DIR-F class will now be a certification class

[Dectek]

I have seen the same person that said;

"Try it then give your opinion"
Follow up by saying:
" Yeah, I smoke too. I enjoy a good cigar every now and then. Sometimes two or even three a day. "

Lets assume you have added a few pounds and REALLY like using your $400 Computer. Or lets even say that you have just learned about DIR and want to check it out but you own a SeaQuest Black Diamond.

How it reads to me..........If the projected Plan is approved by the BOD....You will not be allowed to take the class. So much for getting an opinion.


Another way to run the class is to give the same training to every one there but give a certification or certificate Only to those who have been assimilated and can PROPERLY DISPLAY that they have the skills and mindset required by the instructor.
This way you get what you want from the class. The student and instructor will decide if it is a Certification class or a seminar pretty much right at the beginning. I have heard that NOBODY has walked away from DIRF believing that they nave not learned from it. Do we need to get a certification card in order to learn? It is something like not credited classes at college.

Just my 2 cents. I am not trying to condem....just looking in from another angle.

 

[Genesis]

As to your smoking concern, our view is simple. In addition to smoking being an otherwise unhealthy idea, it speaks directly to diving inasmuch as up to 25% of the smoke inhaled binds to a diver's hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is what transports oxygen, which if limited by up to 25%, means that it's more likely that a diver can get bent. That is particularly more important as you move into upper level classes such as technical diving wherein a diver is in decompression and uses elevated oxygen mixes to accelarate decompression. I don't want a student in my class that is 25% less efficient, but if that is your choice there are other agencies that are more relaxed in that regard.

As I posted before, I don't smoke.

However, when it comes to the facts, you're not quite on the ball with this one, and the common chestnut that GUE puts forth on this matter is just plain scientifically bankrupt.

What binds to the hemoglobin is carbon monoxide. CO is present in cigarette smoke in significant percentages, as it is nearly always present when something carbon-based (and plants - of which tobacco is one, of course) burns. When you inspire it intentionally, of course, you can expect to find O2 transport impairment.

However, the "25% bound up" number is just plain wrong. You'd be VERY close to dead (if not actually dead) when you smoked if that was true. At a deficiency of 25% of O2 saturation you are considered in CRITICAL trouble from a standpoint of staying alive if you're lucky. A cardiac-impaired person (from any source) with a 25% hemoglobin "lock up" due to CO inhalation would be nearly certain to have an immediate coronary event or simply expire from cellular hypoxia.

If you doubt this go ask any NICU nurse what a 75% O2 sat reading on one of their kids means.

There are pulse oxymeters that can be placed on one's finger (they're commonly used in the NICU in medical settings) that show O2 saturation. Normal is darn close to 100% - like 99!

Even relatively small deficiencies have EXTREMELY serious consequences in the immediate term, which is why its watched so closely in preemie (and otherwise "problem birth") kids. My daughter was hooked up to one of these things after her birth, and they will (and do!) tent a kid that's down just a few points from normal.

O2 hemogloben saturation is one of those things that the body regulates very, very closely - and automatically.

The typical maximum "binding" that occurs in HEAVY smokers is approximately 8%. You might be able to transiently exceed 10% if you were to chain-smoke for an hour or so. This is a scientifically-determined number Mike, not something that GUE has circulated (without scientific backing or citation, I might add.)

If you manage to get into the teens, its because in addition to smoking you've also managed to develop emphysema or some other serious impairment as a consequence of your smoking, at which point you're not going to be diving anyway. You will be EXTREMELY sick at that point - at 10% hemogloben binding you start to feel very sick - kinda like the flu, but worse.

While 8% is nothing to sneeze at, its hardly life-threatening, and that is an UPPER boundary for a smoker. That is the maximum impairment immediately after consuming a series of cigarettes, as a heavy smoker typically does. A light smoker (under a pack a day) will typically have a much lower impairment value - perhaps 3-4%.

