Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

> the forecasters just discard.  I also believe that knowledge often begins
> with anecdotal experiences which in turn may initiate scientific study.
> Without knowing enough to ask the question, how can you develop a scientific
> study to develop a theory or invalidate an existing one?  

Excellent point.

> P.S.
> Rich, the article on IWR was excellent.  How would you propose to design a
> controlled study that would either validate or invalidate some of the
> obvious conclusions the existing anecdotal data presented?  Methinks it
> would be tough to round up volunteers.  

Thanks for the kind words.  The A/C verion is abridged, and they changed 
a few bits of it.  As I've said many times, I don't think is IS possible 
to do a controlled study.  Even if you could, the results would have 
little real-world value, because they would likely only examine the 
physiological ramifications of gas perfusion when a diver is exposed to 
air vs. water.  The REAL risks of IWR have to do with a myriad of chaotic 
variables.  The ONLY way to get a grip on its validity is to examine 
what's going on in the real world - collect as many details from as many 
IWR attempts as possible, and hope that, with enough cases, patterns 
start to emerge.  Trouble is, who has the time to collect all the data?  
I don't.

Aloha,
Rich

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]