Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
n Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:58:24 -0500 (CDT), EE Atikkan wrote: >My last satement was "C U @ sushi". Thinking about it, it is a >dangerous passtime. Uncooked fish can be replete w/ parasites. Also >w/ the current scare of P. piscicida in our area, the omni present >danger of ciguatera in reegf fish - including grouper. Saxitoxin, >other toxins, the red tide mediaed toxicity of shell fish, the horrors >of consuming Med shellfish grwn in areas w/ raw sewage. Nope dangerous >activity. There goes sushi. I love sushi, too, and choose to eat it because the potential health risk, IN MY OPINION, is negligible compared to the other risks that I am subjected to every day. If there was an alternative to sushi that was identical in every observable fashion, and yet posed no health risk whatsoever, and cost a little more, what would you do? Now consider the relationship between the number of deaths that could be potentially attributed to bad sushi against the number of deaths that could possibly be attributed to narcotic effects of N2 and O2 at depth, and ask the same question. >Smoking gone, drinking, out, drugs, heaven forbid, sex, dangerous (& >expensive here - those divorce settlements can cost U your drysuit & >doubles + everything else). > >Geez is there an activity that carries no risk. No, there is not. But I have made the decision, based on available evidence and what I believe constitutes an unacceptable level of risk, not to smoke or do drugs, but to still engage in responsible drinking and sex. Granted, these desicions are made entirely by myself, the individual, but the basis of my argument against the use of air or other narcotic mixtures at depth arises from the fact that a safer alternative is available, so why not use it? >Valsalva is bad as it P the right heart, potential for cardiac >embarassment. Also can cause oval window rapture if done 'vigorously'. >OK let's not teach that either. > >Sean this list can go on and on. > >I never stated that x depth was OK, that air was OK. All I ask for is >that when statemens R made, they be factual w/ well defined premises. > >>Somebody should not have to die in order to create the >>statistics to support the fact that deep air is a bad idea. > >If we R talking statistics, maybe cave diving is a bad idea, maybe deep >diving, per se, is a bad idea. If you are talking solely in terms of statistics, getting out of bed in the morning is a bad idea. Read on. >> This is >>like arguing that drinking to excess is perfectly okay, and that it is >>only the people who get in their cars and kill people that need use >>some restraint in drinking. The facts remain that: > >I don't C the pt. If I dive deep on N20/O2 and get bombed & expire, I >did it, my choice. Now drunk diving could, potentially, involve >others, thus ceases to be a good analogy. Allow me to use an analogy that may be more to your liking. As an individual, free thinking person, with the right to evaluate risk and make your own decisions with regard to your life, provided that you do not invlove others as in the drunk driving argument, you could choose to become a heroin addict, overdose on the drug and die. You expired, you did it, your choice, without involving or affecting others by your decision. By the reasoning you have laid out, this should not be a problem. Yet people cry out that drugs like these are lethal, and they become controlled substances, with movements to eliminate their production entirely. There is no activity that can cause death without having an effect on other people. Consider all of the divers who gambled with deep air and lost. Someone, be it Coast Guard, police or the diver's buddy, had to recover that body. I support the notion of free thought and the decision making process. I would not, however, allow my girlfriend, family, or other people I care about choose to dive deep on air. Back to evaluation of risk. This, Esat, is the point. Although the level of risk for any given activity can be assigned an arbitrary value by any individual, the amount of fatalities that could have potentially been the result of narcotic gas mixtures cause me to wonder why any intelligent person would make this choice. >>1) Most people dive air because it is cheap. > >Availability may be an issue >Training may be an issue > >Not everyone lives in the US where He is available & relatively >inexpensive. Does that mean we no longer dive the Red Sea or stay @ ><75 ft? Not everyone lives in an area where something they want or need is available. Need instigates action. If everyone agreed that non narcotic mixes were indeed necessary to perform these dives safely, how long do you think that helium would remain unavailable? >>2) Most people who use air in the 30m + range do so because their >>training programs taught them that it was okay to do so, and were only >>taught to use alternate gases when the ppo2 on air became too high. > >C above. > >Also most people can handle minimal narcosis in an OW dive. If, as you say, you wish to deal explicitly with "facts" in this discussion, you are going to have to qualitatively define what it means to be able to "handle" something. I can dive under the influence of gas narcosis and not die or have any sort of problem that would qualify as an incident. I can dive on a narcotic mixture and complete all dive objectives according to plan, and observe nothing irregular or sluggish about my actions during the dive. What I can not do is perform tasks or logical thought processes as quickly or as accurately as I could do on trimix. This is what counts in an emergency situation, when timely, appropriate action is required under duress, and IN MY OPINION, better enables me to "handle" the dive. >>3) Air is a narcotic mixture at any depth other than sea level. > >So? This statement was just intended to emphasize (for anyone following this thread) that there is no set depth at which air becomes narcotic, and hence a liability. >>4) There is conclusive evidence to support the fact that judgement is >>impaired on air at depth, as well as motor control and logical >process. >> >I am well aware of the studies, thank U. Just trying to cover all the bases. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence or your practical and theoretical knowledge base. >>5) The reason that the anti deep air movement seems to be emanating >>solely from the cave diving community is that these people have more >>logistical concerns in planning these dives, and have kept better >>records as a result, which they can use to compare profiles, incidents >>and diver behaviours to, and the results have been unarguable. > >Look as long as the premises are established & we shy away from blanket >statements, all is OK. Just state that fact. This is the fact: "There is a great deal of evidence to support the notion that diving while employing the use of narcotic gas mixtures may be directly responsible for a large number of diving fatalities, and that the universal practice of employing breathing media with lower narcotic potentials, such as helium mixtures, would significantly reduce this fatality rate". >>6) Diving is an inherently hazardous activity, and by utilizing a >>narcotic gas mixture you are essentially playing with dice as to >>whether or not there will be a problem, analogous the the person who >>has a few pints at the local watering hole, "feels fine", and elects >to >>drive home. Sure, most fatal accidents due to impaired drivers are >>from those in gross violation of the legal blood alcohol limit, but >how >>many people have drifted subtly around in their lane, and perhaps >>parked a few inches too far from the curb, without becoming a >>statistic. I don't drink and drive, and I don't dive deep on air. > >Very commendable. >Many of us have been known to have a beer & drive. Then again 12 oz of >beer over a period 1 hr or so on a 200# + person may be less than >incapacitating. So it must be compared w/ all the facts. Narcotic effects due to breathing gases at depth do not disappear over time (so long as the diver remains at that depth), as they do with alcohol consumption. This ceases to be a good analogy. I don't believe I ever made the assertion that diving a narcotic mix was incapacitating. What I did say was that it is impairing. As to what level of impairment is acceptable is a question that may be answered through analysis of the facts. >>7) This stigma may definitely be extrapolated to other environments. >>I do not dive in caves, but I dive in cold water, open water, in >>wrecks, under ice, heavy currents, zero vis, high potential entrapment >>areas, contaminated water, time critical search and rescue ops, body >>recoveries, etc. Under NO circumstances would I consider doing any of >>these dives on a narcotic mixture, because my life is worth more to me >>than the cost of a little common sense. > >It is your choice. U do what U R comfortable w/. Don't impose it on >others as if there were no other routes & that U or x or y are the only >knowledgeable ones. That is the high horse attitutude & it hurts more >when the fall is from greater height. I am not attempting to shove my opinion down other persons throats, nor do I wish to portray any sort of "holier than thou" attitude. This is my choice, and of course, there are other routes. My concern is that the other route seems to be killing people, and I want to logically present an argument that will prompt people to take more interest in the issue, and perhaps use their own initiative to conduct some research so that they may make a better informed decision. >There are alternatives. most importantly there are choices. >Each is allowed to make their own, provided their descision does not >imperil others. > >There is no place for evangelists in diving - a sport for thinking >people. There is a place for responsible, informed debate, suggestion and guidance. Not for dictatorship. Your comment seems to exemplify the attitude that kills in this sport - that there is such a thing as an evangelist. A thinking person absorbs all possible information and uses that as a tool to make a responsible decision. An intelligent thinking person does not assume that there is one person who knows the "right way", nor do they assume that there exists no "right way". This is why so many people complain about George Irvine. After intense discussion, research and actually trying the methods that were suggested to me, it became apparent that he was right. >>8) What possible reason can you put forth to support the position >that >>the use of deep air, while obviously inappropriate to extreme >exposure, >>working dives, or thought critical applications, is perfectly >>acceptable for open water rec / tech divers? In my opinion, the life >>of an open water newbie is just as important as the life of a WKPP gas >>team member. >> >As stated above: >1. A better correlation b/ accidents @ 140-170 in OW & air must B >established. Can't argue with this, the more data, the better. >2. Availability of He must be truly universal True. >Also: >3. Cost of He must be manageable otherwise it becomes an elitist >movement. This sport itself is an elitist movement. Not that I think cost shouldn't come down, but in the interest of safety it seems that if you can't conduct your dives in the safest most efficient manner possible, should you really be doing this? >4. Training (valid training) must be universally available True, and something that is severely lacking in all parts of the world. >5. Means for trimix analysis must be improved to assure that the >ratioes of gases R determined @ better than +/-1%. Better technology, better and safer techniques. Diving as an activity is constantly evolving, both in terms of equipment and operational procedure. I think that in time deep air will come to rest with double hose regulators and MK V helmets. Comments? -Sean -- 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]