This is about a journal article titled "Emerging PFAS contaminants PFNA and PFSA amplify epigenetic aging: sex- and age-stratified risks in an aging population" https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2025.1722675 .
The OP says mentions a report from a US Academy but the paper is published in a different journal—this wasn't clear to me at first so I thought I would share the original work.
Its kind of funny that a lot of issues I had seemed to not be present when I was donating. Then I took finasteride and now I'm not allowed to donate anymore...
The recipient will get the forever chemicals, but they survive due to the blood transfer, so in a few weeks they can donate and get rid of the chemicals.
Did it ever leave? I thought it was still preferred in certain medical procedures. I think something about after reattaching parts of the body it was one of the best options to ensure blood flow in the area, but it has been years since I last read about it.
“In this randomized clinical trial of 285 firefighters, both blood and plasma donations resulted in significantly lower PFAS levels than observation alone. Plasma donation was the most effective intervention, reducing mean serum perfluorooctane sulfonate levels by 2.9 ng/mL compared with a 1.1-ng/mL reduction with blood donation, a significant difference; similar changes were seen with other PFASs”
Yes, for those under 30 you have no idea how normalized smoking was right thru the 90s. Restaurants reeked of it, bars more so. A ridiculous percent of men smoked.
I have memories of being quite young sitting in a relatives lap at a baseball game while they smoked. Or my coach in little league smoking a pipe in the dugout filled with 11 year olds.
Every vehicle came with an electric lighter and plenty of ash trays. One of the more common crafts kids used to do was making ash trays for their parents.
I was explaining this to my elementary school aged kids just a few days ago. We were eating in a restaurant and I told them that when I was their age most restaurants had a smoking and non-smoking section. Of course the smoke did not respect the invisible barrier. The idea that people could just smoke indoors and it was normal really blew their minds.
High school boys bathroom was basically a de-facto smoking lounge. It was banned but kids still did it. They occasionally cracked down, but the smell was permanent.
There was also an unwritten understanding that it was preferred the boys went out back to a certain door to smoke outside there instead and wouldn't get in trouble if caught.
My armchair scientific answer to that is: eventually, maybe. The problem we / science / medical / life expectancy has right now is that so much has and is changing as we speak. PFAS and microplastics only really became a thing after WW2, so while on the one side we banned asbestos, leaded fuel, smoking (and more recently drinking) got out of fashion, on the other there's microplastics everywhere, PFAS, vaping, various radiations, and by the looks of it the effects of a lot of these things will only slowly become apparent and statistically significant / measurable and discernable from other possible causes over a long period (30-50 years I'd guess, maybe longer), by which time there will be other factors at play too.
People born before the 1980 are also of significantly lower IQ up to a 7-8 points due to leaded gas use. The boomers and gen X really did a number on themselves with environmental hazards.
In countries that phased out lead later, even early Millennials faced similar or worse childhood exposure. It’s a global generational story, just with different timelines by country. As a personal example, Romania only phased out leaded gasoline at the end of 2004.
A necessary (?) part of progress IMO. Environmental hazards have been a thing for a lot longer too. Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.
Part of the environmental/emissions argument from developing countries is about past emissions by developed countries. I think it's a fair argument to say given these sacrifices made by past generations in industrialised countries + the benefit of developed cleaner technologies through that industrialisation is an argument against that.
> Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.
Used to? Lots of them still are. Right now there's 150 µg/m³ of PM2.5 outside my window, and it's a "clean" day. Yesterday's concentrations were up to 900 µg (yes, that's correct), and the highest I've seen this winter were 2000 µg (yes, this is also correct). And it keeps getting worse, recently our so-called president mentioned that coal is our strategic reserve and we won't be phasing it out any time soon.
I'm relatively sure most of the "global south" has bad air quality, even if such extreme values are rare.
Here are some random photos of a typical winter day (winter is 8 months per year):
I was thinking more localised. When legislation changes happened (here in the UK) the problem disappeared quickly. The UK being an industrialised country in the context of the parent comments.
I strongly suspect that most of the things we now know to be problematic were also known to be problematic to the ancients, but were thought still to be worth it for their rewards. That’s pretty much where we still are today. Nobody likes breathing pollution, everybody likes modernity.
1901 Oldsmobile curved dashboard was the first mass produced car. Lead was introduced to gasoline around 1920. You want the "Lost Generation", born 1883-1900.
Us GenXers didn't do this to ourselves. Boomers (and their parents) did it to us.
I was born '74. Alberta, Canada. I remember people raising a huge stink about "guvmint' interference" when leaded gasoline was banned and when seatbelt use became mandatory. And don't even get started about cigarettes and mandatory separate smoking areas at restaurants etc.
