Inked Talk

Author’s Note: I really don’t enjoy picking apart another writer’s concept of journalism. I embrace a “live and let live” philosophy, and I realize that there is a lot of bad writing out there. Today, however, I make an exception because of an article that appears written for the sole purpose of making a sensational headline without any real basis in fact. I find that unacceptable on a personal level. So pardon the vitriol, and don’t believe everything you read.

***
“Does it hurt?” and “Is it safe?” are among the first questions people ask before getting their very first tattoo. We all know the answer to the first question, and as to the second we can only reply that people have been getting tattoos for years, and other than the extremely rare allergy, it certainly appears to be safe. I feel fine, don’t you?

Good news just isn’t as interesting as sensational news, so today we are treated to a headline in a northern Arizona online paper that proclaims “Research reveals tattoo ink contains metals, may cause cancer.” Tattoos can cause cancer? That is a terrifying possibility. But we need to read beyond the headline in this case.

The article itself suggests that the connection between cancer and tattoos isn’t just tenuous, it is so far completely unsupported by the evidence. According to the article, the danger lies in the fact that modern tattoo inks contain “metallic salts, oxides, sulphides and selenides,” and chemicals which were originally intended for use in “writing, automobile paints and printer inks” rather than skin contact. Well, that does sound a little scary, but we need to read on.

As evidence of the connection between cancer and tattoo ink, the article relies on Jani Ingram, an associate professor of chemistry, who has been researching and analyzing the metal content of tattoo ink. She acknowledges that different ink manufacturers use different components to obtain the variety of ink colors, and some inks do have metal components.

Nowhere in the article does Ingram suggest that these metal components are cancer-causing agents. Her only caution is that people getting tattoos should want them for life, as the tattoo removal process involves breaking up the ink into particles that can be absorbed by the body. “I tell folks that if they are going to get a tattoo, that they should want it for life,” Ingram said.

So, where is this cancer connection again?

The article goes on to remind us not once, not twice, but three times that the Food and Drug Administration does not regulate tattoo ink. To illustrate just how shocking that is supposed to be, the article quotes a college freshman, Renee Hamilton, who just got tattooed four months ago:

“I didn’t know that the FDA doesn’t regulate what goes into tattoo ink,” Hamilton said. “I think that’s disgusting. I think that the FDA should regulate tattoo ink because it’s going to have an effect on anybody who has a tattoo and a lot of people have them.”

Mmm…okay. And the cancer connection? I’m still waiting for it.

The FDA does not require disclosure of the components used in any given ink because they can be considered trade secrets. Since these components are not disclosed, “tattoo inks may contain chemicals known to cause mutations, birth defects or cancer, though these symptoms may take years to appear.”

Really? That’s the connection? Because the tattoo ink isn’t required to display a list of ingredients, we should assume that it contains components that cause birth defects or cancer? Why don’t we go ahead and assume it contains unicorns and rainbows and my dead grandmother’s ghost too?

I can conclude from this article that tattoos aren’t dangerous, but bad journalism and unsubstantiated conclusions can cause a lot of undue anxiety. Perhaps there is a connection between tattoo ink and cancer - despite decades of research by the smartest minds in the world, the causes of cancer remain, for the most part, a mystery. Nothing in this article makes me want to think twice about my next tattoo.

For months Inked Talk has featured a number of articles on the dangers of henna tattoos that have been altered with a substance called PPD to make the tattoos look darker. The high concentration of PPD in the henna mixture causes a strong allergic reaction in a good percentage of the population. These allergic reactions can lead to a sensitization to further exposure to PPD, which is found in lower quantities in hair dye, certain textile and leather dyes, and other pigments.

Inked Talk brought the first of these articles in February of 2008. A news story from England prompted a second story about henna and PPD allergies in July. The latest article from the UK may sound like a repeat, but yet another child in Bristol was scarred badly by a Bart Simpson henna tattoo laced with PPD.

(Yes, that’s Bart Simpson scooting a towel across his backside. Not only will this boy have a scar in the form of a pop culture icon that is likely to be long since passé by the time he gets into high school, but he has one of the tackier Bart images that he could have chosen. Poor kid.)

