To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Lex Luthor

Polar101 wrote: »

Sounds like everyone is a winner - you got your food, and felt superior about your choices. And they got rid of you as quickly as possible.

ya it was great

odyssey06 wrote: »

Masks dont violate bodily integrity anymore than seatbelts in cars or helmets for motorbikes.

chalk & cheese
a seat belt has been scientifically proven to save lives, same with helmets

these masks dont

robinph wrote: »

Please tell us more about these cases of people being poisoned by breathing in CO2 because of wearing a mask. What with it being so deadly there must be loads of cases that we've somehow missed, and to think all those surgeons and nurses in operating theaters for the last century never thought to let us know how dangerous it was.

read up a bit more on operating theatres air composition and refresh rates and also the sterile environment they work in before coming back with the same reply every non educated person who knows didly squat about CO2 levels uses

Lex Luthor

martingriff wrote: »

People who wear masks on a daily basis Doctors, nurse, dentists, those who work in pharmaceutical industry are they all making it worse are they filthy and disgusting

compared to what people are wearing in public there is a huge difference

people sticking them in their pockets, reusing them, masks not being washed for months, constantly being touched, and you compare this to the medical & pharma industry

I've worked in the medical, semiconductor & pharma industry for over 25yrs so I am well qualified to compare the 2

odyssey06

Lex Luthor wrote: »

chalk & cheese
a seat belt has been scientifically proven to save lives, same with helmets

So much for inalienable right to bodily integrity... you dont even stand over your own slogans.

read up a bit more on operating theatres air composition and refresh rates and also the sterile environment they work in before coming back with the same reply every non educated person who knows didly squat about CO2 levels uses

Dentists wear them all the time and many other medical professionals outside of such environments without issue.

It is your claim about carbon dioxide without supporting evidence.

Face masks do not increase CO2 levels, even in people with severe lung impairment: study
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2020/10/2/1_5130892.html

odyssey06

Lex Luthor wrote: »

compared to what people are wearing in public there is a huge difference
people sticking them in their pockets, reusing them, masks not being washed for months, constantly being touched, and you compare this to the medical & pharma industry
I've worked in the medical, semiconductor & pharma industry for over 25yrs so I am well qualified to compare the 2

Utterly without foundation.
Study in Denmark tracked mask v non mask wearers and mask wearers had slightly lower infection rates.
The study didnt try to estimate the barrier effect of masks at protecting others - which is the main reason they are mandated.

But it shows mask wearer are not making things worse and masks may offer some protective benefit for wearer.

Lex Luthor

odyssey06 wrote: »

It is your claim about carbon dioxide without supporting evidence.

Face masks do not increase CO2 levels, even in people with severe lung impairment: study
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2020/10/2/1_5130892.html

I have done many tests on various types of masks with a fully calibrated CO2 detector that measures directly under the mask and I trust the results
Levels > 12,000ppm within 1 min sustained
Check the OSHA standards

odyssey06

Lex Luthor wrote: »

I have done many tests on various types of masks with a fully calibrated CO2 detector that measures directly under the mask and I trust the results
Levels > 12,000ppm within 1 min sustained
Check the OSHA standards

Absolute BS.

Lex Luthor

odyssey06 wrote: »

Utterly without foundation.
Study in Denmark tracked mask v non mask wearers and mask wearers had slightly lower infection rates.
The study didnt try to estimate the barrier effect of masks at protecting others - which is the main reason they are mandated.

But it shows mask wearer are not making things worse and masks may offer some protective benefit for wearer.

I know what I see with people wearing masks

martingriff

Lex Luthor wrote: »

compared to what people are wearing in public there is a huge difference

people sticking them in their pockets, reusing them, masks not being washed for months, constantly being touched, and you compare this to the medical & pharma industry

I've worked in the medical, semiconductor & pharma industry for over 25yrs so I am well qualified to compare the 2

I can agree with you about the sticking them in pockets etc but you are against masks from breathing in your own CO2 as I bolded. So if you worked in the pharma industry then you know that is a big fat lie

Lex Luthor

My comparison is in relation to how masks are used and reused, handled etc between the public and in industry/medical

Surgical masks are used in medicine

Pharma rarely use them and usually they are just beard covers
Same in semi

There’s a world of difference

Lex Luthor

odyssey06 wrote: »

Absolute BS.

