> I was thinking "Homemade HALLOWEEN Masks"
you can do a lot with paper-mache and ping pong balls...
if you want to get fancy, then plaster aparis and liquid latex - but that gets expensive...
if you coat someones face w/ a thin layer of petrolium jelly, then dip household string in elmers glue and lay it over the face to dry in whatever patterns, then spraypaint... you can get some interesting results. easier on the person - get an appropriately sized display head like for wigs, sunglasses, etc and use that as a base. Lets you use spray adhesives and other means to get the string stiff.
you can do similar things with cloth and build up from there...
You can make a fast face mold with modeling clay then cast the positive with plaster and...
maybe start a different thread?
-t
back to the subject at hand:
Rebuf on nanomasks from:
http://medtech.syrene.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2382
(Author is a Medical Doctor)
Riiight. They test using a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria) that is among the largest of viruses in physical size. Sure, OK. And they have little 'nanites' running around disassembling (you can't really 'kill' a virus) the H5N1 virus.
Plus, all I see is some gobbldegook on their testing, not anything that shows 'Nelson Labs' is putting their reputation (whatever it might be) on the line with a traceable report to actual standards.
Stopping an individual viral particle is very, very difficult, because they are so small. According to the CDC, the particle size is on the order of 2 nanometers in diameter (thats 0.002 microns) and the mask is only claimed to work at...:
Quote:
The VFE test is conducted using Bacteriophage OX174 as the challenge organism. Bacteriophage range in size from 0.025 to 0.027 microns.
So, they tested with particles at about 12-13x the size of the H5N1 virus? Kewl....
They claim to have 'sold' to the DoD for use by 'American Soldiers'. What they actually seem to have done is get some money from the DoD for:
Quote:
The tests were funded by a Prototype Develepment /Testing / Evaluation Grant by the Center for Commercialization of Advanced Technology awarded in September 2004. The testing was performed against specific pathogens which necessitated the use of Nelson Laboratories in order to validate results.
Hmm, a funded prototype. Our tax dollars at work.
And how well did they actually do? As far as viruses, hard to say. For bacteria, though, not too well:
Quote:
Test materials included untreated samples and samples treated with reactive nanoparticles placed on the filter surface. After twenty-four hours, the untreated test samples showed a 6507% increase in bacterial CFU (colony forming units), while samples treated with minimum of nanoparticles showed a 21.68% reduction of bacterial CFU. This preliminary testing clearly shows pathogens filtered from airflow continue to ‘live’ and reproduce on the filter, resulting in an increase of the associated risk factors. The testing also indicates that nanoparticles are effective in eradicating pathogens on the surface of the filter media. Subsequent testing of various nanoparticles solutions was conducted in conjunction with EFP’s work to develop filter media for the United States Military.
Note: for a bacteria (much larger than a virus) they were able to show a reduction in the absolute number of CFU's (colony forming units, or growth areas on a petri plate) of some 79% of ...something. So, if you might have inhaled 100 Bacillus anthracis without a mask, after 24 hours of breathing through this thing you might have only 21 in your lungs, growing out?
And, if these things are so great, where is their NIOSH approval as any kind of a mask at all (never mind their implications that NIOSH doesn't test well enough, did they pass even those minimal tests)? Their NSN number for government purchases? Their CAGE code for off-the-shelf or contract purchases?
Fortunately, an aerosolized virus hitches rides on droplets of mucous and sputum, and those are relatively easy to stop - an N95 or N100 will work fine. It's what we use in the hospital, too (N95). BTW, N100 masks are life limited (8 hours max), are hard to breath through, and are much more expensive and even less comfortable than N95s.
BTW, all data quoted is from
http://birdfluprotection.com/nanomask_testing.htm