Second, smokers typically have MORE hemogloben in their blood (as a percentage) than normal - an automatic reaction of the body to chronic impairment of O2 transport. I do not, however, know the impact of this on decompression and gas exchange in divers or any studies done on this matter.

I am aware of no studies dealing with the "flushing" of CO from the blood by elevated PO2s, but it stands to reason that it would do so. Standard treatment for CO poisoning is high inspired O2 percentages, up to 100%, in an attempt to drive out the CO. The mechanism is not truly analagous to decompression, because you're dealing with a metabolically active gas that has chemically bound to the hemogloben as opposed to an inert gas in solution, but the concept - flushing the CO out of the hemogloben - is similar. So after an extended exposure at a PO2 of > 1.0 (say, at the 1.2 that many Nitrox divers routinely operate at for most of their bottom time) it stands to reason that the impairment would be reduced. Next, your impairment starts to drop as soon as you cease smoking; if your last smoke was a few hours prior, the impairment has lessened significantly. With that said, some impairment in hemogloben transport probably persists for 12 to 24 hours for most smokers, as CO flushes very slowly, and in a chain smoker it might persist for as long as 48 hours.

Finally, not all smoking is equal. Cigars, for example, are not typically inhaled (I know nobody who does!) While the smoke in them does increase the risk of mouth cancers and the like, the CO impact of smoking a cigar in terms of hemogloben impairment is much lower than it is for cigarettes, because it is not inhaled into the lungs and there is negligable CO pickup into the blood stream from mouth mucosa absorbtion. (The nicotine in cigar smoke - and up to half in cigarette smoke - is typically absorbed through the interior of the mouth! This is NOT true for CO.)

Second, when it comes to deco, O2 is a metabolically active gas AND your postulate is thus flawed in another way. The Oxygen Window is not dependant on O2 saturation (which is, normally, fixed - you don't get more O2 breathing pure O2 in your blood, as full saturation happens at about a 0.16 PO2 inspired) but rather it is dependant on the LACK of inert gas. This is the entire reason that GUE calls 80/20 "stroke gas" - you're not using the oxygen window efficiently with it.

Hemogloben is not involved in the off-gassing of inert gas(ses) during decompression; the bound O2 is replaced by CO2 in the cells; the total partial pressure in the hemogloben remains (relatively) fixed in the cycle. It is ENTIRELY the transport of dissolved gasses via the OTHER components of the blood that are involved in on (and off) gassing - which is not affected by smoking per-se.

The primary effect of smoking in this context is a lower maximum work output from the person in terms of muscular exertion, as their total oxygen transport capacity - the oxydizer for the fuel we burn - is reduced. In addition, it stands to reason that a smoker's SAC would typically be higher than a non-smokers, due to the less efficient uptake of O2 in the inspired gas - perhaps by 8-10%, assuming the diver just finished smoking before getting in the water.

There are other reasons to be concerned with smoking and diving, but hemogloben binding isn't one of the truly valid excuses.

The real salient issue is the greater risk of a TIA or cardiac event that a smoker runs, but that risk exists all of the time, diving or not and it is a fallacy that you're more likely to survive topside unless you're within 2-3 minutes of an ALS EMS unit - unlikely if you're driving your car or even, in most cases, sitting in your own home. The simple fact of the matter is that unless you have immediate advanced life support your odds of survival during a sudden "no warning" cardiac event are near zero - the numerical odds go down by 10% for every minute that ALS EMS-level treatment is delayed. After 10 minutes, statistically, you've got a zero shot at it. Even if you're sitting in the ER when it happens, your odds are not good - a sizeable number of people who have their coronary sitting IN a hospital die anyway.

A secondary issue is emphysema and related pulmonary problems, but those are going to knock you out of diving anyway, whether you're currently smoking or not.

This issue Mike, is a red herring and a trumped-up charge that GUE has used for years as justification for a policy that simply isn't justified by the science. One has to wonder if its as simple as GI3 having a stick up his tail about the issue and deciding to make a political statement - given the political climate that allows bashing smokers these days, it would not surprise if that was the true genesis of this "policy."

