Talk:GP-5 gas mask
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-This article should not be deleted because I am still doing research for it.
-I have corrected the grammar somewhat, and added appropriate links, but have not otherwise changed the real content of the article, as I have no expertise or sources from which to draw. Hopefully this is of some help. 173.77.144.96 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
-I own one of these masks and have a question: just behind the filter is a small piece of rubber, which fits inside of a divet with two holes on either side. Now, although these holes are underneath the piece of rubber, it is very flexible and can even pop out if it is tugged too hard. Would this compromise its use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.254.208 (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC) ^^ Yes, the small piece of rubber is the secondary exhalation valve. Without it, chemicals can be forced up through into the mask. Do not remove unless you want the mask purely for cosmetic reasons, as it makes exhaling somewhat more difficult.
Sources edit
This page requires sources and less biased writing. More formal writing would also help. 99.240.47.3 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
These filters have asbestos in them edit
What kind of person would use a youtube video of three dopes carelessly hacking away
at an object which may contain asbestos as a reference claiming that these filters have
no risk of asbestos exposure, regardless of the position of the asbestos, which in another
persons filter may be compromised, writing it in an encyclopedia that these filters pose little
risk and using a youtube video for reference is irresponsible and reckless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.235.24 (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The article does not point to any references. The online scources[1][2] I found that state there is asbestos inside these filters also does not point to anything that would support their statement. There supposed to be a KUTV report with a technician that says the cotton layer does contain 7,5% asbestos, referred to in the second reference, but that link is dead so I couldn't check it. It is also supposed to say that the asbestos can't be inhalled given the filter is not damaged.
I added this information to the picture's descripcion, but if you could find a stable reference it would be great. Neinsteinstein (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Dubious Reference? edit
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the GP-5 a civilian mask, NOT a military mask? If this is the case, then why does the single reference on this page refer to it as "military surplus?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap'n Tightpants (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)