OK, Esat, enogh being nice - you do now know what the f you are talking about, and until you do your first cave dive, your opinion about the effects of narcosis in a cave is garbage, just like your information on that stroke Suarez: the dumb f was diving air in independents on his back with a side bottle of trimix,the kind fof stupid shit that only the worst stroke would do, and he was forced to go to air at 300. I talked to his dive buddy. You can continue to be a stroke, do things completely wrong, and run you big mouth , but you do not have the fist clue about diving - not the first dingle tiny little clue, and this makes you a dangerous, irresponsible stroke when you are suggesting that a old fat guy like you can "hangdle" deep air, so everyone else should do it - that is bullshit, pal, and you are an iresponsible asshole for suggesting it. Why is it that guys like me who are in the condition of a competitive athelete and do dives beyond any capability you ever had, don't do the stupid, asinine things you do? Why is it that somebody of my ability does it right, and a dillatante like you has to continue to ingore reality and pretend there is some ability to operate inpaired? The proof is ovbious and has been around for ever. Next time you say something this stupid, strip the PhD of of your signatue, or people will think you got it in the mail, along with a TDI deep air card. Yo really need to take a look at what yo are doing, what yo are saying, and what influence yo uare having - this is seroius, people are dying, and you are a conttiubting factor. I can't handle deep air, so what makes you think a fat old slob like you can? EE Atikkan wrote: > > It is disturbing to see that the antagonism for 'deep air' has led to > listing accidents without a clear cut understanding of the contributory > factors. > > Furthermore, this his has been done without a clear definition of > 'Deep', or the depth mediated 'causal effect' that contributed to the > demise. Which negative effect of air at depth are we concrened about? > > Ox tox - regarded as a primary contributor. > Narcosis - an impairing factor that becomes an issue when 'things go > wrong'. That brings about the question would the victim have survived > if they were not on air, thus less narked. > Other physiological factors - remain relatively undefined. > > In an analysis, accident or whatever, parameters must be defined & > causal as well as contibutory factors must be identified. > > I questioned the validity of including dives in the 140-160 range in > the 'deep air deaths' list. > > I still do & will continue to do so. > > Was it narcosis? > Was it ox tox? > Were there other medical, physical, mental, psychological factors > involved? > > It is well etablished that using depth as the osole criterion is > inadequate. Many a shallow dive can be significantly more complex than > deeper ones. I am sure the cave diving community is well aware of > that. Most wreck diver are, as are ice divers. > > Until supplemental details of accidents ascribed to deep air are > provided, the arguments against deep air, in particular in the 140-160 > range, will ring hollow. > > Many dives take place in the 140-160, even 170 range. The NAtl wreck > diving community dives it routinely. In Europe 165 has been the limit > for recreational diving. All on air. Do accidents occur? Yes. Was > air @ that the contributory factor? Possibly. Could other factors > have been causal? Most definitely. > > Also having 1st hand info with one of those accidents ascribed to deep > air I can tell U that: > > Ed Suarez was not on air - it is thought that he toxed because he > switched to the wrong mix or that his mix was unsuiatable. > > Esat Atikkan -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
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]