o Risk Assessments seem to not have been done / published about the policies of enforced mask wearing / face covering for a 'Covid disease' , which 'dis-ease' in the round is not particularly serious to most and in comparison to other disease health risks, where not only is the protection-effectiveness dubious, and has never been widely used, on a mass level, indeed the WHO previously advised against routine mask use, but it is highly likely that wearing - Masks and interfering with breathing could lead to other ‘long-germination' problems. 
 - Will Covid be blamed for these too ? ! 
 Link > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344360577_Masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_Part_1_Friable_mask_particulate_and_lung_vulnerability 
 
 
 Here are the opening sections - 
 Full article contains Data and ElectronMicroscope Photos 
 Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 1: 
 Friable mask particulate and lung vulnerability 
 
———


There is no biological history of mass masking until the current era. It is important to consider possible outcomes of this society-wide experiment. The consequences to the health of individuals is as yet unknown.
 
Masked individuals have measurably higher inspiratory flow than non-masked individuals. This study is of new masks removed from manufacturer packaging, as well as a laundered cloth mask, examined microscopically. Loose particulate was seen on each type of mask. Also, tight and loose fibers were seen on each type of mask. If every foreign particle and every fiber in every facemask is always secure and not detachable by airflow, then there should be no risk of inhalation of such particles and fibers. However, if even a small portion of mask fibers is detachable by inspiratory airflow, or if there is debris in mask manufacture or packaging or handling, then there is the possibility of not only entry of foreign material to the airways, but also entry to deep lung tissue, and potential pathological consequences of foreign bodies in the lungs. 
 
 
 Introduction 
 
The nose and mouth are the gateways to the lungs for land vertebrates. There is no known history of a species that has begun to voluntarily or involuntarily obstruct, partially obstruct or filter the orifices to their airways and lungs. We have no biological history of such a species or how they would have adapted to or possibly survived such a novel practice.
 
However, recently, in mid-2020, throughout the world, in some countries far more than others, human self-masking has become commonplace, whether due to insistence by governments, requirement of employers, educational institutions and business-owners, or social pressures in one’s immediate social circles. The proximal reason behind these reasons is abundant fear and desire for protection from COVID-19 throughout the world in 2020. People have been either coerced or otherwise pressured to wear “face coverings,” allegedly for the purpose of “slowing the spread of COVID-19.” The general public’s response is to use disposable surgical masks, and a wide variety of cloth masksand other cloth face coverings. In the western hemisphere at least these facemasks had not been worn outside of certain hospital facilities, not outside of surgical settings and intensive care units of hospitals. 
 
Prior research has overwhelmingly shown that there is no significant evidence of benefits of masks, particularly regarding transmission of viral infections, and that there are well-established risks. Evidence from peer-reviewed clinical studies and meta-analyses on problems concerning the effectiveness and safety of masks are summarized in this article.
 
Optimal oxygen intake in humans has been calculated in the absence of any obstruction to the airways. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has determined that the optimal range of oxygen in the air for humans is between 19.5 and 23.5%. In previous times, before the COVID-19 era, OSHA required that any human-occupied airspace where oxygen measured less than 19.5% to be labelled as “not safe for workers.” The percentage of oxygen inside a masked airspace generally measures 17.4% within several seconds of wearing. It has been observed that maximal voluntary ventilation and maximal inspiratory pressure increase during lower availability of oxygen at ascent in altitude, as well as for those who live at high altitude. Because oxygen is so essential to life, and in adequate amounts, humans and animals have developed the ability to sense changes in oxygen concentration, and to adapt to such challenges quickly. The medulla oblongata and carotid bodies are sensitive to such changes. Both lower ambient oxygen and increased ambient carbon dioxide stimulates ventilation, as the body quickly and steadfastly attempts to acquire more oxygen. As a compensatory mechanism, inspiratory flow is measurably higher in mask-wearers than in controls.
 
The question then arises: If inspiratory flow is increased over normal while wearing a mask, is every fiber attached to one’s facemask secure enough not to be inhaled into the lungs of the mask-wearer? Is it good enough for a majority of these fibers to be secure? Or must every part of every mask fiber of every mask be secure at all times?
 
 Link > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344360577_Masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_Part_1_Friable_mask_particulate_and_lung_vulnerability