Article 43

 

Friday, April 09, 2021

Caronavirus Face Mask Questions

image caronavirus

Cloth MASKS have been used in healthcare and community settings to protect the wearer from respiratory infections. The use of cloth masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is under debate. The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly. Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, may provide reasonable protection. Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.
- CDC - Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

A team of students at the University of Rhode Island has developed a “smart mask” named RESPDETECT that can quantitatively monitor COVID-19 symptoms… Using a respiration sensor in the mask, a throat microphone and an ear temperature sensor, a patients breathing rate, body temperature and coughing rate can be monitored wirelessly using an app. A health care provider can then use the data to determine the best course of treatment for someone experiencing symptoms of the virus.
- ‘Smart mask’ designed by University of Rhode Island Students

The Caronavirus is still spreading across the globe, and the EXPERIMENTAL VACCINES people are taking by the urging of their governments - shows a lot of promise.

However, every other day I’m reading something about NEW STRAINS OF THE CARONAVIRUS that may make those experimental vaccines useless:

The variant first detected last fall in South Africa has now been reported in several countries. The CDC says that in the United States, 81 cases have been found in 20 states.

We don’t even have an effective way to test and isolate affected people - a year into the pandemic.  That should be the first thing we do to stop its spread. 

In The UK you can get TWO TESTS A WEEK FOR FREE and the government will even mail home test kits to you:

The PM and Health Secretary have announced a huge expansion of testing with free rapid kits made available to everyone in England from this Friday.

The fast-turnaround tests, which produce results in just half an hour, do not require lab analysis and will be available for use at home.

Mr Johnson last night said the huge testing programme was needed to ensure that the sacrifices made in recent months ‘are not wasted’.

But for this post - I want to explore MASKS without getting too confused.

Last year was an election year - and the economy crashed.  I can understand President Trump wanting to get the economy rolling cause it’s doubtful his reelection campaign would have had any possibility of succeeding with half of us unemployed, and the stock market down.  So he may have downplayed the coronavirus - risking our lives - saying it’ll disappear, and mask wearing is ridiculous, and paraded around like everything is fine.  It also helped corporate America not have to pay to outfit offices to physically space cubicles six feet from each other, beef up air conditioning, install washing stations, etc.

This year - with President Biden in charge - he’s urging us to wear masks everywhere.  But is he sincere?  I’m not so sure. With the virus RAGING AGAIN one would figure he would put the country on LOCKDOWN to contain and isolate it - which we really need, and didn’t happen.  Instead he’s talking us into getting the experimental mrna vaccine (money for corporate America), wear masks (more money for corporate America), and go back to work (more money for corporate America.) Getting the economy (meaning Wall Street and the stock market) back may be more important to him, just like his predecessor.

Then there’s the GREAT RESET thing, I don’t want to get into here.

Whether I’m right or wrong about President Biden’s sincerity, I ran out of masks, and need to get a box of new ones, so scoured the internet for information.

I’m not convinced wearing masks aren’t a hazard unless changed frequently, and I’m not convinced the people running the caronavirus fight are doing everything they can to keep us informed regarding their effectiveness, availability, safety and use.

I’ve also read about anti-mask POSTS DELETED on social media.

Regarding Facebook WebMD WRITES:

Several posts made false claims that masks obstruct oxygen flow and create negative psychological consequences.

Facebook announced that it would add a warning label to posts with fake information about the coronavirus.

Who made Facebook the voice of truth, and gatekeeper of honesty - banning users and DELETING POSTS?

Since day one - America’s most trusted name in health matters - Dr Fauci - has been urging all of us to wear a face mask as the single best thing one can do to fight the Coronavirus and RECOMMENDED the N95 version:

But there’s no doubt that the classic N95 mask is the best type of a mask to use.

Looks like a that’s BEST WE GOT:

Technically considered a type of respirator, N95 masks offer more protection than other mask types because they can filter out both large and small particles with 95 percent efficacy, according to the Mayo Clinic.