"Liberty" and "freedom" were concepts substantially abused and misapplied throughout the 20th century.
I have no concern for young generations wanting to blame our age group. The day will come soon that their generation is pointed at for not solving the complex problems of their day. Now if they will show me the same grace when I start a story with "back in my day" we will all get along.
The part you are leaving out is treating them solely as "illegals" means these people will avoid going to physicians to get their shots, because they would risk deportation.
The obvious solution for better health for all would be providing public and freely accessible locations for getting these shots, or mobile teams providing them at schools etc.
Can you cite some sources? Because most countries have a functioning vaccination program, in part thanks to now-cancelled USAID funding. But vaccination rates have been dropping, just like in the US. https://www.unicef.org/lac/en/press-releases/latin-america-a...
Your comment reads like anti-immigrant propaganda. If USAID were to be restored, the US could use its vast wealth to improve global health. But the current US regime is decisively anti-vax and wants everyone to suffer unnecessarily from preventable disease.
Yet the measles outbreak in Northern Mexico was caused by antivax white mennonites who brought it from Texas. Turns out there are subpopulations everywhere who need to be vaccinated - if only we had evidence-based people in charge of public health instead of wellness grifters.
Consuming fiber daily, e.g. psyllium husk, is another way to lower some types of PFAS from the body, although not all types of PFAS are going to mix into bile to facilitate this excretion. The way this works is that some PFAS dissolves in bile which binds to psyllium which is excreted.
Remember, 5g psyllium should be taken with 20 fl oz water, mixed and consumed immediately before it gels. Do not take it two hours before or after any medicine, and do not take it if having swallowing difficulty.
If you can source clean psyllium, the bulk of it comes from India and let's say they have different standards when it comes to lead/pesticides and regulations in general
I get the USDA Organic one which should handle the pesticides issue. I have asked the vendor to ensure the vendor test for heavy metals.
Note that psyllium is unique in that not only does it not absorb, but it also binds to everything on the way out, so the risk is low. Fwiw, I have had blood and urine tests for lead twice.
Finally, it's not as if the US is great with pesticides. We literally deliberately include PFAS in our pesticides.
So hard to believe all the skiers and snowboarders were putting PFAS as wax just until couple years ago. Also in Germany, you can buy "permanent baking paper" that is pure PTFE without a problem, which is insane to me.
PFOA was used previously, but now it's changed to PTFE, this is supposedly less harmful, but its considered perfectly fine (afaik) as long as the temperatures dont exceed 260°C.. Which at that stage you're probably using the wrong tool.. Maybe some Iron cast skillet or something ?
PFOA is a surfactant that was previously used for emulsion polymerization of PTFE. It's not found in the finished product. It's since been replaced with other less well studied PFAS surfactants that might be less dangerous or might not, which seems to me an example of bad regulation. It would make more sense to regulate disposal of PFOA, which can be done safely with processes such as supercritical water oxidation.
PTFE itself is about as inert as you can get, assuming it's not overheated. If you use PTFE cookwear, I recommend getting an IR thermometer so you can learn how your cooking setup responds and control the temperature properly.
You don’t have to completely avoid it, reducing exposure is helpful. It’s not hard to get rid of it in your own home where you probably spend most of your time and eat most of your meals.
Cooking with it at normal fry pan temperatures (350-400f) is safe, this has been repeatedly confirmed in experiments, some not even funded by DuPont. Don’t do crazy things like really high temp searing and don’t use metal utensils that cause the coating to flake off. Also if you’re really concerned ceramic nonstick + oil has come a long way. And I should add the the most nonstick pan I own is actually a properly seasoned carbon steel wok, yes it’s really possible if you know what you’re doing.
I've heard good things about carbon steel. Particularly, nitrided carbon steel. The pans are treated to be non-stick and are safe. It's what Alton Brown, the host of Food Network's Good Eats who also just launched a new cooking show on YouTube, uses.
If you mean just a skillet / frying pan, i found that a cast iron pan is much better (for non stick), have been using a €10 one for about three years now. You can ignore all warnings about keeping it oiled etc. They also have glass air fryers now (borosilicate glass, quite durable). You can scrub both with a steel sponge.
I use ceramic, but recently learned that nitrided carbon steel pans are the way to go. They are both useful AND safe. Do yourself a favor and invest in one.
Whenever you see a Youtube video from a restaurant kitchen you can almost be sure to see some pans where the teflon has been scrubbed down to the pure metal. Probably not that healthy...
