Tattoo ink exposure associated with lymphoma, skin cancers – Danish study of twins

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ripcord

Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
8,616
Location
Pacific Northwest
I came across this article that summarizes a Danish study showing big increases in the rate of certain cancers for individuals with palm sized or larger tattoos. They looked at identical twins where one twin had large tattoos and found the tattooed twins had a 2.7x rate of lymphoma and 2.37x rate of skin cancer. The researchers speculate that the ink that travels and is captured in the lymph nodes is the cause of higher rates of lymphoma.

What do you think? Is this a bogus study or not? I've posted a link to the article and also the actual published study below.

https://studyfinds.org/tattoo-ink-skin-cancer-lymphoma/

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-21413-3

Disclosure statement for scientific accuracy: I don't like girls with tattoos. 😁
 
Last edited:
As someone that has had a few suspicious skin lesions removed, I cover up when I'm in the sun. As a non-tattoo person, I've observed that some people with tattoos like to show them off and don't cover up when in the sun. So, could be additional exposure to sunlight which is something the study should have controlled for.
 
ripcord said:
I came across this article that summarizes a Danish study showing big increases in the rate of certain cancers for individuals with palm sized or larger tattoos. They looked at identical twins where one twin had large tattoos and found the tattooed twins had a 2.7x rate of lymphoma and 2.37x rate of skin cancer. The researchers speculate that the ink that travels and is captured in the lymph nodes is the cause of higher rates of lymphoma.

What do you think? Is this a bogus study or not? I've posted a link to the article and also the actual published study below.

https://studyfinds.org/tattoo-ink-skin-cancer-lymphoma/

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-21413-3

Disclosure statement for scientific accuracy: I don't like girls with tattoos. 😁
Click to expand...
What I think and what I know are different. My thoughts are that a Tattoo with whatever ink could be absorbed into the body.
All of the bad things we do can lead to Cancer, I did not click the Link because maybe the Ink in the 70's and 80's was different from what is available today.
 
I found this from Harvard health.
I have seen much the same coverage in the news as the OP.

At the present time this no definitive link. But as the article that I have posted states that these inks contain carcinogenics and you’re injecting them into the skin, further more there have been traces found in lymph nodes.
I don’t think I would be concerned, but in this day and age with so many chemicals running around our bodies I don’t know if I would want to add anymore. I have nothing against tattoos for those who wish to have them.
Including my adult son and daughter

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/do-tattoos-cause-lymphoma-202407193059
 
Last edited:
I know nothing of the study, and have no opinion on tatoos (live and let live). But it seems like its a fairly well controlled study?

Are all tattoo inks the same, and have been since 1960?

The study’s lead author, Signe Bedsted Clemmensen, along with colleagues at the University of Southern Denmark, analyzed data from two complementary twin studies – a case-control study of 316 twins and a cohort study of 2,367 randomly selected twins born between 1960 and 1996. The team created a specialized “Danish Twin Tattoo Cohort” that allowed them to control for genetic and environmental factors when examining cancer outcomes among tattooed and non-tattooed individuals.
 
Last edited:
wwillson said:
In the book "Outlive" the Dr that wrote it makes the point that most medical studies have little validity because it is impossible to control the variables.
Click to expand...

There are no standards for tattoo inks. They also do not originate from the same source(s). I have tattoos on my left arm. I worry more about the buildup of microplastics in my body and my past exposure to the sun when I worked landscaping for coin during my college years.

I'm also relatively jaded when it comes to many modern studies as far too much seems to be predicated upon the funder. I'm not casting a stone on the OP's link as I haven't read or researched it's origins.
 
I believe the human skin is the largest physical part of your physiological immune system. It seems to me that common sense would dictate that it may not be advantageous to inject it with a foreign chemical(s) that remains in it as a permanent part of the skin layer.

Please also view (if you have further interest) of what takes place (as simulated) when injecting the ink for said tatoo processe(s).

 
wwillson said:
In the book "Outlive" the Dr that wrote it makes the point that most medical studies have little validity because it is impossible to control the variables.
Click to expand...
No study is perfect but identical twin studies are some of the most powerful. They have identical genetic make up, and and an identical or at least very similar upbringing. They usually live in the same country and often have a similar social network. Identical twins often even "hang out together".

The only thing that would make them more powerful would be assigning exposures to identical twins. "You're getting tattoos Fred, and no tattoos for you Bert." Obviously we can't do that.
 
As an organic chemist, I would never put tattoo ink in my skin! What's in it? Are metals used to get colors? What are the contaminants? Where was it made? How does everything in the ink interact with medicines you may be taking? VERY RISKY!!

If you have to have one, get it when you are about 80 years old.
 
Boomer said:
As an organic chemist, I would never put tattoo ink in my skin! What's in it? Are metals used to get colors? What are the contaminants? Where was it made? How does everything in the ink interact with medicines you may be taking? VERY RISKY!!

If you have to have one, get it when you are about 80 years old.
Click to expand...

Or prison if you have to join a gang.
Just kidding.

If people want to get them, great good for them. I would never get any.
 
spasm3 said:
Are the lifestyles of people with lots, and large tattoos, the same as those with no tattoos?
Click to expand...
I mean, I'm a surgical scrub in the cardiac cath lab and have both sleeves done, and some leg pieces. I don't smoke, rarely drink, exercise daily (some days 2x per day), read books, etc. I don't think amount of tattoos correlates with quality of lifestyles.

Boomer said:
As an organic chemist, I would never put tattoo ink in my skin! What's in it? Are metals used to get colors? What are the contaminants? Where was it made? How does everything in the ink interact with medicines you may be taking? VERY RISKY!!

If you have to have one, get it when you are about 80 years old.
Click to expand...


Tattoo ink comes from various (reputable vs non reputable) sources. I pay a lot of money for my tattoos and the ink/needles are high quality.
Since I pay a lot of money for my tattoos, I cover them with UV blocking clothing if I cannot put sun screen on. To protect the ink and my skin.

If getting tattoos is what kills me, so be it. But I'm more likely to die in an accident or a heart attack. So is everybody else. Also, most older generation people who "would never get ink." Smoked for decades, which is HIGHLY associated with lung cancer. There is little (really no) real evidence of reputable sourced ink causing harm.
 
Fa24wrx said:
I mean, I'm a surgical scrub in the cardiac cath lab and have both sleeves done, and some leg pieces. I don't smoke, rarely drink, exercise daily (some days 2x per day), read books, etc. I don't think amount of tattoos correlates with quality of lifestyles.




Tattoo ink comes from various (reputable vs non reputable) sources. I pay a lot of money for my tattoos and the ink/needles are high quality.
Since I pay a lot of money for my tattoos, I cover them with UV blocking clothing if I cannot put sun screen on. To protect the ink and my skin.

If getting tattoos is what kills me, so be it. But I'm more likely to die in an accident or a heart attack. So is everybody else. Also, most older generation people who "would never get ink." Smoked for decades, which is HIGHLY associated with lung cancer. There is little (really no) real evidence of reputable sourced ink causing harm.
Click to expand...
Greetings fellow cath lab professional! You are in a noble line of work!

You make my point. When i said are the lifestyles of those with large and lots of tattoos the same as those without, i was making the point , that there are many variables. Many with tattoos live very clean healthy lifestyles, just as those without. Some do not. A study without controlled variables, and a control group, means little.

I don't put much faith in that study. But it is worth looking into going forward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom