Covid-19

DarkWeb

DarkWeb

Well-Known Member
EvilScotsm@n said:
Trust me mate a loose fitting paper mask does nothing to protect you from anything. I work with asbestos and nothing short of ffp3 protection is good enough. Most of us use full face respirators.
You walk into a room full of asbestos with one of those paper things on and your 100% breathing it in.
Bacteria is a million times smaller than azzy so it'll get past those no worries.
The point of them is to stop people spreading it by coughing. It will catch the majority of it on the inside.
Still let's plenty out though.
Click to expand...
I said this to my wife the fabric masks are "hope not help" you walk on to a job site with a bandana around your face and it requires a specific level of certification.......you are asking for it.
 
EvilScotsm@n

EvilScotsm@n

Well-Known Member
DarkWeb said:
I said this to my wife the fabric masks are "hope not help" you walk on to a job site with a bandana around your face and it requires a specific level of certification.......you are asking for it.
Click to expand...
They're manditory on public transport and in shops for us now. (Scotland) Police jumping into Tesco stores to slap out £50 fines for anyone not using them. Doesn't bother me like, it's hardly a drama. FM told us to get used to them though so think she's planning to keep an around for a while.
Only had 2490 deaths from it here though and only a dozen or so over the last few weeks so we just shut up and do what she says. :)
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
EvilScotsm@n said:
Trust me mate a loose fitting paper mask does nothing to protect you from anything. I work with asbestos and nothing short of ffp3 protection is good enough. Most of us use full face respirators.
You walk into a room full of asbestos with one of those paper things on and your 100% breathing it in.
Bacteria is a million times smaller than azzy so it'll get past those no worries.
The point of them is to stop people spreading it by coughing. It will catch the majority of it on the inside.
Still let's plenty out though.
Click to expand...
 
EvilScotsm@n

EvilScotsm@n

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Click to expand...
So your telling me that asbestos which you can see with the naked eye is the same size as bacteria which you need to use a microscope for.
On a "scientific chart" that looks like some kid scribbled it on a bit of paper.
Sure bud. You just keep telling yourself that and you'll be safe no worries. Honest :)
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
EvilScotsm@n said:
So your telling me that asbestos which you can see with the naked eye is the same size as bacteria which you need to use a microscope for.
On a "scientific chart" that looks like some kid scribbled it on a bit of paper.
Sure bud. You just keep telling yourself that and you'll be safe no worries. Honest :)
Click to expand...
1) The asbestos particle sizes that matter for carcinogenesis are below the visual and at/below the optical (light microscope) limits. Sizing this nanodust requires transmission electron microscopy.
2) While the old-school presentation might offend someone too young to treasure the memory of how fresh mimeograph paper smells ... it is a cardinal error to dismiss content because of form.
3) It is a further descent into fallacy to conclude that I was making a behavioral recommendation.

Conclusion: dear Lord, please send us better idiots.
 
Chunky Stool

Chunky Stool

Well-Known Member
Covid attacks the manly bits! :o
---
Effects on the testes
Viruses such as HIV, hepatitis B and C, mumps, Epstein–Barr and papilloma can cause viral orchitis and even lead to male infertility and testicular tumours6. One study in testis autopsy specimens obtained from six patients who died of SARS-CoV showed that this virus can induce orchitis6. Pathological results showed spermatogenic cell apoptosis, germ cell destruction, few or no spermatozoa in the seminiferous epithelium, thickened basement membrane and leukocyte infiltration in all six specimens. Thus, the testes could be affected by SARS-CoV-2. A recent study provides insights into impaired male gonadal function on SARS-CoV-2 infection2. This study showed that the testosterone to luteinizing hormone (T to LH) ratio in 81 patients with COVID-19 was dramatically decreased in comparison with 100 age-matched healthy counterparts (patients with COVID-19: 0.74; healthy men: 1.31, P < 0.0001). Serum T to LH ratio (as a predictor of male gonadal function) could be a potential marker of impairment of reproductive health by SARS-CoV-2 (ref.2).

 
GreatwhiteNorth

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
EvilScotsm@n said:
So your telling me that asbestos which you can see with the naked eye is the same size as bacteria which you need to use a microscope for.
On a "scientific chart" that looks like some kid scribbled it on a bit of paper.
Sure bud. You just keep telling yourself that and you'll be safe no worries. Honest :)
Click to expand...
cannabineer said:
1) The asbestos particle sizes that matter for carcinogenesis are below the visual and at/below the optical (light microscope) limits. Sizing this nanodust requires transmission electron microscopy.
2) While the old-school presentation might offend someone too young to treasure the memory of how fresh mimeograph paper smells ... it is a cardinal error to dismiss content because of form.
3) It is a further descent into fallacy to conclude that I was making a behavioral recommendation.

