Talk:Ear piercing instrument

Sterilization

The article claims the primary problem with these instruments is that they can't be autoclaved and are perhaps impossible to sterilize. But this is speculative unless the article can cite some data of a disease outbreak. A great improvement to the article would be if someone can find any such data. Tempshill 21:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not speculative. It is impossible to sterilise these instruments as they are currently designed. The materials they are made from would not survive repeated sterilisation procedures, be they chemically sterilised or autoclaved. Only the jewelry is sterilised, and even then it is only sterile so long as it is handled properly. That doesn't mean that such a device couldn't be manufactured, it just means that one has not been. IIt is not speculative to say that certain plastics or other materials cannot be subjected to a proper autoclaving, or to note that the "mall piercing booths" that employ these devices have no sterilsiation equipment on hands and that their employees have no medical training whatsoever. Glowimperial 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is correct. Most states in the USA (I don't know about other countries) don't even require "mall piercers" to wear gloves, let alone receive bloodborne pathogens training or obtain a body art license -- provided they only pierce earlobes. Still, even if it is "just" an earlobe piercing, sterile materials and safety regarding cross-contamination is essential to the health of both the piercer and the customer. Evilfuzzymonster (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plastics used in these guns can not be autoclaved, that is a fact. There are techniques that can be used to sterilize non-autoclaveable material (Cold Sterilization, radiation, and Ethylene Oxide Sterilization (EtO)). Medisystem alone claims over 40,000,000 consumers in the US alone, and Studex claims to be bigger than Medisystem, if there was a serious risk to public health it would be undeniable by now.

The body piercing movement has a financial interest in overstating the shortcomings of a piercing system that is less expensive on the consumer level than what body piercing studios typically charge for an ear lobe piercing. The industry also has a history of trying to twist words around and put them into people's mouths that seems to have created a deep divide between the medical community and body piercers/cutters. I do not think the term "Bigotry" is too strong to use here, it's really that bad.

However, the "mall piercing movement" has a financial interest in understating the shortcomings of a piercing system that is unhygenic and painful that is greater than the body piercing industy's interest in overstating the dangers. The correction of badly placed, irritated, and infected piercings performed in mall shops by gun-wielding teenagers generates many customers and much revenue for traditional piercing shops. So really they are making money either way.

A disposable piercing gun costs, roughly, about the same as a needle, disposable clamp, a bit of antiseptic wash, and a surgical steel captive bead ring. The difference isn't just the trauma to the flesh (which directly affects healing time and risk of infection); when a licensed body piercer performs a piercing, they're generally using quality jewelry (again, surgical steel -- the idea that malleable metals like gold and silver won't irritate piercings is a myth), giving clear instructions, and have some degree of medical training. You get what you pay for. Evilfuzzymonster (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Piercing Gun

Recently ear piercing guns have come under attack by piercers and have been called everything from “unsanitary” to “torture devices”. This is true and there are no advantages to doing an ear piercing with a piercing gun, but there are advantages to getting your ears or any body part pierced by a professional body piercer.

Ear piercing guns are bad because:

They have a long history of use with terrible results.

It is faster and easier for untrained people to use, and promotes a lack of education about proper piercing tequniques

The tip is not sharp enough to penetrate the ear properly

The blunt tip of an ear piercing gun stud causes more trauma than a piercing Needle.

The guns that are available can’t be autoclaved. cross contamination is a major problem with the gun. hepititis can live outside the human body for up to 28 days!

They can cause ear cartilage to crack and should never be used to pierce any part of the ear. Most manufacturers recommend that ear piercing guns be only used to pierce the ear lobe." -Reference source “The Body Piercing Encyclopedia Volume 1” Library of Congress Control Number: 2002106781 ISBN number 0-9720525-0-X

