Comparing Doppler's class and GUE's DIRf class...

[Vinnie]

Sure sounds like a the DIRF course repackaged.

Vinnie

[Col.Cluster]

Vinnie once bubbled...
Sure sounds like a the DIRF course repackaged.

Vinnie

Yes, without the fitness requirements.

Vinnie could your instructor shut down and manage his own valves this past Easter Weekend? Mine could!!!
Hope to see you in the water when I get back to town.
CC

[barb]

.... is repackaging such a bad thing.
Keep the good parts, throw out the bad parts and then you have room for new and improved parts.
:)

[Doppler]

Vinnie once bubbled...
Sure sounds like a the DIRF course repackaged.

Vinnie



Well, having never taken a GUE course -- or not having seen a DIRf course outline -- it's difficult to say. JJ and I had a couple of long conversations about training standards eight or nine years ago so I can make some assumptions... and since both courses are aimed at the same typical demographic, one could certainly say the two courses have similar desired outcomes.


CC once bubbled...

Yes, without the fitness requirements.


I am not sure why you would say that... There are fitness requirements in all my courses, and I have washed candidates who couldn't demonstrate the required fitness level.

Something I feel is important in any training program -- whether it's teaching someone how to use a piece of software, how to climb a rock wall or how to conduct a dive in a safer more controlled manner -- is to resist the temptation to adopt a cookie-cutter approach. Naturally there has to be a baseline and one cannot deviate too far from the practical necessities of the environment. So fitness is always an issue for me... on a personal level, it's much harder -- impossible really -- for me to maintain the fitness level I once had. I used to race on nordic skis and ran middle distance competitively into my forties. I do citizen races now and actually find it a bit frustrating not to be at the front of the pack...but that's part of the aging process. I think it gives me some humility and empathy... and some background as a coach, which is part of the instructor's toolkit.

I designed the course because there are a lot of people coming into technical programs without certain skills and / or a deep understanding of some essential "truths" about diving.

Don't get me wrong. It's not a technical program. I just wanted to put something together that covered those basics without taking a cookie-cutter approach and that did not intimidate candidates but that did shake them up and make them reconsider the way they approach diving. Open water, technical , wanna-be or whatever.



CC once bubbled...

Vinnie could your instructor shut down and manage his own valves this past Easter Weekend? Mine could!!!
Hope to see you in the water when I get back to town.
CC

Any technical instructor who is unable to manage her or his own valves and who cannot demonstrate any required skill near perfectly, should not be teaching.

[Vinnie]

Doppler stated


I am not sure why you would say that... There are fitness requirements in all my courses, and I have washed candidates who couldn't demonstrate the required fitness level.

So what are the standards for this course both on the fitness side and the diving side.

[Doppler]

Vinnie once bubbled...
Doppler stated



So what are the standards for this course both on the fitness side and the diving side.

Not sure what you mean by "on the diving side." But here are the prerequisites:

1. Must be a minimum age of 16 years of age
2. Must be a certified open water diver from a recognized training agency
3. Must show proof of experience diving in environmental conditions similar to those in which course is offered
4. Must be able to swim a distance of at least 50 feet/15 meters submerged on a breath hold and must be able to tread water for 2 minutes with hands above head
5. Must demonstrate to instructor’s satisfaction a good level of CV fitness. Instructor may ask for surface swim, jog, bike ride… whatever she is most comfortable with.

Although it is not in the guidelines -- which of course I wrote -- I also like to see people with doubles prove to me that they can lift and manage them when they are on their back.

If I had my druthers, I'd love to run VO2Max tests but that's a bit over the top!

[Kevin R]

Specifically what dive skills are you teaching and/ or improving upon?

Kevin

[Doppler]

Kevin Ripley once bubbled...
Specifically what dive skills are you teaching and/ or improving upon?

Kevin

Hi Kevin:

Lots of mental and many physical...

The specific skills on which the course focuses are those that I've found either completely lacking or in need of improvement when people have come for other types of "advanced" training in the past. Briefly they are:

Team oriented behavior and general awareness of environmental changes and stimuli.
Process analysis and risk management
The value of practice and building of muscle memory for "mission critical" reactions
Being in Harmony with the enviroment

The drills and techniques used to work towards these fall into the following categories: Gas Management -- gas planning, gas sharing, contingency management -- Buoyancy and Trim, Swimming / Fining, Hogarthian equipment management and choices, Underwater Communications, Basic Dive Logistics -- such as deploying a marker from depth using a spool, mask switching, reel and line use, why bottom timers are better than computers... et al.

Nothing too earth shattering... just basic stuff that I think most people would agree helps expand the comfort zone...

Speaking of comfort zones... I am a little uncomfortable using this forum to advertize programs... and that was not my intention when I posted the first thank you... however, if there's anything else I can help you with, please let me know.

[pufferfish]

Sounds like a great course Doppler and something a recreational diver who has no intention of moving into the technical sphere might take just to improve his or her skills.

I just hope in that gas management curriculum there is a small section devoted to gas quality, accredited labs, and air certificates :D

[Dan MacKay]

A Fundamentals course by any other name is a Fundamentals course. Imatation is the sincerest form of flattery. When you look at the GUE cirriculum you see that the tenets of the program are simple. No deep air, Team work, Individual skill and Situational Awareness are key components that focussed on during the course.

The outlay and the content of the Fundamentals is readily available on the GUE site under the standards section. This leaves it wide open for imitation. Take the standards as a start point and go from there. Cut out what you don't like, insert what you feel is good and away you go you have a High skills or Essential Skills, etc.. course.

The difficulty is that if you ask anyone who has taken a GUE Fundamentals course that there is nothing that should be removed or added. This is a course that is now being often imitated but never duplicated because the rip off artists that are trying to cash in on the Fundamentals or Fundamentals like course lack the skill, tools and experience to execute and deliver the training. That and once again they are trying to offer a product that is GUE like but does not have the stigma of a student not actually not meeting the bar.

All that being said I am not taking a shot at Doppler here because I do not know him. As the contents of his course are not public and the requirements or actual skill level required to pass are not know the best that can be said at this point is that it sounds like a repackaged and more palatable version of the Fundamentals course. I applaud his efforts in trying raise the bar for diver training but in my opinion if you want to find out exactly where you are and help in deciding where it is you wish to go and how to attain your goals take the real meal deal. One of the most effective tools for GUE training is the video camera, having someone that knows how to use it and how to properly debrief is this part of the course cirriculum for the imitators as well? I doubt it as no one mentioned it.

On the other had I would assume that it cost less as well and you know what they say..you get what you pay for.

[eagleray2003]

"The Tick"

You are really quite funny, we all remember that you are associated with a shop that has had a couple of fatalities one just recently and here you are cutting down other courses!
The fact that your shop is holding a DIRF Course is really pretty funny, some of us don't forget.

[DS1]

The Tick once bubbled...

On the other had I would assume that it cost less as well and you know what they say..you get what you pay for.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

its the instructor that make the course good or not...i dont care if its GUE, PADI, TDI, YMCA but from the two comments from the GUE instructors in this post I AM GUARANTEED to keep taking my tech courses with doopler

[pufferfish]

eagleray2003 once bubbled...
"The Tick"

You are really quite funny, we all remember that you are associated with a shop that has had a couple of fatalities one just recently and here you are cutting down other courses!
The fact that your shop is holding a DIRF Course is really pretty funny, some of us don't forget.

And he accused me of owning an Ottawa dive shop! He also was loath to even consider the fact there may be a better way to ensure diver air safety by looking into what an accredited air analysis represented in relation to the current poor standard. And who is talking about raising the bar here?

Not much credibilty in my books and those in the command and control structure who represent the 'product' he seems to be pushing may want to reconsider the ambassador they have chosen to speak for them.

It seems to me competition is a very good idea with regards to a skills course such that the consumer has several course formats and philosophies from which to choose from.

[Kevin R]

You are really quite funny, we all remember that you are associated with a shop that has had a couple of fatalities one just recently and here you are cutting down other courses!

Actually Mr. "eagleray", I'm the one associated with Kanata Diving Supply and the recent tragedy has nothing to do with the launch of the DIR-F course at Kanata. The fact that you even brought this up shows that you probably have an ax of some sort to grind. One thing you may have noted about my posts is that I log on and sign off with my full name. If you aren't willing to put your name on the bottom, don't put it on the board.

For those of you who do not know me, I am one of the equipment technicians and a divemaster at KDS. I am also a dedicated DIR diver who has recently graduated from the Tech II course under Andrew Georgitsis, GUE's training director and I dive and train with the teams at Northern Tech Diver.

I share Dan's interest in improving the quality of divers and training overall and this is the reason we are running this course. I just wish I could devote the time and effort he does to actually producing the quality divers I am fortunate enough to team up with when I dive in Kingston with GLUE.

This course has been in the production for the last two years, ever since we discussed it on the return trip from my Cave I course. It has nothing to do with any accident. Obviously since I work for Kanata, I'm not going to plan a course to run out of Sharkeys (no offence meant here Mike). Another point the shortsighted out there may have missed is that most of the other shops in Ottawa have already chosen to affiliate themselves with one of the mainstream technical agencies. It's easier to develop quality divers from specimens who are not already tainted by the propoganda and poor quality skills these agencies are pushing.

At the end of the day, I do agree that it is the instructor that makes the difference in any training situation. I learned this fisthand in the military and the lesson repeats itself often in the dive community. Fortunately, GUE is able to weed out those without the dedication or skill to instruct properly through the most rigerous set of skill requirements that the dive industry has yet seen. By keeping their instructor cadre small (37 worldwide), they are able to control what is taught and make sure everyone is teaching the real DIR, not some close enough version.

I'd encourage all divers to improve their skill set, however, as "The Tick" mentioned, you get what you pay for.

If you boys want to flame me for this, line up, but make sure you're willing to put your name on it so we can all play on the same field, otherwise don't waste my time.

Kevin Ripley

[Doppler]

pufferfish once bubbled...

I just hope in that gas management curriculum there is a small section devoted to gas quality, accredited labs, and air certificates :D

Well now... that's an interesting reminder. I'll have to dig out some of the material you've been giving us access to and see what I can do to promote that aspect of gas prudence.



Take care PF

[Dan MacKay]

eagleray2003 once bubbled...
"The Tick"

You are really quite funny, we all remember that you are associated with a shop that has had a couple of fatalities one just recently and here you are cutting down other courses!
The fact that your shop is holding a DIRF Course is really pretty funny, some of us don't forget.

Humm...Wrong on so many accounts but I will defend to the death your right to be wrong.

If you note in my posting that I actually praised Doppler for taking this step. I was just trying to raise the point that GUE has left the cirriculum there for all to see. Some of the top divers in the world have spend five years refining this course so I truly fail to see how it can be improved on. Even though the content may be similar the execution and presentation would not be the same. Not seeing the course content nor how it was presented can leave me with no opinion as to Doppler's course other than from what he has come forth with. From that I sumise (and from the name of course) I logically assumed that it was positioned to be a Fundamentals like course. If you wish to take a Fundamentals the do so from those who developed it otherwise be aware that you are not getting the straight goods. I am sick and tired of hearing about folks who are DIR this and DIR that and don't know whether their butts are punched or bored as far as GUE and DIR go.

Seeing as how you obviously know who I am and who I work for and what color socks that I wear I hope indeed that you do not forget. I accept all apologies proffered publicly of course.

That being said if you have anything of a constructive nature to say in reference to the content of my posting rather than a totally misguided personal attack I would like to hear it. If not well I guess we can slip you into the rule 7 category.

Have a pleasant day.

[Dan MacKay]

pufferfish once bubbled...


And he accused me of owning an Ottawa dive shop! He also was loath to even consider the fact there may be a better way to ensure diver air safety by looking into what an accredited air analysis represented in relation to the current poor standard. And who is talking about raising the bar here?

Not much credibilty in my books and those in the command and control structure who represent the 'product' he seems to be pushing may want to reconsider the ambassador they have chosen to speak for them.

It seems to me competition is a very good idea with regards to a skills course such that the consumer has several course formats and philosophies from which to choose from.

Ahh the Puffer is back. You fail to mention that at least I apologised both publically and privately to you over my erroneous supposition about who you were. I had you confused with Bubbleboy who has long since disappeared since his cover and motivation was blown.

And by the by who said that those who are in control have anything to do with me being chosen as an ambassador to speak for them? Who chose you do be the ambassador of all things breathable and to condem all shops in the world for having bad air. My call to you to provide one ligitimate case of a diver injury due to "bad air" was ignored or fluffed over as well.

Stick to the air battle Puffer as it seems as if you have some expertise in that arena. I do admit that testing is a good thing and proper testing essential. You idea of proper and mine vary just slightly and I thought that we had agreed to disagree on that. It does suprise me that you toss in your lot with the likes of Eagle and lower yourself to personal insults. If you have not taken either course you have no basis for comparison.

I merely spoke my opinion as allowed in this forum. At least I have the luxury to have a few GUE courses under my belt as well as more than a few PADI, PDIC, TDI, IANTD and SSI courses as well.

Oh I get it...only your opinion counts and if someone else has a different opinion then you folks can substitute a personal attack and hope it might be construed as a meaningful transfer of information..finally I get it. Silly me. Hmm...Kevin is there a rule 8?

[Dan MacKay]

DS1 once bubbled...


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

its the instructor that make the course good or not...i dont care if its GUE, PADI, TDI, YMCA but from the two comments from the GUE instructors in this post I AM GUARANTEED to keep taking my tech courses with doopler

Those who know me know that I do not post very often in these forums only due to the fact that no matter what one says it is often interpreted by the reader in the manner in which the reader wishes to interpret it. So if there is a an anti-GUE bias no matter what is said will not be taken in the manner in which it was meant.

I would just like to ask DS1 about the two comments made by the GUE instructors in this forum. This comes as a surprise to me. As far as I know I am the only GUE instructor in Ontario or Canada for that matter and this is the first comment that I have made in this thread. Just curios as to who they are DS1 and perhaps you could enlighten me?

As for Doppler's course I (and I have to agree with the Tick) applaud his efforts. I know Doppler and while we are not bosom buddies we have shared some thoughts over coffee and the phone upon occasion. As well as I have not seen the content of his course or how it was presented then I really do not have any opinion other than if I ever have the opportunity I am sure that Doppler would have no quams in letting me audit his course and then I might have an opinion.

What does raise a question in my mind though is what is it that GUE has done that makes a lot of you folks so defensive specially since those who are the most voiciferous have yet to take a GUE course? DS1 if we are so bad why is it that every other Techincal agency (and recreational for that matter) is scrambling to come up with a Fundamentals like offering?

Doppler keep up the good work at least one TDI instructor in the world is trying to make a difference.

One last note is one to echo something Kevin saids. You will note that those of use who think our opinion is worth putting down in digital ink also stand by that opinion with our real names. Doppler, Kevin Ripley, Tom Rutledge and I do it to name a few. It is something the rest of you should consider as it would lend more credence to your postings.

Safe dives,

Dan

[DS1]

hey dont get me wrong i believe in the GUE DIRF even more now than before i started the deco course but i dont belive in the comments you guys are posting about other courses, agency, people





THANKS

[pufferfish]

The Tick once bubbled...

This is a course that is now being often imitated but never duplicated because the rip off artists that are trying to cash in on the Fundamentals or Fundamentals like course lack the skill, tools and experience to execute and deliver the training.

All that being said I am not taking a shot at Doppler here because I do not know him.

On the other had I would assume that it cost less as well and you know what they say..you get what you pay for.

What 'ticked' me off a lot about your post was that it dripped with innuendo about the quality of another instructor's course that neither you nor I have taken and therefore should not comment on. Using terms like rip off artists, cash in, and you get what you pay for certainly appears as some pretty big shots across the bow of a boat you don't even know.

If my post above was interpreted as a personal attack then I apologize. As for the air testing issue I am glad to hear you and James Pate have decided that OUC testing is not worth the paper it is written on. Welcome to the A team where A stands for accredited.

Dan it is good to finally have the 'commander' here listening. I and a few others have come to realize we could all use some skill upgrading and probably learn a few new ones. In other words as dive consumers we will shop around and choose a course and instructor to our liking. Everytime though that I and my dive buddy say lets go take that Fundamentals course one of your previous students posts here and scares us off. I guess it is the 'attitude' I see in so many of the graduates' posts that irritates and scares away potential customers for what I am sure is a great course. I value open mindedness, curiosity, thinking outside the box, and being able to change one's ways when a better alternative is presented and yet I hear bravado, my way or the highway, a lack of humility, and a lack of tolerance for others diver's abilities.

Some of it I chock up to young bold 'pilots' but I was certified by Lloyd Shales (he should be an honorary member of GLUE) many years ago and can do without the my d--k is bigger than yours attitude in so many of those posts above that unfortunately have the acronym GUE associated with them. I don't think people get their backs up about the laudable GUE message and goals, but by the attitude that message is delivered with at least here on the OFWF board. In other words if you want to market your Fundamentals course to a larger audience you will have to attempt to influence what your students do say in public. They are all ambassadors for the GUE program. I was ready to take a Fundamentals course and after this and a few other other incidents I find myself reconsidering again is this really the best agency from which to take a skills course.

As for using our actual name to sign off only when I can see JimmyB and TomR registered on the board at the same time :)

[deepdiver5by5]

Doppler
Where will you be holding this course and does it have class and pool and open water or is it just open water?
Sorry to the rest of the folks are but I am not familiar with the Fundementals course, so as was stated above I will now goe to the GUE site and see what it is about.
Dan, is there not a DIR instructor in SW ontario? Had heard this last year.
Deepdiver5by5

[Doppler]

Dan MacKay once bubbled...


