5 ms·

From the article: "These chemicals are not just additives; they may be migrating from the headphones into our body," said Karolina Brabcová, chemical expert at

by cbsmith 7mo ago

From the article: "These chemicals are not just additives; they may be migrating from the headphones into our body," said Karolina Brabcová, chemical expert at Arnika. "Daily use—especially during exercise when heat and sweat are present—accelerates this migration directly to the skin. Although there is no immediate health risk, long-term exposures, especially vulnerable groups like teenagers, are of great concern. There is no 'safe' level for endocrine disruptors that mimic our natural hormones."

userbinator 7mo ago
[flagged]
- siffin 7mo ago
  Let me get this right. The accusation that an article was written by AI negates the science of toxic chemical leeching?
  - hrimfaxi 7mo ago
    They didn't say negates they said it calls it into question.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - userbinator 7mo ago
    Most "environmental science" these days is p-hacked propaganda for pushing an agenda anyway, so it's not surprising.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >Pure AI slop. Because the em-dashes? In a professionally typeset article, the presence of em-dashes isn't really suspicious because that's how they're supposed to be used. AI learned to use em-dashes somehow, it's not like they invented the concept.
  - userbinator 7mo ago
    "It's not just X, it's Y" is what caught my attention first. Then I noticed the em-dashes.
  - smallerize 7mo ago
    The Guardian printed the same quote without em-dashes, and with spaces around hyphens instead. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/18/hazardous-substances-headphones https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/18/hazardous... And in the next paragraph of the Arnika article, they have em-dashes surrounded by spaces, in contrast to the quotation which doesn't leave any space around them. It's not clear where the style choices were made in the quote.
oofbey 7mo ago
The article is actually IMHO overly conservative. This kind of migration is not a theoretical risk, but well established. BPA is a small molecule, not covalently bound to the plastic. It absolutely goes into the skin. Heat, water, and acidity (sweat is slightly acidic) all accelerate the absorption. Plus absorption through the skin is worse than oral. Because when you eat it your liver breaks a lot of it down. When it goes in the skin it bypasses all that.
- amelius 7mo ago
  But are the quantities significant?
  - oofbey 7mo ago
    Good point. And diving in I realize my fear was mostly unfounded. Compared to typical background exposure (what we can infer people are getting through other sources by looking at their urine) this is insignificant, except for the very worst headphones. The headline is unsurprisingly alarmist, because by their own data 68% have acceptably very low bpa. But the very few with the worst amounts drag up the arithmetic average to something scary sounding. To estimate how much gets into the body https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/tvcbpasudsupportingmaterials041720.pdf https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crn... Is a good reference. Interpolating from that, a typical pair of in-ear buds works out to something like a fraction of a nanogram per kg bodyweight per day, versus 30–130 ng/kg/day from background. So totally negligible. Even the worst case - highest measured concentration, assuming over ear headphones (much more contact area), and a hot sweaty workout, you’re looking at maybe 5ng/kg/day - still in the range of dietary background, but not good.
diacritical 7mo ago
> There is no 'safe' level for endocrine disruptors that mimic our natural hormones Can someone knowledgeable comment on this? It seems extreme to say there's no safe level. There's a safe amount of cyanide (apple seeds), radiation (everywhere), safe speed of a bullet flying at you (if I just throw it gently at you) and so on. Even if the cyanide is technically poisoning you, the radiation from bananas is damaging you and the bullet I threw lightly grazed your skin, it's still safe in practical terms.
- pizza234 7mo ago
  > Can someone knowledgeable comment on this? It seems extreme to say there's no safe level. Not a direct answer, but the article reports the maximum exceeding amount: > Maximum concentrations reached 351 mg/kg, dramatically exceeding the 10 mg/kg limit originally proposed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
  - diacritical 7mo ago
    For things you put on your skin that could be absorbed, shouldn't the limit take into account the area touching your skin? If I lay on a bed containing 10 mg/kg BPA, I would absorb a lot more than if I touch a headphone. So maybe it should be mg/kg*m^2 or something?
- sitharus 7mo ago
  It's hard to define what 'safe' is. The research is kind of hazy. Bisphenol-A has been shown to be a very very weak estrogen when measuring receptor binding affinity (about 37,000 times lower than human estrogen https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2774166/#sec2 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2774166/#sec2), but has also been shown to be a potent stimulator in vitro for specific cell types (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227557/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227557/). The lowest concentration of BPA that's been shown to be estrogenic according the second article is 0.1pMol/L which is around 230 picograms per litre of blood, or 1.1ng total for an average adult. BPA's biological half life in humans is up to two to five hours depending on a range of factors (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2685842/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2685842/), so taking the worst case you'd need to be continually exposed to around 2.5ng of BPA over a day. So 'safe' as defined right now would be keeping the absorption below that 2.5ng per day threshold. I don't know how how much BPA in plastics can transfer out per day, the research I've seen seems to indicate that unless it's a food container it's pretty minimal but I don't know enough to evaluate the quality of that research. Your skin is also a pretty good barrier so only around 2.2% of any BPA on your skin can pass through in an ideal situation, so absorption from non-food sources is much lower (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9210257/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9210257/) The other problem is what do they replace BPA with? To be safer it would need at least as well studied as BPA, but often it seems like the 'safer' options are just not very well studied yet and could actually be worse.

