLT Steak located in Manhattan. According to this ‘About Us‘ web page for BLT Steak, it does actually appear that Paul Niedermann did get the gig at BLT Steak. Mind you, this particular restaurant doesn’t appear to be any kind of super upscale establishment, but it at least appears to offer reasonable quality food. Definitely a step up from Burger King, but perhaps not by that much. Yelp gives NY BLT Steak 3.5 stars.
Yelp consensus for BLT Steak NY — overpriced for the quality.
A quote from the BLT Steak’s About Us page:
Paul Niedermann
Head Chef, BLT Steak New York
As the Season 9 winner of Fox’s hit reality show, Hell’s Kitchen, Paul Niedermann recently traded Florida sunshine for the glittering lights of New York City. As Head Chef of BLT Steak New York, Paul brings Italian and Mediterranean influences to the kitchen, his culinary palette pairing light fresh food together with citrus and other influences from his time spent in southern Florida. He also brings, of course, a killer competitive edge.
Watch Paul talk about his experience in New York City and working at BLT Steak. [Below]
With that said, the runners up were Will Lustberg and Elise Wims. While I would like to discuss this specific show’s qualities, it has gone way too far down in recent years to really get excited by it anymore. So, for sheer informational purposes, here is the winner information.
Season 10
Winner: Christina Wilson
Prize: Head Chef at Paris, Las Vegas
Status: Awarded
Season 10 is now over and the winner is …. Christina Wilson. She takes her place among the other Hell’s Kitchen winners. The runner up, Justin Antiorio. You can find out more details about this season at this Los Angeles Times article. Basically, it as a play between palette and passion. I’m guessing that Ramsay is more a fan of passion than palette, but that’s a bit unusual considering that taste in food is everything. Passion is great, but if you can’t make creative foods that taste great, then you’re not likely to do that well as a successful chef. I guess Ramsay will have to deal with that now since Christina Wilson wins her spot at Gordon Ramsay Steak in the Las Vegas Paris hotel.
Yelp’s rating for Gordon Ramsay Steak Las Vegas is a solid 4 stars. A large number of the most recent reviews (as of 9/25/2012) are 5 stars with many people saying the steak is outstanding. Of course, in the restaurant biz, quality can change on a dime. That’s why there are sites like Yelp. So, there you have it. If you like steak, this is probably a great place to try. Albeit, it’s a bit pricey with the average price per guest around $85.
Season 11
Winner: Ja’Nel Witt
Prize: Head Chef position at Gordon Ramsay’s Pub and Grill in Las Vegas
Status: Not Awarded — failed required drug test
I’d been lax in updating this page, but there’s been some actual real-life drama involving the winner of HK season 11. So, the winner is Ja’Nel Witt. I won’t really get into how she won HK (it doesn’t really matter at this point). Instead, let’s get into the real-life drama. Keep in mind that I’ve been waiting for a story like this to break for 10 seasons.
According to TMZ, Ms. Witt failed her drug test that Caesars Palace required her to take upon assuming her winning position at Gordon Ramsay’s Pub and Grill in Las Vegas. After going through all of that hassle for an entire season (granted, it’s really just a couple of weeks time in real-life when they film the whole season), she was allegedly stupid enough to run some rails. Now she’s being run out of town on a rail. Yes, some things don’t stay in Vegas and it appears Ms. Witt won’t be one of those things. Yes, this also means Ms. Witt won’t be assuming the role at Ramsay’s restaurant.
Although, Ms. Witt won against Mary Poehnelt (the runner up). I’m hoping that Mary Poehnelt will end up taking the position and getting the money as it doesn’t bode well to give that to someone suspected of being a drug addict. Not the right role model to be endorsing here. Although, again according to TMZ, Gordon Ramsay still believes in Ja’Nel and he says his ‘door is always open’ once she ‘sorts out her personal issues’.
Maybe Gordon Ramsay has learned his own life lesson: even though it’s consumable, it’s not always about food. You’ve got to know that as cranky as Ramsay gets at raw scallops or an underdone Wellington, he’s got to be fuming over this. I think it’s time for HK to start doing drug tests all throughout the seasons to make sure the contestants aren’t coking while cooking.
Season 12 (Spring 2014)
Winner: Scott Commings
Prize: Head Chef at Gordon Ramsay Pub & Grill in Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. The prize was carried over from the previous season from Ja’Nel Witt’s drug test failure and awarded this season. Not sure why the show didn’t award it to the Season 11 runner up. Isn’t that why there’s a runner up?
Status: Awarded
Runner Up: Jason Zepaltas
Season 13 (Fall 2014)
Winner: La Tasha McCutchen
Prize: Head Chef at Gordon Ramsay Pub & Grill in Caesars Atlantic City (thanks go to reader Kenny)
Status: Awarded. She served her time, but has since left to go back to 3030 Ocean (a previous restaurant) several times. She wants to become a private chef.
Runner Up: Bryant Gallaher
Season 14 (Spring 2015)
Winner: Meghan Gill
Prize: Gordon Ramsay Pub & Grill at Caesars Atlantic City
Status: Apparently awarded, but she waited over a year to start in 2015 and appears to no longer be there. According to the restaurant’s web site, the current chef is “Georgeann Leaming”.
Runner Up: Torrece Gregoire
Season 15 (Spring 2016)
Winner: Ariel Malone
Prize: BLT Steak at Bally’s Las Vegas
Status: Awarded, but she’s no longer there.
Runner Up: Kristin Barone
Season 16 (Winter 2017)
Winner: Kimberly-Ann Ryan
Prize: Yardbird Southern Table & Bar at The Venetian Las Vegas
Status: Apparently awarded, but the chef listed for this restaurant is currently “John Kunkel”. Not sure what’s going on here.
Runner Up: Heather Williams
Season 17 (Early 2018)
Winner: Michelle Tribble
Prize: Hell’s Kitchen Restaurant at Caesars Palace
Status: Not Yet Known
Runner Up: Benjamin Knack
Commentary
Chalk this next commentary all up to TV smoke and mirrors. These winner “head chef” jobs seem just a tad strange. They claim to win a head chef position, but I rarely ever see the name of the winner listed on the web page for the restaurant. Then, inexplicably after a few months, the winner has already left the restaurant. It almost seems like the restaurant is embarrassed to state that they have a Hell’s Kitchen winner in the kitchen. It seems to me that the restaurants would want that publicity instead of shying away from it. It’s so odd.
As a chef, why would you put yourself through the grueling rundown of Ramsay’s tirades and not know if you’re actually going to win even if that door opens? This show has lost its steam. My guess is that all that steam is evaporating from Ramsay’s expletives rather than from the pots. Personally for me, this show has worn out its welcome. But, apparently, Fox keeps ordering more seasons… And, 2 HK seasons in one calendar year in 2014? What was that all about? At least they stopped that silly business during the 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 seasons. We’ll have to wait and see what happens with Michelle Tribble since her win was only just aired on February 2nd, 2018.
Where Are They Now?
Update for Previous Winners
Welcome to the “Where are they today?” section. I will attempt keep this information up to date as I locate information on each of the previous winners and other important contestant news. If you see a news article updating an HK’s winners whereabouts, please leave a comment below. Stay Tuned and Enjoy.
Michael Wray (Season 1 winner)
We know that Michael didn’t win the prize that he was promised. Instead, he was invited to study with Ramsay in the UK. He opted out because he stated it would be hard on his family at the time. Since then, he has been head chef in two Los Angeles restaurants (Tatou and the Standard), but ultimately didn’t stay. He left the Standard after stating that it was a good job, but the duties kept him out of the kitchen more than he liked. After leaving those restaurants, he moved to Arizona to be close to his family and, later, in hopes of opening his own restaurant named the HK1. In 2009, after failing to secure the funding for his restaurant venture then to be named HK1, he has apparently joined the staff of an Arizona College to teach cooking. However, scouring colleges and cooking schools in Tuscon and Sierra Vista Arizona areas, I’ve been unable to turn up which school, if any, where he is teaching. If you’re a reader in Arizona and know where he’s working, please comment. After this, I have not been able to locate information on what he’s doing.
Heather West (Season 2 winner)
Heather was to win her own restaurant in Vegas. She didn’t get this prize. Instead, she became Senior Chef at Terra Rossa at Red Rock Casino Resort Spa for one year. In 2009, she moved to Long Beach, New York where she became head chef of the Monterey Restaurant until September of 2010. From here, she’s moved around to various Executive Chef roles including at Jellyfish, Ciao Baby and R2 Events Corporation as a Corporate Executive Chef. She is now at Schafer’s in Port Jefferson, New York as Executive Chef where she’s been for 7 months.
Rock Harper (Season 3 winner)
Rock Harper is located in Virginia. He has a Twitter account and a blog site called Rock Solid Creative Food Group. He also apparently hosts a podcast called the Chef Rock Xperiment.
Christina Machamer (Season 4 winner)
Christina is located in or near Napa, California. Christina has a web site named ChefCMac.com. On this site she writes:
Today, I keep one foot firmly plated in the wine industry, consulting for Caldwell Vineyard and Eleven Eleven Winery, while working as a private chef for clients renting exclusive estates while visiting Napa Valley…. Click through to read more…
Danny Veltri (Season 5 winner)
Danny Veltri’s location is currently unknown, but he may still live in or near New Smyrna Beach, Florida. In 2012, he was arrested for a DUI. He started his own catering service named Back from Hell catering sometime around 2012. It is unknown if he still operates this service. He was also chef for Gnarly Surf Bar & Grill in Smyrna Beach, which he also helped open. While Gnarly Surf Bar and Grill still appears to be in business according to Yelp, it is unknown if Danny is still involved in it.
