Journal of Body Piercing — APP
Piercers in Canada were recently informed by Health Canada that they were not allowed to use products containing gentian violet.1 A recall was put in place due to a link to cancer risk. At least one manufacturer voluntarily discontinued sales of their products and their license was cancelled.
Continue readingby Brian W. Skellie, APP Medical Director
Biomaterials made in the USA and in a short list of countries who maintain reciprocal quality control agreements can currently be verified as ASTM or ISO compliant. Those materials made outside of these qualifying countries cannot due to a lack of quality control protocols and lack of consequences for substandard and falsified products. The provenance of the material should be listed on the certificate of tests.
Learning what the ingredients are, as well as the proportions of a material, is a minimum step in the right direction to indicate that it does contain what we need, and does not contain harmful impurities over a certain threshold. Chemical tests are not confirmation of quality by themselves. The only way to be sure about the quality of the material is to have reliable chemical and microstructure tests performed under strictly regulated controls during the final purification melt and on the ingot (block of metal) produced, prior to forming it into bar, wire, sheet, etc. We must be assured that the correct ingredients have been mixed and cooked together in the correct way, and that the material has been treated and handled correctly during the process according to the ASTM and ISO specifications. There is more to the ASTM and ISO standards than chemistry. So if a certificate says “chemistry only” the material has not been fully tested to fulfill the material properties required by the standard, and may break or include foreign matter among other disadvantages. Basically, we want the raw materials to fully meet the standards for surgical implant, and we want documented proof that it was tested and completely fulfills all the requirements during the melting of the alloy. No misleading shortcuts. No half-steps. Add a proper surface finish, cleaning, passivation, and sterilization and then we can wear it with a clear conscience.
Currently, our requirements for gold, niobium, and platinum are measured based on chemistry alone. We have a strong theoretical rationale to use them based on the fact that they are three of the most biocompatible elements and have a longstanding history of acceptable level of response in the body. Unfortunately, they are not as strong when compared to other biomaterials, and do not have the same sort of detailed specifications for use in the body. For gold and platinum, because of proprietary alloys and strict legal regulation for the karat content, the chemical analysis is all we have access to if we don’t use gold or platinum group metal alloys that have already been through ISO 10993 testing for biocompatibility. Gold and platinum group metals are frequently mentioned in biomaterials and dental implant science texts as inert substances with low potential for allergy
“CORROSION AND CORROSION CONTROL IN THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
“The need to ensure minimal corrosion has been the major determining factor in the selection of metals and alloys for use in the body. Two broad approaches have been adopted. The first has involved the use of noble metals, that is, those metals and their alloys for which the electrochemical series indicates excellent corrosion resistance. Examples are gold, silver, and the platinum group of metals. Because of cost and relatively poor mechanical properties, these are not used for major structural applications, although it should be noted that gold and its alloys are extensively used in dentistry; silver is sometimes used for its antibacterial activity; and platinum-group metals (Pt, Pd, Ir, Rh) are used in electrodes.”
1 Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine, Buddy D. Ratner https://books.google.com/books?id=Uzmrq7LO7loC page 434
For this reason, and historical antecedents we feel comfortable with some gold alloys for initial piercing jewelry. Most of our evidence related to gold for use in jewelry is based upon historical, that is to say experiential and anecdotal sources. Gold has been used in jewelry fabrication since prehistoric times, and has had a similar length of history in surgical and dental applications.
Gold implants are used in various medical procedures, including reconstructive surgery of the middle ear, upper lid closure in facial nerve paresis-induced lagophthalmos, drug delivery microchips, antitumor treatment, treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, use on the surface of voice prostheses, and endovascular stents, with sound clinical results.
