Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
-
You didn't refute his source at all.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Those were quotes...
not sources<edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I'm not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.General Grievous says "[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably."
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
Edit: pedantry I guess?
-
Yeah... I expected those here as well... thus the "and to preempt an argument" section.
I'm out of the military now... I oftentimes let my beard get longer... I can promise you(anyone) that masks don't fit nearly as well. I have a personal full face respirator for a number of reasons. It doesn't seal nearly as well when my beard is anything beyond basic stubble for me. First the beard changes your face shape, second hair doesn't compress well unless you really crank on the straps and thus by nature the seal becomes uneven since hair moves and clumps, third when you crank on the straps... it fucking hurts after a while. Turns out people in general don't like having their face compressed.
Now you want to apply those problems to a warzone... Where the first and second will make donning your mask considerably harder when you're under fire... and the third will make it more likely that people will want to remove the mask or make worse choices because they're in literal pain wearing the mask.
It's one thing if you're only wearing the mask in a fire or something and a nominal amount of carbon monoxide gets through... Mustard gas or other agents could be outright deadly at very low doses.
Edit: Oh another difference... Consumer shit isn't meant to be worn for days on end... So it tends to be softer/pliable. Which can contour and fit more shapes/beards and such... Military NBC equipment isn't this way. It's mean to be worn for considerably longer and perform to a much different standard. They much more rigid, which adds to the problem a bit... less flexible overall because it needs to be a more resistant rubber/plastic. A respirator for a
firefighter getscivilian purposes are typically used for a few hours before being replaced... A soldier could be wearing the same mask for weeks or months only replacing the cartridge when expended.Firefighters don’t replace their masks after hours.
-
Firefighters don’t replace their masks after hours.
Depends on the respirator... I wasn't talking about the oxygenated stuff. But fair enough there too much equipment there that's used for different purposes than I should just generalize for. I'll modify my statement.
-
First off... Copy and paste is free. Quote me accurately. I've already mentioned several times that I was Army.
But cis women dont need work and extra toiletries to meet this standard by default. Can meet it after months behind enemy lines without extra effort or hours.
Are you shitting me? Cis women don't need extra toiletries? For MONTHS behind enemy lines? Shaving equipment is a handle and a few blades... and water. Where women would require pads, tampons, etc... right? I can keep a handle and blade in my pocket next to my knife (which also works as a makeshift shaving device btw...) and the granola bar I got out of my last MRE. Taking little space and next to no additional weight. You've got no idea.
Lower avrg center of gravity is the big reason i remember, plus more points to brace from, if you’ve seen women carry heavy things.
So then you have no idea what you're even talking about since you need to "remember" it. And no... there are no magical addition points to brace from for a women in regards to carrying things in a combat situation. You need to keep your arms available to use your weapon. The only place to put equipment in on your kit or on your back. There is no additional mount points that either gender would have over the other.
I don’t think we were carrying 150
You weren't carrying all your equipment in a war zone. Body armor, weapon, heavy clothes, radios, bags, nods, additional equipment... It tallys up quickly... Especially if you're a crew gunner... or ammo carrier for the crew gunner. You cannot compare your civilian shit to active war. This is why I end up in these comments more often than I'd like... people like you seem to dream what the warfighter does and equate it to some random hike you took a couple times as a child... Not realizing the world of difference that it is. I've seen soldiers carrying Mk19's around post for PT... that fucking thing is like 80 lbs on it's own, forget the ammo.
At this point I'm disengaging with you. Feel free to get the last sentence in. But it's clear you have no idea, and no interest in listening to those that do.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]is free
On desktop. It's a bitch and a half on mobile.
So, for the army being huge isn't bad. Unless you're in a vehicle. Where it all has to be bigger, and i assume there's sone square cube nonsense with armoring larger compartments
don't need extra toiletries to meet this standard
Whole sentence.
Also, plenty of non-disposable solutions exist.
handle few blades water
To get really close? For a gas mask? No.
since i need to remember
Yeah i guess i should just deduce the world from
first principleswhatever bullshit seems cool. Memory is for the weak.unmodifued cis women do not come equiwith hard points as specified by US milspec #802.11n
Thats totally what i said. Fight me about it mr. Army man-but know that i am not an unmodified cis woman, im a punk with too many body mods, and will be equipped with 120mm guns on all five turrets. Also a split tounge, which will only matter if you bring your wife.
you werent carrying all your equipment in a war zone
Yes i was. I totally was and thats exactly what i said. My family took camping very seriously. When i was 6, my dad got us into bosnia, there was this hiking path just outside sarajevo with just the nicest sniper, and sone fun puzzles on tge ground, but the next year my aunt one-upped him with rwanda. It's so pretty this time of year, especially with all the Halloweeny decorations they do! Probably my favorite vacation ever.
