Originally Posted by pbm
Common sense isn't so common anymore...
Just remember that half the population has a below average IQ...
Common sense isn't so common anymore...
Just remember that half the population has a below average IQ...
Driver crashes after passing out with n95 mask
- Thread starter UG_Passat
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by pbm
Common sense isn't so common anymore...
Just remember that half the population has a below average IQ...
While almost everyone thinks of themselves as above average.
Originally Posted by pbm
Common sense isn't so common anymore...
Just remember that half the population has a below average IQ...
While almost everyone thinks of themselves as above average.
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by pbm
Common sense isn't so common anymore...
Just remember that half the population has a below average IQ...
While almost everyone thinks of themselves as above average.
Dunning Kruger effect..
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by pbm
Common sense isn't so common anymore...
Just remember that half the population has a below average IQ...
While almost everyone thinks of themselves as above average.
Dunning Kruger effect..
Maybe a Chinese one? My wife got handed a couple brand new ones from a semi retired nurse neighbor and the package is pure Chinese with the package only having N95.
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by Ws6
Actually, OSHA is fine with it failing 1 of the 3 tests during fitment.
Wow, that totally contradicts all the OSHA guidance I have been given to operate under and no plant I have been to allows for that.
Its not in CFR 1910.134 nor APP A or B nor is it referenced in the official memo from 14 March,2020 regarding temporary enforcement guidance for fit testing of N-95 series particulate masks for the duration of this "event" that I can find in my packet.
My packet even reinforces the need for removal of make-up, facial hair and facial movement tests necessary to ensure proper sealing.( that's another issue but since in reality the entire N-95 particulate mask is NOT "fit for purpose" for this particular application, proper fitting makes very little difference)
Could you please direct me to this documented exclusion so I can incorporate it?
Thanks
Gladly:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA
Quote
(1) The PortaCount® will automatically stop and calculate the overall fit factor for the entire set of exercises. The overall fit factor is what counts. The Pass or Fail message will indicate whether or not the test was successful. If the test was a Pass, the fit test is over.
Red added for emphasis.
Implying that yes, you can have significant penetration of the mask during part of the protocol and still pass your annual quantified fit test, which is what happened to me.
So guess what? I just grew a beard and wear a PAPR, now, if I am truly concerned about an environment.
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Respectfully, it's the same thing. They talk about viral load. Even if it's not 100%, it might reduce the viral load that you receive so even though the effectiveness of it may be low, it's still better than nothing. If used properly. Not going to help and might make it worse if people keep touching it. Would you rather get some air in a hose that's leaking or none at all? Either way, you might be dead both ways, but at least one is better than nothing. I think you are confusing the concentration of the bio/chem agent. If you're a few feet away, the concentration might not be that high. If you're intubating a patient, they call that being near the volcano.
First, this isn't directed to you or anyone here and I'm responding basically "out there to the masses" so please don't think that. This is like watching 1984 again with the "Ministry of Truth" and me being Winston.
If this is a true bio agent ( which it is- it is a real disease) then it can pass in all ways any other viral agent can.That also means its alive and reproduces in volume as well.
Viral loading is nothing but a concentration/quantity of virus in a given media. ( body fluid, skin etc.) That's primarily a direct contact hazard not significantly different than industry BBP training and stuff and in those cases impermeable membrane PPE and a face shield is most effective.
A "particulate filter" has but one purpose- to filter particulates which are AIRBORNE. ( for example if you got a drop of "virally loaded blood" on it- it would seep through and expose you) ( the little oogies don't jump up from the fluid and get on you) There must be a lot of "truth ministers" out there hoping people don't connect the dots on that issue because they talk about "touching your face" but IF it got on your "shirt" or in your hair and you took it off- guess what, you just touched your face. ( and everywhere else and those contacts tend to migrate)
So if the "line" is that a N-95 mask is some form of "protection"( in terms of an airborne agent) then any "compromised seal" is no seal- regardless of any attempts to minimalize it. Also since its a "particulate filter" then the filter media has to be capable of filtering the beta down to that size ( a concept that shouldn't even need to be brought up on this board specifically with all the expertise here and its entire purpose)
As far as contaminated or concentration, that's an impossibility to measure or predict other than if you get exposed to 1 or 1 million oogies- at that point your individual body characteristics and immune response takes over and theres no "number' or "concentration" threshold that will determine if an individual "gets it" whether their own body will defeat it or require additional treatment.