It certainly isn't the facts behind it, and when GUE claims flat lies as supposed science all that serves to do is call into question their true motives.

 

[Cave Diver]

DiverBuoy once bubbled...
I have a question for all DIR/GUE folks ... does anyone get DIR-F right the first time out of the chute?

I would have to say "Yes." I posted a detailed report about my DIRF experience and self-evaluation. I didn't walk away from the class feeling like I had aced it, but I certainly performed pretty well. My feelings were confirmed when I talked to the instructors (Tyler and Dave) after the class about my performance. I told them that I was considering taking the Tech 1 class and I asked them for an honest opinion on whether the skills I demonstrated during DIRF were sufficient for me to continue on to Tech 1.

Their responses confirmed my own assessment. There were a few minor issues that I needed to sort out and improve on, but they both felt confident that I was capable of doing well in the Tech 1 class.

ElectricZombie once bubbled...
I have not taken the DIRF class, but the idea of a certification based class sounds like a bad idea. You cannot expect anyone to master those skills in only 3 days. You certainly cannot expect anyone to pay an additional $300.00 to take the class again either.

You can't master the skills in 3 days if you go in with no skills at all. However, if you already have the skills and just use the DIRF class to help hone them, then I think mastery is certainly possible.

I had already had a lot of good training prior to taking the DIRF class. I also did my homework on what to expect during DIRF by reading the book, reading previous reports, and reading everything I could about GUE and the way it handles it's training. I talked to others that had taken their classes, and I watched the videos and I practiced skills. The buddy I took the class with was right there with me during all of this practice.

I found the class to be informative and challenging, but it wasn't the total shock that some of the others have reported. Maybe I have been fortunate to have had some really good training. Maybe it's because I have the opportunity to dive with buddies that push me to improve my skills. Maybe it's a combination of everything.

For me, the bottom line is this: I spent $300 to take a class I knew I wasnt going to get a c-card out of, and I would do it again. If they make DIRF a certification course, and all someone focuses on is the pass/fail aspect, then they are wasting their time and money, because they are just in it for the card, and not the training...

Just my $.02

 

[MASS-Diver]

Genesis,

One of my concerns about smoking is realted to the fact that nicotine causes vascontriction of periferal vessels, as a result perfusion is effected. One would think that this would have effects on off-gasing, what do you think?

You rae right on about the 25% statement though, if a person is reading even in the mid90s that is enough to cause alot of concern, most people are right around 97-99.

I not sure how accureat thatEMS related stat is for strokes, but, certainly for MIs if would be nice if dive boats started carrying those new portable defibs, they are easy as hell to use and save lives.

Bottom line, if you smoke you are not healthy person; health isn't just passing some phyis test, it's a broader concept that includes lifestyle choices. If GUE doesn't want to train unhealthy people more power to them, but, I do agree there is no need to pass off pseudo-science as fact, there are enough "real" facts out there that should to convince anyone that diving and smoking don't mix.

 

[MHK]

Genesis once bubbled...


As I posted before, I don't smoke.

However, when it comes to the facts, you're not quite on the ball with this one, and the common chestnut that GUE puts forth on this matter is just plain scientifically bankrupt.

What binds to the hemoglobin is carbon monoxide. CO is present in cigarette smoke in significant percentages, as it is nearly always present when something carbon-based (and plants - of which tobacco is one, of course) burns. When you inspire it intentionally, of course, you can expect to find O2 transport impairment.

However, the "25% bound up" number is just plain wrong. You'd be VERY close to dead (if not actually dead) when you smoked if that was true. At a deficiency of 25% of O2 saturation you are considered in CRITICAL trouble from a standpoint of staying alive if you're lucky. A cardiac-impaired person (from any source) with a 25% hemoglobin "lock up" due to CO inhalation would be nearly certain to have an immediate coronary event or simply expire from cellular hypoxia.

