77
Razor bumps can now get you kicked out of the marines. Black men will likely suffer the most
(www.the-independent.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
77 points (91.4% liked)
Not The Onion
17555 readers
320 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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...
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
Your comment has caused me to re-evaluate my perspective; thanks for sharing. The situation is more nuanced than I realised.
You are conflating razor bumps with a 1/8" beard. There aren't studies that evaluate mask fittings with razor bumps, you're just adding that to suit your argument.
"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.
“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've never been in the military, but I can guarantee I've had to wear a full face respirator rated for organic solvents more often than you. Imo beards have minimal effects on getting a decent seal. My hospital makes us do a fit test every 3-4 weeks, and I've passed with a beard longer than a 1/4" plenty of times.
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. I can guarantee that razor bumps aren't going to make a difference.
One doctor, out of all of em? Some anti-vaccine type of stupid right there
More than the amount of doctors who found direct scientific evidence ....
The guy wrote a paper about it and tried to find any evidence to support the new rules, he didn't find any.
So then you have no clue what the M50 respirator fits like then...
Weird guarantee to make when you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do... I even told you from my post that I have a full face respirator still. Would be weird to have one and not be using it no? But now this devolves into a pissing contest, which I'm not particularly interested in participating in.
Edit: Additionally... the risk of whatever you're doing in the hospital is much lower than Sarin gas or other wartime gaseous weapons. A bad seal for you might make you a little dizzy or you have to take a break and re-seal/replace your respirator, where a bad seal on the battle field would simply mean death.
Lol, no we have to wear butyl respirators and do monthly fit tests because we work with extremely dangerous chemicals. Some of which do have a NFPA rating of 4, the same as Sarin.
Lol, I imagine it fits like any butyl rubber respirator. They aren't making them specifically worse just for the military.
I mean, did you wear your respirator multiple hours everyday for more than ten years? Unless you were working in a lab for the military I highly doubt you spent much time in your PPE.
Not really? Unless you use it for your job a lot of people will have one they seldomly use at home for small projects like painting.
Your basing all of your argument on anecdotal evidence..... Of course bits going to divulge into a pissing contest. That's why I posted a source stating that there was no evidence supporting your claim....you know the part that you ignored.
Just being in the military isn't evidence, we have no idea what you mos was or how long you were in for. For all we know you could have just been a pog in the national guard for 4 years.
Oh boy... you don't know about military contracts do you?
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.
Cool... one guy says it's not a problem. Here's an actual study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316/
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...
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...
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.
@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.
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!
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)."
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......
Well........ about that.
You didn't refute his source at all.
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?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316/ from 2018 says there's problems with even really short lengths of beard...
But you're correct in that I don't have any evidence that the military found or validated the same findings internally. I think it's more likely than not though.
Edit: Actually I do have some minor proof that they know there's issues... But it's covered in the same "it's really understudied" caveat that I put in the post itself. Not worth really discussing IMO.
Edit2: I'd even disbelieve that Trump knows enough about the military to find out that they could use this to be frank...
You are making claims that weren't in the article. That studies conclusiion were
"Conclusion: 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."
Plus your original claim was that razor bumps would negatively impact the fit, not short length beards. You're moving the goalposts.
No it wasn't... but you go ahead and keep lying to yourself. You can scroll up and read it for yourself.
Note that the quoted section is not "me" saying it, but a response to that general topic/discussion.
But we've already discussed this ad nauseam, so you can stop following me around now.
The funny part is that I said basically this exact same thing in another thread, and got shouted down with “lul gas masks seal fine over a beard” types of comments.
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 gets~~ civilian 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.
I had a beard while in (Norwegian combat engineer). You can pull the mask as tight as a homophobic preachers sphincter in a pride parade and it will never be completely sealed. After the first time it was voluntary to pull off the mask while testing using CS, I used to take it off as I was exposed already. In a war situation I would be smooth as Flipper in a second
Fucking men thinking they should be the ones fighting wars. They're worse shots, they can't wear gas masks, they take up more space in transports...
I was coming in here to disagree with you, because I've heard this same thing, but I won't argue a point unless I check my sources first, and sure enough, you're correct (except maybe that stubble is fine). OSHA even states that tight-fitting respirators are not to be used by those with facial hair that extends past/across the seal. So one could argue that if wearing a gas mask is a requirement, anybody who has facial hair (other than a trimmed moustache) is unable to fulfill that requirement by OSHA rules alone.
