NaK
Hazard to Self
Posts: 83
Registered: 12-9-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
Interesting side note - EU is banning tattoo colors
REACH has reached a new level: now they are banning over 4000 ingredients in tattoo colors, including two very important pigments that are non-toxic
and used for years without any issues. The industry says there are no replacements available so they'll need to develop new ones nobody knows anything
about at all.
Those fuckers are mad. There are not many things that make you envy UK citizens but not having to deal with stupid EU regulations is definitely up
there.
https://www.expaturm.com/german-lifestyle/eu-bans-tattoo-ink...
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's an interesting way to announce that an industry has been injecting people for years using chemicals where there is no record of safety testing.
Is barium sulphate exempted?
|
|
|
RustyShackleford
Hazard to Others
Posts: 200
Registered: 10-12-2020
Location: Northern Europe
Member Is Offline
|
|
here is the list of chemicals that are affected.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1716
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
I'm with unionsed. Most people get the tattoos under the assumption that it's safe.
Allergic reactions is a very real risk:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32768611/
[Edited on 1-11-21 by Fulmen]
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
In summary...
"Substances falling within one or more of the
following points:
(a) substances classified as any of the following in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation
(EC) No 1272/2008:
— carcinogen category 1A, 1B or 2, or
germ cell mutagen category 1A, 1B or
2, but excluding any such substances
classified due to effects only following
exposure by inhalation
— reproductive toxicant category 1A,
1B or 2 but excluding any such substances classified due to effects only
following exposure by inhalation
— skin sensitiser category 1, 1A or 1B
— skin corrosive category 1, 1A, 1B or
1C or skin irritant category 2
— serious eye damage category 1 or eye
irritant category 2
Shall not be placed on the market in mixtures for use for tattooing
purposes, and mixtures containing any such substances shall not
be used for tattooing purposes, after 4 January 2022
In what way(s) is that a bad thing?
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by NaK  |
Those fuckers are mad. There are not many things that make you envy UK citizens but not having to deal with stupid EU regulations is definitely up
there.
|
The relevant UK legislation is exactly the same but with "Europe" crossed out and "Britain" written on in crayon.
Our manufacturers are likely to end up filling in both sets of paperwork.
This is called "taking back control".
|
|
|
Belowzero
Hazard to Others
Posts: 173
Registered: 6-5-2020
Location: Member Is Offline
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by NaK | There are not many things that make you envy UK citizens but not having to deal with stupid EU regulations is definitely up there.
|
There are and there will be, they dodged a bullet, a whole truckload of bullets.
We will continue down this path until we hit a wall.
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
The two common colors are green 7 and blue 15:3.
They are delaying banning those.
Industry has time to test those otherwise they can reasonably be assumed to be endocrin disruptors as they are phthalate derivates.
The rest is stuff that are known irritants or carcinogens.
The two colors are likely not to cause much issue since they are really insoluble which is pretty much what you need for tatoo ink. Something with
extremely low solubility in both polar and non-polar solvents.
|
|
|
Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
I don't fully see these as a negative things, although it should be in the decision of people what to put in their mouth or stick to their skin in the
end.
However, saying that anyone would be envious to UK people would be highly exaggerated. That country has been notorious for banning everything and
anything, and now that they are off the Union, they can not just simply order the stuff from other countries.
As long as any crap is not banned per se, but in context, everything's fine. For example, banning mercury in consumer and industrial products is a
good thing because it prevents from using it in any production phase for the safety of the workers or contaminating people. Many industries have had
bad long term track record and the attitude has been mostly "you just have to deal with it" when you get leukemia or CNS related illnesses in later
age. As long as it's still available as a research chemical for laboratory use, we'll be fine. Also, the exposure from occasional lab work is much,
much smaller than +8h shifts in industry where stuff is handled by the ton, year after year.
|
|
|
Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
For the record,
This is all you need to read. Distributing those substances for non-tattooing purposes is not a problem.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