This is precisely why discussing these type of issues on a scuba forum isn't very productive. You have a preconcieved notion and you misapplied the information to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.. With respect to the difference between your 10% number versus what we reported as up to 25% is nearly irrelevent and is in fact a red-herring designed to undermine the issue. Even if your 10% number is correct, and for purposes of discussion let's assume that it is, the fact still remains that when you look at the issue from a oxygen transitory standpoint, and dives that involved elevated oxygen content why expose yourself to even a 10% reduction in the ability to transport oxygen??? In other words, by your own admission you believe that the *reduction*, for lack of a better term, is 10%, we think it's up to 25% but the point is whatever the number is in this example it's still a level of reduction couple that with the other acknowledged safety concerns associated with diving including, but not limited to, respitory and cardiovascular deficienies it's just safer and more efficient to limit the people we choose to teach to people that don't smoke..

I guess why I'm struggling to understand your point of view, and were I'm uncomfortable with how to proceed with you is as follows:

Many just want to argue for the sake of argument, and it appears as though your mind is very well made up respecting GUE so the question in my mind is why do you care who we choose to teach, or what our limitations are because they don't apply to you since you'll never want the training.. Take for example your *smoking* issue. You don't smoke, you aren't taking the class and your only real point is that you think it's only a 10% reduction whereas we believe that it's up to a 25% reduction.. Either way even if I ceeded to your number, the fact is that it is an increased risk that we choose not to accept...

Furhermore as to your interpretation of the issue you have it incorrect. It was never stated that because the smoke [ or C0] binds that we are saying that it represents a *lock-up* as you put it. All we are saying is that it produces an unecessary reduction in the ability to transport oxygen, and when you are talking about approaching NDL limits and/or doing decompression diving we feel there is no reason to take the risk. As I've noted if any smoker wants to engage in that kind of added risks then there are other agencies available to seek training..

Later

 

[cat]

WreckWriter once bubbled... When you speak of the "smoke" binding to hemoglobin I assume you meant that the carbon monoxide within the smoke binds to the hemoglobin 25% more effectively than oxygen, am I correct? WW

Don't think anyone answered this part of your question, WW, so I thought I would. CO actually binds to hemoglobin about 200 times more strongly than O2 does (the O2-heme bond strength is pH dependent). The "25% bound up" referred to here seems to be the proportion of hemoglobin bound up by CO in a heavy smoker (according to MHK). The % of the hemoglobin that will be bound to CO will depend on the concentrations/partial pressures of the competing gases (CO and O2) as well as their relative binding strengths to hemoglobin.

I don't know how accurate the "25% bound up in a heavy smoker" figure is. 65% bound up and you're definitely dead from suffocation according to my human phys notes - this suggests that the 25% is survivable, at least for a short time and under conditions of low oxygen demand. The MDs on the board probably have better figures than this.

I'd be interested in knowing how the LOAEC (lowest observable adverse effects concentrations, here expressed as % of normal saturation that would be potentially hazardous for a diver) are derived - not only do concentrations of hemoglobin vary from person to person, but I, and others like me, are quite regularly "down" by around 8-10% and it takes a few weeks to build back up to "normal". Not a smoker - I'm a blood donor (up here it's all volunteer, not paid) and I'd really like to hear the GUE/DIR take on how long after a donation I should wait before diving, over and above the 1-2 days the Canadian Blood Service tells you to wait before resuming strenous activity. Wait time should be somewhere under 56 days (the minimum time between between donations). Thank-you. Cat

 

[JeffW]

Just finished reading this thread. I'm not a DIR diver but have been reading a lot about it. Anyway...

It seems pretty clear that GUE is simply trying to limit the number of people taking the DIRF class. The popularity of the class may have overwhelmed them. And they want to re-focus the class to make it clear that a student takes DIRF in preparation for further GUE training. The DIRF is the beginning of a series of training, not an end in itself.

GUE gets the right to determine the standards for their technical diving training program. That means that they get to make the rules. For example, they get to decide if a candidate must be a non-smoker. One would hope that GUE has a logical reason for setting each particular standard. But I believe that it is their right to set arbitrary standards if they wish. (Ficticious example... "No student may begin training who is over the age of 38 years.") I tend to give GUE the benefit of the doubt in this regard. I believe that they have the safety of divers and the integrity of the sport in mind.

 

[wetman]

I think insisting on proper gear configuration is actually a very good idea. And those arguing that you're limiting yourself to people who already have the gear are barking up the wrong tree - did you have your BC before you took your BOW class? I doubt it. And for that same reason, if they insisted on BP&W, then I'd be very willing to bet they'd either be availalble for rent or for free for the duration of the course - i'd be surprised if just trying them wouldnt convert a few people and create a few sales.

Also, I doubt anyone going into the course could come out with satisfactory results if they hadn't practiced before hand. I think you're looking at 2 groups of people here - the ones who are taking it to learn the new skills and the ones that are taking it to improve on skills they've read about, heard about or seen and have practiced themselves ahead of time. The later would be there to get critical assessment and are very likely the ones who wish to proceed further in their GUE training.

My dive partner and I had been practicing for a few months ahead of of the DIRF course and it showed during the class. I think we got a lot more out of it because of that as well. We hadn't been practicing the backwards finning ahead of time and certainly couldnt do it in the class environment because it was our first exposure. However, after practicing it for a while after the class it is coming along nicely. So if that was an assessment criteria that was required to "pass" the course, we would have failed. But I would have to say, the GUE people would know this and have to make adjustements accordingly - i.e. take the DIRF as just a class and then have an assessment some time later.

However, if their goal is to make it a class that requires passing at the time of taking the class, you've already weeded out the people who may be taking it for interest only - or they just take it and fail and come out with a great experience only. I would think though, that if the goal is to only take the people REALLY willing to work on their skills, you've then set the bar for the DIRF class that would require people to practice these skills ahead of time so the class becomes one where you get to be exposed to the absolute proper methods and you can refine what you already know. That approach would require (i think) at least the ability to have people exposed to the proper methods ahead of time. BUT, given that the internet is so prevalent these days, sources like the FifthD videos (what we started practicing with) are quite availalble to many people and a good place to start.

And as far as the arbitrary limitations based on smoking or fitness, I'd say get over it. Clearly from day 1 you've been told smoking is bad for diving. Theres no news there. To refute based on numbers (10% or 25%) is rather pointless. I did a quick search and found 2 articles within a few minutes that had different numbers:

http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/coep/air/air_quality/CARBON MONOXIDE.pdf

listed up to 15% in heavy smokers on the top of page 3, and

http://www.orserenvironmental.com/generalinformation/CO_Article.pdf

listed 8 percent for pack-a dayers on the bottom of page two.

Either way, its non-zero and if you want to risk these things, feel free, but if GUE doesnt want you to risk it under their name, then isn't that their right?

I do think though, that if they do publish numbers they should publish the scientific journals to back themselves up. If they use elevated numbers to exagerate, that can only harm them. If they only state the verifiable facts - they'd still have a good argument in this case.

But to say:

There are other reasons to be concerned with smoking and diving, but hemogloben binding isn't one of the truly valid excuses.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to even me having absolutely no biology training whatsoever - if CO hemogloben binding at all reduces the way O2 is carried through your system, how COULDN'T that have an effect on decompressing with oxygen?

As far as physical fitness levels, again, isn't that their right to insist on whatever they want? If you don't meet their criteria go somewhere else. Its that easy. Just don't complain about it, because its THEIR right. I'm intending to take the Tech 1 course in august of this year. I KNOW i'm not physically fit enough for it right now. However, its given me a goal to achieve and I intend to be physically fit enough for it by that time. I quite like the fact that they do insist on it because it makes sense to me. There have been a couple times underwater where i know i've overexerted myself and had i been more fit i wouldn't have been breathing so heavily so i see the need for that level of fitness. It just makes sense - as do most of the philosophies/rules whatever you want to call them that GUE seems to put forth.

