Do you have a tattoo?

[luiza]

nah.

Unfortunately exactly the opposite based on recent Research .

Always best to check claims before switching into Cognitive Rigidity mode .

But aesthetically the world will be far more attractive and tasteful without so many ugly people sporting fifth rate crude "art" on their bodies .
imho .

 

[sparky]

I have some very old tats......but they were all gained during my youth with friends that have since passed......that's the thing yanno..... i really miss them being around talkin' up our youthful debaucheries.... ~S~

 

[luiza]

I have some very old tats......but they were all gained during my youth with friends that have since passed......that's the thing yanno..... i really miss them being around talkin' up our youthful debaucheries.... ~S~

Hope you are one of the lucky ones .

Methods​

We performed a case–control study where we identified all incident cases of malignant lymphoma diagnosed between 2007 and 2017 in individuals aged 20–60 years in the Swedish National Cancer Register. Three random age- and sex-matched controls per case were sampled from the Total Population Register using incidence density sampling. We assessed exposure through a questionnaire in 2021, and data on potential confounders were retrieved from registers. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of malignant lymphoma in tattooed individuals.

Findings​

The study population consisted of 11,905 individuals, and the response rate was 54% among cases (n = 1398) and 47% among controls (n = 4193). The tattoo prevalence was 21% among cases and 18% among controls. Tattooed individuals had a higher adjusted risk of overall lymphoma (IRR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.99–1.48). The risk of lymphoma was highest in individuals with less than two years between their first tattoo and the index year (IRR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.03–3.20). The risk decreased with intermediate exposure duration (three to ten years) but increased again in individuals who received their first tattoo ≥11 years before the index year (IRR = 1.19; 95% CI 0.94–1.50). We found no evidence of increasing risk with a larger area of total tattooed body surface. The risk associated with tattoo exposure seemed to be highest for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (IRR 1.30; 95% CI 0.99–1.71) and follicular lymphoma (IRR 1.29; 95% CI 0.92–1.82).

Interpretation​

Our findings suggested that tattoo exposure was associated with an increased risk of malignant lymphoma.

 

[sparky]

Hope you are one of the lucky ones .

They're all gone, i'm still here Lu......

~S~

 

[Norm Paperman]

Unfortunately exactly the opposite based on recent Research .

According to a single study out of Sweden that found no direct evidence of causation.

 

[Norm Paperman]

Hope you are one of the lucky ones .

Methods​

We performed a case–control study where we identified all incident cases of malignant lymphoma diagnosed between 2007 and 2017 in individuals aged 20–60 years in the Swedish National Cancer Register. Three random age- and sex-matched controls per case were sampled from the Total Population Register using incidence density sampling. We assessed exposure through a questionnaire in 2021, and data on potential confounders were retrieved from registers. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of malignant lymphoma in tattooed individuals.

Findings​

The study population consisted of 11,905 individuals, and the response rate was 54% among cases (n = 1398) and 47% among controls (n = 4193). The tattoo prevalence was 21% among cases and 18% among controls. Tattooed individuals had a higher adjusted risk of overall lymphoma (IRR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.99–1.48). The risk of lymphoma was highest in individuals with less than two years between their first tattoo and the index year (IRR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.03–3.20). The risk decreased with intermediate exposure duration (three to ten years) but increased again in individuals who received their first tattoo ≥11 years before the index year (IRR = 1.19; 95% CI 0.94–1.50). We found no evidence of increasing risk with a larger area of total tattooed body surface. The risk associated with tattoo exposure seemed to be highest for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (IRR 1.30; 95% CI 0.99–1.71) and follicular lymphoma (IRR 1.29; 95% CI 0.92–1.82).

Interpretation​

Our findings suggested that tattoo exposure was associated with an increased risk of malignant lymphoma.

You forgot the link

 

[Lisa558]

The black ink that is used for tattoos apparently has carcinogenic chemicals.

Do Tattoos Cause Cancer? Here's What the Latest Science Says.

New research suggests that there might be a correlation between tattoo ink and cancer— but don't freak out just yet

www.menshealth.com

 

[MarathonMike]

None. I don't get it, especially going all down your arms, or neck or UGH! your face. But to each their own.

 

[Norm Paperman]

The black ink that is used for tattoos apparently has carcinogenic chemicals.

Do Tattoos Cause Cancer? Here's What the Latest Science Says.

New research suggests that there might be a correlation between tattoo ink and cancer— but don't freak out just yet

www.menshealth.com

New research suggests that there might be a correlation between tattoo ink and cancer

Might be....

The study itself is pretty interesting. For anyone that is interested in the study....https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/pmid/38827888/

Some of their findings...

It seems intuitive that a larger tattooed body surface would infer a greater health risk than a small tattoo, but we did not find evidence of an exposure-response relationship even though we collapsed the higher exposure categories to reduce the risk of exposure misclassification. Likewise, we did not observe a distinct difference in risk associated with the different colour schemes despite the distinct differences in the chemical composition of black and coloured inks.

and last but not least...

Causality cannot be conferred from a single epidemiologic study and the results need to be confirmed by further research.