Another great reason to become a regular blood donor. I recall reading that the only way to remove these forever substances from your blood was through donations. My wife and I go every 3 months.
I was surprised that you cannot donate less than a pint of blood. I wanted to donate but that put me off, one pint is too much lost blood in one sitting. I wonder why these restrictions and why not allow people to donate half of that for example. Is it just for convenience for blood collectors?
It's because blood bags are typically pre-filled with a measured dose of an anticoagulant to increase how long the blood can be stored. If they're only partially filled there will be too much anticoagulant for the volume of blood.
I believe the most common anticoagulant used today is Citrate Phosphate Dextrose Adenine Solution (CPDA-1), which doesn't have a Wikipedia page, but it's mentioned on the page for the the older acid-citrate-dextrose:
However, I agree that volumes of blood per donation (which varies by country) are sometimes so big that it probably discourages many potential donors. It's possible that demanding such a large quantity from each donor reduces the total amount of blood donated.
Off the top of my head, I imagine blood bag sizes are standardized, so they're easy to deal with during an emergency transfusion.
It would be a nightmare to deal with containers with mixed volumes of blood. "This patient needs 3 litres of O-, let me figure out which combination of blood bags do I need now"
You do you, but I'm pretty athletic, donate blood frequently, and have never really noticed any degradation in my athletic performance the day after a donation. Unless you have some medical condition, the standard amount is no big deal.
for a drug that appears to lower PFAS levels. I'd be concerned about where the PFAS is partitioned in the body: giving blood isn't going to make a big difference if most of the PFAS is in your fat.
Ive never done it and the whole thing grosses me out so much id probably pass out. but reading about this lately im honestly considering it. at the same time it makes me wonder i never was interested in donating blood for greater good but now im motivated to get rid of any pfas... so someone else can take them up?
If the problem gets worse perhaps there's another solution. Like kidney patients on dialysis, we all could soon be lining up for PFAS and perhaps nano plastics dialysis.
My nervous system just short circuits from the idea of blood draw/donation. I start shaking, get super tense, and white out in a minute or so. Also, my veins are not super visible which makes the experience super tense.
It's something that I can't control, and is miserable for everyone involved.
Lol, I feel like I'm very similar reaction-wise. My veins are massive though. I tried once and had to call it off within a minute. I want to try looking away. I seem to function better if I look away.
The paper is available, so feel free to check yourself. BMI was taken into account. Fast food I do not see, but where did you read about this association?
At the end of February this year the FDA banned PFAS in food packaging which was prevalent especially in paper products which held greasy food. If you ate a bunch of French fries there was a good chance you were exposed to a significant amount of extra PFAS. This study could be finding a correlation between diet and PFAS exposure and nothing more. I’m not saying it is but if not corrected for the signal is suspect.
I do not have a link, but have read it in multiple journals.
The MAO is entirely plausible. Many fast food wrappers are lined with PFAS because of its temperature stability and hydrophobic properties. At high temperatures these coatings also leech the coating.
"Fast food consumption is also associated with both"
I'm not arguing the point here but why would fast food have more PFAS in it? Seems these days all food is grown under conditions and goes through similar handling before it gets to customers.
Many fast food wrappers/containers contained PFAS until very recently [0]. Putting hot food out of a fryer into those containers would leech some of the PFAS into the food.
Yeah right, no doubt true. But similarly I'd imagine it'd be also true for many household kitchen containers that are made of plastic.
I know some HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) containers have been found to contain PFAS, so it would be safe to assume those that are still in use in my kitchen also contain them but I've no simple way of telling for sure. But it's safe to assume the worst.
Also I use lots of large HDPE storage boxes to store everything from old papers and documents to tools and I've a long-term complaint about them in that they sweat their plasticizers and that has practical implications as it shortens their useful life.
Whenever a year or two later I rummage around looking something stored in the boxss I notice that they've developed a sort of greasy film on them like one would expect to find had they'd been stored in a kitchen where one does lots of frying.
So unless they're stored in a clean pristine place—which is impractical where I live—they'll collect dust that simply cannot be just brushed off as the dust mixes with the oil-like plasticizer. So every now and then I'll clean them by spraying them with a household cleaner that's a soapy surfactant then rinse them. I'm unaware exactly what plasticizers are used and or whether they contain significant amounts of PFAS.
However, over time, as the plasticizers leach out, the polyethylene goes a slight yellowish color and becomes very brittle, and it's commonplace for me to replace them. When old, they'll easily break open if stacked too high or if accidentally dropped.
To put it bluntly, I'm damn sick of having to clean and replace them all too frequently. The old ones end up wherever trash collectiors dump them (even if I put them with plastic recycling I've heard they're still likely to end up in landfill where they'll continue to leach plasticizer, FFAS etc. not to mention fragment into nano plastic particles and spread into the environment).
