Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Masks - 11/18/06 11:19 PM

I live in a major metropolitan area and I also rely on public transportation. Terrorists love public transportation in major metropolitan areas. To protect against airborne threats, what mask should I carry, what should I use to protect it from being crushed while in my purse and what other protection should I use? The mask needs to be a snug fit or what is the point? As for brand I've been looking at 3M.

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: Russ

Re: Masks - 11/18/06 11:33 PM

A search of the forum for N95 found This Gem by yours truly. I don't know any more than what's in the thread, but like I said, you can do much better than N95. I keep a couple Isolation Masks in the glove compartment and one in my backpack. Use a ziplock to keep it clean.
Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 12:50 AM

After some careful, initial investigation I'm considering the 3M 8233, N100 masks. I still need a way to prevent them from being crushed when not in use. If a designated protector does not exist, I need an exact size container that would not only prevent a tight squeeze but will also minimize used space.

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: brandtb

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 01:56 AM

The link doesn't mention anything about smoke, which would be a major consideration in an emergency on mass transit - especially underground subways. I carry a 3M N95 mask with charcoal impregnation. You can find them in the paint section of Lowe's or Home Depot. In addition, I carry a pair of swim gogles to protect my eyes, and an LED light with a headband.
Posted by: redflare

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 03:31 AM

N95 or N100 respirators are NOT to be used when there isn't enough oxygen, i.e. during a fire. They will however protect one from dust and non-oil aerosols.
There are respirators on the market that are rated for oil containing environments, those will filter out oil-containing aerosls.
I don't know about the charcoal impregnated kind, if they will actually filter out the smoke.
Look at, one doesn't really need N100 respirators to protect from the flu, N95 will do the trick.
Posted by: frediver

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 03:51 AM

Check for smoke hoods that might fill the need for NBC filtration.
Posted by: 311

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 03:58 AM

If you're already in the fire, using a respirator type mask will not hurt anything. At least it may make breathing easier even if the oxygen level is marginal. Depending on type, it may cut down on the breathing of toxic gases. Do not use if oxygen is insufficient is a legal warning that the mask will not protect you from everything. If you are trapped by smoke & toxic fumes, anything is worth a try, even the old wet cloth over the nose idea.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 04:36 AM

Some masks come in flat-fold designs for easier storage. Maybe you could find something suitable for your needs.

If you have a medical supply house near you, maybe they could point you in the right direction.

Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 05:07 AM

"Look at, one doesn't really need N100 respirators to protect from the flu, N95 will do the trick."

I'm taking a look at the more affordable 3M 8211, N95.

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 05:09 AM

How well do they fit?

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: ame

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 07:24 AM

Terrorists love public transportation in major metropolitan areas.

Isn't that just a bit melodramatic? Old ladies love public transportation in major metropolitan areas.

According to Wired News, flu, hernia, or police are more likely to kill you than terrorists.

Link to statistics via Boing Boing

Posted by: redflare

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 10:23 AM

Brandgon bought some flat fold N95 9210's and 9211's by 3M from my site a while ago.

Below is his review from the original N95 thread

"The filter also makes the mask bulkier.

I just bought a box of each from Redflare. A quick test suggests that the ones with filters are undoubtedly better in use. They are both surprisingly easy to breath through. Without a filter, much of the air you exhale stays in the mask and forms a nice warm layer on your face. When you inhale, you get some of the same air you just exhaled. It's not as bad as it may sound but the valve is definitely worth having.

However, it makes the mask roughly twice as bulky. In many situations that doesn't matter. For example, I can put either into a jacker inner pocket and not notice them. In a draw or my car boot there's no problem. In other places it does matter. I have a small waist pack which is already stuffed with gear, and the valveless mask fits easily when the other doesn't. My rucksack has a thin map pocket which takes several valveless masks but I wouldn't want to put a valve one in. I also have a couple secreted in the door compartments of my car.

Currently I reckon they are both pretty wonderful, and much better than masks which don't fold flat. I am more concerned about dust than microbes, although I think they will help by stopping me from touching my face with my hands. They should help against fallout, too; you don't want radioactive dust inside you.

I think it's worth getting lots. You can lend then to other people, cache them all over the place, and have some to experiment and play with. Although it may look obvious how to put them on, there are a couple of gotchas so you need to read the instructions and then practice. (Eg I hadn't realised the lower bit was supposed to go beneath your chin.) "
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 03:11 PM

just a quick note on the mention of swim goggles

-genious idea considering size, but i've had trouble with them fogging easily over the years (in and out of the pool), i guess come shopping around could probably overcome this minor issue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i would just hate to have to put them on right quick then be blind a few min later having to risk taking them back off just to clear the fog
Posted by: Tjin

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 04:00 PM

A mask to stop what? An expolsion, fire, chemical attack, dirty bomb? the named N-100 are really particle and droplets only.

They won't remove vapors, smoke, etc. Although the N100 will stopdroplets, onces these droplets starts to voprize, you will breath them it. The carbon version's of these mask won't have sufficient carbon to stop any significant amount of chemical vapor.

The named M-100 masks will NOT provide protection to a chemical attack.
They will prevent you from breathing in particals, including radioactive particals.
Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 07:15 PM

Thank-you. I am considering the 3M 9211, N95. Furthermore, because I carry medical tape, I can ensure a tighter fit.

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 07:41 PM

It has already been established how N95 and N100 masks do not block smoke or any other types of gasses. They will however block viruses and other airborne contaminants.

May I suggest reading before jumping to conclusions.

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 07:51 PM

Survival is about calculating the risks. Living in an urban environment I am at greater risk of a terrorist attack, or even the avian flew than I am being lost in the wilderness. Yet I carry the Pocket Survival Pak. Because I already carry the Pocket Survival Pak and because there are other, greater threats, wouldn't it be logical for me to protect against those threats as well?

