Tony,

My point was not that fools would be saved by using a rebreather. As soon
as you build something that's fool proof, they build a smarter fool.
However, rebreathers can provide an extra margin of gas to divers who are
already close to the limits, by choice and planning, than with current OC
equipment.

Consider the case of two very experienced divers who go to explore a new
wreck. They carry with them stage bottles, which they leave outside the
wreck. During the wreck penetration, one diver gets hung up on wires and
it takes some time to disentangle him. They realize that their actual
bottom time is now considerably greater than planned and they exit the
wreck, but because of currents, poor viz, they are unable to relocate
their stage bottles. They head for the surface, without completing their
deco obligation, but both arrive in bad shape and though transported to a
chamber, both eventually die. This actual case, which some may recognize,
*might* have ended differently if they had, on their backs, sufficient gas
to meet their deco obligation. Most disasters are multi-factorial. A
variety of points can be altered in the above scenario to acheive a better
outcome. Having enough gas with you at all times is just one of them.

It is nihilistic to regard advances in technology, because they are
inherently more complex, as increasing risk. You drive to work and fly in
airplanes that are phenomenally more complex than even a few years ago.
Most would agree that this increase in technology/complexity has increased
the safety of travel. True, some increase in technology merely offer the
opprtunity to do it faster or more carelessly. This has been the subject
of several debates on ths list. I refer you to the book Target Risk by
Gerald Wilde. You can access it at http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/

Despite this, there will be those who use the new technology to increase
their safety. Look at how dive computers have become quite standard among
sport divers over the past ten years. Sure, people use them because they
perceive an advantage - increased bottom time. And, there are those who
say that computers do not increase safety over tables. But, Joe Average
Diver is less likely to make a mistake reading his computer than
calculating tables, particularly on the fly. More to the point, this major
increase in technology has not resulted in a noteable increase in injuries
or deaths. Other will use the new technology as a means to push the
envelope or do stupid things. They will die or get injured. It's a matter
of adult choice.

I do not believe that rebreathers will replace OC soon, anymore than I
believe that off-road vehicles will replace walking or mountain bikes. But
people will use rebreathers, for the most part for different purposes than
OC. I still stand by the idea that some tech divers will find it useful,
easier and safer to carry their gas supply with them and have a greater
margin than is practical with OC.

-peter heseltine


On 4 Oct 1996, Anthony Martinez wrote:

> Get serious! The application of more complex technologies to offset a lack
> of intelligence/common sense/care/training is a ridiculous notion. I've yet
> to hear one valid justification for the average sport diver to engage in
> rebreather diving.
>
> What makes you think that someone who cannot monitor a pressure gauge and
> properly conduct a dive with relatively simple equipment would be safer
> using a mechanically/physiologically more complex piece of equipment?
> Sounds like those people shouldn't be diving at all! - Tony

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]