If so, no: the article is about a technique for destroying long-lived PFAS molecules, which are extraordinarily stable and therefore long lived, and about which there are health concerns (they do very odd things to biological systems in very low concentrations).
You don't give blood only to those who are dying, people that are treated for disease sometimes also require blood transfer. Even then it's no excuse to willingly give a polluted blood.
If you were dying of thirst I would give you water from tchernobil nuclear plant and you would thank me.
> I understand it can happen unwillingly but doing that on purpose is... shady. Got to be an horrible person to willingly poison another.
Well the thing is that at this point pretty much everyone has PFAS in their blood[0][1], except perhaps for some uncontacted tribes (although I'm not so sure[2]).
You'd be hard pressed to find any blood with no PFAS at all, if it even exists. So there is nothing wrong with donating it, as there is no alternative.
