Age Limits for Blood Donation

The World Health Organization suggests the ideal donor be aged 18 to 65 (via). The American Association of Blood Banks used to bar peope aged over 65 (without written consent from a doctor) from donating blood. The rule was eliminated in 1978; now older people donate blood as long as they wish to and are well (via and via). In other words, healthy older people can - just like healthy younger people - "continue to safely donate and make a significant contribution to the blood supply past arbitrary age limits" (Goldman et al., 2019).

Back in 1996, Janetzko et al. examined blood donation in elderly donors and came to the conclusion that "blood donation in otherwise healthy persons aged over 65 years should be accepted". At the request of the UK Blood Services Forum, Stainsby and Butler (2008) prepared recommendations for the removal of the upper age limit based on an evaluation of available evidence of the safety of accepting blood donors beyond the age of 70. The authors concluded that "donors of whole blood and blood components can safely continue to donate beyond the age of 70, with no absolute upper age limit" if they meet the criteria needed.

In the past, there were concerns about the safety of blood donation for older donors, with upper age limits commonly applied. However, a recent comparative study using data from four countries and comparing deferral and vasovagal rates for whole-blood donation between donors aged 24-70 and 70+ concluded that age-based exclusions from donation based on safety concerns were not warranted [7]. At present, the upper age limit for blood donation differs among blood collection agencies (BCAs) worldwide. (Goldman et al., 2019)

The Bavarian Red Cross no longer has an upper age limit. Both those donating for the first time and those aged over 60 will be tested if they are suitable donators (via). The UK legislation on age limits for donors obliges regular donors to retire on reaching their 70th birthday and component donors on their 66th means discrimination. Stainsby and Butler (2008) point out that an arbitrary upper age limit is hard to justify. In fact, the National Blood Service received written complaints. Between April 2005 and March 2006, 107 complaints were received, including one from a Member of Parliament. The NHS does not accept any first-time donors over 66 and (since 1998) returning donors until they turn 70 but adds that one may continue after the age of 70 as long as one is in good health and has made at least one full donation in the past two years. On their website, the NHS points out that a review of date "suggests that it would be safe to allow older donors to continue past their seventieth birthday" (via). Still, in Italy you can only donate until the age 65 (via), in Japan until 69 (via). The Austrian Red Cross still has a general upper age limit of 70 and 60 for those donating for the first time (via). In the Netherelands, the upper age limit for blood donation was raised from 69 to 79 in 2018 (Quee et al., 2024).

- - - - - - - - - - -

- Goldman, M., Germain, M., Grégoire, Y., Vassallo, R. (2019). Safety of blood donation by individuals over age 70 and their contribution to the blood supply in five developed countries: a BEST Collaborative group study: SAFETY OF DONATION, OLDER DONORS. Transfusion, 59(4)
- Janetzko, K., Böcher, R., Klotz, K. F., Kirchner, H. & Klüger, H. (1996). Blood donation after reaching 65 years of age. Beitr Infusionsther Transfusionsme, link
- Quee, F. A., Zeinali Lathori, A., Sijstsma, B., Brujns, S. & van den Hurk, K. (2024). Increasing the upper age limit for blood donation: Perspectives from older donors. Vox Sang., link to interesting abstract
- Stainsby, D. & Butler, M. (208). Recommendations for removal of the upper age limit for regular whole blood and component donors. 
- photograph (of Eggleston's grandmother Minnie Maude Mae at her home in Mississippi, 1970-1973) by William Eggleston via

Belgium, Country of Hair Cut Equality

According to a poll (UK, 2020), women pay more than twice as much for their haircuts than men. Some women tried to make savings by going to a male barbers but were turned away. 40% of men pay between £10 and 14.99 for their hair cut, 29% between £5 and 9.99, 15% between £15 and 19.99. The price range for women is much wider. The most common range is £20 to 24.99, paid by only 13% of women. The proportions for the ranges £10 to 14.99 and £30 to 34.99 are similar. While only 15% of men pay £15 or more, 78% of women do so. The average price for men is £12.17, the average price for women is £31.99 (via). Belgium has a wonderful idea to solve this problem ...

... by ignoring gender and looking at the time the hair cut consumes.

The country’s hairdressing federation, Febelhair, is advising its members to charge €1.30 (£1.10) a minute, regardless of the customer’s gender. “A distinction between prices for men and women should no longer persist in 2024,” said a Febelhair spokesperson, Charles-Antoine Huybrechts, on Belgian radio.

Charlotte Jacob, the owner of the Brussels salon De Wakko Kapper, is a fan: “We need 40 minutes for people who want a completely new cut. But whether you’re a man or a woman, you pay the same.” (via)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

photograph by William Eggleston via

Generational Narratives about Climate Change Concerns

Young people are concerned about the anthropogenic climate change; a "Generation Climate" is created on one side with older people as antagonists on the other side resulting in the perpetuation of the myth of a generational divide with young climate heroes and old climate villains. The perception of a generation gap "is further strengthened by young climate activists capturing the media's and public's attention" (Poortinga, 2023). In fact, a "fake generational war over the climate crisis has distorted public thinking" promoting the idea "that young people are ecowarriors, battling against selfish older generations" - an idea that is now well established in the environment movement and has "crept into so many discussions about climate concerns that it's become an accepted truth" (via).

