Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Developing Tattoo Removal Cream
BarbaraHudson writes During tattooing, ink is injected into the skin, initiating an immune response, and cells called "macrophages" move into the area and "eat up" the ink. The macrophages carry some of the ink to the body's lymph nodes, but some that are filled with ink stay put, embedded in the skin. That's what makes the tattoo visible under the skin. Dalhousie Uiversity's Alec Falkenham is developing a topical cream that works by targeting the macrophages that have remained at the site of the tattoo. New macrophages move in to consume the previously pigment-filled macrophages and then migrate to the lymph nodes, eventually taking all the dye with them. "When comparing it to laser-based tattoo removal, in which you see the burns, the scarring, the blisters, in this case, we've designed a drug that doesn't really have much off-target effect," he said. "We're not targeting any of the normal skin cells, so you won't see a lot of inflammation. In fact, based on the process that we're actually using, we don't think there will be any inflammation at all and it would actually be anti-inflammatory."
Getting a tattoo may or may not be stupid, it depends on the circumstances. But I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where having a tattoo removed is stupid.
On the plus side, it makes it much easier to get rid of that tattoo I got last night while drunk.
On the minus side, it makes it much easier for someone to remove your tattoo in your sleep.
Why would you want something that is not permanent?
I know a porn star who has some prominent tattoos that are not permanent (possibly Henna that she has re-inked). They are her trademark, but also an exit strategy from the porn biz. Retire, take a vacation to let the ink fade. Then she can go out in public as the woman who looks like that porn star, but without the tats.
Have gnu, will travel.
This could help out a lot of misguided kids who went and uglified themselves, can't figure out why they keep getting rejected for jobs, can't wear a nice dress without looking like an octopus puked on them, or otherwise have defecated all over their skin.
Some ex-prisoners, too. Nothing like prison tats to mark you as an outcast, with all the social and financial downsides that involves (besides the complete drop to permanently lowest-class unemployable for most, I mean.)
Most tats -- not all, a very few are actually amazing bits of art -- aren't worth getting, and even fewer are worth keeping, confirmation bias and pure stubbornness notwithstanding.
This stuff works, though, and it'll change the entire nature of the industry. The idea that these aren't permanent will change the motivation and the sense of commitment, which could cut down on some of the outright stupidity. And for those who go forward, they'd no longer be outright screwing themselves when the styles change, or they run into one of the (many) bosses who view them as a mark of abject stupidity. Even that outlook might change, based on the knowledge that they aren't permanent -- I could see some saying, "You can work the returns counter as soon as you get 'John luvz Mary' off your forehead."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I had a friend who was in the Marines when he was in this late teen years in the early 1950's. In the mid 80's he showed it to me. I was just a round blotch of blue/gray.
Tattoo ink migrates over time. Muscle and skin age and change their shape. It's guaranteed that a tattoo will not stay the same as time passes. It will only look worse.
By the way, the reason that sailors and marines get tattoos is in case they are blown to pieces. A distinctive tattoo on a limb makes it more likely that that body part will be recognized by the survivors. That's why there are often tats on different limbs.
Whens someone gets a tat, and then says that it's to mark a point in their life, I often wonder if that means they are planning for future senility, or being blown apart. Just wondering...
Why is Snark Required?