There does appear to be a normalization going on, though; in my line of work (F500 consulting), I’ve seen multiple examples of prominent tattoos on both the consultant and client/buyer side (mostly tribal sleeve/neck ink on men). It’s still unusual enough to remark on, but I suspect in a decade or so will either be completely unremarkable, or else the slightly-embarrassing if harmless remnants of a dated fad.
Given the health risks, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Many pigments are made out of heavy metals [0], and while it might have immune benefits, it's for the same reason as bee stings (a minor irritant that keeps it on its toes). The difference is that bee stings don't contain heavy metals.
They've also struck me as a bit tacky (like most other fads), the difference of course being that they're permanent.
>>Given the health risks, I'm not sure that's a good thing
There's also "health risks" in going to a restaurant, or storing bleach in your home. You show me a study that gives a marked decline in health or life expectancy among heavily tattooed individuals, or else this is just some low quality fear mongering.
I think judging people is extremely tacky, especially when you do so in a way that makes you sound poorly informed about the subject matter. We get it, you don't like tattoos or how they look. That's really your problem though, nobody else's. Policing other people's bodies is a bad look.
How could I "policing other people's bodies"? I can't police any thing; I'm not a policeman and neither can nor ought to enforce my ideas on others.
I linked something above with respect to heavy metals; Scientific American is generally considered a good source. It lists infection risk, mercury exposure, and exposure to numerous other heavy metals as risks. I also imagine that these risks are increased with removal, as the ink must be broken up and processed by the body. Ancients mainly used ash, as I understand it, which is certainly lower risk than heavy metals. In any case, it seems to have very little reward for a high risk.
This is anecdotal, but I know some body who nearly had her leg amputated below the knee because of a chronic wound caused by an ankle tattoo becoming infected. This is doubly risky in light of the recent uptick in drug-resistant bacteria.
> I think judging people is extremely tacky, especially when you do so in a way that makes you sound poorly informed about the subject matter.
I'm not judging a person over all, rather I am saying a choice he made may have been unwise. If the evidence I have provided is wrong, let me know why. It is the choice of any man what he does with his body, but that doesn't mean it's not okay to discuss the medical risks. Many people around here seem open to discussing the effects of other risky behaviors; why is it not okay to discuss the effects of this one?
