1. This article examines the quality and center of gravity of underground workers' helmet systems.
2. It discusses existing standards for industrial helmets, as well as military studies on head-supported masses.
3. The article also introduces a custom test device to measure the effective CG relative to a standard headform, and provides an envelope of acceptable CGs for the design or evaluation of new helmets and accessories.
The article is generally reliable and trustworthy in its reporting, providing evidence for its claims and exploring both sides of the issue. The author acknowledges existing standards for industrial helmets, as well as military studies on head-supported masses, which adds credibility to their argument. Furthermore, they introduce a custom test device to measure the effective CG relative to a standard headform, which provides an envelope of acceptable CGs for the design or evaluation of new helmets and accessories.
The only potential bias in this article is that it does not explore counterarguments or present both sides equally. While it acknowledges existing standards for industrial helmets and military studies on head-supported masses, it does not provide any opposing views or evidence that could challenge these findings. Additionally, while it provides an envelope of acceptable CGs for the design or evaluation of new helmets and accessories, it does not discuss any potential risks associated with these designs or how they might be mitigated.
In conclusion, this article is generally reliable and trustworthy in its reporting but could benefit from exploring counterarguments or presenting both sides equally in order to provide a more balanced view on the issue at hand.