You can read the full article here.

Regular Inked Talk readers know that I get up on a soap box over PPD at every opportunity, so I don’t want to beat a dead horse too badly today. However, if you must have a henna tattoo, or if for some reason you feel you must have one applied to a child, be absolutely certain that the tattoo artist does not use henna laced with PPD. The good henna tattoo artists - and there are many - are well aware of the dangers of PPD and wouldn’t think of applying PPD to the skin. Talk to the artist first, ask questions, and proceed only if you feel comfortable with the answers.

Editor’s Note: I’m not what you would call an avid television watcher, so blogging about what’s on the TV takes a lot of effort on my part. Nevertheless, it’s hard to have a tattoo blog without talking about LA Ink and Kat von D, and with the third season of the show premiering shortly, it all merits a little mention.

LA Ink’s Third Season Premiere

The third season of Kat von D’s LA Ink premieres next week, October 9, 2008 at 10/9 Central Time. The latest clip gives us a glimpse into what’s in store for the new season:

Filming for Season Three is still ongoing, and today Kat von D’s Myspace bulletin featured some information about the new season, including the fact that the first episode is going to feature Dave Navarro getting a pretty significant tattoo by Kat.

For more information about the upcoming episodes of LA Ink:

Discovery Channel’s LA Ink Website

Kat von D’s Myspace Page

Recent statistics have suggested that one in four adults aged 18-30 have a tattoo. As tattoos have become more mainstream, laser tattoo removal procedures have likewise made great strides, and the result is more people having tattoos removed now than ever before.

A study led by Myrna Armstrong of Texas Tech University suggests that women are more likely than men to undergo laser tattoo removal. Armstrong’s team visited tattoo removal clinics Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts and Texas to find out who was undergoing tattoo removal procedures, and why. Armstrong’s study consisted of just 196 people.

Above photo: tattoo removal in progress, courtesy of http://www.immortalimagestattoo.com

Sixty-six men and 130 women were interviewed for the study. In addition to demographic information, they answered questions about why they got the their tattoos, and why they were seeking removal. The most popular reasons for getting a tattoo were to commemorate an occasion and to feel “unique” and “independent.”

Women who were white, single, college-educated and between the ages of 24 and 39 were the most likely to seek removal of their tattoos. Their reasons for removal included suffering embarrassment from the tattoo, lowering of body image, getting a new job or career, having problems with clothes, and experiencing stigma. While men reported some of the same problems, they did not appear to suffer the same external pressure that women did. This led the researchers to conclude that society may be less supportive of women’s tattoos.

This author has to add her two cents to that conclusion. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class knows the phrase “correlation does not equal causation.” In other words, an apparent correlation between two things does not suggest that one causes the other. My favorite pop culture example of this is the famous “Pirates vs. Global Warming” chart:

The chart shows that as the number of pirates has decreased, the average global temperature has increased. While the chart is comedic, it illustrates the point that just because two appear to have a correlation, you cannot conclude that one causes the other.

So what does this have to do with Armstrong’s study on tattoo removal?

The conclusion that societal pressures lead to women seeking tattoo removal more often than men is misplaced. Simply because more women cite societal pressure for tattoo removal doesn’t mean that societal pressure towards women is the cause. What about tattoo placement? Are women more likely to get a tattoo that isn’t easily concealed in the workplace? Or perhaps the societal pressure is equal among the sexes, but women are more likely to succumb to that pressure.

Or perhaps there is another explanation entirely.

While Armstrong’s sample size for this study may be too small to be conclusive, perhaps a more interesting study would have examined the correlation between the reason for initially getting the tattoo and its ultimate reason for removal. Perhaps women are more likely to get a tattoo that is relatively meaningless to them to start with, thus making the decision to have it removed less monumental and more akin to a change of wardrobe.

Armstrong’s study, while interesting, is just the beginning. A larger sample size and questions that examine the relationship between the reason for the tattoo in the first place and the reason for its removal may be more telling.

There was a bulletin floating around the Myspace tattoo community today entitled “Get Tattooed for the Good of Your Country.” I clicked on it, assuming that some tattoo shop was running a special on patriotic tattoos, which in my opinion would have been pretty awesome and worthy of reposting. What I read instead had nothing to do with a tattoo sale, but it still brought me a smile, and so I wanted to share it here on Inked Talk.

The bulletin was referring to the Economic Stimulus checks that are beginning to appear in the bank accounts of certain taxpayers this week. Those who qualify may receive up to $600.00 for the purpose of giving this sluggish economy a bit of a jolt by freeing up consumer finances and hopefully inspire a bit of spending. I’m no economist, but I think that sounds a little optimistic. On the other hand, I may get some “free money” out of it, so who am I to complain?

The bulletin was encouraging people to use their economic stimulus checks on new ink. As the bulletin said:

“We say GO GET TATTOOED! and support a business that really deserves it. Save our economy, support your tattoo artist, get a lifetime of ink for one check, and be a true American all at the same time.”

Again, I’m no economist or mathematician, so if a tattoo is the best use of an economic stimulus payment, I can’t say.

But it is a fine idea to go ahead and spend some cash on getting some good ink from a good artist?

Of course it is. It is certainly a much better plan than buying some more stuff you don’t really need from Wal Mart.

If you don’t already have plans for that stimulus payment, maybe you can set some aside and get yourself some new ink, courtesy of the federal government.

***
Talking NFL

Last week Inked Talk brought you an article about James Burns, a man who was selling the rights to tattoo an advertisement on his head.

The premise was simple enough, as the eBay auction explained:

My name is James. I am a married father of 4 who has a full time job, but needs some extra cash. I am selling advertising space on my skin. I will get your logo, website, whatever (nothing vulgar) tattooed on the back of my head or on my neck - your choice. If you choose my head, I will keep it shaved for 1 year to maintain visibility.

Burns’ wife contacted Inked Talk and commented on the article, and this week Burns himself agreed to speak about his experience selling ad space on his head on eBay.

Inked Talk: How did the auction ultimately end up?

James Burns: It ended with one bid - $99.99.

As of the writing of this article, the eBay auction can still be viewed here. However, eBay does remove listings after a few months.

IT: The Charleston Daily Mail article said your wife was supportive of the idea. What did your kids think about it?

JB: The kids think that it’s neat that I was on TV, but as far as the tattoo goes, they didn’t even bat an eyelash at it. Tattoos are such a normal part of our lives.

As the Charleston Daily Mail article and photo showed, Burns is no stranger to tattoos.

IT: Your restrictions said “no profanity” would be allowed in the tattoo. What about political statements? Would you refuse a “Vote so-and-so” tattoo if you were politically opposed to it?

JB: A political tattoo is so not my style. I would have to refuse that one, as I see politicians as profane.

IT: If you could choose the ideal advertising candidate for your head, who would it be? What would the ad say?

JB: If I could choose…hmm. I would want the ad to say “GAS PRICES SUCK!!” Signed, “We the People.”

Well said. Burns’ motivation for selling ad space on his head was in part due to the rising price of gas: I work 60 plus hours a week, so a second job is pretty much out of the question. I have tried to
get weekend odd jobs, but to no success. I figured this might help, Burns told Inked Talk.

IT: Did you have any negative reactions to your eBay auction?

JB: My mom wasn’t too thrilled about the idea of it, but she came around. She realized that I am willing to do whatever it takes (within legal boundaries) to achieve my goals.

IT: Do you have plans to continue to offer your head as advertising space?

JB: No, I think I have learned my lesson.

You can visit James Burns’ Myspace page and read more about his experiences there. He has information there about his Paypal account in case anyone would like to help out him and his family.

Speaking on behalf of Inked Talk, let me say that you have some serious, serious guts to do what you did for your family, and that is something to be admired. I hope that someone out there can help your family out.

The Associated Press brought a story from New Hampshire this past weekend about a man who had been illegally tattooing near Derry. Thirty-eight year old Glen Vincent was charged with three counts of illegal tattooing. Those weren’t his only charges, though, and the other charges are what led to his discovery and arrest. The illegal tattooing was uncovered when a middle school nurse noticed a “tramp stamp” tattoo on the back of one of the twelve year old students at her school.

