Pinning and tattoos

[totalrecomp]

Did a search and did not find anything on this. Was wondering if anyone knows if you can pin through a tattoo. Thanks in advance.

 

[crazy_j]

I have pinned through many of my tats. There is no problem with doing it. Tattoos are put on with needles, so sticking a needle in a tat is nothing new to that spot. Tatts only go through a few layers of skin anyway and your needle will go alot further than that.

 

[crazy_j]

No you can't.

Tattoos make the skin impervious to needle sticks.

LOL. I have 2 full sleeves, so that must mean I can get shot in my arm and the bullet would bounce off, lmao.

 

[totalrecomp]

I was mostly concerned with damaging the work rather than whether or not I would be physically capable of doing it. Thanks for the replies.

 

[crazy_j]

I was mostly concerned with damaging the work rather than whether or not I would be physically capable of doing it. Thanks for the replies.

No you wont damage any of the work. I have had many many pins in my tats and no harm done to anything. Your good bro.

 

[Suffocation]

Im getting my first tattoo next wed and I was wondering the same thing.. lol

No you wont damage any of the work. I have had many many pins in my tats and no harm done to anything. Your good bro.

 

[UncleMings]

Did a search and did not find anything on this. Was wondering if anyone knows if you can pin through a tattoo. Thanks in advance.

I have 9 tats myself. never a prob and never damaged the work either.

 

[SacToSD]

No you can't.

Tattoos make the skin impervious to needle sticks.

bilbo baggins!

 

[crazy_j]

That is absolutely correct. Our logic is flawless.

I have an appointment to get half my leg tatted next month, if I keep it up I will be bullet proof, lmao.

 

[EVERLAST]

wtf???

No you can't.

Tattoos make the skin impervious to needle sticks.

How about bullets?

 

[nziegs]

No you can't.

Tattoos make the skin impervious to needle sticks.

ha...i hope you are joking

 

[Doomed Messiah]

Yes you can.

 

[FasTwitch]

My 1st inclination would be regarding the syringe "coring" and deposit of ink pigment in areas they should not be (IM, deep Subq). Many tats over the times have used ink that is not approved and contains possible toxic chems that although fine in the shallow dermis may not be that good in deeper tissues

It is definitely a concern for some (not all) medical professionals with regards to epidurals and spinal taps as carried fragments of possible toxic pigments could be detrimenal.

Just a thought:

Vasold et al. provided in vitro evidence that the tattoo pigments, (industrial

pigments not intended for human use by the chemical industry but rather to stain consumer goods) contain toxic and carcinogenic compounds, such as 2-ethyl-5-nitroaniline, 2,5-dichloraniline and 4-nitro-toluene4. More organic pigments are being used, yet the individual being tattooed or the tattoo artist may not know the composition of the ink. Hollow needles, with or without a stylet entrap tissue fragments (cores) in the bore as they pass into deeper tissues5. It is possible that introducing a needle through the pigment of a tattoo may result in a tissue core that contains pigment being introduced into deeper tissues. Subsequent injection may result in the entrapped tissue fragments containing pigment being deposited into the epidural, subdural, or subarachnoid spaces. The risk of introducing exogenous pigments into the epidural, subdural, or subarachnoid spaces may be clinically significant, because introducing exogenous pigments into these spaces may cause a chemically-induced arachnoiditis or result in the development of an epidermoid tumor.

 

[tbone01]

I was just wondering what the date was on that article you posted because artists no longer use any inks that are harmfull to there clients atleast not in a licensed shop.I run a shop and beleive me you have no worries of there being any issues with your pinning bro. Ive been doin it for 20 years and my worst problem is just the damn scar tissue,just my 2 cents,Peace T

 

[Ashop]

No you can't.

Tattoos make the skin impervious to needle sticks.

That made me laugh,,,I had to read it twice because for a second I took you serious.

 

[willpwr82]

one danger is getting an abscess or an infection of some sort in that spot and it needs to be cut open. you will have to deal with a nasty scar over your tat and the fact that the docs aint worried about fiting it back into the exact form when they stitch you up.
anyone remember that guy who needed open heart surgery on the spot or he was gonna die, and he sued the hospital cuz when the surgeons closed him back up they didnt put his tatoo back together the way it was. what a dick(if you value life)imo

 

[mekanikal]

You can tattoo scars just as easy as skin. There's a well known artist named Grime who has burns over a large portion of his body. He's had most of the scar tissue tatted..looks pretty cool. I've had a few surgical scars tatted and you can no longer see them..just feel them if you run your fingers over them. As far as pinning through them the only issue I can think of would be if you pinned the area right after you were tatted. Up to a few weeks out you would have a lot of localized inflammation packed full of purulent leukocytes, monocytes..nasty shit you would not want pushed into your muscles or god forbid a vein.

 

[FasTwitch]

I was just wondering what the date was on that article you posted because artists no longer use any inks that are harmfull to there clients atleast not in a licensed shop.I run a shop and beleive me you have no worries of there being any issues with your pinning bro. Ive been doin it for 20 years and my worst problem is just the damn scar tissue,just my 2 cents,Peace T

Thanks for the info.

However, I'm not sure that answers the question of what chemicals are deemed safe as long as they remain within the shallower layers of the dermis as opposed to those same "safe in the skin" chemicals being deposited into other areas of the body (muscle and deep sub q layers).

As per the FDA.gov (2009):

While state and local authorities oversee the practice of tattooing, ink and ink colorings (pigments) used in tattoos are subject to FDA regulation as cosmetics and color additives. However, because of other public health priorities and a previous lack of evidence of safety concerns, FDA has not traditionally regulated tattoo inks or the pigments used in them

Also as per a Chicago Tribine Atricle in last year:

The Chicago Tribune said that the FDA is aware of more than 50 pigments used in tattoo inks, none of which have been approved for injection into the skin. The federal agency said some of these pigments are "industrial strength colors suitable for printers' ink or automobile paint." But budget constraints and staffing issues have kept the tattoo dyes off of the FDA’s radar until now.

Since it appears the FDA only scrutinizes/regulates the safety of a smaller subset of tattoo ink under the same area as general cosmetics, this brings about the question I had regarding the safety of these inks deeper within the body tissues they are not meant to be in (via syringe pin deposition when injecting through them).

For instance, the FDA allows for Ferrocyanides such as Prussian Blue to be used in topical cosmetics, but NOT in lipsticks due to the possibility of injestion of ferrocyanide.

FDA does not approve the ingredient’s use on lipsticks or any product that is meant to be applied on the lips due to the possibility of ingestion. For safety and public awareness, FDA imparts a strict rule of including Ferric Ferrocyanide in the list of ingredients of makeup lines that contain the ingredient.

By the same approval, Ferrocyanides are used in tattoo ink as of 2005 (maybe you can verify this list of pigments from 2005, 1/4 way down the page: http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa121602a.htm)

Seems if ferrocyanides have concern for ingestion in lipstick, I would also apply the principal to a transfer of pigment from dermis into an internal tissue depot that could impart similar concerns.

So, as far as I have read, the inks used are mostly metal salts and some plastic based formulations. Are we certain that what is acceptable cosmentically/topically (even by FDA) in tattoos is also proven safe within deeper tissues when pinned through?

Probably not a big deal in reality IMO due to the tiny amount of possible transfer, but still something to be aware of.

Maybe, you as a tattoo artist, could shed more light on this question. It would be greatly appreciated as this has peaked my curiosity.

 

[crazy_j]

one danger is getting an abscess or an infection of some sort in that spot and it needs to be cut open. you will have to deal with a nasty scar over your tat and the fact that the docs aint worried about fiting it back into the exact form when they stitch you up.
anyone remember that guy who needed open heart surgery on the spot or he was gonna die, and he sued the hospital cuz when the surgeons closed him back up they didnt put his tatoo back together the way it was. what a dick(if you value life)imo

It would indeed suck if you got an abcess right in your tat because if it had to be drained it would mess it up. And yes the guy that sued for the tat getting put back wrong after his life was saved is a D**K.

You can tattoo scars just as easy as skin. There's a well known artist named Grime who has burns over a large portion of his body. He's had most of the scar tissue tatted..looks pretty cool. I've had a few surgical scars tatted and you can no longer see them..just feel them if you run your fingers over them. As far as pinning through them the only issue I can think of would be if you pinned the area right after you were tatted. Up to a few weeks out you would have a lot of localized inflammation packed full of purulent leukocytes, monocytes..nasty shit you would not want pushed into your muscles or god forbid a vein.

I have had some scars tatted over as well as some stretch marks, which are scars too. The tats turned out perfect, you cant tell at all there were scars there.

Thanks for the info.

However, I'm not sure that answers the question of what chemicals are deemed safe as long as they remain within the shallower layers of the dermis as opposed to those same "safe in the skin" chemicals being deposited into other areas of the body (muscle and deep sub q layers).

As per the FDA.gov (2009):



Also as per a Chicago Tribine Atricle in last year:



Since it appears the FDA only scrutinizes/regulates the safety of a smaller subset of tattoo ink under the same area as general cosmetics, this brings about the question I had regarding the safety of these inks deeper within the body tissues they are not meant to be in (via syringe pin deposition when injecting through them).

For instance, the FDA allows for Ferrocyanides such as Prussian Blue to be used in topical cosmetics, but NOT in lipsticks due to the possibility of injestion of ferrocyanide.



By the same approval, Ferrocyanides are used in tattoo ink as of 2005 (maybe you can verify this list of pigments from 2005, 1/4 way down the page: http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa121602a.htm)

Seems if ferrocyanides have concern for ingestion in lipstick, I would also apply the principal to a transfer of pigment from dermis into an internal tissue depot that could impart similar concerns.

So, as far as I have read, the inks used are mostly metal salts and some plastic based formulations. Are we certain that what is acceptable cosmentically/topically (even by FDA) in tattoos is also proven safe within deeper tissues when pinned through?

Probably not a big deal in reality IMO due to the tiny amount of possible transfer, but still something to be aware of.

Maybe, you as a tattoo artist, could shed more light on this question. It would be greatly appreciated as this has peaked my curiosity.

Now when I seen this it made me wonder about tats as far as the metal thing. I have alot of tats and I recently had some mris done and there was a question on the form I filled out asking if I had tats. Now what I am told is any metal within your body would be messed with by the magnet of the mri machine. I had to get x-rays of my orbitals to make sure there was no metal in my eyes from when I worked at a metal shop many many years ago. Now if tat ink has metal in it then shouldnt my tats have been really messed up during the 2 hour mri that I just did? I am really curious now!