How young to start diving ?

[agstreet]

Genesis once bubbled...



There IS evidence that bone necrosis can be caused by DCS-related insults to the circulation in the bones. But does the average diver suffer DCS? Is there a sub-clinical level of injury that is happening to virtually everyone, or even some statistically significant portion of the diving population? There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that there is.


Is Scuba unique? Only in the fact that it is equipment-intensive. Is it particularly "deadly"? No. Not even compared to swimming in your backyard pool - five times as many school-age children die every year in swimming pools as all persons who die diving annually!

Risk assessment is a good thing, and it is also part and parcel of being a parent. I applaud those who consider - carefully - such factors. But the hype and harpie crowd, IMHO, has no seat at this table.

But people who use statistics in a misleading way are welcome?

Using total number of accidents instead of accident rate is a favorite way of twisting statistics to overstate or understate a point. Compare the accident rate of scuba with the accident rate of swimming, and you'll find swimming is a safer sport.

As for scuba being unique, you're convieniently omitting the pressure thing. True, the exposure is for much less time than that experienced by commercial divers, but we're talking about children who are still growing. As you correctly point out, there are no scientific studies correlating bone necrosis or other physiological trauma in children to exposure to a hyperbaric environment. But the lack of data only means that we don't know, not that exposure to a hyperbaric environment causes no harm. While some people think it's OK to take the attitude of "ask forgiveness, not permission" in gray areas such as this, I think that's a somewhat unethical attitude to take when it applies to letting 8-10 year olds dive.

Finally, with regards to sub-clinical DCS, I guess it depends on your definition of sub-clinical. Technically, any DCS that causes tissue damage cannot be sub-clinical, since the damage itself is a symptom of bubble formation. The question is to what extent are divers either unaware of the damage, or do they ignore the damage or attribute the effects of the damage to something other than DCS. Regardless of the definition, bubble formation causes a host of insults to the human body (refer to chapter 10.4 of Bennett and Elliott's Physiology and Medicine of Diving), so it's incorrect to say there is no scientific evidence supporting damage caused by sub-clinical DCS.

Alan

 

[Walter]

Genesis,

You began by saying, "I have been unable to find....
any solid science linking hyperbaric exposure to bone necrosis."

Now you are limiting your argument from "hyperbaric exposure" to "people diving recreationally" and seem to indicate that your argument has not changed. Less than honest? Possibly, although it is possible your position was not clear in your own mind.

Yes, there is a big difference in exposure levels between commericial divers and sport divers. There is no argument on that point. Are sport divers generally at less risk of dysbaric osteonecrosis than commercial divers? Of course. OTOH, developing bones are different from bones that have stopped growing. Are developing bones at risk from exposure to high partial pressures of nitrogen? We don't know. It is possible. I certainly don't want my children to be test cases for a study. Do you have scientific evidence that high partial pressures of nitrogen don't harm developing bones? To me, that is the better question.

"By the same argument you can claim that there should be no organized football teams in high school"

Not exactly. There is a good argument for not allowing your children to participate in dangerous sports (I didn't) not that they shouldn't exist. I've never said you shouldn't allow your children to dive nor that you should limit their diving as I did. I just believe you should be aware of the issues involved. I don't think you should be allowed to take uncertified divers of any age on your octo - they don't understand the risks.

I don't understand your obvious dislike of Dr. Taylor's article since he agrees with you. He states, "There are no documented studies demonstrating that diving is harmful to children."

Taylor never says there is a switch at age 18. He admits age 18 is very conservative and explains that often abstract reasoning develops at approximately age 14 - 17. You are misrepresenting his article.

You also misrepresent his article when you say, "Taylor's argument is that there is no "benefit" to allowing your kids of some age (prior to 18) to dive"

He never says that. He says a risk-benefit assessment should be made for all diving activities.

He does not use the Challenger accident to damn. Again, you misrepresent his article. He says, "The lesson of history is that once the preceived need to increase revenue controls thinking, then, often, the best interests of the participants are forgotten." He does use photos of Challenger's last flight and the explosion at that point. You can disagree with his use of those photos and you can disagree with his point. When you make statements such as, "The use of the Challenger explosion as a point of "damning" says all I need to see and read - he's not above blatently falsification and hyperbole in an attempt to make a point.", you are misleading people. You are doing exactly that of which you accuse Dr. Taylor.

