• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Stop and think about it. I agree, it initially sounds really, really bad. I’m trying to reduce the level of toxins in my blood, so I’m giving them to someone else? I’m kicking the can down the road?

    Don’t go with that knee-jerk reaction.

    If I regularly donate, the PFAS levels in my blood are going to be lower than the average person. My blood has fewer toxins than the average person; fewer toxins than the average recipient.

    With that in mind, why should my blood be discarded?

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      We’re talking about bloodletting to remove toxic chemicals from people who are already known to be at risk because levels are high

      Bloodletting is not donating to the vulnerable

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Even then, you’re only donating 500ml to the recipient; 1/10th their blood volume. Your rate would have to be about 10 times the average for the PFAS in your blood to pose even a moderate risk to them.

        And with plasma, most of the volume of your donation is discarded. They extract the proteins and certain other useful components, and toss the rest, including (most of) the PFAS.

        My point is that even with (moderately) elevated levels of PFAS, your blood/plasma does not pose a significant danger to recipients. Certainly not one that exceeds the lifesaving value of your blood or plasma.