SNIPPED

As for Doppler's course I (and I have to agree with the Tick) applaud his efforts. I know Doppler and while we are not bosom buddies we have shared some thoughts over coffee and the phone upon occasion. As well as I have not seen the content of his course or how it was presented then I really do not have any opinion other than if I ever have the opportunity I am sure that Doppler would have no quams in letting me audit his course and then I might have an opinion.

SNIPPED

Doppler keep up the good work at least one TDI instructor in the world is trying to make a difference.

Safe dives,

Dan

Couple of things might be worth while mentioning here...

First of all, I am on record -- on this board -- endorsing the DIRf course and Dan as an instructor... they are both good items. I'm not sure why that might surprise anyone, but in case it does, let me explain.

Look, Dan and I are competitors. He and I are both going after the same dollar -- and that would be the same even if we both taught for the same agency -- however, he and I share similar attitudes towards that competition... not the only attitude we share by the way. Neither Dan nor I believe in negative marketing or feel that it's necessary to engage in pissing contests to win business. Frankly, I would rather loose business to Dan than to several instructors currently teaching in the Lake Ontario / St. Lawrence corridor because the outcome will be a well-trained diver. I think he feels the same way about me...

For the record, I think the GUE program is extremely well thought out. There are a couple of things from the standpoint of business that trouble me, but this is not the forum to discuss business issues like branding, management structure, corporate philosophy, and logistics.

I have never taken a GUE class, but JJ was my cave instructor and during that time together and several chance meetings afterwards, he impressed me greatly. And of course I am very aware of the DIRf course. It "sounded" like JJ to me. It's a great idea... and was ahead of its time.

Now about my Basic Techniques and Essential Skills course specifically. It is a course about diving... like all other course about diving, it has a beginning, a middle and an end. I didn't invent that... maybe the YMCA did in the late 50s.

Calling it a DIRf knock-off is -- in my opinion -- an insult. Knock-off indicates a cheap, diluted copy. It's not a copy, nothing is diluted and it's not cheap. However, the basic idea is the same and intended outcome is similar. It has to be... it's teaching things that divers need to do. Let's get the facts right here... neither JJ nor GUE invented frog kicks, helicopter turns, trim, buoyancy, streamlined gear configuration, team-based dive planning and execution, on-the-fly decompression planning, gas management, the long hose, a simple webbing harness or video feedback as a training tool.

I've gone about structuring the course and working out its delivery in a way that makes sense to me and make sense for safety, enjoyment, marketing, business, et al. and as such I stand by it as a worthwhile and meaningful addition to the diving community.

Dan, you know you're welcome to audit the class, fieldwork and inwater program of my Basic Techniques and Essential Skills program anytime you want, and I apologize for not posting a link to the course outline, but it did not and still does not seem appropriate to do so here. If anyone wants it, please PM me with an outside email address. It will also be available on my website (just as soon as I get around to putting in the link!)

Steve

[Doppler]

Apologies... but it was early this morning when I penned the missive above and I forgot a couple of things I believe to be important. Things that I need to say:



My first Martial Arts teacher -- who perhaps has had the greatest and most lasting influence on my life since it was under his guidance that I became a Buddhist -- told me: "Beginners look high and walk low." This means that when we start out doing something we have lofty goals but tend to be lazy with things like practice. I've been teaching "technical" diving for almost ten years and I am still a beginner at it... but I understand the value of constant practice and suggest we all consider doing more of it. You will not advance and grow without practice.

The second lesson I learned from my Master was this: "Please only ask me questions to which I know the answers." Cute, eh? What he meant was, "I'm not perfect. Nor are you. Live with it!"

So, if you think my course is missing something or needs work, chances are you're right. But don't tell me that something else out there is perfect. I will not believe you because I know you are wrong. (Read Dan's message again. At no point does he suggest his is the only way... Dan knows what works for him and believes in it, and he'll share it... but he will never admit to telling you it's perfect. I do know him that well.)

And there seems to be an undertone of anger in some of the postings here... Anger will close your eyes to the opportunity to learn from the experience of others. Anger has its roots in misunderstanding. Anger closes the mind. LIGHTEN UP!

I've been diving long enough to remember when all we talked about was what we saw -- and caught -- while diving! JEEEEZZZZ.

Take care folks

[wb416]

I have had classes with Dan and Steve... both are instructors I have allot of respect for.

Their responses and attitude in this thread provide the example that so-many-others need to consider before mindlessly & emotionally jumping into encampments and firing shots at each other.

bob

[Bubble Boy]

The Tick once bubbled...
I had you confused with Bubbleboy who has long since disappeared since his cover and motivation was blown.

No I have not disappeared but rather busy diving and enjoying the summer holidays. My motivation is and always has been safety. I will continue to train people to be safe. You obviously thought Puffer was me because of his obvious concerns with Health and Safety. I am not part owner of any dive shop nor will I ever be. I will however only get air that meets at a minimum the CSA Z-180.1-00 and Z-275.2 standards.

As for Doppler's course I would like to remind you of the saying "a responsible diver is always training". I think that Dan M and Steve L are doing a great job and training and promoting safe diving regardless of agency affiliations. They are both great instructors

Kudos to Dan and Steve for promoting safe diving. :thumb:

[barb]

...

At one time I also considered the DIRF course (in fact I was actively seeking to take it). However, the more I read on this Scubaboard the more uncomfortable I became. Not with WHAT was being taught but the impression of HOW it was being taught.
I got the impression (a very strong impression) that a "big stick" approach is being used to teach divers.
I want a teacher that teaches with empathy as well as knowlege, experience and understanding.
As I listened and watched... I felt that Steve was that teacher for me. I have never met Dan and have'nt read his posts here so I can't say that he could'nt be a similar teacher???
I guess what I'm really saying is that it's not ALL about What your teaching. You must include HOW you teach it.
I have children, and know from experience that they learn far more when I'm gentle and affirmative with them. If I try the "big stick" approach they dig in their heals and that's the end of it.

I'm an eager diver - as I bet most of you out there are - and want to learn new and better skills. I want to be a better diver.
I don't, however, want to be assimilated and made to feel like a Hopeless Bag of Hammers.

I want to walk gentiley and carry a long hose for air sharing.


:)

[Dan MacKay]

barb once bubbled...
...

At one time I also considered the DIRF course (in fact I was actively seeking to take it). However, the more I read on this Scubaboard the more uncomfortable I became. Not with WHAT was being taught but the impression of HOW it was being taught.
:)

Hi Barb,

You bring up a very valid point. One thing that I have to ask however is where did you get this impression from? The only negative comments that I have heard about this course (and GUE training in general for that matter) has come from folks that have never taken a GUE course.

I can only assume that because we do have requirements that we do not bend, such as fitness, teaching only non-smokers and a DIR equimentment set up that we are ****'s all dressed in black. The fitness and non-smoking requirement should be obvious. But to tell you the truth the requirement for the right equipment is more for my benefit than yours. Proper equipment eliminates 80% of problems of bouyancy and trim when you are properly weighted and configured. This gives me the opportunity to focus almost 100% of my time on helping you improve the critical issues of buoyancy control, trim, kicks and multi-tasking. As I tell all my students buoyancy control has to become like breathing for all divers. You must aspire to get to the point where you do not have to think about it but it is automatic.

These issues aside is also the idea of pass/fail. I do not particulary like this distinction but it is a necessary evil. I will be honest with you, I personally have a horrendous pass/fail ratio. I believe that my name on a C card means something. Specifically when I sign off a Fundamentals student I am saying that within 25 dives if this diver practices the techniques that they have be taught then then may be ready for a Tech I or Cave I course. On the other hand I do not think that I have had a student yet that thinks they have failed. They have discovered a lot of things. Specifically what their skills are now, what they should be like and a road map of how to train to get to where they want to be.

The Fundamentals is not about technical diving but one of the interesting things to note is that all the fundamentals skills and techniques that are taught on this course are second nature to world class divers everywhere.

Safe dives,

Dan

[barb]

..I have'nt taken a DIRF course. I wanted to but was concerned about the teaching style of the instructors.
The course material sounded fabulous to me and definitely pass/fail is not what its about to me .... I want to improve my skills and learn new skills (be a safer/better diver).... I'm not looking for another card to carry.
I have'nt watched an actual DIRF instructor in action so I admit my bias comes from the attitudes I've seen displayed through postings on Scubaboard.
This is probably unfair on my part, however, I felt I could learn these same skills through Doppler without the undesireable extras.

Dan, maybe I could audit your upcoming class in Ottawa and then I'd know if my concern was warranted???

Barb

[sparky30]

Doppler once bubbled...


Although it is not in the guidelines -- which of course I wrote -- I also like to see people with doubles prove to me that they can lift and manage them when they are on their back.

If I had my druthers, I'd love to run VO2Max tests but that's a bit over the top!

I agree.. I've seen a lot of people who don't dive their doubles.. their doubles dive them :) I weighed mine, and with a full airfill and my transpac attached they came to 135lbs.. not exactly light.. When I started diving with doubles last year I wish there was a course that explained propper rigging and double tank handling without being a tech course... I just use them for redundancy and extra bottom time on shallower wrecks... Filled with Nitrox of course :)
As long as I'm wearing a wetsuit shutdown drills are a breeze.. when I got the drusuit and dry gloves on things get a bit trickier.. but still managable..

[MikeFerrara]

Doppler,

I'd like to talk with you offline about your class. I've been working on an outline for a similar course for a couple years now but I'm not sure if I could get it approved by either agency that I teach through.

As foe the rest of this conversation.....

I think more instructors should be offering such classes. I also think that if more instructors were doing their job in the regular classes they wouldn't be needed. I also have divers show up for an advanced class or a Advanced Nitroc class and they aren't ready.

At MHK's invitation I did audit part of a DIRF course. I would have at in on more but I was teaching a class at the same time so time was limited. I have nothing but good things to say about what I saw. What I saw of the course was very well thought out and the skill with which MHK and BCS presented the material was clear and impressive. When there's another one in the area I'll audit the entire thing if MHK's invitation still stands.

Just as a good diver continues to learn so does a good instructor. I try to learn what I can from other instructors regardless of agency affiliation. You don't have to do something first to do it well.

Another thing I've noticed and often commented on here is the fact that new divers or even long time divers who are still bottom walkers are really amazed when they see the GUE instructors in the water. They seem to think that skill in the water is the sole venue of GUR/DIR trained divers. JJ was good before there was a GUE. The guys he learned from were good and so are the other divers who learned from them and the one's they've gone on to teach. The point is that if the only divers you've seen who are good in the water are GUE trained divers then you need to get out more.

[sparky30]

Dan MacKay once bubbled...


Hi Barb,

You bring up a very valid point. One thing that I have to ask however is where did you get this impression from? The only negative comments that I have heard about this course (and GUE training in general for that matter) has come from folks that have never taken a GUE course.

I can only assume that because we do have requirements that we do not bend, such as fitness, teaching only non-smokers and a DIR equimentment set up that we are ****'s all dressed in black. The fitness and non-smoking requirement should be obvious. But to tell you the truth the requirement for the right equipment is more for my benefit than yours. Proper equipment eliminates 80% of problems of bouyancy and trim when you are properly weighted and configured. Safe dives,

Dan

I have to agree with barb... I looked at the GUE courses last year.. They seemed an excellent idea, but frankly I didn't like the attitude.. I agree with the fitness and non-smoking requirements.. they make perfect sense.. what really turned me off is the equipment section.. Proper equipment is paramount, but from what I've been told GUE takes things to the extreme.. Its their way or the highway... Its this elitest attitude that really turned me off.. There may be more than one solution for proper trim and bouyancy.. In the end I went with a different training agency.. It all boils down to the instructor anyway, regardless of the certifying agency...Personally I prefer someone who doesn't think he (or the agency he works for) is God's gift to diving.. Proper finning technique and bouyancy can be tought without attitude.. and it can be fun at the same time.. and it works with all different kinds of equipment..

[MikeFerrara]

sparky30 once bubbled...


I have to agree with barb... I looked at the GUE courses last year.. They seemed an excellent idea, but frankly I didn't like the attitude.. I agree with the fitness and non-smoking requirements.. they make perfect sense.. what really turned me off is the equipment section.. Proper equipment is paramount, but from what I've been told GUE takes things to the extreme.. Its their way or the highway... Its this elitest attitude that really turned me off.. There may be more than one solution for proper trim and bouyancy.. In the end I went with a different training agency.. It all boils down to the instructor anyway, regardless of the certifying agency...Personally I prefer someone who doesn't think he (or the agency he works for) is God's gift to diving.. Proper finning technique and bouyancy can be tought without attitude.. and it can be fun at the same time.. and it works with all different kinds of equipment..

I don't think GUE teaches a bad attitude. I think the attitude comes from nebies/wanna-bes who haven't ever seen a good diver til they took or seen the results of a DIRF.

I can see how they get this impression though. You often hear how every one in a DIRF is equally bad regardless of experience. From what I saw in the portion of a DIRF that I watched that's true. I think the newest diver in that class had been diving a couple of years and some for as long as 20 years. But...if they'd have wondered over to where my OW class was going on they would have seen something different.

The norm is pretty bad. If that's all one sees prior to their DIR/GUE exposure they will get the idea that GUE are the only ones who can dive.

[pufferfish]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...


I don't think GUE teaches a bad attitude. I think the attitude comes from nebies/wanna-bes who haven't ever seen a good diver til they took or seen the results of a DIRF.

I can see how they get this impression though. You often hear how every one in a DIRF is equally bad regardless of experience. From what I saw in the portion of a DIRF that I watched that's true. I think the newest diver in that class had been diving a couple of years and some for as long as 20 years. But...if they'd have wondered over to where my OW class was going on they would have seen something different.

The norm is pretty bad. If that's all one sees prior to their DIR/GUE exposure they will get the idea that GUE are the only ones who can dive.

Mike I think you are probably right. I have oftened wondered where does the 'attitude' reflected in so many of the posts by past GUE students on this forum come from? And before I get flamed for saying this lets just say there are many others than only myself on this thread who have reached the same conclusion rightly or wrongly about the GUE teaching methods. What is confusing is I have met Dan and spoken to him about the course and certainly did not get the impressions one gets from reading the posts from his students on this board. In fact it was quite the opposite as I left thinking I'd like to take his course. Then I got back on the board and was turned off again by the attitude.

I don't have the answer, but where does the attitude of 'my way of the highway' come from? Does the program selectively attract this type of personality in the first place or does it take a 'blank slate' and inculcate the attitude during the course? As you said Mike maybe it takes folks with such poor skills to begin with and who have no other reference point for comparison who then come out the other end with the rah, rah, GUE is the only way dogma. There are lots of excellent divers out there who have never taken a GUE course and like you said JJ was a good diver long before GUE came along. I do not profess to have any of these answers but being a curious mind I would like to throw these questions out for discussion. Probably would be good though for GUE to look at this as if they want to attract folks with good skills, but who realize they can always improve, they will need to soften the attitude in their graduates. Not soften standards which I have no problem with even the whole pass/fail notion just soften the message of exclusivity their grads carry out into the real world and post on this board.

[Col.Cluster]

Doppler,

Sorry for sitting out of this one for so long. I did not realize I had no data jack at the hotel I was staying at, until I was booked in for the weekend. I did bring up fitness requirements and as shown in this thread, you are still teaching smokers. The health and cardio implications of this (as stated by MacKay) should be obvious. There is a detailed report in the Quest archives concerning the issue.

I am not sure where all ‘the attitude’ is from the team players in this thread. The attitude started with eagleray, DS1 and Pufferfish followed by Bubble Boy and sparky. The Ripper just stood his ground and looked after the team. If you find the attitude that distasteful then you should refrain from dishing it out. It looks to me that you start into the bs attitude because you really like the abuse you receive in return.

As far as the valve management comment: We seen an instructor in Rockport ( at Eric’s Dock) on the Easter Weekend teaching a pseudo fundamentals that could not manage a freeflow and a valve shut down. It appeared that they had too much underwear on and restricted the movement of their arms. It was ridiculous. DIR is a complete system that works. When you detract from or modify one part of it, you encumber something else. This inevitably exposes the entire team to an unnecessary heightened level of risk. This was a prime example of people selling skills that were/are obviously lacking.

[Col.Cluster]

Pufferfish,
It is good to see you are still posting your standard bs. Keep up the good work. I do not know were you get that JP is on board with you. You have yet to post the Ministry of Labours regulation number regarding air standards and recreational scuba shops. We are still waiting for you to present your case critically and candidly.

[Tom R]

If you aren't lonely: You aren't at the top

It's lonely at the bottom too dude :(

[Col.Cluster]

It always looks crowded down there from here.

[Dan MacKay]

pufferfish once bubbled...


Mike I think you are probably right. I have oftened wondered where does the 'attitude' reflected in so many of the posts by past GUE students on this forum come from? And before I get flamed for saying this lets just say there are many others than only myself on this thread who have reached the same conclusion rightly or wrongly about the GUE teaching methods. What is confusing is I have met Dan and spoken to him about the course and certainly did not get the impressions one gets from reading the posts from his students on this board. In fact it was quite the opposite as I left thinking I'd like to take his course. Then I got back on the board and was turned off again by the attitude.


I am responding to Pufferfish's post but in reality there is a common thread here. As it you stated Puffer and a few others as well that if the OW instructors were doing their job I would be out of one at least at the fundamentals level. I coud not agree more. I hate painting with a broad brush but I think you and Doppler will agree with me that an unhealthy portion of OW instructors do not possess these Fundamentals skills themselves let alone have the ability to pass them on. You can't teach what you don't know.

