Joel, the same applies to 4.0 - and that joke is not any funnier than
the last one . Proficiency and air practice have nothing to do with each
other except that the higher the nitrogen, the lower the proficiency.

Diver proficiency and practice are essential, but they have nothing to
so with this discussion.

While you joke around , this cc list is mostly composed of people who
are not only known to endorse deep air ( IANTD Deep Air courses )diving,
but are the "board of advisors" ( pause while the laughter subsides -
this is not a joke) that Mouth claims as his excuse for teaching deep
air - these people insist on it according to Tom, and we all know Tom is
not like me- he does not "dictate" like I do, but then I don't like
problems, so I dictate, but then my guys all think as I do , so I do not
really have to dictate - they do it for me. Tom is a tough guy, he can
handle tons of problems at once, as evidenced again by this cc list.

The less nitrogen the better for diving and deco.

By the way, I agree with you on the glamorization of "big dives". I like
to go out of my way to point out the preparation that is necesary for
these dives, which applies to all diving in its own scale. There is no
glamour in that. 

Nobody emulates us anyway, Joel  -  they all emulate the 51 meters on
air that Mouth is teaching, and all you have to do is check the list of
cave deaths and other unexplained accidents and match them to the depth
and gas to see where this is going. Noplace any  different than it has
gone.


Joel Silverstein wrote:
> 
> Well, It seems my little post woke up some people.
> 
> Now if someone like me who has a bit of a background in this area can get
> you all in an uproar can you imagine what its like to those who actually
> watch this list?
> 
> Keep in mind that despite the feet stomping "My way or the highway"
> approach to this there ARE people out there who will look at us all like
> crazed cult like participants.
> 
> It seems that just even discussing a PN2 of 5.0 sets many in a tizzy.
> 
> My point was proved. And I hope you all did not ruin your day over it.
> 
> What is needed now is to really develop one cohesive standard across the
> board for no-air below PN2 of 4.0.
> 
> But more importantly than that is to encourage diver proficiency. I still
> see too many divers who cant clear tier masks wanting to do the challenging
> dives.
> 
> So in the wake of my provocative post......... examine the message and the
> message is clear that WE have a responsibility to begin to de-glamorize the
> extreme dives, and spend some more time showing these newbies that shallow
> dives can be quite rewarding.WE also have a responsibility to remove the
> blinders and realize that air is still used quite widely across the world,
> right or wrong.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> JDS
> 
> At 03:32 PM 8/19/1999 -0400, Chris Werner wrote:
> >Joel, this thread is absolutely one of the most misguided posts I've ever
> >read. You and the entire cc list of this post must be the toughest divers
> >out there. No one I dive with ever uses air for anything, except to inflate
> >our bike tires. Air is absolutely the worst diving gas available.  As you
> >began your little rant, I must admit that the first sentence is the only one
> >that made any sense. In fact, air should be completely banned from all
> >diving and training. It is preposterous to even conclude that anyone can
> >function rationally on air at 150' let alone 175'. You must still not get
> >it. Why would you ever use air? Trimix should always be used below 130',
> >with nitrox used for everything shallower.  Not one diver I dive with even
> >uses any mix with greater than 100' EAD. This is one of the single largest
> >problems with so called 'tech' diving today.
> >    No one can work on air efficiently at the depths you advocate. This is
> >like saying we should all go get drunk and drive our cars to practice being
> >intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. Most of us are all lucky to
> >have survived deep air and its associated wrath upon our bodies. From the
> >narcosis to the damage done during decompression, AIR IS THE WRONG CHOICE.
> >Air should never be your safety gas.  Switching from trimix to air at depth
> >is a recipe for disaster. This is what is contributing to many of the
> >fatalities occurring today. We are all in a position to change this, in fact
> >I even see that Tom Mount is finally coming around. No doubt it only took
> >the insanity of Mark Andrews to open his eyes. You and everyone on the cc
> >list (I must admit one of the largest collection of DIW divers I have ever
> >seen) need to stop yapping and start listening to those of us who are doing
> >it, and doing it safely. I agree that experience is one of the greatest
> >attributes of good divers, but consistently DIW for so long is not
> >experience it is just luck. Good divers DIR, not get by on chance and luck.
> >    This post of your is almost as ridiculous as you trying to tell us on
> >freeattic how to change stage bottles. You for one need to quit diving all
> >together before you get someone killed with your misinformation.
> >
> >AIR at any depth = NO
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Joel Silverstein <joelsilverstein@wo*.at*.ne*>
> >To: <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> >Cc: Bill Mee <wwm@sa*.ne*>; Tom Mount <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>;
> ><bdi@wh*.ne*>; Mark the Nark Andrews <extreme@de*.fr*.co*.uk*>;
> >Afonso Pinheiro Junior <afonso0@ib*.ne*>; Barrie Heard
<bheard@dc*.ne*.au*>;
> >Bill Nadeau <tekdiver@na*.ar*.co*>; Dick Rutkowski
> ><dick@hy*.co*>; Erika Haley <haley@ca*.ky*>; Fabio Amaral
> ><fabio_amaral@ya*.co*>; Fabio Ruberti <ruberti@io*.it*>; Frans
Vandermolen
> ><75204.1243@co*.co*>; <wahoo2001@ao*.co*>; <WahooJan@ao*.co*>;
> ><Garlooent@ao*.co*>; Garry Howland <ghowland@fw*.gu*.ne*>; Gil
> ><gildiver@di*.co*.br*>; Gina & Mark Leonard <ginamark@at*.ne*>;
> >Gregg Stanton <gstanton@ma*.fs*.ed*>; IANTD Czech <kony@un*.cz*>; IANTD
> >Germany <iantd@su*.de*>; IANTD Greece <iantdgr@at*.mb*.gr*>; IANTD
> >Holland <tekkie@xs*.nl*>; IANTD Ireland <IANTDIRL@ao*.co*>; IANTD JAPAN
> ><iantdjp
> >Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 10:46 AM
> >Subject: Re: DEEP AIR VOTE
> >
> >
> >> Dear Fellow Divers,
> >>
> >> With the current state of gas availability using non-narcotic breathing
> >> mixes is not necessary to conduct dives deep with air. However it would
> >> behove most of those who are out there on the training and working end of
> >> this business to at least be able to work and function with N2 pressures
> >of
> >> 5.0. There may come a time when it is needed.  As I look over this long
> >> list, it is pretty clear that most everyone here has done successful dives
> >> to 175 fsw (and deeper) with air (if not they would not be on the list).
> >>
> >> Most if not all of use were doing air dives in the late 80's early 90's
> >> when the development of technical (read TRIMIX) was making its way through
> >> the scuba ranks. Key people like Billy Deans made the switch to gas and
> >set
> >> the pattern for open ocean mix diving, but still he would consider 175 fsw
> >> for air to be a reasonable depth that people should be able to use air
> >for.
> >>  The USN and most every commercial operation still uses air to depths of
> >> 190 fsw on a regular basis using hat and hose.
> >>
> >> As much as we would like to STAMP OUT DEEP AIR -- there will always be
> >> those who will take anything and everything deeper than they should. We
> >> have little control of that. However, we can take them one at a time and
> >> provide them with the tools and information to make a rational informed
> >> decision as to what type of dive they will do.
> >>
> >> I do not use air for any of our training deeper than 150 fsw. I do not
> >> belive that the students can conformably do the work they need to do under
> >> a greater level of narcosis. Frankly if a diver cannot use that viable gas
> >> to that depth then they have no business diving deeper than 100 fsw.
> >>
> >> We need to keep in perspective that much of what we know today came from
> >> some brave (albeit misinformed) people who stepped out farther and deeper
> >> than others would care to at a time when they had a need to go look at
> >> something.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately there had been some successful failures along the way. But
> >we
> >> all learned from them. There were also successful survivors, who have been
> >> more than instrumental in the development of our activities.
> >>
> >> We are about to go through a new cycle in divers. The accidents will rise
> >> because these divers have no reference point. The average diver today
> >> buying "techincal" gear has less than 50 career dives. What was once
> >> equipment for the "hard core deep divers" is now commonplace in most every
> >> dive store.  Just like fast cars, and fast planes, the inexperienced find
> >> this attractive and belive they can do things they are just not prepared
> >to
> >> do. We each have a responsiblity to head that off at the pass. These
> >divers
> >> need to put in a few hundred practicle dives before they can begin
> >> attempting some of these deeper dives, on ANY gas. A CLEAR HEAD IS NOT AN
> >> EXCUSE FOR EXPERIENCE. We each have a responsiblity to question Should
> >they
> >> Dive Tech?
> >>
> >> DEEP AIR
> >>
> >> Air deeper than 175 fsw for practicle diving -- NO
> >> Air deeper than 150 fsw for training -- NO
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Joel Silverstein
> >> http://www.nitroxdiver.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]