There seem to be plenty of tattooists in the UK but perhaps that really isn’t enough to go around, or they are too expensive.

As a – very poor – alternative, it seems that many illegal tattooists are in operation, unregistered and thus unsupervised. The great risk is of bloodborne virus (BBV) infection, and pyogenic infection of those brave enough to have a tattoo.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22320300

But it is the bloodborne virus risk that is our primary concern, since that extends beyond the process of tattooing and may continue as sharps wastes are disposed. The unregistered and unlicensed operation implies a failure to adhere to required standards of hygiene, and therefore to standards of waste management also. Is it likely that an unlicensed tattoo outfit would bother with safe sharps disposal into a suitable sharps bin?

Making a bad situation worse is the inevitability that those seeking a tattoo in unlicensed premises will represent the bottom end of the market, where the incidence of BBV infection is likely to be highest. In consequence, the risks of infection from discarded sharps – though tattooists are not normally using the more hazardous hollow bore needles – and from other bloodstained wastes will be higher than average.

Probably not. It’s an illegal trade, carried out in bedrooms and garden sheds, and we can be as sure as need-be that needles are not disposed properly, if at all.

The BBC news report includes one fact that it rather surprising. Apart from the fact that almost three in 10 people aged between 25 and 34 having at least one piece of the body art, the Local Government Association (LGA) has said that there are more than 1,500 licensed tattoo parlours in the UK.

That’s an awful lot of tattoos, of tattoo parlours, and one hell of a lot of sharps to dispose safely. As small high street waste arisings, I suspect that most will be collected by or on behalf of Local Authority waste and environmental services, but these are somewhat unseen and an audit is appropriate to ensure that these wastes (EWC 20 01 99, Municipal wastes and similar commercial, industrial and institutional wastes including separately collected fractions; other fractions not otherwise specified).

Though specified by EA as the most appropriate waste classification, EWC 20 01 99 does regrettably encourage disposal as waste other than sharps. These are not healthcare and in particular are not clinical wastes, so an EWC 18 code is inappropriate. In a black sack, these could be particularly dangerous. There will exist a risk of sharps or needlestick injury, jeopardising the health and safety of waste handlers and others. This does show the failings of the EWC coding system, no doubt one of many, that might be reviewed and revised to place safety above bureaucratic box ticking.