The comment you made about all Fundamentals students bing equal is not far off the mark although there are some exeptions to the rule. Occasionally someone comes alone and surprises you. I have had more than a few tech divers come and take the course. Some pass, some do not but they all leave with something different. The less experienced divers leave with basic things to work on, while the more experienced leave with more advanced things to think about. I actually had a young lad of 18 with 35 or 40 dives come on a Fundamentals last week, jump into a set of doubles (for the first time I might add) and at his level do what I might consider ace the course. I have had divers with hundreds of dives in doubles fail miserably. Go figure.

As for the riot over the gear. I can really say no more than I did to Barb. While taking a Fundamentals course a DIR set up eliminates 80% of the problems I encounter with buoyancy and trim. That way I can concentrate 100% of my energy on the other 20% of what is most imortant in my estimation to the student - skill development. In the bad old days when we allowed students to wear what ever they wanted (as long at it was safe) it was a mess. Most Fundamentals turned into a 2 1/2 day gear configuration seminar with very little in the way of student progress being made.

Safe dives,

Dan

[barb]

.... but you seem quite upset about something.

You did, however, mention something that raises a question in my mind... regarding smoking and taking a DIRF course.
Are you suggesting that if someone smokes they would not be admitted to a GUE course?
If this is the case: it implies that a person that smokes is either unable to learn better diving skills or worse still does'nt have the right to.
I don't smoke so am not looking out for my own interests. I also believe smoking is unhealthy but I don't see that this should prevent someone from the opportunity to learn better diving skills. That would be a human rights issue I think.

Please don't get nastey - this was originally a Thank You thread and therefore intended to be positive!!!

Barb

[Kevin R]

Being a non-smoker is clearly laid out in the GUE course standards under "general prerequesites for all GUE courses".

It has absolutely nothing to do with a students ability to learn, but points towards a general level of health and fitness. In diving, especially at the technical level, gas perfusion is everything and a thick coating of tar over the aveoli does nothing to promote gas transfer. If the individual is able to kick the habit, he/she is more than welcome to attend the course. This is only one of many groups starting to insist on non smoking candidates on thier courses. For example, the US military now has a non-smoking policy for all of its candidates for the exact same reasons (fitness, not gas transfer).

GUE divers are generally very aware of their fitness levels and strive to lower breathing rates through good fitness and nutrition. I am not saying that no other agencies divers are interested in fitness, just that GUE has gone that extra step and incorporated it into the training regimen. This does not mean that you have to run marathons to dive with the teams, but you should be able to carry your tanks without having to stop for a smoke on the way to the boat.

Kevin

[NetDoc]

that the original thread of thanks was hi-jacked by a few who take exception to other instructors. Please be careful of any flames that might ensue. You may find the original thread here! (http://www.scubaboard.com/t35156/s.html)

[D M I]

Hello

When I participate in scuba cattle boat rides in Brockville or kingston, I usually see four or five seriously obese individuals diving and It's usually these same unfit divers who cause delays and get them selves into trouble once wrapped up in there extremely tight wet suits. These same people spend thousands of dollars on gear but fail at the most important feature of diving. Being physically fit. I'm glad to hear that at least one agency is taking a stand on this serious situation amongst divers.

DMI;-0

[pufferfish]

D M I once bubbled...
Hello

When I participate in scuba cattle boat rides in Brockville or kingston, I usually see four or five seriously obese individuals diving and It's usually these same unfit divers who cause delays and get them selves into trouble once wrapped up in there extremely tight wet suits. These same people spend thousands of dollars on gear but fail at the most important feature of diving. Being physically fit. I'm glad to hear that at least one agency is taking a stand on this serious situation amongst divers.

DMI;-0

DMI I hear you but I can just read it now in the course prerequisites, "the student shall not smoke and shall have a body mass index less than thirty." :D There is a ton of evidence that obesity at least morbid obesity (BMI > 30) probably carries at least the cardiovascular risk as does smoking a pack a day. Only problem is about thirty percent of North Americans have a BMI greater than 30. There was a poll here on SB looking at BMI and of the over one hundred respondents 25% had a BMI over 30. This is reflected on the boats we dive on.

While I am all for fitness in divers the actual concept of overall fitness to dive should involve lot more than cardiovascular fitness. In my mind now there are three components to 'fitness'.
1. Psychological fitness
2. Cardiovascular fitness
3. Adrenal fitness (fitness of stress hormone axis)

As to the importance of each of these in recreational or technical diving I'd probably leave them in that order. In most diving we try not to exert ourselves and so the cardiovascular aspect would not seem that important. However it is under those emergency situations when that CVS reserve becomes necessary. I would contend though that if one is not an instructor where your odds of having to help someone out in an emergency situation are far greater and CVS fitness would be important then psychological fitness is actually more important. Concepts like the degree of anger and vital exhaustion are just as important in overall 'fitness' as is CVS fitness. Vital exhaustion seems to explain the fitness fanatic who drops dead of a heart attack all the while his CVS fitness may have been quite good. Often when the lifestyle the fitness fanatic was leading is examined more closely it can be revealed the excessive exercise went hand in hand with excessive work, poor diet, negative emotions (ie. anger) and a whole host of other factors which lead to the early demise. It is what goes on in one's mind that really plays on the cardiovascular and adrenal systems not so much the narrow concept of VO2 max. Cardiovascular fitness is but a small aspect of overall fitness.

As far as the individual diver the reason I think psychological fitness is more important than CVS fitness is that it is this fitness which keeps one out of trouble in the first place so one doesn't have to call upon the CVS system. Studies have shown that certain character traits are more likely to panic and that once panic begins dive experience is irrelevant. What dive experience does impart though is to raise the threshold where panic is likely to begin in a given situation.

So before we start saying one can't smoke or be obese in order to take a course it might be prudent to actually examine the entire concept of 'fitness'. I am not saying that excluding these folk cannot be or should not be done by an agency, but that these agencies might be fooling themselves into thinking the crowd they are attracting is more 'fit' in the true sense of fitness. Remember many applicants who apply for the police and military and who are 'fit' as a fiddle in their own minds (built like Arnold S and run like Ben J) are eventually rejected for not meeting the true holistic concept of fitness. If they are given a second chance they are told to work on their 'attitude' before coming back. Most never bother to return for a second go around.

[divedude]

D M I once bubbled...
Hello

When I participate in scuba cattle boat rides in Brockville or kingston, I usually see four or five seriously obese individuals diving and It's usually these same unfit divers who cause delays and get them selves into trouble once wrapped up in there extremely tight wet suits. These same people spend thousands of dollars on gear but fail at the most important feature of diving. Being physically fit. I'm glad to hear that at least one agency is taking a stand on this serious situation amongst divers.

DMI;-0

Guess I'll never be a good diver I'm to fat to take a good course.
but as for causing delays on my "cattle boat" it's the divers with the so called "Tech Gear" that cause all the delays.

[Tom R]

divedude once bubbled...


Guess I'll never be a good diver I'm to fat to take a good course.
but as for causing delays on my "cattle boat" it's the divers with the so called "Tech Gear" that cause all the delays.

That's the point dude, take the training and learn how to use the gear properly and the delays and problems will look after themselves.

Tom R

[Col.Cluster]

barb once bubbled...
.... but you seem quite upset about something.

Please don't get nastey - this was originally a Thank You thread and therefore intended to be positive!!!

Barb

Barb,
I am not upset. I quite enjoy the banter. The problem with posts is people will read what they will into them. Outside of the usually suspects doing their usual character assassination routine, I thought this thread was quite positive. We got to compare a couple of training programs. I think that was a good thing.
Take care
CC

[Col.Cluster]

I would call comparing Dopplers new class to DIRF, “A COMPARISON OF THE 2 CLASSES”: Nothing more nothing less: Yes the thread was a thank you to those involved. It was also regarding a new and improved course. If this course is not up for discussion then it should not have been posted to a discussion board. Nobody came out swinging as you put it. I voiced my concerns and Doppler answered and posted his questions, which in turn I answered. Ripley and vinnie posted their questions and had them answered. This is called open discussion.

As far as being against Doppler, you also need to get your facts squared away. Tick and Mackay commended D for his efforts. SJ (another member of the team) warned Doppler away from a deep-air boat 2 or 3 months ago. And finally James Pate offered the use of his photographs in the presentation part of Dopplers new course. I call that a sharing of resources.

Doppler dude,
I had lunch with JP today. His offer still stands regarding the photos. If you have lost his cell number you can get from Tom at the shop or pm me. I also have his email address. JP is no long a member of this board for obvious reasons.

[Dan MacKay]

pufferfish once bubbled...


DMI I hear you but I can just read it now in the course prerequisites, "the student shall not smoke and shall have a body mass index less than thirty." :D There is a ton of evidence that obesity at least morbid obesity (BMI > 30) probably carries at least the cardiovascular risk as does smoking a pack a day. Only problem is about thirty percent of North Americans have a BMI greater than 30. There was a poll here on SB looking at BMI and of the over one hundred respondents 25% had a BMI over 30. This is reflected on the boats we dive on.

While I am all for fitness in divers the actual concept of overall fitness to dive should involve lot more than cardiovascular fitness. In my mind now there are three components to 'fitness'.
1. Psychological fitness
2. Cardiovascular fitness
3. Adrenal fitness (fitness of stress hormone axis)

and more and more....


Ah Puffer..Once again you take a simple topic and attempt to turn it into a Masters thesis. You do have some excellent points but lets dumb it down a bit for our readership.

The non-smoker rule is simple. Kevin pointed out the obvious about clogged up alvioli and bracials causing problems with gas transfer but the situation is a little be more severe than that. One (just one) of the evil by-products of smoking is carbon monoxide. It has a very strong affinity to bind with hemoglobin. And what is the function of hemoglobin? Well it is the transport mechanism that is the flat bed truck so to speak of the respritory system. If you smoke a pack a day up to 20% of your hemoglobin is bound to CO, which means that before you even get in the water you are accepting a 20% penalty for increased risk of DCS. Not only can it not transport O2 in it cannot transport inert gasses out. Now in all fairness the body is a wonderful thing and smokers actually produce more hemoglobin than non-smokers but the over all amount is not nearly what a healthy non-smoking individual has.

The requirement to be reasonably fit and not obsese is also a DCS consideration as fatty tissue is has very poor circulation and hence what inert gas gets in has a very difficult time getting out.

We do by the way have a mental fitness requirement and I believe the standard reads as follows:

1.6 General Prerequisites for All GUE Courses

The following are prerequisites for all GUE Courses (any additional and/or course specific course prerequisite, as well as any deviations from the following, will be listed under the appropriate section of the specific course):

1. Must submit a completed registration form, medical history, and liability release to GUE Headquarters.
2. Must be physically and mentally fit.
3. Must hold DAN Master level insurance or equivalent.
4. Must be a nonsmoker.
5. Must obtain a physician’s prior written authorization for the use of prescription drugs, except for birth control, or for a prior medical condition that may pose a risk while diving. A partial list of
such conditions may be found on GUE’s medical history form; if a student answers in the ...etc.

GUE is the only organization that specifically states the mental fitness requirement which gives me the lattitude to inform a student that is there for all the wrong reasons that chess might be a far safer alternative past-time for them to persue.

Good heavens I once had a student that was so petrifed that the student was incapable of doing anything. Once prodded I eventually discoverd that the only reason the student was there was to over come the students fear of water! Not on my watch! I invoked prerequisite 2.

These standards are meant to empower instructors and protect students. Unlike some other agencies, we do not believe that this sport is for everyone. Already there are at least three people in Ontario this year alone that I know shuffled off this mortal coil in "accidents" that a jusdicious application of decent standards might have prevented.

Safe dives,

Dan

[JohnF]

As a rec.scuba regular I'm used to legitimate GUE instructors asking the DIR suckups and wannabees to lighten up on the attitude. This wasn't always so, but has become more and more the case recently. I've met Dan MacKay and MHK in person and have found both to be enthusiastic and articulate about diving without making it an "us against them" routine. I've only traded emails with JJ but he too strikes me as a rational soul, not given to ranting and foolish discourse.

I've also met and dived with several instructors in the U.S. and Mexico for whose dive skills I have a world of respect and who, although they don't teach GUE and in fact refuse to describe themselves as DIR, state vehemently that the DIR protocols and precepts are the smart way to dive, and then prove every time they dive or teach that the label is irrelevent.

So, in answer to Dan's question about the animosity issue, there are divers (DIR and non-DIR) who aren't being rational about the whole discussion. Some of the pro-DIR types are too "my way or the highway" and some of the anti-DIR crowd do an irrational DIR sux knee jerk thing whenever a backplate and wing is mentioned.

The "holistic" idea seems to grate on some folks but I tend to agree with the DIR approach to things. If you take the time to hear and understand all the reasoning behind it, DIR makes absolute sense as a package. Some of the pieces work well by themselves, but I believe they work best as a full set, rather than piecemeal. If you absolutely disagree with something in the DIR set, and feel you have a better solution, by all means use it. Obviously in the context of your diving it makes sense. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Don't turn your back on a good procedure just because it's part of the DIR package. And don't presume that only DIR/GUE knows the best way to dive. The knowledge is out there. The smart folks will take advantage of it.

This has been said before but bears saying again, and again if necessary. What's DIR but a lot of diving common sense that's been known for a long time wrapped up in a nice package? Some folks delight in ignoring the fact that there are right and wrong ways to dive. Hopefully they understand that only a fool would teach the wrong ways just because the DIR label has been applied to most of the good ones.

I don't think Doppler is a fool, ergo ...

It's only logical that a conscientious trainer should use most if not all of the same principles in his/her training regimen as the "GUE" instructors use in theirs. A rose by any other name etc. etc.

Describing Doppler's course as a repackaging of DIR-F is not only an insult to Doppler and his efforts, but to GUE, Dan, MHK and the others who offer the GUE program. It suggests that DIR is simply one arbitrary notion of how to dive safely rather than being a compilation of rules and common sense derived from a wealth of experience and safety concerns recognized over years and years by some of the great names in diving. There is very little in the DIR collection of "rules" that can or will be rationally refuted by the vast majority of the best divers today. Some gas issues are still being debated but there seems to be a growing swing to the DIR philosophy. Only the reactionaries of the anti-DIR League will question the validity of DIR and that's more a response to the "holier than thou" attitude of some of the nasties of the DIR fraternity rather than to the shortcomings of the DIR/GUE program.

I think it's high time more credit was given to the folks historically responsible for packaging up this thing we know as DIR, but I also believe we need to commend folks like Doppler, and others like those I've encountered personally, who have the sense to incorporate these tried and true practices into their dive instruction programs.

It occurs to me as I finish this ramble that I've assumed Doppler's course content and methodology is along the same lines as DIR-F. I suppose this in itself is an indication of how I at least see the fundamentals of diving. Diver safety, trim, buoyancy skills, motive skills, gear selection & deployment, situational awareness, and so on, and so on ... all issues that should be important to every diver. Should all of these be considered by any responsible instructor? How many different ways can any of these things be taught properly?


Respectfully
JohnF

[Doppler]

THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED IN THE NETDOC THREAD...SORRY

But I need to say something about mental fitness. It could be because of my spiritual conviction or something else, but an important responsibility of a "technical diver" is to show respect for and to share knowledge with others. At least I honestly believe that and attempt to get that truth across in my classes/

Anyhow, to share knowledge, you have to expose your ideas to scrutiny... and you have to be open minded and aware that there is only one constant in the universe...

I think a few of us need to think about this.

I've been teaching "technical diving" for ten years -- almost. I try to bring to it the same level of professionalism and the same attitude that I have learned in many more years as a businessman and communications consultant. Like many of you, I have to sit in meeting sometimes... with clients, with suppliers. I was waiting to go into a conference call this afternoon and I reread some of the posts in this thread. And I found myself wondering who the **** some of you think you are. You have displayed evidence of mental abbarations in your postings -- pride, elitism, bigotry, intolerance. And I tried to imagine these people in a business situation displaying that sort of behaviour...

Why does it surprise us that people shun the ideas they hold dear?

Just a thought :out:

[DivingGal]

Doppler once bubbled...
.... And I found myself wondering who the **** some of you think you are. You have displayed evidence of mental abbarations in your postings -- pride, elitism, bigotry, intolerance. And I tried to imagine these people in a business situation displaying that sort of behaviour...

Why does it surprise you that people shun your ideas?

Just a thought :out:

Ok I'm going out on a limb... but a limb I'm quite comfortable sitting on.

Well said Doppler!

Every (and I do mean every) agency has something to contribute to this wonderful sport we love. Each has it's share of instructors to whom students should (in fact do) gravitate towards. They display an attitude that basically states "I want you to love this sport as much as I, and I want you to dive safely."

Some pro-agency types (and this again applies to all agencies) believe their's is the best, and all others are not as good (or use what every word you want to use). With that I say BUTKUS! Many on this board have status, the instructor makes the instruction not the agency and I stand by each and every one of these members.

As I said, each agency can, and I believe does contribute something. It's up to each and every diver to seek the knowledge and apply it to their best advantage.

[pufferfish]

Dan MacKay once bubbled...


Ah Puffer..Once again you take a simple topic and attempt to turn it into a Masters thesis. You do have some excellent points but lets dumb it down a bit for our readership.

The non-smoker rule is simple. Kevin pointed out the obvious about clogged up alvioli and bracials causing problems with gas transfer but the situation is a little be more severe than that. One (just one) of the evil by-products of smoking is carbon monoxide. It has a very strong affinity to bind with hemoglobin. And what is the function of hemoglobin? Well it is the transport mechanism that is the flat bed truck so to speak of the respritory system. If you smoke a pack a day up to 20% of your hemoglobin is bound to CO, which means that before you even get in the water you are accepting a 20% penalty for increased risk of DCS. Not only can it not transport O2 in it cannot transport inert gasses out. Now in all fairness the body is a wonderful thing and smokers actually produce more hemoglobin than non-smokers but the over all amount is not nearly what a healthy non-smoking individual has.

The requirement to be reasonably fit and not obsese is also a DCS consideration as fatty tissue is has very poor circulation and hence what inert gas gets in has a very difficult time getting out.

SNIPPED

Safe dives,
Dan

Dan nothing is simple in this world anymore and the more one digs under the surface of any topic the more one realizes the less they know. As far as CO physiology goes I think a few corrections to the above over-simplified picture are in order.

First off there is no gas exchange in the respiratory tree at the level of the bronchioles. It all happens at the alveolar level. The reality is most under forty year old persons who do smoke but maintain a reasonable level of exercise could pass a stress test without much problem and anything a dive course might throw at them. My point was the smoking exclusion while intuitively looks reasonable on the surface, really doesn't hold up to closer scientific scrutiny. If a smoker can pass the fitness test an agency throws at them or for that matter an obese person can pass why shouldn't they be able to take the course. You set the bar and if a smoker can meet or exceed that then let them dive. Don't get me wrong I am not advocating smoking and diving is good idea but if you are going to exclude smokers then why not obese people for the same reasons. It is just one of those slippery slopes that leads to all kinds of ethical dilemmas. Should a doctor offer you a liver transplant if between your dives you drink like a fish? Let the agency set the bar and if the person has good skills and is safe then let him try the course. Yes we all know smoking is bad and eating twinkies will make you fat but I just think some agencies are getting a little too self-righteous. Sure the agencies can set whatever standards they want, but I have seen some pretty fit thirty year old smokers on the treadmill.

As far as using the CO argument for not smoking and diving it too doesn't hold much water and without a master's thesis explanation let's examine why. First off the average pack a day smoker might have a %COHb at most of ten percent.
COHb levels in smoking (http://www.coheadquarters.com/cocigarette1.htm)

At 20% COHb a person likely would have a nice headache and feel somewhat nauseated although there is a very poor correlation between symptoms and COHb levels. The risk of having COHb on board though has nothing to do with increasing one's DCS risk. DCS is related to nitrogen supersaturation, micronuclei, and bubble formation. The risk with too much CO on board is hypoxia not an increased DCS risk and as you pointed out is due to the high (200 times more than oxygen) affinity CO has for hemoglobin. In fact as more CO binds this creates a 'chemical anemia' and resultant hypoxia much the same as if one was bleeding profusely. When the hypoxia reaches a certain level one is likely to experience chest pain due to lack of oxygen to the heart and ultimately consciousness will be lost and if underwater the person will drown usually on surfacing.

What is ironic about smokers who have a smoke just before diving is the very act of diving is in fact treating their low level CO poisoning with hyperbaric oxygen, the treatment of choice for CO poisoning. Say at 130 feet the absolute pressure is 5 ATM so the ppO2 is 1 atm on air. This is analagous to breathing 100% O2 on surface. This higher pp of oxygen speeds up the elimination of CO by the lungs at depth. So hypoxia is the problem here with CO and nothing to do with DCS risk. As far as I understand any inert gas is dissolved in the plasma and again there would be no relationship with the impairment in one's ability to offgass nitrogen and the presence of COHb.

As far as hemoglobin levels in a disease free young smoker they would be in the normal range and offer no disadvantage compared to the non-smoker. In other words if you took twenty thirty year olds who smoked and the same number who didn't smoke you would not be able to tell the smokers from the non-smokers by looking at the hemoglobin. Take a bunch of old patients (who don't dive by the way) with emphsema and yes then you will start to see a rise in the hemoglobin level to compensate for the developing hypoxia.

I know this is getting long again (sorry but science is not always a sound bite) but let me tell you about about a real CO risk to all divers and again something just maybe you might think about before jumping on a dive boat at least in the back. I can assure you that we all here have dove with COHb levels at least in 10 to 15% range at some point in our diving lives and this was without ever having smoked a cigaret. Listen up as this is a real CO risk to all divers and far more than having a smoke will ever represent. The average CO level on the transom or aft(back) sides of many recreational dive boats with inboard gas engines is so high that most boats should be shut down today. Have a look at these reports and you will see a real danger here. The message here is there are far greater invisible sources of CO of concern to both the smoking and non-smoking diver that one needs to worry about than the level found in a cigaret. And we won't even mention another risk from using non-accredited labs who don't have the proper equipment to measure low level CO here in Ontario. So before we condem all smokers over the CO issue as high risk it might be wise to first look at this very CO exposure as a risk to all of us in our own back yard or bloodstream.

I can assure you this CO in dive boats will be a major issue very shortly here in Canada and a prudent dive boat captain will not have any diver near the back of the boat with engines idling at any time. Dan you might want to take a CO monitor on your next trip out with the A team and measure some of these levels. I think (actually I know) a little CO from a cigaret will pale in comparison to what you will find. A smart boat captain will rectify this situation before next dive season if you want a tip ;)


CO in Recreational Boats (http://safetynet.smis.doi.gov/COWorkshop/Presentations/NIOSH-Earnest-Recboats.pdf)

IDLH= Immediate danger to life and health.


Boat Related CO poisonings (http://safetynet.smis.doi.gov/thelistbystate5.pdf)
This document is just mind boggling but you need Adobe to read it at www.adobe.com

Makes one think about what other other risks are out there we are missing doesn't it. Just remember 'the eyes can't see what the brain doesn't know' :)

[Silverback]

Doppler once bubbled...


Not sure what you mean by "on the diving side." But here are the prerequisites:

" 4. Must be able to swim a distance of at least 50 feet/15 meters submerged on a breath hold and must be able to tread water for 2 minutes with hands above head "

With or without all gear... stages and such to cause the drag... and only 50"

"5. Must demonstrate to instructor’s satisfaction a good level of CV fitness. Instructor may ask for surface swim, jog, bike ride… whatever she is most comfortable with." Again, with or with the gear... riding a bike would be interesting with twins on and two stages.

" Although it is not in the guidelines -- which of course I wrote -- I also like to see people with doubles prove to me that they can lift and manage them when they are on their back. "

Reminds me of the old days, when a O/W course was 18 weeks long and phyical fitness was base on the Navy guide lines. All that's missing is the pushup's with the gear on.

"If I had my druthers, I'd love to run VO2Max tests but that's a bit over the top! "

Not at all... :)

[Silverback]

Doppler once bubbled...


why bottom timers are better than computers... et al.



Ok, I have a little problem with this one Doppler... Like you, I'm in the computer field. Back when dive computers first came into the diving world, the old timers thought that they were a accident looking for a place to happen. Today, the dive computers have made such a advancements that there are those that wouldn't do a course without them.

Now for the technical arena, I do agree that the new Tri-Mix computers maybe a little new but... that is why we should be diving with backups.. you know... two is one, one is none.... and manual tables are always available. I know computers are built by man, but aren't bottom timers? I think making a statement or implying a statement like why one should only dive with bottom timers is ignoring technical advancements that we see our day to day lives.

Just me two cents...

[Doppler]

Hi Silverback... thanks for the feedback and the discussion point.

I will supply a link to an article I wrote explaining the premise for this statement... as soon as I find where said article is on the web these days... however, the executive summary is this... and be aware this is a generalization

My beef against dive computers is partly functional -- the algorithm has been padded considerably and to the point or craziness to help control the manufacturer's legal exposure rather than the user's inert gas exposure. And partly procedural -- computers tend to lead to sloppy dive planning and risk management practices.

The whole "luddite" debate is a secondary one and actually is not as much of an issue IMHO.

I will post the link later and you will get a chance to read exactly what I mean by the statement and why I teach this as a default to folks learning to execute staged decompression dives.

As for back-up. I feel a well-informed deco diver should be able to plan a deco schedule on the fly given a previously learned baseline... another story though... but a much cheaper alternative to let's say a couple of mix computers. Man. that's the same price as a trip to Bikini Atoll!


Silverback once bubbled...


Ok, I have a little problem with this one Doppler... Like you, I'm in the computer field. Back when dive computers first came into the diving world, the old timers thought that they were a accident looking for a place to happen. Today, the dive computers have made such a advancements that there are those that wouldn't do a course without them.

Now for the technical arena, I do agree that the new Tri-Mix computers maybe a little new but... that is why we should be diving with backups.. you know... two is one, one is none.... and manual tables are always available. I know computers are built by man, but aren't bottom timers? I think making a statement or implying a statement like why one should only dive with bottom timers is ignoring technical advancements that we see our day to day lives.

Just me two cents...

[MikeFerrara]

Computers...

I used to use one and I still own several. A couple of them are even multi gas computers. However, I don't choose to do my decompression in the manor that the computer suggests. I find that I don't need the computer for diving within the recreational limits either. For a long time now I've really only used the computer for a depth gauge and timer.

Recently I decide I had to buy something else because the number are too small on all my computers. Oh and the don't go deep enough either. I looked into some of the newer computers and while I'm not absolutely against their use non do what I want. At best it would be a very expensive venture that would require a big compromise to even use.

I bought a OMS bottom timer for $120.

Precision?

Take the DSAT, Navy, NOAA and buhlmann tables and look at the range of NDL and decompression schedules. For some profiles you'll see as much as a 40% deviation. Take a decompression software and change the gradient factors or conservatism settings. You can find profiles that will vary by an hour of decompression just by changing those user settable parameters.

Which is the real schedule? That would be up to me and the guy who programmed the dive computer hasn't a clue so why would I let him decide? Exact real time calculations of depth and time have a much smaller effect on the profile than other factors that the computer isn't taking into account. The computer is using up a lot of processing power doing nothing useful at all.

It may provide some with a measure of security though by giving them something to look at I guess.

Maybe someday there will be a computer that does more of what we really need done and then I'll have a look at them.

[Dan MacKay]

pufferfish once bubbled...


Dan nothing is simple in this world anymore and the more one digs under the surface of any topic the more one realizes the less they know. As far as CO physiology goes I think a few corrections to the above over-simplified picture are in order.



Ok Puffer,

Once again you slide off on a diatribe with little proof. I will beat you at your own game then. Thanks to JP, who did a little research and came up with an extensive research document complete with all the long words that you could wish for + an extensive and impressive list of references and research documents. So here it is then:

