From: smirzo@example.com   
      
   D Finnigan  writes:   
      
   > On 2/24/25 4:28 PM, D wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm not a religious person in the traditional sense of the word, but   
   >>> turns out I find myself one of the most religious person I've ever met   
   >>> because patience, perseverance, lack of ambition and a certain mastery   
   >>> of the art of listening seem pretty religious to me.  For instance,   
   >>> pretty much every religious person I know has at least one tattoo on   
   >>> their skin.  I think that's totally non-religious because a tattoo   
   >>> effectively destroys (at least a bit) something natural that took a   
   >>> zillion years to be prepared---to protect the person.  I think that if   
   >>> God speaks to us at all, it is done through the movement of nature.   
   >>   
   >> Never been a fan of tattoos. But in my case it is a conservative   
   >> upbringing where tattoos where seen as low class. It is strange how   
   >> things like that still stick with you. On the other hand, it is   
   >> permanent, and since I don't have anything permanent to say, I don't   
   >> really see why I should get a tattoo.   
   >   
   > Most intelligent people realize that the subcutaneous inks used in   
   > tattooing cause cancer. It's not difficult to predict, when one   
   > observes that most all foreign substances admitted to the body   
   > (whether by breathing, ingestion, etc) lead to cancer.   
      
   That's indeed the impression I get from reading on various health   
   subjects as a lay person.  Would you happen to know of a paper on such   
   inks on skin and cancer?   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)