h a l f b a k e r yGetting blown into traffic is never fun.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Using a dye that changes colour in the presence of certain concentrations of glucose, a small dot is tattooed under the skin in a convenient spot, say next to the wristwatch. This provides a permanent BGL indicator, giving diabetics a chance to respond quickly to changing sugar levels, which could save
diabetic lives, and prevent organ damage associated with fluctuating insulin levels.
Rather than a dot, one could choose to have any symbol. If the dye could be made in various colours, and be invisible/match the skin tone in one state, you could have a happy face for the appropriate BGL, which fades away to be replaced by a frowny.
Personally I'd go for a bar graph...
Glowing glucose indicator tattoo underway
http://www.llnl.gov...ecember01/Lane.html
Well, actually it's more of an implant, but think again waugs. [DrCurry, Aug 28 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Freshly Baked
http://news.bbc.co..../health/2225404.stm
Saw this on the BBC news site on Sept 2nd [dare99, Sep 02 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Contact Lenses
http://www.newscien...rticle.ns?id=dn7180
Another non-invasive technique [BunsenHoneydew, Mar 28 2005]
[link]
|
| |
Personally, I would have a tattoo that sais "Mom" in a heart.
If such a ink were discovered. |
|
| |
I'd take DeNiro's 'toos in "Cape Fear" - Vengeance is Mine... |
|
| |
Y'know, you may be onto something here... it would all depend on the long-term reliability of epidermal BGL readings in a scarred patch of skin *i guess*, plus degradation factors for your reagent... it would almost certainly be less than permanent in terms of useful life span, but Croissant, it's a good line of thinking. Some diabetic patients can never have enough indicators. |
|
| |
// Using a dye that changes colour in the presence of certain concentrations of glucose... // |
|
| |
That presumption does not seem at all possible to me. |
|
| |
Good idea, but what about Juv. Diabetics. "They" aren't allowed to tattoo children. |
|
| |
waugsqueke, it isn't obvious to me that there cannot be any dye that changes properties with glucose concentration. Glucose has polarising properties for a start. |
|
| |
[Blissy] we half jokeingly said we were going to go get son a "tat" that said "insulin dependent diabetic", but we never agreed on where to put it. I agree, if the FDA legalize it then they should let children get one for health reasons, but the key words are "if" and "should." We also joked about getting girls some "tats" so we could tell them apart. |
|
| |
[pfp], sure, glucose does have polarising properties, but how can a tattoo read it? When a tattoo is first applied there *is* some blood involved, but after it's healed up isn't it just scar tissure with coloring? Hows the blood going to get to the dye to be read? Also, the dye would have to have 3 colors: Hypo, normal, Hyper. |
|
| |
[Blissy] again, I was under the impression that gluose strips syphoned the blood into the body of the stip, which was also inside the monitor. The monitor then vibrated (not noticable) so that the glucose protien would get seperated and able to be read. Or am I getting this mixed up with the HbA1C reading? Nurses and doctors please feel free to rip apart that last statment. |
|
| |
For the record, I did vote for it because anything that would let me stick my child less (i.e. less blood) gets a vote from me. |
|
| |
What barnz said. The tattoo dye and blood are not going to be intermixing or interacting in any way that would render this possible. If this was possible we'd already be using stick-on-skin glucose meters. |
|
| |
But the current methods all still use a pinprick and a drop of blood. |
|
| |
Perhaps an eyebrow ring could be created that got infected when blood sugar was high would be easier. Then it would be visible to others and the sufferer would not be totally dependant on their own perception. Also bacteria feeds off sugar so there might be an ealier indication than a hidden tattoo. |
|
| |
Although the discussion seems to have taken a downturn since my first visit, the idea does have merit. I think the blood reaching the dye in scar tissue is going to be the issue here. |
|
| |
Medical applications aside, I just like the idea of a colour changing tattoo. Maybe there would be a way of having the colour change triggered by something else. Skin surface temperature or something. Global Hypercolour tats. |
|
| |
I remember hearing about a watch that would get a glucose reading from sweat on the wrist. The problem with it was that it would take 15 min before the reading would be accurate, but it would always be taking your reading. Anyone else remember about this and have more details? |
|
| |
Evidently great minds think more like BunsenHoneydew than waugsqueke, who I guess didn't pay close enough attention in Chemistry class. (See link.) |
|
| |
I aced chemistry, man. Aced. |
|
| |
Implant? Sure, no problem. Easy as pie. Implant can do what designers want it to do, such as periodically poll the blood sugar situation. No problems at all. |
|
| |
Tattoo? Nope. Not going to happen. Blood doesn't 'mix' with tattoo ink in a manner that would deliver the result this idea suggests. |
|
| |
Tattoo is to implant as kettle is to water cooler. Evidently great minds often misunderstand such things. |
|
| |
OK. That settles that as far as I'm concerned. Good while it lasted. You can keep the croissant tho', it is still a good idea, possibly by susbstituting "tatoo" wioth something like "implant". |
|
| |
I dunno. If dodgy tattoo ink can give you blood poisoning, there must be some potential for interaction. However, while I too aced Chemistry, I didn't even take Biology, so I will let the skin doctors figure that one out. (Btw, waugs, I note that when you were shown to be wrong, you changed your argument.) |
|
| |
Well Peter, you are right then. I haven't been paying attention. I missed both where I was shown to be wrong and where I changed my argument. |
|
| |
[waugsqueke], i can't see how it would work either, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Maybe somebody out there with a better imagination and better knowledge of medicine that me could see some way of doing it. Hence my croissant. |
|
| |
DrCurry, do you know someone with a tattoo? If you do, ask them how long it took to heal up. When given a 'tat' you will notice that the area of the tattoo is still sensitive and bloody for a while. As well as we try to heal ourselves, the human body cannot heal an abbrasion the size of, or made in the manner of, a tattoo in a matter of seconds. This is where the blood poisoning comes in. Also, if the reciver of the 'tat' uses the wrong kind of Bacitracin type of scar reducer, it could syphon the ink used in the tattoo out of the body, possibly causing more harm as well as making the 'too' look horrible.
On the other hand, if you don't know anyone with a tattoo then you are just gonna have to take my word on it, or else... |
|
| |
Well sadie, I think the onus is on the idea creater to show how something is possible when all indications are that it is not, or at least when it's not clearly evident how it could be done. |
|
| |
I would be curious if a continuously poling sensor like this(tattoo or implant) could be used to practice biofeedback. |
|
| |
Freshley baked today! Spooky |
|
| |
Darn. If only I'd written this up seven years ago when I first thought of it, I could claim prior art. |
|
| |
nice idea, [Bunsen] and original name. I'd get one, that is, if I was diabetic which I'm not, but it could save lives so my + to you. |
|
| |
Brilliant idea - albeit one I prefer I didn't have a sudden interest in. |
|
| |