In all seriousness: it was a military family, we did not stick to trails, and i have carried large bags and people while being shot at and gassed-admittedly on paved streets-since. While avoiding cameras. So i think i have some idea. Though admittedly, i was pulling stuff out of people rather than shooting things after. Maybe none if the experience translates, idk.
-
Those were quotes...
not sources<edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I'm not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.General Grievous says "[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably."
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
Edit: pedantry I guess?
Those were quotes… not sources. I specifically ignored them because they were unsourced.
said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist
I am really trying to square this circle....
-
Those were quotes… not sources. I specifically ignored them because they were unsourced.
said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist
I am really trying to square this circle....
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Quote
to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc. [...] to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
Source
any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.
The above are quotes... from a source... in this case the sources being https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quote and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/source
The problem with simply using a name as a "source" in this context... This lemmy user didn't talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can't be a source to say that the Col said anything... They took that quote from somewhere else... and didn't cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn't say anything of that sort... Yet I "quoted" it... with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.
Edit: Google shows a number of sources for the quote... https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ being one of them.
This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though... with a bizarre stance on the results though...
These anecdotes all regard oxygen masks for aviators, so it would be too bold to extrapolate that the same rings true for gas masks, Ritchie explained. Still, it’s a start, and there is also a recent study from the civilian world that could indicate positive outcomes for beard-hopefuls in the U.S. military. The 2018 study showed that facial hair negatively influences the fit factor for half-face negative-pressure respirators as the hair gets longer and more dense. However, beard-wearers can still “achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area,” the study authors wrote. In fact, 98% of the study participants who had an eighth-inch of beard passed the fit test. Those results are encouraging because the respirators used in the study are pretty close to the M-50 gas masks used in the military today in terms of material and fit, Ritchie said.
Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them... but is what it is. I don't particularly find the number acceptable considering it's entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.
See... I provided the source... and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.
-
Quote
to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc. [...] to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
Source
any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.
The above are quotes... from a source... in this case the sources being https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quote and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/source
The problem with simply using a name as a "source" in this context... This lemmy user didn't talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can't be a source to say that the Col said anything... They took that quote from somewhere else... and didn't cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn't say anything of that sort... Yet I "quoted" it... with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.
Edit: Google shows a number of sources for the quote... https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ being one of them.
This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though... with a bizarre stance on the results though...
These anecdotes all regard oxygen masks for aviators, so it would be too bold to extrapolate that the same rings true for gas masks, Ritchie explained. Still, it’s a start, and there is also a recent study from the civilian world that could indicate positive outcomes for beard-hopefuls in the U.S. military. The 2018 study showed that facial hair negatively influences the fit factor for half-face negative-pressure respirators as the hair gets longer and more dense. However, beard-wearers can still “achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area,” the study authors wrote. In fact, 98% of the study participants who had an eighth-inch of beard passed the fit test. Those results are encouraging because the respirators used in the study are pretty close to the M-50 gas masks used in the military today in terms of material and fit, Ritchie said.
Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them... but is what it is. I don't particularly find the number acceptable considering it's entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.
See... I provided the source... and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.
You can type all that, still funny when you know that a quote with a name is a source. Since you know the quotes source is that named person. Not really relevant if it is a correct quote or not, as a sourced lie is a thing as well.
I mean its right there in your own example "...to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support."
-
You can type all that, still funny when you know that a quote with a name is a source. Since you know the quotes source is that named person. Not really relevant if it is a correct quote or not, as a sourced lie is a thing as well.
I mean its right there in your own example "...to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support."
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Cool then you must accept my previous statement of
General Grievous says “[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
It's a quote, attributed to a name. Right?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to "I wasn't given a good source" or "validated source"?
-
They aren’t making them specifically worse just for the military.
Oh boy... you don't know about military contracts do you?
That’s why I posted a source stating that there was no evidence supporting your claim…you know the part that you ignored.
You posted quotes with no source. Which is why I ignored it.
But fine... let's address these unsourced quotes since that's what you're hung up on.
