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.
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.
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.
One of two things is the case:
-
The numbers are in the paper, and the person who wrote the article could have transcribed them but is too lazy.
-
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.
-
Problems pointed out by commenters aside, I am under the impression that there is very little oversight about this kind of stuff anymore.
For one thing - unless they’ve changed recently, Amazon “bins” alike products from multiple suppliers, meaning if a bad actor is introducing counterfeits (or just less stringently tested, for more fungible products) - Amazon doesn’t even know who they got them from, by the time that’s discovered.
But for another thing, the absolutely incredible volume of products - how on earth is anyone making sure these random-character-generated “brands” are safe?
I lack much in the way of direct evidence, cuz I’ve got shit to do and this isn’t my life’s focus - but it seems apparent that there cannot possibly be the kind of consumer safety testing that we want going on. And if that’s true, it’s only a matter of time before the smart capitalists realize no one is watching and they can make stuff even cheaper (I think they already have), and then how long before we as a society discover all the harm that’s done as a result?
I’d love to be wrong about this, but like so many tech innovations, I have a feeling we’re going to find out later there were huge harms done before we learned how to rein them in. The speed, volume, and price we’ve grown used to with Amazon seems to preclude consumer safety.
Brands tested:
- Apple
- Apple/Nike
- CASETiFY
- Fitbit
- KingofKings
- Modal
- Samsung
- Tighesen
- Vanjua
I’m not surprised at all. My wife and I only use 3rd party metal bands because the factory bands gave us both chemical burns.
Yea i know that silicon is a rough material, so I went with a woven cloth band that uses velcro to fasten the strap. Anything is better than that silicon crap.
What about the Pinetime?
OH. MY. Oh, I’m not shocked.
A recent study published in the journal “Environmental Science & Technology Letters” has found that many popular smartwatch bands contain high levels of toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. These chemicals are used in many products, from cookware to clothing, because they make things non-stick or water-resistant. The problem is, they don’t break down in the environment and can build up in our bodies over time. This can lead to some pretty serious health problems like cancer, immune system issues, and even developmental problems in kids.
“But H20 is a chemical!” /s
what about zswatch?
So don’t eat my watch band. Noted.
“This chemical can be absorbed through your skin, and it’s even worse if you’re sweating while wearing the band because it can get into your pores”
So you’re saying the lemmite can eat it?
ONLY if they aren’t sweaty.
You’d be surprised at what your skin just… absorbs
Ok. Don’t eat the watches.