From my experience, the only technical diving instructor to tell us that we weren't ready to take a technical course has been the GUE instructor in our area. We've been approached by a couple other tech instructors to take their courses at times that we absolutely knew we weren't ready. One said that we should sign up quickly before his course fills up. That kind of thinking pretty much turned us off that instructor and that agency right then and there. The GUE people seem to be the least interested in the pressure sales from everything we've experienced and that suits us just fine.

steve

 

[Genesis]

Many just want to argue for the sake of argument, and it appears as though your mind is very well made up respecting GUE so the question in my mind is why do you care who we choose to teach, or what our limitations are because they don't apply to you since you'll never want the training.. Take for example your *smoking* issue. You don't smoke, you aren't taking the class and your only real point is that you think it's only a 10% reduction whereas we believe that it's up to a 25% reduction.. Either way even if I ceeded to your number, the fact is that it is an increased risk that we choose not to accept...

I've never sais that I'll "never" want the training. In fact, I was considering taking Tech-1 from you guys somewhere down the road, when I think I'm ready for it (which is not "right now", but might be later this summer, or in another years - all depends on how I feel about my skills at that point)

However, "increased risk" is not a yes/no question, as you know. As an example, but by no means the only one, there is a range of "normal" hemogloben values in a CBC. Its not a "value" that is either "right" or "wrong", it is a range. Someone with some percentage of hemogloben bound due to smoking will, among other things, have more of it in their blood.

While there will be some deficiency in transport, there will also be some deficiency in transport in some group of non-smokers! Your aerobic fitness standards are nowhere near "maximum performance" - what is it - 300 yards in 12 minutes for swimming? That's an aerobic fitness test, is it not? I did a similar swim for my OW, but with no time limit, and I was under the 12 minute mark - but I'm no marathon runner.

I can guarantee you that some smokers are more aerobically fit than I am, yet I would pass your fitness test while others would fail due to an arbitrary and capricious standard, backed by pseudo-science. even though looking through an OBJECTIVE lens they are more aerobically fit than I.

Second, as I noted, cigar smoking doesn't tend to implicate hemogloben CO binding, since the smoke never makes it into the alevoli.

Now you might say "why do you care, since you don't smoke"?

My answer is simple:

I care because I am undertaking a course of training in which science plays a major part. Particularly if I choose to undertake decompression procedure training from your organization, I am literally entrusting my life to your training methods, procedures, and scientific understanding of what is going on down there.

If you are teaching junk instead of science, then what else is junk? Can I trust any of the science that I am being trained upon from GUE?

This is actually quite a critical question, particularly as regards accelerated deco using the oxygen window. There are scientifically KNOWN risks associated with using your procedures, the most serious of which is the possible presence of a PFO in the diver, in that (at least according to GI3s treatises that he has published) these procedures intentionally use the lungs as a bubble filter and bubble into the venous system on purpose. In fact, it is so important the the WKPP has stated that they have PFO-tested ALL their divers becauise they experienced some "undeserved" hits according to those procedures that were later traced to the presence of a PFO! Yet such an impairment, while present to some degree in a very significant part of the population in general, is not known to virtually all "ordinary people", and such a test is not part of your "fitness requirements" for Tech-1! But smoking in general, particularly CIGAR smoking, could reasonably be classified as a LOWER risk factor than a PFO in terms of diver risk under decompression - and IT gets you BANNED from your training!

Furhermore as to your interpretation of the issue you have it incorrect. It was never stated that because the smoke [ or C0] binds that we are saying that it represents a *lock-up* as you put it.

Ah, but you are Mike.

See, I do understand the physiology of how CO interferes with your O2 transport. Hemogloben that has CO bound to it is indeed "locked up" and cannot transport ANY Oxygen until that binding is broken - which is very difficult to do. It has an affinity some 240 times higher than O2! This is why CO is so insideous and dangerous - you can be poisoned by it and die hours after being removed from the exposure, because its very, very difficult to drive it out of the hemogloben and restore the O2 carrying capability. This is why you can't take someone out of a CO-poisoned atmosphere, put them on 100% Oxygen for an hour, note that they're feeling ok, take them off and send them home - they may well die in the car on the way back to their house!

