From: James Keating <james.k.keating**At_Symbol_Here**GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Interesting Covid technical information
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:07:41 -0400
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU>
Message-ID: CAM1PioOCaKTEJc62eCVXLxt1OWCo8qQ7k31LpGrW0aAp0kOqbA**At_Symbol_Here**
In-Reply-To <80C80808-28DC-4FDB-8023-6F10A4302334**At_Symbol_Here**>

I agree that time of exposure is an important factor in any exposure risk calculation. I also agree that the general public may have difficulty understanding the quantitative relationship between concentration of the contaminant, time of exposure, atmospheric volume inhaled, and a host of other variables including the population of Covid 19 organisms necessary to infect those exposed. With respect masks and handkerchiefs, the public should be appraised of the absence of any protection factor provided to the wearer of these faux respirators.

I believe that those of us in the EHS discipline have a duty to be honest about all hazards and the risks posed by them, even if it means goes against the grain of popular "accepted science" and political correctness.

The risk of death from the hazard of the Corona virus infinitesimally small for anyone under 45 and very, very remote for those under 65.

The overwhelming majority of fatalities are very old people already at risk because of one or more serious preexisting health problems.

In New York State alone 6,600 nursing home residents died of this virus and the final count is not in yet.. It may be as many as 15,000. Unlike the rest of the states, New York chose to count only those nursing home patients who actually died in the nursing home rather than including those fatalities that were residents who transferred yo hospitals and died in those hospitals.

Moreover, we also don't know if the "body count" was inflated because hospitals instructed doctors to list Covid 19 as cause of death just based on possible symptoms rather than confirmation with an actual test for the virus.

There are many things we will never know about this crisis.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 11:13 AM Stuart, Ralph <Ralph.Stuart**At_Symbol_Here**> wrote:
My daily scans of Covid related information found two things that may impact some of the discussions we've been having:

1. A CDC blog entry on Skin Irritation from Prolonged Use of Tight-Fitting Respirators at
From reports of our staff at Keene State who are working outside wearing ma= sks in a hot NH summer, I think that the physical downsides of masks (skin irritation and fatigue, loss of communication cues) need to be considered to maintain the long term viability of this protection strategy.

2. An article in National Geographic entitled "Measure the risk of airborne COVID-19 in your office, classroom, or bus ride" at

I really appreciate the article's emphasis on time of exposure as an important element in risk assessment, but I suspect EHS people should ready to address confusion that could arise when less technical people who read and try to use the models included in this article.

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
Environmental Safety Manager
Keene State College
603 358-2859


For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here** Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.