Anonymous asked:

Is it safe to get a piercing with anodized jewelry?

Saint Like Body Piercing Answer:

safepiercing:

Yes, anodized jewelry is perfectly safe for an initial piercing (assuming the jewelry itself is an implant grade material with a proper surface finish and appropriate threading). 

So, there’s two kinds of colored jewelry you’ll find with body jewelry. 

PVD (physical vapor deposition)

In a nutshell, this is considered bad for fresh piercings, and arguably for healed piercings too. 

This method of coloring jewelry consists of thin films of a material being applied to the jewelry via a vacuum deposition process. You have likely seen this kind of jewelry at some retail stores that carry costume-type body jewelry.

This added film of material has a tendency of flaking off rather quickly when worn inside a body piercing. This can be problematic as the jewelry becomes quite unpleasant looking, and the small flakes can sometimes cause discomfort or irritation in a fresh piercing. 

For jewelry that needs to be bent to get on or off, captive bead rings for instance, the coating is even more prone to flaking off as it cannot flex or bend with the metal, the coated material breaks off. 

The metals we use in body piercing that can be anodized (titanium & niobium) cannot naturally turn red, white, orange or super shiny black, so you can easily spot PVD coated jewelry when you see these colors. 

Here are some examples of jewelry that I found labeled as “anodized steel” or “matte finish steel”. These are bad. 

image

^^The blue color on top can be achieved when anodizing titanium or niobium, but the red cannot. These are both PVD coated steel pieces. 

image

^^Here is another example of a color that body jewelry cannot safely turn to. This one is labeled as a “matte finish steel” ring. This too is not appropriate for fresh piercings. 

Niobium can turn black, but that is done with a heating process, causing the metals color to turn black from the inside out, not just on the surface, and it’s perfectly safe and will not flake off.

Though niobium can have a very nice dark black finish, it’s not that Batman super super black you see on PVD coated pieces. 

Currently, no body jewelry manufacturer that offers PVD coated jewelry can provide documentation (MSDS) to show the material they’re coating with is safe for long term wear inside the body.


Here’s an example of niobium that has had the heating process to change it’s color naturally to black: 
image

Titanium or Niobium anodized jewelry achieves its colors in a process where electricity is introduced to the metal, and is perfectly safe for fresh and healed piercings.

There are other metals and alloys that can be anodized, and some can turn other colors, such as red, but for the sake of body piercing jewelry we’re only dealing with titanium and niobium. 

Anodizing forces the titanium or niobium’s oxide layer to grow thicker. Basically, it screws up the way light bounces off the surface of the jewelry, giving us the effect of a copper, bronze, purple, etc. colored piece of jewelry. 



Here’s a nice video from APP member AJ Goldman demonstrating how anodizing is done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE-ZbAdJfWI



In some instances with anodized jewelry, the colors can start to fade or go back down the color chart (pictured below). This isn’t always the case, but sometimes this can be caused by body cleaning products or even your body’s own pH. This fading is not anything flaking off into your body, but rather the oxide layer being worn away, which poses no health concern to you or your fresh piercing. 

image




So some key notes regarding the metals we use in body piercing: 

Steel does not anodize. Its color cannot change unless it is PVD coated. Jewelry labeled as “anodized steel”, “titanium coated steel” or something similar is not appropriate for a fresh piercing.  

F136 or F67 titanium does not turn black. So jewelry labeled as “black titanium” is not appropriate for a fresh piercing.

Hope you find this helpful with picking out your future jewelry for initial piercings. 


Cody Vaughn - APP Outreach Committee



modificationnotmutilation:

braindropsblog:

#bvla now in stock! these cherry blossoms are so perfect . In #We have #Turquoise , #opals, #blackdiamonds, all genuine and more ! Come see what all the hub bub is about!  Prices, orders & questions -email us- braindropssf@gmail.com
Follow us on: facebook.com/braindrops.piercing  braindropsblog.tumblr.com Instagram - @braindropssf
#braindrops#sanfrancisco#SF#haightst#sfstate#ucsf#sfsu##bayarea#415#USF#goldblooded#bvla#allthegold#whitegold#rosegold#gold#legitbodyjewelry#nostrilpiercing#nosejewelry#bodyjewelry#cherryblossom

yum

modificationnotmutilation:

braindropsblog:

#bvla now in stock! these cherry blossoms are so perfect . In #We have #Turquoise , #opals, #blackdiamonds, all genuine and more ! Come see what all the hub bub is about!
Prices, orders & questions -email us-
braindropssf@gmail.com

