WREYETING.ORG by Westley W Wood Copyright 2023

Refutations Confronting the Lies
1) Objection to the Wikipedia Authors of Body Piercing Material
The section on Stainless Steels in the Wikipedia article Body Piercing Materials should be removed
because it falsely claims that ASTM F138-316L (a/k/a as 316LVM) is the standard initial body piercing material.
Reference is made to
1) scholarly literature on stainless steels will show that factory grade 316L is a surgical stainless steel deemed safe for implanting in the body;
2) biomaterials publications show that factory grade 316L used in the application of body piercing is biocompatible, safe for human implant use;
3) the largest standard setting organization, ASTM, describes their syandard F-138 316L as meeting all necessary qualities to be used as a safe metal for surgical implants;
4)  Unimax Supply Co Inc, as one of the oldest suppliers to the body piercing trade in the USA that 316LVM F138 is rarely used compared to the millions of pieces of 316L showing 316L is the standard in the body piercing industry in the USA.
5) The World Trade Organization (WTO) principles for determining rational voluntary standards when applied to the replacing of 316L with F138 316LVM shows it cannot be justified.
6) the errors and unsubstantiated statements will be exposed that will show there is not a single support fpor replacing 316L with F138316L.

These six areas will support the contention that safe and effective usage of non-F138-certified 316L proves its merit in the application of body piercing and that switching from 316L to F138 offers no increase in benefits for the consumer nor any advantage for piercers.

The views expressed in the Wikipedia article have no merit.

Subject 2)  3 articles Against Tattoo written by Claire Chalmers, Senior Lecturer, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton Campus, Almada Street, Hamilton ML30JB published in the Journal of Infection Prevention, the final in May 2009 VOL. 10 NO. 3, pages 102 - 5
Claire Chalmers' article calls for stringently enforced "new" psycho-social regulations by the state which can decrease the incidence of tattoo and piercing, the growing popularity of which endangers the young preventing them from passing-on the Western Christian antipathy for "marking the body".

Subject 3) From 2015 OHIO misguided PIERCING regulations limiting piercing jewelry metals (again).
Subject 4) From KENTUCKY 2 surprising misguided PIERCING regulations
Subject 5) Harvard Professor Dr. R. Rox Anderson Is that Light at the end of the Tunnel?
                 Arguing that FDA must remove from sale all TATTOO INKS that cannot be removed
                 by the laser he invented and developed declaring that a "Tattoo" is a medical
                 problem in need of a cure.
Subject 6) Chem Convention Claiming Tattoo Inks are TOXIC A Presentation
                declaring that since toxic substances can be detected in certain tattoo inks
                Tattoo inks must be declared toxic.
Subject 7) Attempt to compel use of ONLY TATTOO Ink Shots in New York State
Subject 8) EU regulations Against Tattoo Inks based on the publication: Skin and Ink with C. De Cuyper
Subject 9) EU regulations compelling the use of ONLY TITANIUM for initial piercings

Comments, corrections and objections can be sent to Westley Wood, wwood36@gmail.com who is solely responsible for these comments.