Dave Levy (Season 6 Winner)
Where’s Dave as of 2014? He was briefly in jail, but was released on bail pending a hearing, reports nj.com. According to the article, he was a back seat passenger during a routine traffic stop sometime in August that led to discovery of narcotics in the vehicle. Dave was arrested on suspicion of being under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance. Also, according to this same nj.com article, he was heading back to his restaurant job at Il Giardino ’86 (?.. eh, don’t think so.. see below). Of the bags that were consented to be searched, the officer found the bags to contain illicit prescription drugs (i.e., not prescribed to person in possession of them), a white powder substance suspected as a controlled substance, money and a ledger book which may have documented narcotic sales among other things. These bags were apparently not owned by Dave.
Purported by to this same nj.com article, Dave was apparently on his way back to Il Giardino ’86. I don’t know how that’s possible since Dave had moved to The Publick House quite a while back. Also according to this article and confirmed by Yelp, the Lubrano’s Il Giardino ’86 restaurant has now been 86ed (er.. closed). Its liquor license has been transferred to H2Ocean (not owned or operated by the Lubranos) now operating at the same location. Dave was likely on his way back to his executive chef position at The Publick House Inn and Tavern which is where he was as of 2013 and it is assumed it is where he still works unless this drug charge gets in the way.
Holli Ugalde (Season 7 winner)
I haven’t been able to locate Holli’s exact whereabouts, but I believe she may be near Redlands, California based on her Twitter account. However, her Twitter account hasn’t been updated since 2016. She also had a web which was located at and is now only available through the Internet Archive as www.chefholli.com. The http://www.chefholli.com site is no longer working and must have disappeared sometime in 2017.
Nona Johnson (Season 8 winner)
Nona went by her maiden name of Sivley when on Hell’s Kitchen Season 8. She has lost weight, gotten married and is known as Nona Johnson. She has a Twitter and a Facebook account. She has been operating the Sizzling Peach catering service for at least 4 years. She and her catering service are located in Norcross, Georgia. Here is Sizzling Peach’s Facebook page.
Paul Niedermann (Season 9 winner)
Paul Niedermann has left BLT Steak New York and is now located in Delray, Florida. Here’s a Delray Newspaper article talking to Paul from late 2017.
Christina Wilson (Season 10 Winner)
Where’s Christina now? In 2016, Christina moved to overseeing several of Ramsay’s restaurants both in Vegas and Atlantic city, she’s done a stint as Sous Chef on Hell’s Kitchen and she’s writing menus for Ramsay’s hotel rehab show, “Hotel Hell”. Since it’s now 2018, I’m not entirely sure what Ramsay has Christina doing. Apparently, she’s one of the rare HK winners. Apparently, she’s been able to milk the most out of her win on Hell’s Kitchen (and out of Ramsay) where most other winners have gone their separate ways in short order.
Ja’Nel Witt (Season 11 Winner)
After not being able to claim her prize due to a drug test failure, Ja’Nel has created her own web site and describes how she got started. She’s currently located in Houston, Texas. The site says:
Chef Ja’Nel found her passion for food helping her mom in the kitchen as a little girl. After college she realized she could take that passion and turn it into a career. She initially earned her Bachelors of Science in Health and Human Performance, but then quickly followed her heart into the kitchen and has not looked back since. Click through to read more…
Scott Commings (Season 12 Winner)
As of 2018, Scott is located in Las Vegas. As of July 2017, he was located at The Las Vegas Room at the Downtown Grand. The Las Vegas Room is private rental dining room. It is presumed he is still operating this private dining restaurant. The Downtown Grand web site states:
This venue is available for private events and whether your preference is a romantic, 2 hour cocktail reception with heavy hors d’oeuvres or a formal sit down dinner, you’ll find a swanky, sophisticated scene in the Las Vegas Room. The Las Vegas Room is 1,700 square feet with a guest capacity of up to 100.
Scott is also working with The Freedom Beat, also located in the Las Vegas Downtown Grand. On Feb 13th, 2018, he’s offering up a pre fixe menu with The Culinary Road trip, a monthly dinner he hosts. Cost is $38 or $48.
Jessica Vogel (Season 12 Contestant)
Jessica Vogel competed along side Scott Commings in Season 12 of Hell’s Kitchen. She was eliminated from the show on episode 10 of season 12. On August 1, 2018, it was reported by USA Today that Jessica Vogel had died on July 30th, 2018 of heart complications after being treated for colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease. She was 34.
Here’s an interview with Jessica Vogel during her time on Hell’s Kitchen:
new Michael Wray (Season 1 Winner Update)
Michael Wray had been living under a bridge in Los Angeles, CA. He has started a GoFundMe campaign to attempt to purchase a food truck so he can get back into the Chef business. Here’s an excerpt from what his campaign page has to say [sic]:
… The chance I earned from Hell’s Kitchen to begin my dream of being my own boss and using my new platform to bring my food to the world was wasted through drug abuse and addiction. Divorce, and most, loosing my lil new born Trixie GoGo broke my heart and spirit. Sending me into a tail spin of addiction that 5years after my win. I was living under the Burbank Blvd. underpass off the 5freeway in Los Angeles.
… I have spent the last 6 years without relapsing and earning my right to be an amazing chef again. Help me to get my food truck. I want to go and cook for you. Road trip of culinary delight. I want to show everyone I deserve the be a Hell’s Kitchen winner.
You can mosey on over to his GoFundMe campaign page by clicking this link. Thanks go to Tina for this tip.
↩︎
Recruiting: Job seeker’s friend or foe?
I have been successfully placed by a recruiter once in my career. After that, I’ve had nothing but bad experiences with recruiters. The main problem with recruiters isn’t necessarily with the recruiting itself. It’s the human element that always gets in the way. Let’s explore.
Recruiter’s Bottom Line
A recruiter’s bottom line is the commission that they receive upon placing a candidate. This commission, unfortunately, drives the entire placement process. When a recruiter’s sole motivation is based on money, the candidate and the hiring company both get the short end of the stick.
Case in point, I have used recruiters for the last two or three jobs I’ve attempted to land. In nearly every case, the recruiters misrepresented the job to me in the phone interviews. When a recruiter sent me to an interview, I quickly found the job was not a match for my skills. Basically, the job was entirely wrong based on my skills or I had specifically told the recruiter not to place me in that industry or job type. Yet, there I was, interviewing for a job where I shouldn’t have been.
This ends up a wild goose chase. When I explained the problem to the recruiter, they turn defensive and blame me for a ‘bad interview’. It wasn’t bad, it was just a mismatch because of the recruiter’s lack of skill or inability to listen. Of course, this all comes back to the commission. Once the commission dollars become a reality in their mind, the recruiter puts blinders on. They then attempt to force a square peg into a round hole to avoid losing their payday.
Sincere Recruiters?
That’s not to say that there aren’t sincere recruiters out there. I’m sure there are some. However, the recruiting industry is so filled with inexperienced recruiters only willing to make a buck that you can’t tell the difference between who is sincere and who isn’t. It’s not like recruiting is regulated or has any grading system. So there is no method for you, the candidate, to determine just how a specific staffing firm works.
The one recruiting game that gets to me is when recruiters simply resume collect to fill a database, but have no intention of placing you. Robert Half (RHI) is notoriously bad for this. They’ll collect your resume, ask you to step into their offices for a ‘face to face’ and additionally ask you to spend an hour or longer filling out paperwork. After you’ve spent all of that time doing this for them, they never call you back. That’s such a waste of time. Instead of wasting a day at their offices, the candidate could have better spent that time sending out resumes to actual employers and going on legitimate interviews with direct employers.
Recruiting Tactics
Other tactics from recruiters include the recruiter finding a job posting on the Internet, collecting resumes and contacting qualified candidates. Only after they have the candidates in hand do they then try to lasso in the employer. They string the candidate along thinking they have a chance at the position when they haven’t even talked with the hiring company about the position. Once the hiring company turns down the recruiter, this is when the recruiter stops calling the candidate and stops taking calls.
This recruiting scam is yet another colossal waste of time. These scams should be very apparent once you get two or three recruiters calling to recruit for the same hiring company and the same position. In a typical recruiting engagement with a hiring company, the hiring company only allows one recruiter to recruit for the position, not multiple. When multiple recruiters are recruiting for the same position, either the hiring company doesn’t understand the recruiting process or, more likely, the recruiters are not on retainer.
Ask Lots of Questions
When choosing to work with recruiters, be cautious and ask lots of questions. A recruiter does attempt to be the candidate’s advocate, but usually only to the point that they don’t lose their commission. If losing their commission becomes a reality, recruiters can become desperate in the relationship between the candidate and the hiring company. In fact, a working recruiter relationship can turn sour in about 30 seconds once the candidate or hiring company expresses disinterest. This is when the recruiter’s professionalism is tested. If the recruiter keeps pushing the candidate or the hiring company after disinterest has been expressed, that behavior is not professional. It also shows just how much the recruiter values their commission over a properly filled position.
For a recruiter, it’s much more valuable to place a qualified candidate in the proper position than collect a recruiting commission. But, many recruiters turn desperate when their square peg won’t fit into their round hole. On the other hand, some recruiters just don’t care. They’ll attempt to place anyone in any position just to fill their required quota.
Recruiting Advocacy
It can be difficult to find a recruiter who is actively willing to work on your behalf as a candidate. If you find one, stick with them. Keep in mind, however, that they are all working on commission, so their placement of you fills their (and the recruiting firm’s) bank account. That money motivation can cause the recruiter to do things they would not otherwise do. Finding the most suitable job for you should be their number one priority. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.