"While many military leaders defending the beard prohibition have repeated the claim that beards break gas mask seals, one Air Force doctor has found no direct scientific evidence to support it.
Cool... one guy says it's not a problem. Here's an actual study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316/
Results: FF decreased with beard length, especially beyond 0.125 in. However, passing FF scores were achieved on all tests by all subjects at the smooth shave and 0.063 in conditions, and 98% of tests were passed at 0.125 in; seven subjects passed all tests at all conditions.
“It’s an unsubstantiated claim,” said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist who last year published a study on the beard prohibition’s discriminatory effect on Black airmen. While supporters of current Air Force policy “may have anecdotal evidence of one to five people who they see fail the fit test,” he said, “that can’t be extrapolated to hundreds of thousands of airmen.”
I agree with him... it is discriminatory. But when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield...
The problem with this though is that services give profiles/chits for shaving... So those people often will not participate in mask training at all... Can't find what you're not even looking for. So just saying "anecdotal"... well yeah, that's all there is if he's not actively researching it. And as seen above, when research is done... it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I'm basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that. As I said though, it is under-researched...
And lastly...
In reality the shape of your face and the brand of your mask has a lot more to do with passing a fit test more than anything.
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask... so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn't it?
I would like to pose a different question for you then... Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear... Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
Edit: Bad wording...
Oh boy... you don't know about military contracts do you?
So your mask didn't work then...?
You posted quotes with no source. Which is why I ignored it.
you are exhaustingly pedantic...
Cool... one guy says it's not a problem. Here's an actual study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316
" Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area"
I don't really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
agree with him... it is discriminatory.
That's what the whole argument was about.
when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield...
Again, you haven't substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals... You haven't even substantiated that beards break seals.
So no, you can't claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
And as seen above, when research is done... it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I'm basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that.
I don't think you read that paper correctly.....
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask... so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn't it?
That doesn't have anything to do with your facial hair.....does it?
would like to pose a different question for you then... Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear... Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
I don't have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
-
Those were quotes...
not sources<edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I'm not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.General Grievous says "[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably."
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
Edit: pedantry I guess?
We're not in a trial case...
If I wanted to be as much of a pain in the ass. None of your claims about being in the service are admissible in nerd court apparently.
-
Cool then you must accept my previous statement of
General Grievous says “[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
It's a quote, attributed to a name. Right?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to "I wasn't given a good source" or "validated source"?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?
Yes, and that is also why you look up quotes and sources.
-
Oh boy... you don't know about military contracts do you?
So your mask didn't work then...?
You posted quotes with no source. Which is why I ignored it.
you are exhaustingly pedantic...
Cool... one guy says it's not a problem. Here's an actual study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316
" Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area"
I don't really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
agree with him... it is discriminatory.
That's what the whole argument was about.
when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield...
Again, you haven't substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals... You haven't even substantiated that beards break seals.
So no, you can't claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
And as seen above, when research is done... it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I'm basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that.
I don't think you read that paper correctly.....
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask... so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn't it?
That doesn't have anything to do with your facial hair.....does it?
would like to pose a different question for you then... Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear... Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
I don't have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
So your mask didn’t work then…?
Wouldn't know. Didn't try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
you are exhaustingly pedantic…
Because I'm choosing to ignore something that you could have linked to? Sure... I'm pedantic then.
I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number...
Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study "Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit". If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair... pull out a caliper and check that length... That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short... and that's where there's already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it's okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble... This is a crazy stance to accept.
So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
Can't choose what gets attacked... The enemy chooses that.
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
I didn't bring it up did I? You did.
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
I have to assume that this is "not at all" confidence for both scenarios then.
Honestly though I'm still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical...
-
The fuck is wrong with you? If you have an opinion about war, write your senator. Being disrespectful to a person that served and otherwise did nothing wrong is disgraceful.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I don't respect soldiers or cops. Fuck them. And to the people who downvoted all my comments get a fucking life LOL.
-
Oh boy... you don't know about military contracts do you?
So your mask didn't work then...?
You posted quotes with no source. Which is why I ignored it.
you are exhaustingly pedantic...
Cool... one guy says it's not a problem. Here's an actual study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316
" Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area"
I don't really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
agree with him... it is discriminatory.
That's what the whole argument was about.
when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield...
Again, you haven't substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals... You haven't even substantiated that beards break seals.
So no, you can't claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
And as seen above, when research is done... it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I'm basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that.