There are much better more durable plastics available than polyethylene that are much less likely to leach, and if used to make boxes and similar stuff it would make them much more rugged and durable, they could then last indefinitely—50+ years or more.
Trouble is manufacturers don't want people to keep stuff indefinitely, they just want people to buy more.
I reckon this problem can only be fixed by legislation. The sooner the better.
Right. However, traditional pre-WWII greaseproof paper didn't contain them (as that was before organo-fluorine chemistry was commonplace), and it worked pretty well. Why not simply revert to that?
It may not be as efficient as paper laced with PFAS but it would certainly be good enough.
It seems food packaging is at fault here [1], and fast food has much more individually wrapped items, small ketchup bags, and even before preparation often is single-portioned. Meaning insane amounts of touching packaging material compared to real food.
The switch from plastic to "biodegradable" materials for food packaging will probably be shown to be a grave mistake in the future. Natural cardboard will quickly loose it's strength if exposed to hot oily food, so they are usually coated with materials to prevent that.
I also suspect PFAS or similar coatings are used on paper cups to aid separation when stacked.
A few years ago I visited a Burger King in Spain and the cups have a strange slimy feel, which felt similar to when you get PTFE spray on your hands (good as a lubricant where you don't want it to spread to nearby parts like oil).
"Natural cardboard will quickly loose it's strength if exposed to hot oily food,..."
I know, I've experienced the problem of disintegrating containers myself many times. That said, I believe that for many applications there are either existing solutions that are practical and still offer PFAS-type performance that won't disadvantage people too much or that new chemistry can be developed that's much more environmentally friendly. As I mentioned above in my previous reply traditional greaseproof paper doesn't contain PFAS so why not use it? It's suitable for food preparation and delivery. However it's not suitable for everything and other alternatives to PFAS have to be found.
It seems to me that chemistry might hiding even better solutions. I'm not a professional chemist but I've studied the subject more years than I care to remember, so I'm not going to offer a neat solution to the problem here, (anyway, if I had one I'd have patented it and I'd be rich). :-)
When previously confronted with these types of problems chemists have applied themselves and have often found suitable solutions. After all, that's a major aspect of chemical engineering. Moreover, I'd be very surprised if there aren't existing solutions that are more environmentally friendly already available. It's finding them and making the switch that's difficult. That said, new chemicals will have to be engineered for specific applications.
Whether PFAS-type chemicals can be modified to break down more easily is moot, as the carbon-fluorine bond is extremely strong and not much can touch it for strength, but there are other molecules that are potentially suitable—that is, ones that can be easily converted into materials that are initially impermeable to water, oils and grease but breakdown after suitably long exposure to water, bacteria etc.
At first guess I'd be looking at reexamining cellulose as the basis for developing better materials but no doubt there are many others that would be suitable. It's a natural material that's readily available from wood and plant matter and it's environmentally friendly, and we understand its chemistry. We already make cellophane from it which is impervious to water and oils but it will still break down upon extended exposure (one of the reasons for why cellophane isn't used more often is that it lacks long-term durability; that wasn't seen as a vitrue but it's now a property that we actually want).
Previously, cellulose and cellulose-type plastics such as cellophane and celluloid were bypassed in favor of oil-based plastics specifically because they weren't as durable as the latter, but in the light of the PFAS-forever chemicals problem I'd reckon a reexamination of their chemistry would seem in order. We need to start researching them and other suitable ones again.
A quick and rather oversimplified way of looking at what's needed to replace PFAS is to think about how soap and detergents work. We start with an oil which is hard to break down partly because it's hydrophobic and hates mixing with water which would help towards breaking it down. To tame its hydrophobic tendencies we attach water-loving hydrophilic OH (hydroxyl) groups to its molecules which they accept only under considerable duress.
Luckily, it turns out that this brual attack hasn't destroyed the oil molecules completely, rather they've metamorphosed—saponified—into a sort of schizophrenic 'hybrid' compound that exhibits both hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties. Now one part of this new 'hybrid' retains its affinity for oils whilst its 'attachment' happily joins with water. Thus, the oily end will still grab grease on your plate whilst its new hydroxyl part allows water to wash the whole mess away. Applying such a process to forever chemicals such as PFAS is extremely difficult if not impossible because of the extremely tough organo-fluorine bond.
What we need to do is to develop a suitable range of compounds that have properties somewhere between the extremely strong bonds exhibited by PFAS and those that can couple easily with water and or other common compounds that are suitable, this will allow them to be broken down into harmless environmentally friendly byproducts.
Nevertheless, we still want control over the breakdown process, that is we need to design chemicals that initially resist being broken down so they are actually useful and do what we want but eventually succumb to being broken down after a suitable duration when we're finished using them.
