Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Face Paint Protects Soldiers Against Bomb Blasts

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-in-the-face dept.

The Military 107

Zothecula writes "For millennia, face paint has helped soldiers avoid being seen by enemy forces. Recently, however, a team of scientists from the University of Southern Mississippi announced that a new type of face paint may soon also be able to protect against the heat of bomb blasts and other explosions. Additionally, a clear version of the paint could be used by civilian firefighters."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"I like turtles" (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139503)

I just have this bad mental image of our men & women in uniform with unicorns etc on their faces being told it will protect them against bombs... much like the magic amulet I have protects me against lion attacks (never been attacked by a lion since I bought it).

Re:"I like turtles" (4, Informative)

Shoten (260439) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139635)

The only way they'd think they were told it would protect against bomb blasts is if they got their information from Slashdot without RTFA. The article clearly explains that it's not protection against bombs, just the flash of heat that accompanies them. This is a major problem for troops who are not directed to the direct trajectory of shrapnel but who still sustain nasty burns; just imagine a bit of facial scarring, and ask yourself if face paint that would have prevented it would be welcome?

Of course, these days Slashdot manages to post links to articles without actually reading the article themselves, somehow...

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139697)

Of course, these days Slashdot manages to post links to articles without actually reading the article themselves, somehow...

These days? Your UID is sufficiently low to know this is not a new phenomenon.

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139949)

/i wish they'd invent a paint that would protect them from becoming soldiers...

Re:"I like turtles" (3, Insightful)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140053)

As long as there is war, there will be soldiers. Paint wont help that.

Re:"I like turtles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41140123)

What if there was a war and nobody showed up?

Re:"I like turtles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41140467)

Then either the Koreans, Japanese, or Chinese would win. Because said war would be fought on the battlefield of videogames :)

I hope to hell older videogames like Starcraft era RTSes where they weren't pay to win however...

Re:"I like turtles" (3, Insightful)

readin (838620) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140785)

If you can persuade both sides to not show up, I applaud you. If you can only persuade the enlightened democratic countries to not show up, then soon we will all be ruled by the likes of Kim Jung Il, Stalin, and Mao. (What's it called when you mention someone worse than Hitler, an uber-Godwin?)

Re:"I like turtles" (3, Informative)

Lotana (842533) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145513)

Stranger things have happened in history.

Good example is the Huescar vs Denmark which was declared in 1809 as part of a larger conflict between France and Spain. Then this declaration was literally forgotten before re-discovery by a local historian in 1981!

In November of the same year the peace treaty was signed thus ending 172 year (!) conflict without a single shot or injury.

There is a whole list of conflicts like this on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_extended_by_diplomatic_irregularity [wikipedia.org]

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

ewieling (90662) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141299)

The soldiers don't have to be human. In the future we will divert valuable national resources to a war without all that messy "soldiers dying" stuff. I'm not sure if this is a good thing. I think one of the (many) reasons the Vietnam war was so unpopular is because the public saw bodies every night on the evening news as they were being unload from the aircraft. I think one of the worst things the USA government has done is to no longer allow the news media to film the bodies coming home. War is horrible. The public should not be shielded from this horror.

Re:"I like turtles" (2)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141865)

War is the horror of humanity.

I think one of the (many) reasons the Vietnam war was so unpopular is because the public saw bodies every night on the evening news as they were being unload from the aircraft.

Though I can agree, the Vietnam war still lasted 10 years.

I think one of the worst things the USA government has done is to no longer allow the news media to film the bodies coming home.

As a soldier, I disagree. The news media only wants to use those images to press their biased opinions. When a soldier comes home for burial, it is a time of respect, honor, and mourning. Not a tool to be used by the propaganda machines. If the media could show it with dignity and without the bias, then certainly they should be able to.

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41142815)

As a soldier, I disagree. The news media only wants to use those images to press their biased opinions. When a soldier comes home for burial, it is a time of respect, honor, and mourning

Maybe if such solemnity were reserved for deciding to send the soldiers off to war, maybe there'd be fewer coming home for burial.

