No good evidence suggests they reduce viral infection rates, but masks shed plastics that reduce sperm count and motility in mice. Good chance it’s happening to humans too. (Updated 10/15/22)
Masking is a physical intervention, which ought to be studied by physics. There is a total lack of review of what physics has to say about masking. This is a key void in the masking debate. If you need help with this, let me know.
More important for policy makers than bench testing of masks is whether viral infection and case rates are diminished by public masking. All relevant high-quality studies indicate they’re not, and in some studies, they’re increased.
Title: Droplet evaporation on porous fabric materials
"Abstract:
Droplet evaporation on porous materials is a complex dynamic that occurs with spontaneous liquid imbibition through pores by capillary action. Here, we explore water dynamics on a porous fabric substrate with in-situ observations of X-ray and optical imaging techniques. We show how spreading and wicking lead to water imbibition through a porous substrate, enhancing the wetted surface area and consequently promoting evaporation. These sequential dynamics offer a framework to understand the alterations in the evaporation due to porosity for the particular case of fabric materials and a clue of how face masks interact with respiratory droplets."
Notice the date. Physics has only begun to study masking and droplets. This is really the only high quality article from a physics perspective.
Further studies would include studies of non-absorbent fabrics, the dynamics of droplet residue and air jets in masks, and modeling virus motion in masks and air jets
Trapped droplet evaporation from masks and consequent aerosolization of viral particles has long been a concern for potentially increasing infection rates or prolonging infections among mask wearers. Agree it’s important to study this complex process further.
It’s been shown that aerosols (< 5 micron particles) carrying viruses are not blocked by cloth, surgical, or even N95 masks. This would explain their lack of clinical benefit in numerous studies.
No argument about pores being large enough to let viruses through. However, some masks have charged fibers that capture dust and a strategy using layers that capture particles by Brownian Motion.
And just because a droplet evaporates doesn't necessarily mean that free virus results.
And droplets >100 microns simply fall to the floor in the unmasked case, but _may_ be aerosolized in the masked case.
We don't know the carrying capacity for N95 masks for the purpose of preventing infection, which would have to be studied to know how long they should be worn.
All this will have to be studied, if we even think that mask wearing is a net benefit, which I don't.
The upshot is that the science to study masking is in its infancy, so there is no reason to recommend masking from science.
I have been in the field of education (elementary) most of my life and “science” or no science - am greatly grieved at this masking of any child for a variety of concerns & reasons in this day & age.
In being required or mandated to wear a mask, during the Covid hell we were put thru by governmental & bureaucratic agencies - I personally endured headaches within 5 minutes of use, light-headedness, shortness of breath, and possibly other more serious effects of which I may not even be aware of to this day.
This is a sad travesty toward children first & then adults. I do not think history will be kind to this era once the real science & truth is revealed.
Masking is a physical intervention, which ought to be studied by physics. There is a total lack of review of what physics has to say about masking. This is a key void in the masking debate. If you need help with this, let me know.
Thank you, Tom.
Stephen Petty and others have reported physics analyses, including fluid dynamic studies by some.
https://hillmd.substack.com/p/masks-cant-reduce-covid-infection
More important for policy makers than bench testing of masks is whether viral infection and case rates are diminished by public masking. All relevant high-quality studies indicate they’re not, and in some studies, they’re increased.
Jan 2021
Title: Droplet evaporation on porous fabric materials
"Abstract:
Droplet evaporation on porous materials is a complex dynamic that occurs with spontaneous liquid imbibition through pores by capillary action. Here, we explore water dynamics on a porous fabric substrate with in-situ observations of X-ray and optical imaging techniques. We show how spreading and wicking lead to water imbibition through a porous substrate, enhancing the wetted surface area and consequently promoting evaporation. These sequential dynamics offer a framework to understand the alterations in the evaporation due to porosity for the particular case of fabric materials and a clue of how face masks interact with respiratory droplets."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-04877-w
Notice the date. Physics has only begun to study masking and droplets. This is really the only high quality article from a physics perspective.
Further studies would include studies of non-absorbent fabrics, the dynamics of droplet residue and air jets in masks, and modeling virus motion in masks and air jets
"We've only just begun..."
Trapped droplet evaporation from masks and consequent aerosolization of viral particles has long been a concern for potentially increasing infection rates or prolonging infections among mask wearers. Agree it’s important to study this complex process further.
It’s been shown that aerosols (< 5 micron particles) carrying viruses are not blocked by cloth, surgical, or even N95 masks. This would explain their lack of clinical benefit in numerous studies.
No argument about pores being large enough to let viruses through. However, some masks have charged fibers that capture dust and a strategy using layers that capture particles by Brownian Motion.
And just because a droplet evaporates doesn't necessarily mean that free virus results.
And droplets >100 microns simply fall to the floor in the unmasked case, but _may_ be aerosolized in the masked case.
We don't know the carrying capacity for N95 masks for the purpose of preventing infection, which would have to be studied to know how long they should be worn.
All this will have to be studied, if we even think that mask wearing is a net benefit, which I don't.
The upshot is that the science to study masking is in its infancy, so there is no reason to recommend masking from science.
Wow, Wow, Wow!
Thanks to all input on this thread.
I have been in the field of education (elementary) most of my life and “science” or no science - am greatly grieved at this masking of any child for a variety of concerns & reasons in this day & age.
In being required or mandated to wear a mask, during the Covid hell we were put thru by governmental & bureaucratic agencies - I personally endured headaches within 5 minutes of use, light-headedness, shortness of breath, and possibly other more serious effects of which I may not even be aware of to this day.
This is a sad travesty toward children first & then adults. I do not think history will be kind to this era once the real science & truth is revealed.
Petty's analysis is flawed because he doesn't understand the physics. Physics has only begun to research the physics of masks and droplets.
I think the jury has already come back with a verdict. It’s pretty much common sense in my opinion.
Yeah, physics is just so irrelevant to anything physical. ;)
Sometimes it’s beyond physical. But, people that are into the physics of everything, assume it’s ALL physical. Is God physical?
Does religion study gravity?
The cause of everything is in the Bible.
If possible, this should be made into a meme. I don't know exactly what (a mask on a male crotch?) but my point is that memes:
1. spread quickly
2. make the point before leftists can raise their ideological mental wall
I publish my own almost-daily memes because I think memes are the chink in their armor:
https://patrick.net/memes
I can see this with the micro plastics being inhaled. I also heard of Graphene also used in mask. I have not dug into this, but I don't doubt it. https://greatgameindia.com/facemasks-nanotechnology-graphene/
More toxins, circulating in our bodies…no surprise.
The how manieth thing in this whole mess is this now, that attacks fertiity... lost count.
I have the feeling I see some kind of pattern emerge, can't quite put my finger on it just yet...
I can!
https://manuherold.substack.com/p/bad-bad-virus-passionate-grandpa