Follow us on:
facebook.com/braindrops.piercing
braindropsblog.tumblr.com
Instagram - @braindropssf

#braindrops#sanfrancisco#SF#haightst#sfstate#ucsf#sfsu##bayarea#415#USF#goldblooded#bvla#allthegold#whitegold#rosegold#gold#legitbodyjewelry#nostrilpiercing#nosejewelry#bodyjewelry#cherryblossom

yum

beckyadorned:

3-4 month old PA piercing. 6g 3/4” CBR and 6g 7/8” curved bb by Industrial Strength. Piercing performed deeper than traditional to accommodate for the inevitable stretch to 00g. This gentleman is one of my favorite clients ever!

beckyadorned:

3-4 month old PA piercing. 6g 3/4” CBR and 6g 7/8” curved bb by Industrial Strength. Piercing performed deeper than traditional to accommodate for the inevitable stretch to 00g. This gentleman is one of my favorite clients ever!

(via safepiercing)

anomalypiercing:

saintsabrinas:

A few different versions of this failed 71-piece microdermal/surface anchor/single-point surface piercing project have started making the rounds and we wanted to share our thoughts and hopefully provide some additional insight and context to the situation. The “after” picture certainly says a lot about what’s going on here, but we think it’s critical that piercers and the general public understand exactly what went wrong, why it went wrong and why this never should have been done in the first place.

There have been a lot of understandably-angry responses to this. As piercers who care about our clients, the quality of work we do and the overall “reputation’ of body piercing, this hurts and angers us a great deal. But, we hope we can turn this into an educational opportunity for everyone who comes across this glaring example of a piercer who appears to lack morals, ethics and professionalism. 

This project was done as part of “reality” television program by a “celebrity piercer”. This “piercer” has repeatedly shown a blatant disregard for his clients’ well-being, and therefore we believe he deserves all of the bad press he is currently getting. However, his name isn’t important to our message. If you want to know who did this atrocity, it won’t be hard to figure out. 

This “piercer” has repeatedly defended his choice to do large-scale projects like this and claims that these types of projects are very viable and are usually successful. 

He is wrong. 

We know he is wrong. Every experienced, reputable piercer knows he is wrong. Heck, even a piercer with only the smallest bit of experience with these type of piercings would know he is wrong. Chances are he knows he is wrong as well.

He has chosen to ignore his ethics and his professional responsibility, as well as completely disregard the health, safety and well-being of his clients in exchange for money, exposure, “fame” and whatever else he may garner from stunts like this. We understand that every one has to make a living, and we all have different goals and dreams. We just don’t think you should make your living or achieve your goals and dreams by harming uninformed, unsuspecting people.

So, what is actually wrong with this project?

The most obvious thing is that all 71 of these piercings were done in one sitting. That’s 71 piercings your body has to try and heal all at once. We all know that if your body is trying to heal 71 injuries of any kind, it is going to struggle. Now, ask your body to heal 71 injuries with pieces of jewelry in them; jewelry that will get bumped, caught, snagged and rubbed on during even the most basic day-to-day activities…the problem should be obvious. 

Any piercer who tells you that doing large numbers of piercings in one sitting is fine and will have good results is either lying to you or they don’t know what they are talking about. Either way, find a different piercer. 

While the number of piercings is the most obvious problem, the most fundamental problem with this project is that most of the time, surface anchor piercings simply aren’t viable on a long-term basis. People have lots of different experiences with this type of piercing, but to say that most of them last 5 or more years is not the experience that we, or most reputable piercers, have had. This is true regardless of the design of the anchor, the method used to perform the piercing or the type of end/top that is used on the anchor.

It is also true regardless of how many anchors are done at one time. While only doing one has a better chance than doing a handful in one sitting, it is still no guarantee of long-term viability. We, and other professional piercers who’s opinions, skills and experience we trust, refer to anchors as long-term-temporary piercings. 

When these types of piercings fail, usually what happens is that the body “rejects” the jewelry. This means that it starts to push the jewelry out of the skin. In most cases, once this starts, the body will continue to reject the jewelry until it comes out completely. Most people have the jewelry removed before it comes out completely.

No responsible piercer would ever perform a project like this because they would know there is 0% chance that all of the piercings (heck, probably even 50% of them) would last on any type of long-term basis. While scarring from individual surface anchors tends to be pretty minimal in most cases, a responsible piercer would know that rejection of so many of these piercings would result in a large area of prominent scarring. The after picture shows this pretty clearly. 

