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.”
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.
We could also say that given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood.
…yes?
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.
The thing is, donated blood is always in short supply. you dont have much choice, when you have a serious blood-loss.
edit: I would be very angry if sombody would have chosen to use hiv blood on me while I was uncounciuos. Similar to how I would be angry if my arm would be amputated, while my conciousness was away.
> apart from being identified as potentially carcinogenic, PFAS are associated with “low fetal weight, impaired immune response, thyroid function abnormalities, obesity, increased lipid levels, liver function alterations, and, potentially, an increased risk of some malignant neoplasms.”
I suppose that most blood recipients are probably better off with increased PFAS than going without the infusion, but the article sure presents the situation clumsily.
But let do some simple math. Let's say I (and a dozen other donors) have 10ng/mL of PFAS in my system and a recipient has 5ng/mL. Assuming 20 pints of blood in a human for the rest of this word problem. Recipient requires a transfusion of 10 pints which happen to be sourced by those 12 donors, What is their PFAS load after the transfusion?
˥ɯ/ƃuϛ˙ㄥ :ɹǝʍsu∀