Only you as the candidate can look out for your own best interest. If you find a recruiter has misrepresented a position, then walk away from the recruiter. You can, however, submit a direct resume to that employer IF the recruiter has disclosed the employer’s name. However, some recruiters refuse to disclose the prospective employer’s name until after you already know the job is unsuitable.
Recruiters: Friend or Foe?
To answer this question specifically, they can be both at the same time. As a candidate, you will need to keep your eyes and ears open. As a candidate, you must listen, ask questions and understand what the recruiters are telling you. You must also be able to read between the lines to understand if the recruiter is feeding you a line of bullshit or telling you the truth. Having a truth meter is important when working with recruiters. You should also always remain skeptical when the recruiter tells you something that seems too good to be true.
↩︎
WHO ups ante: Sunbeds now classified as bad as ‘tobacco’ for cancer risk.
A new study conducted with mice that the WHO has latched onto and that I’ve yet to read, now classifies sunbeds specifically and all UV exposure at the highest risk of causing skin cancer (on par with Tobacco). I’m not sure what prompted this change in view, other than a single study, but they have made this change. Clearly, one study is not enough to make this determination, but that is exactly what the World Health Organization is doing. There must be some subtext here that’s prompting this change. Perhaps the sunscreen industry is losing more money to people choosing to tan rather than buy and slather on the sunscreen.
The WHO claims that “It has been estimated that a sunbed tan offers the same protective effect as using a sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of only 2-3.” I’d guess that most lighter skinned people can only produce a tan (in a sunbed or outdoors) that protects you 2-3 times the amount you normally could stay outside. Without a tan, if you can stay out 1 hour without burning/tanning, then with a tan you can stay outside 2-3 hours without burning or substantially tanning. That’s fairly significant. The WHO shrugs it off as miniscule. Compared to SPF 50, it is miniscule. But realize, that even at 15 minutes max time outdoors without sunscreen, there aren’t 12.5 hours of sunlight in a day when using SPF 50. So, SPF 50 is overkill for most people. I’d also venture to guess that the WHO’s SPF 2-3 tan protection estimation is on the low side. Yes, if you only tan once a week in a bed and get only a very light tan, that might only make an SPF of 2-3. But, if you get a darker tan, then it will be a lot more protective perhaps up to 4-6 depending on color. Of course, how much melanin you can produce will also dictate how strong your protection is. Note that all skin colors will eventually burn, even the darkest tones. The question is, how long does it take?
The WHO’s SPF arguments completely discount the fact that a tan is full spectrum UV protection and, instead, suggests reliance on the sunscreens to protect you. What is this nonsense? Sunscreens are nowhere near full spectrum protection. In fact, most suncreens only really protect you from UVB and many provide limited or non-existent protection to UVA. Many UVA blocking chemicals wear off or degrade far faster than UVB protection. So, even while you may not burn with the UVB protection, your UVA protection may have worn off 10 minutes ago. A tan is visible, you can see it. Sunscreen is invisible, you can’t see it. A tan that you can see, you know is working. A sunscreen that you can’t see, you can’t know that it’s working. So, you have to reapply at least every 30 minutes to 1 hours to ensure constant protection.
For SPF, consider this. There are 8-10 major sunlit hours in the day. If you have an SPF of 3 and can stay out 1 hour without burning, that means you can stay out 3 hours without burning with SPF 3 protection. How often do people stay outdoors longer than 3 hours in direct sunlight? Of the places that come to mind, I see an amusement park, a waterpark or perhaps at the beach surfing. These three situations can easily kill more than 4 hours outdoors. So, in these instances, you wouldn’t want to rely on a tan alone to protect you even if you had an extremely dark tan. But, of the three, two are water activities where sunscreens don’t really work well. So, with outdoor water activities, having a tan is far more helpful than using sunscreens that continually wash off.
Benefits outweigh Risks
William B. Grant (Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center (SUNARC), San Francisco, CA, USA) suggests in his December 2008 article that the benefits of UV exposure outweigh any risks that UV might impose. For example, he states,
“Humanity’s relation to solar UVB and vitamin D should first be put into the biological perspective. Solar UVB has always been the primary source of vitamin D for life on Earth. On the other hand, UV can damage DNA and generate free radicals, as well as destroy folate in the skin. As a result, skin pigmentation adapted to prevailing solar UV doses where people lived for many generations: very dark in equatorial plains regions, brown in tropical forests and subtropical locations, and very light in high-latitude European locations (Jablonski and Chaplin, 2000). Many people now may live where their skin is too light for prevailing UV doses, resulting in increased risk of skin cancer, or too dark, leading to vitamin D deficiencies.”
Assuming that UV and skin cancer are linked conclusively, his argument suggests another reason for higher incidence of skin cancer. Because the world is literally an open travel destination, peoples from all over the world are now moving to regions they would not normally inhabit. Thus, lighter skinned people are moving to regions with more UV exposure than normal for their protection level. Darker skinned people are becoming vitamin D deficient because UV isn’t strong enough when they move to less sunny areas.
Of UV exposure, Mr. Grant also writes,
“The benefits of UVB irradiance and vitamin D extend well beyond cancer. There is mounting evidence that vitamin D also reduces the risk of cardiovascular diseases (Dobnig et al., 2008). The benefits for UVB irradiance accrue even in youth, as reported for bone development (Lamberg-Allardt and Viljakainen, 2008), multiple sclerosis (Grant, 2008; van der Mei et al., 2003), breast cancer (John et al., 2007b), and prostate cancer (John et al., 2007a). One reason for an early-life benefit is that vitamin D increases absorption of calcium, which reduces the risk of cancer (Lappe et al., 2007; Peterlik and Cross, 2005).”
On the one hand, you have the WHO claiming ‘tanning beds’ are the highest risk for cancer (especially for those under 30) and on the other you have the benefits of vitamin D (especially during early years) that help reduce your chances of cancer and aid in health. These statements are very opposing. In fact, evidence suggests that UV exposure also aids in the reduction of other illnesses. Of the benefits of Vitamin D, Mr Grant again states,
“Also, vitamin D strengthens the innate immune system against both bacterial and viral infections through the production of human cathelicidin, LL-37 (Aloia and Li-Ng, 2007; Hewison, 2008), thereby reducing the risk of viral infections such as Epstein–Barr virus that lead to other diseases such as multiple sclerosis and several types of cancer (Grant, 2008).”
And he states that 1000-2000 IU of Vitamin D per day can aid in the reduction of other diseases and of contracting viruses including “… seasonal influenza and the common cold (Aloia and Li-Ng, 2007).” I can attest to that. UV exposure has kept me from getting the flu or a cold for the last two years running.
Sunlight
Humans have enjoyed sunlight since the beginning. To now claim that natural sunlight is more dangerous than a chemical bath in sunscreen products is basically ridiculous. Let’s actually do some studies to determine if sunscreen chemicals are truly long-term safe, shall we? I digress. If sunlight were truly as carcinogenic as the WHO puts forth in their very alarmist announcement, then humans would not exist today and we would have been one big heap of skin cancer. Yet, that hasn’t happened. So, then the question becomes, what has changed? What are we now doing that we weren’t doing years ago? I think the answer is in the all of the manmade products and foods that we consume. The unnaturalness of working in closed indoor spaces instead of being outdoors. Of course, this includes Mr. Grant’s argument of inhabiting regions with higher doses of UV. So, when we do go outdoors to play, we get badly burned and we effectively have no protection.
Other sources of UV
There are other incidental sources of UV that you may also not be aware. If you work in an office building or perhaps even in your home, fluorescent bulbs have become extremely common place. While the UV that emanates from these bulbs is not as strong as those in tanning beds, they still give off UV. Haven’t you ever wondered why plants love to be under fluorescent lights? That’s the answer.. UV. So, while there isn’t enough UV exposure from these fluorescents to actually tan you, there is enough exposure throughout an 8 hour day to account for higher incidence of skin cancer in individuals. These fluorescent lamps may even be in your home in the new ‘energy saver’ bulbs. So, you may also be further exposing yourself to additional UV without even knowing it.
WHO warns only targeted UV sources
If the WHO wants to exclaim warnings, they need to exclaim them in the proper places. Right now, they are unfairly targeting tanning beds and tanning salons when natural sunlight falls directly under their warning. They make no mention of UV from office building flourescent bulbs. Awardspace.com describes standard fluorescent lamps:
“Fluorescent lamps illuminate 71% of the commercial space in the United States. Most fluorescent lighting gives off UV radiation. Inside the tube, fluorescent lights are pure ultraviolet (UV). Passing through the coating of the tube, they change to visible light (spikes of violet, green and blue) and are not “supposed” to give off UV radiation, but some leaks out. There are special filters that can be purchased to block UV light, but most businesses don’t install the filters because of cost. The filter is a panel that allows light through, but blocks the UV radiation. [Sewell]”
Note that UV exposure is cumulative. So, sitting under fluorescent lights every day for 8-10 hours is probably equivalent to being out in the sun for several hours. Note that what’s blocked appears to be mainly UVB or else everyone would go home sunburned every day. So, what’s left that comes out of the bulbs is likely the longer UVA waves. These are the UV sources that account for skin aging and sun damage and potentially skin cancer.
William B. Grant quotes from the WHO’s very own web site:
“Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure is a minor contributor to the world’s disease burden, causing an estimated annual loss of 1.6 million (disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)); i.e. 0.1% of the total global disease burden. A markedly larger annual disease burden, 3.3 billion DALYs, might result from reduction in global UVR exposure to very low levels.” –WHO Review via William B. Grant
Let”s read that again… diseases from UVR exposure (i.e., skin cancer) account for 0.1% of the total global disease burden! Yet, from the WHO’s announcement, they would have you think that it’s nearly all of the world’s disease burden. The bottom line is, even if the WHO could manage to get every tanning salon in the world closed, the incidence of skin cancer would not likely drop as dramatically as they would think. First, sunlight is still readily available. Second, there are plenty of other unexpected UV sources (like office lighting) that go unchecked. But, even the WHO cautioned that reducing UVR exposure to very low levels might result in a ‘markedly larger annual disease burden’ (due to the lack of vitamin D). So, the timing of this increase in the risk levels is odd and must have some other subtext that’s pushing it through. One thing is quite clear, this warning clearly targets tanning beds and tanning salons. Because this notice clearly intends to target tanning salons and tanning beds, the question then remains as to the motivation behind this announcement at this time.
Spray tans and Self-Tanners
As a follow up to Sunscreens vs Natural Tanning, I thought I would discuss spray tans and self-tanners. Because suntanning is now almost considered taboo (thanks to the sunscreen and medical industries), many people opt to use a Mystic, Magic or Mist-On spray tanning booth to get that golden glow. A lot of people, for whatever reason, feel these are safer alternatives to sunlight produced color (melanin). Here’s some information that you may not know about these spray tan and self-tanners.
Spray Tan Booths
How safe are spray tans? Well, let’s start with what’s in these spray tanning formulations. Obviously, there’s water in the solution. The active ingredient (that tans you) is Dihydroxyacetone (known as DHA) and possibly even Erythrulose. Both of these ingredients provide color, but in different ways. Both Erythrulose and DHA are the ingredients in most off-the-shelf self-tanning products that you can find in the drug store. I say ‘most’ because there are other alternatives that can provide skin color without self-tanners (although, these are simply dyes, colorants, coatings or powders). Inactive ingredients include temporary bronzer colors (to give immediate color gratification) and possibly other chemicals to aid in delivery. There are some spray tan booths that provide clear solutions instead of bronzed solutions (which can mark up clothing). The benefit to the spray tan is that they tend to spray on very evenly and help prevent blotchy, streaky and uneven application. The drawback to spray tanning is that it aerosolizes the DHA and other ingredients so that you inhale it. Most spray tanning booths offer no ventilation systems during the spray tanning process. In fact, they don’t want the ventilation because the floating particles may help you tan better. But, because the solution is aerosolized, you are now inhaling these ingredients. Yes, you wanted your skin surfaced tan, but did you realized that you are now tanning your lungs and nasal passages? This is not a good thing.
DHA, Erythrulose and the dyes and colorants are not intended to be inhaled in mist particles. So, while the spray booths are great for even application, they don’t really offer the necessary ventilation to prevent inhalation of these potentially problematic chemicals. Salons are supposed to provide nose plugs that may help filter out these chemicals. Too many times, however, salons are out of the plugs and you end up inhaling anyway. In fact, because of the time it takes to spray tan, you really can’t easily hold your breath. So, you will eventually breathe in the chemicals.
Note that salons that have spray tan booths may opt to purchase third party DHA solutions. These are solutions not made by the original manufacturer. As a result, some people have experienced orange or yellow tones from spray tans in salons. If you spray tan and your color is highly orange, it’s possible that your salon has opted to buy cheaper refills with cheaper ingredients.
Self-tanners: How they work
The two self-tanners listed above include Erythrulose and Dihydroxyacetone (DHA). Erythrulose takes up to 5 days to fully appear. Erythrulose provides a yellowish color to the skin. The Erythrulose color is used to offset the oranges that DHA provides. DHA begins developing in 4-6 hours reaching maximum color by 12-15 hours. DHA’s color actually looks reasonably natural between 4-6 hours after application. Once DHA begins to darken, however, it begins to show the familiar orange and unnatural look by the 12 hour mark.
Airbrush Tan
For the same reason as a booth is a problem, so is an airbrush. The airbrush provides finer control and finer particles, but that doesn’t equate to safer inhalation risks unless they provide an active vent hood which can reduce inhalation risk. Airbrush tans, though, do provide better and more even coverage than a spray tan booth.
Safest Way to Apply Self-tanners
The lotion versions are, in fact, the safest way to apply a self tanner. While an aerosol makes it even and fast, it also makes it more dangerous for inhalation problems. So, opting for a lotion prevents the inhalation issues. The difficulty with lotions is uneven application and the possibility of an orange color.
Why do self-tanners turn orange?
Part of the reason for this is color theory. If you have a bluish undertone to your skin or are very pale, that mixes with the developing color to produce an orange-ish tone. If you have a tanned tone, the self-tanner enhances the tan and produces a much more natural color and deepens the tan. Another reason that DHA turns orange is because of the base ingredients with which it’s mixed. The lotion base that most brands use are cheap. As a result, the lotion ingredients change the color of the developing DHA to become more orange. To avoid this, you want to find a high quality lotion base or alternatively find a self-tanner mixed in a gel base. Some lotions that work well and keep their proper color are Dave’s Famous Moisture Tan and L’Oreal’s Sublime Bronze Gelee. Dave’s lotion is made in a white base and has a very light nutty scent. L’Oreal’s product has the typical nasty self-tanner scent, but it spreads on incredibly even (not streaky) and gives very good color.
What skin tones can use self-tanners?
While I know that dermatologists recommend self-tanners, you don’t want people to know you fake bake simply by looking. So, you need to assess your present skin tone to determine if a self-tanner is right for you. Certain skin tones do not do well with self-tanners. For example, the white-bluish skin tones do not fake bake well. The self-tan will likely make you orange or yellow very fast. The best you can hope for is getting a very light self-tanner, applying it and then washing it off right as the color develops. Washing immediately as the color develops lets you stop the color development at a point before it gets too dark. You will also need to find a self-tanner that gets you to the proper color. Some ‘light’ self-tanners still get way too dark, so you should be cautious. If at the 12 hour mark you are getting too dark, take a shower and lightly soap and rinse to stop further development.
Why do self-tanners smell?
The developing process between the DHA and the skin’s protein gives off an aroma as a result of the developing process. The smell has been described as ‘wet dog’, ‘musty’, or ‘earthy’ . The smell comes to its height at about the 12 hour mark after application. It begins to subside after the 24 hour mark (when the color begins to wear off). Because of the smell, this is a very telltale way of knowing when someone has used a self-tanner. Frankly, I find the smell offensive and refuse to use self-tanners for this reason alone.
Note that Dave’s self-tanner is made with limited fragrance, so it pretty much smells like the lotion mixed with DHA (it has kind of a nutty scent). The good thing about this is that there is no fragrance to mix with the developing odor to make an even nastier smell. Too many self-tanners on the market include entirely horrible fragrances to mask the DHA smell. So, when the color (and odor) develops and mixes with the fragrance, it can sometimes be a nauseating combination. You want to shower just to get the smell off. With Dave’s lotion, the light nutty fragrance dissipates rapidly so there is no fragrance left when the DHA color and odor develops… and that’s a blessing in disguise.
Self-tanners make my skin rough and dry
Yes, they do. The best way to resolve this issue is to use a moisturizer frequently. If you must use DHA to color your skin, your skin texture will change as a result. You may find that you don’t like the texture that a self-tanner leaves on your skin. If that’s the case, you may have to abandon use of DHA.
Flaking, peeling and splotchy uneven wear
Self-tanners don’t wear off evenly. It can wear off to make your skin look splotchy or odd colored. This is a lot more apparent when you try to go too dark and your skin is very light. The good thing, though, is a fake bake usually wears off completely by 7-10 days. That means, if there was a problem during application, it’s gone pretty fast. The downside, of course, means that you have to reapply the color every 7-10 days to keep your skin tone. The problem with reapplication is that you need to completely scrub the color off before adding more. Otherwise, the new color won’t adhere to your skin well enough. To make your self-tan last as long as possible, here are some tips.
- Scrub your skin with a exfoliating buff pad thoroughly prior to application (to remove as much dead dry skin as possible).
- Let your skin dry completely before application
- Apply a small amount of moisturizing (non-tanning) lotion to the backs of your hands, knuckles, knees, elbows and ankles to prevent full strength DHA absorption
- Once the color appears, apply lotion daily to keep the tan as long as possible
- Remove the tan fully with a buff-pad once the tan begins to noticeably flake
Always fully remove any previous self-tan before applying a new tan. If you don’t do this, your tan will become uneven and may go on too dark. So, remove the old tan first.
Removing the old self-tan
To remove a self-tan, the best way is to wait until most of it has worn off. Then, use a body exfoliating buff pad to rub the rest off. The benefit if using a buff pad is that it will get all of the old color off and, at the same time, prep your skin for a new tan. You should always prepare your skin by exfoliation prior to using a self-tanner. Otherwise, it may wear unevenly and/or turn way too dark in places.
Tips for working with self-tanners
Self-tanners will tan any skin surface or hair. So, be careful with it around the plams of your hands and your nails. Always wear gloves when applying and use a sponge applicator if possible. For ease of application, buy a lotion with a dark guide. The guide will aid getting it on evenly. Gels with oil are reasonably easy to get applied evenly because you can see where the oil is. The problem with the gel type with oil is that the oil dries slowly. Lotions dry much faster. Guides can stain clothing, so be careful. Do not swim, shower or sweat within 4-7 hours of application. This can wash off parts of the DHA and cause splotchy or uneven color. Wait until the color develops before doing swimming or other activities that make you sweat.
If you choose to go the route of a drug store lotion, look for reviews on the Internet first. People who like a product will usually recommend it. Amazon is a good place to get reasonably honest reviews of products. To get self-tanner off your palms, fingernails or cuticles, use a cotton swab and some bleach. The bleach will lighten the self-tanner and make it far less noticeable.
