# Trident:  No More Beards @ Sea



## The Bread Guy (12 Aug 2009)

Mods - did the search, and couldn't find a ref. to this, but feel free to dump/merge if it's here someplace.

*No more beards for sailors at sea*
Darlene Blakeley, Navy editor, Maple Leaf, The Trident, 12 Aug 09
Article link

Seagoing sailors and beards—they just seem to go together like salt and pepper, rum and coke, burgers and fries—but no more.
On July 14 the Navy announced that effective immediately all persons serving in HMC Ships and submarines are to be clean shaven. The decision was made for operational reasons—to ensure the safety of sailors using respiratory protection systems employed onboard naval vessels.

“I know this decision may be difficult to accept, but it was not made lightly,” said Command Chief Petty Officer (CCPO) Robert Cleroux. “It was absolutely necessary for operational reasons. Facial hair, beards in particular, prevent a proper face-to-face-piece seal when wearing respiratory protection systems. When the argument boils down to safety versus tradition, the safety of our sailors must remain paramount in all of our decisions.”

The practise of sailors wearing beards at sea dates back to the era of wooden ships when there wasn’t enough fresh water for sailors to shave properly, CCPO Cleroux explained. “On modern warships there are almost always sufficient quantities of fresh water for sailors to shave, and our sailors wear beards mostly for the sake of tradition. For hundreds of years sailors wore beards and put tar in their hair to keep it together—those days are long gone.”

The tradition of allowing sailors to wear beards will be protected to some extent, as those serving ashore will still be able to wear them. “This decision doesn’t affect all Navy personnel,” CCPO Cleroux stressed, “but it does affect seagoing billets where sailors are expected to participate in shipborne firefighting duties that necessitate the use of a self-contained breathing apparatus. Sailors must be able to wear the apparatus to protect themselves and others.”

This decision only affects the wearing of beards; moustaches and sideburns can still be worn in accordance with CF dress regulations. Reasonable accommodation will also be made for personnel with religious and medical exemptions.Other navies, including the British and US navies, already have this policy in place.

CCPO Cleroux admitted that for those who have worn beards for most of their naval careers, the new policy will be difficult. But he is leading by example—he shaved off the beard he has been wearing for more than 25 years. “I did it in support of sailors at sea, but also because it is getting very grey.”

His wife, who is away tending to their daughter and a newborn baby, has not seen his newly shorn face yet. “She’s going to be surprised,” CCPO Cleroux laughed.So will many of the other wives and girlfriends who may be seeing their sailors’ clean shaven faces for the first time. But, as CCPO Cleroux noted, “safety must come  first.”


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Aug 2009)

To tell the truth, I'm not surprised.  If wearing SCBA or even a gas mask one should be clean shaven.  It's the only way to get a proper seal.

IAW C-87-040-000/MS-001, RESPIRATORY PROTECTION PROGRAM, Part 4:



> FITTING OF RESPIRATORS
> 
> 1. The degree of protection afforded by a respirator requiring a close face to facepiece seal depends on several factors, including:
> 
> a. efficiency of the seal to the *facial skin*;



and



> 13. The person conducting the fit test shall not perform the fit test unless the person undergoing the fit test is *clean shaven* where the facepiece seals to the skin.



So if someone with a beard has been fit-tested, I'll wager a month's pay that it was not a proper fit testing.  Not to say he wouldn't pass, but all it takes is some hairs out of place or the beard getting longer or shorter and your fit test is no longer valid.  Of course, IAW the RPP manual, if he was fit-tested with a beard, it's not valid anyway.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Aug 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> To tell the truth, I'm not surprised.  If wearing SCBA or even a gas mask one should be clean shaven.  It's the only way to get a proper seal.


Even when I was still in, this was the rationale for no beards, but it just struck me as a pretty earthshaking thing, given how attached (no pun intended) sailors I've known are to their beards.


----------



## Long in the tooth (12 Aug 2009)

Then why am I seeing more and more Army personnel with beards, some of questionable taste that would not have been allowed 20 years ago?!?


----------



## kratz (12 Aug 2009)

This was also covered in Esquimalt's Lookout, 27 July 2009. I know from comments from the guys in 2006 this has been a hotly debated topic to be decided on.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Aug 2009)

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> Then why am I seeing more and more Army personnel with beards, some of questionable taste that would not have been allowed 20 years ago?!?



