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

121–130 of 207 posts

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#121

Post by zx8080 »

gumby wrote: post #87
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?

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.…

Does it take only one senator to pass any law?

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#122

Post by superturkey650 »

voxic11 wrote: post #103
unsupp0rted wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whereas in South Korea only licensed medical professionals are allowed to open tattoo parlors: > The Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare considers the act of tattooing similar to medical procedures and deemed they should therefore only be performed by a professional with a medical license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattooing_in_South_Korea

The FDA is not empowered to regulate medical procedures. Those are regulated by state laws and agencies. So even if tattooing was considered a medical procedure the FDA would not be able to regulate them.

They’re empowered to regulate the instruments and compounds used within medical procedures though.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#123

Post by labster »

zx8080 wrote: post #121
gumby wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Does it take only one senator to pass any law?

No, but one senator can generally block most laws by just declaring that they would filibuster if they had to. And blocking can very easily become “block unless this is added.” We’re only a couple steps removed from the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm at this point.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#124

Post by rayiner »

labster wrote: post #123
zx8080 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it take only one senator to pass any law?

No, but one senator can generally block most laws by just declaring that they would filibuster if they had to. And blocking can very easily become “block unless this is added.” We’re only a couple steps removed from the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm at this point.

One senator cannot filibuster a law. The other senators can just vote to end debate. And it requires at least 40 senators to vote to continue debate.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#125

Post by Terr_ »

pyuser583 wrote: post #107
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…

The best X-Files episode, "Never Again" from Season 4, is about toxic chemicals in tattoos.

I suppose that's technically true, although the toxicity is implied to be more interpersonal than chemical. :p

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#128

Post by bardworx »

stevenwoo wrote: post #89
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?

Technically? Nothing.

But, as with anything, it’s about nuance. You can read through the ingredients here[0] and tell me what you’d like in your body.

The earliest tattoos, from my understanding, were done by incision and rubbing carbon into the wound. Regardless if you use old or new inks/techniques, it’s not really cut and dry to say “this is bad/good” because the size of the particulates matter. For a tattoo shop that uses high quality ink, and is diligent in its sterilization, most inks are fine. The large molecules are “trapped” by your immune system to just stay there[1], making them not dangerous.

There is a ton of research on PubMed about tattoos, most being negative. However, I suspect it’s because the authors had a predisposition to be negative from the start based on how the research is conducted and what they focus on. But I could be wrong and you should make up your own mind.

Bottom line: if you get tattoos, pay the premium and go to a good shop. The hygiene and good products are worth it, if that’s your thing.

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9846827/#:~:tex....

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29511065/

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#129

Post by esperent »

tempestn wrote: post #108
gwern wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a Swedish study, so what might be possible is using the population registry to contact siblings of the cancer patients to ask about traits like tattooing and then their health data would already be in Swedish system and linkable. This would control for a lot of the relevant confounders.

Though not those related to people's choice to get tattoos.

Tattoos are so common these days that I'm not sure you can say much about a person just because they have tattoos.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#130

Post by bardworx »

h05sz487b wrote: post #94
stevenwoo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Please don‘t tattoo your guinea pig.

Isn’t it kinda funny that tattooing a guinea pig is frowned upon but testing on animals is okay…

Just a shower thought.

Post reply on HN