I went out and got myself a big box of them.  At my ownexpense.

Our most trusted name in health matters now recommends TWO:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease physician, broke down the exact benefits of double masking following a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that suggested two masks are better than one.

That doesn’t mean two N95 (or KN95) masks.

Per the CDC’s official face mask page (click the image in case they updated it) it looks to me like double masking with a cloth and disposable mask is the best protection for the public:

image: cdc mask info

What about THE MASKS I’M USING:

You’ve probably been wearing a mask when out in public for most of the past year, but are you still wearing the right one? With new variants of COVID-19 emerging in the U.S., medical professionals are urging the public to go beyond cloth masks, surgical masks, and double masks. Instead, they say, you should opt for a higher-filtration mask like an N95 or KN95.

The N95 respirator is considered the gold standard of face coverings in the medical world, and even in the construction industry. These face coverings diverge from surgical masks in that the edges are designed to fit snugly to your face.

KN95s are closely related to N95s, but only the latter is approved for use in medical settings in the U.S., and the reasoning is pretty simple: N95s are the U.S. standard, while KN95s are the Chinese standard for these close-fitting filtration devices. Both are rated to filter out 95 percent of very small particles.

If masks (cloth, N95, KN95, disposable - take your pick) are so important - why aren’t we making government approved masks available free,and easy to get for everyone?

In China they’re putting them IN VENDING MACHINES:

The 35 machines and 10 million face masks will be provided by Adrian Cheng, founder of China’s K11 Art Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the development of the contemporary art scene in Greater China.

Those things get sweaty from breathing into them all day, and I do sneeze and cough as much as any average person. 

Are phlem, snots and hot, humid exhaled air sticking on the inside of one’s face mask really something not to be concerned with?

I’m not a doctor, I’m not rich, and I don’t get free masks.  So I don’t throw away my mask, and REPLACE IT WITH A FRESH ONE as often as I probably should.

What about things like PULMONARY STRAPH INFECTION?

LET’S SEE:

In recent months, misinformation about masks has flooded social media. One of the latest posts is claiming that masks not only cause staphylococcus, but also serious lung infections and restrict oxygen.

Some are CONCERNED like me:

It is very difficult to use the masks because once they become sweaty, in a short time it can cause infections

According to THIS ARTICLE at Reuters - I’m worrying for nothing:

Posts shared on Facebook claim that people are starting to enter ERs with fungal lung infections from wearing masks, advising users to take breaks from wearing them. This claim, however, is false.

I wonder if there’s any truth to that?

Dismissing valid concerns seems pretty suspicious to me, how about you?

What about eye protection?

From what I understand, we spread the caronavirus by exhaling - which helps explains the importance of masks to cover our mouths and noses.

But we can catch it through our mouths, noses and eyes. 

So without eye protection, masks seem pretty ineffective.  No?

Masks, physical distancing, and small crowds don’t stop virus particles already flying around from getting INTO OUR EYES:

“The clear tissue that covers the white of the eye and lines the inside of the eyelid, known as the conjunctiva, can be infected by other viruses, such as adenoviruses associated with the common cold and the herpes simplex virus,”

It seems foolish to wear two masks - but only SUGGEST EYE PROTECTION like Dr Fauci says:

“Theoretically, you should protect all the mucosal surfaces so if you have goggles or an eye shield, you should use it. It’s not universally recommended, but if you really want to be complete, you should use it if you can,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Confused?

Me too.

---

Chemical cocktail found in face masks

By John Mowbray
Ecotextile News
April 1, 2021

Top German scientists have found that wearing certain types of face masks for long periods of time could result in potentially hazardous chemicals and harmful microplastics being inhaled deep into human lungs.

Professor Michael Braungart, director at the Hamburg Environmental Institute and co-founder of the world-renowned Cradle to Cradle environmental standard has told Ecotextile News that mask wearers unwittingly run the risk of breathing in carcinogens, allergens and tiny synthetic microfibres by wearing both textile and nonwoven surgical masks for long periods of time.