Along the same lines- if these "measures' are really effective against this "thing" in reducing exposures and all that then "logically' we can expect EVERY disease that spreads the same way to have a reduction because if these measures are effective against one then they have to work for all. (I notice the times I have asked that of some medical professionals they start not wanting to address that)
Again, 5% penetration of the mask is acceptable per the OSHA standards during fit testing.
Quote
(7) The test shall be terminated whenever any single peak penetration exceeds 5 percent for half masks and 1 percent for full facepiece respirators. The test subject shall be refitted and retested.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...ost/Board/8/Number/5413495/what/showflat
If you really care, wear a PAPR. If it's just for appearances, then the minimum "standard" your organization accepts will get 'r done.
Originally Posted by Ws6
Actually, OSHA is fine with it failing 1 of the 3 tests during fitment.
Wow, that totally contradicts all the OSHA guidance I have been given to operate under and no plant I have been to allows for that.
Its not in CFR 1910.134 nor APP A or B nor is it referenced in the official memo from 14 March,2020 regarding temporary enforcement guidance for fit testing of N-95 series particulate masks for the duration of this "event" that I can find in my packet.
My packet even reinforces the need for removal of make-up, facial hair and facial movement tests necessary to ensure proper sealing.( that's another issue but since in reality the entire N-95 particulate mask is NOT "fit for purpose" for this particular application, proper fitting makes very little difference)
Could you please direct me to this documented exclusion so I can incorporate it?
Thanks
Gladly:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppA
Quote
(1) The PortaCount® will automatically stop and calculate the overall fit factor for the entire set of exercises. The overall fit factor is what counts. The Pass or Fail message will indicate whether or not the test was successful. If the test was a Pass, the fit test is over.
Red added for emphasis.
Implying that yes, you can have significant penetration of the mask during part of the protocol and still pass your annual quantified fit test, which is what happened to me.
So guess what? I just grew a beard and wear a PAPR, now, if I am truly concerned about an environment.
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Respectfully, it's the same thing. They talk about viral load. Even if it's not 100%, it might reduce the viral load that you receive so even though the effectiveness of it may be low, it's still better than nothing. If used properly. Not going to help and might make it worse if people keep touching it. Would you rather get some air in a hose that's leaking or none at all? Either way, you might be dead both ways, but at least one is better than nothing. I think you are confusing the concentration of the bio/chem agent. If you're a few feet away, the concentration might not be that high. If you're intubating a patient, they call that being near the volcano.
First, this isn't directed to you or anyone here and I'm responding basically "out there to the masses" so please don't think that. This is like watching 1984 again with the "Ministry of Truth" and me being Winston.
If this is a true bio agent ( which it is- it is a real disease) then it can pass in all ways any other viral agent can.That also means its alive and reproduces in volume as well.
Viral loading is nothing but a concentration/quantity of virus in a given media. ( body fluid, skin etc.) That's primarily a direct contact hazard not significantly different than industry BBP training and stuff and in those cases impermeable membrane PPE and a face shield is most effective.
