Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

Finding traces of tattoo ink in lymph nodes, means nothing other than the fact that there are traces of tattoo ink in lymph nodes.

If there were actual lymph-related problems associated with tattoos, like certain illnesses that are disproportionately represented amongst tatooed individuals, you'd think that studies would discover it...

View on HN

That’s a bit glib, and ignores the possibility that now it’s known those nanoparticles travel in lymph, they could be found elsewhere. In the case of something like TiO2, I’d be pretty concerned if nanoparticles where found in my lymph nodes or elsewhere. There is also evidence of chronic enlargement of the nodes as a result, and persistent hypertrophy or inflammation are known risk factors for cancer. Simply dismissing any risk until large longitudinal studies show a correlation in key populations is probably unwise.

It’s been known for a while that tattoos are a possible vector for some infectious diseases, typically when unsanitary methods are employed. The focus of disease and tattoos has generally been around Hep C, and you might be overestimating the degree of scholarly interest in looking beyond that. Nanoparticles infiltration is a relatively new concept, and none that I’ve ever seen leads me to the conclusion that the results are likely to be positive, but it’s early days yet. TiO2 has been tentatively linked to tumors in rats, but it’s only been tested through the inhalation route. Science takes time, and a rational person might wait and see rather than say “fuck it, until you prove it I’m tatting up!”

So sure, get a tattoo, but realize that you’re having an unregulated ink shot into your dermis, and elements of that ink can infiltrate systemically. That would worry me, but then, I wouldn’t get a tattoo.

Without being glib, as well, there are tens of things I do everyday that have a high probability of depositing foreign nanoparticles in my lymph nodes: driving a car, standing next to a smoker, eating food from a production farm, being exposed to paint fumes, etc.

Tattoos may end up being a problem, and more power to those who have no interest or who decide to abstain because of possible issues, but let’s keep this in perspective.

so 10,000 years from now they can look at all these nano particles in our bodies as artefacts of our civilization, like we look back at Otzi the Iceman's stomach contents.... ??

10k years from now they'll probably pull up social media archives to know everything they want to know :p

There are no archives of walled gardens.

Except when we occasionally download our personal archives.

And then what?

And we will seem happier, fitter, more attractive, better traveled, more socially connected, and more politically engaged than we ever were.

"Seem"

I guess Twitter's archive didn't make it. :P The dim yet accurate view of humanity it provides would surely give pause to deep future archaeologists.

Seeing as Ötzi is covered in tattoos, potentially Ötzi’s lymph nodes are interesting too.

That there's other things is meaningless when it comes to the potential dangers of any one of these cases (ie not just tattoos).

It's a matter of the specifics of each case. How much of the substances tends to end up there for each kind of case, what is the nature of those substances, etc.

Of course. Whataboutism is easy to promote.

Understanding the risk is the important part. Personally, I’ll take my chances and roll the proverbial dice with tattoo ink.

Could you please elaborate on how driving a car deposits nanoparticles?

Internal combustion engines produce exhaust fumes. Polycyclic hydrocarbons would be a good place to start.

Here’s an older study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223100...

Just because are lots of common things that deposit nanoparticles in my lymph nodes doesn't mean I should give up on the exposure I can control.

I never suggested you should. My personal decision is to consider tattoo ink the lesser of the evils I chose to be concerned with.

You may have a different opinion and make different choices based on your personal risk rubric.

Sounds to me like you’d rather get a tattoo than drive a car...

For the record, I don't have any tattoos and don't plan on getting any. I just thought the article was a bit low on details and a bit on the side of "potential risk" scaremongering.

I don't think your level of dismissiveness is appropriate considering the seriousness of the condition in at least one case I've read about previously:

https://www.sciencealert.com/tattoo-mimics-cancer-of-the-lym...

lymphadenopathy is caused by a variety of conditions, including but not limited to infections, autoimmune diseases, and cancers. To your point, the article you linked only states that "she'd noticed lumps in both her armpits two weeks prior - a common symptom of lymphoma."

Granulomatous change in the lymph node (when phagocytes eat up the pigment from the tattoo) is not "serious" per say, especially considering that in this case the patient had no other associated symptoms.

If you can read the original case report (paywall) that ScienceAlert linked: http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2656481/tattoo-pigmen..., you will find that the major point of the article was that getting a good history from a patient with tattoos is important so that you don't misdiagnose them with lymphoma if they do not actually have it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com