Saik0Shinigami

Whatever float your boat. Have a pleasant evening!

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...

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"?

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.

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.

Even if we did... getting and keeping whatever that device would be functional on a battlefield is a whole different ball-game...

War sucks...

Edit: The easiest answer is a standard razor blade. It's easy, simple, and light (and reuseable if needed... as much as they're not really supposed to be). But that's what causes problems.

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...

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.

So what does that have to do with this article of men being medically discharged from the military? I see nothing relevant.

Let's look at your nonsense though...

Women don’t tend to have, at military age, noticable beards at all.

I can accept this. This is true. However, that's not the problem it's not a matter of IF they have beards or not... it's a matter of being able to REMOVE those beards for the use of the equipment.

ability to sleep comfortably in a smaller bunk

Non-issue. We built our own hooches while deployed. Just give the soldiers wood and screws... they'll build what they need. There is no "smaller" or "larger" bunk requirement. Soldiers in general are also pretty much masters of sleeping literally anywhere they can.

reliably don a gas mask

Than a clean shaven man? I wouldn't make that argument, if anything hair being equal... it's the same between both genders. Getting over a ponytail or bun would be a pain in the ass in my opinion which isn't available to the male gender in the military. Though I don't know. I guess I could ask my wife, but I'm not interested in dragging her into some internet slapfight about sexism. I have longer hair now (past my shoulders) and it's much more a pain in the ass than it was when I was in service, I guess I could put my hair up and try it and see... but I'm over pandering to random internet trolls.

Plus are generally better shots.

Under what conditions? What evidence do you have of this?

or accurately hit a target with a gun.

Carrying 150 lbs of equipment 10 miles and then getting into a firefight? Or on a civilian range where everything is comfortable and easy? Everyone range trainer I've talked to on this says it's easier to train women... Not that they're better overall. I am definitely a significantly better shot than my wife (she's also a Veteran). But that's a sample size of 2, so I try to ignore that.

But I have a feeling these were not the answers you were looking for.

So you're under some mythical belief that gas warfare hasn't been a problem since WW2... That's wild. So if it's such a non-issue... Why did you get the training?