Overall
Finally, expect to spend between 1-3 hours prepping, applying and waiting to dry. Then, 4-6 hours before color begins to develop. So, this is not a fast process by any stretch. Be sure to fully exfoliate before you apply a self-tanner (whether from a bottle or in a salon). You should moisturize daily to keep the skin moist and preserve the look of the tan. There’s little you can do to mask the developer odor, so just try to keep yourself from getting wet (when it smells the worst).
Finally, I would like to point out the following possible health issues with self-tanner chemicals:
- A DHA tan does not protect you from UV. Do not use it thinking that you won’t get burned outdoors. In fact, DHA offers no UV protection at all. So, if you must be outdoors with your DHA tan, apply sunscreen to fully protect your skin from a burn.
- DHA has no long term toxicity studies for its use on the skin. It is a possibility that DHA leeches into the bloodstream on application. So, applying DHA may not be healthy to your skin or body… which may take years before it’s ultimately linked to any injury.
- Aerosolized DHA in spray tanning booths will be inhaled. You should be cautious of inhaling aerosolized DHA when using a spray tanning system. Inhaling DHA into the lungs has not been tested for possible health issues.
Why Serial ATA will ultimately fail
Serial ATA is the replacement for Parallel ATA hard drives in computers. Serial ATA offers faster speeds, yes, but is still immensely inconvenient in the Windows world (and probably with Linux and Mac as well).
Problematic design / brittle plastic
First, the thing you’ll notice different between a PATA drive and SATA drive is the connectors. Gone are the bigger multipin data connector and the 4 pin power connector. Instead, now we have a multipin power and multipin data connector that has a slim/thin form factor. At first glance, you might think this is cool looking replacement connector. We’ll I’m here to tell you it’s not. The plastic used to hold the flat pins in place is weak and brittle. If you’re not absolutely light touch careful with how the drive fits in place, you’re likely to break one or both of the connectors off. Once that happens, the drive is toast.
In the 18 years I’ve been a systems administrator, I’ve changed many a hard drive and never once broken an IDE’s data connector. I’ve torn a few cables and I’ve bent a few pins, but this is nothing that can’t be corrected easily leaving the drive fully functional. With the brittle plastic SATA connectors on the drive itself, it’s extremely easy to break them off. For this poor design choice alone, this is one reason why SATA manufacturers must eventually redesign this connector or the drive acceptance will fail.
Out with the old, in with the new
Hard drive manufacturers and motherboard manufacturers have been steadily pushing EIDE (IDE) out the door in replacement for SATA drives. That’s great if everyone was on board at the same time. Unfortunately, Microsoft still isn’t on board with this change over. There are still limited native SATA drivers even in Windows Server 2008 (which is an offshoot of Vista). This means, you must still load drivers for certain popular SATA controllers. For example, one of the most common controllers used on motherboards is the SI3114 (Silicon Image) controller. Yet, you still must load drivers to get Windows to recognize a drive connected to it before Windows will install. If you forgot the driver or don’t realize you need it, you’ll easily spend 30 minutes chasing it down from your controller or motherboard manufacturer.
I realize the hard drive and motherboard manufacturers are trying to affect change, but you can’t do it when Microsoft still isn’t on board. I guess these businesses haven’t really figured this out yet.
Road to failure
I don’t mean hard drive failure either. I mean failure of the standard to be accepted in the long term. For poor design choices and the lack of giving Microsoft time to embed the most common SATA drivers into Windows installation media, SATA drives are likely to eventually fail to be the defacto data storage device of choice. Connectors on the back of drives need to be rugged (or at least more rugged than the brittle plastic they are using). The connectors could have been both bigger and more thoughtfully designed than what is on the back of SATA drives. For hot plugable configs, these connectors seem to work reasonably well, but they are still not perfect (as you have to play with alignment to ensure proper connectivity, hoping you don’t break parts off). The SCA connector was a much better standard as far as hot plug standards go: one single connector, big enough to be functional, easy to hotplug and rugged enough to keep from breaking parts off.
SATA drive manufacturers need to work on a design spec for better more rugged connectors on the back of SATA drives. Motherboard manufacturers need to ensure their SATA controller has a built-in driver in Windows installation packages so no specialty setups are necessary. Without these two steps, SATA drives will eventually fail to gain the acceptance and the momentum to keep these products going. Manufacturers seem to think that there is no other choice for data storage in the computer. When you think of hard drives, ATA drives are the first that come to mind. But, we are fast approaching solid state technologies. These solid state storage technologies don’t need the hoggy space of a hard drive chassis, the spinning noise and the eventual failure. With solid state drives, instead of 1U machines, we may even begin seeing 1/2U machines or less.
Fix it or fail
Hard drive manufacturers need to rethink SATA. They need to design both a better connector and faster data rates. 3Gbps speeds is reasonably fast, but we need to be about 10Gbps before vast improvements in transfer rates are actually noticed at a storage level.
Without the necessary support, which by now we should have had in the SATA world, it doesn’t make sense for HD manufacturers to push IDE out the door. There are still far too many times where IDE devices are necessary to get a system to a workable state. Motherboard manufacturers need to be doubly careful. SATA-only motherboards lead to challenges during installation of Windows due to lack of drivers. These installation challenges can lead to frustration and eventually a return of the motherboard to the store.
For all of these reasons, the SATA specification and design needs to be rethought. The brittle plastic connectors are no where near rugged enough and need to be made much more sturdy. The lack of driver support makes installation and repairs extremely frustrating. Chasing down SATA drivers to place on floppy disks can be a challenge even for the most knowledgeable.
For now, this is the state of SATA. It was a promising standard, but for now it’s become a problem because the hard drive industry is trying to push for change far too rapidly without adequately testing the design of the drive. For anyone reading who may work with SATA designs or manufacturing, please feel free to take this to your bosses for review.
Thoughts: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
After getting back from seeing this film (twice), I felt it needed some discussion. So, let’s go. Note, this may contain Harry Potter spoilers.. so do not continue if you haven’t seen or read. You have been warned.
Conversion
The book to movie conversion was done reasonably well. This movie, like most that have preceded it, have missed the mark on certain aspects. What makes a Harry Potter book good is all of the nuances that J.K. Rowling includes. Most of these nuances and subtleties just can’t be placed into the films and Half-Blood Prince (HBP) is no exception. You would think that by 6 films into this series that the die-hard critics would understand and be used to all of the missing things. Unfortunately, they aren’t and they are still complaining about this same aspect. Critics, get over it. If you want an exact conversion, do it yourself or wait for a TV series version.
Yes, there were a lot of small subtleties that were left out of the movie. Some of them can’t easily be filmed and others just don’t work for the story. However, there were some things that were left out of the films that I felt were important to understand. Like, for example, the apparation classes in Order of the Phoenix (OOTP) that were completely left out of that film. By leaving it out of OOTP, it means that this can’t be easily taken advantage of in HBP. So, when Harry apparates with Dumbledore, it’s a surprise to everyone. Yet, we would have already seen this in OOTP if it had been in the film.
The one thing that is noticeably absent from HBP is the Dursley family. Gone is Little Whinging. Other than cursory mention of it and a background street scene, there is nothing in the film. Granted, I haven’t read the HBP novel since it came out, so I don’t even really recall how much of the Dursley’s were in the novel. Note that I haven’t re-read the novel because I wanted to go into the film without having recently read the book. I find that I enjoy the films more this way. I will now re-read the novel having seen the film.
Thoughts
While I generally liked HBP, I felt that the movie wasn’t as thrilling or as much a rollercoaster as OOTP. The Order of the Phoenix was one of my least favorite books in the series, yet it turned out to be one of my top favorites in HP films. Why? Because they were able to turn the lackluster pacing of the book into a spectacularly paced film. Half-Blood Prince’s pacing is a bit too even and, frankly, slow. There was not enough going on in most of the scenes, even when there was something going on. Instead, HBP relies more on cinematography to pull off the slow paced scenes. In most cases, it does so quite well. This film was beautifully filmed for the most part. For the same reason that many critics filmatically liked Prisoner of Azkaban, I’d say those cinematography critiques also fit with Half-Blood Prince.
Unfortunately, the pacing was far too lackluster throughout most of the film to give the necessary emotional power needed after Snape does his deed in the Astronomy tower. So, you really don’t feel emotional at a time when you need to. The whole thing feels very detached. I think part of the problem is that Dumbledore wasn’t given enough character build-up throughout the films to provide the necessary emotional attachment in this film. In other words, we really needed to see just how dear Dumbledore was to everyone to really get the sense of loss. Even still, this film should have been able to set it up enough to give that emotional punch at the end even when the previous films failed in character building. I also believe that this is part of the reason so many people weren’t completely convinced of the death at the end of the HBP novel.
Because of the lack of the emotional ending and the lack of the necessary rollercoaster ride needed for this film, it leaves the experience a bit on the flat side. There was plenty of teen angst moments throughout much of the film and that is probably the thing that carries this film. We definitely needed to see that part of the story to fully understand what is about to happen in films 7 and 8 (assuming book 7 is still planned as a two-part film), but we also needed the emotional impact to feel for the character we’ve just lost (and that didn’t happen).
Overall
I liked Harry Potter and Half-Blood Prince, but not as much as the Order of the Phoenix. OOTP is better primarily because the intensity level was much higher than HBP. There were a few tense moments in HBP, but nowhere close to OOTP or even Goblet of Fire. I also felt that for what’s about to happen in Deathly Hallows that this film needed to ratchet up the intensity and failed to do so. Whomever is directing Deathly Hallows will have to ratchet up the intensity in that film rather than relying on HBP to do it.
What’s wrong with Vista / Windows?