Actually, I agree with you on that one, too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Aug 2009)

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> Then why am I seeing more and more Army personnel with beards, some of questionable taste that would not have been allowed 20 years ago?!?



Times change. Dinosaurs die. Might be a Navy pers attached to a Land unit. Water is scarce on some OPs and the superiors in the CoC allow it.


----------



## hugh19 (12 Aug 2009)

Well until I see it mention women with facial hair, I will consider it BS.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Aug 2009)

sledge said:
			
		

> Well until I see it mention women with facial hair, I will consider it BS.



Are you serious??   ???


----------



## armyvern (12 Aug 2009)

sledge said:
			
		

> Well until I see it mention women with facial hair, I will consider it BS.



Uhmmm âllo!! Êtes-vous là??   :


----------



## hugh19 (12 Aug 2009)

Of course I am serious. I have seen women who have more facial hair than some guys.


----------



## armyvern (12 Aug 2009)

sledge said:
			
		

> Of course I am serious. I have seen women who have more facial hair than some guys.



Utilizez votre matière gris mon ami. Est-ce qu'elles ont des barbiches où seulement un petit peu des barbes?

This is silly - you know better. And yes, I'm quite sure you'll just consider a new Naval dress regulation as "BS" until they incorporate a clause ordering women to shave. Somehow me thinks not.


----------



## hugh19 (12 Aug 2009)

Actually not everyone has to shave. They have a clause in there for religious and medical grounds. But it list a caveat for supervisors to watch out for them as they may loose air faster than the fat out of shape smokers, ( I am one of them) who suck back the air. Their is no similar caveat to watch out for the same thing on hairy women.


----------



## armyvern (12 Aug 2009)

sledge said:
			
		

> Actually not everyone has to shave. They have a clause in there for religious and medical grounds. But it list a caveat for supervisors to watch out for them as they may loose air faster than the fat out of shape smokers, ( I am one of them) who suck back the air. Their is no similar caveat to watch out for the same thing on hairy women.



Really? I must have missed reading about the religious/medical exemption in the original article.  :

Of course there is no similar caveat for the women with a few whiskers ... whiskers are NOT full beards. And, if you do know and serve with a woman with a full beard - which I highly doubt - I'd wager she'd fall into that "medical exemption" category at any rate (not that she'd want to 'not' shave).

Get a grip on reality. Speaking of "loose air" ...


----------



## GAP (12 Aug 2009)

sledge said:
			
		

> Of course I am serious. I have seen women who have more facial hair than some guys.



Vern.....don't ask, please we do not need to know just where he found these hirsute  gems, nor do we need to know why he was there or in what condition...!!!
 ;D


----------



## medicineman (12 Aug 2009)

I've been awaiting anxiously for the deluge of sailors who have all of a sudden developed some "skin condition"  :...maybe it'll change when this "condition" results in a category that takes away their sea pay  :nod:.

MM


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Aug 2009)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I've been awaiting anxiously for the deluge of sailors who have all of a sudden developed some "skin condition"  :...maybe it'll change when this "condition" results in a category that takes away their sea pay  :nod:.
> 
> MM



Yep, being able to wear PPE must be part of their generic task statement, no?


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Aug 2009)

sledge said:
			
		

> Of course I am serious. I have seen women who have more facial hair than some guys.



What you have not seen, I'd wager quite heavily, is a woman with enough facial hair to affect the seal on a Chemox or SCBA mask, so it's not an issue.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> What you have not seen, I'd wager quite heavily, is a woman with enough facial hair to affect the seal on a Chemox or SCBA mask, so it's not an issue.



Enough. Move it along.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (13 Aug 2009)

> “I know this decision may be difficult to accept, but it was not made lightly,” said Command Chief Petty Officer (CCPO) Robert Cleroux. “It was absolutely necessary for operational reasons. Facial hair, beards in particular, prevent a proper face-to-face-piece seal when wearing respiratory protection systems. When the argument boils down to safety versus tradition, the safety of our sailors must remain paramount in all of our decisions.”



Sometimes facial hair prevents a good seal. Sometimes face shape prevents a good seal. Is the CF now going to land personnel that can't get a good seal with a one-size-fits-all mask? After all, safety is paramount.



> The practise of sailors wearing beards at sea dates back to the era of wooden ships when there wasn’t enough fresh water for sailors to shave properly, CCPO Cleroux explained. “On modern warships there are almost always sufficient quantities of fresh water for sailors to shave, and our sailors wear beards mostly for the sake of tradition. For hundreds of years sailors wore beards and put tar in their hair to keep it together—those days are long gone.”



