First let me say that I really, really, really do not want McCain/Palin to win. Eight years of neocon policies has been disastrous for the world (I'm a Brit) and I doubt the world could survive another four. But... I couldn't even begin to find the issues, but New Scientist magazine has carried articles saying that some researchers believe that the dangers of exposure to UV (whether from the sun or artificial) has been overstated to the point that people are losing out on health benefits at levels of exposure that do not significantly increase the risk of cancer. New Scientist has also carried an article by a statistician who found that flu epidemics correlated reasonably well with cold weather (as you'd expect) but correlated a lot better with lack of sunlight. Which led to other researchers finding that vitamin D (naturally produced by the action of sunlight on the skin) helps greatly decrease the likelihood of catching flu (some believe it also helps with colds). Some of the less-respected article sites around the net state a belief that the forms of vitamin D in vitamin tablets (and added to margarine in countries like the UK) are almost ineffective, that cod liver oil is not very effective, and that sunlight is best. You also mentioned SAD. My understanding of this is that anyone who receives insufficient bright light (doesn't have to be from a tanning bed, because the effect is from light on the optic nerve) can get it. The only difference between those who suffer and those who don't are individual variations in their sensitivity to the effect. In fact, since users of tanning beds are meant to wear goggles and usually close their eyes because of the bright light, a tanning bed is likely to be very ineffective in treating SAD, without far too much exposure to UV to be safe. So if Palin wants to claim that as the excuse she'd be displaying her ignorance and stupidity (for the 547th time since being selected as McSame's running mate). May I also point out that Alaska is far enough north that it has shorter hours of daylight than the lower-48 and that therefore natural sunlight, even for those who work out of doors, may be inadequate. So I cannot really fault Palin if she wished, on health grounds, to have a tanning bed. That far north, knowing what I've read in New Scientist over the past 5 years, I'd probably want one too. What I can fault her for is for not paying for it out of her own pocket, if she deemed it necessary. If I took a job in Alaska I'd expect to have to pay for one myself unless my employer's benefits package explicitly stated that it included one. But I'm bending over backwards to be fair to her there. That deep tan indicates she uses the tanning bed purely for cosmetic purposes, like the bimbo she is.