Besides, the most grievous insult you could make towards a dead soldier is curtailing the very rights, such as freedom of the press, that they died to protect...and to do it in their name, no less.

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but you also need to use your brain sometimes.

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | more than 2 years ago | (#41142083)

As long as there isn't a just, democratic world wide government there will be war.

Re:"I like turtles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41142795)

"As long as there is war, there will be soldiers. Paint wont help that".

Drones will though.

Re:"I like turtles" (2)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140957)

it's called lead paint.

Re:"I like turtles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41139951)

What are you talking about? Back in my daysCmdrTaco read each article and did not post any dupes or misunderstandings. And this went on for several days, I'll have you young whippersnappers know!

(This would probably have gone better if I had my login information here; mid 4 digits. Oh, well, UID jokes are overrated anyway.)

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

Shoten (260439) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140413)

Yeah, this is my recollection of Slashdot back in the day too. They sometimes got things a little off, but not with the frequency to the same degree as happens now.

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140745)

Perhaps his account was hacked and it's really a russian spam bot posting?

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144053)

The paint will only protect from clean radiated heat, however bombs not matter how cleanly burning the explosive matter do not just produce radiated heat, they also produce a large amount of high temperature particulate matter and a coat of paint ain't going to do much of anything against even one seconds worth of white hot sand blaster. So more voodoo than reality or homer thinking, eye's wide closed.

Re:"I like turtles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41139735)

Not interested in your anti-lion-attack amulet, but if you happen to have a rock that works similarly for tigers, please let me know.

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139743)

Does that rock protect you from lion politicians and lion corporations?

Re:"I like turtles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41140373)

Only if you fling it at them with sufficient force.

I would like to buy your Lion Amulet (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140201)

I have no such protection against lions and now I am very concerned. I will pay double if you include magic unicorn face-paint.

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140245)

You're lucky, I imagined them in black face singing riverboat songs. Then I burnt my arm with a cigarette and it went away.

Re:"I like turtles" (1)

morethanapapercert (749527) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141587)

Just call them the modern Ghost Shirt society

Re:"I like turtles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41142951)

You better be careful. The amulet only protects you from magic lion attacks. Though rarer, I imagine they could be considerably worse. Look out for the muggle lions though.

For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139505)

im sure that having this as part of say a Helmet would work even better

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139529)

Helmets usually don't cover one's face, people generally have difficulties with trying to see through Kevlar.

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (4, Funny)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139777)

Helmets usually don't cover one's face

Hey, you just gave me a great idea for protecting the troops agains IEDs... This paint DOES come in brown, right?

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140715)

You do make a good point.

How does one see through the face paint? I mean through, as you seem to be implying that a kevlar face mask wouldn't have holes for the eyes, and as such, you'd obviously have to cover your eyeballs in this paint as well.

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

gerddie (173963) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141533)

... a kevlar face mask wouldn't have holes for the eyes, and as such, you'd obviously have to cover your eyeballs in this paint as well.

No, that's what your pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses are for.

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141681)

Obviously you'd have to use goggles or something. The problem with a full-face mask is that it will almost always interfere with vision and communications. This paint isn't intended for high-risk individuals like a bomb-squad, it's intended to help prevent major facial damage if you do get exposed. A full face mask isn't worth it on those people.

Also eye-lids tend to do a decent job protecting the eyes.

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41141731)

I say we just give them all Star Wars stormtrooper suits and be done with it.

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41143561)

You should be wearing your eyewear [roundedoff.com] .

I'm sure you've also seen crews wearing some serious goggles, too.

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41139827)

If you can't be bothered to RTFA, at least RTFS. You can't duck heat.

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140251)

it depends on how far down you can "duck" but yes that was part of my point

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140351)

You can't duck heat

... but you can heat duck.

Re:For when "ducking" does not cut it?? (1)

akgooseman (632715) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141201)

Of course you can duck heat. Stand in full sun then put up your umbrella/stand under a tree/find shaded area on a sunny day. The air temp is the same in full sun vs full shade, but you aren't exposed to nearly as much radiant energy and feel much cooler.

think how more advanced it could have been by now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41139507)

...If we had only, as a society, LEGALLY confiscated Bill Gates' uncountable wealth and applied it to research like this. We'd have 100s of varieties of face paint with MULTIPLE functions per formula. NEWBORN babies would ALREADY BE PAINTED, possibly IN THE WOMB! Imagine where we'd be. Newborns, face-painted with space technologies BEFORE BIRTH!

Re:think how more advanced it could have been by n (0)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139669)

Didn't Pol Pot do this in Democratic Kampuchea? How did that work again?

Re:think how more advanced it could have been by n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41139803)

Didn't your momma warn you about Internet troll, sucker?

Re:think how more advanced it could have been by n (1)

cronicthebadger (597816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145797)

ISTR something like this was developed in Great Britain about 20 years ago, called "starlite", and could be painted onto objects to protect from intense heat radiation.

US Navy WW2? (3, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139517)

Didn't the US Navy use some sort of face paint during WW2 to protect gunners from the heat and flash?

Re:US Navy WW2? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139839)

Didn't the US Navy use some sort of face paint during WW2 to protect gunners from the heat and flash?

Plus, there is also this version [zeller-int.com] used for firefighters and movie stunt doubles.

The original protective pyrotechnical barrier gel used by professionals around the world seeking the finest protection around fire, flame and heat, such as stunt and special effects experts, foundries, welders, fire fighters, race car drivers and even chefs!

Invented by chemist Gary Zeller over 25 years ago, Zel-Jel Stunt Gel revolutionized safety standards for pyrotechnical effects in the entertainment industry by achieving a level of safety and protection in fire stunts never before attained.

Plus this one is not the only one, there are many other brands. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if a version of this "paint" wasn't already used thousands of years ago by blacksmiths, pottery makers, or even cooks. For someone who's face gets burned on a daily basis, it would only make sense for that person to try all kinds of things to apply to their face to avoid getting burned as much.

Re:US Navy WW2? (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140141)

Not even close to the same thing. That gel is great for what it does but can't hold up in a sustained deployment in the field. It also stinks to high heaven in my opinion. Think of it in the aspect of, if you were to go camping, would you want to keep your face covered in jello or vegemite or nutella the entire time?

Re:US Navy WW2? (2)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140323)

if you were to go camping, would you want to keep your face covered in jello or vegemite or nutella the entire time?

Do I have to pick only one? :)

Re:US Navy WW2? (2)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139855)

First thing I thought of, too. It was zinc oxide, the same as life guards put on their noses and grandparents smear on babies' bottoms.

Re:US Navy WW2? (2)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140159)

Only really protects from UV radiation. Doesn't help for heat flash.

Re:US Navy WW2? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140001)

The Brits used full flash hoods [wikipedia.org] for turret crews in World War 2, but these excluded the face. The modern British navy have anti-flash gear that covers much more of the face [wikipedia.org] when in actual combat such as in the Falklands. These are made of Nomex today.

In those days, the US Navy was never much of a believer in anti flash clothing as the Royal Navy; though for a long time it did use anti flash cream for covering the face. Now I believe anti-flash hoods and sleeves are used in combat situations.

The US issued Anti Flash cream [time.com] as early as 1943, to both navy and Marine corp, which was essentially titanium dioxide - same as is used for sun protection today.

Re:US Navy WW2? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141831)

I have that stuff on my walls. Such an adaptable dye.

syncronicity (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139567)

At the time of this post, the "fortune" was "I had pancake makeup for brunch!"

Why clear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41139601)

Why bother with a clear one? Not to say that I think it would take a lot of resources to develop it but these guys are fighting fires, not bellhopping at a five star hotel.

Re:Why clear? (0)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140185)

Because if they made it in black only, someone would complain that all the caucasion firefighters were in "Black Face" and raise hell.

Re:Why clear? (1)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140853)

Clear is silly, since I'm certain the formulation includes zinc-oxide. This further protect the skin both thermally and from UV radiation

They probably don't want to use weird colors, for fear of further frightening children who need to be rescued.

