EXPLOSIVE!!! Chemical cocktail found in face masks

 Submitted by: Terry Payne4 https://www.ecotextile.com/2021040127603/dyes-chemicals-news/exclusive-chemical-cocktail-found-in-face-masks.html

 

Folks,

 

Now we are finding more and more experts in the fields of  chemistry, toxicology and virology, which is the scientific discipline concerned with the study of the biology of viruses and viral diseases, including the distribution, biochemistry, physiology, molecular biology, ecology, evolution and clinical aspects of viruses, that based on real research show masks are not only ineffective in stopping the spread of infectious diseases but are dangerous to your health. Top German scientists have found that wearing certain types of face masks for long periods of time could result in potentially hazardous chemicals and harmful microplastics being inhaled deep into human lungs.

 

The WHO, CDC, NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) after 14 months still have not presented any research on masks, lockdowns, curfews etc. that shows these rigid operations significantly slow the spread of a virus.  Research conducted in Europe shows you would have to be in close outside contact with an infected Covid patient for 31.5 days to accumulate enough virus particles to test positive. Most experts say that the only mask type devices that will protect you from an infected person who you are in close contact with are Mark V USN type gas masks or Mask Full Face Head Ventilative Biochemical Gas Mask Widely Used in Organic Gas, respirator paint, welding Face Mask or similar gas masks that would protect one from a biological or chemical attack. 
 

This research complements the German 65 German Studies: Face Masks Cause MIE Syndrome. This study was reported in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and details the harm caused by mask wearing and adds to a growing body of underreported, censored and suppressed public health information that contradicts the biomedical narrative that masks are safe and effective and recommended by the CDC.

Mask mandates also represent another erosion of freedom, and normalizes the false notion that people are sick unless proven healthy, and that it's acceptable to be forced to cover your face just to go about your daily life, even when you're outdoors.

• I suspect the reason we don't have massive studies filled with global data showing that mask mandates were a breakthrough success is because they either had no impact, or made matters worse. Case in point: "Texas, Mississippi See Lowest COVID Cases in Almost a Year 1 Month After Lifting Mask Mandate," Newsweek reported in an April 6, 2021, article.²²
• Yes, ironically, despite fears that lifting mask mandates would result in hospitals overflowing with COVID-19 cases, the opposite actually happened. Both Texas and Mississippi are now, four weeks later, reporting their lowest case and COVID-related mortality numbers since May 2020. 

 

*************************************

 

ECOTEXTILE.COM
 

Exclusive: Chemical cocktail found in face masks 

Written by John Mowbray

Published: 01 April 2021

 

Top German scientists have found that wearing certain types of face masks for long periods of time could result in potentially hazardous chemicals and harmful microplastics being inhaled deep into human lungs.

Professor Michael Braungart, director at the Hamburg Environmental Institute and co-founder of the world-renowned Cradle to Cradle environmental standard has told Ecotextile News that mask wearers unwittingly run the risk of breathing in carcinogens, allergens and tiny synthetic microfibres by wearing both textile and nonwoven surgical masks for long periods of time.

His recent findings have been backed up by another leading industry textile chemist Dr. Dieter Sedlak, managing director and co-founder of Modern Testing Services Augsburg, Germany in partnership with Modern Testing Services Global, Hong Kong who found elevated concentrations of hazardous fluorocarbons, formaldehyde and other potentially carcinogenic substances on surgical face masks: “I can only say 100 per cent that I have similar concerns to Prof. Braungart.” 

With over 40 years in the business, Dr. Sedlak, who was also the former Global Product Safety Director at a major global Specialty Chemicals supplier is one of the most respected figures in the textile chemicals sector and helped to develop various leading EHS chemical management systems and RSL concepts used today by major global apparel and footwear brands.

Initial analytical tests by both of these experts have now thrown into doubt the wisdom of whether people should be wearing certain types of masks for hours on end. Particularly schoolchildren, factory workers and long-haul flyers who may be at a greater risk from the long-term damage to lungs through exposure to both restricted chemistry and microplastics – perhaps outweighing the short-term risk of any exposure to the coronavirus?

“What we are breathing through our mouth and nose is actually hazardous waste,” said Professor Braungart, who ran preliminary tests on used surgical masks that found traces of chemicals such as the known carcinogen aniline as well as formaldehyde and optical brighteners – both heavily restricted on consumer goods by European and US authorities to minute parts per million concentrations.

Separate studies by Dr. Sedlak have also shown the presence of compounds such as 2-butanone oxime (carcinogenic) blocked diisocyanates used as crosslinkers for perfluorocarbons (PFCs) on face masks. Used in the textile sector as oil and water repellents on fabrics, by-products of PFCs are known to be bio-persistent and their use is heavily restricted by authorities in Europe and the USA. Last year, a group of US scientists called for all per- and poly-fluorinated substances (PFAS) to be treated as one single class of chemistry and said they should be avoided for non-essential uses due to their hazardous toxicological and eco-toxicological profile.

“Honestly, I had not expected PFC’s would be found in a surgical mask, but we have special routine methods in our labs to detect these chemicals easily and can immediately identify them. This is a big issue,” explained Dr. Sedlak.

“It seems this had been deliberately applied as a fluid repellent – it would work to repel the virus in an aerosol droplet format – but PFC on your face, on your nose, on the mucus membranes, or on the eyes is not good.” Along with PFCs, he also detected – besides the PFC crosslinkers – compounds such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde whereas a GCMS chromatogram showed “100s of peaks from other contaminants.”

Microfibre concern

Like Sedlak, Braungart noted that surgical masks have been designed to be worn for very specific purposes such as by clinicians or for a short period of time before being discarded. They are not designed to be crumpled up in people’s pockets where the “friction and damp environment promotes both fiber abrasion and encourages bacterial colonization over time,” he said.

This abrasion can, he says, cause the release of tiny microplastics as the polypropylene fibres break down from mechanical wear and tear, finding in tests that some masks shed microfibers classed as hazardous ‘dust’ by the German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV). Fibers of this type of geometry that meet this dust standard are also referred to as ‘WHO fibers’ after earlier work by the World Health Organization on asbestos.

Textiles preferable to nonwovens?

During the on-going pandemic most people are now also wearing masks and face coverings made from traditional textile materials that would normally be used to make our clothing.

Thankfully, the risks associated with harmful chemicals on clothing are lower than ever, but the risks aren’t zero. “The risks associated with clothing tend to be due to skin contact, apart from babies that tend to suck anything they can get near their mouth – and therefore it is normal to have tougher, more stringent chemical standards for babywear textiles,” according to textile chemical expert, Phil Patterson of Colour Connections, who also works with the highly respected ZDHC Foundation on chemical management.

“In my opinion, textile masks do not begin to pass this most basic hazard test for kids, for whom the risks of COVID have been categorically demonstrated to be miniscule,” he said.

Potential litigation risks?

One unforeseen problem for those mandating the continued and long-term wearing of face masks, such as governments and businesses, is the potential for future litigation if they are proven to have any long-term adverse impacts on human health – especially since long-term studies have yet to be undertaken.

Patterson, who has advised some of the world’s biggest clothing retailers and brands on chemical management agrees this could be an issue.

“I’d be very wary of mandating masks, as some chemicals and fibers may have long-term effects – and that possibly opens the floodgates of personal injury claims at some stage in the future.”

Big brands

Nate Sponsler, director at the AFIRM Group that represents over 30 well-known consumer brands, such as Amazon, Nike and Levi Strauss, in a bid to reduce the use of harmful substances in textiles says it’s early days when looking at face masks. “We have not yet done any formal data aggregation or studies specific to face masks, so I’m glad this issue is being highlighted,” he said.

He says textile face masks are a different issue to surgical face masks where he says he’s “not surprised” to see potential hazardous substances based on fluorine applied to these masks, given that they’re designed for use in the medical sector, “where all kinds of exemptions for chemistry on PPE exist,” he said.

He also noted that for kids face masks “the AFIRM best practice would be to use organic cotton, and for adults where more materials and chemistry are being used (such as prints for example), this does require more due diligence.”

Masks have been an integral part of the global response to the coronavirus and a necessary intervention – especially at the height of the pandemic. But as we start to emerge from this global health crisis, leading scientists are now questioning whether the real risk of exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals from long-term mask wearing is actually higher than the risk of coming into contact with the Sars-CoV-2 virus – especially for children and young adults who are in the low-risk category when it comes to developing severe COVID-19.