He has a point on ships. However on boats the problem after SOUP wasn't that we couldn't get the fresh water, it was that we didn't have enough space to store grey water. Unless the Victorias have some way of compressing water, that's unlikely to change.



> The tradition of allowing sailors to wear beards will be protected to some extent, as those serving ashore will still be able to wear them. “This decision doesn’t affect all Navy personnel,” CCPO Cleroux stressed, “but it does affect seagoing billets where sailors are expected to participate in shipborne firefighting duties that necessitate the use of a self-contained breathing apparatus. Sailors must be able to wear the apparatus to protect themselves and others.”



So we're definitely landing people that can't get a seal, right?  :



> This decision only affects the wearing of beards; moustaches and sideburns can still be worn in accordance with CF dress regulations. Reasonable accommodation will also be made for personnel with religious and medical exemptions.Other navies, including the British and US navies, already have this policy in place.



Neither the USN nor the RN run diesel boats any more. SSN's have a lot more space for grey water. They should, on 3-4 times the displacement.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Aug 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Sometimes facial hair prevents a good seal. Sometimes face shape prevents a good seal. Is the CF now going to land personnel that can't get a good seal with a one-size-fits-all mask? After all, safety is paramount.



As far as I know, there is no "one size fits all" mask.  There are many different brands (North, 3M, etc) and various sizes.  Unless someone had a huge facial deformity, I can't see them having a problem.  If all else fails, they could have a mask custom made.  If they can make a gas mask to fit with a turban (this is not intended to be racist) then they can make one to fit someone with an "odd-shaped" face/head.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (13 Aug 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As far as I know, there is no "one size fits all" mask.  There are many different brands (North, 3M, etc) and various sizes.  Unless someone had a huge facial deformity, I can't see them having a problem.  If all else fails, they could have a mask custom made.  If they can make a gas mask to fit with a turban (this is not intended to be racist) then they can make one to fit someone with an "odd-shaped" face/head.



You don't get to pick your own mask, you get whatever is on the gear you pick up. That usually means a "medium" size of whichever type was supplied with the equipment. If you need a "small" or a "large"....sucks to be you. If that particular type of mask doesn't fit....sucks to be you.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Aug 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You don't get to pick your own mask, you get whatever is on the gear you pick up. That usually means a "medium" size of whichever type was supplied with the equipment. If you need a "small" or a "large"....sucks to be you. If that particular type of mask doesn't fit....sucks to be you.



If that's the case, then there is really no bloody point to the fit-testing.  Personnel should have their own masks as _everyone_ is going to be different.  Perhaps with this new "no beard" policy, things may change.  Otherwise, it might be prudent to let someone know about this.

BTW, thanks for enlightening me.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (13 Aug 2009)

> If that's the case, then there is really no bloody point to the fit-testing.



I've never actually seen any fit-testing for SCBA. As you said, there's no point. Everyone pretty much goes through the motions and hopes any fit problems will be cured by sweat.



> Personnel should have their own masks as everyone is going to be different.



What kind of masks though? There are at least two different types on a surface ships, and four or five on a submarine. Each are built by different companies and have different types of masks.



> Perhaps with this new "no beard" policy, things may change.  Otherwise, it might be prudent to let someone know about this.



Maybe, but changing all of those systems is going to cost a lot of money. I'm pretty sure this is a known problem, not a surprise to anyone thats sailed.



> BTW, thanks for enlightening me.



You are quite welcome.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Aug 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> What kind of masks though? There are at least two different types on a surface ships, and four or five on a submarine. Each are built by different companies and have different types of masks.



That's the reason for getting fit-tested.  The test will tell you the type of mask and size to use.


----------



## medicineman (14 Aug 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I've never actually seen any fit-testing for SCBA. As you said, there's no point. Everyone pretty much goes through the motions and hopes any fit problems will be cured by sweat.



I had to get fit tested for both CHEMOX and Draeger when I did my NETP - still have the little cards - was the first day of the firefighting course.
MM


----------



## Antoine (14 Aug 2009)

On the civilian street (chemistry laboratory, advanced research), you are not allowed to have a gas mask in the lab if it is not specifically fitted for you, not allowed to share it and you want to be shaved if you need full protections against gas exposure (in BC).