In addition, the rejection/removal of even a handful of these piercings would leave the original design “unreadable”.  Instead of looking like shooting stars, or hearts or whatever the original design was, it ends up looking like a random scattering of jewelry. 

Another major issue with this project is the location: the thigh area.

We already mentioned how irritation/abuse would occur from even the most basic activities as well as from any clothing that would rub against the area.

When doing any kind of surface piercing (with an anchor or with a surface bar), it is critical that the area where the jewelry will sit is as flat as possible. If the jewelry rests on a curved surface, excess pressure can be applied to different parts of the jewelry, directly contributing to irritation and rejection. A thigh/upper leg is mostly-curved surface with virtually no areas that stay flat at all times. While some areas may be flat in certain positions, even small changes to the orientation of the leg, cause those flat areas to become curved.

As with any jewelry, the material and the quality of the workmanship are critical components to initial healing as well as long-term success. In this case, there is no way to know whether this jewelry is made from implant-grade materials with top-of-the-line workmanship or whether low-quality “mystery metal” was used.

However, let’s consider this: If this project was done with high-quality, implant-grade jewelry, the jewelry alone would have cost the client several thousands of dollars; even if there were a considerable “bulk discount”. So, either the client didn’t pay that much because the jewelry was subpar, unacceptable junk or the piercer took a huge amount of money from the client knowing full well that the project was destined to fail and that the client was wasting their money. 

Either way, it’s unethical, unprofessional and unacceptable. 

One other thing we wanted to comment on:

We’ve seen quite a few comments that have fully or partially blamed the client for letting someone do this to them or for not knowing this was a bad idea And, while we are big believers in personal responsibility, and we understand how people would be quick to blame the client, we think that is completely the wrong way to look at it. 

When it’s all said and done, a piercer always has the option to say, “No, I won’t do that because I know it’s a bad idea.” In the case of a project like this, something that was never going to have any chance of being successful, we believe the piecer has an obligation to say “No, I won’t do that because I know it’s a bad idea.” 

In our opinion, the blame for this project happening in the first place, and the blame for its ultimate failure, falls on the shoulders of the piercer who performed it. 

No matter how complex or how small your piercing wishes might be, please take the time to research the person(s) you are considering letting work on your body. Just because someone is on TV, has a lot of followers on the internet or makes a lot of “noise”, it doesn’t automatically mean they are the person you should trust.

If a situation doesn’t ‘feel’ right, if you are being told something that goes against what other reputable piercers have told you and/or if someone is telling you something that sounds too good to be true, please walk away from the situation, do some more research and give it some more thought. 

Thanks for taking the time to read all of this.

We hope you will like and reblog it so we can educate as many people as possible, to help prevent others from having to experience something like this. 

The “official” story has been changed so many times as each new lie has been created to try to save face. We’ve heard that these piercings were NOT done by a certain reality TV “piercer”, that these were a copycat who failed in executing them as well. Then as the celeb in question called his client in to remove the rest of them (because this is in fact HIS WORK), the lie was concocted that these piercings were lost due to a car crash. Meanwhile the client was led to believe that her fluctuation in weight gain and loss were the problem. The funny thing about television, is that it gives instant credibility to whomever is inside the little box. It doesn’t matter if they are incompetent, lacking morals, or just an outright liar. In fact in many cases, those qualities make them BETTER television personas. Here at Anomaly, we don’t care who idolizes a piercer (or piercing actor). We are more concerned with client safety and consent. We know Body Piercer is not a life worth idolizing, we live it daily. Even when the cameras are off. It requires constant education, outreach, communication with industry peers and volunteering knowledge for the sake of the general population. It doesn’t pay great financially, but is extremely rewarding intrinsically. We do it because we love it, and we do it right because we want everyone to have the best experience possible. That’s also why we have decided to repost this blog which highlights many of the same issues we had with this project. PLEASE research your piercer, no matter how big or small you think the project is. Even if it’s just for some “normal” ear lobe piercings. Don’t settle for less than the best, you are worth it… so require it. :)

brianskellie:

smartsexyscientist:

brianskellie:

smartsexyscientist:

utter-fuckwad:

piercingsbyaj:

brianskellie:

A colleague quoted me and made this little sticker to inform clients.

To say the least, Brian knows what he’s talking about. This is great information to know for those of you who don’t already!