For their analysis, Poortinga et al. (2023) used data from three representative surveys conducted in the UK in 2020, 2021 and 2022. The authors studied climate-related beliefs, risks perceptions and emotions and came to the conclusion that there were no generational differences in climate-related beliefs and that generational differences were rather found in climate-related emotions. In addition, a diminishing generational gap from 2020 to 2021 and 2022 was found. Older generations were also more likely to believe that we are already feeling the effects of climate change. 

There are however questions regarding the nature and the size of the generation gap, as effects have not been observed consistently. Age-related differences have been found in beliefs about the reality, causes, and impacts of climate change, with older individuals being more likely to express climate sceptical views than younger ones3,10–12; and there is evidence that younger people are more concerned about the environment in general13,14 and climate change in particular2,15. Furthermore, younger age groups may be more likely to experience climate-related emotions, such as worry, anger and guilt16, as well as climate-related anxiety4. However, other research only found small or absent age differences17. For example, Shi and colleagues (2016) report that age was not significant in explaining climate concern in five out of six countries; and a meta-analysis of research published between 1970 and 2010 concluded that age effects for environmental concern, values and commitment were negligible18.

The differentiation between the constructs beliefs, risk perceptions and emotions is important when studying generational patterns as ...

(...) there is a hierarchical relationship between climate-related beliefs, risk perceptions and emotions. The lower components of the model are a necessary but insufficient condition for the higher components. While someone can recognise the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the person may not perceive it as a threat or experience any climate related emotions. On the other hand, in order to experience climate-related emotions, one has to believe that anthropogenic climate change is real and poses a threat. As such, it is important to clearly distinguish between the different components, as generational differences may exist for some but not for others.

In other words, age is of no relevance for climate change scepticism but plays a role when it comes to threat perceptions, worry and emotions. Similarly, the survey carried out by Duffy (2021) in the UK also shows that the generational divide is a myth. According to the findings, older people are more likely than younger ones to feel that acting in environmentally conscious ways will make a difference. Younger generations feel more fatalistice about the impact on actions taken. One third of "gen Z" (under 24) and "millennials" (25-40) say there was no point changing their behaviour since it will not make any difference anyway, while only 22% of "gen X" (41-56) and 19% of "baby boomers" (57-75) express this view. Twice as many "baby boomers" than "gen Z" had boycotted a company in the past twelve months for environmental reasons.

Another survey, carried out by RestLess in the UK among people aged 50 and over, found that about two-thirds want ministers "to move faster on climate initiatives" accepting that products and services would be more expensive over time or more difficult to access. One of the conclusions was that "midlifers feel a huge sense of responsibility for the health of the planet and their role in reducing climate change". Only a minority of older people is unconcerned about the climate crisis (via). Nevertheless, younger people keep underestimating how worried older people are about climate change. 

In 2021, a project started in Ireland, the results were published this year. According to the study, the generational myths do have a negative impact as they make "young people more worried about climate change, without any corresponding increase in willingness to engage in climate action". A sample (n = 500) of people aged 16 zo 24 read a text about climate change. Half of the participants read a text that emphasised generational differences (causes of climate change, exposure to its effects), the other half a text that was neutral in terms of generational aspects. Afterwards, participants answered questions about their perceptions and their willingness to engage in climate action. When young people were provided with accurate information on how worried older people (here defined above 40) in fact were, their attitudes changed. Their belief in older people's willingness to show climate action increased and so did their own willingness (via). And collective action is exactly what we need now.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- Duffy, B. (2021). Who cares about climate change? Attitudes across the generations. New Scientist
- Poortinga, W., Demski, C. & Steentjes, K. (2023). Generational differences in climate-related risk perceptions and emotions in the UK. communications. earth & environment, 1-8.
- photograph by William Eggleston via

Babies Associating Ethnicities with Different Music and Emotions

Abstract: We used a novel intermodal association task to examine whether infants associate own- and other-race faces with music of different emotional valences. Three- to 9-month-olds saw a series of neutral own- or other-race faces paired with happy or sad musical excerpts. Three- to 6-month-olds did not show any specific association between face race and music. At 9 months, however, infants looked longer at own-race faces paired with happy music than at own-race faces paired with sad music. 

Nine-month-olds also looked longer at other-race faces paired with sad music than at other-race faces paired with happy music. These results indicate that infants with nearly exclusive own-race face experience develop associations between face race and music emotional valence in the first year of life. The potential implications of such associations for developing racial biases in early childhood are discussed. (Xiao et al., 2017)

- - - - - - - - - - -

- Xiao, N. G., Quinn P. C., Liu, S, Ge, L. Pascalis, O. & Lee, K. (2017). Older but not younger infants associate own-race faces with happy music and other-race faces with sad music; link

- photograph by William Eggleston via