3 ms·
> The hard math of it is that no matter what you do, you aren't going to be able to reduce your exposure by more than 75% or so, because you have to go outside
by CharlesColeman 7y ago
> The hard math of it is that no matter what you do, you aren't going to be able to reduce your exposure by more than 75% or so, because you have to go outside sometimes, so going super high end on filtration makes essentially no difference in terms of total exposure.
Couldn't you get a mask for outdoor use?
https://www.guidingtech.com/62349/whats-difference-n95-n99-p95-air-masks/ https://www.guidingtech.com/62349/whats-difference-n95-n99-p...
- bluGill 7y agoYou can. However a mask on your face is not comfortable and so in practice I doubt you would wear it unless there was great need. I wore a mask all day Saturday while working on the insulation in my attic. I can report it was easier to breathe at the end of the day than times I've been in there without a mask. (fiber glass is not easy on the lungs - though there may be some other factor not related to the mask involved). However I also had red marks across the back of my head where the bands were digging in. It was also more tiring to breathe wearing the mask all day.
- cameldrv 7y agoSure, but what about when you eat? What about when you're exercising? My point is that caring much about filtration efficiency quickly stops mattering after you've done the obvious things, because there are simply going to be times where you're not breathing filtered air, and those will very quickly become your main source of exposure. This also means that if you feel like you need to get a mask, you should probably get the most comfortable, least restrictive one, even with a worse rating because (say) 90% filtration all the time is better than 99% filtration 80% of the time (if the discomfort causes you to take it off 20% of the time)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]