by cbsmith 7mo ago

userbinator 7mo ago

[flagged]

siffin 7mo ago
Let me get this right. The accusation that an article was written by AI negates the science of toxic chemical leeching?
- hrimfaxi 7mo ago
  They didn't say negates they said it calls it into question.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- userbinator 7mo ago
  Most "environmental science" these days is p-hacked propaganda for pushing an agenda anyway, so it's not surprising.
gruez 7mo ago
>Pure AI slop. Because the em-dashes? In a professionally typeset article, the presence of em-dashes isn't really suspicious because that's how they're supposed to be used. AI learned to use em-dashes somehow, it's not like they invented the concept.
- userbinator 7mo ago
  "It's not just X, it's Y" is what caught my attention first. Then I noticed the em-dashes.
- smallerize 7mo ago
  The Guardian printed the same quote without em-dashes, and with spaces around hyphens instead. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/18/hazardous-substances-headphones https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/18/hazardous... And in the next paragraph of the Arnika article, they have em-dashes surrounded by spaces, in contrast to the quotation which doesn't leave any space around them. It's not clear where the style choices were made in the quote.

oofbey 7mo ago

The article is actually IMHO overly conservative. This kind of migration is not a theoretical risk, but well established. BPA is a small molecule, not covalently bound to the plastic. It absolutely goes into the skin. Heat, water, and acidity (sweat is slightly acidic) all accelerate the absorption. Plus absorption through the skin is worse than oral. Because when you eat it your liver breaks a lot of it down. When it goes in the skin it bypasses all that.

amelius 7mo ago
But are the quantities significant?
- oofbey 7mo ago
  Good point. And diving in I realize my fear was mostly unfounded. Compared to typical background exposure (what we can infer people are getting through other sources by looking at their urine) this is insignificant, except for the very worst headphones. The headline is unsurprisingly alarmist, because by their own data 68% have acceptably very low bpa. But the very few with the worst amounts drag up the arithmetic average to something scary sounding. To estimate how much gets into the body https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/tvcbpasudsupportingmaterials041720.pdf https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crn... Is a good reference. Interpolating from that, a typical pair of in-ear buds works out to something like a fraction of a nanogram per kg bodyweight per day, versus 30–130 ng/kg/day from background. So totally negligible. Even the worst case - highest measured concentration, assuming over ear headphones (much more contact area), and a hot sweaty workout, you’re looking at maybe 5ng/kg/day - still in the range of dietary background, but not good.

diacritical 7mo ago

> There is no 'safe' level for endocrine disruptors that mimic our natural hormones Can someone knowledgeable comment on this? It seems extreme to say there's no safe level. There's a safe amount of cyanide (apple seeds), radiation (everywhere), safe speed of a bullet flying at you (if I just throw it gently at you) and so on. Even if the cyanide is technically poisoning you, the radiation from bananas is damaging you and the bullet I threw lightly grazed your skin, it's still safe in practical terms.

pizza234 7mo ago
> Can someone knowledgeable comment on this? It seems extreme to say there's no safe level. Not a direct answer, but the article reports the maximum exceeding amount: > Maximum concentrations reached 351 mg/kg, dramatically exceeding the 10 mg/kg limit originally proposed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
- diacritical 7mo ago
  For things you put on your skin that could be absorbed, shouldn't the limit take into account the area touching your skin? If I lay on a bed containing 10 mg/kg BPA, I would absorb a lot more than if I touch a headphone. So maybe it should be mg/kg*m^2 or something?
sitharus 7mo ago
It's hard to define what 'safe' is. The research is kind of hazy. Bisphenol-A has been shown to be a very very weak estrogen when measuring receptor binding affinity (about 37,000 times lower than human estrogen https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2774166/#sec2 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2774166/#sec2), but has also been shown to be a potent stimulator in vitro for specific cell types (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227557/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227557/). The lowest concentration of BPA that's been shown to be estrogenic according the second article is 0.1pMol/L which is around 230 picograms per litre of blood, or 1.1ng total for an average adult. BPA's biological half life in humans is up to two to five hours depending on a range of factors (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2685842/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2685842/), so taking the worst case you'd need to be continually exposed to around 2.5ng of BPA over a day. So 'safe' as defined right now would be keeping the absorption below that 2.5ng per day threshold. I don't know how how much BPA in plastics can transfer out per day, the research I've seen seems to indicate that unless it's a food container it's pretty minimal but I don't know enough to evaluate the quality of that research. Your skin is also a pretty good barrier so only around 2.2% of any BPA on your skin can pass through in an ideal situation, so absorption from non-food sources is much lower (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9210257/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9210257/) The other problem is what do they replace BPA with? To be safer it would need at least as well studied as BPA, but often it seems like the 'safer' options are just not very well studied yet and could actually be worse.