2 Demann, Eric TK, Pamela S. Stein, and James E. Haubenreich. “Gold as an implant in medicine and dentistry.” Journal of long-term effects of medical implants 15.6 (2005). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16393135
Our standards are necessary for jewelers and regulators as well as piercers, healthcare professionals, and the public. APP publications have previously addressed the general public as the primary audience for our jewelry standards. Our simplified explanation of the rationale for our jewelry standards is helpful for clients, but not specific enough for regulators, and missing information for jewelers. We have chosen to rely firmly upon specifications that have been pulled from medical and dental implant sciences, and voted to allow to permit the use of certain traditional jewelry materials that are composed of biocompatible elements which seem to demonstrate an acceptable response in the body. This represents two categories of materials: specified and agreed upon.
The specified biomaterials are exact standards for materials that can be purchased ready to use for making body jewelry based on evidence that meets CDC recommendation Category IA: Strongly recommended for implementation and strongly supported by well-designed experimental, clinical, or epidemiologic studies.
This would include all biomaterials which have been developed using ASTM and ISO standard specifications for implantation.
The agreed upon materials of gold and platinum alloys, niobium, and fused quartz, soda lime, and borosilicate glass are within the ideal of CDC recommendation Category II: Suggested for implementation and supported by suggestive clinical or epidemiologic studies or by a theoretical rationale. For example, there is strong evidence that the pure elemental form of each of these materials are well accepted by the body, and they should retain that quality when alloyed until a threshold level of sensitizing or toxic elements are added to the mix. ASTM F2999 and F2923 limit the harmful levels of toxins based on California Prop 65.
Our standards are based on utility rather than our own invention. We use existing medical and dental expertise for materials that are currently being used in human implants and prosthesis. We rely upon a body of evidence and experimentation that we as an industry have not yet become capable of doing ourselves. For this reason, it is important for us to find and understand reliable information from other fields that can be applied to our own.
Simple descriptions should be clear for the biomaterials we choose for body jewelry. Existing materials which are made to ASTM and ISO implant specifications are tested according to consensus based scientific standards to ensure long term safety in the body. We choose these material specifications to avoid reinventing the wheel, and the ISO 10993 series of tests for those new wheels can be prohibitively expensive. We use the specifications F67, F136, F138, F1295 etc as a summation of what we need for safe materials, before they are formed into jewelry. We should not have to elaborate the minutiae of these specifications to know that they are applicable and achievable for our purposes. Can get away with less precision? Not without introducing high levels of risk.
Understanding biomaterials is one of my goals as both an experienced professional piercer and long time member of ASTM Committee F04 on Medical and Surgical Materials and Devices. I hope that some of the information we have to share is helpful to you.
1 Biomaterials Science: an Introduction to Materials in Medicine, Buddy D. Ratner http://books.google.com/books?id=Uzmrq7LO7loC page 434
2 Demann, Eric TK, Pamela S. Stein, and James E. Haubenreich. “Gold as an implant in medicine and dentistry.” Journal of long-term effects of medical implants 15.6 (2005). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16393135
Brian Skellie
APP President
As I eagerly anticipate our next meeting, the gratitude that I feel towards my colleagues in this organization is responsible for a reliable renewal of enthusiasm. The APP mission, presence, and conscientiousness are core to my personal experience, education, and priorities. My purpose remains the same although my responsibilities change after this Conference.
Getting to know the membership better over these years working within the organization and at the helm has been a privilege. By making certain sacrifices and spending a lot of time on the road, I have appreciated real life meetings with quite a few of you. It has been both informative and delightful to visit with you, your studios, and manufacturing facilities.
These days, it is much easier (via the myriad of technological advancements available) to find out more about our colleagues and their work and attitudes. I’m convinced that this friendly professional espionage/stalking following is one of the best things for collegiality in our business. Evermore accessible technology has facilitated a greater sense of familiarization and a willingness to communicate. This development has provided a foundation for friendships and interaction with people who I may have otherwise been more reserved with, and I live with a daily appreciation of how online translation provides access to the world.
Our community seems to be rising, bolstered by social media and a culture of sharing among peers. Access to current information and peer review alongside beautiful examples of our work have created a level of accountability for achieving our goals and is keeping this trade lively. Aptitude and quality are continually improved upon and excellence may be recognized.
