Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

Chuck, if you can tell me where I am going to get the wrong gas on one
of my dives, I will SYD right now. Let me be blunt - you are not
thinking. Try thinking it out,and see what you copme up with. We are not
interested in how to do stupid things in a pinch, we are interested in
tech diving, something you clearly are ignorging in youir logic.

 Deep air is for idiots, who,( apparently like you ), believe
mistakendly that there is some ability to function impaired. There is
not, only a tolerance for the buzz, just like any drug. People addicted
to pain killers can do a whole bottle - they are still severely impaired
.. When they take just one more little pill too many for theire curent
state,  they end up in the emergency room or dead, jsut like deep air
divers. 

 I do not need to practice breathing my argon, or the co2 out of the
fire extinguisher in my van, so why  would I practice breathing air
deep? PADI teaches a "dep diver" course - go take that.
CHKBOONE@ao*.co* wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
>      I have resisted as long as I can.
> 
>     I agree completely that deliberate deep air outside of the training
> environment is
> as dumb as a whole pile of rocks, but I am not so sure that there is not
> something
> worthwhile to be gained from a controlled exposure to a degree of narcosis
> that
> requires some effort to function under.    I do not believe the purpose of
> tech nitrox
> is or should be to prove the need for trimix, rather to provide a bit of
> experience with
> functioning under the effects of narcosis while there is someone watching
> over you.
> 
>     We do not, or should not, be planning dives as if they will unfold as
> expected.
> We plan and prepare for the occasional unexpected or undesirable turn of
> events.
>     Sending a man into the ocean with the capability to reach depths and
> encounter
> situations where narcosis is a real possibility due to situations beyond his
> control or
> capacity to forsee is like sending a souldier into battle having never
> experinced the
> noise and confusion of mechanized human conflict.
>    When finally encountered whether by accident or out of necessity to save a
> buddy
> the very prospect of narcosis may loom before him as a forboding force beyond
> his
> capacity to deal with and may well serve as justification for watching his
> buddy sink
> into the abyss unaided - much as the fear of DCS has been known to prevent
> divers
> from surfacing with crippled or assumed dead partners.    I know this is not
> exactly
> the same thing but close enough to warrant mentioning.
>    Why heap fear of narcosis onto the pile of realities we already have to
> deal with
> when we can possibly reduce it to a calculated risk by education and
> familiarity?
> 
>     By the time a diver reaches the point of considering a trimix course
> functioning
> under adversity should be old hat to him.    Enough of the standard operating
> 
> procedures of diving in general should be second nature and so deeply
> ingrained
> that a reasonable degree of narcosis should not threaten his ability to carry
> through
> with basic planned procedures regardless of a reduced ability to handle novel
> details.
> It seems to be a disease of the times to certify both instructors and
> students who
> pass the tests but lack experience, refinement, discipline, and rounding out.
> 
> This is probably closer to the root of all these deaths than narcosis itself
> or deep air.
> 
>    I know that the loss of some of the best divers in the world is attributed
> partly to
> narcosis and I am not sure how to respond to this except to attribute it to
> the inherent
> variability of the effect from day to day and man to man and to the probable
> contribution of other factors.   One of these factors is that some of these
> big name hot
> shots are not what they are cracked up to be.    I can not, however, believe
> that any of
> these divers lost the mental capacity to control their status due strictly to
> narcosis
> unless it was extreme beyond reason.
> 
> -----------------
>     From my own limited experience I believe there are two independent
> aspects to
> narcosis - the buzz and the mental debilitation.   The reduced mental
> capacity comes
> first and builds with descent, usually unnoticed.  The buzz comes later and
> seems to
> just suddenly be there.   Apparently each must be delt with differently.
> 
>    As George says, the effect of the reduced mental ability is clouded or
> masked by
> acceptance as normal if brought on slowly and this is where the real danger
> lies - lack
> of awareness of your true status.
>    I have been unable to read the time on a new and unfamiliar watch at 170
> feet but
> the presence of mind to switch over to another backup timing device
> (believing that the
> watch had flooded) and continue to implement the dive plan was apparently not
> impeded and there was no tendency to loose track of the passage of time.
>   So,
> though I could not figure out that I was simply looking at the wrong place on
> the watch
> I not only retained the ability to carry out the dive plan but knew not to
> let myself get
> so involved with trying to read this instrument that I stayed beyond my
> planned bottom
> time.   Is this because I have been diving for 31 years and it is so second
> nature for
> me to tend to the business of the dive that it takes more than a little
> narcosis to
> distract me to foolishness ?   I would like to think so but I would never
> gamble on it
> beyond what I consider reasonable - after all, it never occurred to me while
> trying to
> read this watch that I might be narced !
>    The real question in such a case as this is ;  was my ability to monitor
> and control
> my status jeopardized or just my ability to comprehend the flashing numbers
> of a new
> watch face ?    The control I exercised during the planning stage (avoiding
> too much
> new equipment) prevented a dependency on a piece of equipment that might have
> made narcosis a serious threat.    I can't draw any conclusions here,  just
> noting
> some observations for scrutiny.
> 
>    I am not trying to suggest that narcosis is something you can learn to
> control.
> I agree that there is no such thing as what the spitit of the term "good deep
> on air"
> implies and I believe the idea of short term physiological acclimation is an
> illusion.
>    I am suggesting that deeply implanted cognitive habits backed by well
> established