Body piercers also typically have no medical training, which puts them on a par with ear piercers who use piercing guns. Local health departments exist specifically to deal with such concerns on a local level and although those who earn their living by using piercing needles do sometimes oppose the use of piercing guns their concerns have not been reflected by the health community or the general public, and so I do not feel that Wikipedia is a proper forum for attacks on piercing guns. The jewelry used in piercing guns comes pre-sterilized so having "no sterilization equipment on hand" is irrelevant assuming that the pre sterilized studs packaging is not damaged, or expired and that the gun and jewelry is handled properly. Reference source “The Body Piercing Encyclopedia Volume 1” Library of Congress Control Number: 2002106781 ISBN number 0-9720525-0-X Rafti Institute 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to become a licensed body artist, nearly all counties in the USA require, at the least, training in bloodborne pathogens from the Red Cross or similar, if not also basic First Aid and CPR certification. That doesn't even take into account the fact that most body piercers learn, as part of their apprenticeships, additional steps to prevent cross-contamination. For example, piercers generally clean all tools, bottles, and surfaces with Madacide (most commonly used hospital-grade surface sterilizer) before and after piercings; in my experience, most mall piercers don't even use Clorox wipes on the area between customers. Evilfuzzymonster (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ear piercing guns were orginally designed only for ear lobe piercings, but were never-the-less used for ear cartilage (and other) piercings as well. More recenvtly, manufacturers have actively promoted their use for cartilage piercings. With regards to earlobe piercings, the incidence rate for problems directly attributale to the technique is obviously very small; probably not statistically different than the incidence rate attributable to body piercing techniques. However, for cartilage piercing, there have been quite a few notable instances of major problems relating to the use of ear piercing guns. IMHO, guns are just fine for ear lobes, but should be avoided for cartilage. Furthermore, they were never designed for non-ear piercings. Earpol 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of this article.

I've added the POV template to this article, because it seems to have a definite bias towards an attempt to discredit piercing guns and driving people towards other methods of ear piercing. All of the negative comments are directed towards the use of guns, and it does not equally point out the dangers connected with piercing by needle. Emma white20 (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it now seems to lean too far in the favour of the gun. (Albert Mond (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I feel that the second paragraph of the introduction needs to be fixed. It goes into depth about the controversies of the gun and different gun types. This would be better if it were more centrally located in the sections on models and the section on criticism Leachlife4 (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mall piercer with little or no training"

The purpose of developing new machines is to replace tasks that's usually done manually by skilled labors so anyone can perform these tasks. Yes, people working at Claire's has "little or no training", but you don't need 12 hour courses to learn how to use (essentially) a stapler, it's designed in a way that everyone can learn how to use it. More and more gadgets, instruments, and machines will replace manual labors like it has been since the Industrial Revolution. Yes, it's sad that telephone operators, lumberjacks, blacksmiths, etc lost their jobs due to competition, but that's just how the world operates, it's called progress. I hope "professional piercers" realize that. 21:26, 8 October 2008

Controversy in Overview Paragraph

Is there a reason for the long paragraph re:the controversy in the opener? Would someone with more experience in this article perhaps do something about this? Kailey elise (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research!

Well, I'm not going to add it to the article, but it's worth looking into. I shopped around for a while and found that disposable cartridges are absolutely ubiquitous in my area. A quick search reveals some evidence that this is the case in general, though no sources that I would cite. Disposable cartridges may still not eliminate the risk of infection, but if they are as ubiquitous as they seem, the article should at least reflect this. Currently it seems to mostly contain a lot of criticism about a variety of piercing instrument that has largely fallen out of use, and only a mention of the more sanitary (if only slightly) disposable variety. The criticisms may still be valid, but they should be balanced by actual current information.

Interestingly, the starter studs (and the cartridges they come in) used at most places I've been mostly seem to be from the same manufacturer, though I haven't been able to find out which. They are claimed to be made of gold, silver, or stainless steel, and not nickel or other problematic metals. I don't remember any that were plated, but some may have been. My stainless steel studs are ferrous enough to stick onto a small magnet, nothing spectacularly strong. That includes the butterfly back. An allergic reaction to either seems unlikely in light of this. In addition, while the stud is certainly not a precise surgical instrument, I would not describe it as dull or likely to cause blunt force trauma. This is a particularly common criticism that is missing from the wiki article (except where it is mentioned matter-of-factly in the introduction) and should be addressed, whether supported or contended, but not omitted. In addition, the article makes the following claim, which is patently false:

Gun studs are also inadequate because they are all one length and so those with fleshier lobes are more likely to find that the jewellery will embed when the piercing swells.

The starter studs I saw came in at least two lengths, though the longer post length is only available in a small number of styles.

I'm not going to add original research to the article, but I hope someone can find the sources that I can't seem to find to check my observations. In general the article appears to have good information, but presented in a way that may overstate the prevalence of older and justly criticized varieties of piercing guns. -WurdBendur (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ear piercing instrument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ear piercing instrument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ear piercing instrument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]