Even as I step down from Presidency this summer, we have committed to participate internationally to keep the momentum with fellow trade organizations going. I find it refreshing to see the progress of LBP and the UKAPP, along with the continuing success of our Associate Corporate Members, APTPI, ASAP, BMXnet and meetings in Germany, Spain, and France. Let’s make this happen!
Brian Skellie
APP President
The benefits of thousands of years of advancements in infection control are applied and built upon daily: a brief history of sterilization.
Chamberland’s Autoclave (1880), the first steam sterilizer patterned after Papin’s digester (1680), the first pressure cooker.
Asepsis is the most effective technological advancement for a purposeful reduction of microbes to an irreducible minimum. This begins with policy and training, and follows through with checklists, review, and reminders for implementation.
Physics was the first step in decontamination, using thermal energy: fire and the effects of the sun. Advances have been made in E-beam and radiation, both ionizing and non-ionizing, for sterilization. As a result, new equipment and supplies are now available providing an almost infinite sterilization shelf life. Part of what was found useful from the sun, apart from drying, was the power of short wavelength ultraviolet light to disrupt the DNA of cells. This has been harnessed for disinfection of exposed environmental surfaces, air, and water, but this form of sterilization is not appropriate for initial piercing jewelry. Further study of properties of the sun have resulted in functional plasma etching and cleaning processes and H2O2 gas plasma sterilization. At some point, gadgets for disinfection of procedure rooms such as UV-C robots and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) vapor foggers may have an application in scale for our trade.
Chemistry was the next big step in the fight against preventable iatrogenic infection with germicides, from chlorine solutions and carbolic acid to EO gas. Recognizing the potential for stopping infection transmission during procedures by thoroughly cleaning the worker’s hands and the subject site with a germicidal product was an enormous step that has become part of our established thinking. Materials themselves can be used to leverage the natural properties of copper (Cu+) and silver (Ag) that make touch and transfer surfaces inhospitable to microbes, and other embedded compounds have been developed for similar purposes. Some even work with nanotech surface treatments.
Instrument cleaning technology is constantly improving on the basic two fronts of physical action and chemical reaction. Advancements in products safe for the worker and environmentally friendly have brought forth alkaline or enzymatic detergent, or peracetic acid options.
Consumables have long been a source of worker and client protection and potential oversight. Gloves and other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) do create a barrier when used correctly, but do not take the place of adequate hand hygiene and application of asepsis. For further protection against exposure to environmental hazards, wearable vapor detectors can be used to alert the worker of chemical hazards from cleaning and disinfecting products. Essential detectors for sterilization or cleaning parameters should be used for validation of each process. Test Soils with protein detection for washing instruments, even manual cleaning should be tested, and Chemical and regular Biological Indicators for sterilization loads.
Cleaning appliances have made validation tests easier and more repeatable, with the availability of small automated instrument washers and medical and dental ultrasonic cleaners. Our last line of defense against cross contamination comes from our environmental air quality, which can be improved with air cleaners equipped with HEPA filtration and UV, thermal or plasma disinfection, and floor scrubbers to vacuum up the dust, wash and dry the floor automatically and robotically.
The health and safety of our clientele and personnel depend on adequate sterilization and disinfection. The advancements listed have changed the way we do our jobs and protect ourselves from risk. As we look towards the future it is impossible to know the impact further technological advancements will have, but they will undoubtedly continue to change how we practice our trade.
Brian Skellie
APP President
The APP is always going to be a work in progress, since standards are ever changing with new evidence. Lauded among the guiding principles we maintain as safety standards for our membership is the practice of asepsis. We refer to many procedural acts as practice, as they are rarely ever perfect and require a profound theoretical understanding coupled with regular exercise and critical self observation for improvement. Asepsis requires the right combination of cleaning and sterilization with touching and not touching manual, instrumental and environmental surfaces for infection prevention and control (IPC).
