>Here's another shot at the sudafed fracas.  Dr. Wolov's investigation 
>(about the Navy's position re: sudafed) is warranted and to be noted.  But 
because of the
>nature of the drug and what it does (it is an "upper") it could very well 
>lower the already precarious and highly variable threshold to oxtox.  I'd 
want 
>to know one thing more about the Navy's position; has this aspect really been 
>looked at?
>As has been mentioned, USN's oxygen limits are (generally) low enough that 
>they might not have seen something here that could be real.  I agree that the 
drug
>should be used sparingly at best by those exposed to high oxygen.

Honest answer..."I don't know". I specifically asked if there were any 
conditions on use (limitions based on depth or gas mixes or O2 content) 
and was told catagorically no.

I have no way of knowing on precisely what they (Navy) based their 
"oxtox" tolerence decisions. On this one I'm coming down on the side of 
George Irvine in that the *only* drug you (or I or anyone) can guarantee 
to have no side effects at depth (or high ppO2 or mix or phase of the 
moon) is the one *not* taken. Even if it's an idiosyncratic reaction 
limited to one diver...if *you're* that diver it's 100%!

It's a hard position, but not unrealistic either. The percentage of 
reactive patients/divers may prove to be astronomically small, but it's 
not zero. As long as it's not zero you are technically taking a chance. 
But at least you know what the risk/benefit ratio is and you make an 
informed decision.

WKPP has taken the position that "no drugs when diving" is the side they 
wish to go with, the Navy takes the postion that operational commitments 
take more precidence. Both positions make sense for their circumstances 
and their communities.

It seems that some folks (no finger pointing!) are looking for medical 
absolution to take a medication they've already decided to take. Nobody 
can grant that. *Every* drug has side effects...it's just the nature of 
the beasts. Whether those side effects are tolerable as far as the 
risk/benefit ratio is concerned is only a decision that can be made 
ulimately by the diver in an *informed* manner. 

Personally? If I can get away *without* using the stuff, I'd just as soon 
not dive with it. But then again, I don't have hay fever and don't have 
to look a diver in the face that does.

We do differentiate between pilots flying multiplace aircraft (where 
there is more than one pair of hands at the controls) verses "single 
seat" aircraft.( the Navy Flight Surgeon's manual specifies meds 
perscribable in "service group 2 or 3...multiplace aircraft with or 
without carrier ops that are verboten in SG 1's...single seat carrier 
ops) We are more stingent with the single seaters for obvious reasons. 
Diving by it's nature is a "single seat" activity (nobody else can breath 
for you!)

Just some food for thought.

Robb Wolov

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]