A "particulate filter" has but one purpose- to filter particulates which are AIRBORNE. ( for example if you got a drop of "virally loaded blood" on it- it would seep through and expose you) ( the little oogies don't jump up from the fluid and get on you) There must be a lot of "truth ministers" out there hoping people don't connect the dots on that issue because they talk about "touching your face" but IF it got on your "shirt" or in your hair and you took it off- guess what, you just touched your face. ( and everywhere else and those contacts tend to migrate)
So if the "line" is that a N-95 mask is some form of "protection"( in terms of an airborne agent) then any "compromised seal" is no seal- regardless of any attempts to minimalize it. Also since its a "particulate filter" then the filter media has to be capable of filtering the beta down to that size ( a concept that shouldn't even need to be brought up on this board specifically with all the expertise here and its entire purpose)
As far as contaminated or concentration, that's an impossibility to measure or predict other than if you get exposed to 1 or 1 million oogies- at that point your individual body characteristics and immune response takes over and theres no "number' or "concentration" threshold that will determine if an individual "gets it" whether their own body will defeat it or require additional treatment.
Along the same lines- if these "measures' are really effective against this "thing" in reducing exposures and all that then "logically' we can expect EVERY disease that spreads the same way to have a reduction because if these measures are effective against one then they have to work for all. (I notice the times I have asked that of some medical professionals they start not wanting to address that)
Again, 5% penetration of the mask is acceptable per the OSHA standards during fit testing.
Quote
(7) The test shall be terminated whenever any single peak penetration exceeds 5 percent for half masks and 1 percent for full facepiece respirators. The test subject shall be refitted and retested.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...ost/Board/8/Number/5413495/what/showflat
If you really care, wear a PAPR. If it's just for appearances, then the minimum "standard" your organization accepts will get 'r done.
That's a misapplication or misunderstanding of the test and its meaning- its the same PATS test I used when fitting protective masks for the Army.
That determines the percentage of fit between the face and face piece with allowable leakage ( thus the first test)
That determines what level of protection provided which is then weighed against the activity ( part 2)
Those 2 combined determine what's acceptable.
In context with this specific application given the "risk of infection" nothing short of 100% seal would be acceptable
( same reason I had to disqualify soldiers from entering the live agent chambers because their PATS score wasn't high enough because not every standard mask fits everyone properly but I could send them to the CS chamber) That also rendered some soldiers non deployable to areas where NBC exposure was likely.
It matters not here because in terms of particulate effectiveness of the N-95 mask against a pathogen would be like trying to scoop up # 8 shot with a fish net even if you caulked the mask to your face and never removed it.
That determines the percentage of fit between the face and face piece with allowable leakage ( thus the first test)
That determines what level of protection provided which is then weighed against the activity ( part 2)
Those 2 combined determine what's acceptable.
In context with this specific application given the "risk of infection" nothing short of 100% seal would be acceptable
( same reason I had to disqualify soldiers from entering the live agent chambers because their PATS score wasn't high enough because not every standard mask fits everyone properly but I could send them to the CS chamber) That also rendered some soldiers non deployable to areas where NBC exposure was likely.
It matters not here because in terms of particulate effectiveness of the N-95 mask against a pathogen would be like trying to scoop up # 8 shot with a fish net even if you caulked the mask to your face and never removed it.
If you want to, or have to, wear a mask one of these might be helpful to see how much it affects the oxygen levels in your blood. I found one very useful when visiting my dad in Colodardo (He lived at 10,000' and I live at 500'.) I could tell when I was acclimating decently when my level went from the low 90s back to 98+ percent.
=Oximeter
=Oximeter
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
That's a misapplication or misunderstanding of the test and its meaning- its the same PATS test I used when fitting protective masks for the Army.
That determines the percentage of fit between the face and face piece with allowable leakage ( thus the first test)
That determines what level of protection provided which is then weighed against the activity ( part 2)
Those 2 combined determine what's acceptable.
In context with this specific application given the "risk of infection" nothing short of 100% seal would be acceptable
( same reason I had to disqualify soldiers from entering the live agent chambers because their PATS score wasn't high enough because not every standard mask fits everyone properly but I could send them to the CS chamber) That also rendered some soldiers non deployable to areas where NBC exposure was likely.
