181–190 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
sounds like lots of regulations. Stuff gets worse to get better. rohs solder. Leaded paints, enamel paints, water based paints. cars with smog pumps and catalytic converters.
Some European countries banned leaded paint in 1909 the US and Canada only banned lead in paint in the late 1970s!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
sounds like lots of regulations. Stuff gets worse to get better. rohs solder. Leaded paints, enamel paints, water based paints. cars with smog pumps and catalytic converters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprised at the number of people saying "just do it"! For what it's worth I would never ink my body. Ever. I would sleep in the disposal hole of a porta potty first, that is how strongly I feel about it. I have nothing against tattoos in general, many of my close friends have them. But I would never ever personally get one and can't imagine even considering it.
Why is that? Out of curiosity
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
sounds like lots of regulations. Stuff gets worse to get better. rohs solder. Leaded paints, enamel paints, water based paints. cars with smog pumps and catalytic converters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Nice case of mood affiliation - "FDA bad therefore remember inverse of reality" There was a swift ban on Thalidomide and the FDA went to the extreme of removing fertile women from all trials for the next 60 years, leading to 2nd order effects like Ambien car crashes.
Notice how I didn't say "FDA bad", but just asked a question, which was effectively answered.
This sort of infered bickering is not conducive to civil discussion.
Unexpectedly, the area of tattooed body surface turned out not to matter. I’m calling bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hair is dead, skin is not. Your body doesn't care about what you do to your hair, you can cut it, dye it, anything as long as it doesn't touch the root. Tattoos are about injecting a foreign substance in live tissue, which triggers an immune response, and that's what the article is about. There is a reason tattoos hurt and haircuts don't.
Well sure, but the scalp underneath the hair that's gotta have some skin properties - sure it's thicker than the rest of the skin and has some protective properties against some forms of environmental damage but the dye does go in there and years of use should cause _some_ thing - not sure there's any research around what exactly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Trying to avoid tattoos doesn't cause any issues. Radiation is normal in nature. Injecting lead into your epidermis isn't. Any amount will do harm just like 1 cigarette is worse than 0.
Radiation is normal in nature and will give you cancer. That's the main reason why people wear sunscreen[1]. It's not like there's a "natural" amount of radiation that is 100% safe and then you cross a boundary.
I agree that avoiding tattoos is harmless. Tattoos have no "benefits" - but those aren't the statements we are critiquing.
> just like 1 cigarette is worse than 0
This is almost certainly not true. Nicotine has a number of properties that might benefit you in the moment, or under certain conditions[2]. Cigarettes are not "healthy" and they are never going to be the "best" delivery system, but there exist many situations where your health would improve if you have your very first cigarette.
Another good example is that Vitamin D, which is an essential nutrient, can cause increased cancer risk[3]. Looking at substances as "causing cancer" or "safe" will lead you to an inaccurate understanding of when you are taking risks and when you are not. You can't live without Vitamin D and also if you get too much it can help give you cancer.
[1] It's not actually clear how much sunscreen protects from cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7759112/
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8746297/
[3] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...