We apply two types of asepsis to reduce or eliminate infection transmission: medical asepsis which emphasizes protection for the client and their environment is more concerned with cleanliness and prevention of the spread of the clients own organisms to other clients, while surgical asepsis which focuses on sterilization and maintaining sterility for items that will be introduced to a wound or piercing cavity or penetrate the skin, thus preventing the introduction of organisms to the client. Medical asepsis can be referred to as clean technique, and surgical asepsis as sterile technique. A thorough and effective means of surgical asepsis should be implemented for all body art procedures. [CE resource]
“Sterile technique is not one set-in-stone method, this is a guideline for establishing your own individual technique.” Nor is it advocating precautions beyond what our sort of minimally invasive ear piercing procedures require for antisepsis and sterility. For those who are curious to learn more about Maximum Sterile Barrier precautions, the CDC HICPAC describes further steps that can be taken for more seriously invasive punctures such as a central venous or arterial catheter. For body artists, an achievable version of surgical asepsis (sterile technique) maintains barriers such as sterile gloves, masks and eye protection, and removes obstacles likely to compromise these barriers such as hanging earrings and necklaces, long hair, rings and watches.
“I think that when you say ‘aseptic technique,’ a lot of people automatically think ‘operating room’ or ‘surgical procedure,’” explains Kathleen Meehan Arias, MS, CIC, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) and director of Arias Infection Control Consulting LLC. “That’s rightly so because that is where the bulk of it is. But whenever you are doing anything that bypasses the skin barrier, you should automatically think aseptic technique.” — Applying Aseptic Technique in all Clinical Settings
This outline of technique suggestions comes from the AORN, APIC and CDC standards and recommended practices as well as a number of textbook resources such as Asepsis, the Right Touch. Much of it needs very little interpretation for our purposes. Safety precautions should result in greater control of the procedure, clinical benefits, reduced harm, and limited liability for negligence.
Rationale: There exist standards for prevention of surgical site infection that apply to even minor invasive elective procedures, and piercing falls within this category by definition.
“When implemented, these guidelines should reduce the risk of disease transmission in the piercing environment, from piercee to piercer, and from piercee to piercee. Based on principles of infection control, the document delineates specific guidelines related to protective attire and barrier techniques; handwashing and care of hands; the use and care of sharp instruments and needles; sterilization or disinfection of instruments; cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces; disinfection and the decontamination room; single-use disposable items; the handling of previously worn piercing jewelry; disposal of waste materials; and implementation of recommendations.”— Piercing Experience adapted IPC standards from the CDC
My personal observation is that these policies have helped limit risk at my studio. They have been reviewed by legal counsel, qualified bioscientists, medical professionals, and university professors. That said, I’m sure that they could always use more input and adaptation. Body art safety is an ever-evolving field of interest.
One might say there is no single right way to pierce. Many variations are possible with an understanding and application of asepsis. We are an industry in which studios market based on their specialties, and for some that is participation in continuing education, gaining knowledge, and raising standards. Maintaining a positive tone one can show those as strengths without diminishing others. This is crucial to developing the bonds between us as fellow professionals. If you believe something you do has advantages, feel free to share that with your customers in a way that does not end up overly critical of our other colleagues.
It should be clear that these position statements in support of surgical asepsis are neither contradictory nor accusatory of others currently using APP minimum standards for medical asepsis according to our 2013 revised Procedure Manual. They build upon them as we are all encouraged to do as Members, employing additional precautions and elective limitations based on evidence and strong theoretical rationale. My preference is to demonstrate best practices as an educator instead of the minimums. If we all did no more than what was required, the industry would not be as interesting.
I believe that it is the responsibility of each of us to uphold the values we feel are important, and to continually advance our standards in order to achieve our goals. I do have romantic hopes that over time the industry will move in the direction of pure, validated, ethical materials and practices that are as harmless as possible. A predictable, consistent, safe, simple, and gentle piercing experience is attainable today and can be refined based on these principles and open communication among colleagues. The recommendations that I make in addition to APP minimums result from a continually researched process of elimination and adaptation, and they are freely shared for peer review. Please consider this a formal request for comments.