The Impacts of Smoking on Diving
- - - - - - - - -
BY ART RANZ, DDS
Cigarette smoking is one of the largest preventable health and death risks in the United States. It receives enormous amounts of negative media attention and yet millions of people start smoking every year. Unfortunately, it is frequently difficult to have a prudent, scientific discussion about the risks of smoking with someone who is addicted to nicotine. The addiction leads smokers to rationalize or deny the risks of smoking. However, this "head in the sand" response allows them to ignore the obvious impact that smoking has upon their bodies and the more subtle ways it effects many aspects of their lives, such as scuba diving.
The effects of smoking are especially significant for persons who participate in scuba diving. A review of scientific literature about the body's reaction to smoking and nicotine addiction illustrates how smoking can effect diving performance. While the diving and health limitations imposed by tobacco use vary according to the degree of use, tobacco always has some impact on individual health.
The most extensive, long-term, prospective study on smoking and other health issues is the Framingham study. This ongoing study has followed 5,000 people for more than 34 years, providing a wide range of statistical information. For instance, the 30-year-old who smokes 15 cigarettes a day - or less than one pack - shortens his life by five years. Smokers experience a 20-fold increase in lung cancer and greatly increased cancer rates in other organs, including skin, bladder, pancreas, mouth and throat. Smokers have twice the risk of cardiovascular disease, 2.2 times the number of strokes and 3.5 times more intermittent claudication expressed as leg cramping due to a lack of circulation. At any given age, the risk of dying for any reason is twice that of a non-smoker. Smokers have seven times the normal incidence of airway damage and respiratory distress. Children who smoke beginning at age 14 only develop 92 percent of the lung function, on average, that a non-smoking child does. This loss of function is permanent. Obviously, efficient lung function is essential to managing stressful situations and promoting efficient inert gas removal from a diver's blood. Poor circulatory efficiency can have dangerous impacts on inert gas elimination and oxygen delivery to needy muscles, greatly effecting a diver's personal safety. Atherosclerotic plaques in blood vessels form twice as fast when smoking is added to a high fat diet. There are great increases in the LDL ("bad cholesterol") that reduces circulatory efficiency and complicates inert gas removal. Inert gas (especially nitrogen) appears to lodge in fatty deposits, creating likely sites for bubble congregation and growth. Furthermore, 90 percent of patients with infections after spinal surgery are smokers and bone marrow density in men is decreased almost 20 percent and in women 25-30 percent, while the incidence of back pain from a work related injury increases from one in five to one in two for smokers. Hyperbaric bone damage (osteonecrosis) has gained increasing concern among medical professionals as researchers strive to demonstrate the cause of occasional bone degradation. To be sure, reduced bone density due to smoking aggravates the problem and some researchers are suggesting a more careful analysis of the relationship between hyperbaric damage and tobacco smoking.
How does tobacco cause such dangerous repercussions?
There are four groups of dangerous substances present in cigarette smoke:
1. Carcinogens and co-carcinogens are mostly polycyclic aromatic alcohols that directly initiate cancer formation. These affect areas in direct contact with the smoke and also distant organs through absorption into the bloodstream.
2. Irritants cause immediate coughing and broncoconstriction, inhibit cilliary action in the lung and stimulate mucus secretion.
3. Chronic exposure to nicotine induces an increase in the number of nicotinic cholinergic receptors in the brain, causing structural and functional changes in the brain and nervous system. It induces tolerance and physical and psychological changes upon withdrawal. These are classic developments from an addictive drug.
4. Toxic gases are inhaled, including carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen cyanide.
Smoking related cancer is tragic, costly and largely preventable, but the direct impact to diving is often less obvious. By way of illustration, the irritants present within smoke induce a chronic inflammation of the alveoli causing the body to produce proteolytic enzymes that eat away at the alveolar wall. Cilia are microscopic hairs that fan and carry harmful particles out of the lung. The irritants present in smoke impede these cilliary actions. With the addition of increased secretions, the lung has now lost a significant part of its defenses from outside agents. Chronic bronchitis develops, making smokers more susceptible to emphysema, viral and bacterial infections. As this process continues over the years and more alveolar damage occurs, there is a loss of capillaries in the walls which causes "ventilation-perfusion abnormalities." This damaging chain of events leads to a reduction in the area of alveolar membrane available for gas exchange and also to perfusion of unventilated areas and ventilation of unperfused areas. In simple terms, gas exchange is compromised and air (or other gases) is not reaching the blood for exchange. General lung function is often severely compromised in the smoking population as is evidenced by several clinical measurements in the lung. The standard measure of lung function is the forced expiratory volume in one second or FEV1. This is the amount of air that can be exhaled in one second. The Framingham study showed the FEV1 to be decreased to 80 percent of expected values in smokers. This decrement in lung function creates less efficient ventilation on exertion and decreases the force of the cough (a vital protective mechanism for the lung) and may indicate a general degradation of lung health. The forced vital capacity (FVC) is another common measure of lung function and measures the amount of air one can expel from a full inhale to a full exhale. On average, smoking reduces FVC by 10 percent in moderate smokers. A 10 percent reduction in vital capacity is a significant indication of lung dysfunction and an obvious deterrent to pulmonary exchange in decompression.
Nicotine is not only a powerfully addictive drug, but a potent pharmacological agent. Nicotine promotes platelet aggregation and fibrinogen formation, which are precursors to the clots that obstruct small blood vessels. An obstruction initiates negative repercussions that increases the risk of diving and decompression. The heart rate increases, elevating oxygen consumption and the shrinking of small blood vessels increases total peripheral resistance. The resistance, in turn, causes more problems such as increased blood pressure and poor circulation in the periphery of the body. Peripheral circulation involves the miles of very small blood vessels all over the body. The vessels are problematic in efficient inert gas elimination. For example, the extremities contain numerous areas of reduced circulatory efficiency such as the joints (responsible for the majority of decompression sickness). When divers begin to get chilled, a natural reduction in blood circulation to the peripheral system occurs to maintain a reasonable core temperature. Smoking exacerbates this problem as studies show that the circulation in small blood vessels is reduced 19 percent after just two cigarettes. Poor gas exchange and increased risk of decompression sickness results.
It is important to understand the Oxygen Dissociation Curve when reviewing the impact of smoking on oxygen transport mechanisms. This curve (fig 1) illustrates the assimilation of oxygen in large amounts even with low oxygen pressures in the lungs. Hemoglobin picks up the oxygen from the lungs and transports it to the tissues where it is released. Several factors control how easily the oxygen is released from its hemoglobin carrier. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the blood cause the body to react as if there is poor ventilation and a greater need for oxygen. This environment initiates the release of more oxygen to the tissues. Under these conditions the hemoglobin affinity for oxygen is reduced, making it easier for oxygen to be released. In reference to the Dissociation Curve, this condition is sometimes referred to as a "shift to the right" and results in a greater supply of oxygen to the tissues. However, a "shift to the left" prevents oxygen from being released to the tissues. This condition is prominent with the carbon monoxide accumulation that results from smoking.
The primary mechanism behind the risk of carbon monoxide impact is twofold. First it binds to hemoglobin 250 times better than oxygen, making a compound called carboxyhemoglobin. This compound replaces the oxygen in the hemoglobin molecule and prevents the leftward shift of the Oxyhemoglobin Dissociation Curve. The increased affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen results in a decrease in oxygen carrying capacity and impaired release of the oxygen once it reaches the tissues. Non-smokers have about one percent carboxyhemoglobin while smokers have close to 15 percent. To illustrate the severely harmful effects of CO in the blood, imagine that an individual has 50 percent of their hemoglobin bound to CO. Compare this individual with another person who has lost half of their hemoglobin (due to severely bleeding ulcers, chronic gastrointestinal bleeding or massive injuries, for instance).The individual who has 50 percent of their hemoglobin bound with CO will die. But, the person who has a 50 percent loss of hemoglobin will still not experience hypoxia while in a resting state.
Furthermore, chronic hypoxia (reduced oxygen) results from the smoking induced impairment of oxygen transport and causes the production of more red blood cells. The red blood cells are the containing mechanism for oxygen transport in the hemoglobin. The Framingham study has shown that smokers have a significant increase in the percentage of red blood cells in the blood (increased hematocrit). Normally the red blood cells are about 35-40 percent of the blood by volume. Smoking can cause this to increase by 20 percent, making the blood much more viscous, inducing obvious complications to efficient circulation. This problem is further aggravated by the pressures found below the surface and causes sludging of the red blood cells in the small capillaries, damaging the cells lining the blood vessels (endothelium).
The transport of hydrogen cyanide to the lungs during smoking creates additional decrements to health and diving safety. This noxious gas directly prevents use of oxygen by the cells by interfering with the cellular engine- the mitochondria. Even small amounts of hydrogen cyanide are deadly. The presence of this toxic substance causes direct injury to the lung by interfering with the alveolar enzymes normally responsible for maintaining the integrity of the alveolar membranes. Hydrogen sulfide is another dangerous substance in cigarette smoke and is a direct toxin to most all cell life, especially to tissues it directly contacts such as the lungs. The numerous impediments to a healthy circulatory and respiratory system establish an insidious cycle of unacceptable risk to safe diving practices.
For instance, when increasing environmental demands require the delivery of more oxygen, the smoker is at a serious disadvantage. An increased supply of oxygen in the inspired air does not help delivery of more oxygen to the tissues where it is needed. There are two ways to increase oxygen delivery with increased demand: increasing blood flow through the tissue and raising the coefficient of oxygen usage. The former is compromised by the inferior cardiovascular condition of the smoker (consider the number of serious atheletes who smoke). The latter is increased by two things that happen automatically: greater partial pressure of oxygen between blood and tissue (resulting from the increase in oxygen consumption in the tissues) and the rise in carbon dioxide as a byproduct of increased metabolism. This increase in carbon dioxide causes the hemoglobin curve to shift to the right and allow more release of oxygen. This typically beneficial reaction is countered by the smoker's CO poisoning and the shift back to the left. The really adverse effect of smoking is the 20-30 percent rise in peripheral resistance (closing or restriction of small blood vessels) caused by the presence of nicotine. Small blood vessels are where the exchange of gases takes place and a reduction of circulatory efficiency in this area may be significant. Reduced blood flow and impeded oxygen release prevent efficient oxygenation especially when it is needed most. Therefore, the simple act of smoking initiates circulatory reactions that place divers in harm's way. Whether from decompression illness risk or ineffectual response to stressful environments, the smoker intentionally places himself and his team at greater risk.
Smokers and those who choose to dive with them should consider not only the long-term health impacts, but the immediate implications of smoking and diving. Consider the increase in sudden cardiac death, the reduced ability to absorb and deliver oxygen to the cells, the obvious cognitive impairment, the likely increased risks of decompression illness, the increased likelihood of lung overpressurization injuries and the many other dangerous effects of smoking and diving. With all of the damage and risk associated with smoking and diving, what possible justification (save addiction) can there be to continue? Individuals with drug addictions, which is clearly what smoking is, must be encouraged to seek assistance and be freed from this damaging habit.
Consider that many "diving deaths" are thought to be cardiovascular in nature: cardiac arrhythmias, myocardial infarcts and strokes just to name a few. The smoker's incidence of these maladies is much higher. With this in mind, can a smoker be a responsible diving buddy? Can they help other divers out of trouble or are they merely likely to create problems? With increased anxiety, the heart beats faster and the breathing rate increases. Increased heart rate is the number one cause of increased oxygen use by the heart muscle and the heart of a smoker has a reduced ability to deal with the increased demand for oxygen. As a result, pulmonary exchange is poorer and utilization of breathed gases is compromised, leading to greater gas consumption and reduced ability to assist other divers. All dives are decompression dives. The list is long on how smoking causes decreased gas exchange and potential for decompression sickness. The ability of the lungs to filter bubbles is a major reason that every dive does not result in clinical decompression injury. The lungs are directly damaged by smoking. Ventilation, monitored by FEV1, is decreased, and the Forced Vital Capacity, or FVC, is decrease by at least 10%. With decreased pulmonary function, the lungs' function as a big bubble trap is compromised and the risk of decompression illness is increased.
Nicotine causes significant peripheral constriction, further compromising elimination of gas in the areas most difficult to get the inert gases out — the small vessels and the area they perfuse. It causes increased platelet aggregation and fibrinogen production which only gives the body a head start on the same process that bubbles produce in occluding vessels and damaging vessel walls. One prominent theory of decompression illness suggests that bubbles in the bloodstream cause damage to the endothelium, the lining of the blood vessel walls, setting off a cascade of body reactions to repair itself. With nicotine in the body this process is aggravated and accelerated, causing platelets and blood clots to clog the small blood vessels. This reduces the body's ability to get rid of inert gasses. Nicotine gives the body a head start on the bad things that happen with bubble formation. The smoker has increased numbers of red blood cells per volume, or increased hematocrit, which sounds good, but actually makes the blood "thicker." Increased atmospheric pressure from diving causes sludging of red blood cells in small vessels and the clogging of these vessels is aggravated by the increased hematocrit of the smoker. This is more bad news for perfusing the small vessels in the decompression part of the dive. Increased hematocrit may be directly involved with the endothelial damage which has been implicated in DCS. Carbon monoxide inhibits the transportation of oxygen mostly in its effect upon the hemoglobin and the hemoglobin disassociation curve. Smoking directly reduces pulmonary blood volume and the number of open capillaries in the lung, causing a ventilation to perfusion impairment with the obvious impairment of gas transfer at a time when every little bit is vital.
Acute nicotine withdrawal causes severe performance degradation, memory impairment, confusion, impulsiveness and slowed reaction time, just to name a few. Any of these are serious problems when simple decisions become life or death decisions under water. In a recent study of "undeserved hits" (a dive where supposedly all decompression limits are met and ascent rates are appropriate, but the diver still suffers from decompression illness), smoking and lung damage from smoking seemed to play a key role. Two groups emerged, those with intra-cardiac shunts and those without. Those with shunts had more brain symptoms and none smoked, while those without shunts, 50 percent smoked, a remarkable number. These divers experienced mostly spinal neurological sequelae and had deficits identical to divers with rapid ascents and pulmonary barotrauma. This implies that the smokers had occult lung disease that precipitated the pulmonary barotrauma giving more evidence of hindrance on the body's bubble filter. This makes perfect sense when considering the damage caused by smoking on the small airways and the alveolar walls which allow bubble to pass though the system instead of being filtered. Please think about these facts before picking up that next cigarette or diving with someone who smokes. If you smoke, see your doctor for help with overcoming the addiction. Make your diving safe and fun.
References
1. Freund Karen MD et al. The health risks of smoking, The Framingham study: 34 years of follow-up AEP Vol. 3, No. 4 July 1993 417-424
2. American Heart Association. Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Heart and Stoke Guide 1998
3. American Lung Association. Smoking Fact Sheet 1998
4. Sorle Paul. Influence of cigarette smoking on lung function at baseline and follow-up in 14 years: The Framingham study J. Chron Dis Vol. 40, No. 9 pp. 849-856 1987
5. Olofson J. Mortality related to smoking habits, respiratory symptoms and lung function. Eur J Respir Dis (1987) 71, 69-76
6. Wolf Philip MD. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for stroke: The Framingham Study. JAMA Feb. 19, 1988-Vol 259, No. 7
7. Tager Ira B. Effect of cigarette smoking on the pulmonary function of children and adolescents. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985 131:752-759
8. Beck Gerald Smoking and lung function Am Rev Respir Dis. 1981 Feb;123(2):149-55.
9. Castelli William P. MD Diet, smoking, and alcohol: Influence on coronary heart disease risk. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. XVI, No. 4 Suppl 1 (October) 1990: pp 41-46
10. Kwiathkowski, Timothy C. Cigarette smoking and its orthopedic consequences. Amer J Orthop 1996 Sept 25(9) 590-
11. Slolnick, ET Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the risk of adverse respiratory events in children receiving general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998 May:88(5):1144-53
12. Anderson HR Passive smoking and sudden infant death syndrome: review of the epidemiological evidence. Thorax 1997 Nov;52(11):1003-9
13. Valkonen M, Passice smoking induces atherogenic changes in low-density lipoprotein. Circulation 1998 May 26;97(20):2012-6
14. Chan D Cigarette smoking and age related macular degeneration Optom Vis Sci 1998 July;75(7):476-84
15. Solberg Y The association between cigarette smoking and ocular diseases. Surv Opthalmol 1998 May-Jun;42960:535-47
16. American Lung Association Fact Sheet: Second Hand Smoke 1998
17. Hackshaw AK Lung cancer and passive smoking Stat Methods Med Res 1998 Jun;7(20):119-36
18. Armin Ernst, MD Carbon Monoxide Poisoning NEJM Vol. 339, No. 22, Nov. 26, 1998 pp. 1603-8
19. Timisjarvi J et. al. Effect of smoking on the central circulation at rest and during exercise as studied by radiocardiograpy. Mukliarmedizin 1980;19(50:239-43
20. Sommese Teresa MD et al. Acute effects of cigarette smoking withdrawal: Review of the literature. Aviation, space and Environmental Medicine Feb. 1995 pp. 164-7
21. West Robert Ph.D. What happened to anxiety levels on giving up smoking? Am J Psychiatry 154:11 Nov. 1997 1589-92
22. Wilmshurst P Role of cardio-respiratory abnormalities, smoking and dive characteristics on the manifestations of neurological decompression illness. Clin Sci 1994 Mar;86(3):297-303
23. Brodbeck John R. et al. Best and Taylor's Physiological Basic of Medical Practice Ninth Edition Williams and Wilkins Company. 1973

Smoking is bad..praticularly in diving..argue that.

Safe dives,

Dan

[TCDiver1]

Dan MacKay once bubbled...

Smoking is bad..praticularly in diving..argue that.

Safe dives,

Dan

For what it worth, me thinks this is just one of those "just let it go" issues.

GUE has the right to set it's standards based on their views. I say more power to GUE, although at some point i bet GUE will be taken to task on the no smokers issue by some freedom of choice advocate or group.

The citizenry has the right to take issue with GUE's standards. Power to the people, man!

I know one thing. I'm not a smoker and i don't need a scuba training agency to tell me that smoking is bad for me. Just like i don't need the DOT to tell me i am in much greater mortal danger driving to and from work everyday, than i would be diving after smoking a pack a day. I'm pretty sure i can safely make that assumption without a poll or impact study.


A different perspective is nice sometimes. :)

[pufferfish]

Hey Dan that wasn't fair as you only had to type eight words on that one and have Col. Cluster helping you out with research ;)

Very interesting article however it seems to be written soley to support a predetermined conclusion, that of GUE's position that smokers shouldn't dive. Once again let me state my position that I don't smoke and I think smoking is one of the most nasty habits there is, but that being said I still don't think the policy of excluding perfectly healthy, fit, young smokers from your course is a great idea or likely convincing if it was ever challenged legally.

I don't think this is the right space to offer a detailed critique of the article suffice it to say I think the author, a dentist, likely is the same guy I see writing articles that amalgum fillings cause chronic fatigue syndrome, Alzheimer's disease, and a whole host of other common ailments so as to justify the replacement of those fillings. This guy trots out all kinds of very valid smoking data but at no point mentions that most of those findings are in the greater than twenty year, pack-a-day smoker. None of that stuff is really of any concern in the twenty or probably even thirty year old smoker who has no other health issues. All those references in the article if you look at them closely have age related frequencies of the smoking related changes mentioned. These are not clinically relevent in the healthy probably under forty year old fit disease free smoker. And the group who you do see the chronic changes discussed are much older and just would not be showing up at your door asking to take a GUE course. Heck they wouldn't be even showing up requesting to take a PADI course :D

You know we often hear the statistic of a lifetime risk of breast cancer for women of one in nine which is true over 85 years of life. However for a twenty year old gal the risk is 1:20,000 and for a 35 year old it is still only 1:600. What this author has done is taken the lifetime risk of smoking and used that to generate a lot of fear and I would say unscientific prejudice against all smokers when in fact the risk of problems while diving even technical diving in the 18 to 35 year old healthy smoking group is probably pretty low. When people trot out those lifetime risks and apply them to the wrong age groups we then get exclusion policies that are not scientific. In the case of breast cancer and always quoting this one in nine risk lifetime risk instead of the real picture of age related data we get all kinds of unnecessary anxiety in young women and visits to the doctor's office.

I don't know but it would be interesting to know whether the US Military excludes smokers from applying to the Navy Seal program? I know the Canadian military does not have any exclusion policies but they set the fitness bar and let you try to pass smoker or not. The Seals are a pretty elite bunch if you look at their fitness standards and if they are not excluding smokers they must have a reason for it.

My guess is they know that the performance difference in a fit 18 year old smoker vs non-smoker is negliable assuming the disease free state for both. Their philosophy is probably if the smoker can pass the test let him into the program and then as long as he continues to perform he stays in. He will be surrounded by very fit non-smokers and role models who will help him kick the habit. I can tell you I have seen parents come to tears in the office when their younger kids ask mom or dad to quit smoking in front of the doc. Very powerful stuff and the best way to impact on others is positive peer pressure and role models. Just think Dan if you took the twenty year old fit Navy Seal smoker and let him into your course. Do you not think that this young impressionable guy upon seeing your dive skills and admiring you as a role model would not have a very strong incentive to quit smoking? At the end of the day too you get the benefit of knowing because of your position you played a hand in helping the guy quit. Instead you don't even give him the chance to show his mettle and you don't get the benefit of learning about and using the power of positive role models. Instead GUE slams the door in his face tells him he is going to get bent for the wrong reasons and to go and find another agency. Just some food for thought.

The bottom line is the bulk of those chronic longterm effects the guy in that article is refering to have nothing to do with the healthy young smoker who wants to dive but he selectively leaves that dose and time of exposure data out of the article. Typical of a lot of the junk science out there today. I think the quality of Mr. Rant's article is summed up in his question, "With this in mind, can a smoker be a responsible dive buddy?" This guy is clearly an anti-smoking zealot and they are just as bad as the those zealots on the other side of the fence.

Gedunk you are right in that this is probably best an issue we drop. GUE can set whatever criteria it wants so as to keep the Marlborough man out of doubles and away from the front door. I will continue to see smokers and try and use positive ways to get them to quit to the best of my ability. I will continue to sign off firemen, police, and military candidates who are young and perfectly healthy and who want to dive. And despite that I know over a lifetime smoking is just downright bad and nasty and I could refuse to deal with this unfortunate and serious problem by not seeing people who smoke, I feel this would not be in my or the smoker's best interest.

[pufferfish]

Doppler,

Just for the record if I have a completely fit, mentally stable, keen 18 to 35 year old diver on no meds with a few hundred Ontario dives under his or her belt who would like to improve his or her skills but who is a smoker, would you consider the student for your course?

I see quite a few open minded, keen, very fit smoking fire and police recruits who either want to dive or are interested in furthering their skills past the traditional PADI/NAUI dive pathways. It would be great to have a person I can send them to where they will feel welcome and have a good positive role model to show them the ropes.

Thanks,
Puffer

[Doppler]

pufferfish once bubbled...
Doppler,

Just for the record if I have a completely fit, mentally stable, keen 18 to 35 year old diver on no meds with a few hundred Ontario dives under his or her belt who would like to improve his or her skills but who is a smoker, would you consider the student for your course?

I see quite a few open minded, keen, very fit smoking fire and police recruits who either want to dive or are interested in furthering their skills past the traditional PADI/NAUI dive pathways. It would be great to have a person I can send them to where they will feel welcome and have a good positive role model to show them the ropes.

Thanks,
Puffer


Excellent question Puffer...

I have knowingly taught two smokers during the almost ten years I have been teaching technical diving... one of them is a guy I dive with often on "big" trips... he is a caver and an excellent team player on deep wreck dives.

He does not smoke near me (I can't abide it) and frankly, for his age, he seems fit and his abilities and attitude do not seem to me to have suffered from the fact that we often throw his cigarettes overboard!

He has also taken and passed a GUE course.
:)

Back to your question... Complex Issue. Made more complex by the science you have refered to and the simple truth that physiology is never a black and white issue... give me physics every time!

If I really had my way, I would not teach anyone who swore, smoked, drank, ate read meat, and who could not play a passable 12-bar in B-Flat with a neat cromatic turn-around.

Given your parameters, I'd have to say what's the issue... since I don't allow smoking around me in the class, in the field or on a boat! Would I teach them... well, they could do what a lot of people do and fib to me about their personal habits...


Oh and for the record... I occasionally drink too much single malt scotch, have smoked a cigar, sworn -- I was born in London's dock area -- have eaten red meat when the hostess offered it and doesn't know I'm buddhist, and daily play one or other of my guitars when it's out of tune!!! :D

Take care

[Kevin R]

So let me get this straight...

It's ok to train smokers as long as they are breathing air filtered to Z180 standards? :D

Kevin

[TCDiver1]

Doppler once bubbled...