It matters not here because in terms of particulate effectiveness of the N-95 mask against a pathogen would be like trying to scoop up # 8 shot with a fish net even if you caulked the mask to your face and never removed it.
I'm just going by what I was told when I was fitted for an N95 years ago. I am not an OSHA regulations employee/enforcer, so it is what it is. Like I said, I just grew a beard and rolled with it. PAPR is life.
That's a misapplication or misunderstanding of the test and its meaning- its the same PATS test I used when fitting protective masks for the Army.
That determines the percentage of fit between the face and face piece with allowable leakage ( thus the first test)
That determines what level of protection provided which is then weighed against the activity ( part 2)
Those 2 combined determine what's acceptable.
In context with this specific application given the "risk of infection" nothing short of 100% seal would be acceptable
( same reason I had to disqualify soldiers from entering the live agent chambers because their PATS score wasn't high enough because not every standard mask fits everyone properly but I could send them to the CS chamber) That also rendered some soldiers non deployable to areas where NBC exposure was likely.
It matters not here because in terms of particulate effectiveness of the N-95 mask against a pathogen would be like trying to scoop up # 8 shot with a fish net even if you caulked the mask to your face and never removed it.
I'm just going by what I was told when I was fitted for an N95 years ago. I am not an OSHA regulations employee/enforcer, so it is what it is. Like I said, I just grew a beard and rolled with it. PAPR is life.
Originally Posted by bbhero
That's the thought I have had... What is the efficiency of the n 95 mask at what size in microns?? What's the beta ratio at say a half a micron in size?? I would bet it is of no real benefit at all at 0.5 microns or smaller.
I let curiosity get to me and looked it up just to see.
The average N95 screens at about .3 micron (according to what I can find its a class range)
According to what I find on the "thing" in question is approximately 120 nm ( nanometers)
Now we are looking at trying to screen talcum powder through a fish net in relative terms
so much for any legitimate claim of protection from any airborne virus of any flavor in any quantity.
That's the thought I have had... What is the efficiency of the n 95 mask at what size in microns?? What's the beta ratio at say a half a micron in size?? I would bet it is of no real benefit at all at 0.5 microns or smaller.
I let curiosity get to me and looked it up just to see.
The average N95 screens at about .3 micron (according to what I can find its a class range)
According to what I find on the "thing" in question is approximately 120 nm ( nanometers)
Now we are looking at trying to screen talcum powder through a fish net in relative terms
so much for any legitimate claim of protection from any airborne virus of any flavor in any quantity.
Stop and think about it...
Is this circumstance is not moving "in the air"...???
It is droplet spread and contact spread...
That's why even a surgical mask is ok.
If it is airborne then it's a whole other ball game. And even then a n 95 mask is greatly insufficient.
Is this circumstance is not moving "in the air"...???
It is droplet spread and contact spread...
That's why even a surgical mask is ok.
If it is airborne then it's a whole other ball game. And even then a n 95 mask is greatly insufficient.
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by bbhero
That's the thought I have had... What is the efficiency of the n 95 mask at what size in microns?? What's the beta ratio at say a half a micron in size?? I would bet it is of no real benefit at all at 0.5 microns or smaller.
I let curiosity get to me and looked it up just to see.
The average N95 screens at about .3 micron (according to what I can find its a class range)
According to what I find on the "thing" in question is approximately 120 nm ( nanometers)
Now we are looking at trying to screen talcum powder through a fish net in relative terms
so much for any legitimate claim of protection from any airborne virus of any flavor in any quantity.
This shows you why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The .3 micron is the hardest to filter out because it's the optimum size to get through a filter. Smaller particles get stopped easier. Seems counter intuitive, but such is science. Again, read the science, no one ever claimed 100%. Article below describes how penetration can exceed 5%. That's still better than 100% without it.
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/52/3/177/312528
Originally Posted by bbhero
That's the thought I have had... What is the efficiency of the n 95 mask at what size in microns?? What's the beta ratio at say a half a micron in size?? I would bet it is of no real benefit at all at 0.5 microns or smaller.
