Here’s some things to look out for if you, like me, decide to go online and order some surgical masks to have on hand in case the avian flu mutates into a human strain and our streets start looking like this photo.
As ABC News reported recently, “Bird flu concerns make masks hot commodity.” This story says that to be effective, masks should have an “N95” rating: “This means that the respirators filter out at least 95 percent of airborne particles during testing using a ‘most-penetrating’ sized particle of 0.3 microns.”
That also was the advice on an OSHA web page that offers guidance for protecting workers against avian flu. Unfortunately, I read this information only after zipping onto Drugstore.com and buying (or rather, back-ordering) a Flents high filtration mask that looked good but wasn’t “N95” certified. I’ve since cancelled the order.
Since there was a 1-2 week wait to get these masks, I have to assume that quite a few other people are mistakenly believing that a mask of that sort will offer good protection against viruses. It won’t.
When I searched for more information about the Flents mask, I found something interesting. One of the results of a Google search turned up a mention that the Flents mask wasn’t N95-certified or effective against viruses. Yet when I clicked on that link, I couldn’t find the wording in the Google search results.
So I retrieved Google’s cache of that page, which shows an interesting difference between that old version and the current page. Gone now is a warning at the top of the listing for this item that said: “(Does Not Protect against Viruses such as SARS) * * * Not Rated as an N95 respirator * * *”
My suspicion is that as the demand for surgical masks has gone up, some suppliers are taking advantage of poorly informed people and are selling them ineffective products under mildly (as in this case) or more blatantly false premises. So, buyer beware.
I spent some time on the Oregon Digital web site, buynanomask.com. Oregon Digital is headquartered in Oregon City. Perhaps their mask does everything claimed, but I doubt it.
Supposedly it “kills Bird Flu, SARS, and flu on contact.” Doubtful, really doubtful. I was still doubtful even after taking a glance at a PDF file that reportedly provides evidence of how “one nanoparticle on the filter killed 99.999% of the pathogens.” Huh? Anyway, the “research” involved bacteria and fungi, not viruses.
A FAQ about why the mask isn’t NIOSH certified also struck me as ranking high on the B.S. scale. Oregon Digital claims that they intend to submit the mask for certification, but not quite yet.
Well, since I’m concerned about protecting myself from a potentially deadly flu strain, I decided that I didn’t want to be a test case for an unproven mask. So I ended up buying some tried and true N95 surgical masks from an established safety company.
I hope I never have to use them.
I found this link for these which are true N95 from Kentucky. I bought a box for my house. I bought them on the phone and spoke with Tim. I had never heard of the company but apparantly they are part of a bigger company set up just to sell Masks.
http://www.airmaskn95.com/airmask-main.htm
I enjoyed your blog... when I start mine I'll link over.
Robert Downs
Posted by: N95 Masks | October 18, 2005 at 12:40 PM
In defence of BuyNanoMask.com, they are not the makers of Nano Mask, they are only distributors for the product as many other people are. The makers of NanoMask are "Emergency Filtration Products", a publicly traded company.
http://www.emergencyfiltration.com/
Hey, the government doesn't know if any of their vaccines are gonna work, but you'd get the shot if you thought it would help right?
Something you have to remember about all of the distributors that are promoting the Nano Mask, they are playing on Bird Flu fears - plain and simple.
Don't blame the makers of Nano Mask for all the hype, blame the distributors.
I reviewed much on the Nano Mask from different sources and believe it to be a very good product.
Posted by: Observer | December 01, 2005 at 07:07 PM
I am looking for a comfortable mask to wear for protection from the chemtrail nano particulates of barium and aluminum and whatever else is in the trails. I consider the chemtrails (which are happening now in the skies over our heads) to be more of a threat than bird flu which is possibly a hobgoblin dreamed up to distract us from the chemtrails (a real and current threat to everyone's health) I am wondering if the nano mask would be a suitable mask for chemtrail protection. Link to chemtrail info:
http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies
Posted by: Glenn | December 15, 2005 at 09:33 PM
I personally do not think the Nano mask is worth a penny. First of all they are making health claims that cannot be backed up by their lack of certifications. Also the suggestion for a N95 mask is crazy. You need to have a facemask that is going to protect you against various size microns and biological agents. Also, the filters ont he facemask, assuming you are using in the instance of avain flu, How are we, the everday consumer suppose to dispose of a filter that now has been subject to something we are not willing to breath. I purchased the T-3000 Triosyn mask, and I am assured though their testing efforts that I will be protected in this mask. If you want protection this is the only place to get it, I would never use an N95, P95 is the only way to go. www.triosyn.com
Posted by: Kelly Freeman | January 24, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Thanks for the info Kelly I'll check them out.
Do not purchase anything from www.buynanomask.com or Oregon Digital
They have had my money for months and I can't get it back nor can I can get the masks. The family pack in Nov was 125 now he wants 169. I don't know what his problem is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JOHN HART [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:17 PM
To: Kittel Greg M
Subject: Re: Thank you for your order.
Greg,
Sorry - the email I just sent was wrong. I just found your name on a refund list.
Due to circumstances beyond our control, we are unable to fulfill your order. Because your patience has been pushed much too far, the best resolution is to refund your payment by PayPal. Due to the number of refunds being processed at this time, the refund process is taking longer to complete, up to a week or more. Check www.emergencyfiltration.com under Nanomask to find distributors in your area. This information just became available on their website.
John Hart
Oregon Digital
On 1/26/06, JOHN HART wrote:
Greg,
Due to continued low shipments of inventory from the manufacturer for over 3 months now, we are hoping to catch up on your order. We expect more inventory to come in this week, and hope to ship this week or early next. UPS will confirm shipping to you via email.
PLEASE check on SHIPPING NEWS by visiting our website at www.buynanomask.com.
Thank you for your continued patience,
Ruth
Customer Service
Oregon Digital
Posted by: Greg Kittel | February 24, 2006 at 08:21 AM
thank you so much for your info on the masks. I have been trying to decide for two weeks what to buy, and i was just about to purchase Nano. But I am a little cautious of them. So i searched under nano mask problem and found your blog.
btw, how many masks did you buy for your family. I am having such a hard time figuring out what to do.
and hopefully, none of us will ever need them!!!!!
Posted by: Janice Croze | June 11, 2006 at 04:10 PM
Janice, I ended up getting two boxes of N-95 masks. The 3-M N95 1860 box has 20 masks; the AlphaProTech N-95 particulate respirator has 35 masks.
Like you, I had little idea what to do. I gather that ideally you're supposed to use a new mask every time. But to get hundreds of masks to prepare for a year long outbreak of avian flu, that didn't make sense. So I just did what I did.
Posted by: Brian | June 12, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Hello,
We may not need the Nano Masks after all. It looks like an Avian Influenza vaccine will be available sometime in 2007 out of a London company. Good thing because Tamiflu is worthless. Lucky for us out of the 7.5 billion dollars in the Avian Flu preparedness budget only 1 billion went to Tamiflu production and lucky for Rumsfeld who owns quite a bit of stock in Roche. Check out http://www.birdfludeathclock.com for details.
Posted by: Jon | July 27, 2006 at 10:51 PM