His recent findings have been backed up by another leading industry textile chemist Dr. Dieter Sedlak, managing director and co-founder of Modern Testing Services Augsburg, Germany in partnership with Modern Testing Services Global, Hong Kong who found elevated concentrations of hazardous fluorocarbons, formaldehyde and other potentially carcinogenic substances on surgical face masks: I can only say 100 per cent that I have similar concerns to Prof. Braungart.

With over 40 years in the business, Dr. Sedlak, who was also the former Global Product Safety Director at a major global Specialty Chemicals supplier is one of the most respected figures in the textile chemicals sector and helped to develop various leading EHS chemical management systems and RSL concepts used today by major global apparel and footwear brands.

Initial analytical tests by both of these experts have now thrown into doubt the wisdom of whether people should be wearing certain types of masks for hours on end. Particularly schoolchildren, factory workers and long-haul flyers who may be at a greater risk from the long-term damage to lungs through exposure to both restricted chemistry and microplastics perhaps outweighing the short-term risk of any exposure to the caronavirus?

“What we are breathing through our mouth and nose is actually hazardous waste,” said Professor Braungart, who ran preliminary tests on used surgical masks that found traces of chemicals such as the known carcinogen aniline as well as formaldehyde and optical brighteners - both heavily restricted on consumer goods by European and US authorities to minute parts per million concentrations.

Separate studies by Dr. Sedlak have also shown the presence of compounds such as 2-butanone oxime (carcinogenic) blocked diisocyanates used as crosslinkers for perfluorocarbons (PFCs) on face masks. Used in the textile sector as oil and water repellents on fabrics, by-products of PFCs are known to be bio-persistent and their use is heavily restricted by authorities in Europe and the USA. Last year, a group of US scientists called for all per- and poly-fluorinated substances (PFAS) to be treated as one single class of chemistry and said they should be avoided for non-essential uses due to their hazardous toxicological and eco-toxicological profile.

“Honestly, I had not expected PFC’s would be found in a surgical mask, but we have special routine methods in our labs to detect these chemicals easily and can immediately identify them. This is a big issue,” explained Dr. Sedlak.

“It seems this had been deliberately applied as a fluid repellent - it would work to repel the virus in an aerosol droplet format - but PFC on your face, on your nose, on the mucus membranes, or on the eyes is not good. Along with PFCs, he also detected - besides the PFC crosslinkers compounds such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde whereas a GCMS chromatogram showed 100s of peaks from other contaminants.

Microfibre concern

Like Sedlak, Braungart noted that surgical masks have been designed to be worn for very specific purposes such as by clinicians or for a short period of time before being discarded. They are not designed to be crumpled up in people’s pockets where the friction and damp environment promotes both fibre abrasion and encourages bacterial colonisation over time,” he said.

This abrasion can, he says, cause the release of tiny microplastics as the polypropylene fibres break down from mechanical wear and tear, finding in tests that some masks shed microfibres classed as hazardous dust by the German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV). Fibres of this type of geometry that meet this dust standard are also referred to as WHO fibres after earlier work by the World Health Organisation on asbestos.

Textiles preferable to nonwovens?

During the on-going pandemic most people are now also wearing masks and face coverings made from traditional textile materials that would normally be used to make our clothing.

Thankfully, the risks associated with harmful chemicals on clothing are lower than ever, but the risks aren’t zero. “The risks associated with clothing tend to be due to skin contact, apart from babies that tend to suck anything they can get near their mouth - and therefore it is normal to have tougher, more stringent chemical standards for babywear textiles,” according to textile chemical expert, Phil Patterson of Colour Connections, who also works with the highly respected ZDHC Foundation on chemical management.

“In my opinion, textile masks do not begin to pass this most basic hazard test for kids, for whom the risks of COVID have been categorically demonstrated to be miniscule,” he said.