PTFE is extremely chemically inert. There's possibly some risk from ultra-fine particulates that could be absorbed by the body, but compared to all the other sources of particulate exposure I don't think it's a major problem. I'm more concerned by thermal decomposition, which forms all kinds of mystery chemicals of unknown risk profile. Restaurants love to sear food and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them do it on PTFE cookwear.
its highly unlikely any restaurant uses teflon coated pans. Most use carbon steel or stainless. Teflon just won't hold up in daily use at a restaurant.
The problem is most data shows PTFE as having significant pyrolysis after 400-500c in reality it starts to break down enough to poison you around 260c.
In general though under those temperatures it’s not particularly problematic, ofcourse ideally we should just never make the stuff to begin with as it’s manufacture and its eventual breakdown are both horrible for everyone.
This is about a journal article titled "Emerging PFAS contaminants PFNA and PFSA amplify epigenetic aging: sex- and age-stratified risks in an aging population" https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2025.1722675 .
The OP says mentions a report from a US Academy but the paper is published in a different journal—this wasn't clear to me at first so I thought I would share the original work.
There's this theory that you can dilute the chemicals by doing frequent blood donations.
Its kind of funny that a lot of issues I had seemed to not be present when I was donating. Then I took finasteride and now I'm not allowed to donate anymore...
Finasteride, in the US at least, has only a 30 day refractory period. My MD let's me stop for 30 days so I can donate, then resume the regimen.
Does the recipient get the forever chemicals or is there filtration processing that removes them?
The recipient will get the forever chemicals, but they survive due to the blood transfer, so in a few weeks they can donate and get rid of the chemicals.
Can't I just bleed out into the ground occasionally as well?
Is the leech back?
If you are scared of needles you can have the leech. Donation is generally more useful though.
Did it ever leave? I thought it was still preferred in certain medical procedures. I think something about after reattaching parts of the body it was one of the best options to ensure blood flow in the area, but it has been years since I last read about it.
Is there any studies quantifying it? It seems to make sense. Wonder if anybody has measured.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/
“In this randomized clinical trial of 285 firefighters, both blood and plasma donations resulted in significantly lower PFAS levels than observation alone. Plasma donation was the most effective intervention, reducing mean serum perfluorooctane sulfonate levels by 2.9 ng/mL compared with a 1.1-ng/mL reduction with blood donation, a significant difference; similar changes were seen with other PFASs”
I've been told that is beneficial for men with cardiovascular disease too, but I am not sure if that is true.
ahh, bloodletting is back huh? we’re really redoing the middle ages but with iphones
I assume a lot of people 50+ were exposed to a lot more lead and cigarette smoke than younger people.
Yes, for those under 30 you have no idea how normalized smoking was right thru the 90s. Restaurants reeked of it, bars more so. A ridiculous percent of men smoked.
I have memories of being quite young sitting in a relatives lap at a baseball game while they smoked. Or my coach in little league smoking a pipe in the dugout filled with 11 year olds.
Every vehicle came with an electric lighter and plenty of ash trays. One of the more common crafts kids used to do was making ash trays for their parents.
I was explaining this to my elementary school aged kids just a few days ago. We were eating in a restaurant and I told them that when I was their age most restaurants had a smoking and non-smoking section. Of course the smoke did not respect the invisible barrier. The idea that people could just smoke indoors and it was normal really blew their minds.
High school boys bathroom was basically a de-facto smoking lounge. It was banned but kids still did it. They occasionally cracked down, but the smell was permanent.
There was also an unwritten understanding that it was preferred the boys went out back to a certain door to smoke outside there instead and wouldn't get in trouble if caught.
If this were true, would we not see a corresponding drop in life expectancy?
My armchair scientific answer to that is: eventually, maybe. The problem we / science / medical / life expectancy has right now is that so much has and is changing as we speak. PFAS and microplastics only really became a thing after WW2, so while on the one side we banned asbestos, leaded fuel, smoking (and more recently drinking) got out of fashion, on the other there's microplastics everywhere, PFAS, vaping, various radiations, and by the looks of it the effects of a lot of these things will only slowly become apparent and statistically significant / measurable and discernable from other possible causes over a long period (30-50 years I'd guess, maybe longer), by which time there will be other factors at play too.
Dead people are easy to see, the issue is trying to differentiate one cause from everything else.
Smoking for example wasn’t believed to be particularly deadly for a surprisingly long time.
People born before the 1980 are also of significantly lower IQ up to a 7-8 points due to leaded gas use. The boomers and gen X really did a number on themselves with environmental hazards.
Gen X also gave you the web, google, facebook, YouTube, twitter, and additive algorithmic brain rot. So who got the better deal?