All we are saying is that it produces an unecessary reduction in the ability to transport oxygen, and when you are talking about approaching NDL limits and/or doing decompression diving we feel there is no reason to take the risk. As I've noted if any smoker wants to engage in that kind of added risks then there are other agencies available to seek training..

That's not what you're saying at all.

You are saying that it produces an unacceptable level of risk but then you accept an identical level of risk (someone with a low-normal hemogloben count, or a PFO) from someone who doesn't smoke, while someone who does (or who smokes cigars, where there is no CO impairment at all), or someone who was in a car with a smoker (who has a rather high impairment due to second-hand smoke yet never smoked a single cigarette) on the way to the dive site is perfectly ok to train.

My argument with this position is that GUE is using junk science and outright falsehoods to justify its position, and its neither necesary or appropriate.

All that position does, Mike, is damage your credibility and your credibility when it comes to the science behind your positions and procedures is all you have to sell!

And since my life will depend on that credibility should I choose to take Tech-1 from your organization, that is, in the end, the factor in my decision.

Its like the other debate I got into over drysuit training. I refused to take a formal class when I bought my suit and instead trained myself in diving dry. Why? Because they all wanted to teach me something that I believed was fundamentally dangerous - using the suit as a BC. None of the agency classes available here would teach me to dive dry using my WING as a BC!

So due almost ENTIRELY to the fact that I perceived the risk of this procedure as being excessive, I taught myself how to dive dry, in the pool first, and then in open water. It wasn't a money thing. It was a safety thing.

Perhaps I am too critical of a thinker; I've often been accused of that in my life. But that trait has served me well, and I'm not about to abandon it.

I respect GUE's right to say "GI3 and the rest of the board think that smoking is a disgusting and unhealthy habit. We don't like smokers and the increased risks that they bring upon themselves are well-documented. Even though some forms of smoking (such as cigar smoking) don't implicate oxygen transport, we still dislike it as a group. Therefore, we won't train smokers - its our personal choice as an agency to refuse, even if they pass our fitness (swimming) tests."

That would be honest. It would acknowledge that this is not a matter of actual risks in deco procedures or otherwise (its not), but rather is simply a personal vendetta against a group of people who GUE doesn't like and desires not to associate with as a group.

Instead GUE is hiding behind junk science - and implicating its actual understanding in the other areas of science that it MUST use to bring divers safely back from the deep!

That is where my issue with this (and other related things) lies.

This is similar to the Triox debate you and I had on Usenet, in which you cited "proprietary" data on CO2 retention and the like.

Mike, the scientific process does not admit secrecy of this kind when one wants to cite facts to support one's position. In fact, it is the very antithesis of science to take such a position.

Science is a peer-reviewed, independantly-replicated thing. That's how the world establishes that the claims are real rather than quackery, and how its been done for many, many years.

If GUE wants me to trust my life to their rendition of science when it comes to technical training, then one of the things that I believe I have a right to expect from the organization is an honest presentation of the science, if known, behind their views, and a clear presentation that differentiates between beliefs and facts, so that I can make my own informed decisions as to that information's value.

You're getting a failing grade from me right now on this point due to your use of junk science and outright falsehood in support of a policy decision that, in truth, is unlikely to be based upon anything more than personal prejudice.

That's a strong indictment, yes, but it is the inescapable conclusion that I am coming to on this point, and for me, at least, it poisons the atmosphere in regards to undergoing GUE training.

 

[Uncle Pug]

to my last post (prompted by a PM)...

The application of part of the DIRf fee toward Tech 1 was something Andrew did for us several years ago... and obviously that is not a practice that could continue... in fact IIRC shortly after our class it was posted on the website that none of the DIRf fees would apply to Tech 1.

My point was that the DIRf did not come out of a desire to commercialize DIR for the masses and profit from it... it came from a desire to teach diving and see students succeed in the Tech classes.