I agree smaller dose intuitively means less of a hazard of an infection putting down roots before the immune system wipes it out. However, I've never seen data for this.

IIRC coronavirus particles were around 0.1 um, but the virus would fall apart traveling bare. N95 do filter in that range in any event, just not at the advertised and tested level of an N95's 95% @ 0.3 um (you can get N100s which don't quite hit 100%; it's a rounding thing). Aerosols are typically much larger, 1+ um up, then transition to visible droplets around 20-100 um.

Was any of this data published? I wondered specifically about N95 claims for cheap imports.

I wait for the graphic novel version: https://xkcd.com/2523/

I'm afraid another pivotal concern may have been costs: inferior masks such as surgical are much cheaper. So, here in Virginia the hospital admin logic went, the mask they chose should be the standard for all purposes (our hospital required visitors to give up their personal N95s for a surgical mask, which was at least free).

As even more damning evidence of institutional thinking, the same hospital network required my PCP to wear a mask for telemedicine visits. I burst out laughing when I saw him and asked, "I don't mean to be rude, but are y'all familiar with the germ theory of disease?" He apologized and said the rule simply was that all patient-facing meeting required a mask. So there, standards.

Kudos for being the one who actually RTFA!

I suspect someone has an agenda against President Biden here. The stories jibe fine.

A different verb would help: engender dissent. Hence a diffuse but pernicious impact. But YES the focus on spelling, grammar, and punctuation is just class marker or snide stuff. Just because you know what a semicolon is and use it doesnâ(TM)t make you smarter. ;;;;;;;;;;; See? :)

Youâ(TM)re making several assumptions here.

I think the theorists got lucky on this one. My boss used to say, every once in a while the blind squirrel finds a nut. We were surprised by the truth because we lacked evidence, and so did the theorists. Conspiracy theories by definition aren't based on verifiable facts. It's easy to speculate a 1,000 things; hitting the target once is chance and doesn't prove the 999 of chemtrails etc. Also, the existence of a surveillance program was not a big stretch of the imagination based on what the gov't did in the past, but the extent was amazing. So, sure, don't dismiss theories out of hand, but do hold them at arm's length if they lack proof.

You can't safely generalize too much about what the law is. The law and legal theory vary from place to place. But generally...

Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. Consent and knowledge of age are usually irrelevant in statutory rape. https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc... The undisclosed STD would be a form of battery or similar offense. https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

Sure it's fun to digress, but remember nothing someone else did or didn't do some other time forgives or even relates to the alleged misconduct of Minsky.

You win on concise :)

I'm surprised no one immediately questions a price of $880 for 440 MB - is Canada really that expensive, or is this a gotcha? - or the incredible unlikelihood that the customer would want to run up such disproportionate charges. Verizon knows what they are doing and that they profit enormously from confusion among consumers. My first argument would be the renter was entitled to think that renewal of the agreement meant renewal of the same agreement -- but even if not that the charges would be kept in the realm of sanity. There's some serious gouging going on here.

This is a misleading myth. Doesn't it seem a little odd that nature is doing better "than it has ever been"? Do you think it's the healthful effects of radiation or the elimination wildlife's #1 enemy, humans? Yes, in a weird way it is like an irradiated garden of eden.

"No ill effects" is also false.

Really, it's a question of money. As the article makes clear, nuclear is on life support not so much because of much-maligned activists and benighted citizens, but because like coal it can't compete in the market. Nuclear already benefits from a long history of billions of dollars in subsidies including tax credits and exemption from liability and the vague notion that the government will take up any extraordinary costs (which can be considerable -- the Fukushima cleanup decade is currently projected to last decades and cost over $200b...whatever the utility absorbs will surely come around to haunt tax/rate payers).

At most article seems to srgue for extending the life of some reactors, presumably with subsidies ro competsate for competition from much cheaper solar, wind, and gas -- note that 2 out of 3 are already carbon friendly. So the choice is whather to shore up old tech or pour on the carbon-free gas (ha) for the next generation. Building new reactors is a non-starter: it can't be done fast enough and reactors have a long history f cost overruns and delays. This is all without mentioning that, yes, there are unique safety concerns with nuclear.