However, I guess that firefighters can have a lot to say about gas mask, in my case, as a chemist if I need one, it is not a good sign!

 :2c:


----------



## STONEY (17 Aug 2009)

Doesn't anyone find it strange that it took till the 100 aniversary of the Navy for the great minds at NDHQ to decide that suddenly sailors had to shave beards to get a seal on various masks. I spent many years as a firefighter, fire team leader and helo rescue firefighter plus gone through gas hut's many times testing respirators along with many of my shipmates with beards and we had no problems that i recall  except for the occasional idiot who insisted on wearing a long beard . We just thought of that as part of the natural selection process and submitted their names to the annual Darwin awards. If a person can't figure out for himself what to do to maintain a mask seal on himself he should never be given a gun and bullets.

Cheers


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Aug 2009)

I think the Navy's 100th anniversary is coincidental.  Someone probably inhaled something they shouldn't have during a training exercise or actual event.

Or, someone finally reported that fit tests weren't being done or weren't being done correctly.


----------



## MARS (17 Aug 2009)

When this issue intially surfaced years ago with the first seagoing deployments for OP APOLLO, I "thought" it was more to do with the threat of chemical warfare vice firefighting, which, as has been pointed out, the Navy has managed to risk manage for many years.  Although, we had managed to risk manage chemical warfare as well throughout the years, I guess.  But I recall, somewhat fuzzily, that was the rationale used at the time.  I "thought" the only people in the navy who had to shave were those entering the box and they were allowed to regrow them the day they left the box for home.

Something to do with the size of the chemical particles or something?

Probably bunk, and I am speculating since I don't wear a beard and have not deployed to the Gulf.

N.B. "thought" is in quotes since I cannot use italics or change font colours from my work computer to indicated that I am speculating as I normally do.


----------



## Antoine (17 Aug 2009)

I don't know what kind of mask the NAVY is using, but gas are nasty and if water could pass through the space between your skin and your mask, you can be sure that a high concentration of gas will. As someone pointed out earlier, people have survived through gas hut's with beards and probably have fought fire with beard+ mask. However, correct me if I am wrong but during training I hope the CF don't use the highly toxic gas that will be used against you in a chemical attack. Also, many chemicals can take weeks or months before you feel the effect, it is more effective for an enemy to not kill you on the spot but harm you bad enough requiring a dangerous rescue, a lot of health care and at the end of the day you will not be functional enough to comeback on the field. For this purpose, chemical warefares are a good tool.

Also, masks that filtrate the air have filters that are not good toward all kind of gas and chemical particles, each kind of filters having their strength and weakness, but you probably know about it.

Finally, I don't know how the military operates against chemical warfare, but gas and chemicals that burn the skin or go to your bone are easy to make. However they may not be easy to formulate in a way that it spreads effectively. Against those chemicals you need more than a mask to protect yourself.

I am absolutely not a chem warfare specialist, and you probably know more about chem warfare then me from your training, but I am working with highly toxic chemicals (powders, liquids, and gas) on a daily routine so I witness often their behaviors and risk.

Biological and chemical warefare are really nasty stuff and difficult to contain when deployed (I agree that no weapons are nice, none throws flowers at you). I hope that international convention could effectively destroy all of them, but I am a dreamer.

My  :2c:


----------



## gcclarke (17 Aug 2009)

Antoine said:
			
		

> I don't know what kind of mask the NAVY is using, but gas are nasty and if water could pass through the space between your skin and your mask, you can be sure that a high concentration of gas will. As someone pointed out earlier, people have survived through gas hut's with beards and probably have fought fire with beard+ mask. However, correct me if I am wrong but during training I hope the CF don't use the highly toxic gas that will be used against you in a chemical attack. Also, many chemicals can take weeks or months before you feel the effect, it is more effective for an enemy to not kill you on the spot but harm you bad enough requiring a dangerous rescue, a lot of health care and at the end of the day you will not be functional enough to comeback on the field. For this purpose, chemical warefares are a good tool.
> 
> Also, masks that filtrate the air have filters that are not good toward all kind of gas and chemical particles, each kind of filters having their strength and weakness, but you probably know about it.
> 
> ...



