Which Apple Watch bands contain PFAS?

So is mine , I'm not worried by this kind of study, same as I didn't stop using saccharin sweeteners because feeding a stomach load to rats every day might give them cancer.

Sunrise250 wrote:

Really? "Academics." that would be in contrast to ("the uneducated?") I'd be happy to consider your opinion if you would state your qualifications on the subject. The truth is what I am after and experts on the subject of chemical additives are who I am inclined to listen to.

We all seek the truth and the empirical result here is that fluoroelastomer used by some strap makers contain PFAs in variable quantities

What we don't have yet is whether Apple Watch straps release PFAs and whether human skin can absorb those particular PFAs in any significant quantity.

You can bet your sweet bippy that Apple will be on this.

I would like to see the analysis of a swab taken from human wrist after 24 hours of wearing rather than solvents on the strap.

solo loops are silicone, sport bands are fluoroelastomer which by definition may contain some PFAs. I am confident that my fluoroelastomer sport band is the best and most comfortable strap I have ever worn in 60 years of watch wearing.

The recent academic study you are implicating is

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00907

which lacks any per manufacturer data or any real evidence that any PFAs have ever been absorbed in practice. They had to use solvents to extract them.

LD150 wrote:

Academics sometimes freak out having to work with real people.

I work with a lot of scientists. They have to start somewhere and they're generally not allowed to start with people. So, they release a preliminary study. Then the popular press goes "We're all going to die!!!!!" bananas. It's frustrating and annoying because it increases public distrust in science and the scientific method.

We need to better educate people on how to understand this kind of story. Unfortunately, a lot of scientists aren't good at communicating with non-scientists. Or, they're just too busy writing a grant for the next project. Or teaching. Or serving on university committees. Or occasionally spending time with their own families. Dr. Paul Offit, in addition to developing an important pediatric vaccine, has spent enormous amounts of time writing and lecturing on scientific literacy. Worth picking up one of his books.

/end rant

Sunrise250 wrote:

Really? "Academics." that would be in contrast to ("the uneducated?") I'd be happy to consider your opinion if you would state your qualifications on the subject. The truth is what I am after and experts on the subject of chemical additives are who I am inclined to listen to.

LD150 was responding to a post I made when they said that. I find it very helpful to make sure that the sorting order of the thread is set to "Oldest." Threads tend to make more sense that way. You can change the sort order at the top of the page just under the original post.

Sunrise250 wrote:

@LD150 Most watch people wear watches constantly for decades. 24 hours??? They are called "forever chemicals" for a reason.

Everything in nature is toxic, even water. What determines toxicity is how much.

According to the page below, the Sports Loop bands contain:

Tech Specs - Material: 100% recycled nylon, 100% recycled polyester, 100% recycled spandex

40mm Plum Sport Loop - Apple

There is no mention of PDAS. If this does not answer your question, please contact Apple Support.

LD150 wrote:

I would like to see the analysis of a swab taken from human wrist after 24 hours of wearing rather than solvents on the strap.

That would make a huge difference.

No PFAs back then, just lead, mercury and asbestos to worry about.

LD150 wrote:

solo loops are silicone, sport bands are fluoroelastomer which by definition may contain some PFAs. I am confident that my fluoroelastomer sport band is the best and most comfortable strap I have ever worn in 60 years of watch wearing.

The recent academic study you are implicating is

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00907

which lacks any per manufacturer data or any real evidence that any PFAs have ever been absorbed in practice. They had to use solvents to extract them.

There's more data if you scroll down to "Supporting Information" and click on (PDF). Clicking on the URL does nothing.

I was hoping my ACS login would get me the full article but, as it's not a paid membership, it doesn't.

LD150 wrote:

Academics sometimes freak out having to work with real people.

And my apologies if that sounded like I was annoyed with you. Not at all the case. The whole thing just makes me a little nuts and I go off.

@Carol B Yes, those are the three main ingredients.

It is the fluoroelastomer makeup of watch bands, especially sports loop, sold by Apple that, by definition, contain PFAS. This characteristic is what makes the band so comfortable by resisting moisture etc. Many moisture-resistant products are made by adding PFAS which have been shown to be dangerous to health in a variety of ways.

It is important to distinguish marketing from reality.

Really? "Academics." that would be in contrast to ("the uneducated?") I'd be happy to consider your opinion if you would state your qualifications on the subject. The truth is what I am after and experts on the subject of chemical additives are who I am inclined to listen to.

LD150 wrote:

No PFAs back then, just lead, mercury and asbestos to worry about.

And radium painted digits on the face.

And remember that we used Carbon Tetrachloride as as a cleaning solvent and in fire extinguishers.

In The Wizard of Oz do you remember the snow spread by Glinda on the poppy field? That was asbestos.