What would you have as a tatoo and why?

sillygoose

At least get something useful like 'Do not resuscitate if really clapped out' on your chest.

Or a picture of Tony Blair on your bottom so you can wipe that smile off his face.

How about a realistic image of an electronic tag around your ankle, might stop someone messing with you in the pub.

What about your Nectar card barcode on your wrist, could be handy. I might go for 'Made by God, return to manufacturer for recycling when broken' :A

If all else fails I want a realistic image of a bar of Cadbury's Dairy milk done on me wee winkle, only way I can think of to get it noticed by the wife.

Please no more Dolphins, yes they are cute but also dumb enough to jump through hoops for a fish.. but if the image fits....?

heartbreak_star

Let's lose the prejudice people...would you ask these people not to care for you? Would you even notice their ink?









Also, this is awesome:



HBS x

gunsandbanjos

I have loads of friends/colleagues with a lot of ink and I don't judge them, but then I'm not a massively judgemental person anyway.

I can't fathom why anyone would not want to be treated by the people pictured above purely due to the fact they have tattoos. Are people really that narrow minded and ignorant?

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

An untattooed person's breasts or willy look all saggy and wrinkly at 70 compared to at 30.

But nobody suggests they might regret ever having them, do they?

Errata

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

An untattooed person's breasts or willy look all saggy and wrinkly at 70 compared to at 30.

But nobody suggests they might regret ever having them, do they?

Oncology radiographers now struggle to mark the areas with a dot of a tattoo they need to hit with radiotherapy because so many women now have tattoos on their breasts.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Errata wrote: »

Oncology radiographers now struggle to mark the areas with a dot of a tattoo they need to hit with radiotherapy because so many women now have tattoos on their breasts.

Not that it's guaranteed to work, but have they considered using inks that luminese under UV light instead? That way would mean most tattoos, which are visible under the standard light spectrum, don't affect it, and must make treating dark skinned women much easier as well.

Errata

What UV light do you mean?

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Errata wrote: »

What UV light do you mean?

Well, normal luminescent tattoo inks 'light up' under the standard ultraviolet frequency range. Like they use for checking banknotes, disco lights, that kind of thing. I don't actually know whether that's UV-A or UV-B because the thought has only just occurred to me.

It would also make the marks less visible in people who don't like having any tattoo even for radiotherapy. Could make it possible to mark more extensively without it being a problem for the patient as well. And it wouldn't ruin preexisting tattoos either.

If the lining up is done by hand, just a short burst of UV would be needed in the dark, if by computer, it would need to be adapted, but the principle is still the same, it's just a different frequency of light.

Does that make as much sense to anybody else as it does to me?

CupOfChai

Makes perfect sense to me. It could be a good idea. But then again I don't know how bright or sharply defined the luminescence is, if or how they degrade over time, so it might have already been found not to be as suitable.

But maybe the people who invent these techniques don't know you can get UV luminescent tattoos and haven't thought to look into the possibility, anyway you think you could suggest it to a medical research department as something to look into?

Errata

If the lining up is done by hand, just a short burst of UV would be needed in the dark, if by computer, it would need to be adapted, but the principle is still the same, it's just a different frequency of light.

Computers and lasers are used to ensure the radio beams hit the tattoo dots.