‘Fraid not

Sorry to burst your bubble

Lex Luthor

Lex Luthor wrote: »

‘Fraid not

Sorry to burst your bubble

I have video evidence and will stand over my tests and challenge anyone who can prove otherwise

Seanergy

Share your videos here then

Seanergy

Lex Luthor wrote: »

My comparison is in relation to how masks are used and reused, handled etc between the public and in industry/medical

Surgical masks are used in medicine

Pharma rarely use them and usually they are just beard covers
Same in semi

There’s a world of difference

Maybe if we had pop up mask education guidance in car parks outside supermarkets or something similar handling improvemnets could be advanced.

Let's remember that afew months ago surgical masks were being sold for 3 euros a pop without a this way up sign, zero literature.

One cannot buy a pair of safety gloves from a hardware without instructions in every langauage.

Thats me

Lex Luthor wrote: »

I have done many tests on various types of masks with a fully calibrated CO2 detector that measures directly under the mask and I trust the results
Levels > 12,000ppm within 1 min sustained
Check the OSHA standards

I do not understand what you were measuring :rolleyes:



Just imagine what is volume of air can fit between surface of your face and the mask. Few ml. You are exhaling into this badly ventilated space your exhaust having concentration of CO2 at ~40,000 parts per million. What should show your "fully calibrated CO2 detector" after you have exhaled into mask?


Second part. Now you are inhaling 3 liters of air. Of course you will inhale also these few milliliters of of air inside of mask having concentration of CO2 at ~40,000 parts per million. But these will be dissolved in ~3 liters of external air having no impact on you. Again - what should show your "fully calibrated CO2 detector" after you have inhaled?

saneman

Lex Luthor wrote: »

I have done many tests on various types of masks with a fully calibrated CO2 detector that measures directly under the mask and I trust the results
Levels > 12,000ppm within 1 min sustained
Check the OSHA standards

Great, so the CO2 concentration is less than what would be in exhaled air (i.e. 40,000 ppm). Why would that be I wonder? Because it's not a "sealed system" within the mask perhaps, and CO2 can diffuse freely through the fabric and the sides of the mask?

And in any case we're talking about a tiny volume of air (i.e. between mask & face), especially when mixed with the amount taken in a normal breath cycle, even at rest (which is about 500ml). It would be greater still for an individual doing light work, e.g. out shopping.

A CO2 level of 12,000ppm would be harmful were it in the surrounding environment, but in what instance would that ever be the case for any member of the public? This is a perfect example of a logical fallacy and a person of your experience should know better.

robinph

Lex Luthor wrote: »

read up a bit more on operating theatres air composition and refresh rates and also the sterile environment they work in before coming back with the same reply every non educated person who knows didly squat about CO2 levels uses

So at what time in history did operating theatres get these special air systems installed?

I assume this was because everyone wearing masks in the operating theatres since the 1800s were dying from CO2 poisoning then? I've still not seen all these reports on people collapsing in Tesco from wearing a mask and suffering with CO2 poisoning either, must be the rest of us are using the wrong version of the Internet so we don't see those articles I guess?

Lex Luthor

Seanergy wrote: »

Maybe if we had pop up mask education guidance in car parks outside supermarkets or something similar handling improvemnets could be advanced.

Let's remember that afew months ago surgical masks were being sold for 3 euros a pop without a this way up sign, zero literature.