When you say, "says all I need to see and read" I wonder if you actually read the article or if you saw the photos of the Challenger and stopped.

Risks to children who dive are real. We honestly do not know what all those risks might be. To dismiss possible risks because of a lack of studies (studies which will probably never be done because of the risk to children) is doing a disservice to both children and their parents.

No one has said diving will harm a child's bone development. That harm is a possibility and anecdotes do show possibilites. You are correct that anecdotes do not prove a case, that does not mean they don't have their uses.

Wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution?

 

[scubasean]

Walter and others,

Thanks for the great info....I think my position at this point is on the conservative side, but less conservative than yours....

I generally take the approach that things should be done in moderation...As a parent, I have a dual role, one as a protector to moderate life so that circumstances that my kids can handle will be presented them (pushing the limits somewhet to assist intellectual growth), and second as one of teacher. In the role as teacher, I believe it good to expose my kids to many things (to see where their interests lie...) as you seem to do.

My 11 yr old doesn't want to dive, so I'm safe there. My 14 yr old is quite enthusiastic to dive, and will dive conservatively (if only because his dive buddy is me, at present). The 14 yr old is currently focused on going deep for any reason, possibly believing that bigger better things will be seen there, but he will be diving with me and therefore will see many things anyway...while going to deeper depths (60-80ft.) occasionally...and after he's done it with an instructor.

I don't push the edge in any of my diving, remaining well within the tables (even though I use a computer) on every dive, safety stops being mandatory, etc.

Thanks for the insight...All good information.

--Sean

 

[Genesis]

Risks to children who dive are real. We honestly do not know what all those risks might be. To dismiss possible risks because of a lack of studies (studies which will probably never be done because of the risk to children) is doing a disservice to both children and their parents.

No one has said diving will harm a child's bone development. That harm is a possibility and anecdotes do show possibilites. You are correct that anecdotes do not prove a case, that does not mean they don't have their uses.

Wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution?

Risks to people who dive are real. We honestly do not know what all those risks might be.

I have dismissed nothing. I do, however, argue that Taylor's claim that there is no reward and infinite risk is ethically bankrupt and given to gross overstatement.

As to whether I would rather err on the side of caution, the answer in the general sense is "no". Why? Because I would have my kid locked up all day in her room if I did that. Every activity she would participate in, from swimming to riding her bicycle, could be denied under the rubric of "err on the side of caution."

Of course that's beyond silly and into the realm of the insane.

So where does diving fit into all of this?

That's an individual decision for each parent, for each child, and depends on the circumstances, that kid's emotional development, and much more. It simply isn't a matter of "yes" or "no" or black and white, as Taylor claims.

Is DCS dangerous? Yeah. It is. Are there potential harms that could arise from DCS that are unique to a still-growing body? Probably. Are they likely to arise? No idea.

But studies in commercial divers showing necrosis issues do not necessarily translate into risk for recreational diving, kids or no.

Personally, my biggest concern as a parent is and will be (when my daughter is old enough to dive, if she wants to) her EMOTIONAL maturity. I am not only very aware of this issue, but agree with it. But that does not lead to a blanket condemnation of training kids, nor to a "hard" age beyond which it is ok and before which it is not.

As for the Challenger reference, its an attempt to inflame and further the reference he makes is factually false. Challenger didn't blow up due to bad prioritization, as is alleged. It blew up due to the fact that space flight is risky, not all failure modes can be analyzed with certainty, decisions are sometimes made incorrectly, and that in this particular case - manned space flight - there is a known, computationally-derived risk of failure that is accepted willingly by those who participate. That the "inflection" point for the O-ring seals on the boosters was not known with certainty - that is, under what conditions they were absolutely not safe to ignite - is a fact. To go further and say that a "go" was given for the launch knowing that the boosters would likely (or actually) fail, yet it was done due to priorities being bad - is factually inaccurate at best.