Oh and for the record... I occasionally drink too much single malt scotch, have smoked a cigar, sworn -- I was born in London's dock area -- have eaten red meat when the hostess offered it and doesn't know I'm buddhist, and daily play one or other of my guitars when it's out of tune!!! :D


Damn .... you really had me going there. Before you added the last i was thinking, strike one, strike two, strike three, strike etc .... on my chances of getting Doppler to teach me anything.

I was going to explain to you that most if not all the mentioned vices are requisite in playing a mean blues harmonica .... the only instrument i ever mastered.

But it sounds like you already understand that. ;)

[Dan MacKay]

pufferfish once bubbled...
Hey Dan that wasn't fair as you only had to type eight words on that one and have Col. Cluster helping you out with research ;)

Very interesting article however it seems to be written soley to support a predetermined conclusion, that of GUE's position that smokers shouldn't dive. Once again let me state my position that I don't smoke and I think smoking is one of the most nasty habits there is, but that being said I still don't think the policy of excluding perfectly healthy, fit, young smokers from your course is a great idea or likely convincing if it was ever challenged legally.



Hi Puffer,

So let me get this right..just because you do not like the profession of the person who wrote the article you dismiss the validity of the article? How about the rest of the very well know researchers and professionals and the thousands of man days that went into the conclusions of the following refercences listed in the original article? Hmm, Puffer you have absolutely no credibilty in this as you have yet to list a single researched and published paper on the premis that smoking is not detrimental to ones health and that it poses no heath risk when diving. Here is my argument in nauseating detail if you wish to read them.

1. Freund Karen MD et al. The health risks of smoking, The Framingham study: 34 years of follow-up AEP Vol. 3, No. 4 July 1993 417-424
2. American Heart Association. Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Heart and Stoke Guide 1998
3. American Lung Association. Smoking Fact Sheet 1998
4. Sorle Paul. Influence of cigarette smoking on lung function at baseline and follow-up in 14 years: The Framingham study J. Chron Dis Vol. 40, No. 9 pp. 849-856 1987
5. Olofson J. Mortality related to smoking habits, respiratory symptoms and lung function. Eur J Respir Dis (1987) 71, 69-76
6. Wolf Philip MD. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for stroke: The Framingham Study. JAMA Feb. 19, 1988-Vol 259, No. 7
7. Tager Ira B. Effect of cigarette smoking on the pulmonary function of children and adolescents. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985 131:752-759
8. Beck Gerald Smoking and lung function Am Rev Respir Dis. 1981 Feb;123(2):149-55.
9. Castelli William P. MD Diet, smoking, and alcohol: Influence on coronary heart disease risk. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. XVI, No. 4 Suppl 1 (October) 1990: pp 41-46
10. Kwiathkowski, Timothy C. Cigarette smoking and its orthopedic consequences. Amer J Orthop 1996 Sept 25(9) 590-
11. Slolnick, ET Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the risk of adverse respiratory events in children receiving general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998 May:88(5):1144-53
12. Anderson HR Passive smoking and sudden infant death syndrome: review of the epidemiological evidence. Thorax 1997 Nov;52(11):1003-9
13. Valkonen M, Passice smoking induces atherogenic changes in low-density lipoprotein. Circulation 1998 May 26;97(20):2012-6
14. Chan D Cigarette smoking and age related macular degeneration Optom Vis Sci 1998 July;75(7):476-84
15. Solberg Y The association between cigarette smoking and ocular diseases. Surv Opthalmol 1998 May-Jun;42960:535-47
16. American Lung Association Fact Sheet: Second Hand Smoke 1998
17. Hackshaw AK Lung cancer and passive smoking Stat Methods Med Res 1998 Jun;7(20):119-36
18. Armin Ernst, MD Carbon Monoxide Poisoning NEJM Vol. 339, No. 22, Nov. 26, 1998 pp. 1603-8
19. Timisjarvi J et. al. Effect of smoking on the central circulation at rest and during exercise as studied by radiocardiograpy. Mukliarmedizin 1980;19(50:239-43
20. Sommese Teresa MD et al. Acute effects of cigarette smoking withdrawal: Review of the literature. Aviation, space and Environmental Medicine Feb. 1995 pp. 164-7
21. West Robert Ph.D. What happened to anxiety levels on giving up smoking? Am J Psychiatry 154:11 Nov. 1997 1589-92
22. Wilmshurst P Role of cardio-respiratory abnormalities, smoking and dive characteristics on the manifestations of neurological decompression illness. Clin Sci 1994 Mar;86(3):297-303
23. Brodbeck John R. et al. Best and Taylor's Physiological Basic of Medical Practice Ninth Edition Williams and Wilkins Company. 1973

Care to dismiss these gentlemen and ladies as well? As I asked you in an earlier discussion show me the smoking gun dude. Show me your research rather than anecdotal ramblings.

As far a GUE being taken to task for not teaching non-smokers that is an entirely different issue. Just because it *may* be perceived that it is against someones legal rights not to teach them due to their smoking habit that has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with whether or not smoking is detrimental to your health let alone measurable increased risk of DCS among other things. Your right to swing your fist ends just prior to where it meets my nose.

From what I have seen from your method of argument even Bennet and Elliot would be wrong if you happened to have a differing anectdotal opinion.

I bow in supplication to your greater knowledge. I am wrong, you must be right! Smoking must be a good thing. Why I wonder did I feel so much better when I gave it up 18 years ago? Hmmm maybe you can tell me. Sheese. It does no good for me to discuss anything with you Puffer as the old saying is never truer when it comes to you.. A man convinced against his will is of his own opinion still. I have finished responding to this smoking question as since you are supporting the untenable position that smoking is good then this is a waste of bandwidth and my time.

Safe dives,

Dan

[agstreet]

Doppler once bubbled...



and daily play one or other of my guitars when it's out of tune!!! :D

Take care

That's it! Everything else was forgivable (except for the scotch, which was admirable), but this is beyond the pale. Two hours of listening to Yani and John Tesh for you!!!

[Col.Cluster]

Kevin Ripley once bubbled...
So let me get this straight...

It's ok to train smokers as long as they are breathing air filtered to Z180 standards? :D

Kevin

Rip,
You missed 'overweight'
Outside of which you covered it all except in parting

"God bless the pagens"

Catch you on the flip side dude.

[Col.Cluster]

gedunk once bubbled...



The citizenry has the right to take issue with GUE's standards. Power to the people, man!


A different perspective is nice sometimes. :)

I think we have found the logo for the next tee shirt.
Thanks dude

[Col.Cluster]

Dan MacKay once bubbled...


I have finished responding to this smoking question as since you are supporting the untenable position that smoking is good then this is a waste of bandwidth and my time.

Safe dives,

Dan

Dude,
I warned you both this morning that this was a waste of time. You have a supposed doctor advocating obesity and smoking. And just when you thought it could not get any funnier. And nobody has yet mentioned "teaching pigs to fly"

Oops!!! It looks like I just did.=-)

Catch you on the flip side too

[Tom R]

The trick to teaching pigs to fly is pretty easy. For a small nominal fee I can assist you in this endevor. The bonus is that the ones that fail at flying lessons can be turned into useful by products, ie bacon, chops, ribs, roast, ham etc etc etc.

:flyer:

Tom

[pufferfish]

Kevin Ripley once bubbled...
So let me get this straight...

It's ok to train smokers as long as they are breathing air filtered to Z180 standards? :D

Kevin

Yup just like it is okay to train non-smokers at NTD and let them breath air tested by an unaccredited lab which is unable to reliably test for CO, oil, and particulates. And who was talking about tar coated bronchioles and CO filled aveoli. :out:

[pufferfish]

Dan MacKay once bubbled...


Hi Puffer,

So let me get this right..just because you do not like the profession of the person who wrote the article you dismiss the validity of the article? How about the rest of the very well know researchers and professionals and the thousands of man days that went into the conclusions of the following refercences listed in the original article? Hmm, Puffer you have absolutely no credibilty in this as you have yet to list a single researched and published paper on the premis that smoking is not detrimental to ones health and that it poses no heath risk when diving. Here is my argument in nauseating detail if you wish to read them.


Dan

Hi Dan,
Nope nothing against dentists and not sure why I put that in. I had to look up what DDS meant but what I should have done was look up the guy's name instead. It appears from a search that you or JP kindly left out the fact the article is copyrighted to guess who GUE 2002. And here I thought Dr. Ranz was just some curious fellow like myself seaking the unbiased truth in the world of dive 'science' on why smokers shouldn't dive. Silly me.

Don't know where you guys get the notion I advocate smoking as healthy in any of my posts, in fact I think if you reread my posts I use descriptions like bad habit, nasty habit, etc. I think my first post regarding smoking was to basically state CO in a young healthy smoker was not a big deal due to tolerance and the fact they breath hyperbaric oxygen at depth with lowers the half time for CO elimination. I then stated that a far greater risk to all divers was in the form of CO on the back of dive boats instead. We are working with some pretty concerned provincial and federal agencies at this point in time after a few diver CO incidents in the last two months relating to this issue. Risk is all relative and the risk of CO in a habituated smoker who dives is miniscule compared to what you the non-smoking diver is getting on the back of many of these dive boats. If you want a smoking gun then this is a very big one.

My second post again did not advocate smoking but simply pointed out that the article you sited was basically correct for the person who has smoked all their life and who has many of the chronic end stage changes we do see in smokers. No difference of opinion there. Problem is these people with emphysema, increased hemoglobin, unstable atherosclerotic plaques and all the other life time smoking risks the guy trots out just are not seen in the diving population period. These folks with the longterm health effects Dr. Ranz mentions are at home on the couch watching reruns of Flipper and dreaming about doing the sport we so much enjoy. In fact when I reread his article again and looked at all the 'conclusions' the guy makes about why one should not smoke and dive and then see out of 23 references only one has anything to do with diving it is clear the author has taken and been given the liberty by the group he writes for to make great leaps of faith about smoking and dive risk when in fact no data actually exists to support those connections. The one article on diving and smoking actually referenced says in the abstract there "probably" is an association which remember has nothing to do with causation.

Please don't twist this and say I advocate smoking as healthy pastime. All I am saying is the science backing up the risk does not exist to exclude the typical smoker who would likely knock on any technical agency's door. This is the young fit medication free diver who knows smoking is unhealthy and I am sure would love to quit, but for a variety of reasons has not yet been able to. All I am saying is give the guy a chance to prove himself and you get the chance to influence him so he might quit,..win-win for all. To exclude this young diver though on the basis of some very flimsy data where none basically exists is misguided. Show me that the navy has an exclusion policy for their divers and I will be more convinced as the navy usually does look at the science before making a policy decision.To knowingly choose to ignore though other greater health risks to all of us smoking and non-smoking divers such as diving with unknown tank fill contaminant levels from using an unaccredited lab or expose ourselves to lethal CO levels on the back of our dive boats just reinforces one's impression that certain groups would rather make claims not based on science, but more likely based on self-rightiousness or lack of knowledge.

So smoking is bad, GUE can make whatever policies they want even if misguided, and I have beaten this horse to death. End of story.

[Col.Cluster]

pufferfish once bubbled...



It appears from a search that you or JP kindly left out the fact the article is copyrighted to guess who GUE 2002. And here I thought Dr. Ranz was just some curious fellow like myself seaking the unbiased truth in the world of dive 'science' on why smokers shouldn't dive. Silly me.

Yup just like it is okay to train non-smokers at NTD and let them breath air tested by an unaccredited lab which is unable to reliably test for CO, oil, and particulates. And who was talking about tar coated bronchioles and CO filled aveoli.



Wrong again Honey,

I told you the material belonged to Quest some posts back. You present more entertainment value then the ‘Daily Show’ with Jon Stewart. You are advocating obesity, smoking and diving. You had to slam the shop again. Dude you are too much. But keep on trucking. The milage we get out of you is priceless.

You do not even have your facts straight about your air quality crusade. You have yet to come clean with the mystery Ministry of Labours Regulation numbers you keep magically quoting. You have zero creditability. All you are have with the air issue is a hard-on for the Ontario Underwater Council.

God bless the pagans.

[D M I]

Hello guys

I just have to put in my comments on this topic. I've been diving for some 27 years now both as a sat commercial diver and yes if you want to call it TECK diver oooohh. My thoughts on all these different agencies and individuals who try and set forth some type of imaginary proper method of diving and gear configuration is all crap. You can take all the courses if you want but in the end the only thing thats going to get you out of a tight situation is you and your mental physical well being to do so. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the same TECK diver on a dive boat at different times with different gear and configurations every time why! because he is getting caught up in all this high teck nonsense and confusion out there. If you people would learn how to swim before you learn how to dive maybe there wouldn't be so many divers running into so many problems at depth when over weighted with teck gear. Hay! did you know that by Taking Yoga classes it would improve you and make you a better diver, believe it or not its true, and if you don't believe me just ask me.

D M I

PS smoking kills

[Col.Cluster]

NTD tests it air through the OUC to the original Z180 standards. They had also offered to consider changing this practice, if Pufferfish can present his air testing case critically and candidly. The Pufferfish has yet to comply, as he cannot produce documentation that does not exists. The original Z180 standard is similar to the standards generally used through out the U.S. Ontario as it stands with the original Z180 has one of highest air quality standards in the world.

That is right Puffer, despite all your bs, these folks are still open to what you have to offer; if you can ever get around to offering it. Personally, I think MacKay, Pate and Tom are wasting their time. You have zero creditability; else you would have provided the info months ago.

The real issue is in getting the none testing shops to test.

[MikeFerrara]

I'm not certain I see the argument here. I haven't seen any one say that smoking wasn't bad or that GUE didn't have the right to set what ever requirements they see fit.

If GUE thinks the best way to project their values is to turn away smoking atudent that's their decision.

I don't see where pufferfish has zero credability as col.cluster suggests either. Nor do I see why such direct insults need enter the conversation. This certainly isn't the first time an MD (or experts from other relevant feilds) have questioned GUE's science.

[DeepScuba]

Well DMI, I'll bite.....tell me about the YOGA thing. Maybe I can "reproduce" the yoga experience on my own vs looking like an idiot in a park praying to Budda........or whatever.....

AS an aside, you wouldn't find too many "Tech" people switching rigs at all if they learned it correctly in the first place.

AS a Holgarthian advocate....basically DIR without the GUE :censor: opinions........it's all been done before.

Divers have been doing it right before GUE ever came into being, and it's no wonder some DIR divers refuse the accept the GUE relationship between their diving and the GUE organization.

I love RULE # 1: Never dive with a stroke.......

Gee I haven't a clue why they are disliked..........

[Tom R]

DeepScuba once bubbled...
I love RULE # 1: Never dive with a stroke.

Steve, your the only guy that used that term in all the "heated discussions" that are on going you the self proclaimed anti dir guy, makes the reference to it. Hum, sounds like your trying to discredit GUE here. :)

Tom

[Kevin R]

Steve

GUE never claimed to have invented DIR, as someone else pointed out, they teach it. And as Dan said, we don't hear anyone who has taken training through them complaining, only those who refuse to.

But thanks for clarifing where all the attitude is from.

Kevin

[DeepScuba]

OK so I MUST have heard it wrong..........NOT.

A don't call me Steve, who's he?

I discredit those who place their opinion in the FACT category, and then never defend it with anything more than excuses that I wouldn't accept from my child! I am NOT anti DIR, I'm anti GUE B.S.

Of course, my numerous attempts at asking was to no avail, and it's a wonder WHY i got heated???

Utter foolishness.

They claim they wouldn't enter the discussion, stating my flames.........Hmmmm, nice excuse, too bad they didn't answer on the first 1 or 3 times I asked. Too bad they didn't answer another fellow who had asked the same question...and he for sure didn't flame anyone.

If you're gonna call yourself elite, or DIR TEACHERS, and say "Don't dive with a stroke" (and we'll tell you what a stroke is), then I expect from a high preaching point, to be explained to us lowly Padi OW kids the reason for it, and not just an easily explained away opinion.

Can we just leave it at that?? I'll take my TDI Tech courses, and be called a Stroke if that's what it'll take.

So sorry if it got out of hand, it shouldn't have, but it did, and it takes two sides to argue, and there WAS 2 sides doing the argueing, but I guess only one has to be removed, do it was be because I argued harder, so what.............it's funny too, I really don't care that much what GUE says, so I have to laugh at why I argued so hard.........I guess we got caught up in it, and as you could see, I removed myself from the thread.

It was best for all........well, it was best for me.

DONE.....

OK?

Regards.

[JohnF]

Tom R once bubbled...

The trick to teaching pigs to fly is pretty easy.

Tom

First you need a tall building.

JohnF

[Dan MacKay]

Hi all,

Just to close off this thread for me with some parting thoughts as it has once again degenerated into an us against them debate which I had never intended.

As an observation we have one person who vehemenently stands by the highest air standards in the world of which only a handful of stores supply in all of the world and then advocates technical training the young, *fit* smoking diver. If he is smoking what would the air standard matter. He would not likely be able to jam anything into his lungs that was not already there. Inconsistant? I think so.

It is aparent that there is a fundamental change happening in the market place. That thanks to GUE and others we are raising the bar in general and that is a good thing. I just dislike the way some folks go about it. Throw stones at the folks that are holding the standard while quickly scrambling to catch up. Both PADI and NAUI are guilty of this practice. Just how long ago did these agencies condem the tech diver? What is happening now? The technical agencies are not much different. Give credit where credit is due to the instructors who are trying to make a difference outside the framework of their agencies. Is Steve's course a sanctioned TDI course? The answer is not only no but hell no. Is Steve wrong in doing what he is doing? Of course not.