In countries that phased out lead later, even early Millennials faced similar or worse childhood exposure. It’s a global generational story, just with different timelines by country. As a personal example, Romania only phased out leaded gasoline at the end of 2004.
Some places still allow it in civil aviation too.
The US is one.
If you live by a small airport frequented by personal aircraft, you're getting bombarded by lead.
Now just imagine living next to a teaching airport that does aerial laps around the neighborhood.
A necessary (?) part of progress IMO. Environmental hazards have been a thing for a lot longer too. Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.
Part of the environmental/emissions argument from developing countries is about past emissions by developed countries. I think it's a fair argument to say given these sacrifices made by past generations in industrialised countries + the benefit of developed cleaner technologies through that industrialisation is an argument against that.
> Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.
Used to? Lots of them still are. Right now there's 150 µg/m³ of PM2.5 outside my window, and it's a "clean" day. Yesterday's concentrations were up to 900 µg (yes, that's correct), and the highest I've seen this winter were 2000 µg (yes, this is also correct). And it keeps getting worse, recently our so-called president mentioned that coal is our strategic reserve and we won't be phasing it out any time soon.
I'm relatively sure most of the "global south" has bad air quality, even if such extreme values are rare.
Here are some random photos of a typical winter day (winter is 8 months per year):
https://pasteboard.co/d2uZDyCd2gvt.jpg
https://pasteboard.co/F1zT2VPXFPKs.webp
https://pasteboard.co/r2S12bHXxzcI.jpg
https://pasteboard.co/w7CfK2Yfaz2l.webp
https://pasteboard.co/ceSDNcQuD4qL.jpg
https://pasteboard.co/z7XJcpoI6FCv.jpg
I was thinking more localised. When legislation changes happened (here in the UK) the problem disappeared quickly. The UK being an industrialised country in the context of the parent comments.
> Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.
London first tried to ban burning coal within the city in 1306 due to the air quality.
That long ago. Surely that helped identify it as a problem even though the science behind it would have been lacking.
I strongly suspect that most of the things we now know to be problematic were also known to be problematic to the ancients, but were thought still to be worth it for their rewards. That’s pretty much where we still are today. Nobody likes breathing pollution, everybody likes modernity.
Yes, some things would have just stood to reason in a general respect, even if there wasn't hard science to back it up.
1901 Oldsmobile curved dashboard was the first mass produced car. Lead was introduced to gasoline around 1920. You want the "Lost Generation", born 1883-1900.
Us GenXers didn't do this to ourselves. Boomers (and their parents) did it to us.
I was born '74. Alberta, Canada. I remember people raising a huge stink about "guvmint' interference" when leaded gasoline was banned and when seatbelt use became mandatory. And don't even get started about cigarettes and mandatory separate smoking areas at restaurants etc.
"Liberty" and "freedom" were concepts substantially abused and misapplied throughout the 20th century.
I have no concern for young generations wanting to blame our age group. The day will come soon that their generation is pointed at for not solving the complex problems of their day. Now if they will show me the same grace when I start a story with "back in my day" we will all get along.
They still are. Measles was on the road to being eradicated until 10 years ago.
The part you are leaving out is that illegals (now in the millions), living in the US are almost never vaccinated for measles.
The part you are leaving out is treating them solely as "illegals" means these people will avoid going to physicians to get their shots, because they would risk deportation.
The obvious solution for better health for all would be providing public and freely accessible locations for getting these shots, or mobile teams providing them at schools etc.
Can you cite some sources? Because most countries have a functioning vaccination program, in part thanks to now-cancelled USAID funding. But vaccination rates have been dropping, just like in the US. https://www.unicef.org/lac/en/press-releases/latin-america-a...
Your comment reads like anti-immigrant propaganda. If USAID were to be restored, the US could use its vast wealth to improve global health. But the current US regime is decisively anti-vax and wants everyone to suffer unnecessarily from preventable disease.
Yet the measles outbreak in Northern Mexico was caused by antivax white mennonites who brought it from Texas. Turns out there are subpopulations everywhere who need to be vaccinated - if only we had evidence-based people in charge of public health instead of wellness grifters.
Vaccinate them. That's a policy failure.
Consuming fiber daily, e.g. psyllium husk, is another way to lower some types of PFAS from the body, although not all types of PFAS are going to mix into bile to facilitate this excretion. The way this works is that some PFAS dissolves in bile which binds to psyllium which is excreted.
Remember, 5g psyllium should be taken with 20 fl oz water, mixed and consumed immediately before it gels. Do not take it two hours before or after any medicine, and do not take it if having swallowing difficulty.
