61–70 of 341 posts
(Phenolics such as Bisphenol A - have hormonal effects causing direct cancer risk. And other effects too.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fibers embedded in lung tissue is how asbestos causes lung cancer, so wouldn't surprise me. Wearing a mask for an entire work day, than inevitably some of those mask fibers will get to your lungs. Its only a question if your lung tissue is not able to clear out some of them, that will cause inflammation, that long term can lead to cancer.
Turns out masks are not made of asbestos. Unsurprisingly, masks safety and effectiveness has been studied extremely extensively.
Neither are cigarettes, but getting enough cigarette smoke in your lung does causes cancer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turns out masks are not made of asbestos. Unsurprisingly, masks safety and effectiveness has been studied extremely extensively.
certain groups (nurses, doctors or certain workers) have to wear a masks all of the time for years. It would have definitely been noticed if it would cause such effects...the control group exists, just compare it to the rest. It would have been obvious.
Not really - doctors/nurses etc have for a very long time worn masks for short periods of times, for certain procedures, for certain hours of the day for some days in the week- very few HC professionals have ever had to wear masks continually all day long, day after day and then also for additional chunks of time as they go about their non-work life.
The actual study is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... The study presents three scenarios assuming different assumptions about the mass of plastic particles. In the worst case scenario, where I think the assumptions are bad, they estimate 5g of plastic per week. In the other two scenarios which used more complex but more realistic modelling they estimate 0.15 and 0.3g of plastic cons…
I can't take anyone seriously who publishes a pie-chart like this: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S03043894203199...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on what particle size?
N95 masks filter 95% of 0.3 micron particles.
[0] Wikipedia graph showing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA#/media/File:Filteration_C...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, SiO2 is pretty different from plastic, chemically speaking. And I would expect that we inhale several grams of fine sand dust per week too. In other words, the amount of "glass" entering your body because you drank a beer is probably irrelevant compared to e.g. Sahara dust (if you're in Europe) in the air around you.
Yes and silicate is an environmental component that's well understood and our bodies have adapted to it because sand has been a thing forever. And glass is chemically inert.
