4 ms·
That’s a bit glib, and ignores the possibility that now it’s known those nanoparticles travel in lymph, they could be found elsewhere. In the case of something
by GW150914 8y ago
That’s a bit glib, and ignores the possibility that now it’s known those nanoparticles travel in lymph, they could be found elsewhere. In the case of something like TiO2, I’d be pretty concerned if nanoparticles where found in my lymph nodes or elsewhere. There is also evidence of chronic enlargement of the nodes as a result, and persistent hypertrophy or inflammation are known risk factors for cancer. Simply dismissing any risk until large longitudinal studies show a correlation in key populations is probably unwise.
It’s been known for a while that tattoos are a possible vector for some infectious diseases, typically when unsanitary methods are employed. The focus of disease and tattoos has generally been around Hep C, and you might be overestimating the degree of scholarly interest in looking beyond that. Nanoparticles infiltration is a relatively new concept, and none that I’ve ever seen leads me to the conclusion that the results are likely to be positive, but it’s early days yet. TiO2 has been tentatively linked to tumors in rats, but it’s only been tested through the inhalation route. Science takes time, and a rational person might wait and see rather than say “fuck it, until you prove it I’m tatting up!”
So sure, get a tattoo, but realize that you’re having an unregulated ink shot into your dermis, and elements of that ink can infiltrate systemically. That would worry me, but then, I wouldn’t get a tattoo.
- Mtinie 8y agoWithout being glib, as well, there are tens of things I do everyday that have a high probability of depositing foreign nanoparticles in my lymph nodes: driving a car, standing next to a smoker, eating food from a production farm, being exposed to paint fumes, etc. Tattoos may end up being a problem, and more power to those who have no interest or who decide to abstain because of possible issues, but let’s keep this in perspective.
- donbright 8y agoso 10,000 years from now they can look at all these nano particles in our bodies as artefacts of our civilization, like we look back at Otzi the Iceman's stomach contents.... ??
- toolz 8y ago10k years from now they'll probably pull up social media archives to know everything they want to know :p
- greglindahl 8y agoThere are no archives of walled gardens.
- spoondan 8y agoAnd we will seem happier, fitter, more attractive, better traveled, more socially connected, and more politically engaged than we ever were.
- robin_reala 8y agoSeeing as Ötzi is covered in tattoos, potentially Ötzi’s lymph nodes are interesting too.
- jamesrcole 8y agoThat there's other things is meaningless when it comes to the potential dangers of any one of these cases (ie not just tattoos). It's a matter of the specifics of each case. How much of the substances tends to end up there for each kind of case, what is the nature of those substances, etc.
- Mtinie 8y agoOf course. Whataboutism is easy to promote. Understanding the risk is the important part. Personally, I’ll take my chances and roll the proverbial dice with tattoo ink.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoCould you please elaborate on how driving a car deposits nanoparticles?
- Mtinie 8y agoInternal combustion engines produce exhaust fumes. Polycyclic hydrocarbons would be a good place to start. Here’s an older study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231003007994 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223100...
- pietroglyph 8y agoJust because are lots of common things that deposit nanoparticles in my lymph nodes doesn't mean I should give up on the exposure I can control.
- Mtinie 8y agoI never suggested you should. My personal decision is to consider tattoo ink the lesser of the evils I chose to be concerned with. You may have a different opinion and make different choices based on your personal risk rubric.
- throwaway413 8y agoSounds to me like you’d rather get a tattoo than drive a car...
- userbinator 8y agoFor the record, I don't have any tattoos and don't plan on getting any. I just thought the article was a bit low on details and a bit on the side of "potential risk" scaremongering.