Brian Skellie
APP President
Some of the most interesting figures in our history have been those who have taken me and others under their wing to share insights and build community. These avuncular aspects I liken to having a peculiar aunt or uncle in the trade. This year, this feeling was shared by many of my colleagues as we celebrated our 20th Conference with memorials to Tía Raelyn Gallina and our self proclaimed Freakunkle Sid Diller, and a reunion of our extended family. Over the years as much as I’ve gleaned from my familiar mentors in technical and business development, it has been paired with conscientiousness and compassion. To my delight, I have discovered I’ve become one of these figures for some of you.
This opportunity is appreciated profoundly in my reflection on the 20 years of experience interacting with the participants of this organization. Over this epoch I’ve started my own family with Sandrine. We met at the 2004 Conference, introduced by a dear mutual friend and colleague whom I knew from previous years at the event. This year, our daughter was delivered shortly after the Conference, requiring more family compromise than usual to uphold my commitments to travel and share my knowledge. Observing similar efforts from so many of my peers who brought their children, including those who work as a family, filled me with hope, and keened my focus.
The Body Piercing Archive we, the APP have committed to has shown a promising beginning, exceeding my expectations. My first walk through had me transfixed by the images and left me feeling inspired. I eagerly awaited my chance to be a docent and impart memories and observations of important participants and watershed events in our trade and organization as we followed along with our exhibit materials.
The great responsibility to give the President’s Award for 2015 was a subject which I had the privilege to ruminate upon from the moment Elayne Angel handed one to me in 2014. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to get to know this person, who represents a synthesis of the principles, talents, and open perception that has served to elevate so many others in our profession. I am elated to present to Jef Saunders this award, to confer and recognize the potential of our colleague.
It seemed this was our volunteers’ strongest year yet, showcasing their customer service talents to help their peers. Our scholarship recipients appeared to have given their best efforts alongside veterans as the cogs that keep our event moving forward smoothly.
As a speaker, each invitation to prepare and practice sharing a subject has delighted me. The members’ advanced technique round table and needle theory presentations were highlights for me, and a joy to collaborate with other instructors. All in all this was an absolutely outstanding Conference. I even have my own hashtag: #skelfie
Brian Skellie
APP President
In an organization comprised of exceptional participants who have gladly offered countless hours of work and traveled across the planet to share their ardor for safe body adornment, it is the privilege and great pleasure of the President each year to shine a light upon one who has exemplified our mission. To offer a special award in esteem of the outstanding contributions of this volunteer is equally to recognize the potential we all have to achieve the goals set forth by our Association.
In a field of iconoclasts, in which we must each be self reliant during our daily procedures, some of our fellow piercers have demonstrated proficiency at organizing and working together for the benefit of our community.
In a time where our colleagues have researched, debated, and negotiated fair regulations to respect and protect their fellow piercers and body artists, there are certain among us who excel at diplomacy and bringing forward our purpose. These individuals are honoured with the President’s award. We have showcased the winners of this award in several previous issues of The Point, starting with Issue 26 in 2003 (pg 3-5) as well as in 2009 with Issue 48 (pg 2-3).
Since 2009, when the sitting president James Weber presented to Raelyn Gallina, we have had five new honorees, including yours truly in 2014.
• 2010 Danny Yerna, presented by Jim Weber
• 2011 Allen Falkner, presented by Jim Weber
• 2012 Steve Joyner, presented by Elayne Angel
• 2013 Sarah Wooten, presented by Elayne Angel
• 2014 Brian Skellie, presented by Elayne Angel
Before the existence of the President’s award, the Jack Yount Memorial Certificate of Recognition for Promoting Excellence in Professional Piercing was dedicated to Michaela Grey, Founder of the APP, as a special award chosen by the appointed Board in 1998. This can be recalled as a time when people who had worked alongside her felt a need to show respect for her efforts in coalescing the Association, and as a nod to the gentle persuasion towards exploration and excellence Jack Yount had shared with us.
“He passed away in Hospital in Copenhagen Denmark on July 15, 1995 at the age of 68.”
Michaela Grey was again recognized in 2005 with a special Lifetime Achievement award from a subsequent APP Board, for her contributions to our industry.