Potential litigation risks?

One unforeseen problem for those mandating the continued and long-term wearing of face masks, such as governments and businesses, is the potential for future litigation if they are proven to have any long-term adverse impacts on human health especially since long-term studies have yet to be undertaken.

Patterson, who has advised some of the world’s biggest clothing retailers and brands on chemical management agrees this could be an issue.

“I’d be very wary of mandating masks, as some chemicals and fibres may have long-term effects and that possibly opens the floodgates of personal injury claims at some stage in the future.”

Big brands

Nate Sponsler, director at the AFIRM Group that represents over 30 well-known consumer brands, such as Amazon, Nike and Levi Strauss, in a bid to reduce the use of harmful substances in textiles says its early days when looking at face masks. “We have not yet done any formal data aggregation or studies specific to face masks, so I’m glad this issue is being highlighted,” he said.

He says “textile face masks are a different issue to surgical face masks where he says he’s “not surprised to see potential hazardous substances based on fluorine applied to these masks, given that they’re designed for use in the medical sector, where all kinds of exemptions for chemistry on PPE exist” he said.

He also noted that for kids face masks “the AFIRM best practice would be to use organic cotton, and for adults where more materials and chemistry are being used (such as prints for example), this does require more due diligence.”

Masks have been an integral part of the global response to the coronavirus and a necessary intervention especially at the height of the pandemic. But as we start to emerge from this global health crisis, leading scientists are now questioning whether the real risk of exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals from long-term mask wearing is actually higher than the risk of coming into contact with the Sars-CoV-2 virus - especially for children and young adults who are in the low-risk category when it comes to developing severe COVID-19.

Nate Sponsler, director at the AFIRM Group that represents over 30 well-known consumer brands, such as Amazon, Nike and Levi Strauss, in a bid to reduce the use of harmful substances in textiles says its early days when looking at face masks. “We have not yet done any formal data aggregation or studies specific to face masks, so I’m glad this issue is being highlighted,” he said.

He says textile face masks are a different issue to surgical face masks where he says he’s “not surprised to see potential hazardous substances based on fluorine applied to these masks, given that they’re designed for use in the medical sector, where all kinds of exemptions for chemistry on PPE exist,"he said.

He also noted that “for kids face masks the AFIRM best practice would be to use organic cotton, and for adults where more materials and chemistry are being used (such as prints for example), this does require more due diligence.”

Masks have been an integral part of the global response to the coronavirus and a necessary intervention - especially at the height of the pandemic. But as we start to emerge from this global health crisis, leading scientists are now questioning whether the real risk of exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals from long-term mask wearing is actually higher than the risk of coming into contact with the Sars-CoV-2 virus - especially for children and young adults who are in the low-risk category when it comes to developing severe COVID-19.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 04/09/21 •
Section Revelations • Section NWO • Section Dying America
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home
Page 1 of 1 pages

Statistics

Total page hits 10837257
Page rendered in 1.4496 seconds
41 queries executed
Debug mode is off
Total Entries: 3359
Total Comments: 339
Most Recent Entry: 10/14/2021 11:24 am
Most Recent Comment on: 09/26/2021 05:03 pm
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 7
Total anonymous users: 0
The most visitors ever was 172 on 12/25/2019 07:40 am


Email Us

Home

Members:
Login | Register
Resumes | Members

In memory of the layed off workers of AT&T

Today's Diversion

The chief lesson I have learned in a long life is that the only way you can make a man trustworthy is to trust him; and the surest way to make him untrustworthy is to distrust him and show your distrust. - Politician Henry L. Stimson

Search


Advanced Search

Sections

Calendar

October 2021
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Must Read

Most recent entries

RSS Feeds

Today's News

ARS Technica

External Links

Elvis Picks

BLS and FRED Pages

Favorites

All Posts

Archives

RSS


Creative Commons License


Support Bloggers' Rights