Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

lunduniversity.lu.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 207 posts

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#81

Post by ip26 »

nprateem wrote: post #59
JusticeJuice wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrelated, but one of the most interesting graphs I've ever seen was road deaths, by gender and age, when I was studying for my drivers license. There's a huge, like 10x spike in male deaths, specifically at 50. Turns out a lot of people hit that age, think "oh fuck I'm 50", go and buy a really powerful car, and get in a bad crash. So buy the car, but just keep the graph in mind haha.

Yeah same with motorbikes. Someone had a 125 when they were 16, hit 50 and decide to get a 1200cc superbike, then come off.

Three other problem is they haven’t ridden for 34 years, but feel like they are just as skilled as they ever were.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#82

Post by reducesuffering »

zimpenfish wrote: post #44
otikik wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm almost out of my 40s and I definitely support you in doing whatever you like and not overthinking the midlife crisis thing. That said, if I had the inkling (pun intended) to get a tattoo I would actually wait until this lymphoma association is verified, because if if it turns to be real, and then I get a lymphoma, I would feel very stupid. But then again, people smoke and do a lot of things that are objectively b…

If there is a link, I'd guess you're probably a lot safer getting tattooed at 50 than at 20 given you've (statistically) got much less time for any adverse effects to start showing up...

I don't know if I'd conclude it. What about the possibility of that the tattoo association is only at higher ages, because of some effect where younger people have a better immune system to ward off any immediate dangers of the tattoo ink and then it becomes inert. But getting it at 50, your body is less able to dispel the problematic compounds in the ink. Basically saying the ink's problems could just be front-loaded the first couple years. Without understanding those details (risk associated with when the tattoo was received and short-term vs. long term risk), I'd be wary about deciding 50 is safer than 20.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#84

Post by wk_end »

noncoml wrote: post #14
CoastalCoder wrote: post #7

I'm curious what confounding factors might be at play. I think tattoos have gotten more mainstream in recent decades, but I'd guess that before that it correlated with other risk factors [0]. [0] I'm not making any kind of oblique reference. I have no idea what those factors might be.

The hypothesis is that macrophages transport ink to the lymph nodes during the healing period

The study itself [0] makes a stronger claim:

  When any antigen breaches the skin barrier, the local immunologic response
  includes cell-mediated translocation of the antigen to the local lymph nodes
  from where a systemic immune response is initiated. The translocation of tattoo
  ink seems to be very effective; it has been estimated that 32% of the injected
  pigment is translocated after 6 weeks, and that as much as 99% may become
  translocated over time.

  In clinical settings, pigmented and enlarged lymph nodes have been described in
  tattooed individuals for decades. Translocation of both black and coloured
  tattoo pigments to human lymph nodes has been confirmed, as have depositions of
  metal particles from tattoo needle wear.
That is - it's not just during the healing period, and that it's been confirmed rather than a hypothesis.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#85

Post by voxic11 »

boppo1 wrote: post #66
gumby wrote: post #64

I’m not surprised — tattoo inks are not regulated and the colors are often formed with toxic compounds (e.g. copper). Then the needle avoids the protective barrier provided by the skin. Ironically, while working on a drug program that involved intradermal injection, we needed to tattoo the injection site so we could find it later. The FDA was very demanding that both the procedure and more importantly to them the dye…

> barred from investigating the effect on humans Wait they're legally prevented from investigating tattoo inks? Why?

Tattoo ink is not a food or a drug and is not intended to treat or diagnose any disease or medical condition.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#86

Post by polishdude20 »

simmerup wrote: post #20
plasma_beam wrote: post #2

If the correlation is proven true then that’s obviously terrible, but I’m in my mid 40s now, tattoo-less, and one of my biggest regrets is not getting a couple tattoos when I was younger. I feel like doing it now looks like a midlife crisis type thing. I always wanted one of those Thai tattoos where they manually tap tap tap the design into your skin with a mallet.

Midlife is when everyone starts doing cool stuff because theyve built up the income to service it Do whatever you like, it’s your life

In a way, a midlife purchase is more smart financially than an early life purchase.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#87

Post by gumby »

boppo1 wrote: post #66
gumby wrote: post #64

I’m not surprised — tattoo inks are not regulated and the colors are often formed with toxic compounds (e.g. copper). Then the needle avoids the protective barrier provided by the skin. Ironically, while working on a drug program that involved intradermal injection, we needed to tattoo the injection site so we could find it later. The FDA was very demanding that both the procedure and more importantly to them the dye…

> barred from investigating the effect on humans Wait they're legally prevented from investigating tattoo inks? Why?

Congress only authorizes executive branch agencies to have responsibility for certain things, and tattoos are not within scope, not being a medical treatment of any sort.

BTW FDA was explicitly barred by a corrupt law* from regulating anything "natural" (a poorly defined criterion) so the same happens with all those things you see in Whole Foods: FDA can warn you of certain dangers from their web site but that's it.

They have a summary page that talks about the history of law that apply to them: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food...

* Herbalife got their senator, Orrin Hatch, to get this law passed so they would stop getting in trouble for peddling snake oil in both their products and their MLM business model. His career was basically 100% carrying water for MLM folks and the music industry in exchange for cash.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#88

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

plasma_beam wrote: post #2

If the correlation is proven true then that’s obviously terrible, but I’m in my mid 40s now, tattoo-less, and one of my biggest regrets is not getting a couple tattoos when I was younger. I feel like doing it now looks like a midlife crisis type thing. I always wanted one of those Thai tattoos where they manually tap tap tap the design into your skin with a mallet.

Have you seen the blurry mess a tattoo turns into 30 years later? You made a reasonable choice.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#89

Post by stevenwoo »

gumby wrote: post #64

I’m not surprised — tattoo inks are not regulated and the colors are often formed with toxic compounds (e.g. copper). Then the needle avoids the protective barrier provided by the skin. Ironically, while working on a drug program that involved intradermal injection, we needed to tattoo the injection site so we could find it later. The FDA was very demanding that both the procedure and more importantly to them the dye…

Can you reveal what was safe to use as a tattoo ink?
Post reply on HN