I let curiosity get to me and looked it up just to see.
The average N95 screens at about .3 micron (according to what I can find its a class range)
According to what I find on the "thing" in question is approximately 120 nm ( nanometers)
Now we are looking at trying to screen talcum powder through a fish net in relative terms
so much for any legitimate claim of protection from any airborne virus of any flavor in any quantity.
This shows you why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The .3 micron is the hardest to filter out because it's the optimum size to get through a filter. Smaller particles get stopped easier. Seems counter intuitive, but such is science. Again, read the science, no one ever claimed 100%. Article below describes how penetration can exceed 5%. That's still better than 100% without it.
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/52/3/177/312528
Originally Posted by DBMaster
If you want to, or have to, wear a mask one of these might be helpful to see how much it affects the oxygen levels in your blood. I found one very useful when visiting my dad in Colodardo (He lived at 10,000' and I live at 500'.) I could tell when I was acclimating decently when my level went from the low 90s back to 98+ percent.
=Oximeter
They are proving to be very useful in COVID, allowing the early application of oxygen, and maybe preventing use of ventilator.
I've got one for S and G with my breathwork...lowest I've got to was 46%....my 4 minute 6 secodn breath hold was 52%...great fun.
If you want to, or have to, wear a mask one of these might be helpful to see how much it affects the oxygen levels in your blood. I found one very useful when visiting my dad in Colodardo (He lived at 10,000' and I live at 500'.) I could tell when I was acclimating decently when my level went from the low 90s back to 98+ percent.
=Oximeter
They are proving to be very useful in COVID, allowing the early application of oxygen, and maybe preventing use of ventilator.
I've got one for S and G with my breathwork...lowest I've got to was 46%....my 4 minute 6 secodn breath hold was 52%...great fun.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
so much for any legitimate claim of protection from any airborne virus of any flavor in any quantity.
This shows you why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The .3 micron is the hardest to filter out because it's the optimum size to get through a filter. Smaller particles get stopped easier. Seems counter intuitive, but such is science. Again, read the science, no one ever claimed 100%. Article below describes how penetration can exceed 5%. That's still better than 100% without it.
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/52/3/177/312528[/quote]
Yeah and from the article
Conclusions: The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses.
Here's why
It was testing AEROSOL (the carrier) with a model virus. Once the carrier saturates the media even at the particulate level ( like these masks are very thin and 1 pass) then it actually alters the filtering capability ( like a wet napkin) and its compromised.
It also says
When testing at an inhalation flow rate of 85 l min−1, the penetration of MS2 virions (0.01-0.08 μm) through the N95 respirator filter exceeded 5%. For surgical masks, the penetration was much higher and varied from 20.5 to 84.5%. In these studies, the respirators were sealed on a manikin face to account only for particles penetrating through the respirator filter material. However, airborne particles can also enter the respirator cavity through face-seal leaks and be subsequently inhaled into human respiratory systems.
What that means in non techno English is that in a situation like a medical procedure where there is minimal exposure and minimal time and then the filter is changed out- there is an "acceptable" degree of protection from contact from an agent working through the filter from the carrier.
Nobody disputes that under those conditions.
But to believe that this is wear 'all day" and in all circumstances a valid "protection" as is currently being pronounced is not correct. Then to believe a piece of cloth ( forget sub micron filtration with a cut up Tee shirt) is also "acceptable"?
The difference is that those who have actually done these things in real world applications have a little greater depth of understanding that reading an article and not recognizing that it doesn't answer everything and are often conditional in the findings.
See theres a reason there are those big layered filters and complex valves on military grade equipment and we aren't issued nose cups.
so much for any legitimate claim of protection from any airborne virus of any flavor in any quantity.
This shows you why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The .3 micron is the hardest to filter out because it's the optimum size to get through a filter. Smaller particles get stopped easier. Seems counter intuitive, but such is science. Again, read the science, no one ever claimed 100%. Article below describes how penetration can exceed 5%. That's still better than 100% without it.