Yeah it wasn't an OSHA study that I was referencing...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316
With military articles like https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ stating
So 2 out of 100 people using masks that are relatively similar to the military M50 would be at risk at 1/8th inch beard. Which is not a whole lot of hair... Like 3-4 days of growth (for me). 1/16 or less seemed to be 100% rates... But the big caveat here is that the fit-test doesn't adequately capture the rigor and activity that one might do in the military... So it seems logical that much more leakage will happen at every level.
But OSHA, ANSI, every branch of the DoD, and every study (though minimal) agrees with the fact that beard hair in of itself is a no go.
Example navy document... https://www.med.navy.mil/Portals/62/Documents/NMFA/NMCPHC/root/Industrial%20Hygiene/RESPIRATOR-SPECIAL-PROBLEMS.pdf?ver=Ng19UESJUtWmwvoHSABW-w%3D%3D There's a fun graph on table 2.
There are plenty of jobs to be done away from front lines, are there not? I have never served, but it seems like there ought to be lots and lots of jobs where people are cogs in a machine in offices and the like. Please inform me why soldiers can't get rotated to such positions to keep them employed.
All soldiers undergo basic training. Basics of infantry because everyone is considered first and foremost infantry. After that you're trained in your selected job position. For the Army this is AIT (Advanced Individual Training), your AIT is based on the job you took (MOS). I was initially a 13M, I shot rockets out of a tracked vehicle called MLRS. I then reclassed to Unit Supply (92Y) for a myriad of personal reasons.
Your selected MOS puts you in specific training to do that job. A wheel vehicle mechanic knows different things than a track vehicle mechanic. So even positions that seem on paper closely related can have wildly different training. This makes it hard to simply swap people without retraining which is a massive cost.
Unit supply is trained on different regulations than the IT people running even though they're often side by side at headquarters. Different processes, papers, and regulations for different paper pushing jobs. "paper pushing" jobs are often not trained in advanced warfighting operations like clearing villages vs clearing singular rooms shown in basic training. Or operating heavier weaponry vs just what you get during US weapons training in basic.
But ultimately everyone is (in a perfect world situation) deployable... even the totally not combat related chef (Culinary Specialist 92G) gets deployed to warzones because soldiers need to be fed. Do you want to disadvantage the guy working a non-combat job in a warzone in case the FOB or base gets bombed/gassed?
It's kind of a fucked position to say that anyone at any time can be deployed... but this specific group will be at a much higher risk of dying because a physical condition can't be accommodated for reasonably... But you're going anyway!
The alternative is to say a specific group can't be deployed because of the a condition and thus they get to fill stateside slots permanently which now affects everyone else quite negatively as they will need to deploy more often.
There is no "win" here, nor reasonable equity to be had without accepting that people will die because of the position. Now, personally, I'm in the position where I want to see less of my people die wherever possible... In this case the only answer that makes sense is to not put them in dangers way from the get-go, but that makes them unemployable... which ultimately means they shouldn't be in service at all. Which sucks as a position. But I don't see an alternative answer.
And to make a note... The article is specifically referencing Marines... They're a much more extreme version of this... Even the logistics/operational MOS is trained to be infantry first and foremost and expected to maintain infantry readiness much more so than other branches of the military. In the Army, most non-combat positions are expected to lose a lot of combat effectiveness over time as they train those skills much less.
Edit: I guess TL;DR, we don't build units to be non-deployable as that's counter to the job/point of the military... And we don't get to pick and choose what the enemy attacks. My FOB was attacked a bunch (mortared at least every other day), and we weren't near anything that I would consider "front lines".
You'd think we'd have the technology to invent a shaving device that made faces mask-ready
You'd think we'd have masks that don't completely fail to do their job because you have .002 femtometers of hair sticking out of your face.
Fun fact, we have!
This is racist horseshit and refusal to equip soldiers properly. Or more accurately, Marines who I’d wish were a little more vocal about the blatant fascism these days
I don't see anywhere where it says to be compatible with a beard. Also, it says it protects from sandblasting and asbestos. Tear gas and the like are a very diffefent beast and get through smaller openings.
I'm just here trying to figure out how many hours does it take to grow your beard before you lose seal. Do you need to stop combat to shave every 12h? 6h? 1h? I need to know!
Maybe I should be a mask designer.
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.