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: Tjin

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 08:11 PM

from what i understand from you initial post, you are concerned about terrorist attacks. In that case, there will be no warning of a virus or bacteria being released. It's highly unlikely to know you'r breathing them during the event, because they don't have a smell and are generally not visible (unless the aerosol deliverly system malfuctions). This mean, you either have to wear it all the time or accept the risk.

Secondly a mask only give you limited protection. Even when a N-100 maks is used properly and on time during a bio-attack, you need to know how to decontaminate yourself, when you have reached a "cold" zone (out of the danger area and it's direct surroundings). Unproper care of your protective equipment, can render the protective properties useless.

A N-100 mask is effective aganist dust release by a structure, due to blast effects. But when a (large) fire has started inside a confined space, you may have to ask you self wheather the protection against dust is worth the time to find and put on your mask. Dust generally won't kill you quickly, smoke and lack of o2 will.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 08:21 PM

I've never used any of these, but they look like they should be okay, as they have the metal nose band which you can bend to fit, like the molded ones. These are the kind I will be getting when finances allow. Look at the 4th & 5th ones down the page:

Posted by: Susan

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 08:31 PM

I am not understanding the point of your posts. Terrorists do want to affect as many people as possible, so where better to do that than in a metropolitan area? I live in a town that has one signal light, one grocery store, and one gas station. I don't believe that terrorists are looking for some place of THIS description.

Terrorists can strike in any number of ways. Jeannette wants some form of protection. Are you indicating that since she can't routinely carry a sealed, all-dangers, fireman's helmet (and wear it all the time), that she shouldn't carry anything at all?

YOU can't protect yourself against all the possible dangers, so why are you suggesting that she can?

You do the best you can with what you can find, afford and carry. Then you hope you will never need any of it.

Posted by: Tjin

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 08:33 PM

i'm not formiliar with US sources and brands. In europe, FFP-3 fold flat masks are sold by the brand VENUS, model:V-430-SLV

The are equipped with a metal nose shape thing (whatever they call it), exhalation valve and adjustable elastic bands. Being stored flat, they are very hard to crush.

The european FFP-3 standard is similair (although not identical) to the american N-100
Posted by: Susan

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 08:36 PM

I can't use swim goggles, so I've adapted a cheap pair of safety goggles instead.

I found a pair with the rigid lenses and flexible surrounds at the dollar store. I covered all the holes with clear packaging tape, and worked at the computer with them on for over half an hour without them fogging. I don't know why. But sweating may affect this, if you're working strenuously, scared, or the weather is hot.

They're also good if you wear glasses. But keep them in a ziplock bag, as abrasion will affect the plastic lenses.

Posted by: Tjin

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 08:38 PM

the sentence
This mean, you either have to wear it all the time or accept the risk.
was only ment as for the biological attacks.

As for the part about dust created by blast and fire, that is really a question you have to ask your self when it happends. No terrorist attack is identical, therefor you can't have a fixed protocol for wearing or not wearing a mask. The availible ventilation and exit routs vary from place.
Posted by: Jeanette_Isabelle

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 09:07 PM

This is much better. You are now providing information which has not been addressed in this topic, at least not to this level of detail. Though it has already been established what an N95 and an N100 mask can and cannot accomplish, assessing the threat really hasn't been covered yet. Assessing a threat is something I need to learn.

Jeanette Isabelle
Posted by: brandtb

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 09:23 PM

Quote from Ame -

Isn't that just a bit melodramatic? Old ladies love public transportation in major metropolitan areas.

According to Wired News, flu, hernia, or police are more likely to kill you than terrorists.

Yeah, more people die from bee stings...

Nevertheless, if I wanted to close down Philadelphia, I could do it with four people: one each with a firebomb (see note below) for the (1) Market Street and (2) Broad Street subways, (3) Independence Mall, and (4) a commuter train in the Septa Tunnel between Market East and Suburban Station. If you wanted to take it a step further, simultaneous explosions in a few Walmarts and area malls, and a radiological attack in the center of town (few actual casualties, but mass hysteria). All told, maybe a dozen people could pull this off. They wouldn't even have to be suicide bombers - just able to set a timer. This goes for any major city. Just substitute Lincoln Tunnel for Broad street Subway.

Note: A popular "survivalist" website (which will remain unnamed) recently had a post with a link showing, in great detail with diagrams, how to make a firebomb with items readily available to anyone.
Posted by: Tjin

Re: Masks - 11/19/06 09:32 PM

when assesing the dangers of the kind of terrorisme, explosions ranks by far top on the list. You can't really protect yourself from blast injuries. But in the aftermath, they are similair to an accident. Lots of fysical injury's. There is however a danger of more explosives.

Chemical weapons have only been used in a terrorisme attack in japan 1995. The attack was not very effective in killing people, but it was in harming people. Proper protection against gasses are not practical, although these gasses can be detected with PID type meters, they are not placed in the first line of responds. So like biological attack hard to determent, when it actually is happening, untill it's to late.
Posted by: redflare

Re: Masks - 11/20/06 01:55 AM

Another option for dust protection is to use skiing goggles, the once used for downhill skiing. I found that they don't fog up as much as lab goggles
Posted by: dredd818

Re: Masks - 12/12/06 08:53 PM

This really doesn't involve masks, but it is along the same lines. When traveling in airports I refuse to grab the railing on the esculators. If a terrorist wanted to spread chemical/biological agents all they would need to do is apply some to the esculators' rails. I don't know how many people travel through the Atlanta Airport everyday, but millions to be contaminated in no time.

More realistic is the fact the person ahead of me doesn't wash his/her hands after using the restroom.