The only way to experience the GUE version of DIR is to actually come out and try it for yourself. Then decide whether it is for you or not. Personally I think it is great training for all levels of divers but I may be some what biased. Not all GUE/DIR divers are loud mouths. However all divers that have taken a GUE course know that they have just experieced a course unlike anything they have ever taken before and have actually acomplished something. The most consistant question that I answer on a regular basis is "why hasn't anyone taught me that before". The reason is simple..if your instructor does not know it then they can't teach it.

Canadians are a silly bunch of consumers when it comes to diving. If I were looking to have brain surgury done I would prefer to have it done by the best surgeon money can buy in a top notch hospital. But when it comes to diving they normal seek the least expensive training and not necessarily the brightest instructor. After all in a class of 243 someone has to come 243rd. This is not true of all instructors of course but consistancy and high standards are only maintained through rigorous standards. GUE has the highest standards in the world for their instructors as well.

All I would ask the arm chair cowboys to do is to form your own opinion by actually experiencing a GUE course. Then you have a basis of comparison. If not then you really do not have an opinion on the quality of training. When Steve or I or most of the other DIR and GUE divers say something in here it is based on expience. Most divers gravitate to GUE after having gotten tired of being raped and beaten by some other agency. I my case I had around 700 dives and was a full trimix IANTD diver before I realized that I had been sold nothing but cards and that as long as the instructor had the money (of pretty near any course that I taken up to this point) that rather than hold me accountable for having poor skills they would hand out the cards and sign me up for the next course. It is too bad that I learned this hard lesson after tens of thousands of dollars.

So if we hold ourselves high it is because we hold ourselves accountable as well. My name on a C card may not mean a heck of a lot to the student but it sure means a lot to me. We tend to produce confident, comfortable and competent divers through a ciriculum of education, experiece and equipment. End of story. As I have have stated in earlier posts I have yet to run across a diver that has under taken GUE training complain. It is usually the ones on the outside looking in. The door is open folks, I challenge you to come on in and have a look. See you around the other threads.

Safe dives,

Dan

[cobaltbabe]

I for one will say thank you to the instructors that keep their standards high. When it is my time to take the tech course, and it will be a little while yet, I know who will be instructing me if he will have me.

Safe Diving all.

[MikeFerrara]

Dan MacKay once bubbled...
Hi all,

Just to close off this thread for me with some parting thoughts as it has once again degenerated into an us against them debate which I had never intended.

As an observation we have one person who vehemenently stands by the highest air standards in the world of which only a handful of stores supply in all of the world and then advocates technical training the young, *fit* smoking diver. If he is smoking what would the air standard matter. He would not likely be able to jam anything into his lungs that was not already there. Inconsistant? I think so.



Dan, you seem like a reasonable guy for the most part. However, I really don't think the above statement is really correct or fair. No one advocated smoking and I'll bet you know the difference between breathing CO or other contaminants on the surface and at depth don't you? Sorry but this statement just sounded like twisted logic for the sole purpose of being unfreindly.

[deepdiver5by5]

Hey All:
I had the pleasure of taking one of the early DIR-F classes in Florida. When I took it I believed my skills were good. The course was fun and very enjoyable. Now did I learn anything? YES you are always learning when you are diving. What I learned was another view towards bouyancy and equipment. Was my bouyancy better after the course, no is my bouyancy better now YES. Did the course help, YES. How could it not!!

Here is the opion now, I have been in the water with some of Dopplers grads, all are very good divers. I have diving with DIR-F course grads(I assume Dan taught them) that I dove with before their course and the difference is huge. Now for that matter I have been on boats with a lot of ON tech instructors grads and they seem to be good divers. The meat of this is these skills in the DIR-F, Dopplers course whatever should be taught from stage one. I recognize most instructor around do not, some do. So any course that is designed around bouyancy and equipment is a great thing(GUE or whoever).

deepdiver5by5

[DeepScuba]

A well, it's going around Mike. Some of us are just better at it!

[pufferfish]

Dan MacKay once bubbled...
Hi all,

SNIPPED

Canadians are a silly bunch of consumers when it comes to diving. If I were looking to have brain surgury done I would prefer to have it done by the best surgeon money can buy in a top notch hospital. But when it comes to diving they normal seek the least expensive training and not necessarily the brightest instructor. After all in a class of 243 someone has to come 243rd. This is not true of all instructors of course but consistancy and high standards are only maintained through rigorous standards. GUE has the highest standards in the world for their instructors as well.



Don't worry Dan there will be no mention of smoking and diving in this post so read on. :D

Interesting comment you make about Canadians being silly consumers when it comes to diving. Are you saying that despite GUE having the highest standards in the world and best instructors that people are not flocking to sign up for GUE courses? Yes as a person on the inside of the organization you could rationalize this by saying things like "divers seek the least expensive training and not necessarily the brightest instructor" or label Canadian divers "silly" when it comes to choosing an instructor or agency (yes it is the instructor not the agency which matters). This blaming of external factors for Canadian divers not choosing the dive agency with the highest standards and best instructors deserves a closer look not just because I am curious as to why that is, but it would be strategically smart for GUE to understand if these external factors are in fact the case for your conclusions or does the problem lie within the organization's core values and philosophy.

Using your great analogy of choosing a brain surgeon let me tell you how Canadian patients go about choosing a surgeon for the most part. I probably refer somone once a month for a surgery that has the potential to kill them. Brain surgery is one of these and vascular surgery is another. I try and approach the process of helping the patient choose a surgeon by personally having met the surgeon myself and having seen the results of his handiwork or having a trusted colleague who has done so. What I find so interesting about human nature is contrary to what you say above, when the discussion comes up about choosing a surgeon and the patient is told the risks of the procedure the very first question they ask me about the surgeon is does he or she have good bedside manner. They don't even ask about the technical aspects until twenty minutes later. What patients want is a surgeon who is going to answer their questions patiently, allay their fears in a difficult time, and be there post operatively to relieve pain and look after them, in that order. Next on the list comes technical skill. Of course in the ideal world one would want the best technical surgeon with great bedside manner but believe me these guys and gals are pretty few and far between. If a patient is offered a choice though between a surgeon with excellent bedside manner and average but good technical skills or a surgeon with excellent technical skills and poor bedside manner 95% of the time in my experience the former surgeon is chosen.

In fact at my hospital a few years back we had to decide whether to get rid of probably one of the top vascular surgeons in the province as he had the bedside manner of a two year old. He would throw scalples in the OR and one morning on rounds when angry about a patient not in her bed but in the bathroom he opened the door and just started to talk to her while she was sitting on the toilet doing her business. Pretty funny I know but not if you are the patient. Of course a complaint was filed over this and many others over the years and in the end we said good riddence to him. Interestingly why he lost his job was not so much because of these patient complaints as he never messed up technically but because the family doctors stopped refering him cases (decline in business for the hospital) as the patients were coming back and complaining about his complete and utter lack of bedside manner. He blamed us for not refering him patients and blamed the hospital for not giving him enough OR time rather than taking a look inside and saying could it be me.

I mention this analogy of choosing a surgeon and bedside manner as I see many parallels with choosing an instructor or agency to further one's dive skills. I would contend 95% of divers would choose an instructor the same way they would choose a surgeon. Bedside manner first, skills second. May I suggest that rather than blaming the Canadian dive consumer as silly you might look at the bedside manner of many of your alumni who are the real ambassadors for your product. While I have read many favourable posts about the GUE courses on this board and you are right that until one takes a GUE course one should be careful of their comments, it is that core of "loudmouth GUE/DIR divers" as you said who really do a disservice to your business Dan. I would say that if Canadian dive consumers are not flocking to take GUE courses despite GUE having the highest standards for their instructors, it might be time to look at the 'bedside' manner of your team members on this board as a reason for the consumer walking the other way. I have no doubt that technically your 'team' may be one of the best in the province, but after assessing their bedside manner on this board I can't say at this point in time I will be refering too many non-smoking fit divers your way for the GUE product. Knowing that even some of the most set in their ways organizations (ie. IBM) can turn business around drastically with a bit of honest self-reflection I would hope somehow GUE finds a way to do the same so it can grow as an organization to truly attract those dive 'surgeons' who are few and far between with great technical skills and 'lakeside' manner. When this happens the Canadian dive consumer will come and price will not matter :)

[DeepScuba]

Well put puffer, but don't argue too strenuosly towards your points, or what has happened to me when I dared to challenge 2 or 3 GUE ideas.......I'm getting squished!, will happen to you.

I agree with Dan when it comes to catch-up for PADI. I've said no less to them personally, quoting my PADI #, and they haven't asked for my C-card..yet!

Now I'm confused, I though the other 2 (Kevin and Tom???) called me Steve, maybe I'm wrong, as Dan, mentioned this Steve as well, which has zero to do with me as far as I know???? Yes I have a TDI card or 2, but huh?????I don't teach anything,....I can't. (Well I could, but............)

Who is Steve, I don't see his name anywhere in this thread?
Doppler???

[Kevin R]

See now, this is the problem.

We know who we think you are, but if you want to hide behind a pseudonym, no one really knows. Given who we think you are, it may no the be the lesser of two evils since I'm definitly not going to give Steve any credence since I think he's a complete idiot.


But then again, who am I?

Kevin ??

[DeepScuba]

Ah success was but a click away....I knew I had seen him before..........Mr Steve Lewis (Doppler)............Confusion gone.

Silly me, I knew that, but it's been a while.

[DeepScuba]

Kevin ??? I don't know a Kevin, but I've figured out who Steve was! and who's "we" the Scuba Police?

Hmmmmm, you think you know me???? Hmmmmm, maybe, I haven't overly tried to keep it hush hush, and several guys here know already, and, infact, they don't use their real names either!

It probably because we don't need the extra baggage that people who don't agree with us might bring. I respect their "fake" names, whether I agree with them or not (And on occassion we don't AT ALL!!! That's when it's most fun!!) and they who know mine respect my privacy as well.

So are you're saying Doppler is what???

[Kevin R]

Sorry chief, your wrong.

Steve Lewis has shown considerable restraint during this debate and is in the end working towards the common goal of improving diver skills, even going so far as to working outside his own training agency. I may be a hard nosed GUE diver, however, I do have a level of respect for Doppler which is how we first knew him when he ran Techdiver.

No Mr. Scuba, Steve Lewis is not the mystery Steve you are thinking of.

Feel free to try again.

Kevin

[DeepScuba]

I'm out of Kevins?? and Steves??,but I know who Dan is, and of course Tom (You must be his buddy)........as for the rest on this thread, I haven't a clue.


Hmmmm Die hard GUE are you........maybe I could ask you........nope, that's how the last one got going, and I never got any answers anyways.

Like I've said before, it don't matter that much anyways.......I'll do it my way regardless.

See ya,...Kevin.

[pufferfish]

Col.Cluster once bubbled...

NTD tests it air through the OUC to the original Z180 standards. They had also offered to consider changing this practice, if Pufferfish can present his air testing case critically and candidly. The Pufferfish has yet to comply, as he cannot produce documentation that does not exists. The original Z180 standard is similar to the standards generally used through out the U.S. Ontario as it stands with the original Z180 has one of highest air quality standards in the world.

That is right Puffer, despite all your bs, these folks are still open to what you have to offer; if you can ever get around to offering it.

SNIPPED



Ah JP, aka Col. Cluster after seeing your bedside manner in full form today and you still have the gonadal fortitude to ask me for favours. :rolleyes: I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And I have yet to comply with what, with who. Listen I don't really want to hijack this thread with more air quality stuff as there is a huge thread lurking around that I just might resurect to torture you, but since you have brought the issue up here, and high quality and GUE are supposed to be synonomous then lets just take a little peak under the hood again about the air testing issue at NTD or Northern Tech Divers, the designated GUE shop here in Canada. This may be an mini thesis so please bear with me.

Just for the record as you state NTD is using a lab called the OUC here in Ontario which is not recognized by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) and therefore is not an accredited lab. Accrediation is a process whereby the lab is inspected by an outside independent agency to ensure the results are reliable. One might say that the three accredited labs in Canada are held to 'rigorous standards' and as such are seen as the gold standard for which to test compressed breathing air in Canada. A test at the OUC costs $120 dollars and at an accredited lab $250. The new 2000 air standard in Canada is called Z180-00 and as part of the standard an accredited lab must be used. The old standard Z180-85 from 1985 and what GUE/NTD shop still uses (remember J valves and horsecollars) is what the OUC lab tries to meet, however they are missing a component called a methanizer on their gas chromotograph which is necessary to get reliable CO and CO2 readings in the low range exactly where a diver needs to be darn sure of the results. For example the GC without a methanizer will easily find a CO level of 100 ppm but will have trouble with 20 ppm. It may get reported as a 2 or 20 ppm. Not a problem at ambient pressure of 1 ATM, but 20 ppm CO in a mixed gas at 7 ATM is 140 ppm which is a problem. The biggest difference though between the new standard and the old is the required analysis for oil and particulates. The OUC does not offer this test at all. The 1985 Z180 standard to where NTD has decided to set their quality 'bar' therefore does not include an accredited lab, has unreliable CO results, and cannot test for oil or particulates in the fill. They set the bar high in teaching and gear but set it as low as possible with it comes to ensuring diver air quality. Inconsistent???

As an aside since CC has his facts incorrect, in the U.S the PADI/NAUI standard for compressed air is CGA Grade E (1997) which also has a standard listed of 5 mg/m3 for oil and particulates (in Canada this is 1 mg/m3). PADI by the way endorses a lab called Trace Analytics in Texas which is also accredited by an external agency to A2LA, a US equivalent of our SCC. So the only divers in North America heading to depths with mixed gas and not knowing at all the concentration of oil or particulates in their fills are those shops using the OUC lab to the antiquated 1985 standard and this includes GUE's Canadian centre of excellence. The rational for getting the O&P's down for the tech divers is two fold. One, oil and fine partics in the presence of oxygen rich mixtures are more likely to explode, and two the health effects of breathing hyperbaric particulates at 7 or 8 ATM is real bad. At those depths you want to be CO and partic free.

So folks I hope you can see the irony of what the situation is here in Canada. On the one hand we have an agency called GUE and represented by NTD which trots out the line about rigorous instructor standards , about being the cream of the crop in the dive world, excluding smokers from their courses, etc., but who are completely in the dark about the health risks of using a lab which is not accredited, cannot provide reliable CO levels, and can't do any oil or particulate analyses. And you call that striving to be the best or representing the cream of the crop? I call that hypocrisy. They then go on to criticize Canadian dive consumers as silly and cheap for not recognizing the high quality of the GUE product. And who is trying to save $500 bucks a year here on clearly inferior compressed air testing by the OUC at the expense of their own diver's health and safety. Yup it is very ironic GUE spends all this energy marketing itself as this elite group of guys and yet in one area of pre-dive planning called air quality analysis they completely drop the ball and have a real potential point of failure with a blind risk. May I suggest that Dr. Ranz write an equally thorough analysis for Quest entitled, "Compressed Air Contaminants: Acute Toxic Health Effects at High Partial Pressures, Do You Know Your Risk?"

CC listen if you pick up the phone and call the Ministry of Labor in Ottawa you will find your answers to the questions you pose. Sorry but no more favours from this end. Let those fingers do the walking.

What I really don't understand though is why you need me to provide anything at all to the GUE boys at NTD other than CSA Z180-00 which you have. That is the best standard money can buy in the country and I thought that is what GUE strived for in instruction, equipment, dive planning, etc. Just drop the comply with us, provide us with this or that regulation and DO IT RIGHT. Get your air tested by an accredited lab to the highest standard available here in Canada. You don't need the government to tell you to do so. Do it for the health benefits of the divers who dive on your team and purchase air to head to 7 ATM, do it because it is the right thing to do. To not do so just makes so much of the rhetoric about diver safety and quality eminating from GUE seem hollow. And don't worry about the shops not testing as we are working on that. Forget the MOL regulations and set the air testing bar at the same place you have it set for instruction, equipment, and all the rest. If GUE is going to lead the rest of us "pagans" then please do it right in all aspects of diver safety.

I will gladly 'comply' though and offer some documentation to the GUE A team as to why they really should put that DIR smoking article away and concentrate on oil and particulates at depth.

Here are some facts. It is the fine particulates one likely has to really be concerned about. Those are particles less than 2.5 microns. The highest 24 hour level in Ontario was 40 ug/m3 in the year 2000 (they are three years behind in processing the data) which was in Toronto north. Don't think Kingston is spared as they have had levels in the thirties on some days with the stuff coming up from Mike Ferrara's backyard. :D This is the concentration then in your intake air. Unless your compressor has a hyperfilter it can only remove down to 10 microns so the entire particulate fraction enters the fill without a hyperfilter. Now you take a concentration of 40 ug/m3 down to recreation depth at 5 ATM and the 'pp pressure' of this particulate load is 200 ug/m3. The EPA considers anything over 65 a hazard to all groups not just the sensitive ones like kids and the elderly.

You ask what are the health effects. Please enjoy a few articles where the author's state their conflict of interests;)

Health Effects of Particulates on the CVS and Respiratory Systems (http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/intjhyg/content/2000/issue56/4410059a.pdf)

Fine Partic Vasoconstriction in Healthy Adults (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/105/13/1534.pdf)

And remember that is just the PMs(particulate matter) in the intake air. We haven't even considered what may be added from a hot and tired compressor. But that doesn't matter because with OUC testing they don't even analyse for this. Now that's a game of Russian roulette I am not willing to play. Enjoy the documentation guys.

Sorry Dan you have to restrain some of your fellas there. CC made me do it with that bedside manner of his :out:

[Col.Cluster]

pufferfish once bubbled...