Conclusion: dear Lord, please send us better idiots.
Click to expand...
Scotsman meet Bear.

Bear, Scotsman
 
EvilScotsm@n

EvilScotsm@n

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
1) The asbestos particle sizes that matter for carcinogenesis are below the visual and at/below the optical (light microscope) limits. Sizing this nanodust requires transmission electron microscopy.
2) While the old-school presentation might offend someone too young to treasure the memory of how fresh mimeograph paper smells ... it is a cardinal error to dismiss content because of form.
3) It is a further descent into fallacy to conclude that I was making a behavioral recommendation.

Conclusion: dear Lord, please send us better idiots.
Click to expand...
Don't care what your article says mate I'm qualified to work around it and regularly work alongside the removal teams.
It's dangerous, it kills, the big bits that float about bigger than bacteria absolutely 100% cause asbestosis.
To think otherwise means it's not me that's the idiot.
And to further think that an unsealed face covering gives you any sort of protection from that and microscopic bacteria means there's something genuinely very wrong with your sense of reasoning.
 
raratt

raratt

Well-Known Member
EvilScotsm@n said:
Don't care what your article says mate I'm qualified to work around it and regularly work alongside the removal teams.
It's dangerous, it kills, the big bits that float about bigger than bacteria absolutely 100% cause asbestosis.
To think otherwise means it's not me that's the idiot.
And to further think that an unsealed face covering gives you any sort of protection from that and microscopic bacteria means there's something genuinely very wrong with your sense of reasoning.
Click to expand...
Buildings don't exhale asbestos.
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
Chunky Stool said:
This is so sad.
The last time I saw Chuck Wollery, he was leaving wheel of fortune.
Pretty sure he's not an expert on epidemiology...
Click to expand...
The Wheel of misFortune
EvilScotsm@n said:
Trust me mate a loose fitting paper mask does nothing to protect you from anything. I work with asbestos and nothing short of ffp3 protection is good enough. Most of us use full face respirators.
You walk into a room full of asbestos with one of those paper things on and your 100% breathing it in.
Bacteria is a million times smaller than azzy so it'll get past those no worries.
The point of them is to stop people spreading it by coughing. It will catch the majority of it on the inside.
Still let's plenty out though.
Click to expand...
Although it's not a bacteria and it is a virus you are technically correct only a respirator with a small particulate filter will make you safe and not completely without eye protection hence full face is the safest. Although I wear a half face and separate eye protection.
cannabineer said:
Click to expand...
He got you bear :lol: this virus is little more than a spot at the end of the asbestos line

LOL Wikipedia ;D
 
Metasynth

Metasynth

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
1) The asbestos particle sizes that matter for carcinogenesis are below the visual and at/below the optical (light microscope) limits. Sizing this nanodust requires transmission electron microscopy.
2) While the old-school presentation might offend someone too young to treasure the memory of how fresh mimeograph paper smells ... it is a cardinal error to dismiss content because of form.
3) It is a further descent into fallacy to conclude that I was making a behavioral recommendation.

Conclusion: dear Lord, please send us better idiots.
Click to expand...
EvilScotsm@n said:
Don't care what your article says mate I'm qualified to work around it and regularly work alongside the removal teams.
It's dangerous, it kills, the big bits that float about bigger than bacteria absolutely 100% cause asbestosis.
To think otherwise means it's not me that's the idiot.
And to further think that an unsealed face covering gives you any sort of protection from that and microscopic bacteria means there's something genuinely very wrong with your sense of reasoning.
Click to expand...
PicardGiddy.gif
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
cannabineer said:
1) The asbestos particle sizes that matter for carcinogenesis are below the visual and at/below the optical (light microscope) limits. Sizing this nanodust requires transmission electron microscopy.
2) While the old-school presentation might offend someone too young to treasure the memory of how fresh mimeograph paper smells ... it is a cardinal error to dismiss content because of form.
3) It is a further descent into fallacy to conclude that I was making a behavioral recommendation.

Conclusion: dear Lord, please send us better idiots.
Click to expand...
That is true.

Now I should go chop. I'm cranky and it's only 112.

Edited to add, this is the second one in as many days to fall for the same gambit. Who was the other one, tragickana or something?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top