> pathways in the brain may hold up in the face of narcosis when attempts to
> process
> even simple but unfamiliar information is hampered.   If true, this would
> make a bit of a
> case for experience modifying the range or type of diver functions seriously
> jeopardized by narcosis and for the ability to control, not the effect, but
> the
> implications, of narcosis by avoiding dependency on equipment or procedures
> that
> may be unreliable under the influence due to unfamiliarity.
>     To the relatively new diver so much is new that any narcosis poses some
> threat to
> his ability to implement a plan but perhaps as experience creates habits the
> threat to
> the ability to remain cognizant of and perform certain vital basic functions
> (the
> business of the dive) can be reduced.
> 
>    So, though narcosis itself can not be controlled perhaps we can control
> our
> dependency on elements of a diving situation that are most subject to it's
> effects?
> 
>     In my own experience the buzz that finally manifests long after the
> cognitive effects
> have started working their magic on the brain (unless descent is pretty fast)
> is
> threatening primarily as a distraction with the same effect as trying to
> concentrate
> with a loud radio in the room.   I’ve never had to perform anything really
> demanding
> amid this racket but I can tell it would take some conscious effort on my
> part to
> concentrate on the matter at hand, even if routine.
>    For me the buzz can be heavy with no notice of the mental impairment.   I
> have
> not noticed any tendency to hallucinate or for my attention to wander from
> the
> business of the dive and I was certain that I could have helped myself or my
> partner
> out of any reasonable situation.  (was I really qualified to determine this ?
> ? ?)
> 
>    The chamber ride has been suggested as a safer way to introduce a diver to
> the
> effects of narcosis but I suspect that this trip often emphasized the buzz
> which is not
> the effect that matters most.   If not conducted properly it can allow the
> student to
> associate the cognitive debilitation demonstrated by the math or combination
> lock
> trick with this buzz so that he may logically think that avoiding the buzz is
> to avoid
> narcosis.   What a diver really needs to experience and understand is the
> difference
> between the buzz and the mental debilitation and how to reduce the threat
> posed by
> the cognitive problems that apparently arise well ahead of the buzz.
>    The buzz should simply be avoided but it is not, in my experience, so
> incapacitating
> in itself that it should be feared as insurmountable if one must risk
> exposure to it to
> help a partner.
>    In the archives are several posts on narcosis that discuss the idea that
> there are
> two phases or types of narcosis that seem to operate independently and create
> 
> different symptoms.
> 
>    I don't think anyone can justify placing a student in real danger just to
> expose him
> to an effect he may have to deal with but could it be more dangerous to
> expose a
> diver to depths and procedures where mistakes could easily result in a need
> to
> tolerate temporary narcosis with no prior experience than to let him feel it
> and deal
> with it under a watchful eye before it counts?   Who knows ?   We take masks
> off,
> turn lights out and spin around in caves, trade regulators, shut gas supplies
> down. . .
> all kinds of unnecessary drills just to prepare for the real thing, why is
> the specter
> of dealing with narcosis any different ?
>    The fact that some instructors may handle this exercise poorly is beside
> the point,
> the question is whether an introduction to "functioning under narcosis" is
> valuable or
> not and safe or not.
> 
>    If it is possible and effective to control the risk posed by narcosis by
> avoiding
> dependency on elements that are most effected by it our functional range and
> options
> are extended somewhat if only for the purpose of rescue.   I suspect this can
> be done
> by pounding in enough habit forming experience to be able to conduct a dive
> from the
> reptilian brain when the cortex is befuddled.   Though you can not control or
> acclimate
> to narcosis perhaps you can, by the design of your configuration, training,
> and dive
> plan, gain some control over how dependent you will be on those cognitive
> abilities
> that are effected by it.
> 
> -----------------
>     Hans,  I limit my END based on the environment I expect to have to deal
> with.
> To me the environment is everything outside the id and includes my body,
> external
> equipment, natural surrounding, and the "situation" created by having to
> manipulate
> equipment and information connected or interfaced only indirectly to the
> self.
>     In open, clear, warm water I will dive air to 170 with a simple dive plan
> and limited
> decompression (I would not reccommend this to less experienced divers).
>    Below
> that or as complexity mounts it's trimix with an END of less than 140 (less
> than 120
> if overhead), shallower than on an air dive because of the added task load
> and
> physical workload (CO2).   An END of 130 is too deep for a complex
> penetration
> dive, in my opinion.   Cold, darkness, work, and disorienting features such
> as tilted
> wreck interiors or reference free visual fields certainly force these END's
> shallower
> on air or mix.
> 
>     Yes!  I believe in “safety through education” and that some controlled
> exposure to
> the feel of narcosis along with an understanding of how to minimize the
> debilitating
> effects of unplanned exposures is valuable.   It may not be necessary to
> expose an
> experienced diver to narcosis he has already dealt with but if you have a
> student
> smart enough to deserve training in trimix he should not have had to deal
> with it yet
> unless by accident.  Right ?    If he has, then he obviously does not heed
> the advice
> of his instructors or the lessons of conventional wisdom - do you want to
> dive with
> this obvious fool after he is through with your trimix course - especially it
> he is a two
> year wonder know it all yayhoo ?
> 
>     There is nothing you can do with the kind of mentality that needs an
> artificial high
> and will deliberately seek narcosis for the buzz - if it were not for the
> narcosis these
> fools would dive on crack or pot for some kind of effect.
> 
> Chuck
> --
> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
--
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]