 

[Pez de Diablo]

Walter,
Great link to a very informative view on children and diving.

I won't let my daughter dive (6 years old) because of the unknowns. I sure would feel bad if she were to dive and was to have her development hampered because of the diving.

As much as I don't want to, I'll play it safe with her.

 

[Walter]

Genesis,

Are you intentionally misleading people or are these merely mistakes on your part?

"Taylor's claim that there is no reward and infinite risk is ethically bankrupt and given to gross overstatement."

He made no such claim. He said, "benefit is never infinite 'cause the risk is never zero!"

That is close to opposite what you say he claims.

"As to whether I would rather err on the side of caution, the answer in the general sense is "no". Why? Because I would have my kid locked up all day in her room if I did that."

Are you incapable of a middle ground? Does this mean when your daughter's emotionally ready to dive, you won't put any restrictions on her? Do you not require her to wear a helmet when she rides that bicycle?

 

[Genesis]

Taylor's "presentation" is short on facts and long on hype, including emotional appeals.

You do not make an honest point with such an approach. In fact, such an approach to a debate marks your position as one that you know cannot be objectively defended, thus, you must resort to such appeals to "win" the debate.

As for the "middle ground", that is exactly what I believe one should take. A reasoned, rational analysis of both the risks and rewards.

Yes, my daughter wears her helmet on her bicycle. I recognize that there are both risks in riding it, and rewards FROM riding it. Just as I recognize that there are risks in participating in diving, and rewards FROM participating.

Where the balance of risk and reward tips is not a binary thing for "all kids". Taylor's approach, to simply ban diving from anyone under 18 (which he admits in his emotional appeal is driven as much from fear-mongering over liability issues as anything else), is no balance at all - it is a strict, "one size fits all" prescription backed not by reason, logic and statistics, but rather by an emotional appeal backed with "tugs at the heartstrings".

If you have the facts on your side such appeals are not necessary - the facts are both more persuasive and effective. If you don't, however, then they are the only way to get anyone to agree with you!

 

[bocho]

Hello everyone,

ok now, my son is 9 yrs old......turning 10 in march......have been getting him ready to dive since he was 6 months old in the jaccuzi.........(in cold water)

He is now ready to get certified NOW.....he studies in all hiw free time.

Knows everything but the dive tables.....he started with the SASY unit at AGE 8.............is very calm in the water

But started him in the ocean in hawaii.............snorkeling....until he got it down and was calm...........and could clear his snorkel........and would surface with snorkel clear

after he had this down............he then learned to clear his mask

I then got him the sasy unit............to break him into the reg..........setting up his gear........

got his first SCUBAPRO bcd this summer.....he finished the book.........also has done all the pool lesson's

Also want to add....i have not pushed him...
it is his choice......i can always get a dive buddy

And he say's he is ready and wants to get certified in APRIL 2003
It will all be up to him........he no doubt has the ability....also the confidence to do so


I will not allow him to dive belowe 30 ft until he has 100 dives or so under him


But the key is ...that he MASTERED the basics first.......

He has been to hawaii 5 times puerto rico 15 or so times
also st thomas,st john.........fla keys............and we snorkeled everytime together


daughter is 7 she also has her own SASY unit...and express's interest in also learning to dive......

Now if i could just get the WIFE in the water .........it would be great LOLOLOLO

have a great night CECIL

 

[scubiedoo]

I'm a teen girl, so i think that i've passed my maturity years!

i agree, 5 is too young, don't know much about scuba diving yet, but i've read a lot about the risks involved, and psychologically, 5 yr olds don't even know what right or wrong is yet... as for scuba, it is highly possible to make mistakes under water, even adults to do.. there is a high risk of death and disfunction of the nervous system if encountered with shock


i guess its more of a personal opinion, howwever i think that if you're alllowed to drive at 16, you should be allowed to scuba at 15-16, it just doesn't make sens to place restrictions when the law states that at 16 you start becomming responsible for most of your actions.

anyway hope this helps,, hehe

 

[DeputyDan]

age 12.