This post comes from a variety of issues that I’ve had with Vista (specifically Vista 64 Home Premium). And, chances are, these problems will not be resolved in Windows 7. Yet, here they are in all their glory.
Memory Leaks
Vista has huge and horrible memory leaks. After using Vista for a period of time (a week or two without a reboot) and using a variety of memory intensive 3D applications (Daz Studio, Carrara, The Gimp and Poser.. just to name a few), the system’s memory usage goes from 1.69GB to nearly 3GB in usage. To answer the burning question… yes, I have killed all apps completely and I am comparing empty system to empty system. Worse, there is no way to recover this memory short of rebooting. If you had ever wondered why you need to reboot Windows so often, this is the exact reason. For this reason alone, this is why Windows is not considered ‘stable’ by any stretch and why UNIX outperforms Windows for this reason alone.
Startup and Shutdown
Microsoft plays games with both of these procedures.
On Startup, Microsoft’s engineers have tricked you into thinking the system is functional even when it isn’t. Basically, once the desktop appears, you think you can begin working. In reality, even once the desktop appears, you still cannot work. The system is still in the process of starting up the Windowing interface on top of about 100 background services (on many of which the windowing interface relies). This trick makes Windows appear snappier to start up than it really is. In fact, I would prefer it to just ready the system fully, then present the Windowing interface when everything is 100% complete. I don’t want these tricks. When I see the windowing interface, I want to know I can begin using it immediately… not before.
On Shutdown, we have other issues. With Vista, Microsoft Engineers have done something to this process to make it, at times, ridiculously slow. I have seen 8-15 minute ‘Shutting Down’ screens where the hard drive grinds the entire time. I’m sorry, but shutdown time is not housekeeping time. That needs to be done when the system is running. It should not be done during shutdown procedures. A shutdown should take no more than about 1-2 minutes to complete flushing buffers to disk and killing all processes. If it can’t be done in 1-2 minutes, shut the system down anyway as there is nothing that can be done to finish those tasks anyway.
Windows Updates
Microsoft was supposed to eliminate the need to shutdown/reboot for most Windows updates. For some updates, this is true. For the majority of Windows updates, this is still not true. In fact, Microsoft has, once again, made this process multistep and tediously slow in the process. Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful that they are now at least verbose in, sort of, what’s going on.. but that doesn’t negate the fact that it’s horribly slow. The steps now are as follows:
- Windows installation process (downloading and installation through the Windows dialog box). You think it’s over when you..
- Restart the system and it goes through finishing Step 2 of this process during shutdown… and then you think it’s over again when
- The system starts back up and goes through Step 3 of the update process.
Ok, I’m at a loss. With Windows XP, we had two steps. Those first during Windows updater and the second when the system starts back up. Now with Vista, we have to introduce another step?
Windows Explorer
For whatever reason, Windows Explorer in Vista is horribly broken. In Window XP, you used to be able to configure your Windows how you liked then lock it in with Tools->Folder Options and then View->Apply to Folders. This would lock in exactly how every window should appear (list or icon format, size of icons, etc). With Windows Vista, this is completely and utterly broken. Basically, this functionality simply no longer works. I’ve tried many many times to lock in a format and Windows just randomly changes the folders back to whatever it feels like doing.
For example, I like my windows to look like this:
Favorite Format
Unfortunately, Windows has its own agenda. If I open a file requester (the standard Vista requester… the one that looks like the above) and I change the view to ANY other style than the one above, this change randomly changes other folder views on the system permanently. So, I might open the above folder and it will later look like any of these:
Format Changed 1
Format Changed 2
or even
Format Changed 3
All of which is highly frustrating. So, I’ll visit this folder later and see the entire headers have changed, or it’s changed to icon format or some other random format. Worse, though, is that I’ve specifically changed to the folder to be my favorite format with Tools->Options. In fact, I’ve gone through this permanent change at least 3-4 times after random changes have happened and inevitably it changes to some other format later. Again, highly frustrating.
Access Denied / Enhanced Security
For whatever reason, Microsoft has made shortcuts to certain folders. Like for example, in your profile directory they have renamed ‘My Documents’ to simply ‘Documents’. Yet, for whatever reason, Microsoft has created shortcuts that don’t work. For example, if I click on ‘My Documents’ shortcut, I see ‘Access Denied’. I don’t get why they would create a shortcut and then prevent it from working.
The only thing the enhanced security has done for Windows users is make it more of a problem to work. Security goes both ways. It helps protect you from malicious intent, but it can also get in the way of usability. Security that ultimately gets in the way, like UAC, has failed to provide adequate security. In fact, it has gone too far. UAC is a complete and utter failure. Combining this with making nearly every security issue tied to the SYSTEM user (with practically zero privileges), makes for stupid and exasperating usability.
Filesystem
To date, Windows still relies heavily and ONLY on NTFS. Linux has about 5-6 different filesystems to choose from (Reiser, VxFS, XFS, Ext2, Ext3, JFS, BSD and several others). This allows systems administrators to build an operating system that functions for the application need. For example, some filesystems perform better for database use than others. On Windows, you’re stuck with NTFS. Not only is NTFS non-standard and proprietary (written by Veritas), it also doesn’t perform as well as it should under all conditions. For database use, this filesystem is only barely acceptable. It has hidden limits that Microsoft doesn’t publish that will ultimately bite you. Microsoft wants this to become a pre-eminent datacenter system, but that’s a laugh. You can’t trust NTFS enough for that. There are way too many hidden problems in NTFS. For example, if you hit a random limit, it can easily and swiftly corrupt NTFS’ MFT table (directory table). Once the MFT table is corrupt, there’s no easy way to repair it other than CHKDSK. Note that CHKDSK is the ONLY tool that can truly and completely fix NTFS issues. And, even CHKDSK doesn’t always work. Yes, there are third party tools from Veritas and other companies, but these aren’t necessarily any better than CHKDSK. Basically, if CHKDSK can’t fix your volume, you have to format and restore.
Note, however, that this isn’t a general Vista issue. This problem has persisted back to the introduction of NTFS in Windows NT. But, Microsoft has made no strides to allow or offer better more complete filesystems with better repair tools. For example, Reiser and EXT3 both offer more complete repair tools than NTFS ever has.
Registry
The registry has got to be one of the most extensive hacks ever placed into any operating system. This kludge of a database system is so completely botched from a design perspective, that there’s really nothing to say. Basically, this system needs to be tossed and redesigned. In fact, Microsoft has a real database system in MSSQL. There is no reason why the registry is not based on MSSQL rather than that stupid hack of a thing call a hive/SAM. Whomever decided on this design, well.. let’s just hope they no longer work at Microsoft.
Failure
For the above reasons (and others), Microsoft has completely failed with Windows Vista. This failure was already in the making, though, when Longhorn was announced ages ago. In fact, Microsoft had planned even more draconian measures to enable heavy DRM on Windows. Thankfully, that was removed from Vista. But, what remains makes Vista so encumbered and exasperating to use, it’s no wonder users are frustrated using Vista. Combining that with its incredibly large footprint (1.6GB of memory just to boot the OS), and you have a complete loser of an OS.
Windows 7 is a glimmer of hope, but it is still heavily tied to Vista. If UAC and these stupid SYSTEM user security measures remain, then nothing will really change. Microsoft needs to take Windows back to the drawing board and decide what is necessary and what isn’t. Preventing the user from actually using the operating system is not and should not be a core value, let alone part of security. Yet, here we are.
Microsoft, you need to take a look at the bigger picture. This is your final chance to get Windows right. There are plenty of other unencumbered operating systems out there that do not get in the way of desktop computing. These operating systems are definitely a threat to Microsoft’s continued viability… especially with blundering mistakes like Vista. Windows will never win any awards for Best Operating System with issues such as these. Consider Microsoft’s stupid filesystem layout that allows operating system and application files to be thrown all over the hard drive and you’ll begin to understand why Windows continues to fail.
The single reason why Microsoft continues to exist is because users feel compelled to buy this antiquated dog of an operating system strictly due to application support. If developers would finally and completely jump ship to other more thoughtfully designed operating systems, then Windows would finally wither and die… eventually, this will happen.
American Idol: Failure to launch (artists)
While I understand the hype about this series (the competition and all), I don’t really understand why this show continues to exist. Yes, we go through each season and whittle down contestents to the final two. But, after the winner is chosen, then what? Oh yeah, they get a recording contract. What happens after that?
Spotting Commercial Viability
The ‘judges’ (and I use this term loosely) seem to think they know what’s best in the ‘pop music biz’. Frankly, if they could discover real talent, they would be working for a record company locating and signing talent right and left and not hosting a silly variety hour show. But, here we are… and here they are. So, I must honestly question the sincerity and realism of this show. The whole thing is staged, yes, to find someone who can sing. But, it’s really there as a money maker for whomever is producing that show. The underlying values aren’t to get someone signed to a contract. The real point is to put on a show. And, thats what they do, for better or worse.
Judges
It’s funny that they pick judges who are has-been recording artsts and supposedly A&R people like Simon Cowell. What’s funny about Simon is that his ability to pick talent has been extremely spotty. For example, he signed and produced Westlife. Westlife is a boyband that’s a meager shadow of N*Sync and The Backstreet Boys at best. What’s even more funny is that THAT is really his BEST claim to talent selection outside of Idol. Every other artist beyond that isn’t even worth mentioning.
So, how do these washed-up has-beens end up judging a show that supposedly prides itself on selecting quality talent? Well, let’s examine Idol more closely.