I believe that this not beyond the capability of modern chemical engineering. As I see it, the main problem is that there's a huge well established industry out there with lots of existing infrastructure that's standing in the way. It's been used to manufacturing and using forever chemicals for a very long time, thus it has inertia and will inherently resist change; moreover, making the change to more friendly alternatives will likely come at considerable cost.
in the study the confounding factors adjusted for are "certain risk behaviors (alcohol consumption, smoking), obesity and lipid-lowering medication" and they "generally decreased the strength of and number of significant associations, but did not substantially change the overall patterns".
"...Paper Straws Contain Traces of Toxic Forever Chemicals"
Good idea, but what are you going to use instead? As plastic ones are out, that only leaves glass and perhaps bamboo straws. I know they exist as I've seen them (but I can't say I've seen a glass one in decades).
Unfortunately, from my recollection, glass straws are inconvenient and can be dangerous if broken.
Frankly, I reckon it's hopeless, between nano plastics and PFAS I can't possibly conceive how I can effectively eliminate them from my life.
Another daily chemical that has estrogenic effects.
Guys (and maybe girls), get a full blood panel done that shows you the exact numbers of lipid, testosterone , and estrogen in your body.
I got panels done and was blown away by how low my T levels were (talking less than 250 ng/dl, full blown hypogonadism). My lipid panels show I had high ldl cholesterol and my blood pressure was high.
Worse yet, I work out 5 times a week, run, and eat a very healthy diet. I have a very healthy weight.
I've started taking 100ml shots split out twice a week. Over the past 6 weeks my pre and post blood works are startling.
LDL dropped considerably. My blood pressure dropped and is nowich safer.
It's death by a thousand cuts with all of these chemicals out there that turn friggin frogs gay poisoning us.
The following is not intended as advice for you, because I don't want to make assumptions about your healthcare situation (and you didn't ask me for advice). However I'm sharing it here in case it's helpful to others in whom you may have aroused curiosity.
Exogenous testosterone supplementation induces potentially permanent primary hypogonadism in patients that don't already have it. It can also eventually more or less completely atrophy the testes. Those effects can be partially counteracted by additional drugs, cycling, and so on, but those approaches have their own problems.
Some doctors want to go straight to testosterone supplementation, but I would insist on first eliminating secondary hypogonadism as a cause of low serum testosterone. See a good urologist or endocrinologist who will work with you to figure out root cause to the extent possible. There are treatments for secondary hypogonadism that will restore testosterone to very high levels in individuals with healthy testes.
> It's death by a thousand cuts with all of these chemicals out there that turn friggin frogs gay poisoning us.
I hope that statement is a joke and just reference to that insane Alex Jones clip. But if it's not, no amount of estrogenic compounds will turn you gay. Otherwise MTF folks would be universally straight after taking hormone therapy.
I don't think the term "gay" is particularly well defined for amphibians. Frogs do change sex though[1]. Whether or not exposure to exogenous estrogenic compounds triggers that I do not know.
Meh. I had he same blood work results as a 35 year old 4 years ago. I was "healthy" and exercising every day and eating "healthy".
Turns out running 8 miles every day and not eating over 100g of protein and not having enough fat KILLS your hormones because you're always in a catabolic state.
Now I only lift heavy, fixed my macros, get better sleep, focus on muscle mass, and DON'T need TRT. My natural T levels tripled in only 2 years.
There are no conclusive studies, but there are credible hypotheses and studies in animal models that suggest sexual orientation and gender identity (as well as other neurological factors) may be impacted by prenatal exposure to hormones and endocrine disruptors.
The science is a long way from having conclusive evidence either way, but there is a reasonable basis to think that it might have an impact, which should urge caution. If we found a new material that looked a lot like asbestos under a microscope, you'd presumably limit your exposure to it until proven safe?
Yes, prenantal exposure to hormones is one thing but I was specifically referring to GP's frankly controversial implicit claim that gay men possess lower T.
Anyway if I recall correctly that research suggests that higher prenantal T exposure increases likelihood of homosexuality, the opposite of what stereotypes might suggest
Its the opposite of what you may think. High T makes you more sexual and less inhibited. Many, many, many, many people turn to the dark side after using anabolic steroids. Even if they don't become full Sith masters, they often still like to dabble in dark side of Thailand.
Will you have to stay on the shots forever or are you doing things in conjunction to stay at good levels (if so, what? Sounds like your lifestyle was already healthy)
With regular TRT shots, I've heard that there is a possibility that the baseline will lower due to changes in the HPG axis, leading to decreased production of LH and FSH, which leads to less testosterone being signaled to be naturally produced.
Taking extregenious testosterone disables your natural production. If you want to fire it back up you'll need to take hcg or clomid as post cycle therapy.
When on TRT, the naturally produced stuff is for all intents and purposes useless because you will be shooting up plenty that any extra will probably aromatise into estrogen anyway.
