Would you get a tattoo?

babyblooz

I have spent lots of money on beautiful handbags, shoes, clothes etc. after convincing myself that they were classic, stylish designs that I would love for evermore...but sadly, however much I liked them, in the end, I get fed up of seeing them and want to see the back of them ... so off to the charity shop they go.

I have never wanted a tattoo, because I just don't think many paler skins (like mine) look good with blue or red colourings on them (subliminally, I think it sort of reminds me of varicose veins) but even if I did convince myself I would love a tattoo forever, I just know that me being the girl I am, I would get bored with it eventually, but I would be stuck with it ... forever ...

And then there is the combination of faded tattoos, on my slightly crepy elderly flesh that is maybe a bit too well-stuffed (I am thinking of my own body here) so however artistic and innovative they are, they are just not for me.

I can understand someone wanting to remember a special person, but I chose to commemorate the special people in my life by planting a tree, which I think is lovely, as you can see the tree flourish, and quietly remember them in your own private way. I think thats the kind of thing that my dad would appreciate.

.

We_Laugh_Indoors

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

Just because a lot of people do something does not mean it is safe, healthy or sensible. I expect we all also know people who smoke and maybe some who take drugs and some who binge drink. I just post on these forums to try to show people how they can reduce their cancer/chronic illness risks.

The idea that people knowingly subject themselves to unnecessary potential cancer risks is totally against common sense.

why are you so bothered when the risk is so small?

are then any examples of people actually getting cancer from tattoos?

Why would there be any research on the positive health benefits of tattoos? People do not have them for health benefits they have them because they want them.

dubgirl

Well blimey, just caught up with this thread and I thought the DFW forum was getting judgmental. I must be one of those people that have been discussed with tattoos (I have 2), are fat (yes i am) and generally despised and considered disgusting. Furthermore I'm not married, living in sin and have one of those horrible naughty kids ( I don't, I have a lovely 2 year old DS). I don't think there is anything wrong with making an informed choice and it is important to consider the health risks, but at the end of the day it is the individual's choice and who is anyone to judge someone because they have tattoos.

I do think that there are some people who have nothing better to do. For the OP my OH's mum had her first tattoo on her 60th birthday. At the end of the day who honestly is going to care when you're 70. I think there will be other things to be worrying about. I'm just waiting for someone to make comments about Milton Keynes.

Ted_Hutchinson

We_Laugh_Indoors wrote: »

why are you so bothered when the risk is so small?

I'm not particularly bothered if people who are stupid get cancer. But I feel they ought to know that there is a risk.

are then any examples of people actually getting cancer from tattoos?

yes several are listed in pubmed. but possibly the greatest danger is that the tattoo masks the onset of melanoma.

Why would there be any research on the positive health benefits of tattoos? People do not have them for health benefits they have them because they want them.

But surely if tattoos are such a good thing to want surely that would be result in positive feelings of well-being and this would be reflected in health outcomes.

All I read in the research is of the health professionals trying to ameliorate damage caused, worrying about possible adverse outcomes and investigating ways of removing unwanted tattoos.

I think in a thread discussing tattoos it is important that the pitfalls are presented however unpopular a message that may be.

We_Laugh_Indoors

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

I'm not particularly bothered if people who are stupid get cancer. But I feel they ought to know that there is a risk.

So tattooed people are stupid because there are some small unheard of studies that say you cab get cancer?

I'm sure if you looked hard enough you can find research that says everything causes cancer.

yes several are listed in pubmed.

I will have to take your word for it as i'm afraid i'm not an*l enough to spend time looking.

I agree that pitfalls should be presented, however the way you are presenting them is misleading as you are saying in a roundabout way that tattoos give people cancer.

Ted_Hutchinson

We_Laugh_Indoors wrote: »

I agree that pitfalls should be presented, however the way you are presenting them is misleading as you are saying in a roundabout way that tattoos give people cancer.

It isn't misleading if you are one of the unlucky few. Every time I provide links to information suggesting limited sun exposure can actually protect from skin cancer people shout melamona at me so it's only fair to point out the dangers that other activities may contribute to that risk.

adouglasmhor

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

Light-induced mutagenicity in Salmonella TA102 and genotoxicity/cytotoxicity in human T-cells by 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine: a chemical used in the manufacture of dyes and pigments and in tattoo inks.

DCB, 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine, is used primarily as an intermediate in the manufacture of diarylide yellow or azo red pigments for printing ink, textile, paint, and plastics. It is also used in tattoo inks.............................................................Therefore, persons exposed to DCB through environmental contamination or through tattoo piercing using DCB-containing inks must not only concern about its toxicity without exposing to light, but also its phototoxicity.

Is that more up to date for your taste?

I'm still waiting for some peer reviewed evidence of the health benefits that accrue to those with tattoos?
Funny isn't it how all the research appears to be negative.

Well you are told top keep your tats out of the sun by any decent tattooist and I always have. Again concern not definite contra indication, It's also in some inks not all. Do you have a stat as to how many people in the long history of tattoos have died of poisoning or cancer caused by the tattoo?
http://cancer.about.com/od/causes/f/tattooscancer.htm
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1204.htmlLooks like a pretty low risk to me.


Bye the way no one claimed health benefits for tattoos on this thread, I don't know where that came for but it probably has to do with the fact you couldn't lie straight in bed.

But just to keep you happy here's a positive medical benefit from tattooing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4631291.stm

Also here are some health risks from using the computer - it's about as scientific as some of the links you provided http://www.apayne.com/totallypaul/computer.html

BigMummaF

OK guys......this is all getting out of hand.

Can we PLEASE just agree to have differing views? Ted Hutchinson is permitted to have an opinion, same as anyone----it's called "Freedom of Speech".

That doesn't mean that I agree with him.....someone, somewhere, will have written a paper that supports "the evidence" that want it to. And let's be honest........if we took heed to every stat published, we would all live in bungalows to prevent a fatal falling down the stairs, keep all the windows & doors closed to avoid carconengenic pollutants & possible anylphalactic [sp?] shock from bee stings & have nothing to eat because artificial sunlight can cause blindness!

My own personal crusade, is to get every human being to stop pre-judging others purely on appearance! That includes fashion; size; hair colour; where they worship; colour of their skin; eyes too close together; the car they drive; postcode; where they shop; three hands on one foot....LOOK INSIDE THE BOX FOR A CHANGE!

adouglasmhor

BigMummaF wrote: »

Can we PLEASE just agree to have differing views? Ted Hutchinson is permitted to have an opinion, same as anyone----it's called "Freedom of Speech".

He is not allowed to inflict his opinions based on everyone else and go unchallenged, he is not allowed to bend the truth and get away with it. I am allowed to reply to his postings, it's called freedom of speech. This is a discussion forum, Ted sees so many things in black and white, no shades of gray in Tedland. You are doing him no favours by pandering to him.

BigMummaF

Oops, sorry Dougie--didn't think I was supporting one party ahead of the other, & fully respect your opinion too.
I just wanted to say that whatever a soul may think, there will be stat evidence to support it somewhere.
It is applaudable for a stranger to seek out & offer factual evidence as a reference--as Mr H appears to do in every thread he posts in--as some find that sort of info helpful, but it is totally idiotic to base one's own decisions without further research to find any possible contradiction....if that's how you like to work out your answers.
Two sides to a coin & all that......