3 ms·

This story is still being written. The removal business is 'medical', a different set of laws, liabilities and standards apply to tattooing. Because of this it

This story is still being written. The removal business is 'medical', a different set of laws, liabilities and standards apply to tattooing. Because of this it means that the way removal gets done is not a fast moving, innovative business. A while ago it was worked out that if you put a glass slide on the skin and press hard then the blood cells get forced out of the way meaning the laser doesn't zap them and the trauma to the skin is minimised. Healing is quicker, the 'patient' is also more likely to return for follow up work. The pain is also a lot less. However, despite these benefits, the removal business sticks to doing things the painful way where the blood vessels get zapped too. This is because of the 'medical' aspect and how experimentation with the better technique potentially opens up a world of medical liabilities.

exikyut 8y ago
I honestly wish people could just sign waivers and sidestep the red tape. There needs to be a bit of a precedent set in that area IMO. Reminds me of a current-affairs segment I saw on Australian TV many years (~a decade) ago on someone who was pursuing an alternative cancer therapy for their young son. It took me a couple of days to properly digest the slightly disorientating/uncharacteristic format/presentation used by this particular episode: I eventually realized there was no explanation other than that the presenter had been told to "bad cop"-interrogate the person on the show in order to get footage to make them look weak, and on further thought (just now) I reckon they probably didn't crumble as much as the show had hoped and the resulting edited-together footage was a bit cacophonic/disjointed, heheh. Learned a bit about the media (and that presenters really have no rights if they want to keep their jobs) that week. I don't even remember what the therapy was in question (or the country the family had traveled to to pursue it), but the person on the show was more or less close to demonized for their choices. I decided it was suspicious that this had been put on TV for whatever reason; why did I need to see this? I mention this example to point out that setting the aforementioned precedent seems like it will generally be very hard. :(

exikyut 8y ago

I honestly wish people could just sign waivers and sidestep the red tape. There needs to be a bit of a precedent set in that area IMO. Reminds me of a current-affairs segment I saw on Australian TV many years (~a decade) ago on someone who was pursuing an alternative cancer therapy for their young son. It took me a couple of days to properly digest the slightly disorientating/uncharacteristic format/presentation used by this particular episode: I eventually realized there was no explanation other than that the presenter had been told to "bad cop"-interrogate the person on the show in order to get footage to make them look weak, and on further thought (just now) I reckon they probably didn't crumble as much as the show had hoped and the resulting edited-together footage was a bit cacophonic/disjointed, heheh. Learned a bit about the media (and that presenters really have no rights if they want to keep their jobs) that week. I don't even remember what the therapy was in question (or the country the family had traveled to to pursue it), but the person on the show was more or less close to demonized for their choices. I decided it was suspicious that this had been put on TV for whatever reason; why did I need to see this? I mention this example to point out that setting the aforementioned precedent seems like it will generally be very hard. :(