Ah JP, aka Col. Cluster after seeing your bedside manner in full form today and you still have the gonadal fortitude to ask me for favours. :rolleyes: I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And I have yet to comply with what, with who. Listen I don't really want to hijack this thread with more air quality stuff as there is a huge thread lurking around that I just might resurect to torture you, but since you have brought the issue up here,

Surprise, surprise puffer,

You are wrong again. But keep on swinging you are bound to hit something sooner or later. I will even throw you a bone try aka DJ.

As for my manner, now that is the pot calling the kettle black and I will leave it at that. If you are willing to curb yours. I am willing to curb mine.

Here is the credibility issue. Pufferfish says at the bottom of one of his posts that GUE is mistaken and should allow smokers to dive. He is advocating smoking and diving.

Also, here with his air quality issue when these folks say show us Pufferfish retorts with “No I am not doing you any favours”. It is like a scene out of the X Files “The truth is out there”. In my line of work evasive behaviour is usually a keen indicator of deceptional intent. Evasiveness is exactly what you have here. The mystery of labour regulations numbers have failed to appear yet again.

In all fairness, outside of the smoke and mirrors you characteristically laced your post with, you have some interesting points. But you still have missed the big picture. We do not dive air to 8, 7 or 5 ATA’s. Now please take the time to calculate the particle pressures that one.

Folks, keep in mind when reading puffers posts that he deems smoking and diving as okay. I personally do not question that the REVISED Z180 standard is of a higher order. What I do question is whether or not we are getting into the MORE IS BETTER routine. How good is good enough? If the gas we are breathing is bad how is it we are still alive? There should be thousands of divers falling down the world over. What was the original standard looking for when it tests for NO, SO? Are traces of NO, SO signs of other things like the hydrocarbons tested in the REVISED addition? These are things that I do not know and I think should be answered. I also thought all breathing air had to be hyperfilter, how else could you safely partial pressure blend?


I will put it to you once again; these folks are still open to what you have to offer; if you can ever get around to offering it. With that I would think interest goes beyond the boundaries of Ontario.

Why are you holding back? Show the world what you have to offer, including the mystery of labour reg numbers. You can hijack this thread if you like. You can continue another one. I would suggest you start a fresh one. Lay the whole thing out critically and candidly once and for all. This way there can be no shadow of a doubt to what is right or wrong.

It would not take much. Something like “ The revised Z180 csa is this………The Minister of Labour regulation number “whatever” states this. Concluded this unshakable evidence with something along the lines of “Ontario you have to comply because……”
That is all it would take dude. So why not give it a go?

[Brockvegas]

The guys on this thread must drink alot of water....this peeing contest has gone on a long time.

[wb416]

Col.Cluster once bubbled...

[snip]

I personally do not question that the REVISED Z180 standard is of a higher order. What I do question is whether or not we are getting into the MORE IS BETTER routine. How good is good enough? If the gas we are breathing is bad how is it we are still alive? There should be thousands of divers falling down the world over.

[snip]

CC,
So... as a GUE diver, I recognize the value of practice and quality training. However, if I use your logic above one might conclude "there should be thousands of divers falling down the world over" since they're not pursuing higher quality dive training. Since we're taught that "more is better" regarding our practice and continual improvement of our skills, perhaps you could share with me the reason for the apparent conflict/reversal here.

regards,
bob

[Butch103]

... and please reread the posts by Pufferfish...

He has never advocated smoking and diving in any of his threads.

He has simply questioned the validity of Dan's reluctance ( or GUE/DIR ) to certify smoking divers. He questioned and provided he side of the arguement. Dan has also provided his side of the arguement.

One can agree or disagree with either or both.

Personally ( not that it matters a whole hill of beans) I think that the basic health and fitness of the individual is paramount to their diving safety. Smokers or not. (FTR I am a non-smoker).

DIR/GUE/NTD have every right as an organization or indivual to not certify anyone at anytime for reasons they deem prudent.

As far as Doppler, he also has every right to design his own training program, based on something existing or with his own new ideas. None of us have any business questioning his techniques or prerequisites. Save and except to ask general questions as to why he would ask for the prerequisites.

I truly believe some of you should get off your "high horses" and stop acting so damm foolish.

[snuggle]

well put butch.. and deep scuba we all know your going to do things your way you dont have to tell us that..like butch said its time for some to get off their high horse..that is if you know how to..and leave the rest of us in peace ..

[DeepScuba]

Snugs!!! What the heck are you talking about???

I think you came to the party a tad late, and missed quite a bit of earlier discussion.

Last I checked, someone politely E-mail me RE you, and who you are, so I discontinued an earlier discussion (While being descent enough to leave you be, without further muddying the waters.so of us have more class and respect than to go THAT far). So if this is just another start-up on me, for old times sake, I'll cut it off right here.

Sure I could have embarrased the heck out of you from what I know, but I didn't, I never would, this was and should be about discussing views and first hand info, and not total character assasination,......except if you're Kevin of course.......the Moderators should lift their weary heads off the desk and check out his blatant "I'm a complete idiot" comment.....but of course they too are clearly one sided. Never in all my repeated questioning of MHK did I ever ONCE question his personal being, but rather I kept it clearly at an organizational level, and I still got the Moderator "slam"...........I guess it is really a one way street here.

Oh well.

Live and learn, and make your own determinations.

I'm done here boys...you should be happy enough. See ya in the water.

Regards.

[Col.Cluster]

Butch as I said in my last post and has been mentioned in several posts; I will endeavour to curb my manner. This is not to pee in anyones corn flakes. Below Pufferfish admits to signing off smokers as good to dive. By his actions he is advocating smoking and diving. In the second paragraph he states that GUE is misguided. If they are misguided to restrict smokers then it also implies that smoking and diving is okay. Yes Pufferfish repeatedly back pedals and also throws in that he does not advocated smoking, but as I already stated we are all judged by our actions.

Pufferfish quote

I will continue to see smokers and try and use positive ways to get them to quit to the best of my ability. I will continue to sign off firemen, police, and military candidates who are young and perfectly healthy and who want to dive. And despite that I know over a lifetime smoking is just downright bad and nasty and I could refuse to deal with this unfortunate and serious problem by not seeing people who smoke, I feel this would not be in my or the smoker's best interest.


Yup just like it is okay to train non-smokers at NTD and let them breath air tested by an unaccredited lab which is unable to reliably test for CO, oil, and particulates. And who was talking about tar coated bronchioles and CO filled aveoli
So smoking is bad, GUE can make whatever policies they want even if misguided, and I have beaten this horse to death. End of story.
End quote

Take good care
CC

[Col.Cluster]

wb416 once bubbled...

CC,
So... as a GUE diver, I recognize the value of practice and quality training. However, if I use your logic above one might conclude "there should be thousands of divers falling down the world over" since they're not pursuing higher quality dive training. Since we're taught that "more is better" regarding our practice and continual improvement of our skills, perhaps you could share with me the reason for the apparent conflict/reversal here.

regards,
bob

Wb
Do you need to dive a double bladder bungee wing? Or is a non bungee wing of the appropriate lift good enough for the job?
If you are already diving pure, dry, hyper-filtered gas which has been tested in a competent manner since the mid 1980’s, why the need to change what is not broken? If it would be proven that the original standard is inadequate: We had shown interest in what might be required to bring the Ontario Underwater Councils equipment up to date: And to seek csa accreditation. Basically, show loyalty to the OUC, an organization that has served our diving population well for many years. It is not a GUE issue. It is an issue of those that do not want the OUC to test at all vs those that would like to support the OUC in an upgrade of there equipment and their status if need be. If the Ministry of Labour regulations that Pufferfish continually quotes (without references) are real, then lets get down to business and fix what the Ministry states as broken.
As I said earlier, the door is still open just show the proof. It is ‘critical thinking 101’ .

Take good care
CC

[Col.Cluster]

My apologies to all for my ‘mystery of labour’ comments in a previous post. It was an honest mistake. I was pretty wide eyed when I wrote it. I had be up most of the night with a teething baby.
It should of read ‘ministry of labour’

Take good care
CC

[pufferfish]

Col.Cluster once bubbled...
Butch as I said in my last post and has been mentioned in several posts; I will endeavour to curb my manner. This is not to pee in anyones corn flakes. Below Pufferfish admits to signing off smokers as good to dive. By his actions he is advocating smoking and diving. In the second paragraph he states that GUE is misguided. If they are misguided to restrict smokers then it also implies that smoking and diving is okay. Yes Pufferfish repeatedly back pedals and also throws in that he does not advocated smoking, but as I already stated we are all judged by our actions.

Pufferfish quote

I will continue to see smokers and try and use positive ways to get them to quit to the best of my ability. I will continue to sign off firemen, police, and military candidates who are young and perfectly healthy and who want to dive. And despite that I know over a lifetime smoking is just downright bad and nasty and I could refuse to deal with this unfortunate and serious problem by not seeing people who smoke, I feel this would not be in my or the smoker's best interest.


Yup just like it is okay to train non-smokers at NTD and let them breath air tested by an unaccredited lab which is unable to reliably test for CO, oil, and particulates. And who was talking about tar coated bronchioles and CO filled aveoli
So smoking is bad, GUE can make whatever policies they want even if misguided, and I have beaten this horse to death. End of story.
End quote

Take good care
CC

Ah CC it is nice to see you have come down from upon high on 'top' to chat with us mear mortals again. It must get quite lonely at times up there where no one has any vices or difficulties. But you know what I will take life down here with all its imperfections any day of the week :)

Listen I didn't want to bring up this smoking and diving issue again but since you seem quite distressed by my comments let me add some clarification. As several respected members on this board have stated from reading my posts at no time did I advocate that smoking was healthy or that diving and smoking was a good idea.

You know CC in this imperfect world of ours I am required to see and treat a lot of medical conditions and problems that while I personally might not agree with what the patient is doing and which has brought on unhealthy state, I still must offer treatment despite my personal belief system. To not do so would violate the Hipocratic oath to do no harm. Just last week I started a twelve year old on birth control with her parents in the office requesting the same. While I might not agree with fact that she was sexually active at twelve (neither did the parents) thankfully the parents were smart enough to realize that aside from locking her up so she couldn't have sex, the best option was to put her on the pill. When the risk and benefits were weighed (and there is lots of data to back this up) both myself and the parents agreed that the risk of a twelve year getting pregnant and delivering a child and then trying to raise that child were far greater than the risks of putting her on the pill. Not an easy decision for myself or the parents but these are the types of risk/benefit analysis decisions we must do on a daily basis. I had to put my personal biases aside take all the data and family wishes into consideration and then help them make a decision that is both scientifically and medically sound and in keeping with the family's moral code. Sometimes being a doc means making difficult decisions or assisting in these decisions.

Which brings me back to the subject of the risk/benefit analysis of signing off a young healthy smoker with no other health problems to go diving. I am not sure why but I see quite a few police and fire recruits who come to me first to get approval to take the fitness assessment and then afterwards for various testing they need done such as a pre diving physical. I always ask whether they smoke and I'm sure the smoking rate in this population (police/firemen) is not as high as the general population but it is still likely in the ten to fifteen percent range. Of these smoking guys and gals they are usually between 18 and 27, very fit, keen, and all of them know smoking is bad for them. I mean how could one not know in this day and age. Despite that knowledge that smoking is bad for them, changing their behavior is a different story. My point to Dan was that by letting these people into his course especially being an ex-smoker he might just be the role model and offer those words of wisdom needed to get the young healthy fit smoking diver to quit. I know I try hard on my end to get folks to quit, but I don't like to use the big stick approach as each person will likely quit in their own time and the initiating event for a person to quit is always different as well. For some it is the death of a friend but for many of the younger smokers it is the role model phenomena. When the young smoker sees people who they respect not smoking that is often (plus the cost of smokes) the impetus to quit. Dan is missing out on this opportunity to influence some of these young divers to quit but that is his perogative.

So CC what do you do when one of these police or fire recruits who smokes comes to your office and says doc I need this PADI/NAUI/Navy Seal/Toronto Police Force/Toronto Fire Department dive physical done so I can learn to dive? Some of them want to learn to dive as a hobby and some as part of their profession. Lets say we go through all the questions on the form, I examine him or her, and the end result of this plus blood work, pulmonary function tests,it is determined this guy or girl could carry a 200 pound unconscious person down a fire ladder from the 30th floor but you know what, HE SMOKES and wants to learn how to dive. Now if I was working for GUE or held a very rigid and narrow view of the world I would have tell the guy sorry, we BELIEVE that all smokers should be barred from ever diving. And according to my Quest article smoking divers might not make responsible dive buddies. I am being somewhat sarcastic here but you get my point. Well thankfully I don't work for GUE (but still am interested in taking a fundamentals course)because I will give the diver in the above scenerio the go ahead to start diving. The data is just not there to say a young healthy fit smoking diver should not dive, just like it is not there to ban a diver with a PFO. Yes we both know smoking is bad but with the absence of any good data to preclude this fellow from diving I can't just say you can't dive becuase my belief is you shouldn't dive and smoke. And you know what CC I can just about guarantee that any doc including the ones doing the physicals for the Navy Seals will sign him off. The reason being is there is no data out there to show this guy especially for recreational diving or taking a GUE fundamentals course is really at risk for any increased problems at this point in his hopefully short smoking career. I may not approve of him smoking and diving and I do inform them of the of longterm risks of smoking but unlike GUE which is free to do what it wants on this issue I must look at the data and put my personal beliefs aside and make a scientific decision on what to do. With that being said, would I sign off a young bad asthmatic who smokes and wants to dive, of course not.

The reality of the situation is this doesn't come up all that frequently and usually if it does in the same visit we can talk about quitting. I have not met one police or firemen recruit who smokes and doesn't want to quit but you know what as I sure Dan can attest one doesn't just wake up and quit. It often takes numerous attempts and various strategies.

So once again that article you presented while full of good info about the longterm risks of smoking which I see the results every day it really doesn't have any good data or references to ban the type of diving candidate mentioned above. It would be interesting to know what percentage of naval divers smoke. My guess is probably about ten percent, the same percentage as doctors who smoke. If the Navy has not started a similar exclusion policy then they must know something GUE doesn't or at least have weighed the evidence for and against allowing a young fit diver to smoke and have come to the same conclusion as I have. Let the smoking recruit in, let him try the tests, and if he passes we will then do our hardest to get him to quit. We will also check him every couple of years physically or if he develops a new health problem (ie. asthma), and if that point in time comes to tell him to hang up his fins we will. The same goes for me. I do not sign off forty year old obese, twenty year old smoker with high blood pressure and cholesterol. I send them to the diving cardiologist to make the decision or in other words pass the buck :)

CC the message here is each case must be considered individually and having blanket rules and dogmas is not how a person who seeks the truth operates. I know GUE likes their rules and it really does make life much easier at times, but real life has many more nuances and subtleties that require a more critical approach than Rule #1 or Rule #8. Rules work great for driving cars but don't work that well with those of us trying to seek the truth in our day to day work and outside endeavors like diving.

Hope that helps clarify why I do sign off some smokers to dive under certain conditions and this issue can be put to rest.

[Col.Cluster]

Pufferfish,

As I said we are judged by are actions. I have curbed my manner. You have yet to curb yours.

Take good care
CC

[pufferfish]

D M I once bubbled...
Hello guys

SNIPPED

Hay! did you know that by Taking Yoga classes it would improve you and make you a better diver, believe it or not its true, and if you don't believe me just ask me.



So DMI can you do the dry the wet sheet with your own body heat on a winter's day trick yet :D

But you are absolutey right in that meditation likely has very profound effects on our physical and mental well being. You know something has come into the mainstream when it graces the cover of Time magazine.

Science of Meditation (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030804/#)

Dr. Robert Benson, a cardiologist from Harvard Medical school, was the guy back in 1967 who first took a bunch of meditators and measured heart rate, BP, skin and rectal temperature during meditation. He found that with meditation blood pressure falls, heart rate falls, and most importantly the slow brain waves show a relaxation response. All of this lead to a 10 to 17 % drop in oxygen consumption. The details of this can all be found in his book Timeless Healing.

There is a study from last month where workers for eight weeks were given mindfulness meditation instruction and then given the influenza vaccine to assess antibody response. The control group was told they would be wait listed but also recieved the vaccine. The outcome was most interesting. Those in the meditation group had a much more vigorous antibody response to the vaccine and those in the meditation group who showed the greatest brain activity for relaxation had the highest immune response. In other words suggesting that meditation can improve your immunoresponsiveness and the better you are at meditating the greater the benefit. Pretty incredible stuff for a Westerner to hear but Buddists have been meditating from long ago and while the biological pathways were not known the mental health benefits were.

Meditation turns off our 'flight or fight' response which is great when the tiger is chasing you down the path, but very unhealthy when turned on 24/7 fighting urban traffic, working too many hours, or going through some rough times in life. Meditation also likely decreases cortisol levels, the longer term stress hormone from the adrenal gland which if turned on all the time leads to increased BP and abdominal fat deposition. Regular aerobic exercise also helps reduce the amount of cortisol produced for a given stressful situation.

So meditation can lower BP and heart rate, reduce oxygen consumption, and improve the body's immune system which may lead to fewer infections and cancer. When the relaxation response is invoked one is better able to focus on the present and reduce past and future worries and concentrate on things like our dive skills. I imagine it is this increased ability to focus on the task at hand that raises the threshold where panic might begin during an emergency situation.

So DMI you don't have to convince me that meditation should be part of any fitness program in the holistic sense. Whether this will reduce DCS risk remains to be determined but you have certainly introduced a very interesting topic. I will have to find out if PADI has a speciality course in this yet ;)

[Aquabella]

Wow! What a great post Pufferfish. It's always nice to hear why something helps or hurts. I'll definately have to look into this.:)