The APP wants to thank North Bay Bioscience, LLC (NBBS) and Autoclave Testing Services, Inc. (ATS) for working with us to find an efficient streamlined process for the reporting of spore tests results for the APP Members who test with them. Once the APP Member gives permission for their testing company to release spore test records to us, we will be able to review test results online.
The APP can now get information/reports on our Members who test with NBBS or ATS via an online portal. This will make maintaining records much easier and allow the APP to have immediate access to test results. Members who test with them will no longer have to send in their spore test results monthly/quarterly; instead if for some reason we are NOT seeing test results we will contact the Member.
We have also sent out an inquiry to SPS Medical in the hopes of doing something similar.
Brian Skellie
APP President
Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law states: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Had I been at Arthur’s elbow as he wrote those words, I’d have suggested adding: “to the uninformed observer.”
— James Randi, WHY MAGICIANS ARE A SCIENTIST’S BEST FRIEND
It may seem from appearances that the APP has been conjuring constant advancements and results from our common mission. For more than two decades, behind the scenes this question has been the focus of enthusiastic volunteers aided by an astute administrator. We have had eight changes of leadership before our current board, most of whom I have had the pleasure of working alongside. They have contributed significant guidance, accomplished projects, and made decisions that have helped our field grow. I thank each of you for choosing to engage. In regards to this question, progress and development is an excellent answer.
Another very pleasing question that comes up more often than ever before is in regards to where we might go to improve upon the minimum standards. These years of educational outreach have been fruitful, and we have received outstanding applications from an increasing number of supporters. I affirm: please excel. Impress us with your intuition and invention! Sharing your ideas raises the level for all of your fellow members.
I’d like to think that there are many piercers out there who are not yet members, but who meet and exceed the skills and criteria required by APP membership. The fact remains that we encourage each piercer to feel welcome to start the application process and join. Our membership committee is here to help with your questions and to facilitate the process with a regular online APP Future Members group, and round tables both at events and online.
Participation in our educational events can demystify the technology and techniques important to our work and provide the foundational aptitudes so that you can become an APP member.
*The Point Spring 1994 issue lists the first Board of Directors as Crystal Cross and Richard White, Ahna Edwards, Kent Fazekas, Gahdi Elias, Michela Grey, Blake Perlingeri, Rob Petroff, Maria Tashjian, and Alan Falkner.
In August of 1996, Maria and Blake stepped down and were replaced by David Vidra and Al D. Sowers.
June 1997 Kent Fazekas is named Chair
June 1998 Gahdi Elias is named Chair
From June of 1999 until June of 2002, Pat McCarthy held the position of President.
As of June 2002 this position was assumed by Bethra Szumski. She sat on the board as President until June of 2005.
In June of 2005 Alicia Cardenas became president. She remained president until June of 2008.
James Weber succeeded the position of President from June of 2008 until June of 2011.
In June 2011 Elayne Angel took over as the President, where she served until June of 2014.
Our most recent President is Brian Skellie who has been President since June of 2014.
Brian Skellie
APP President
Some of the most fundamental ideas about piercing are those that are most intriguing and still relevant to question. What materials are available now to make jewelry for initial healing and prolonged wear in the body safe? How does one accurately direct an edge while traversing a body part to get consistent results? What can be done to minimize harm to the client and risk to the worker?
Part of what we can delight in as piercing practitioners is the potential for continued qualitative improvement in our work. Rumination upon these questions that can incite change, coupled with a willingness to progress and try new options opens us to the possibility that each procedure, each interaction and connection made with patrons can be our best to date. We have in our hands the means to find persuasive science and novel approaches to the challenges that we face, through access to libraries and communication with colleagues worldwide.
The constant flow of information among our peers engages this and advances our desire for better outcomes based on both understanding and inspiration. You are welcome to join in the conversation, add to it what you can offer, and benefit from the advantages of persistent educational opportunities. This organization exists to act as a crucible for bringing our ideas and skills together to make something more versatile, robust, complete, healthier, and easier to disseminate for the betterment of our craft and our society.
