Tattoos have been linked to a deadly type of blood cancer for the first time.

hollydolly

hollydolly

SF VIP
Location
London England
Researchers from Lund University in Sweden found that tattooed individuals had a 21 percent higher risk of lymphoma, compared to people without tattoos.

Lymphoma is a type of cancer than affects the white blood cells, which are crucial for fighting infections.

The link is thought to lie with carcinogenic chemicals in the tattoo ink. When it is injected into the skin, it is be interpreted as something foreign and the immune system is activated, causing a low-grade inflammation in the body which can trigger cancer.

Some 46 percent of 30 to 49 year-old Americans have at least one tattoo, while 22 percent of all ages, on average, have more than one.
The researchers identified people with lymphoma aged between 20 and 60 using population registers, and then matched them with a control group of the same sex and age, but without a diagnosis of lymphoma.

The participants were then given a questionnaire about lifestyle factors to see if they were tattooed or not.

Around 1,400 of people with lymphoma answered the questionnaire, as well as 4,193 people in the control group.

In the group with lymphoma, 21 percent (289 people) were tattooed, while 18 percent (735 people) were tattooed in the control group.

'After taking into account other relevant factors, such as smoking and age, we found that the risk of developing lymphoma was 21 percent higher among those who were tattooed,' said Christel Nielsen, the researcher at Lund University who led the study.

The researchers had theorized that the size of the tattoo might impact the risk of lymphoma, and thought that a full body tattoo might be linked to a higher chance of cancer.
Tattoos may raise the risk of a deadly cancer 20%, shock study warns
 

Murrmurr said:
Do you know if the tattoos were newer? Old tattoo ink is very different from newer inks. I've heard that some of the newer inks contain metals that make tattoos bright and colorful....and chemicals, too.
Click to expand...
it's all in the article Frank....
 

I have a friend that was in the Navy during the Vietnam War. He got his tattoo in Vietnam and in 2004 was diagnosed with liver disease due to his tattoo. In 2010, he received a new liver and has been living since, but takes a lot of drugs and has been on dialysis 3 days a week since about 2018. He really has NO life to speak of.
 
I find tattoos so repulsive, and it seemed most white folks in Coney Island this past Sunday were loaded with them. A reason to hate summer: seeing all the ugly, poorly drawn tattoos. My other reason to hate summer is motorcycle noise. Otherwise, I love summer.
 
Sometimes I feel a bit "left out", as I don't have any tattoos. I just never got that enthused about anything that would cause me to permanently ink my body. Believe me, I understand folks in the service or like organizations having them, and its every bodies choice.

But I do find it sad - and way too common - to see young people with their arms loaded with "art". Amazingly (to me), I see as many young women with tats as I see with young men. My guess is they like the "cool effect" and attention. But these are permanent, and will they feel the same down the road?

Definitely not my problem or concern, but when I look at a young person loaded with tats, it just makes me sad.
 
Mobilman44 said:
Sometimes I feel a bit "left out", as I don't have any tattoos. I just never got that enthused about anything that would cause me to permanently ink my body. Believe me, I understand folks in the service or like organizations having them, and its every bodies choice.

But I do find it sad - and way too common - to see young people with their arms loaded with "art". Amazingly (to me), I see as many young women with tats as I see with young men. My guess is they like the "cool effect" and attention. But these are permanent, and will they feel the same down the road?

Definitely not my problem or concern, but when I look at a young person loaded with tats, it just makes me sad.
Click to expand...
I think it's somehow more repulsive to see an Old person particularly female with tattoos.. just my opinion.. but these old faded tats on wrinkly skin *ugh*...

I have never been tempted to draw on myself or have someone else do it... I grew out of that by the time I was 5...
 
I look at the young girls and want to tell them to appreciate their beautiful smooth skin while they have it.
Later on it won't really matter if they look like they fell asleep on the funny papers.

Here's this year's winner of Survivor:

GHiSsybbUAAiuD_.jpg
 
At my county fair, there's a guy in front of a tent tattooing people, as thousands pass by-not exactly a clean, sterile operating room type area for injecting stuff under your skin. And in the US, the Fed. Drug. Adm. approves NO dye for tattooing.
I was an idiot for getting into the 70s fads like a Nehru jacket, extra-wide bell bottoms, etc. At least, I could take that stuff off. I think those people walking around with all tattooed bodies are going to regret it.
 
Most people who have tattoos don't seem to regret them though. This seems projection from people who don't have any and don't like them.
Obviously most of them don't get blood cancers either.
 
Don't know the rules on donating blood at Blood Banks these days, since I no longer give blood twice a year.

But, rules used to be ... a 2 year wait before they would accept donations of blood from anyone with new tattoos
.... to me, that was enough of a warning sign of the danger of ink in the bloodstream.
 
Last edited:
There's a young woman who comes to our place once a week, during the busiest outdoor seasons, to help with tasks around our place. Weed pulling, lawn mowing in decorative areas, sorting lumber with me, pruning shrubs with DW. She's even stayed and looked after our house & MaineCoon cat when we've been away for a week.

She's strong, very smart, sweet, and a fine wood carver. She has tattoos on her neck, shoulders, and arms... and has obviously encountered some very talented, skilled tattooists. We've come to love her as a person, she's like family now. So this research presents sad information indeed.
 
Teacher Terry said:
This is good information. I quit dying my hair because of the increased cancer risk.
Click to expand...
yes I read about that some time ago...

It's quite amazing how the hair dye gets into the blood stream. A friend , had mousey hair and from about the age of 20 she dyed her hair carrot red... her husband was blonde. There was no red hair in any of their families.. her first 2 boys were blonde.. her third came out with such red hair you would have thought he was Irish... and to this day in his 40's it's never faded...
 
I have been dying my hair for 30 years. A year ago I quit when I read that. It will take another year for all the dye to be cut off.
 
Della said:
I look at the young girls and want to tell them to appreciate their beautiful smooth skin while they have it.
Later on it won't really matter if they look like they fell asleep on the funny papers.

Here's this year's winner of Survivor:

GHiSsybbUAAiuD_.jpg
Click to expand...
They call it "art". I call it ugly, especially these gals in wedding dresses.

I've wondered for a long time if putting ink on your skin why it wouldn't be absorbed INTO your skin and then into your bloodstream. Guess I'm just a different generation (Boomer).
 
Murrmurr said:
Do you know if the tattoos were newer? Old tattoo ink is very different from newer inks. I've heard that some of the newer inks contain metals that make tattoos bright and colorful....and chemicals, too.
Click to expand...
hollydolly said:
it's all in the article Frank....
Click to expand...
No, doesn't say. It talks about tattoo ink, but it's not comparing it to old ink...tattoo ink from the 40s, 50s, and up through the 70s, when a lot of military guys were coming home with tattoos, and their tats were just blue ink.

I'm guessing it's newer tat ink that might be causing cancers.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top