This issue has little to nothing to do with the threat of chemical warfare. This order applies to all sailors aboard one of HMC Ships, not just those who are sailing into an area where there is a credible threat of chemical weapons being deployed against them. It is about fire fighting. As mentioned earlier in the thread, most people can get a seal with a short beard. Some people wear it long. Those people are silly, and as a result, and because some people can't get a seal at all with a beard, no one can sport a beard. 

As for your other comments, when training the CF uses CS gas in the "gas hut". Annoying, yes. Lasting effects, likely not. And yes, we are well aware that chemical weapons can attack via the skin. When going into an environment where we suspect chemical weapons have been deployed, personnel will be dressed in MOPP 4. (Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about.)


----------



## Antoine (17 Aug 2009)

Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the precision, I'll go read on MOPP4.


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Aug 2009)

STONEY said:
			
		

> Doesn't anyone find it strange that it took till the 100 aniversary of the Navy for the great minds at NDHQ to decide that suddenly sailors had to shave beards to get a seal on various masks. I spent many years as a firefighter, fire team leader and helo rescue firefighter plus gone through gas hut's many times testing respirators along with many of my shipmates with beards and we had no problems that i recall  except for the occasional idiot who insisted on wearing a long beard . We just thought of that as part of the natural selection process and submitted their names to the annual Darwin awards. If a person can't figure out for himself what to do to maintain a mask seal on himself he should never be given a gun and bullets.



I understand that it's related to the replacement of Chemox with SCBA.  I assume the SCBA mask is different enough that matters.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Aug 2009)

It's different, but not enough to matter. We had SCBA for ERT on the ships for years, and submarines used SCBA instead of Chemox.


----------



## MARS (18 Aug 2009)

I stand corrected - NBC was only a secondary consideration and not the focus of the change in '03.

http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/refs/pubs/matelot/repository/0312.pdf

I can't seem to find e-copies of MATELOT on the web - only a DIN link, nor can I find MARGEN 023/03.  I have copied the entire article (MATELOT, Fall/Winter 2003) below.  Shared in accordance with the usual provisions.
----------------------------------------------
Beards and the Navy –
Tradition and Safety can Work Together

LCdr Mike McCall and Monna-Leigh McElveny
CMS Safety Officers

The wearing of beards in the Navy is a long-standing tradition, dating back at least two centuries, which is still maintained in many Navies around the world. It is said to have originated in the days of wooden ships, when fresh water for washing and shaving was always in short supply. As we evolve and improve our knowledge of the world around us, some traditions are challenged for their true value and benefit.

Many sailors strongly support the tradition of wearing beards, however scientific experiments have shown that beards reduce the effectiveness of respirators worn for the person’s protection, thereby allowing them to be exposed to the very toxins that the mask is designed to protect them from. The wearing of protective personal equipment (PPE), including respiratory masks, are legal requirements of the Canada Labour Code.  Although the Canada Labour Code was written to govern civilian Federal employees, the spirit of its stated requirements have been adopted by the Chief of Defence Staff to apply to military personnel. Only extenuating circumstances allow a commander to significantly deviate from adhering to the Canada Labour Code.

Previous methods of fit testing (scented and irritant smoke) were not sufficiently reliable as they were more subjective.

Current research has shown that some individuals could pass these qualitative fit tests without a proper seal. However, under the modern fit testing(quantitative) Respiratory Protection Program (RPP), a person wearing a beard cannot obtain a proper seal while wearing a respirator.

For those reasons, the Chief of Maritime Staff (CMS) directed his risk management office to conduct a detailed review of the specific RPP hazards present in the naval environment and to recommend a strategy that would mitigate those risks. This analysis revealed that there are two main hazards that require the wearing of a respirator for the general ships company; specifically fire fighting and a possible NBC attack.

The principal need for a respirator in a ship’s fire is due to the effects of smoke inhalation and toxic fumes caused by burning fuel, paint, or other materiel. However the vast majority of fires in HMC ships are very small, and have been put out by rapid response which has typically been done with a portable extinguisher without a respirator. There is an argument that the risk of an actual fire requiring a perfectly fitting respirator is very low. This does not however negate the requirement for fire fighting training and the need to be clean shaven when doing so where there is a higher risk of exposure to burning fuel.

The second and more lethal hazard, actually classified as an “Immediate Life and Death Hazard” (ILDH), is from NBC. While sailors are protected when in the citadel state, there may be situations where they may be exposed to the NBC threat outside the citadel and inadequate protection could be lethal. In this scenario, sailors would have been mandatory quantitatively fit tested and would be cleanshaven. Where the NBC threat is low, a risk-based policy enables each operation to be analysed by CMS and be decided accordingly.

