The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention runs blogs on public health and workplace safety, including N95 masks, veterinarian suicide, and sound-measuring apps.
HN commenters cite CDC posts as evidence in debates over mask fit, alcohol and DNA damage, veterinary suicide rates, and heat-related deaths.
Nothing has stopped, and nothing is stopping businesses and unions from putting their own protections in place.
The articles says "dozens" of deaths across the country per year are heat related. How many are from Florida? Seems like largely a non-issue - hundreds of people die from falling off ladders every year[1], for comparison.
But... NPR likes to sensationalize and politically charge these sorts of headlines to rile people over "Florida Bad" since it's currently a Republican Governor.
Yesterday you didn't know about this, hadn't put one second of thought into it, and didn't care about it. Today, metaphoric you is outraged by it. ie, you're being played.
[1] https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2017/03/13/ladder-safety-month/#:~:text=Each%20year%20in%20the%20U.S.,pain%20and%20suffering%20expenses1.
"They filter AT LEAST 95% of the particles above a certain size."
That's a common misunderstanding; they filter at least 95% of particles of all sizes. It's actually intermediate-sized particles (around 0.1 - 1 micron) that're hardest to capture. Smaller particles are more subject to Brownian motion, which makes them jiggle around more, and hence makes them more likely to bump into one of the respirator's strands... where they'll stick, thanks to Van der Waals forces.
N95 masks (if properly fitted) block at least 95% of particles in that 0.1 - 1 micron range (they're tested with particles around 0.3 microns), and even higher percentages of particles that're either larger or smaller than that.
Reference: https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2009/10/14/n95/ (especially figure 2)
The first linked study, the one from Japan, had 32 participants that finished the study and there were only 2 colds observed, one in each group. To me, a layperson, that feels like such a small sample size to be totally useless. Am I wrong about this?
It's also stated, "The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked". Why when I look at a CDC article on masks does it say N95 is effective on this particle size? Unless the author is using "blocked" to mean "100% prevented from moving through the filter", which would be a higher standard than N95 masks claim to have.
https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2009/10/14/n95/
A couple items to note here:
- while agreed that a trap should help contain gasses, in order to cure the resin involved they have to inject high-pressure steam into the piping... possible that it could cause bubbles to pass through functional traps
- even if the trap system worked perfectly, the fumes from the cure process get vented to the local atmosphere through outlets set up during the CIPP process. This exposes workers to the largest amount of byproduct chemical vapors, but it's entirely reasonable to think that it could get accumulated or trapped in buildings as well.
The CDC has a good article about this very topic:
https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2017/09/26/cipp/
When I first started doing volunteer health assessments and triage at our local homeless shelter, I inquired if facial hair was an issue with PPE. The organization's initial response was no.
I sent them a link to the CDC guidance[1] that includes this picture regarding facial hair styles that are ok[2].
I don't think the notice at the top of said article is helpful whatsoever saying that this isn't advice for covid-19. A proper fit and seal is important. The picture could also be considered somewhat offensive to some.
[1]: https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2017/11/02/noshave/
[2]: https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/files/2017/11/FacialHairWmaskSmall.jpg
Is a db meter on an iPhone really inaccurate? This recent article from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health suggests otherwise:
> for A-weighted sound level measurements three apps had mean differences within ± 2dBA of the reference measurements. For un-weighted sound level measurements three apps had mean differences within the ± 2 dB of the reference measurement. Since national standards and occupational guidelines specify that type 2 sound measurement instruments have an accuracy of ± 2dBA, some of the above-mentioned apps could potentially be used in the occupational setting
http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2014/04/09/sound-apps/