![]() The later Triplex lens style (a cellulose acetate lens sandwiched between glass ones) became more popular, and alongside plain cellulose acetate they became the standard into the 1930s. Glass and mica were quite brittle and needed frequent replacement. The first gas masks mostly used circular lenses made of glass, mica or cellulose acetate to allow vision. Many filters provide protection from both types. Filters against specific chemical agents can last up to 20 hours.Īirborne toxic materials may be gaseous (for example, chlorine or mustard gas), or particulates (such as biological agents). Most combined gas mask filters will last around 8 hours in a biological or chemical situation. The gas mask only protects the user from digesting, inhaling, and contact through the eyes (many agents affect through eye contact). Most gas masks are also respirators, though the word gas mask is often used to refer to military equipment (such as a field protective mask), the scope used in this article. The mask forms a sealed cover over the nose and mouth, but may also cover the eyes and other vulnerable soft tissues of the face. One thing to remember, you a greater risk of being in a HAZMAT situation with industrial chemicals (something NBC filters don’t filter) than you do a traditional chemical attack.A Polish MUA gas mask, used in the 1970s and 1980sĪ gas mask is a mask used to protect the wearer from inhaling airborne pollutants and toxic gases. All I was trying to do was keep you from wasting your money. If you think someone who has 25 years of CBRNE experience (that would be me) is trolling you because they are trying to inform you, well, I guess I will quit “trolling” you. ![]() ![]() ![]() You don’t have to show me the US military is shady, I have seen it firsthand. My fault for not making that point more clearly. If you had noticed in my previous post, I was supporting the Israeli military and its products when I mentioned USING their equipment when I was stationed in Korea. US companies are a little more forthcoming on info concerning lot numbers and the like. I was merely informing you that it is a lot more difficult to verify the lot number of a product if the company is overseas. YOU may not be on the distro list for that memo.Ĭlick to expand.I never said the canisters you bought were no good or the company that sells them/manufactures them is up to something shady. Which is why they have surveillance testing, to weed out the bad filters. Like I said before, they probably take the business of chemical protection seriously, as they live with the threat every day. I see no reason yet to doubt the Shalon product. My best wishes!Īny company -regardless of their contracts, military or civilian, can make the occasional dud. If I felt shifty about them, I could use them for CS/CN or particulates. Honestly, if I had it my way, all of the canisters I have would be something like the Draeger CAP 1, but at $45-$55 (if you get lucky) per filter, I'll take my chances with the M 80's. The serviceability list posted in another thread is 5 or 6 years old and the filters in question are probably in the training use only cycle. Bad lot numbers may not make it to residents of other countries due to OPSEC concerns. As for bad lots, the company is still in business and they haven't published any data to that effect. The ones I've gotten recently were dated 2004 and they are good to go well beyond the end of the world in 2012 (15+yrs.). They are for sale -I'd imagine- because they crank out 400 per minute and some folks in Israel probably want some cash-ola.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |