Narcosis Properties of Different Gases

[victorzamora]

Not a black and white situation at all.

Yes it is. If oxygen is proven to be narcotic under even one scenario, then it is clear that oxygen has the capacity of being narcotic. It can also be said that oxygen has narcotic properties.

My statement wasn't that oxygen is always narcotic.


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

 

[gianaameri]

As has been indicated several times in this thread there is very little evidence showing that oxygen is narcotic at recreational depths. However, you have claimed that this means that oxygen is NOT narcotic at recreational depths, which is simply not so.

I will admit it has been a little fun for me walking in circles around this train wreck, but don't plan to make another lap.

There is no evidence whatsoever that oxygen is narcotic at recreational depths.

If there were any, I would take a different stance (honestly and especially in my diving as I'd then use Trimix and not N32 to 100' in a cave).

I'd like to see (i.e. Title of research, author, publication) any evidence no matter how little this may be that may support the contrary.

---------- Post added August 29th, 2013 at 01:36 PM ----------

Yes it is. If oxygen is proven to be narcotic under even one scenario, then it is clear that oxygen has the capacity of being narcotic. It can also be said that oxygen has narcotic properties.

My statement wasn't that oxygen is always narcotic.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

I absolutely accept O2 IS indeed narcotic outside recreational depths (i.e. 1.65 pPO2, 10% impairment).

Recreational depths (i.e. N32 at 100') is one of those circumstances where science has not been able to show that O2 is narcotic.

 

[phoenix31tt]

so if you say 10% impairment at 1.65 bar... don't you think 8% impairment is valid at 1.4bar? (111' @ N32)...

or maybe you're simply saying that it goes from 0 to 10% when it jumps from 1.64 to 1.65 bar...

either way based on your previous responses... everybody else i have bad news for you:

 

[dfx]

There is no evidence whatsoever that oxygen is narcotic at recreational depths.
...
I absolutely accept O2 IS indeed narcotic outside recreational depths (i.e. 1.65 pPO2, 10% impairment).

The second part of this post is exactly the evidence that the first part claims doesn't exist. If you don't understand that, then it's really pointless to even talk about it.

 

[gianaameri]

so if you say 10% impairment at 1.65 bar... don't you think 8% impairment is valid at 1.4bar? (111' @ N32)..

Do you interpolate the U.S. Navy or the PADI deco tables?

Why do you think we are taught not to do so in Scuba 101?

Notwithstanding the above, if a scientific peer reviewed research were to demonstrate that such interpolation is valid, than there would more than no evidence that O2 is narcotic at recreational depth.

Do you have any such evidence?

---------- Post added August 29th, 2013 at 02:09 PM ----------

The second part of this post is exactly the evidence that the first part claims doesn't exist. If you don't understand that, then it's really pointless to even talk about it.

You cannot make the claim that O2 is narcotic at recreational depths (i.e. N32 at 100') because you proved that it is narcotic beyond recreational depths (at 1.65 pPO2, 10% impairment).

 

[dfx]

You cannot make the claim that O2 is narcotic at recreational depths (i.e. N32 at 100') because you proved that it is narcotic beyond recreational depths (at 1.65 pPO2, 10% impairment).

No, but you can make the claim that it may be. And you absolutely cannot make that claim that it isn't, as you do. The fact remains that there is evidence.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

I absolutely accept O2 IS indeed narcotic outside recreational depths (i.e. 1.65 pPO2, 10% impairment).

And Nitrogen? Requiring a PP of 6.3ATA to produce the same 10% impairment according to the same study? Is it not narcotic at 100'?



After all, the PPO2 at 100' on EAN30 (1.21/1.65=73%) is a lot closer to the admittedly narcotic threshold than the PPN2 under the same conditions (2.82/6.3=45%).

You cannot make the claim that O2 is narcotic at recreational depths (i.e. N32 at 100') because you proved that it is narcotic beyond recreational depths (at 1.65 pPO2, 10% impairment).

You have that backwards. Having proved it is narcotic under certain conditions, the assumption is that -- absent proof or a tested theory showing why it would be otherwise -- some narcotic effect would be observed even at lower depths. That's the thing about science...it's predictive as well as observational.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

 

[gianaameri]

No, but you can make the claim that it may be. And you absolutely cannot make that claim that it isn't, as you do. The fact remains that there is evidence.

Because the research cited by syntaxerrorsix shows that for O2 to be narcotic it requires 1.65 pPO2 (and this at depths greater than recreational diving depths), then I can make the assetion that O2 is NOT narcotic at a significantly lower pPO2 and depth (this also considering that science has been unable to show that O2 is narcotic at recreational diving depths).

Such research cited by syntaxerrorsix gives me comfort in my belief (pursuant to my observations and the teachings of the NSS and others long ago on the subject) that O2 is not narcotic in N32 at 100' because N32 has a much lower pPO2 at 100' than 1.65 pPO2.

So, I accept O2 a. may be or b. may not be narcotic at recreational depths, but there is both direct evidence that it is not (the pPO2 of N32 at 100' being less than 1.65) and also indirect evidence that it is not (i.e. science has been unable to prove that it is).

---------- Post added August 29th, 2013 at 04:12 PM ----------

You have that backwards. Having proved it is narcotic under certain conditions, the assumption is that -- absent proof or a tested theory showing why it would be otherwise -- some narcotic effect would be observed even at lower depths. That's the thing about science...it's predictive as well as observational.

When I was little, true story, I read on the newspaper that scientists determined saccarin was carcinogenic.

I was very worried for my Granddad who took saccarin, and my first thought was to tell him to stop immediately (and I did).

Then I also read that the "scientists" fed the rats in a short period of time more saccarin than a human would ingest in a life-time.

So, YES, saccarin is carcinogenic, but it is so under the tested conditions. Lower the dose, and the rats live happily on saccarin.

Same with O2.

Under the tested conditions, O2 is narcotic (i.e. 1.65 pPO2, 10% impairment).

Lower the dose, it may not be.

Is there some evidence (another study) which shows O2 is narcotic at a lower pPO2 than 1.65 pPO2 (and a shallower depth than tested)?

It is very interesting indeed how O2 appears to be narcotic at a lower partial pressure than N.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Since when is 1.3 "much lower" than 1.65?

Do you think depth has some special affect on O2 narcosis, independent of PP? You keep distinguishing the two, but taking EAN36 on a 120' rec dive puts you at 1.67 pO2.

Do you really think O2 narcotic impairment is binary, in the sense that it's 0% at 1.64 pO2 and 10% at 1.65 pO2?