• nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Missing from the article: actual amounts of PFAS found in the bands, what percentage of it can be absorbed through skin contact, how that compares to other sources the average person might run into, and how much you have to absorb before biological damage emerges out of the statistical noise. The information may be in the original paper, but I’m disinclined to search for it there. Without those numbers, this is meaningless.

    • HaiZhung@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      From the paper:

      The very high concentrations of PFHxA readily extractable from the surfaces of fluoroelastomer watch bands, together with the current limited knowledge on the dermal absorption of PFHxA, demonstrate the need for more comprehensive exposure studies of PFHxA.

      So it sounds more like it’s unclear for now. But probably best to about these bands either way.

    • hywoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      This is just a news article. Also even though they had those informations in the article I won’t trust some journalist about the answers of your big questions and I suggest you the same.

      • nyan@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        21 hours ago

        One of two things is the case:

        1. The numbers are in the paper, and the person who wrote the article could have transcribed them but is too lazy.

        2. The numbers are not in the paper, in which case I would class the article as inflammatory and irresponsible.

        .

        Do I trust the journalist? Not in the sense you mean, but I expect them to act responsibly and make a minimum effort.