To the editor:
In Chris Davie’s letter disparaging my demonstration at the Conway School Board, it is obvious that he misses the point of the simple demonstration. The CO2 levels measured over 5,000 ppm (not 4,000 ppm as stated) in a conservative test area under the face mask. With the placement of the meter’s sensor on the cheek under the mask, readings usually exceed the monitor’s limit of 10,000 ppm.
Davies quoted an engineering article about adequate ventilation. Davies cherry-picked the information to impeach me, but fails to report that the same article states, “Using CO2 as an indicator of ventilation, ASHRAE has recommended indoor CO2 concentrations be maintained at or below 1,000 ppm in schools…” and “ASHRAE recommends indoor CO2 levels not exceed the outdoor concentration by more than about 600 ppm.”
The demonstration was not intended as a “control” study as Davies proclaims. Anyone with even a limited understanding could make that obvious conclusion. The demonstration was to provide a simple nexus to the study: Is a Mask that Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards? (“Mask Study”). The study may be viewed on the NIH website.
This masks study considers numerous detrimental effects of masks on adults and children, including CO2 in the “dead space" of the mask and, “physiological internal, neurological, psychological, psychiatric, dermatological, ENT, dental, sociological… microbiological and epidemiological impairments which is especially concerning to children.”
Additionally, other findings from the study state:
“Masks expand the natural dead space (nose, throat, trachea, bronchi) outwards and beyond the mouth and nose, the study addressed the increased rebreathing of carbon dioxide (CO2) due to the dead space, and according to the scientific data, mask wearers as a whole show a striking frequency of typical, measurable, physiological changes associated with masks” and a study “published in the renowned journal 'Nature' that 106 children aged between 7 and 14 years who wore FFP2 masks for only 5 minutes showed an increase in the inspiratory and expiratory CO2 levels, indicating disturbed respiratory physiology.”
Davies needs to get his facts straight; research is not the first article that shows up on a Google search.