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/52/3/177/312528[/quote]
Yeah and from the article
Conclusions: The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses.
Here's why
It was testing AEROSOL (the carrier) with a model virus. Once the carrier saturates the media even at the particulate level ( like these masks are very thin and 1 pass) then it actually alters the filtering capability ( like a wet napkin) and its compromised.
It also says
When testing at an inhalation flow rate of 85 l min−1, the penetration of MS2 virions (0.01-0.08 μm) through the N95 respirator filter exceeded 5%. For surgical masks, the penetration was much higher and varied from 20.5 to 84.5%. In these studies, the respirators were sealed on a manikin face to account only for particles penetrating through the respirator filter material. However, airborne particles can also enter the respirator cavity through face-seal leaks and be subsequently inhaled into human respiratory systems.
What that means in non techno English is that in a situation like a medical procedure where there is minimal exposure and minimal time and then the filter is changed out- there is an "acceptable" degree of protection from contact from an agent working through the filter from the carrier.
Nobody disputes that under those conditions.
But to believe that this is wear 'all day" and in all circumstances a valid "protection" as is currently being pronounced is not correct. Then to believe a piece of cloth ( forget sub micron filtration with a cut up Tee shirt) is also "acceptable"?
The difference is that those who have actually done these things in real world applications have a little greater depth of understanding that reading an article and not recognizing that it doesn't answer everything and are often conditional in the findings.
See theres a reason there are those big layered filters and complex valves on military grade equipment and we aren't issued nose cups.
I agree ^^^^^^^^
Feel good does not mean much.
Like the magic flu vaccine.... Ohh it's only 10-30 percent effective... Well it is better than zero is the answer...
That's like having a air filter that is 10-30 percent efficient using large dust... Better than nothing... Might as well be nothing...
And I am sorry but I wonder if the magical seasonal vaccine has actually made this current circumstance far worse... Seriously. I wonder if it has created a overreaction within our older people who get the SARS II. . Thus why the overreaction in the respiratory system and rapid fluid accumulation.
Feel good does not mean much.
Like the magic flu vaccine.... Ohh it's only 10-30 percent effective... Well it is better than zero is the answer...
That's like having a air filter that is 10-30 percent efficient using large dust... Better than nothing... Might as well be nothing...
And I am sorry but I wonder if the magical seasonal vaccine has actually made this current circumstance far worse... Seriously. I wonder if it has created a overreaction within our older people who get the SARS II. . Thus why the overreaction in the respiratory system and rapid fluid accumulation.
Last edited:
If N95 and other PPE isn't pretty effective, then why doesn't the CDC and many other professional medical organizations say all hospital workers working around CV-19 patients have to wear a completely sealed bubble boy suit with super HEPA filtered air.
Because it is not airborne...
It's droplet and contact..
Question... If it is airborne then... Are ALL those people in negative pressure rooms with totally separate ventilation system??
I'd bet no...
There are not hardly any negative pressure rooms in a hospital...
And this is not airborne spread.
It's droplet and contact..
Question... If it is airborne then... Are ALL those people in negative pressure rooms with totally separate ventilation system??
I'd bet no...
There are not hardly any negative pressure rooms in a hospital...
And this is not airborne spread.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
If N95 and other PPE isn't pretty effective, then why doesn't the CDC and many other professional medical organizations say all hospital workers working around CV-19 patients have to wear a completely sealed bubble boy suit with super HEPA filtered air.
Because money? Because they need them to show up to work, and they've already fearmongered the mess out of this?
If N95 and other PPE isn't pretty effective, then why doesn't the CDC and many other professional medical organizations say all hospital workers working around CV-19 patients have to wear a completely sealed bubble boy suit with super HEPA filtered air.
Because money? Because they need them to show up to work, and they've already fearmongered the mess out of this?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
