Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
On Sun, 4 Feb 96, Carl Heinzl <cgh@ma*.ai*.mi*.ed*> wrote:
>
>George,
>
>The PFO article was excellent... The only question I have is, what is
>the source of the population with PFO and how was this number arrived
>at???
>
Carl, I am not sure what you mean. Doolette did the numbers,
and I think he came up with 30%, but the degrees vary. His
numbers for who should not dive get real small in that case.
Remember, we are all born with a PFO. Doolette says "diving"
and PFO are not a real high mathematical cooincidence, to which
I have to agree. The real problem is that if you have one, and
if you do a dive that generates bubbles, and if you open it ,
and if the bood shunts, you could take a real bad hit that would
appear like CAGE, and be called "Paradoxical Gas Embolism", or
"unearned hit" by some real dumbass, but the problem for me is
that the penalty is so high, so I think those who go to dive
should be forwarned. I am in the minority on this one.
>I've held the belief for several years that the original "tables" were
>produced using a population that has a percentage of people that HAD
>PFO. Therefore the tables are more conservative than most people
>believe for people without this condition and, consequently, much too
>agressive for those with it. Any comment on that?
I think you are real right ont his one , Carl. What used to
crack me up is wehn soe PADI dive instructor would tell me
that the Navy tables wer for young divers in top shape.
Clearly, the results were rined by the top shape guys with
PFO's. The Brits figured this one out a long time ago, and
addressed it head on, but the Americans are still head-in-sand
on the topic.
>Feel free to copy this to any list, I stated this position as long as
>two years ago on techiver.
>
>-Carl-
>
>
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]