this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
265 points (92.9% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35571 readers
690 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive link to story here: https://archive.ph/HVNLH

Posted here because there is no community for Absolutely Infuriating (that I know of).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cybervseas@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not The Onion is probably the closest because of how ridiculous this is.

[–] JoBo 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good call. Would anyone like to crosspost it? I don't want to spam the same link myself (because I dislike it when others do).

[–] Hobbes@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago

Much appreciated!

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 53 points 1 year ago (12 children)

When I read that news I was shocked too.

How possibly nobody tested with even animal blood?

Water and blood have different consistency and fluidity

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] kamasutures@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

Have they just been using that stupid blue water from the commercials this whole time?!

[–] Iceblade02@lemdit.com 14 points 1 year ago

20% of my infuriation came from this terribly (I repeat, terribly) written title.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

It's been a while since I was actually surprised by a post. There you have it.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I imagine that its extremely hard to get the mass quantities of blood you need for actual testing.

[–] JoBo 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe, maybe not. Blood stocks are precious but they do go out of date and blood banks would jump at the chance to do something useful with the wastage. It would also be perfectly possible to do RCTs with actual women. At the very least, it would be possible to produce a liquid with the right sort of viscosity instead of using water or saline. It's just so ridiculously shit.

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It sounds like nobody actually wanted to test with actual blood - not that there were technical or logistical difficulties, because if this was any other industrial problem, solutions would have been found the second time the problem showed up.

I don't understand what the concerns against using real blood were. Was it expensive? Government regulated? It could have atleast had animals blood testing or something, or are we suddenly balking at all the butchering in the food industries now too?

I don't agree with testing with real women though. That's pretty much the same as saying skincare should be tested on real people, right? It should be TESTED elsewhere, and USED by women.

[–] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My take is blood is a biohazard unless it's quality is regulated, and therefore it's a biohazard unless it's expensive. I'll go read the article in a bit maybe I'm wrong.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

It is a biohazard, but that’s not a good reason not to use it, just use appropriate ppe and disposal

[–] JoBo 19 points 1 year ago

Every drug you take is tested on real people. They are asked to give informed consent, of course. But we don't just decide that something looks like it might work and start prescribing it. Testing period products is a trivial ask compared to something like chemotherapy. Bless every single person who consents to participate, we'd be fucked without them.

[–] flicker@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

Anecdotally, when I was a child and an ad for maxi pads came on TV showing that blue liquid, I had to listen to my father bitch about how there shouldn't be ads for menstrual products because they're "disgusting." And he shouldn't "have to think of that."

...so it's anecdotal only but I may have a theory about why...

[–] burningmatches 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

We’ve got enough to make sausages with it.

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think that would be an appropriate test either.

[–] onelikeandidie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And bacon too

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gork@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Still cheaper than printer ink

zing

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I'm still not satisfied because menstrual blood is much chunkier than a donated pint from your arm. Until they're using mucus blood we're still in the dark ages.

[–] Urbanfox@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely. Menstrual blood is its own beast altogether. I often found that the mucus heavy days was a real blocker to actual absorbsion and often there would be a still dry but slimy tampon removed at some points.

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's posts like these that give me sympathy for my wife and all the other women out there, reminds me to hold the door open from a little further away than I normally would.

[–] jennwiththesea@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yes, menstrual fluid includes tissue. It's not just simple blood.

[–] Risk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh - it depends on the test.

Laboratory tests for pure absorbency makes sense for blood volume.

Functional absorbency is always going to be so much more nuanced as each woman has multiple factors in play. You're better off calibrating pure absorbency first, then carrying those results forward to study and understand functional usage.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess it depends on your goal: better tampons or better healthcare. Is the problem that you can't switch brands and have any expectation of similar absorbency? Or is the problem that your doctor asks "how many tampons do you use in a day?" and thinks it will tell him whether you really have a heavy flow, because he doesn't believe you and doesn't really understand how periods work? Both are real problems. Both deserve better research.

[–] Risk 2 points 1 year ago

Both deserve better research.

Agreed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you're using human blood, yes. Plenty of pig and cow blood out there, though.

[–] ursaUltra@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

They use it to test washing machines!

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

And I'm not sure about the cow stuff, but pig blood is almost completely identical to human blood down to the molecular level, so shouldn't present many if any aberrations when compared to real life intended use!

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Steel girders, pizza and bath mats are all identical to human blood at the sub atomic level. Best to compare at the molecular level

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Good point! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna fix my comment and then resume my steel girder and bath mats breakfast! Dennys have gotten WEIRD with their grand slam combos lately!

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mammal blood is all pretty much the same for something like this. Terrestrial mammals anyway, I don't want to guess at the limits of adaptation for things like whales.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] A_A@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Testing is important. Next it should be done with adhesive bandage.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

what the fuck??

[–] PaulDevonUK@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's bleedin disgustin ainit.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean there's probably a fuck ton of additional work that would need to be done to test with real blood. Like just the paperwork and health and safety stuff would make it not worth while. Then there's sourcing it, the ethics, the potential of protest from anti-animal testing groups etc.

[–] Risk 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

4 billion people, affected 5 days a month, for 40 years.

Nah, you're right - not worth the paperwork.

I mean, the ridiculousness of the disparity is highlighted in the article: we have a standardised measure for hot sauce, but not menstrual product absorbency.

[–] Devion@feddit.nl 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My wife is pregnant. In her last month now. The discomfort and sacrifices woman go through... I've been joking that if it were men being the ones going through pregnancy, we would've perfected incubating the fetus in a machine or something decades ago. Also, 12 months of paid paternity leave, at the minimum. I'm not sure I'm joking...

[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Sexism do be like that

[–] JoBo 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

They're billion dollar products, they absolutely could be made to test them if anyone cared enough to make them produce accurate labelling. If we can do it with food, we can do it with sanitary products. The NHS could do it, if it wanted to. It does plenty of independent trials to check up on how badly Pharma is lying to them this time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DaveDavesen@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did anyone have access to the original publication and can tell me, if they explain how they determined it being the first study and what other liquids have been used before in studies? The Guardian article only says "Manufacturers have traditionally used saline or water", but that does not tell you much, as these are not scientists with independent studies and manufacturers usually do not publish their full internal testing methods.

I only have access to its abstract and curiously it does not mention it being the first published study with actual blood, so the authors themselves did not find it very noteworthy.

I can easily imagine, that a published, standardized, reproducible (model) menstrual fluid for such an analysis does not exist yet, but I am not that involved in medical publishing. If this is the case, that would be really infuriating. It might exist as some vendors sell artificial menstrual fluid.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›