So um yeah seemingly I did have five minutes free in my oh so high octane life.
Here:
Q) Alright, a relative of mine recently got a small tattoo removed. It was not done with a "laser," because it was mostly red ink. Rather, she told me they cut the tattoo off, and then stretched the skin around and sutured the wound.
As I have no interest in removing tattoos, I know nothing about this. I know that red ink is sometimes made with different pigments than other ink, but that's about the extent of my knowledge. What's the deal with this?
victoria
A) a quick trip to Google.com found this for us: "Laser tattoo removal works by delivering extremely high energy and shattering the tattoo ink particle without destroying the surrounding skin. The reason a tattoo remains on the skin is because the pigment granules are so large that the body can't disperse them. The laser uses the wave length of the pigment and breaks the particles apart to help the body absorb it."
That having said- its true that it's difficult to remove red and green pigment- it has to do with the Ruby laser's frequency and the frequency of the pigments.
Shawn Porter
Source: http://www.bmezine.com/
Also suggested, click on
http://www.bmezine.com/faq.html . Click on Tattoo FAQ and then the removal section on the next screen. It discusses removal procedures/costs I believe; although may not be too up to date as some other resources.
After that, Google/Yahoo are bound to come up with some new stuff. Good luck.
Nothing about black ink or black skin there though, maybe it was red ink. The laser problems with black skin were discussed in a recent newspaper article which talked about a new laser for hair removal where previously darker skin tones could not be used with the lasers as darker skin burnt (in the same manner blonde hairs didn't remove so well as dark ones). I may've got mixed up over the two lasers so just wanted to clarify origins of the remark. Thanks.
Threaded Mode