You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #18: I wouldn't suggest [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I wouldn't suggest
Edited on Thu Jan-10-08 09:26 PM by GirlinContempt
I would show them the evidence and demand.
http://www.namaii.com/suck/
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20071216045129AAp7dFJ
http://www.tribalexpression.com/downloads/gunvsneedle.pdf
http://tattoo.about.com/cs/psafety/a/piercing_guns_2.htm
http://tattoo.about.com/cs/psafety/a/piercing_guns.htm

"The first concern when it comes to piercing is sterilization. Any kind of procedure which involves contact with blood or bodily fluids requires strict adherence to cross-contamination prevention.

Piercing guns are usually made with plastic and cannot be sterilized in an autoclave. Sure, they wipe it with alcohol or antiseptic in between uses, but how sterile is that? It is not unreasonable to guess that in a 2-week training course, these mall piercists are not being taught about infection control and blood-borne pathogens. A quick wipe with a sterile pad is not effective in removing disease-carrying blood.

Some will argue that the piercing gun never comes in contact directly with the customer's skin. This might be true, but the piercers hands do - if they touch the customers skin and then touch the gun, the gun is now contaminated. Period. And when the gun drives the stud through the flesh, if the skin starts to bleed there is no way of knowing whether or not tiny particles of blood could have been dispersed into the air contaminating everything around it.

Sterility is just one of the possible problems with gun piercing. Tissue trauma is another. The gun forces a blunt stud through the skin, causing it to literally rip in order to make room for the jewelry. Then, it pinches the back of the jewelry in place snugly against the skin, allowing no way for the new wound to breathe and heal properly. The customer is then told to turn the jewelry a couple times a day, which only further pushes growing bacteria into the wound, causing infection.

True, many customers get pierced with guns and never have any problems with it. But why put yourself at risk when there is a safer, less painful way to go about it? "

Pro piercing is less painful, safer, less prone to infection, the jewelry is of higher quality and better for the skin, it's easier to clean and maintain ESPECIALLY for a child, pro piercers are TRAINED PROFESSIONALS, not clerks in a cheap jewelry store or salon.
This is important. Really. Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC