Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020 • Hacker News Board

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#151

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

mft_ wrote: post #136

napier wrote: post #83

It’s surprising that after a year, people still haven’t figured out that reusable elastomer respirators with long life replaceable filter cartridges and >99% small particle filtration effectiveness are the best option from the perspectives of safety, overall cost and sustainability. I’ve been using the same pre pandemic 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter for months. It fits with…

The 3M 100 (your example) is a big, bulky heavy mask that costs (according to Amazon currently) $33, and as you say, isn’t actually fit for Covid protection (in both directions) without modification. And you wonder why, after a year, “people” haven’t widely adopted them? Honestly, this is such a prime HN comment I’m not sure you’re not trolling.

[deleted]

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#152

Post by yibg » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 2:05 AM UTC

tangent-man wrote: post #128

yibg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the virus particles travel on other things, and those other things are big enough to get blocked.

No its because of Brownian Diffusion. Counter intuitively masks block particles smaller than 0.3 microns (such as virus’s) more easily than particles at around 0.3 microns in size. It is particles that are around 0.3 microns in size that filters have the most difficulty blocking. N95 particles block 95% of particles of 0.3 microns in size. N99 Masks block 99% of particles at 0.3 microns. As I understand it smaller pa…

Interesting. Is it that particles smaller than 0.3 microns have more dynamic and random motion? I mean, why is it that particles smaller than 0.3 microns are likely to be "stuck" where as at 0.3 microns they aren't?

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#153

Post by NotChina » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 2:14 AM UTC

And even more gloves. We see them go out the Goldengate much more often than masks.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#154

Post by hackily » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 2:32 AM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #147

akarma wrote: post #58

On the note of disposing properly: To protect wildlife, it's been recommended by wildlife nonprofits to snip the straps of your face masks before disposing, to minimize the potential for it to harm an animal. [1] https://www.heart.co.uk/lifestyle/rspca-warn-face-masks-wild...

If I place an item into a trash bin, what is the likelihood that it comes into contact with wildlife?

Many things could happen to the mask, even if you disposed of it in a proper location. The trash bin could be tipped over or rummaged in by wildlife, for instance. When the trash collector comes, the trash bag could rip and the contents spill out. Strong winds might cause small and light objects like masks to fly out.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#155

Post by jjeaff » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 2:46 AM UTC

deegles wrote: post #105

napier wrote: post #83

It’s surprising that after a year, people still haven’t figured out that reusable elastomer respirators with long life replaceable filter cartridges and >99% small particle filtration effectiveness are the best option from the perspectives of safety, overall cost and sustainability. I’ve been using the same pre pandemic 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter for months. It fits with…

Masks with exhalation valves (edit: and no filter :) are inconsiderate to others since they do not stop you from spreading virus particles. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/11/new-airflow-vi...

You can't spread what you haven't caught.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#156

Post by TheRealWatson » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 3:04 AM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #155

deegles wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Masks with exhalation valves (edit: and no filter :) are inconsiderate to others since they do not stop you from spreading virus particles. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/11/new-airflow-vi...

You can't spread what you haven't caught.

Seems like everyone assumes they are not infected. It's always the others that are irresponsibly spreading diseases.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#157

Post by napier » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 4:54 AM UTC

mft_ wrote: post #136

napier wrote: post #83

It’s surprising that after a year, people still haven’t figured out that reusable elastomer respirators with long life replaceable filter cartridges and >99% small particle filtration effectiveness are the best option from the perspectives of safety, overall cost and sustainability. I’ve been using the same pre pandemic 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter for months. It fits with…

The 3M 100 (your example) is a big, bulky heavy mask that costs (according to Amazon currently) $33, and as you say, isn’t actually fit for Covid protection (in both directions) without modification. And you wonder why, after a year, “people” haven’t widely adopted them? Honestly, this is such a prime HN comment I’m not sure you’re not trolling.

Define big and bulky. But fair enough, that’s why lightweight 2020 pandemic redesigned versions are desirable. $33 is 9 cents a day averaged out over the year. Double it so you have a spare; that’s 18 cents a day. Not out of reach for most but they should be subsidized or provided free by the government anyway.

Even as a one off, a single respirator costs less than three or four good quality cloth masks, and less than a months supply of single use designed N95s or surgical masks.

Few who have ever ever worn an elastomer respirator would argue it’s less comfortable than an N95 or less efficacious than a 1918 flu era cloth mask.

The exhalation valve filter adaptation could be cut and fitted with the craft skills of a five year old and took two minutes.

I’m not trolling but I think you may be.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#158

Post by napier » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 4:55 AM UTC

immy wrote: post #124

Stephen304 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you retrofit the exhalation filter? I have a similar 3M mask (6000 series) but haven't used it since March since the exhale port doesn't make it easy to attach a filter. Being able to use it would solve my glasses fogging, which I've only been able to mitigate somewhat with shaped 3D printed pieces of plastic in the nose-wire slot of my fabric mask.

Cut up surgical mask and duct tape it around the exterior vent.

Also good and perhaps better than fitting internally because others can see it.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#159

Post by napier » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #132

napier wrote: post #83

It’s surprising that after a year, people still haven’t figured out that reusable elastomer respirators with long life replaceable filter cartridges and >99% small particle filtration effectiveness are the best option from the perspectives of safety, overall cost and sustainability. I’ve been using the same pre pandemic 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter for months. It fits with…

Wondering what an equivalent option would be in Europe. P100 seems to be not available outside the US.

Europe uses different designations but equivalents are available.

Source: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/433598O/european-standar...

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#160

Post by musicale » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 6:21 AM UTC

What seems to be lacking in many articles of this type is a detailed explanation of the exact paths plastic takes to get into the ocean.

Some paths I've heard of include: ships dumping waste directly into the ocean; landfills that are improperly sealed; waste blown and/or spilled out of out of open containers, trucks, and barges; waste blown or washed (from where?) into storm drains and rivers; etc.. Moreover, most of the great pacific garbage patch apparently consists of fishing nets.

It seems like tracking the waste flow and disrupting some of those paths might be a good idea.