Hacker News Reader

Comment by tzs | Hacker News Reader

I was surprised by how many people go out on very bad air days without taking precautions.

We had a couple days or so here (Puget Sound area of Washington) with the AQI somewhere in the 150-200 range. I needed to go shopping on one of those days. I stepped outside and took a couple of breaths just to check how bad it was. It was terrible. I then put on a KN95 mask which made it a lot better and went to do my shopping.

Almost no one else I saw was wearing a mask.

When masks were still required for COVID around 98% of people I saw while shopping were wearing masks, so I'm pretty sure a majority here still have masks leftover from that.

Does it just not occur to them that those masks also help with wildfire smoke?

View on HN

Interestingly, on those days the air inside the supermarket smelled clean (not like smoke). Apparently, their HVAC system was good enough to filter out the smoke.

The air was significantly better in my house, too. I had installed some better air filters in the HVAC system.

I avoided doing anything that would make me breathe hard, i.e. do as little physical activity as practical.

The air quality is "good" today, so I'm going out for a run.

In 2018, I got on the local news in Seattle for wearing an N95 on a bad smoke day.

Probably wouldn't be so newsworthy today.

My preferred mask is ineffective at stopping smoke. It fits on my face such that I breath air through gaps by the sides of my nose; this provides no relief from smoke. I think it would block most drops of spittle released from my mouth while talking or breathing, but provides me with negligible protection against breathing in aerosols or smoke. Masks that work properly are too uncomfortable for me to wear.

If you don't mind looking like a comic book villain, try the 3M HF-800 series with p100 filters. The silicone is very comfortable and it has a button for self-fit-test, which allows you to loosen the straps while remaining confident that you are protected. The large amount of filter surface area results in very low breathing resistance, and the exhalation valve improves comfort for extended wear.

They certainly don't help with PM2.5 Also let's not forget some people come from places where the AQ is like that, constantly for a big fraction of the year. Ever been to China or Mexico City?

Edit: Ok, if we're talking about KN95 then that's another story, I'm talking about the usual "face mask" which is little more than a fashion piece.

> They certainly don't help with PM2.5

The requirement for a mask to be called KN95 is that it must filter out 95% of PM2.5 particles.

> AQ is like that, constantly for a big fraction of the year. Ever been to China or Mexico City?

Honestly, I'm not sure why those people don't wear a mask year round. I'd expect the rationale to be cultural, "no one else is doing it", rather than logical.

South Korea made their own non-industrial pollution mask standard, KF94, because they get so much pollution from China. Also, many of the older air purifier brands (Coway, Winix) are South Korean.

Given that 99% of mask use was signaling, it might really not occur to most people that they actually have some effective use.

I assume yours is an off-the-cuff take here, but more than 1% of people wearing masks thought they were at least somewhat effective at reducing spread, and not just a shibboleth.

Someone thinking that the masks were somewhat effective at reducing spread, but still only wearing them because signal, is entirely consistent.

Sure, so I'll spell it out for you: More than 1% of people wore masks because they thought it would have an effect, not "only wearing them because signal".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com