A US Marine Corps guidance released in March states that people who suffer from skin conditions like PFB may be discharged; critics argue the policy is ‘racist.’
" 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.
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?
At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war… where soldiers are the ones following these policies. This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.
OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.
OSHA paragraph (g)(1) of 29 CFR 1910.134
ANSI Z88.10
You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!
At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war…
Yes, and in war chemical weapons aren’t exactly known for their deep strike capabilities. Chemicals are hard to disperse accurately and in significant quantities, especially from far away.
This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.
You’re claiming chemical weapons are usually used to attack deep behind enemy lines?..source for that? Again, besides your supposed “service” that made you an expert in respirators.
OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.
Lol that razor bumps impede the seals on respirators…? hilarious that you haven’t engaged with that rebuttal a single time despite it being my first correction.
Judging by the way you interpreted that last paper, I don’t feel confident you’re really capable of having an educated opinion. So I think it’s best you disengage.
though I think you’re really disengaging because I’m on the money about your time in the military. Still haven’t replied about your mos…
Eh one person being crazy isn’t personal… I get there’s crazies out there.
It’s all good… Just wild that someone can in one breath claim there’s reading comprehension issues then in the next sentence quote the regulation that proves them wrong thinking they’re right…
It’s scary that people like them are touching chemicals (according to them). Literally just now…
OSHA doesn’t care as long as it does not impede function of the seal.
Then quotes “respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face” and completely misses the fact that ANY amount of hair would come between the sealing surface and the face… This is the inside of the mask, the red is the areas that touch/seal against your face… The entire chin/cheek area would be touching hair.
I’m actually just disappointed in myself that it took me so long to realize that the discussion just wasn’t going to go anywhere…
It’s funny because Canada ALSO looked into the same stuff… and apparently came to the same conclusion that something else has to be used to get a sufficient seal. But Noooo! I must be wrong!
Their answer was to just add an entire fucking hood to create a snug fit around the neck… Not sure I’m a fan of that… But even in this video some of those beards are pretty short.
You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!
Lol, you really have issues with reading comprehension… OSHA doesn’t care as long as it does not impede function of the seal. You determine the fit of the seal by doing a fit test. If you do a fit test and pass, it’s not impeding the seal.
“The Respiratory Protection standard, paragraph 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A), states that respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function. Facial hair is allowed as long as it does not protrude under the respirator seal, or extend far enough to interfere with the device’s valve function. Short mustaches, sideburns, and small goatees that are neatly trimmed so that no hair compromises the seal of the respirator usually do not present a hazard and, therefore, do not violate paragraph 1910.134(g)(1)(i).”
So your mask didn’t work then…?
you are exhaustingly pedantic…
" 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.
That’s what the whole argument was about.
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.
I don’t think you read that paper correctly…
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
Wouldn’t know. Didn’t try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
Because I’m choosing to ignore something that you could have linked to? Sure… I’m pedantic then.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number…
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.
Can’t choose what gets attacked… The enemy chooses that.
I didn’t bring it up did I? You did.
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…
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.
Reduction in effectiveness does not mean failure you dolt.
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.
Lol… With chemical weapons?
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.
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 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?
At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war… where soldiers are the ones following these policies. This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.
OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.
OSHA paragraph (g)(1) of 29 CFR 1910.134 ANSI Z88.10
You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!
Yes, and in war chemical weapons aren’t exactly known for their deep strike capabilities. Chemicals are hard to disperse accurately and in significant quantities, especially from far away.
You’re claiming chemical weapons are usually used to attack deep behind enemy lines?..source for that? Again, besides your supposed “service” that made you an expert in respirators.
Lol that razor bumps impede the seals on respirators…? hilarious that you haven’t engaged with that rebuttal a single time despite it being my first correction.
Judging by the way you interpreted that last paper, I don’t feel confident you’re really capable of having an educated opinion. So I think it’s best you disengage.
though I think you’re really disengaging because I’m on the money about your time in the military. Still haven’t replied about your mos…
Literally /noOSHAcompliance
Incredible.
Also thanks for your in point comments and detailed explanations, you have not been pedantic at all. Also correcting your comments? what a sight!
Don’t take it personal
People inside Lemmy tend to over react with name calling and what not when their supposed knowledge about how the world works is threatened
They lash out in ignorance
Thanks for your service o7
Eh one person being crazy isn’t personal… I get there’s crazies out there.
It’s all good… Just wild that someone can in one breath claim there’s reading comprehension issues then in the next sentence quote the regulation that proves them wrong thinking they’re right…
It’s scary that people like them are touching chemicals (according to them). Literally just now…
Then quotes “respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face” and completely misses the fact that ANY amount of hair would come between the sealing surface and the face… This is the inside of the mask, the red is the areas that touch/seal against your face… The entire chin/cheek area would be touching hair.
I’m actually just disappointed in myself that it took me so long to realize that the discussion just wasn’t going to go anywhere…
It’s funny because Canada ALSO looked into the same stuff… and apparently came to the same conclusion that something else has to be used to get a sufficient seal. But Noooo! I must be wrong!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bpNKS-W0xDQ
Their answer was to just add an entire fucking hood to create a snug fit around the neck… Not sure I’m a fan of that… But even in this video some of those beards are pretty short.
Removed by mod
Lol, you really have issues with reading comprehension… OSHA doesn’t care as long as it does not impede function of the seal. You determine the fit of the seal by doing a fit test. If you do a fit test and pass, it’s not impeding the seal.
“The Respiratory Protection standard, paragraph 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A), states that respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function. Facial hair is allowed as long as it does not protrude under the respirator seal, or extend far enough to interfere with the device’s valve function. Short mustaches, sideburns, and small goatees that are neatly trimmed so that no hair compromises the seal of the respirator usually do not present a hazard and, therefore, do not violate paragraph 1910.134(g)(1)(i).”