The study of fire and NBC risk led to the risk based policy recently implemented by CMS (MARGEN 023-03) with respect to the wearing of beards in the Navy. The policy states that the risk will be assessed for each operation and personnel could be directed to shave during an operation if the threat assessment rose to a level where the risk required that posture. The new policy also requires all personnel to be quantitative fit-tested once every two years for both Chemox and C4 masks, and they must be clean-shaven for these tests. Additionally, all personnel must be clean-shaven any time they are required to wear a respirator in an environment that is hazardous to health (e.g.; painters, air quality testers), including live fire fighting training. This policy will enable the wearing of beards when it is deemed to be safe to do so, while ensuring the safety of all MARCOM staff.
------------------------------------


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Aug 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You don't get to pick your own mask, you get whatever is on the gear you pick up. That usually means a "medium" size of whichever type was supplied with the equipment. If you need a "small" or a "large"....sucks to be you. If that particular type of mask doesn't fit....sucks to be you.



Actually it has not worked that way for several years...there are extra small and large masks at each section base and at the start of your duty watch its your responsibility to swutch out the gear your using for equipment that fits properly.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Aug 2009)

Interesting. What about the manning pool?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Aug 2009)

Same.


----------



## Stoker (21 Aug 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Actually it has not worked that way for several years...there are extra small and large masks at each section base and at the start of your duty watch its your responsibility to swutch out the gear your using for equipment that fits properly.



Right now there are only one size of mask for the drager in the system right now and that's medium. There are no small or large masks for people who fit test for them. If you need something different than medium that's too bad for you. A bit of a oversight don't you think.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Aug 2009)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Right now there are only one size of mask for the drager in the system right now and that's medium. There are no small or large masks for people who fit test for them. If you need something different than medium that's too bad for you. A bit of a oversight don't you think.



Was referring to the chemox.


----------



## Stoker (22 Aug 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Was referring to the chemox.



Roger that my mistake.


----------



## Navy_Blue (25 Aug 2009)

The beard issue was a more serious one when we had the Chemox really.  The first types of SCBA were demand systems not positive pressure.  Because of the Chemoxs nature it was not a true positive pressure system.  Meaning that regardless of weather you have a seal or not the mask maintains enough pressure on your face to keep smoke and toxic gases out.   Pretty much every fire fighting organization in North America did away with demand type regulators decades ago.  I was shocked/Terrified joining the navy and realizing we used the Chemox. 
With a beard you didn’t really have a proper fit and it made it even less safe.

Now with the Drager you have a much safer system but if you don’t get a good seal your regulator will bleed off air you would otherwise breathe.  This would take away the time you can stay on air in a fire.  I’m a volunteer fire fighter on my off time we can’t have beards either.


----------



## RhumRunner (29 Aug 2009)

I've witness a Coxn ordering a female sailor to shave her "beard" because she requested to be "Excused Duty Watch and FF duties while at sea and alongside". She complained that she couldn't get a seal with a CHEMOX mask because, and that was on her memo, of the extensive facial hair on her jawline caused by hormone replacement therapy medication prescribed to her by an MO for her premature menopause. No joke!

When the Navy started heading to the Gulf regularely, it was left to the CO to decide whether or not his sailors would be sproting beards. Some allow them as long as they were short trimmed and others just shorn the crew. But when they were coming home, the beards were back on. A couple of years ago, a MARGEN came out and officially passed the power to the CO. Some CO were shaving for operations purposes, others the whole time. On my last ship, we went from a CO that allowed beards except in operational theatre to one where beards were shaved off at all time. I guess it's a policy now. 

Personally, I'm all for sporting a beard. Some of us are way to ugly to be bare-faced.


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Aug 2009)

RumRunner said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm all for sporting a beard. Some of us are way to ugly to be bare-faced.



So when you suck in a quantity of noxious and possibly toxic fumes, you won't come crying to the CF for compensation, right?   :


----------



## Port Lookout (30 Aug 2009)

Wearing a beard was so 80s....
By the way this is my first time here so I'm testing.


----------



## kratz (29 Sep 2009)

This week's formation newspaper in Esquimalt, Lookout on page 2, has a wonderful photo and story on the Navy preforming a burial at sea for sailor's loss of beards at sea. Attached to the story is the eulogy.


----------