> psyllium husk
If you can source clean psyllium, the bulk of it comes from India and let's say they have different standards when it comes to lead/pesticides and regulations in general
I get the USDA Organic one which should handle the pesticides issue. I have asked the vendor to ensure the vendor test for heavy metals.
Note that psyllium is unique in that not only does it not absorb, but it also binds to everything on the way out, so the risk is low. Fwiw, I have had blood and urine tests for lead twice.
Finally, it's not as if the US is great with pesticides. We literally deliberately include PFAS in our pesticides.
Source?
Here's one, googling is probably faster than asking for a source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-025-01165-8
Anything that binds bile is going to help excrete PFAS, e.g. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-11-pfas-body-faster-medi...
So hard to believe all the skiers and snowboarders were putting PFAS as wax just until couple years ago. Also in Germany, you can buy "permanent baking paper" that is pure PTFE without a problem, which is insane to me.
Teflon pans are still legal in every country in the world and used in every restaurant and food preparation industry.
It's basically impossible to avoid this stuff unless you cook all of your meals from scratch and never eat out anywhere
PFOA was used previously, but now it's changed to PTFE, this is supposedly less harmful, but its considered perfectly fine (afaik) as long as the temperatures dont exceed 260°C.. Which at that stage you're probably using the wrong tool.. Maybe some Iron cast skillet or something ?
PFOA is a surfactant that was previously used for emulsion polymerization of PTFE. It's not found in the finished product. It's since been replaced with other less well studied PFAS surfactants that might be less dangerous or might not, which seems to me an example of bad regulation. It would make more sense to regulate disposal of PFOA, which can be done safely with processes such as supercritical water oxidation.
PTFE itself is about as inert as you can get, assuming it's not overheated. If you use PTFE cookwear, I recommend getting an IR thermometer so you can learn how your cooking setup responds and control the temperature properly.
> It's basically impossible to avoid this stuff unless you cook all of your meals from scratch and never eat out anywhere
Which is pretty much what you should do if you are concerned about your health at all.
You don’t have to completely avoid it, reducing exposure is helpful. It’s not hard to get rid of it in your own home where you probably spend most of your time and eat most of your meals.
Teflon is so useful when cooking that I'm going to use it until the moment it gets banned regardless of health impacts.
Cooking with it at normal fry pan temperatures (350-400f) is safe, this has been repeatedly confirmed in experiments, some not even funded by DuPont. Don’t do crazy things like really high temp searing and don’t use metal utensils that cause the coating to flake off. Also if you’re really concerned ceramic nonstick + oil has come a long way. And I should add the the most nonstick pan I own is actually a properly seasoned carbon steel wok, yes it’s really possible if you know what you’re doing.
I love my Matfer Bourgeat carbon steel pan. It's just really heavy and kinda ugly. But it works great, especially at high temps when searing meats.
I've heard good things about carbon steel. Particularly, nitrided carbon steel. The pans are treated to be non-stick and are safe. It's what Alton Brown, the host of Food Network's Good Eats who also just launched a new cooking show on YouTube, uses.
Alton Brown had the best cooking show that ever existed. It was maximal knowledge with minimal BS (compared to most other TV shows in this space).
I'll keep using teflon frying pans for eggs, but we do most cooking in stainless steel pots and pans anyway.
If you mean just a skillet / frying pan, i found that a cast iron pan is much better (for non stick), have been using a €10 one for about three years now. You can ignore all warnings about keeping it oiled etc. They also have glass air fryers now (borosilicate glass, quite durable). You can scrub both with a steel sponge.
I use ceramic, but recently learned that nitrided carbon steel pans are the way to go. They are both useful AND safe. Do yourself a favor and invest in one.
Whenever you see a Youtube video from a restaurant kitchen you can almost be sure to see some pans where the teflon has been scrubbed down to the pure metal. Probably not that healthy...
PTFE is extremely chemically inert. There's possibly some risk from ultra-fine particulates that could be absorbed by the body, but compared to all the other sources of particulate exposure I don't think it's a major problem. I'm more concerned by thermal decomposition, which forms all kinds of mystery chemicals of unknown risk profile. Restaurants love to sear food and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them do it on PTFE cookwear.
its highly unlikely any restaurant uses teflon coated pans. Most use carbon steel or stainless. Teflon just won't hold up in daily use at a restaurant.
The problem is most data shows PTFE as having significant pyrolysis after 400-500c in reality it starts to break down enough to poison you around 260c. In general though under those temperatures it’s not particularly problematic, ofcourse ideally we should just never make the stuff to begin with as it’s manufacture and its eventual breakdown are both horrible for everyone.