I wonder if the result would be more extreme.
With a snorkel to the surface, there would be 2 atm on the outside of your lungs, 1 atm on the inside, because the snorkel provides a direct route to surface air. So the difference would be one whole atmosphere. That would be 14.7 pounds per square inch multiplied by all the square inches that comprise the surface of the lungs, so hundreds of pounds in total, I would guess. Maybe the lungs would collapse? Be pushed up into the trachea? Into the snorkel?
The 33 foot snorkel scenario is extreme compared to scuba, because in scuba, the ambient pressure is balanced by compressed air. Lung collapse also does not happen in freediving, I think, because the air in the lungs compresses under pressure, so the internal pressure balances the ambient pressure. A comparable situation would be freediving on an exhale, which can lead to lung damage once there is some depth--not sure how much.
But all that is just a prediction.
With a snorkel to the surface, there would be 2 atm on the outside of your lungs, 1 atm on the inside, because the snorkel provides a direct route to surface air. So the difference would be one whole atmosphere. That would be 14.7 pounds per square inch multiplied by all the square inches that comprise the surface of the lungs, so hundreds of pounds in total, I would guess. Maybe the lungs would collapse? Be pushed up into the trachea? Into the snorkel?
The 33 foot snorkel scenario is extreme compared to scuba, because in scuba, the ambient pressure is balanced by compressed air. Lung collapse also does not happen in freediving, I think, because the air in the lungs compresses under pressure, so the internal pressure balances the ambient pressure. A comparable situation would be freediving on an exhale, which can lead to lung damage once there is some depth--not sure how much.
But all that is just a prediction.