How young to start diving ?

What are the generally accepted thoughts on teaching children to dive ? I know a little about SSI and Scuba Rangers, but what about kids actually diving before that ?

My 5 year old has taken to an octopus rig in shallow (less than 10 feet) water. He's an accomplished swimmer, and has an incredible ability to hold his breath under water (but not while diving...) My 4 year old is on his heels...

Is there a risk here that I may be unware of ? I'm not looking to take him on any extended trips, but at what age can I reasonably expect to get him into a BC with his own tank and have him dive with me ? Again - no deco dives - but shallow, short dives would be fun with him untethered <g>.

Thanks -

Todd

At 8 yrs. old he can join the kids programs like Scuba Rangers and PADI Seals. But no credited agency will issue him a C-card younger than 10. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

There was a discussion here just a few dyas ago about young divers. I suggest you read it. Also use the search function for young divers. You'd be amazed at the subjects already covered if you look for them.

Taking an uncertified person of any age on your octo is risking that person's death. A 5 year old child is even more likely to hold their breath and die as a result. The greatest risk is in shallow water. Please don't ever do this again. I know you love your children, don't risk them in this way.

Some agencies certify divers at age 10, most are taking the wiser course of action and have left their minimum age at 12. Some 12 year olds are mature enough to dive safely, most aren't.

There is the issue of high partial pressures of nitrogen and bone development. No one knows how much exposure can result in damage. I taught my son to dive at age 13. I limited him to 2 dive weekends per year with a max depth of 45 feet until he stopped growing. Caution is the wisest course of action. Don't risk your children's health or lives.

I agree with Walter, it sounds dangerous to let your 5 year old breath off your octo. I hope you don't continue this practice.

In the mean time, have you seen the SASSY thing for kids ( I think that's what's it called). I think it was discussed here before so try a search. But basically it is a little tank on the back of a vest that floats the kid at the surface, but you breath from a reg, so its like snorkeling with a tank on.

Walter once bubbled...


There is the issue of high partial pressures of nitrogen and bone development. No one knows how much exposure can result in damage. I taught my son to dive at age 13. I limited him to 2 dive weekends per year with a max depth of 45 feet until he stopped growing. Caution is the wisest course of action. Don't risk your children's health or lives.

Click to expand...

Walter:

Do you have any info that you can share which caused you to limit your son to a given number of dive weekends to a certain depth?

My 14 yr old is newly certified, and I intend to let him dive safely with me. What caused you to put on limits? If they dive safely (within conservative nitrogen exposure limits), won't they have the same or similar issues as I do?

What does the number of dive occurrances have to do with it?

Thanks,

--Sean

I think 18 ought to be the minimum age for scuba, but that's just me . Anyone who can't fully grasp the inherent risks shouldn't be scuba diving, IMO.

In my not-so-humble opinion, SASY is a solution to a problem that never existed. Teach a kid to snorkel and freedive properly and they will have a blast, and those skills will help them when they learn scuba later. There's a whole lotta fun to be had with those inexpensive snorkel sets sold in dive shops and sporting good stores.

Neil

any solid science linking hyperbaric exposure to bone necrosis or any other malady that would cause particular harm to a growing teen.

However, emotional maturity is a big deal. Kids can deal with the serious nature of scuba at different ages; they are all different.

Lack of ability to handle a problem underwater without having an immediate panic reaction can kill you underwater - reliably. But what the people who argue (persusively, I might add) the "no kids should dive" point of view miss is that an awfully large number of adults have "bad" reactions to panic-provoking situations - yet they still dive!

There are people who started diving at the ripe old age of six or so, without certification of course, sometimes with their parents' active participation, and sometimes not (I know kids who "snuck" their Dad's "Spare Air" to dive for limited depths and times!)

Is it dangerous? Sure. So is swimming in a pool (kills about 1,000 kids a year), lightning (kills about 100 people a year), organized football (kills about a dozen kids a year, and maims or permanently injures thousands more, with some of those injuries being very serious), soccer (permanently injures thousands annually), boxing (ditto), jungle gyms at the local playground, etc. I think you're getting the point here by now - there is no such thing as a "no risk" physical endeavor.