Because Brian Skellie Said So

I am not a piercer, but as a microbiologist, I have a few questions about this. If you’re using the autoclave correctly, everything should be killed. Nothing is going to ‘grow back’ after a proper autoclave session. (There are a very few microbes that are resistant to normal autoclave settings, but these are rare and highly controlled in the labs they’re studied in, the chances of them appearing on a average person’s jewelry is extremely low). And I’m not quite sure how ‘protein residues’ could possibly cause a bacterial/fungal/viral infection? Perhaps leftover toxins that are produced by certain microbes (i.e. S. aureus, a common skin microbe, can produce a toxin) could cause damage but it wouldn’t be an actual infection. And the vast majority of those toxin proteins (including the S. aureus toxin) are destroyed by the heat and pressure of the autoclave.
The only one of these that kind of makes sense is prions since as far as I know those are extremely difficult or impossible to decontaminate. But prions (the causative factor of ‘mad cow disease’, among others) are only spread through contaminated brain tissue, so I would think the likelihood of them appearing on a piercing would be extremely low.  Not that I’m saying buying used body jewelry is a good idea. I personally would never want to buy used jewelry. But the scientific inaccuracies here don’t really inspire confidence in the piercer. If I saw this at a studio I went to get pierced at, I would turn around and walk right back out the door.

Hello microbiologist friend smartsexyscientist :)These points were reduced from a much more involved conversation in the context of describing why sales of used body jewelry is an untenable business practice, and to discourage professionals from considering their autoclaves infallible. At a piercing studio, you wouldn’t want to have to question if someone had previously worn your jewelry or if it was new and safely handled prior to cleaning and sterilization.If it is not clean, it can’t be sterilized.
A colleague cherry picked quips to keep it simple for a lay person to understand . As easy as it may be to pick it apart, it is clear that you got the message, and as a person who describes some understanding of steam sterilization, you already understand that an autoclave process should be effective against most pathogens. Prions are one harmful known protein type that are not destroyed by steam sterilization, and require more harsh means for removal from a surface. They are most often spread through contaminated brain and spinal tissue, but also through other kinds of nervous tissue, such as the tongue.
Another part of the problem when it comes to body jewelry is that the autoclave operator most likely does not have a background in clinical microbiology and infection prevention, and may not have optimal equipment to clean and sterilize jewelry. Most of the autoclaves used in North American piercing studios do not have dynamic air removal such as a vacuum or pressure pulsing system. They rely on gravity displacement and can not adequately sterilize hollow, porous or wrapped loads, which results in regrowth.I do not condone appeal to authority, even when I’m the alleged authority. I am a person very interested in the specifics of “how clean is clean enough,” and to this end continue to study and participate in the related workgroups in the ASTM F04.15 subcommittee on on Material Test Methods. We’ve been working on the problem of reliable validation for surgical implant reuse for philanthropic purposes for over a decade. For example, pacemakers can be still functional for years after explanted from a deceased individual. The concerns for failure are due to both infectious material (protein, bacterial, fungal and viral) that resists autoclave processes inside crevices and hollow or porous spaces, and endotoxin and pyrogen residues that can cause rejection, even without infection.
Biofilm and denatured proteins that can prevent effective decontamination are known problems with body jewelry. More on this subject here.
References of interest:
ASTM F2847 - 10 Standard Practice for Reporting and Assessment of Residues on Single Use Implants
WK32535 New Practice for Establishing Limit Values for Residues on Single use Implants
WK33439 New Guide for Standard test soils for validation of cleaning methods for reusable medical devices
I support the establishing evidence based standards for decontamination and sterilization of medical device and other surgical implants for reuse, if it can be done safely and consistently. Once that sort of process is standardized in medicine, then it might be applied to body jewelry. This shouldn’t be impossible, and may be forthcoming. A promising note is that there are processes to clean bone and tissue for allograft and implant from exogenous sources, such as cadavers, into patients in need. These sorts of things under clinical investigation may result in the standards we need for reprocessing body jewelry. 
Until implants can be safely reused under routine conditions, we should not reprocess previously worn body jewelry for anyone but the original wearer’s own personal reuse.

Thank you for your detailed answer Brian Skellie! I did not know that prions could be transmitted via tongue tissue, or that the autoclaves used in piercing studios weren’t quite the same as the ones I’m used to in lab. This makes much more sense now. 

smartsexyscientist
, I agree that the subject certainly deserves a more in depth discussion, and that the image alone is not enough. I’m glad it piqued your interest and that you were interested in more information.

brianskellie:

smartsexyscientist:

brianskellie:

smartsexyscientist:

utter-fuckwad:

piercingsbyaj:

brianskellie:

A colleague quoted me and made this little sticker to inform clients.

To say the least, Brian knows what he’s talking about. This is great information to know for those of you who don’t already!

