Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Hi Bill Bill Wolk wrote: > Tom - > > I'm not sure how to read your response: Is it that divers like myself who > lack your knowledge of pathology shouldn't ask questions about rebreather > deaths or that you don't want to share your knowledge to educate the list > unless you can also put someone down in the process? Sorry for the confusion, my fault. My point is that we can learn from this incident two lessons. First lesson, why did he really die? Was it diver error, equipment problem (design, breakdown, etc.) or was it something entirely different - like a totally unrelated medical event. So far, the whole story is not out. Second lesson, we can learn clearly how the sources bearing information also come bearing thier own agendas. We must understand who is saying what, not just what they are saying. Note: I did not put anyone down in my post. And obviously it gets in the way of the message. If you were bothered by my tone I apologize. > I'm not a member of any party to this debate, and I posed my question so > that I and other similarly situated newsgroup readers would have enough > information to understand what's going on and not "jump to conclusions, > read through rose colored glasses, and then argue it (or instead argue > something else) on the net." > > Frankly, I'm not sure what newsgroup you've been reading, but the writers > of the vast majority of messages that I've seen here on Dr. Kendall's > death have deplored the tragedy in a manner that shows respect and > restraint. The most you can say is that not everyone is willing to accept > the Sheriff's initial determination of "natural causes" until all the > facts -- including the path report and rebreather computer logs -- are > in. That's hardly inappropriate. I have seen other newsgroups discussing this, but mostly it is a repeat post. True, most posts show respect. But not all. In fact, the USDCT's premature statement that the Dr. ignored the unit's warnings and his disregard of SOP was disrespectful. GI3's post calling Stone a scumbag was disrespectful. And Bill Mee's attitude towards a sworn law enforcement official who is in the daily habit of NOT making premature statements (aka 'initial determination') was disrespectful. What to gain from recognizing this is that sometimes the quick to judge provide the least useful real information. Instead they display their agendas. The problem is that they are supposed to be the leaders in this field but instead you have to weigh every word comming out of their mouth. Regards, Tom > On2/23/99 10:24 AM, Thomas A. Easop wrote: > > >Actually this case, tragic as it is, represents a unique opportunity to > >illustrate the tendencies of all parties in this debate to jump to > >conclusions, read through rose colored glasses, and then argue it (or > >instead argue something else) on the net. > > > >The unit does have the ability to log the aspects of the dive and gas vital > >to the discussion of what lead to the death of Dr. Kendal, more objectively > >than any buddy diver could (although it lacked the ability to rescue him as > >a well trained buddy in that situation should have.) > > > >Plus the ME has much more sophisticated tests at his disposal than mere > >physical signs such as cyanosis to determine what the actual 'pathway of > >death' was. There is a common 'pathway of death' that all humans follow > >while dying, with some variances mainly due to the order in which the steps > >happen or if some are missed. Bill Mee is correct in that SOME modes of > >death from 'natural causes' are identical to the mode of death from a > >hypoxic breathing mix in a rebreather loop. But many are not identical, and > >they leave many clues that an ME could and should detect, such as blood pH, > >cardiac enzymes, etc. > > > >Together with the units log and a detailed autopsy report not only will the > >precise demise of Dr. Kendal be known, it will serve to illustrate the > >behavior of the WKPP, USDCT, and all the supporters and detractors of each > >camp. > > > >Both sets of information will serve as learning tools for future list use. > > > -- > 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]