Disappearing Ink

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20071013/bob8.asp
"Tattoo technology for modern impermanence."
By Corinna Wu

Although tattoos are frequently represented in a negative light, due to the progression of our society, it has become something of a ritual, for young people especially, to get a tattoo. Men and women alike are permanently marking their bodies, and the tattoo business is flourishing as a result. But nearly twenty percent of all people who get a tattoo are dissatisfied with the product, and while the removal process is long and painful, the business of removing tattoos is almost as plentiful as the business of creating them.
The process of removing a tattoo involves using a laser to destroy the pigments so the body can absorb and clear them. While it is expensive and only partly successful, many people still undergo the multiple treatments, with the knowledge that they may be scarred or disfigured for the rest of their lives.
The art of tattooing has been around for years, and is practiced in many different countries and cultures. The earliest forms of ink included charcoal, but tattooing falls under the regulations of the Food and Drug Administrations, and consequently, the ingredients of the ink must meet certain standards. However, despite the growing popularity and suspicious rumors surrounding the pigments and inks used, the actual practice of tattooing is determined by local and state authorities, who claim they have no reason to suspect tattooing is detrimental to the health of those who receive tattoos. The main concern surrounding tattoos is not actually the ink, but the needle itself. Without proper sanitation procedures, the needles may pass along diseases, like HIV or hepatitis, to unsuspecting victims.
The needles, attached to an electronic machine referred to as a "gun", puncture the skin and leave series of holes to be filled with the ink. While the needle creates the holes and the ink flows into them, macrophages absorb the ink and hold them permanently. The macrophage protects the ink from being cleared away and fading. But the size of the ink pigments must be correct; not bigger than the macrophages can ingest, but not small enough that they can be digested.
While tattoos can supply medical applications as well as personal satisfaction, a significant portion of people who choose to receive tattoos also choose to remove them. And since the removal process is far from perfect, two modern tattoo artists, Klitzman and Koger, have developed an idea for disappearing ink. The ink would be encapsulated in a polymer, which would release the pigments when exposed to a specific sort of energy. With the help of Ron Anderson, a dermatologist at Harvard Medical School, and his team, the Freedom-2 inks company was founded. The Freedom-2 inks are surrounded by polymer beads in the ideal shape and size as to be perfectly ingested by the macrophage cells. Included in these beads are some sort of dopant that absorbs light and explodes the bead for easy, one-session removal. The Freedom-2 inks boast ingredients that are approved safe by the FDA, and Klitzman believes this disappearing ink will not only benefit the medical side of tattooing, but push the art and science of tattooing to the next stage.
While the creators of Freedom-2 ink acknowledge that different tattoo artists hold different ideals to be true, it is universally known that circumstances change, and many people would embrace the opportunity to make their tattoos reflect those changes. They state that tattoos are designed and made to be permanent; but the option of removing it later may give comfort to anyone seriously considering getting a tattoo.

SUMMARY:
I found this article both fascinating and disturbing. My dad has alot of tattoos, and while he would have done some of them differently, he doesn't regret getting any of them. Because of this, I am somewhat questioning the whole "disappearing ink" idea due to the fact that I honestly believe tattoos are to be permanent. I think if you are going to get a tattoo, it has to be a mature, well-thought out decision. And I believe if you are willing to mark your body, you should be willing to live with the consequences of your actions. On the other hand, I agree that the circumstances that once influenced a person to get a tattoo may have inevitably changed. But while I believe it is a foolish idea to tattoo someone's name on your body in the first place, I cannot disagree with the thought of going back and changing our decisions, even if they are as mundane as tattoos. Despite my conflicting thoughts on the morality of tattoos and their permanence, I think the science involved in creating and manufacturing the Freedom-2 ink is brilliant. And while I knew that tattoo guns made holes in your skin with needles, and filled them with the ink, and that the removal process was painful, I found the disappearing ink to be ingenious, if not practical. I think many people will embrace the idea, depending on its success in the upcoming years. And since the ingredients in the pigments will be safer, and the removal process will be easier, less costly, less painful, and only require one treatment, it will only contribute to the success of Freedom-2. However, I still believe tattoos are permanent, and I agree with the creators of the ink when they encourage people to think carefully before making a decision.