Now is scuba such an inordinate risk that it deserves 'special" attention? I don't know. Statistically, though, and the answer is a resounding no - about 100 people a year cap themselves diving, and that includes people taking extreme risks in their diving activities. There is no evidence to support junior (under 18) year divers are at special risk in the accident statistics.

Your kid is more likely to be run over and killed (by two or three couple of orders of magnitude) while walking than he is to cap himself scuba diving.

Will I recommend that someone else ignore agency recommendations? No. But I also won't condemn them for doing so, as I am not qualified to judge that particular kid's maturity and understanding of the subject matter, nor am I qualified to judge that particular parent's view of the sport, risk allocation, and acceptance of the possible consequences.

Gather the data for yourself, read it, and judge as a parent where your child or children stand in terms of their ability to handle this activity.

I would be more worried about the phsycological side of it. I remember when I was 15 and the capers I got up to - Superman would be jelous.

Sometimes younger adults or adults to be may not recognize a dangerous situation as they are more gung ho

scubasean,

I don't have any research to back up those limits. I arrived at them because they seemed ulta conservative to me and I didn't like the idea of putting my son at risk. Those limits seemed, to me, to have a very low risk.

Neil,

You are in good company with your opinion on age 18, check out the article by Dr. Taylor.

I agree completely on SASY.

Genesis,

"I have been unable to find....
any solid science linking hyperbaric exposure to bone necrosis"

Where did you look?

Long-term Effects of Diving

Ernest S. Campbell, MD, FACS, Orange Beach, Ala.

[Medscape Orthopedics & Sports Medicine 2(5), 1998. © 1998 Medscape, Inc.]

"Dysbaric Osteonecrosis

Early in this century thousands of men were employed in the building of tunnels and bridges using compressed air to keep the workplace dry. It is from this population that the first reports of
disabling hip and shoulder conditions were verified radiographically as joint degeneration. The insidious nature of this condition can result in considerable bone damage prior to detection. In 1972, Edmonds and Thomas[5] estimated the incidence of dysbaric osteonecrosis was as high as 50% in divers. Ten case studies over the next ten years of divers who sought treatment for persistent joint pain were found to have osteonecrosis. The validity of both the Edmonds and Thomas results and some of the case studies are now being questioned because there was no established standard for radiologic diagnosis of dysbaric osteonecrosis.

Dysbaric osteonecrosis involves infarction of an area of bone due to the obstruction of terminal vessels of the bone's vascular supply, probably by gas emboli. The condition is thought to be a late manifestation of decompression sickness, frequent exposure to increased pressure, insufficient decompression on ascent, or inadequate treatment of decompression illness. Early diagnosis is by radiographic examination[6], scintography[7], MRI, and more recently ultrasonography.[8]

Osteonecrosis in divers presents in two basic forms: juxta-articular (subchondral), and shaft, which includes the neck and a portion of the long bone. The shaft lesions are predominately saponified fat, are usually asymptomatic, and are seldom of orthopedic significance. The juxta-articular lesions are of greater clinical significance, causing symptoms that are potentially disabling. These lesions show areas of dead bone surrounded by a layer of collagen which forms a fibrous band and new bone. Beyond is an area of creeping substitution and healing trabeculae (Fig. 4).

Frequently there is pain over the joint which may be aggravated by movement and radiate down the limb, and a slight restriction of movement is common. In the shoulder, the signs mimic rotator
cuff lesions, with pain from 60 to 180 degrees abduction and difficulty maintaining abduction against resistance. Following collapse of the cartilage, secondary degenerative arthritis develops with further reduction in joint motion. The femur is affected two to three times more often than the humerus.

Imaging

The radiograph is the gold standard for diagnosing dysbaric osteonecrosis but it depends on the quality of the radiograph and the radiologist's experience. Although only the shoulders and the hips are affected, extensive views of the lower femur and upper tibia are included to identify as many shaft lesions as possible.

The incidence of avascular necrosis in the general population is unknown, so the alternative causes of bone necrosis should be excluded when the condition is found in divers. They include
hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, pancreatitis, cirrhosis with chronic alcoholism, long-term steroid therapy, Gaucher's Disease, and other conditions that may be incompatible with fitness for diving.

Although the diagnostic standard, radiography is not a good tool to demonstrate changes over time. Other techniques are available and have value in screening for the disease. MDP
(99mTechnetium Methyl-dipolyphosphate) scans are very sensitive to local bone pathology. A "hot spot" indicates increased perfusion and metabolism and changes are recognized only hours after a dive. A positive scan indicates a need for radiological follow-up and is not diagnostic.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Fig. 4) has a remarkable power to detect early lesions but because of expense it is not generally available for routine screening of large populations. It was used in 1981 by the Decompression Sickness Registry, who found that the percentage of bone necrosis, both shaft and juxta-articular, increases in a sample of divers with age and experience. At least one definite lesion was found in 4.2% of a population of 4980 divers. Necrosis was not found in those who had never dived deeper than 30 meters, but was detected in 30 out of 190 men (15.8%) who had dived deeper than 200 meters. It can be argued that screening of deep divers with MRI can detect juxta-articular lesions and prevent joint collapse.[9]

Early recognition is imperative, and can be accomplished by annual long bone radiographic examinations, radiographic investigation of any minor arthralgia or bursitis, and follow-up
radiographs two months after a decompression episode. Asymptomatic lesions should restrict diving to shallow depths with proscription of decompression, experimental, and commercial diving. Obviously, juxta-articular lesions preclude any diving whatsoever. Early surgical treatment by decortication of the involved area with prosthesis is recommended."

The NOAA Diving Manual also discusses the relationship on page 3-29.

The following is not something I would expect you to find. I saved it at the time. It is a personal account of Patti O'B. and was posted on the Rodale's forum in 1997. It is NOT solid scientific evidence, but I would need solid scientific evidence diving does not cause problems in a child's development before I'd change my position - children are too precious to risk.

"Posted by Patti O'B on November 16, 1997 at 11:40:05:

In Reply to: No deeper than 20m posted by CWS on November 14, 1997 at 14:36:35:

Age is not a good measure of maturity or physical ability, but there are many physiological reasons why you should read the medical literature and assess the risks. There are unique physical differences between growing bodies and adults. We still don't know so much about DCS. Read the literature on how the tables were created. Then take a look at the questions surrounding the effects of hormone levels, fat/muscle ratios, and age on gas exchange in the blood. Read up on the patent foramen debate. And read about the effects of pressure on bones.
And to reinforce this advice, here's a story ...

I started diving at age 11. There wasn't a JR card then, so I finished the advanced diver training which had no age restrictions and started diving fast and furiously. I dove with a terrific dive group, but I was the only one my age. I dove the group profiles of up to 150' feet. Within the first year I logged over 200 dives, then started assisting classes, taking more courses, and doing lots and lots of diving. It was wonderful! I loved every minute of it.

Then at 18, I discovered a medical problem- my bones and cartilege, primarily in my spine- were degenerating rapidly. No family history of this problem. So a surgery and some PT later, I was back in the swing of things, working now as an AI and studying for a degree in underwater archaelogy, working as a dig safety officer and generally in the water 5-6 days a week minimum 4 hours at a time. Whoops- more back problems (surprise, surprise) Final diagnosis was repeated stress injuries from heavy involvement in "high impact sports" such as gymnastics and yes, diving. Five years, three surgeries and countless hours of PT later, I regained most of my mobility. But- it meant finishing my degree from the hospital (not in archaelogy because it was fieldwork that appealed to me), missing out on most of my last two years of college, spending the four months after my wedding in yet another hospital, and now figuring out how to do everything with only partial use of one leg and a lifting restriction of 10-15 lbs!