Because Brian Skellie Said So

I am not a piercer, but as a microbiologist, I have a few questions about this. If you’re using the autoclave correctly, everything should be killed. Nothing is going to ‘grow back’ after a proper autoclave session. (There are a very few microbes that are resistant to normal autoclave settings, but these are rare and highly controlled in the labs they’re studied in, the chances of them appearing on a average person’s jewelry is extremely low). And I’m not quite sure how ‘protein residues’ could possibly cause a bacterial/fungal/viral infection? Perhaps leftover toxins that are produced by certain microbes (i.e. S. aureus, a common skin microbe, can produce a toxin) could cause damage but it wouldn’t be an actual infection. And the vast majority of those toxin proteins (including the S. aureus toxin) are destroyed by the heat and pressure of the autoclave.

The only one of these that kind of makes sense is prions since as far as I know those are extremely difficult or impossible to decontaminate. But prions (the causative factor of ‘mad cow disease’, among others) are only spread through contaminated brain tissue, so I would think the likelihood of them appearing on a piercing would be extremely low.  

Not that I’m saying buying used body jewelry is a good idea. I personally would never want to buy used jewelry. But the scientific inaccuracies here don’t really inspire confidence in the piercer. If I saw this at a studio I went to get pierced at, I would turn around and walk right back out the door.

Hello microbiologist friend smartsexyscientist :)

These points were reduced from a much more involved conversation in the context of describing why sales of used body jewelry is an untenable business practice, and to discourage professionals from considering their autoclaves infallible. At a piercing studio, you wouldn’t want to have to question if someone had previously worn your jewelry or if it was new and safely handled prior to cleaning and sterilization.

If it is not clean, it can’t be sterilized.

A colleague cherry picked quips to keep it simple for a lay person to understand . As easy as it may be to pick it apart, it is clear that you got the message, and as a person who describes some understanding of steam sterilization, you already understand that an autoclave process should be effective against most pathogens. Prions are one harmful known protein type that are not destroyed by steam sterilization, and require more harsh means for removal from a surface. They are most often spread through contaminated brain and spinal tissue, but also through other kinds of nervous tissue, such as the tongue.

Another part of the problem when it comes to body jewelry is that the autoclave operator most likely does not have a background in clinical microbiology and infection prevention, and may not have optimal equipment to clean and sterilize jewelry. Most of the autoclaves used in North American piercing studios do not have dynamic air removal such as a vacuum or pressure pulsing system. They rely on gravity displacement and can not adequately sterilize hollow, porous or wrapped loads, which results in regrowth.

I do not condone appeal to authority, even when I’m the alleged authority. I am a person very interested in the specifics of “how clean is clean enough,” and to this end continue to study and participate in the related workgroups in the ASTM F04.15 subcommittee on on Material Test Methods.

We’ve been working on the problem of reliable validation for surgical implant reuse for philanthropic purposes for over a decade. For example, pacemakers can be still functional for years after explanted from a deceased individual. The concerns for failure are due to both infectious material (protein, bacterial, fungal and viral) that resists autoclave processes inside crevices and hollow or porous spaces, and endotoxin and pyrogen residues that can cause rejection, even without infection.

Biofilm and denatured proteins that can prevent effective decontamination are known problems with body jewelry. More on this subject here.

References of interest:

ASTM F2847 - 10 Standard Practice for Reporting and Assessment of Residues on Single Use Implants

WK32535 New Practice for Establishing Limit Values for Residues on Single use Implants

WK33439 New Guide for Standard test soils for validation of cleaning methods for reusable medical devices


I support the establishing evidence based standards for decontamination and sterilization of medical device and other surgical implants for reuse, if it can be done safely and consistently. Once that sort of process is standardized in medicine, then it might be applied to body jewelry. This shouldn’t be impossible, and may be forthcoming. A promising note is that there are processes to clean bone and tissue for allograft and implant from exogenous sources, such as cadavers, into patients in need. These sorts of things under clinical investigation may result in the standards we need for reprocessing body jewelry.

Until implants can be safely reused under routine conditions, we should not reprocess previously worn body jewelry for anyone but the original wearer’s own personal reuse.

Thank you for your detailed answer Brian Skellie! I did not know that prions could be transmitted via tongue tissue, or that the autoclaves used in piercing studios weren’t quite the same as the ones I’m used to in lab. This makes much more sense now. 

smartsexyscientist
, I agree that the subject certainly deserves a more in depth discussion, and that the image alone is not enough. I’m glad it piqued your interest and that you were interested in more information.