Instead, they should be making formulations in a pallet of fleshtones. Firefighters would look a bit weird with the washed out look of a single color opaque makeup, but it wouldn't be unbearable.

Fine print (4, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139623)

* Not effective against effects of a bomb if you are the one wearing the bomb.

Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139649)

Why would firefighters need clear? So what if they painted their faces with some particular color?

Plus would clear actually work as well? Opaque would seem to be a better blocker than transparent or translucent?

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139741)

Clear works for sunscreen. We're blocking non-visible wavelengths, after all.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (4, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139851)

If I remember those county-fair firefighter demonstrations well enough, one of the major problems firefighters face is that they're already too scary.

In a house fire, children are startled awake by alarms, surrounded by disorienting smoke, and seeing flashing lights outside their window. Then suddenly a grotesque figure with a misshapen body and respirator mask comes bursting in to their room carrying a giant axe, with flames surrounding them. The children scream and run away, frantically hoping to escape their certain doom at the hands of the demon from the hallway. It's no use. Their shocked scream was heard, and the monster lumbers toward them, making unintelligible noises that sound almost like speech. Finally the great beast peels off his face to show a human underneath. "It's okay, I'm a fireman. I'll take you outside." Before the children can fully understand what's going on, they're being carried toward the door, and it's so hot they can't think straight. Maybe this is alright. At the door now, and there's people outside. Then there's mommy and everything's alright.

Keeping whatever remnants of human appearance a firefighter has is a good thing.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140891)

I do hope you're joking.

The mask isn't just there to protect the skin from getting a burn. It's there to keep the air from boiling away their eyeballs, singing and burning their lungs etc.

There's a reason that most firefighters are only allowed to be in a building for about 15 minutes. It's not that their oxygen tanks can only carry that much - it's that they'll collapse from dehydration if they stay in there much longer. They quite literally lose a few pounds in that short time span, purely through the act of sweating.

Now, I may be a sceptic and nay-sayer, but I highly doubt that anyone is seriously contemplating this as a replacement for a firefighter's mask - and that includes the people who came up with it.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141467)

I'm not suggesting it as a replacement, either. I'm suggesting that a transparent paint, rather than an opaque one, could help shave a few precious seconds off the time a (young) victim is in a burning building while still offering a bit more protection for the heroes.

As I understand the situation right now, a firefighter who can't approach a child has the option to remove their mask briefly to try to calm the child down. That comes at a great risk to the rescuer, because the mask may not seal properly afterward, or even those few moments with the mask off could burn their face severely. An extra layer of protection that keeps the calming option open is something I find preferable.

As mentioned below, whether the rescuer will actually have time to apply the paint before entering is another matter.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (2)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141943)

As I understand the situation right now, a firefighter who can't approach a child has the option to remove their mask briefly to try to calm the child down.

I was never taught that, and none of us would ever consider doing that in a fire, because

the mask may not seal properly afterward, or even those few moments with the mask off could burn their face severely.

Not to mention possibly burning our lungs, inhaling smoke and toxic gases, dropping the helmet, etc.

We aren't going to remove helmet and facepiece; we're just going to grab the kid and get him out of there, and worry about calming him down outside, where it's cooler and has breathable air.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

Lucractius (649116) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145921)

As mentioned below, whether the rescuer will actually have time to apply the paint before entering is another matter.

The other good reason for a clear version is that it doesnt make you look funny/stupid if you have to wear it all day to be ready at a moments notice.
Provided it lasts as long as i would expect something intended for battlefield usage, they can apply it at the start of their shift and then their day is otherwise normal.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41143641)

Rather than fix the engineering design, can't we just fix our... ah, indoctrination? Storybooks and cartoons tend to depict firefighters are only wearing a thin raincoat and a funny hat.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41146135)

That's why preschools and kindergartens have firefighters come in in everyday clothes, and talk the kids as they put on all the gear. The kids get a show and they also learn what a firefighter looks like all decked out.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145375)

That only happens with JW children.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (2)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140267)

As a firefighter, I don't really see what benefit this stuff will really bring to us, given that we're already supposed to be covered completely by our turnout gear. We certainly don't have time to go applying it on the way to a call anyway.

