SexyBetty said:Whats the point if no one can see them?
Unless your names Otacon
PeterNem said:I'm not really a fan of tats for a few reasons:
a) one day you'll probably regret having it done
b) when you get old and your skin loses it's elasticity they look saggy and crap
c) I think in some lines of work (professional services etc) they don't really suit the environment you'll be working in, they convey a negative image generally.
UV tattoos get around all of those.... They look funky on a night out, but by day nobody would ever know, and when you get old and wrinkley you just ignore places with UV light (going to clubs when you're 50+ isn't exactly that common is it!)
Brynn said:Please change your post, we really dont want to open that can of worms again
goldilocks said:hedge - so which tatoo inks are carcinogens? decent artists will only use FDA approved inks, and as far as i'm aware there is no reason to believe that tattoos 'cause cancer' - at all
- It contains NO phosphors
- It is NOT radio active
- It DOES NOT contain EverGlow
- It does NOT cause cancer
- It has FDA approval as a Spectral Marking [tattoo] Pigment that was developed for use in tracking [tattooing] animals and fish - and yes the same ones we eat, and has been tested and used with NO adverse reaction in humans for over 10 years.
- the florescent dye is completely safe and has NO carcinogen and is human safe and does not spread or “blow out” because the dye is contained and it never even touches the skin because of the PMMA shell.
More info, go to cra