Winning Contestants
Since 2002, there has been (in order), Kelly Clarkson, Rubin Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood, Taylor Hicks, Jordin Sparks, David Cook and Kris Allen (most recently). Arguably, the biggest name to come out of the Idol circle is Kelly Clarkson with Carrie Underwood as a solid second. The rest, well, what about them? They may have produced records, but few appear to be listening. This isn’t a good track record for Idol.
Let’s consider Kelly Clarkson for a moment. Even she has had her ups and downs (mostly downs). While Kelly has a resonably strong voice, the question remains just how commercially viable it is. With a name like American Idol, you’d think that Kelly Clarkson would have taken the pop crown away from the likes of Madonna and Britney. Yet, while Madonna’s star is fading, Britney has taken the crown over and firmly holds it as far as pop acts go. Britney wasn’t even ‘discovered’ on Idol. More than this, Kelly has a stronger voice than Britney, yet you see what that gets you. Kelly isn’t even close to being in Madonna’s league and, while Britney has her own personal issues, her music producers provide a much better music experience than most of Kelly’s efforts.
Outside of these ‘winners’, we also have non-winners like Jennifer Hudson (who’s at least as well known as Kelly Clarkson and she wasn’t even a runner-up) and she’s also an overall more complete ‘star’ than Kelly. Then there’s David Archuletta, Chris Daughtry and Clay Aikin. These four people are the proof that the judges cannot pick winners. In fact, these 4 people should have won Idol, but didn’t. Yet, they are still successful on their own.
Track Record
Just looking at Idol’s track record, you can see more of the Idol winners have failed to be commercially viable than have been successful (Fantasia who? Jordin who? David who? Rubin who? Taylor who?). The point here, that the judges clearly are not capable of spotting talent. Even when someone has real singing talent, is young and good looking, clearly that’s not everything that’s needed. Otherwise, everyone graduating from Idol would have become an instant success… which, of course, has not happened.
I understand the fervor over this show and I understand that the point in watching is more about the competition than the outcome. But, isn’t the outcome why we come to watch? Don’t we actually expect the winner to become popular, make great music and usurp the pop crown from Britney? After all, that’s what Idol started out promising.
Idol is Flawed
The premise of Idol is flawed. The barometer by which they choose winners is in versatility in singing already commercially successful songs. The real barometer of talent is both in songwriting and performing. Even though someone has a great singing voice, that doesn’t automatically make them a pop sensation. Becoming a ‘Pop Idol’ comes with singing unique new songs. Songs that have not been heard before. Better yet, it proves talent when the person can both write and sing their own music. Artists like Prince and Sarah McLachlan are capable of this. To me, this is talent worth finding. But, today, commercial pop music is more about the look and voice than it is about songwriting. Music producers are far too prone to run to Taxi and buy a song or commission their favorite songwriter to write a song rather than having the singer write something.
For me, Idol would be a much more rounded show if they actually required the singers to also write all of their own material. This would be a lot more time consuming, but requiring this would also show the true talent of the artist. This premise would show a contestant’s ability to write music under pressure and, at the same time, perform that music admirably. Using this model in the show would likely have changed both the contestants in the show and the outcome of the winners. I would also have a lot more respect for the winners of the show. I also believe the winners would have been far more commercially viable as artists than anyone Idol has, so far, produced.
Idol’s days are numbered
We are now going into the 9th season and I believe this show is wearing out its welcome. Talent shows like this do come and go, so I expect this show go packing probably in one to two seasons. If it lasts beyond 10 seasons, I’d be highly surprised. I’m honestly surprised that it has survived this long with its dismal track record of spotting viable commercial talent. Yes, the winners can sing, but can they produce an album that people want? In 8 seasons, I’d say the answer to that question is unequivically no. The spectacle of the live performance is great, but it doesn’t mean the contestant has what it takes to succeed in the music business. Clearly, Idol has failed at it’s primary goal.
Sunscreens vs Natural Tanning
Every year at this time, the zealots come out of the woodwork promoting sunscreens. After all, it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. The truth is, no one has any idea of long term toxicity risks with regards to the use of sunscreen chemicals. Worse, people slather them all over their bodies without thought to the fact that your skin is the largest organ on your body. Is it worth the long term exposure and unknown health risks with the use of Parsol 1789, Mexoryl or Methoxcinnimate (or any other chemicals)? Unless you have a form of albinism or vitaligo, you should attempt to utilize the skin’s natural tanning properties over the use of chemicals in sunscreens. The natural sunscreen that appears in the skin is melanin. Melanin is much more broad spectrum than any lab created chemical at blocking the various wavelengths of UV (other than UVC, which doesn’t reach Earth).
UVA and UVB
Sunscreens protect you mainly from UVB (think of the B to mean ‘Burn’). These rays are shorter wavelengths and only penetrate shallow skin surface layers. These are the layers that lead to burning. UVA is a much longer wavelength and is associated with deeper skin level exposure (and is thought to aid in premature aging). Sunscreens have limited ability to protect you from UVA. Note that the Sun’s natural mix of UVA and UVB (that reaches the earth) is up to 5% UVB and 95% UVA. However, during some times of the year, the UVB can slightly higher than 5% (where the UV index is at its highest). These are the times where burning is very easy.
Bad Burns
The use of sunscreen chemicals can promote a bad burn. The reasoning is very clear. When you use these chemicals to block the sun, these chemicals prevent tanning. So, the one time you forget the sunscreen, improperly apply it or forget to reapply it, you will likely get a very bad burn. Even though many dermatologists recommend and endorse the use of sunscreens, utilizing the skin’s own tanning properties helps prevent a bad burn. Melanin works 24/7 and doesn’t need reapplication every hour or two. Although, a natural tan does wear off over several weeks if you don’t keep the tan going. On the other hand, sunscreens require frequent reapplication (probably every hour, especially if you’re in water or are sweating). The UVA chemicals actually break down rapidly (as quickly as 30 minutes depending on brand, quality and body chemistry) once applied, so you need to reapply a lot more often than you think to maintain UVA protection. The UVB chemicals also break down, but much more slowly. Having active UVB protection without UVA isn’t that helpful, though. So, you need to reapply.
The point, however, is that you want to avoid a bad burn at all costs. You want to tan and not burn. Thus, the use of sunscreens does not promote natural tanning and promotes forgetting to reapply which can then lead to accidental burns after the chemicals have stopped working. Remember that sunscreens give no warning when they have worn off. Worse, you won’t know your skin is burned until 3-6 hours after sun exposure.
Vacation and Tanning
If you will be traveling to a sunny destination, it is better to build up a natural base tan than constantly applying sunscreen every hour. You can build your tan slowly and steadily outdoors or you can do it in a tanning bed. Nothing ruins a vacation more than a bad burn, however. Having a base tan allows you to be outdoors without worrying about getting a bad burn. Yes, you can still get burned even with a tan, so you should always be cautious. But, having a base tan reduces your chance of a bad burn substantially over forgetting to apply sunscreen.
Beginning your Tan
To obtain a base tan, start the tanning process at least 6 weeks out from when you leave to go on vacation. You can do this outdoors or in a tanning bed. Note, however, that tanning beds are concentrated, but also timed. So, for example, 12 minutes in a high pressure bed is equivalent to about 2 hours outdoors. So, if you can only do about 15 minutes outdoors in midday sun, then you should start at about 6 minutes in a 12 minute bed. You would think to start at about 2-3 minutes, but 6 minutes isn’t enough to burn you in a bed in one session. Needless to say, always discuss tanning bed times with your salon professional.
Another note about tanning in a tanning bed. DO NOT USE SPF SUNSCREEN WHEN TANNING IN A TANNING BED! This is emphasized because it wastes your money. Yes, you can use low SPF to aid tanning outdoors only, but never use SPF in a bed. Even though a tanning bed mimics the UV from the sun, it isn’t the sun. It is also time controlled.. and this is very important to understand. Time controlled means that you do not need to worry about accidentally getting too much exposure. The maximum you can get in one session is equivalent to 2 hours outdoors at maximum bed time. Because the time is controlled and there’s little risk of a burn, there is no need for sunscreen. Further, using a sunscreen in a bed is a waste of money. If you spend $10-$40 per session, using SPF sunscreen completely prevents the rays from tanning you. So, you will have spent your money for nothing, literally. When using tanning beds, you are paying for access to the UV. SPF lotions prevent that UV from tanning you. Don’t do this unless you really like throwing your money away.
Reading your Skin
Understand that a burn is red and melanin is also red (initially.. and oxidises to brown). So, which is a burn and which is melanin? If there’s heat, redness and/or discomfort (followed by peeling), then it’s a burn. If you see redness only without any heat or discomfort, then that’s melanin. Controlled tanning will allow you to build up a base tan without peeling. If you peel, then you’ve 1) burned your skin and 2) lost your tanning efforts. You want to gain color slowly to prevent burning and peeling.
Lotions
When tanning in a tanning bed or outdoors, using a high quality tanning lotion is important. A lotion hydrates your skin before, during and after UV exposure. So, always use a lotion as sun exposure is very dehydrating. Tanning bed lotions can be used outdoors. However, most outdoor lotions cannot be used in a tanning bed (it can cause reactions with the acrylic surfaces). So, if you want to combine bed tanning and outdoor tanning, buy a lotion that works in a bed and also use it outdoors. Again, make sure the lotion does not have any sunscreen at all. You can buy a sunscreen lotion if you really need it for outdoor use.
There are various lotions on the market from various vendors. The one thing I will caution you about is that some tanning bed lotions can be very expensive and, yet, completely ineffective. You want to find a lotion that works for you and that provides results. However, don’t be fooled by ‘Triple Bronzing Formulas’ or ‘Quadruple Bronzing Formulas’. These are buzzwords that mean they have added either 1) color or 2) self-tanners (yes, like the ones you can get at the drug store). If you want to see how you are progressing naturally, make sure to NOT buy any lotion with a self-tanner. This may mean you have to buy the lotion from the Internet (which are cheaper this way anyway) than buying it from the salon.
