|
1. Study A – the “USA study” from
Title / Source: Tattooing and risk of melanoma: a population-based case-control study
Published in: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
What it says:
• To have get tattoos once (so only one occasion) was connected to something higher melanoma risk than never tattoo.
• But nevertheless more tattoo opportunities you had, the more lower risk for melanoma synthesis: with four or more sessions low risk significantly lower than in non-tattooed people.
• People with three or more large tattoos also had lower risk than non-tattooed people.
• For those who got tattoos early in life, the risk of invasive melanoma seemed to be lower than for non-tattooed people.
The researchers themselves point out:
The result is paradoxically – in this American population is seen more tattoo → less melanoma , which does not support hypothesis that tattooing would increase the risk. But this may be due to invisible differences in lifestyle or other factors not captured in the study .
2. Study B – “Lund University study” from
Title / Source: Does tattoo exposure increase the risk of cutaneous melanoma? ( published in European Journal of Epidemiology )
What it says:
• In this Swedish study, researchers found that tattooed people had about a 29% higher risk for melanoma compared to non-tattooed people, after adjusting for factors such as UV exposure, skin type and sun habits.
• The increase was consistent in multiple sensitivity analyses, for both in situ and invasive melanomas.
• They did not find a clear link between the size of the tattoos and the risk.
The researchers themselves write:
The results suggests on that tattoos may be a risk factor , but they again emphasize that this does not prove a causal relationship and that more studies are needed to understand the mechanisms.
3. Well done, Lund University? – A direct comparisonA) Contradictory results
The study from Utah seems to say something like:
“The more tattoos you have, the lower your risk of melanoma.”
While the study from Lund says:
“Tattooed people have higher melanoma risk than non-tattooed people.”
This is actually where we stand with two published, large case-control studies that point to opposite direction — which in the world of science is perfect for debate, but not a clear answer.
B) Different methods, different interpretations
The Utah study measured how much tattoo exposure one had (number of sessions, size, etc.), and saw that more sessions correlated with lower risk.
Lund study just looked at whether you were tattooed or not, and found one increased risk.
This means in practice that the two surveys are not studying exactly the same thing , which may explain why the results pull in different directions.
C) “Tattooed people are at risk of …” – depending on other factors
Both research teams present the same basic scientific caution:
• No study proves causality here.
• The results may be influenced by other factors (such as sun habits, immune system, lifestyle).
So: no one has yet been able to prove how toxic tattoo ink really is in the long run, and whether it really causes melanoma on its own.
4. Conclusion – scientific
If Lund University thought their analysis would be the world's definitive answer about tattoos causes melanoma, they probably felt a bit like that friend who loudly declares the truth of the world – while someone else has already published a study that says exactly the opposite .
This is exactly This is how science works :
- You try a method → get a result.
- Someone else tries a different method → gets a different result.
- Both sides remain with “needs more research” as a conclusion.
So, to everyone who thought the Swedish study was the truth – it turned out to be just a part of the truth , and notably not the final word in the debate about tattoos and melanoma.
|
