Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
I am sure there are some of you who are now starting to find this debate a little "long winded". So far no has been able to refute any of my objections to the use of a regulator for resuscitation, so for those of you who are unsure as to who to believe in this issue please keep that fact in mind. I previously stated that I would seek further expert opinion on this matter. I have contacted John Lippmann for his opinion. Many of you will no doubt have read some of John's books. He is the author of "Deeper into Diving" and co author of the "Diving First Aid Manual" (which has been published under other names, and in a waterproof format) which has been adopted by DAN for distribution to their members. John has a particular interest in resuscitation in divers and has written a book called "Oxygen First Aid for Divers". This book proved so successful that it has been rewritten in non-divers versions as well. John is the director of DAN (South East Asia Pacific region). I have reproduced John's email below: (Quote) It's interesting to hear that this debate has emerged yet again. It does so every so often! The major arguments against using a scuba demand valve for resuscitation are: 1. The flowrates are far too high. Currently recommended flowrates for ventilation are 40-60 lpm. Scuba demand valves provide flowrates nearer to 100 lpm. (eg. Poseidon regs range from 1000-1800 lpm). The potential for regurgitation and lung unjury is tremednous. 2. All ventilators have at least one pressure relief valve set at around 50 cmH2O to prevent lung injury in an adult. There is no pressure relief on a scuba valve. 3. There is too little control of flow from the purge button. There are other arguments against it but the above must be more than adequate to convince people not to attempt it, above or below water. Rrgds, John (unquote) I have also had a preliminary reply (more detailed comment to follow aparently) from one of the doctors at Diving Medicine Online": (Quote) Only one device allows for the delivering of artificial ventilation in the field. This is the pocket mask with an oxygen inlet valve. This also allows for the use of mouth-to mouth assistance without the unpleasant (and possibly dangerous) aspects of direct oral contact. Regulators would also have difficulty in controlling the inspiratory volume and can lead to overpressure injuries. (unquote) I would like to think that I have provided more than enough evidence to support my case, and that the debate could stop here. However I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some who will simply choose not to listen and will continue to advocate this dangerous and unproven practice. I hope you all will think carefully on this issue, and if you haven't already done so get some proper training from DAN (or similar organisation) so that you WILL know what to do if the need arises. Thanks also to those of you who have emailed me privately with your support. Safe Diving, David. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ocean Internet - "The Quality ISP" http://www.ocean.com.au/info.html -- 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]