Twelve is a bit young for a tramp stamp.

Vincent is also accused of tattooing the back and stomach of a sixteen year old.

This story is old news, but its such an amusing tale that it is worth revisiting.

January 25, 2006. Kansas City, Missouri.

Linda Falls just wanted to save some money on her tattoo, but she ended up with a trip to the hospital. Falls and a number of other women in a Springfield, Missouri apartment complex purchased tattoos from a man who appeared at their door with a tattoo gun, offering his artistic services.

Tamra Eason described his tattoo gun as “homemade,” but paid him for a tattoo anyway. “It was wrapped with black tape, had a pin underneath it, had fishing wire going through it, you could tell it was a homemade gun,” Eason said.

Tamra Eason and Linda Falls

Linda Falls passed out the day after receiving her tattoo. She was later hospitalized. An effort was made to advise the women who received the tattoos that they should get tested for hepatitis and HIV.

They say some people exist solely for the purpose of being a lesson to the rest of us. I think these woman may be here for just that reason. Thanks, ladies.

Here is a post about Joss Stone’s new tattoo on her head behind her ear…

Click here for the post.

(I haven’t been around due to an emergency involving my husband. We thought he had a bad headache (a CAT scan and MRI were performed) and it turned out to be a sinus infection.)

TLC has confirmed that Kat Von D will be getting her own show. The show’s title is LA Ink. Of course we all know that L.A. is where Kat calls home. We also know that Kat adores her hometown so this should be a cool show to watch.

I hear too that Kat’s shop is being built now… I’m sure this is old news.

Can you be any more ignorant than this? I mean there is one thing that I love more than my tattoos and thats my family. I would NEVER leave my daughter ALONE for a tattoo appointment. PUHLEEESE. This dumb woman is pregnant too. What the hell is she doing getting a tattoo while pregnant anyway? Well I am sure they’ll put her through the ringer. She will be recieving plenty of visits from CPS if she ever DOES get her kids back.

Read the full story here

The Marines have made more restrictions on where and where you can’t get a tattoo. If you are a Marine, you won’t have large tattoos below your elbows and knees according to This article which states this policy was designed to keep soldiers from getting “sleeved”.

The article goes on to say that Marine commandant Gen. James T. Conway doesn’t think tattoos reflect American values.

I don’t want to get all political, but it is necessary. I think think this issue is ridiculous and the U.S.M.C. should reconsider. Especially ,as this article also states, that recruiting levels aren’t what they would like them to be, if desirable at all. Tattoos on an individual shouldn’t matter. I mean you are in the military for god sakes. And not to mention we are also in the 21st century. Tattoos matter to the enemy how? Apparently the General thinks that being “tattooed to the point contrary to our professional demeanor and the high standards America has come to expect from us.”

I’m curious to know what that “point” is. Oh that’s right The General has already laid out that point for us.

It shouldn’t matter what’s on ones body. Tattoos don’t disable a person from performing a job or being professional.

read the article here:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/062007/06032007/280360

This article was actually published on May 4th… it is not exactly news, but its ridiculous on the customers end… the artist was trying to give a refund and free correction. The one receiving the tat is suing for $25,000.

I think the customer is just a greedy idiot. You decide…

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/05/04/lawsuit_filed_over_typos_in_tattoo/

This article talks about Gen Nexters and Gen Xers and the percentage of both that have tattoos. I am of course a Gen Xer and 40% of us have tattoos. While 36% of Gen Nexters have tattoos, they will probably surpass the Gen Xers when they get to there 30’s.

Gen Nexters — Americans in the 18-25 age bracket — are not afraid to express themselves through their appearance and tattoos are the most popular form of self-expression — more than one-in-three (36%) now has one.

read more…

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20070508/ts_pew/36tattooedgennexters_1

I found this blog dedicated to celeb tattoos. It has a substantial amount of pictures for just recently getting started. So if you are celebrity obsessed or just like looking at their tattoos this blog is for you.

www.celebritytattoos.org