Yeah, while I understand and agree with the sentiment... If you have 300 people and on average somebody gets sick once a year for 2 days... You're going to have to hit some lotto style stats that they all don't lineup together to get a clear day of 100% attendance. Now realize that normal is 2-4 times a year... not just once. It's hard to corral that many people and get them all in on the same day available without some sort of conflict, sick days alone. Forget all the other stuff, birthdays, births, funerals, etc...
Saik0Shinigami
joined 2 years ago
The USA is also significantly bigger than every single one of those "comparable" countries. Actually bigger (population, size, really just about any size metric possible) than all of them combined. It's a bit disingenuous to clump all of the USA together. Which fuels and proves my point about outsiders not understanding the USA.
The range in "comparable" countries is also about 4 years... Why do you think that is? I mean the countries are basically right next to each other like states are here... yet for some reason despite sharing a border Switzerland and Germany have a 4.1 year difference in male life expectancy.
I'm willing to bet money that different parts of the US, possibly even on a state by state or even region by region location would have wildly varying life expectancy than is being insinuated with a single monolithic number for "the USA"... Just like the EU countries listed here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy
Turns out that is wildly true... The top 30 states all compete with the numbers given and fall within the ranges between Germany and Switzerland given in the charts in your link.
Edit:
If you drill down to counties.... which is at the very bottom of the wiki article. You can see even more disparity. And the only reason I bring this up is that some counties in the USA are bigger than entire as countries in the EU. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-counties-in-the-united-states-by-total-area.html
There is issues with getting infrastructure EVERYWHERE when the country is just so damn big and sparse.
Edit2: I should clarify that I don't doubt that the EU overall is better off... Mostly because being fat is a huge problem in the USA that is much less prevalent than the EU overall. But just clumping shit willy nilly is exactly what I was referencing... Mississippi vs California is a world of difference.
Most Europeans have a poor understanding of what the USA looks like as well... Turns out that most people have no idea what most of the rest of the world looks like! This could even mean inside of their own country! The USA is quite large and very much varied.
The m50 is a full face mask....
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
This is incorrect. The law you think you're referencing by this is only applicable to Federal positions. Several states explicitly allow non-citizen voting in local elections. Many have no laws on the books at all addressing it. Only 15 states explicitly prohibit non-citizen voting for local positions.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States
This fact alone should mandate that the federal level maintains their own registrations. The State and Federal levels have different applicable voter rolls because the state doesn't have the same requirements as the federal elections.
Edit: Wrong word.