They have done this and yet nobody adheres to it
Like I said, masks are being re-used, people constantly touching them

We are in flu season and if people continue to touch their face and mask more frequently and then touch surroundings, in my opinion its a lot worse than no masks, which we had in the summer and "cases" came right down

However, as I mentioned its flu season and cases for corona virus will be higher but thats another debate

Thats me wrote: »

I do not understand what you were measuring :rolleyes:



Just imagine what is volume of air can fit between surface of your face and the mask. Few ml. You are exhaling into this badly ventilated space your exhaust having concentration of CO2 at ~40,000 parts per million. What should show your "fully calibrated CO2 detector" after you have exhaled into mask?


Second part. Now you are inhaling 3 liters of air. Of course you will inhale also these few milliliters of of air inside of mask having concentration of CO2 at ~40,000 parts per million. But these will be dissolved in ~3 liters of external air having no impact on you. Again - what should show your "fully calibrated CO2 detector" after you have inhaled?

The detector is measuring the levels of CO2 inside the mask

I'm glad you mentioned that the level of CO2 in exhaled air is 40,000ppm

Inhaled air is 100 times less at approx 400ppm, but can rise to 1000ppm indoors if the room is not ventilated but still considered safe

SO inside the mask, the levels can reach much higher than inhaled air but lower than exhaled air due to leakage

OSHA levels for CO2 for an 8hr exposure level is 5000ppm. Most gas detectors manufactured come with default alarm levels of 5,000ppm for evacuation

I can tell you now if you were working in a room in any industry with a risk to exposure to CO2, you would be out of that room at 5000ppm and not allowed back in

ok so now I hear the counter argument for this being an 8hr period of exposure

so the 15min NIOSH STEL level for CO2 is 30,000ppm

you have school kids wearing them for periods of 2-3hrs during the day in schools

all I am saying imo is the potential long term effects of wearing a mask due to elevated CO2 levels cannot be good for the body and the harm vs good argument of wearing a mask vs the risk of catching a corona virus dont warrant the wearing of them

Lex Luthor

saneman wrote: »

A CO2 level of 12,000ppm would be harmful were it in the surrounding environment, but in what instance would that ever be the case for any member of the public? This is a perfect example of a logical fallacy and a person of your experience should know better.

as far as wearing a mask, your surrounding environment is inside your mask which is the breathing zone

ever walked into a lab and seen an O2 depletion monitor 8ft off the ground?

No, why not? its not in the breathing zone

Ever see a firefighter with a portable gas detector clipped onto their belt?
No, its just below their chin, why? Its in the breathing zone

Lex Luthor

robinph wrote: »

must be the rest of us are using the wrong version of the Internet so we don't see those articles I guess?

12 months ago you would have found contradicting articles on google around the wearing of masks that you see now

robinph

Wondering why scuba divers have to carry massive tanks of compressed oxygen on their backs all for it to only last for less than an hour when there is clearly enough air to last 8 hours within the space between a mask and your face?

Lex Luthor

robinph wrote: »

Wondering why scuba divers have to carry massive tanks of compressed oxygen on their backs all for it to only last for less than an hour when there is clearly enough air to last 8 hours within the space between a mask and your face?

compressed oxygen?

LOL

robinph

Lex Luthor wrote: »

compressed oxygen?

LOL

All right, compressed gas containing oxygen.

Now explain how the volume of air between your mask and face is sufficient to breathe for 8hrs?

Lex Luthor

robinph wrote: »

All right, compressed gas containing oxygen.

Now explain how the volume of air between your mask and face is sufficient to breathe for 8hrs?

its compressed air

are you asking me to explain to you how a scuba diving system works?

Necro

Mod:

CinemaGuy45, don't post in this thread again

robinph

Lex Luthor wrote: »

its compressed air

are you asking me to explain to you how a scuba diving system works?

Nope, I'm asking you to explain how face masks work and are apparently airtight around people's faces such that there is a build up of CO2 yet that volume of space between the mask and the face is lasting people for hours.

Don't care how scuba gear works, but seems they are missing a trick if face masks allow you to breath in from a sealed space for hours whilst diving gear only lasts for minutes.