One of the aspects of this trade that I cherish most is the occasion to share with others what fascinates me about our work, and to learn from them in exchange. Whether that may be in written correspondence, a phone call, video conference, in person (or in a studio), or at an event. It is encouraging to observe that virtually every one of you seems to partake in them as often as possible—and this is evidenced by the many thousands of professional conversations logged online and the outstanding international attendance at several major educational events this year, including over twenty countries represented at our Conference.
Since the 2014 APP Conference, volunteer members working with the organization have traveled as educators to share ideas related to safety, theory, technique, technology, and history to conferences held by APP associate corporate members in Germany, Mexico, and Italy. As a participant at each, I can say they have exemplified and improved upon some of the best aspects of our event, and at the same time were quite different and unique from one another, apart from geographic location and language.
From October 2-5, the annual BMXnet event took place in Essen, Germany, and our business members Ana Paula Escalante, Christiane Löfblad, and Ryan Ouellette were welcomed back to the creative Unperfekthaus space to provide both informative lectures and hands-on demonstrations in technical skills workshops. The event is equipped to allow procedures to be performed live, and I had the privilege of demonstrating how to lose a connection and reconnect during a nostril piercing. (Sorry, David!)
Former APP Presidents Elayne Angel and Bethra Szumski (Secretary), Paul King (Treasurer), and I collectively taught a dozen classes and workshops during the event. An important element of our participation was to introduce the ideals and mission of the APP organization to new people. To that end we held a panel discussion with Ryan on how to continue our work to help fellow organizations such as BMXnet, ASAP, APTPI and LBP.
As an event that draws more international attendees than ever before, it seemed that this year English-speaking classes filled the schedule (38 in English/9 in German), and this was one of the topics discussed during the Future of BMXnet roundtable, led by one of the organizers, Stephan Strestik. They seem to have great potential, with their strong mix of educators and open exchange of ideas. The inclusion of an “all-you-can-eat” buffet for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and all-day soft drinks, coffee, and tea was very helpful, especially for those who might have skipped a meal or had to eat on the run at other events due to a full schedule.
A few short weeks later, a voyage to Mexico City followed for the LBP 2do Congreso: La Asociación Latinoamericana de Body Piercing. Along with board member Jef Saunders and officers Bethra and Paul, we reunited with Ana Paula, serving as LBP Secretary, and LBP President Danny Yerna, who was previously APP International Liaison. Registration and entry to the provided transportation was fluid, and the participants who filled the meeting place quickly made it into their seats with their necessities and a binder full of all of the lecture handouts, which was provided as reading material for the road trip. Even the APP materials and class details were translated into Spanish! This allowed for in-depth discussion en route, and prepared everyone to ask informed questions—and cut down considerably on live translation time. The translation of materials in advance was first rate, and gave me peace of mind as a non-native presenter, since my competence in Spanish is not yet what I aspire to. (Aprendo español, pero yo no hablo con fluidez.)
We traveled with a large group of the attendees to the Centro Vacacional y de Convenciones IMSS Metepec, near Puebla, at the base of the Iztaccíhuatl – Popocatépetl National Park and namesake volcanoes. We drove through a beautiful nature reserve part of the park on the way. When we arrived, we toured the grounds and got a sense of the harmonious combination of natural and professional spaces the organizers found so attractive.
This event follows several successful APP Mexico conferences, and has evolved in a significantly different format in an all-inclusive setting—where transportation, lodging, and meals were all covered together with the event. Everyone was invited to take part in every class and workshop, and the planned social events, as well as to dine together. Even special guest Fakir Musafar and his partner Cleo Dubois spent a great deal of time mingling with the group outside of the auditorium.
The next week transported me to Venice, Italy where I met Paul and long-time APP conference participant Ron Garza for the Body Art Development International Piercing Class and Workshop event. This was a new offering by the APTPI affiliated organizers, with technique and theory lectures, coupled with hands-on supervised training. The format was punctual and could be repeated for focus on specifics with expert direction.
Our 20th Conference is in production now, with plenty of new ideas for you! See you at Bally’s in Las Vegas (June 7-12, 2015).