I don't think you read that paper correctly.....
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask... so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn't it?
That doesn't have anything to do with your facial hair.....does it?
would like to pose a different question for you then... Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear... Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
I don't have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
@TranscendentalEmpire The article itself said that beards don't meaningfully interfere with masks, so it's not even necessary to feed that troll; they already knew that, if they read it.
Military beard/mask doctrine goes back literally a century, based on tech of that time -- not what we have now. (I'm not sure how proven it was then, either, but it hardly matters now.)
I share what I'm sure is widespread suspicion that this policy is, in our time, racist in intent, not just in effect.
-
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?
Yes, and that is also why you look up quotes and sources.
I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”
Just so you know though... that was in the definition for "quote" not source... but I've changed the verbiage.
-
I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”
Just so you know though... that was in the definition for "quote" not source... but I've changed the verbiage.
Oh I know that was for the quote part as those are very much also describing a "source"
-
I don't respect soldiers or cops. Fuck them. And to the people who downvoted all my comments get a fucking life LOL.
Lmfao. You're complaining about downvotes when people use them correctly. Remember downvotes are supposed to be used to measure how relevant/useful a topic is to a conversation. Unfortunately your feelings about specific service members, or the group as a whole is irrelevant to the discussion about the grooming rules of the military.
Just remember, you think everyone else needs to get a life... You came to this post knowing that you dislike the military specifically to spew random hatred at people who didn't even interact with you.
-
Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
Hi.. It's me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I'd argue that it's not. I'd also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you're protecting from "racism".
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don't know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn't fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the "black" (quoting this because it's inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can't get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can't get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I've said terms like "profile" and "medically evaluated", none of these things innately remove you from service unless it's extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn't clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here's the rub though, you can't have soldiers that can't put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It's a basic core task. War is war, it's nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is "Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don't work" is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem... And in my time, I've seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article "The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don't really see an alternative that doesn't potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user...
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out.
Likely according to what evidence? You’re making an assumption here. I have zero reason to assume good faith with Trump and Hegseth changing anything right now, why should you?
-
So your mask didn’t work then…?
Wouldn't know. Didn't try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
you are exhaustingly pedantic…
Because I'm choosing to ignore something that you could have linked to? Sure... I'm pedantic then.
I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number...
Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study "Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit". If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair... pull out a caliper and check that length... That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short... and that's where there's already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it's okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble... This is a crazy stance to accept.
So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
Can't choose what gets attacked... The enemy chooses that.
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
I didn't bring it up did I? You did.
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
I have to assume that this is "not at all" confidence for both scenarios then.
Honestly though I'm still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical...
Wouldn't know. Didn't try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
I meant without... Though I doubt you spent much time in it. What was your mos again...? Never answered that. I'm guessing based on the fact that you're non Lemmy it wasn't infantry..... I'm guessing you were on a computer most of the time.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number...
Reduction in effectiveness does not mean failure you dolt.
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study "Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit". If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair... pull out a caliper and check that length... That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short... and that's where there's already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it's okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble... This is a crazy stance to accept.
Lol, again ignoring the part where you claimed that razor bumps affected seals.....you aren't arguing in good faith. You are also making conclur not made by the original source.
Can't choose what gets attacked... The enemy chooses that.
Lol..... With chemical weapons?
didn't bring it up did I? You did.
My claim was that facial hair has little to do with a good seal, and that facial shape and brand has more to do with it.
Your argument is that it's facial hair not, so the brand doesn't do anything to support you argument.
have to assume that this is "not at all" confidence for both scenarios then.
And the argument is about facial hair.... Remember? I like how you constantly they to redirect the argument away from your original claim... really helpful.
Honestly though I'm still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical...
Honestly surprised your arguing with some with a degree in chemistry when your only experience was probably in basic training. You deal with a lot of Sarin attacks in the 4 years of doing IT for the army?
-
@TranscendentalEmpire The article itself said that beards don't meaningfully interfere with masks, so it's not even necessary to feed that troll; they already knew that, if they read it.
Military beard/mask doctrine goes back literally a century, based on tech of that time -- not what we have now. (I'm not sure how proven it was then, either, but it hardly matters now.)
I share what I'm sure is widespread suspicion that this policy is, in our time, racist in intent, not just in effect.
Yeah, I'm just pulling his chain at this point. He's just a conservative chode, wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't ever in the military to begin with.