Lex Luthor

robinph wrote: »

Nope, I'm asking you to explain how face masks work and are apparently airtight around people's faces such that there is a build up of CO2 yet that volume of space between the mask and the face is lasting people for hours.

Don't care how scuba gear works, but seems they are missing a trick if face masks allow you to breath in from a sealed space for hours whilst diving gear only lasts for minutes.

I never said that a face mask is airtight

its not free flowing either hence the elevated levels of CO2 under them between the mask & face

Take a brown paper bag and hold it over your mouth and breathe in & out for 1min and let me know how you feel?

The CO2 levels inside that bag would typically be higher than levels behind a mask but lower than exhaled air of approx 40,000ppm as the bag is not fully sealed

you can choose to ignore, debunk, whatever what I am saying

I've got over 15yrs experience in specific gas detection monitoring in various industries and working with emergency workers, etc so I'm just giving my opinion

Ask a firefighter whats in their cylinder strapped to their back when they go into an emergency situation. Its not a bottle of 12,000ppm CO2

I have measured these levels with various colleagues and they are what they are

I'm trying to give information here that is being suppressed to make people feel that masks should be worn to protect us from a virus

Do what you like with it, but I dont have the time & energy to continue discussing this, I've given my opinion

robinph

Lex Luthor wrote: »

I never said that a face mask is airtight

So presumably when we breathe in whilst wearing a mask there is air also coming from places other than between the mask and face area then. How much air is it that people are taking in with each breath? How much air is coming from the bit between the mask and face?

odyssey06

Lex Luthor wrote: »

My comparison is in relation to how masks are used and reused, handled etc between the public and in industry/medical
Surgical masks are used in medicine
Pharma rarely use them and usually they are just beard covers
Same in semi
There’s a world of difference

The study in Denmark shows that their use by the public is less risky than not wearing them, and that is just when considering their direct protective effect for the wearer - not the main purpose as a barrier.

Plus, it makes no difference to their carbon dioxide effects though.

And here I am talking about all the people who have worn surgical masks outside of the specific environments of operating theatres, such as dentists and other medical professionals.
You ignored that point earlier when I made it so I know it struck home and showed up your claims for the falsehoods they are.

There is no risk from carbon dioxide due to the everyday use of masks by the general public.
This point has been completely discredited and debunked repeatedly on this thread and in the news media.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2020/10/2/1_5130892.html

Lex Luthor

robinph wrote: »

So presumably when we breathe in whilst wearing a mask there is air also coming from places other than between the mask and face area then.

correct
The air that is from ambient outside the mask is mixed with exhaled air from the person

In normal circumstances, without a mask, you would inhale air which comprises of many parts (one of those being 400ppm of CO2) and we exhale air which comprises of approx 40,000ppm

The detector I used picks up CO2, its not an FTIR analyzer that breaks down each molecule within the air composition, it specifically monitors for CO2

robinph wrote: »

How much air is it that people are taking in with each breath? How much air is coming from the bit between the mask and face?

everyone is different in how much volume of air they inhale & exhale

Lex Luthor

odyssey06 wrote: »

The study in Denmark shows that their use by the public is less risky than not wearing them, and that is just when considering their direct protective effect for the wearer - not the main purpose as a barrier.

Plus, it makes no difference to their carbon dioxide effects though.

And here I am talking about all the people who have worn surgical masks outside of the specific environments of operating theatres, such as dentists and other medical professionals.
You ignored that point earlier when I made it so I know it struck home and showed up your claims for the falsehoods they are.

There is no risk from carbon dioxide due to the everyday use of masks by the general public.
This point has been completely discredited and debunked repeatedly on this thread and in the news media.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2020/10/2/1_5130892.html

You choose to believe the media and I choose to believe what I recorded in many tests

Its also not true in that article regarding the lower of oxygen levels while wearing a face mask. We've tested this also and it does

Its entirely up to you