5 ms·

The inks have unknown effects. I have a tattoo. I would not recommend them considering long-term lymphatic and mutagenic properties. Eh. You feel good at first

The inks have unknown effects. I have a tattoo. I would not recommend them considering long-term lymphatic and mutagenic properties. Eh. You feel good at first, more aligned with your mind, then you realize you could have just put a poster on the wall that doesn't come with the risk of cancer or autoimmune disease. Not to be unkind, but I believe this is very similar to other irreversible decisions folks make. We're all suckers, trying to make ourselves feel better through deals with the devil.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seattle_spring 3y ago
Citations for what makes you think the inks have "unknown" effects, and/or cause cancer or autoimmune disorders? If you don't have a source, what has led you to believe it's true? I'm talking normal color inks, not unconventional ones like the ones that glow in the dark. I would think that if a third of the population has a tattoo, we'd actually know with almost certainty what the effects are.
- copperx 3y ago
  > I would think that if a third of the population has a tattoo, we'd actually know with almost certainty what the effects are. I wouldn't count on it. It took us 100 years to find out smoking was extremely bad, even though the majority of the population was doing it.
  - bongoman37 3y ago
    We knew smoking was bad for a long time. It took time to push through tobacco industry's lobbying and massive amounts of advertising convincing people against what they could evidently see in front of them. I don't think tattoo industry has remotely near that level of push.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Yeah it's very telling of the power this industry has that smoking is still not banned in most countries. And that new techniques with no existing user base like vaping were not stopped before they ever started.
- pengaru 3y ago
  I saw some special on youtube years ago, maybe from VICE, where they reported on folks needing lymph node surgery who had substantial tattoos. The removed lymph nodes were enlarged and visibly full of ink.
- toast0 3y ago
  The FDA takes a light touch [1] on tattoo ink in comparison with many other things that go in people's bodies. > FDA considers the inks used in intradermal tattoos, including permanent makeup, to be cosmetics. When we identify a safety problem associated with a cosmetic, including a tattoo ink, we investigate and take action, as appropriate, to prevent consumer illness or injury. The pigments used in the inks are color additives, which are subject to premarket approval under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, because of other competing public health priorities and a previous lack of evidence of safety problems specifically associated with these pigments, FDA traditionally has not exercised regulatory authority for color additives on the pigments used in tattoo inks. The actual practice of tattooing is regulated by local jurisdictions. As regards long term population studies... we'd also need to know if what's in tattoo inks has changed over time, which seems plausible? [1] https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-permanent-makeup-fact-sheet https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-perm...
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    Considering the FDA constantly approves things that have tiny affects bet and placebo, yet have massive side effects with genuine risks, I wouldn't really take any ok from the FDA as proof of safety anyway.
mr_toad 3y ago
Sound like worrying for the sake of worrying. I’d say the known risks - infection, although only a small risk, are much more likely than things like cancer.
wkat4242 3y ago
Many things carry small health risks. Being obese is probably a lot worse. It's not as if I lead a super healthy life. It's not really worth worrying about IMO. And feeling better is also important. Stress can also cause major health issues, and it interferes with the enjoyment of life.
sneak 3y ago
I personally loathe tattoos (for aesthetic reasons) and positively hate this trend, but your reasons for vilifying them are quite bogus.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

seattle_spring 3y ago

Citations for what makes you think the inks have "unknown" effects, and/or cause cancer or autoimmune disorders? If you don't have a source, what has led you to believe it's true? I'm talking normal color inks, not unconventional ones like the ones that glow in the dark. I would think that if a third of the population has a tattoo, we'd actually know with almost certainty what the effects are.

copperx 3y ago
> I would think that if a third of the population has a tattoo, we'd actually know with almost certainty what the effects are. I wouldn't count on it. It took us 100 years to find out smoking was extremely bad, even though the majority of the population was doing it.
- bongoman37 3y ago
  We knew smoking was bad for a long time. It took time to push through tobacco industry's lobbying and massive amounts of advertising convincing people against what they could evidently see in front of them. I don't think tattoo industry has remotely near that level of push.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Yeah it's very telling of the power this industry has that smoking is still not banned in most countries. And that new techniques with no existing user base like vaping were not stopped before they ever started.
pengaru 3y ago
I saw some special on youtube years ago, maybe from VICE, where they reported on folks needing lymph node surgery who had substantial tattoos. The removed lymph nodes were enlarged and visibly full of ink.
toast0 3y ago
The FDA takes a light touch [1] on tattoo ink in comparison with many other things that go in people's bodies. > FDA considers the inks used in intradermal tattoos, including permanent makeup, to be cosmetics. When we identify a safety problem associated with a cosmetic, including a tattoo ink, we investigate and take action, as appropriate, to prevent consumer illness or injury. The pigments used in the inks are color additives, which are subject to premarket approval under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, because of other competing public health priorities and a previous lack of evidence of safety problems specifically associated with these pigments, FDA traditionally has not exercised regulatory authority for color additives on the pigments used in tattoo inks. The actual practice of tattooing is regulated by local jurisdictions. As regards long term population studies... we'd also need to know if what's in tattoo inks has changed over time, which seems plausible? [1] https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-permanent-makeup-fact-sheet https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-perm...
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  Considering the FDA constantly approves things that have tiny affects bet and placebo, yet have massive side effects with genuine risks, I wouldn't really take any ok from the FDA as proof of safety anyway.

mr_toad 3y ago

Sound like worrying for the sake of worrying. I’d say the known risks - infection, although only a small risk, are much more likely than things like cancer.

wkat4242 3y ago

Many things carry small health risks. Being obese is probably a lot worse. It's not as if I lead a super healthy life. It's not really worth worrying about IMO. And feeling better is also important. Stress can also cause major health issues, and it interferes with the enjoyment of life.

sneak 3y ago

I personally loathe tattoos (for aesthetic reasons) and positively hate this trend, but your reasons for vilifying them are quite bogus.