Unless maybe it can be applied to the outside of the turnout gear and make it more heat-reflective?

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140601)

As a firefighter, I don't really see what benefit this stuff will really bring to us, given that we're already supposed to be covered completely by our turnout gear.

What if the turnout gear can be made lighter by using the gel is some form? Would it be an advantage?

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (2)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141989)

Lighter turnout gear is always a good thing, but given that the greater threat is heated gases (ambient temperature in a fire room can be a few hundred degrees, and you'll operate there for minutes at a time) and some physical protection against contact with hot and/or sharp objects, and seeing that some level of thickness and insulation will be necessary for that, I doubt this will make much of a difference.

Now, if you could somehow significantly increase the breathable air our packs contain, while making the pack itself lighter and less bulky (and yet easy to refill/swap bottles)... that is something we'd be all for.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140567)

Why would firefighters need clear? So what if they painted their faces with some particular color?

Then you'd not know by the color of their skin if it's something wrong with their face.

Plus would clear actually work as well? Opaque would seem to be a better blocker than transparent or translucent?

The protection derives from reflective properties of the paint, not from absorption of the radiation. You certainly don't want the protection layer to absorb the heat [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141863)

Reflective should be easy. Just make it white. You could probably adapt the makeup used by clowns - just make it longer-lasting, non-melting and flame-retardant.

Re:Why would firefighters need clear? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#41142759)

Reflective should be easy. Just make it white. You could probably adapt the makeup used by clowns - just make it longer-lasting, non-melting and flame-retardant.

Be quick... go patent your idea! See... zinc oxide is white and guaranteed to stay on your face up to 1975 C. Also, used for quite a long time in Sun screens [wikipedia.org] . So stupid of USM not trying that first.

(hint: what you want for firefighting is a paint that is reflecting in IR - you care less how "white" it is in UV-Vis.
And IR radiation is only one side of the protection; the other one is non-radiative heat transfer - direct contact with hot objects and hot gasses. For this, low thermal conductivity - aka thermal insulation - is the key. But anyway, in both cases, heat absorption will hurt rather than help).

in the dark (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41139685)

How about visibility in night vision devices. If the substance reflects infra-red (which bands?) wouldn't it work like a safety reflective vest, yelling "HERE! I'M HERE!"

Re:in the dark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41141007)

Um... the human body emits IR. You're already a beacon screaming "here I am" at those wavelengths.

Also night vision isn't IR, it's light amplification.

Re:in the dark (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141889)

Some night vision is amplification, some IR. There is more than one type available. Thermal IR tends to be a bit bulky for a headset, but I've seen a few of those 'real police chases' TV series, and the helicopters always seem to be equipped with thermal IR for use at night. Along with a massive spotlight.

2 Million Sunblock? (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139733)

So will this protect you from a "real bad day"?

Proud of my Alma Mater - (1)

Cutting_Crew (708624) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139739)

This was also the same college(college of polymers) from USM that presented their work in relation to self-healing cars [desmoinesregister.com] but also shows uses of other things like cell phones.

How Not To Be Seen (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139823)

"For millennia, face paint has helped soldiers avoid being seen"

"In this film we hope to show how not to be seen. This is Mr. Mohammed Quadrallah of 2345 Ibn Ali Avenue, Lashkar Gah, Helmand province, Afghanistan. He can not be seen. Now I am going to ask him to wipe off his face. Mr. Quadrallah, will you wipe off your face please."

(In the distance Mr Quadrallah wipes off his face with a handkerchief, which is followed by a drone strike followed by Wilhelm scream)

"This demonstrates the value of not being seen."

Bad news (2)

Vladius (2577555) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139883)

It probably causes cancer.

shielding (2)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#41139905)

If this is, effectively, a heat shield, how will this impact soldiers in the field when they're not directly being blown up?

In war theatres where heat exhaustion is a significant concern, I don't see adding a protective layer to one of the few exposed parts of the body - a part where a great amount of heat is expelled due to its location - as being all that beneficial. I'm reminded of soldiers carrying their helmets in WWII and being penalized for not wearing them due to their weight and temperature discomfort - in relatively mild Europe.

