81–90 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say this in jest. But how would one actually get rid of blood if you can’t donate?
Just stop by the barber. Mine has a 2-for-1 deal on thursdays: bloodletting and shave for 2 bits.
Donate your perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to those in need! Hmm: > As to the question of what happens to recipients of this blood: “Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances are ubiquitous, and no threshold has been identified that poses an increased risk to recipients of donated blood components.”
Sheesh, I can't believe the percent of negative comments! Someone finally figured a way to reduce PFAS. It's a hugely positive finding, especially in light of people being able to keep their red blood cells. Hopefully it can be ruled as a safe long-term solution for now. Looking forward to reading updates on this research. And btw, donating plasma doesn't mean other people will get your PFAS; many things can be done…
In other words, dilution is solution of pollution[0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that the person who needs blood cares more about getting the blood or plasma than the small amount of PFAS in it, which they likely have already. If this causes more people to donate, it's probably a good thing overall, even if the people doing it are doing so in the hopes of cleansing their own system of these chemicals.
While I generally agree the idea that it's not harmful enough to stop a transfer, I disagree with the basis of the argument. We could also say that given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood.
…yes?
How about donating platelets? Due to my blood type, they want my platelets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're basically saying: "Sure, you're passing the buck, but there's no evidence that your reduction in PFAS results in an increase of PFAS to the recipient. Because we haven't looked." and then calling that "Science".
No, the phrase "there's no evidence" implies an attempt to find out that resulted in no support for the notion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just stop by the barber. Mine has a 2-for-1 deal on thursdays: bloodletting and shave for 2 bits.
Yeah, my first thought was "holy shit, maybe finally an actual justification for regular bloodletting as a health practice!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that the person who needs blood cares more about getting the blood or plasma than the small amount of PFAS in it, which they likely have already. If this causes more people to donate, it's probably a good thing overall, even if the people doing it are doing so in the hopes of cleansing their own system of these chemicals.
While I generally agree the idea that it's not harmful enough to stop a transfer, I disagree with the basis of the argument. We could also say that given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood.
With respect to PFAS, which is a general societal/environmental issue it's likely that all donated blood has roughly the same PFAS levels, so recipient either gets blood with PFAS or no blood at all; and the "new" blood might have slightly more or less PFAS than the recipients current blood, but the recipient already has a comparable level of PFAS anyway.