Don't have Amazon Prime? Students can get a free 6-Month Amazon Prime trial with free 2-day shipping, unlimited video streaming & more.
If you're not a student, there's also a free 1-Month Amazon Prime trial available.
You can also earn cash back rewards on Amazon and Whole Foods purchases with the Amazon Prime Visa credit card. Read our review to see if it’s the right card for you.
Just a FYI, non-FDA approved mask are not tested for toxicity such as Formaldehyde and Fluorocarbons (PFCs).
Dr. Deieter Sedlak, managing director of Modern Testing Services, Augsburg, "saw evidence of hazardous fluorocarbons in masks that are known to be toxic to human health." - https://www.sciencetimes.com/arti...onment.htm
we keep boxes of these in the lobby of our building in case you forget a mask on your way out, but they are particularly popular with our essential delivery workers who sometimes need a fresh mask in the middle of their shifts. at this price, why not put a box or two out to support these folks?
Disposable masks are the new plastic straws of the ocean
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
If you read the source for the article, they did not test the mask. So this is a total, wild, speculation. The SINGLE person who complained about a mask has a formaldehyde sensitivity and so they jumped to the illogical conclusion that the mask must therefore have formaldehyde. Worst, sloppiest "science" I have ever seen.
Hate to tell you but that website you linked is garbage. It's all clickbait articles with typos and complete lack of understanding of the actual issues. Not an authoritative source for information. A headline on their front page: "Nanocages Could Live to Safer Lives for Soldiers, Athletes, Motorists – Study"
Or this sentence from another article "This can, therefore, be utilized, for instance, to gauge the Earth's gravitational field or to identify gravitational waves." Written by someone who barely speaks English or an auto generated article written by a bad AI.
100%. Surgical masks were created to prevent infections during surgery. Studies have demonstrated they're not even doing a good job at that. For respiratory protection they're not good at all, nor for source control. They fit poorly and air is forced through the gaps at increased velocity. So much of this masking debate is still using outdated thinking that it's larger droplets causing infection and not aerosols. The impact of cloth/surgical masks on preventing spread of COVID has been limited at best.
Agreed.
I understood the initial approach, where anything was better than nothing, in an attempt to mitigate spread by any means, when information on the danger of the virus was relatively unknown (or so they said), and proper masks were scarce. That said, it transformed from mitigation to indoctrination at some point, in my opinion. Science has taken a back seat to politics, which is a VERY dangerous practice.
There is a mountain of evidence that contradicts the official stories portrayed about this whole "pandemic" in many contexts. I want real answers, about testing methodology, mask efficacy/safety/policy, comorbidities in the fatality data, vaccine efficacy and safety, and so on. As a scientist, it is not a conspiracy to demand answers to data and rationales that do not appear to add up. It is a responsibility of any scientist to stand up and demand explanations that can withstand the most intense scrutiny.
122 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
Dr. Deieter Sedlak, managing director of Modern Testing Services, Augsburg, "saw evidence of hazardous fluorocarbons in masks that are known to be toxic to human health." - https://www.sciencetime
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Dr. Deieter Sedlak, managing director of Modern Testing Services, Augsburg, "saw evidence of hazardous fluorocarbons in masks that are known to be toxic to human health." - https://www.sciencetimes.com/arti...onment.htm [sciencetimes.com]
Hate to tell you but that website you linked is garbage. It's all clickbait articles with typos and complete lack of understanding of the actual issues. Not an authoritative source for information. A headline on their front page: "Nanocages Could Live to Safer Lives for Soldiers, Athletes, Motorists – Study"
Or this sentence from another article "This can, therefore, be utilized, for instance, to gauge the Earth's gravitational field or to identify gravitational waves." Written by someone who barely speaks English or an auto generated article written by a bad AI.
I understood the initial approach, where anything was better than nothing, in an attempt to mitigate spread by any means, when information on the danger of the virus was relatively unknown (or so they said), and proper masks were scarce. That said, it transformed from mitigation to indoctrination at some point, in my opinion. Science has taken a back seat to politics, which is a VERY dangerous practice.
There is a mountain of evidence that contradicts the official stories portrayed about this whole "pandemic" in many contexts. I want real answers, about testing methodology, mask efficacy/safety/policy, comorbidities in the fatality data, vaccine efficacy and safety, and so on. As a scientist, it is not a conspiracy to demand answers to data and rationales that do not appear to add up. It is a responsibility of any scientist to stand up and demand explanations that can withstand the most intense scrutiny.