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

151–160 of 207 posts

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#151

Post by Eduard »

gumby wrote: post #132
stevenwoo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you reveal what was safe to use as a tattoo ink?

We ended up using India ink, which (according to the encyclopedia of ink* ) is mainly soot. We were able to isolate it in the HPLC and through some histopath experiments show that it didn’t have any negative local effect between (IIRC) seven and 60 days. Why those times? Protocol was to tattoo on day 0, wait a week for the site to recover, then inject our experimental material on day 7, sacrificing subject animals at…

But soot is carcinogenic, no? And with soot consisting of nanoparticles small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier, I can imagine a chance of soot-based tattoo substances diffusing into the brain.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#152

Post by throwaway2037 »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #61

I doubt if they’ve completely eliminated social factors. Apparently people with tattoos “have higher levels of need for uniqueness, sensation seeking, and thrill and adventure seeking, but they have lower levels of self-esteem, attend religious services less, and are generally much less educated than individuals who did not have tattoos.” https://www.jyi.org/2016-april/2017/3/12/got-ink-an-analysis...

The last one bothers me the most:

    > generally much less educated than individuals who did not have tattoos
To me, this seems obviously about social/economic class. If you work a good paying job, then you are much less likely to have tattoos, primarily because your co-workers do not have them. Before every HN commenters jumps on me, think about all the office worker normies out there, working normie office jobs, the pressure to conform is much higher than bro-grammers who are allowed to go work in jeans and hoodie. From my experience, the (middle/senior) manager types (including lawyers) are the least likely to have tattoos.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#153

Post by kadkadels »

Galatians4_16 wrote: post #149
boppo1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't the FDA the same agency that authorized the use of Thalidomide for pregnant women, and then much later deauthorized it due to birth defects?

No, not really. Actually it was completely different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal#United_Sta...

>In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey who withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Change_in_drug_reg...

>In the United States, the new regulations strengthened the FDA, among other ways, by requiring applicants to prove efficacy and to disclose all side effects encountered in testing. The FDA subsequently initiated the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation to reclassify drugs already on the market.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#154

Post by throwaway2037 »

nox101 wrote: post #45
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.

You should do what you want. That said, my friend with the most tattoos, basically every part of his body, arms, legs. Maybe his face and head don't have tattoos. When I told him I was thinking about getting one he told me "don't do it".

Did you friend share a reason? For me, I love tattoos, but surely I would be tired of it in less than five years. Tough luck -- that shit is permanent. Plus, tats looks pretty awful on old people. I don't want to be that person.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#158

Post by jhugo »

Eduard wrote: post #151
gumby wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We ended up using India ink, which (according to the encyclopedia of ink* ) is mainly soot. We were able to isolate it in the HPLC and through some histopath experiments show that it didn’t have any negative local effect between (IIRC) seven and 60 days. Why those times? Protocol was to tattoo on day 0, wait a week for the site to recover, then inject our experimental material on day 7, sacrificing subject animals at…

But soot is carcinogenic, no? And with soot consisting of nanoparticles small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier, I can imagine a chance of soot-based tattoo substances diffusing into the brain.

As long as that takes more than 60 days it won’t interfere with their study. Absolute non-toxicity wasn’t the goal here.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#159

Post by akvadrako »

arisAlexis wrote: post #92
aeturnum wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly can - I think artificial sweeteners are great examples. There are experimental studies that show that artificial sweeteners can cause cancer in animal studies, but as of yet there's no clear evidence of that showing up for any definable population in the real world[1]. Chemicals linked to cancer (or other conditions) are cause for concern! It's important to note & track these things. But the dose makes t…

You are talking about non cancer causing chemicals to humans. The definition of a cancer causing chemicals is it will cause cancer. If it's a small dose it will not be easily detectable that doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm.

Everything is about dosage. Even a small enough amount of uranium isn't harmfull and is quite normal. It's at the point where trying to avoid it will cause more of an issue.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#160

Post by lostlogin »

zolbrek wrote: post #67
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…

Tattoo inks are regulated in the EU, my tattoo artist wasn't happy about the regulations when they were first announced a few years ago.

Some of the regulated ones still cause issues.

Had one that was used to give someone eyebrows that got all toasty in an MR scanner.

Post reply on HN