this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
237 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

60545 readers
6411 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 71 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 6 points 22 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 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 15 points 1 day 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.

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 70 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

How about typical watch bands? Without comparison, I highly doubt this is only happening on smartwatch bands.

I am wondering about this, also. I have a regular watch, with a "plastic" band. Why would PFAS be used in these bands? Ridiculous.

[–] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

From what I researched, fluoroelastomer is not silicone. Silicone bands are more common.

[–] Benjaben@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I’m sorry this is going to be such a shit comment, but I worked with a guy that had a fitness watch of some stripe.

He was a heavier guy and well, that plasticy band was pressed tight against his skin. One day he came in with this nasty looking ring of red and peeling skin around his wrist. Said he got a rash from the watch. (It’s very possible it was an allergic reaction to something in the band.)

This is a shit comment because I don’t know the brand, and I’m totally saying “trust me, bro.” But like, trust me, bro, it apparently happens?

[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 3 points 22 hours ago

No I have seen it happen first hand. To myself and a family member I totally believe it. I had to try several bands to find one that doesn't cause me issues similar to that but not as severe. This is wild it isn't more regulated or something.

[–] JWBananas@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Can confirm. Fitbit Charge 6 band did that to me until I replaced it with this style:

[–] 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] dance_ninja@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

Brands tested:

  • Apple
  • Apple/Nike
  • CASETiFY
  • Fitbit
  • Google
  • KingofKings
  • Modal
  • Samsung
  • Tighesen
  • Vanjua
[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] idefix@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Same question: super weird to leave them out...

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago

Probably means no.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

What about the Pinetime?

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

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

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago
[–] Soulifix@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 1 day ago

OH. MY. Oh, I'm not shocked.

what about zswatch?

[–] iconic_admin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So don’t eat my watch band. Noted.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"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"

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So you're saying the lemmite can eat it?

[–] recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

ONLY if they aren't sweaty.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

You'd be surprised at what your skin just... absorbs