Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
You wrote: > >Yes, but we both agree that not performing the high risk behavior in the >first place would solve the problem. > Yes but we must first define exactly what we are dealing w/. Back to the communal needle issue: 1. Drug use is risky 2. All practices to reduce secondary risks (disease, financial, criminal record) are worthwhile but does not reduce risks ascribable to use. However, it in itself does not cause a terminal disease (though it may produce a terminal accident) 2. As a secondary risk we have terminal disease via the HIV route, ascribed to drug use, not because of drug use per se, but the practices of drug users. That risk, w/o changes in the risks associated w/ drug use per se, becomes nul if disposable needles are used, needles R sterilized or if communal needle use occurs only among disease free individuals. Thus communal needle use that does not fit the above 3 criteria (& possibly a # of salvatory practices) introduces a second risk, totally independent of that of drug use. That is even: if disease bearing diabetics were using communal needle users to administer their prescribed insulin, they still run the risk of cross infectio & terminal disease risk. They run none of the risks associated w/ drug use. That is how analyses need be carried out. We have evidence that N2 is narcotic. We assume that narcosis becomes an issue for many at depths beyond, say, 100 ft, w/ a number of contributory factors. CO2 appears to be the prime synergistic factor. Thus was it air or air compounded by some factor that potentiaties the narcotic effect. At its extreme, if the air is contaminated and an accident occurs, do we ascribe the accident to the gas or the contamination? Obviously the latter. We also have adequate evidence to infer that narcosis habituation does not occur, though copeabilty does increase w/ repetitive exposure. I am aware of all of this (U may have guessed that :->). We also have the issue of oxtox. Again contributory factors are well documented, as are personal sensitivities. But just because an accident occurs @ 140 on air does not de facto indite 'deep air'. It definitely should B a factor to be considered. It may be aprt of the equation, but was it the only contributor? Regards 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]