I'm not saying the diving by itself caused this. But it is very likely that diving influenced the development of the bones and encouraged the degeneration (not just my opinion by also my diving orthopedic surgeon's and a host of physical therapists, doctors, nurses, techs ). Add to this the stress of lifting tanks, gear, etc which compounded the problems.

Take the time to read the literature (not just about the effects on bone but also about your heart), talk to a diving MD and then assess the risks. It isn't just about reaching your full height. You can be 6'3" and not have finished bone development. After knowing the potential risks, then you can make your own decision about profiles, frequency, etc. The literature is by no means cut and dried. But there is enough there (IMHO) to justify being cautious. You've got your whole life to dive, and though I can still dive- it certainly isn't as much fun as it used to be!
Will I let my kids dive? Unless the literature changes in the next ten years...Absolutely! Will I restrict that diving- you better believe it!!

Take care all- and dive safely!!

Patti O'B"

For a long discussion on a host of issues related to children and diving go to Larry "Harris" Taylor's discussion on
Why I do NOT Train Kids from Our World Underwater, April 28, 2001 in Chicago.

The bottom line is why take chances with the most precious things on this planet - our children.

Yes, I've read the studies you cited in your post Walter.

BUT, anecdotes aside (which prove nothing, as I'm sure you know), those studies are all dealing with people who worked commercially as a "diver" (whether in water or air; e.g. caisson workers), and many of them include data from exposures when people were routinely bent due to lack of understanding of the NEED to decompress - and how.

As I'm also sure you know, Walter, for most people diving recreationally the exposures are FAR less severe - an hour a week .vs. 8 hours a day!

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.

Larry Taylor's view is, IMHO, all-too-visible in his first few slides. 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. As someone who has paid very close attention to spaceflight since I was a child, I, and others who have done so (and certainly those who have participated in same) have been well-aware that there is a level of risk considered "acceptable" in manned space flight, and even that there have been projections for the orbiters that about 1 in 100 missions would result in catastrophic loss of the crew and equipment. The astronauts know this. We have, unfortunately, not met that bar, but we're not out of the realm of statistical reason with our "defect rate" thus far. This loss rate is not driven by "greed", as Taylor claims, it is driven by the reality of a dangerous endeavor that, as a society, we have nonetheless decided to undertake for the benefits that it can bring us. (The benefits of space exploration are too numerous to mention; you wouldn't be using a personal computer were it not for it, as just one example.)

Taylor's argument is that there is no "benefit" to allowing your kids of some age (prior to 18) to dive, as if there is a switch at 18 that is thrown and it all becomes ok. That's clearly crap, but it is his position. If there is no benefit to diving, why in the hell do any of us participate in the sport? Clearly there is a benefit - which leads to the question - what is the level of risk, and where is the balance point?

By the same argument you can claim that there should be no organized football teams in high school (they produce a lot of injuries, some with lifetime negative effects), soccer (ditto) or backyard swimming pools. Nor should we ever allow a kid on a boat to go fishing with his or her Dad - they might fall off and drown, or get chopped into pieces by the propellor.

The absurdity of these kinds of positions when taken to ultimate extremes, and the scare tactics employed by those who press these views and positions, has risen beyond all reason.

There is, as I noted, IMHO a legitimate debate about the emotional and mental maturity of a particular individual in terms of fitness to dive. But, as I also noted, there are plenty of 30 and 40 year old people who can't handle it objectively, yet they do indeed dive. So do we not include a psychological eval as part of a scuba "license"?

Taylor argues that our children are "too precious to risk." Ok. Does he also argue that the aforementioned high school football team should be disbanded? Why not? Those very same kids are "too precious to risk" on the field intentionally banging their heads together, are they not? For what benefit - so that one in ten thousand of them - or fewer - can derive an economic benefit from playing at the pro level eventually - if they don't get hurt first? Ditto for Baseball, Soccer, Track, snow skiing, and all the other physical activities - none of which are risk-free - that children engage in.

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.