Additionally, due to the absorbent nature of skin, your body's biggest organ, I have to wonder how this might impact long-term health. I imagine it's probably a flexible ceramic with some degree of volume/mass, possibly made with a non-Newtonian fluid. Assuming there's anything in it to be absorbed by the skin, that couldn't be good for you...

Re:shielding (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140231)

You still sweat through the current paints. I never found it to be a hindrance out in the field. The most annoying part was putting the shit on in the first place.

Re:shielding (2)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140411)

I've used it. It always seems to make my sweat sting more when it gets in my eyes, to the point where I have to wash my face/eye area with soap/water to stop it from obscuring my vision.

Re:shielding (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141725)

I never had that issue, though many do. Then again, I sweat very little on my face and forehead. The only time that happens is when I had on the pro mask.

awesome (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140103)

When asked if the face paint was too thick, a soldier demonstrating the product said, "Mmmph mmmm mmmh mmmph mmm mmmmph."

SPF 1 million (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140227)

So strong that the pasty-white /. basement-dwellers will finally be able to emerge from their man-cave.

Re:SPF 1 million (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140691)

So strong that the pasty-white /. basement-dwellers will finally be able to emerge from their man-cave.

That's racist and sexist (as it implies that basement-dwelling geeks come in Caucasian male flavor only).

Re:SPF 1 million (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141027)

Oops, don't want to exclude anyone from being criticized.

So strong that the black-as-night /. basement-dwellers will finally be able to emerge from their man-cave
So strong that the pasty-white /. basement-dwellers will finally be able to emerge from their woman-cave
So strong that the black-as-night /. basement-dwellers will finally be able to emerge from their woman-cave
So strong that the black-as-night /. basement-dwellers will finally be able to emerge from their transgender-cave
So strong that the pasty-white /. basement-dwellers will finally be able to emerge from their transgender-cave

If any other geeks feel offended, please feel free to add your own variations.

Pretty interesting stuff (1)

Tyrannicsupremacy (1354431) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140271)

But i really like the idiot's comment at the bottom of the article: "Why a clear version for firefighters? Why not a silver or, better yet, gold version that would reflect infrared? Not very stealthy, but firefighters aren't soldiers. Gadgeteer 24th August, 2012 @ 03:57 pm PDT "

DEET encased in hydrogel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41140295)

The part I don't get is why encapsulating DEET in hydrogel doesn't render it ineffective as well as nonflammable. Is there a chemist who can explain? I couldn't find the actual paper, but it seems like a pretty big flaw.

Re:DEET encased in hydrogel? (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140341)

The Army requirement is for the paint to be 35% DEET. Nowhere does it say the DEET has to be effective.

Heat is the least problem (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140337)

If one is that close to the blast, one has to worry about shrapnel and the pressure wave. Those are much more dangerous than the heat of the explosion.

Re:Heat is the least problem (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41141925)

I imagine it's easier to treat a soldier for internal injuries if you don't have to worry about their skin falling off too.

DEET? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140371)

I wonder how well the DEET worked after "encapsulating the DEET within a hydrogel". Wouldn't that mean that the DEET could not get to the air and deter flies?

Only downside... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41140587)

The only downside is, it causes lukemia.

That's one small step for paint, (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#41140643)

and one giant leap toward manned solar expeditions!

Life imitates art! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41141387)

Woot! One step closer to making the atmospheric re-entry hull paint on my Asp Explorer real! \o/

It is available now (1)

ozduo (2043408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41142691)

I saw it on the home shopping channel right after the miracle weight reducing cream.

But... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#41143963)

If you're standing close enough for the heat to be a problem, won't the shock wave and shrapnel still kill you? I suppose at least you'll leave a prettier corpse, though...

you know what else (0)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144497)

you know what else protects your soldiers? Keeping long crooked American nose out of business of other nations.

Batman has had this for a while (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145877)

http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/250/draft_lens18266372module153566886photo_1316793824catwoman_001_02.jpg

Catwoman likes it.

Apologies if the text is too small to read.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?