4 ms·
From an engineering perspective don't you have to assume the worst case scenario when you use materials that might be inhaled? Is there any reasonable argument
by jvans 3y ago
From an engineering perspective don't you have to assume the worst case scenario when you use materials that might be inhaled? Is there any reasonable argument for using formaldehyde here or is it just because of cost?
It really seems like some decision makers should be going to prison here
- elric 3y agoNone of this stuff should be able to make it into the air circuit. This sounds like really shoddy design by respironics. Adding noise insulation to the machine makes total sense, but the machine should suck in air from the outside, pass through a filter, and then blow out a tube. It makes zero sense for there to be a way for that air to mix with the insulation foam. Quick rant on PAP noise: the machines are actually pretty quiet most of the time. They tend to get noisy when fan has to make drastic changes in speed, such as on exhale if pressure relief (EPR, or C-Flex in respironics) is enabled. If noise is an issue, turning off EPR can make a huge difference.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoIs the internal system claimed to be 'air tight'? Because the default assumption for practically everything in this world is that air will penetrate at all angles.
- elric 3y agoIn practice it clearly isn't airtight, otherwise the foam wouldn't have been able to end up inside patients. Not sure whether it would have been easier to design an airtight circui, or to ensure that the insulation is wrapped in something that effectively separates it from the air circuit. Either way, this is pretty shitty. These machines are pretty expensive (and someone makes a hefty profit on them, because most patients rent theirs). Seems like the least they could have done was make sure it was worth the money.