this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
214 points (99.1% liked)
Not The Onion
12939 readers
951 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pretty much, yes. Sounds rather nefarious, doesn't it? Taking the dangerous chemicals out of my blood and putting them into someone else?
The amount of PFAS the recipient will receive from whole blood donation is not enough to appreciably raise their own levels. Even if we replace their complete blood volume with my blood, the absolute highest their concentration of PFAS can get in their body is equal to mine; not higher.
If they don't regularly donate blood/plasma as well, it is likely that I have lower levels of PFAS than they start with, and that my less-contaminated blood actually reduces their PFAS concentration.
For plasma, the news is actually better: (Most of) The PFAS in your donated plasma is discarded along with the rest of the unusable components. Extraction of the various proteins and other components rejects (most of) the PFAS.