You will need to read the label for self-tanners. The two common self-tanners are dihydroxyacetone and erythrulose. So, if you find these ingredients in the lotion, put it back on the shelf and find something else. You may find that your salon does not carry any lotions without self-tanners. The reason that salons carry ‘Bronzing formulas’ is that these lotions give immediate color (or, at least, within 4 hours). This immediate gratification supposedly brings back the customers. However, don’t be fooled. You want a real base tan, not a self-tanner tan. So, skip self-tanner bronzer lotions and find a lotion without self-tanners.
Here are a couple of manufacturers that make lotions without self-tanners: Designer Skin (Intrigue and a select others) and Hoss Sauce (Dark, Super Dark and Ultra Dark). I personally have found Hoss Sauce to be more effective than Designer Skin, but your mileage may vary. There are some lotions that also offer tingle, hot or cold sensations when you are tanning. Avoid these until you have a base tan. Otherwise, these may interfere your tanning or increase your chances of a burn.
Note: Self-tanner color offers no protection from UVA or UVB. Don’t be fooled by the color from a self-tanner. It offers no protection from the sun and, again, can encourage a bad burn. When trying to obtain a base tan, always use a lotion without self-tanners!
Tanning Beds
When tanning at a salon, you will find many different tanning beds. The least expensive beds (sometimes $6-8 a session) are the least effective beds at tanning. They should have a ratio of 5% UVB to 95% UVA (just like the sun). However, you may find these beds aren’t that effective. There can be many reasons for this. Cleanliness in a salon is very important. Bulb age is also important. Many tanning salons have these beds booked every open hour of the salon. These bulbs, then, get a lot of use. Many salon owners try to cut costs by not replacing the bulbs as often as they should. If you find that you get nothing out of a bed, the two main reasons are that 1) the acrylic is dirty and 2) the bulbs are old. When I say the acrylic is dirty, I’m not talking about the part where you lay. I’m talking about the underside of it. These acrylic surfaces must be removed about once a week and thoroughly cleaned on both sides. The bulbs themselves should also be wiped down to prevent any buildup on the bulb. Doing this frequently increases the tanning capability of the bed to what it should be.
Many salons pride themselves on thoroughly cleaning the bed surface, but how often do they remove the acrylics and clean the underside? Not often in many cases. Yes, even the ‘expensive salons’ as well. So, you should ask the salesperson how often the underside gets cleaned.
As far as tanning capacity, on the high end beds (high pressure beds), it is not uncommon to find up to 18000-20000 watts in the bed. The low end beds might provide around 9000-11000 watts. The difference in wattage (and UV output) is substantial. The high pressure beds, then, will probably run between 8-12 minutes for the maximum time of that bed per session. Low pressure beds might run between 20-30 minutes. So, if time is important to you, the higher pressure beds get you in and out faster.
Note, never tan in a bed and then immediately lay out or stay outside for extended time without sunscreen. You are asking for a bad burn. Do not do this. If you tan in a bed and then end up outdoors in the sun the same day, wear some sunscreen outdoors. Or, better, don’t tan in a bed on the day you plan on being outdoors.
Tricks for tanning in a bed
When trying to get your base tan in a tanning bed, you will need to move around in the bed. Don’t lay absolutely still. For example, lay on your back for a bit, then lay on one side, then the other, raise your arms, etc. Doing this will give you a much more even tan than lying perfectly still. If you stay still, you will get telltale bed marks on certain places like your shoulder blades and between your buttocks (where the acrylic touches). Moving around prevents these marks. You might even turn over and lay on your stomach for a while (even in a bed where you don’t need to turn). You can also use a standup tanning booth to avoid these issues.
How long does it take?
This question can really only be answered by the salon operator after they have assessed your skin type. Once they determine your skin type, they can tell you what you need to do in order to progress. However, you need to read your skin after you have tanned at a salon to know if you are going too fast. If, after a session, you have no color or redness by the next day, then you may be progressing too slowly. However, if you are red, hot and having discomfort, you are moving too fast (burned). If you do get a burn from a bed or outdoors, do not tan until the burn has gone away (takes several days).
For the lightest skins, it may take between 6-9 weeks to build a minimal base tan. For medium skin tones, you can probably see a base tan in 3-6 weeks. For dark tones, you probably already have a base tan, but if you are a lighter skinned, it may take 2-3 weeks in a bed. As a side note, dark tones can still get darker. Melanin works the same way in all people who can produce melanin.
Again, these are only estimates. You should always discuss your skin type with the salon owner to set up a proper regimen that works for you.
Melanin Colors
This portion is to set expectations on how your skin may look tanned. Note, there are two different types or melanin (pigment): 1) pheomelanin (reds and yellows) and 2) eumelanin (dark browns). The darkness of color depends on which types of melanin your body produces and the concentration of each type. Lighter skinned people tend to produce more pheomelanin (reds and yellows) and less eumelanin (dark shades). This mix gives the redish and yellowish copper or ‘golden’ colors. Darker skinned and olive toned people tend to produce much more eumelanin and with less pheomelanin. This color becomes much darker brown to black. Darkest toned people tend to produce nearly all eumelanin and in high concentrations. So, depending on your body’s type of melanocytes, your body may produce a range between both of these types of melanin. You’ll just need assess your tone after you’ve tanned. This also means that, depending on your skin type and melanin mix, you may not be able to turn very dark brown (if that’s what you are wanting). Or, alternatively, you may find that you get darker much faster than you thought.
You can gauge your skin’s tone by your hair color. The darker your hair, the more eumelanin your skin is likely able to produce. Melanin is also used to produce hair color. So, red haired people will likely produce more pheomelanin. You can see this color in the freckles of many red haired people. Blonds are likely to produce much more pheomelanin than eumelanin (blond would be the yellow melanin). Black haired people should be able to produce the darkest brown eumelanin tones. Note that hair color should only be used as a guide as some dark haired people may only produce a lighter ‘golden’ tan.
Melanin of all types will eventually oxidise to a brown color from its initial color and deepen the color of the tan. This oxidation will make the familiar brownish tones (yes, even the reds and yellows will oxidise).
Other Benefits
Getting UV exposure to your skin also helps maintain health with Vitamin D. Sunscreens prevent the creation of Vitamin D as UV is blocked. So, getting some UV exposure aids in stimulating the creation of beneficial vitamins. So, before you immediately put on that sunscreen, leave it off for a small amount of time to get your vitamin D. Put it on later to prevent the burning.
Suntans, Skin Types and Hormones
Some people feel that a suntan looks bad and prefer not to have a tan. Again, that thinking promotes a bad burn when you do need to be outdoors. Some people may think this way because they haven’t previously been able to tan. Some skin types (type I) can’t readily tan. For Type 1 and Type 2 skins, there is a product that may soon be on the market to help. It is a peptide (melanocyte stimulating hormone) that stimulates the melanocytes to produce melanin in individuals who do not have this hormone or where the hormone is ineffective. For many people, this simulated hormone works and allows people to tan in the sun or in a tanning bed when they previously couldn’t get a tan. Of course, this hormone only works if the melanocytes are functioning properly. By having a base tan, this prevents burns and also helps reduce premature aging by blocking UVA. Note, however, that you must get sun exposure to obtain a tan even with the use of this hormone. It does not tan you without sun exposure. So, the use of the hormone still requires UV exposure to obtain the initial tan.
Overall, sunscreens may not be long term healthy for your skin. Getting a tan requires some sun damage to obtain the tan. But, the melanin helps reduce the risk of burns and other related issues. It’s up to you to choose what you want to do, but nothing in life is without risks. Know that a tan is a natural skin process. Placing chemicals on your skin is not natural. Even though you cannot see or feel any damage by using sunscreen chemicals, that doesn’t mean no damage exists. When you get a sunburn, you feel it and know the skin is damaged. With sunscreen, there’s just no way to know if something you get later in life was related to earlier years of using large amounts of sunscreen. It’s your choice, however.
Skin Cancer and Burning
Yes, I know, we’ve all heard the rhetoric: Exposure to UV causes cancer. I’ll leave this one for you to decide. But, I will say is this. Tanning beds produce UV. The Sun produces UV. UV is UV is UV. It doesn’t matter whether it comes from the Sun or from a flourescent bulb in a tanning bed, it’s still UV. But, as I stated above, the difference between a tanning bed and laying outdoors: one is controlled, one isn’t. Again, it’s for you to decide which to choose. But, because of varying conditions with laying outdoors, you could end up burned and not know it for several hours. On the other hand, a salon will assess your skin and put you in a bed that’s timed based on your skin tone and type. So, they are trying to keep you from getting burned in a Salon. The Sun is not controlled or timed to shut off. This means, if you lay out longer than you had wanted or get caught up in an activity, you can easily forget and burn yourself. Burning is definitely damage to the skin and it is theorized that this damage leads to cancer… so you want to avoid a burn at all costs.
UPDATE: World Health Oganization (WHO) lists sunbeds (specifically) and all UV exposure as fully carcinogenic at all wavelengths (highest risk)
A new study conducted with mice, that I’ve yet to read, has classified sunbeds specifically and all UV exposure as the highest risk of causing skin cancer. I’m not sure what prompted this change in view, other than a single study, but they have made this change. Clearly, one study is not enough to make this determiniation, but that is exactly what the World Health Organization is doing. There must be some subtext here that’s prompting this change. Perhaps the sunscreen industry is losing more money to people choosing to tan rather than slather on the sunscreen.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
30 comments