200' on air for 5 min bottom time?

[Ste Wart]

In other words, am I the only one that thinks this "argument" on deep air should be about over by now?

Me as well! 5 pages ago no less

Are we done with this one yet? I'm sure we're overdue for a bungieed wing debate by now.

EDIT: 6 pages

 

[DCBC]

So what you're saying is that diving deep on air is more dangerous than having a low END? Check. Thanks for making my point.

No, the point is that any diving activity has an element of danger. If you are overweight, a women, dive in cold water, work, are older than 30, are less than a perfect physical specimen, dive in an overhead environment, do decompression, or dive at an increased END, you are diving with increased risk. You either accept it, or you don't. Complaining about someone else's diving choices when they have been trained to do so, just isn't acceptable. Especially when you make rash statements that are false.

As for the PADI report, there were certainly more deep air deaths than 1 from 1989-1998. Poor reporting is the obvious cause here.

Again you continue to make statements without anything to back it up.

 

[Bombay High]

There were at least 10 different ships called the HMS Hermes, one of which is the one you're talking about which served in the Falklands

This is the one in Sri Lanka: HMS Hermes (95) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That makes sense. Should have Googled first.

 

[DCBC]

How would you like me to go about giving you a non-list? I can't prove a negative (obviously), so I'm asking for someone to prove the positive (a list of divers with low ENDs who died on deep dives). I've been following this stuff for a few years now, and I've yet to come across any, and no one has helped me find any despite multiple requests for assistance.

If you make a statement like "virtually EVERY death below 100' has had an END greater than 100'" The onus is on you to prove the positive and back-up your assertion. I've provided statistics that have proven that END isn't even a factor for DAN or PADI. BSAC have shown that IGN is attributable to only 3.5% of diver fatalities. The 96.5% of all divers died without IGN being a factor. Narcosis wasn't the problem.

If your concerned about diver death, you should be more concerned about other factors; because if you are going to die in a SCUBA accident, statistically Narcosis won't be a factor. What about these statistical facts don't you understand?

---------- Post added June 4th, 2013 at 02:13 PM ----------

In other words, am I the only one that thinks this "argument" on deep air should be about over by now?

Actually the "argument' as I see it, has more to do with unsubstantiated statements than it does with who does, or does not dive Deep-Air.

 

[Jared0425]

2 years ago we were diving the Dunderburg in Lake Huron. Her decks are at 130 and the bottom is 150'. We dive her on air and the max depth was 140 so we could see the figurehead on the bowsprit. The day after we did our dives, two trimix divers did the wreck. While swimming on the wreck going down to see the masts and rigging lying on the bottom, one of the divers lost his fin. He swam down to the mud at 150' and tried to put it back on. All of the sudden the diver starts to panic and the dive buddy rushes over to him. Be bit through his mouth piece, darn near threw his mask off, and started to bolt towards the surface. At 90' after a rapid ascent from the panicked diver, the buddy sees him stop and fall back down the line to the deck. He suffered a heart attack for one reason or another in his mid 40's. The moral of the story is whether you are on air or trimix, confusion and panic still set in and killed this diver. Now there could been other factors such as CO2 panic or wrong mindset I do not know.

 

[lamont]

No, the point is that any diving activity has an element of danger. If you are overweight, a women, dive in cold water, work, are older than 30, are less than a perfect physical specimen, dive in an overhead environment, do decompression, or dive at an increased END, you are diving with increased risk. You either accept it, or you don't. Complaining about someone else's diving choices when they have been trained to do so, just isn't acceptable. Especially when you make rash statements that are false.

uh, wut?

 

[DCBC]

uh, wut?

There are conflicting studies showing the existence, or lack, of a relationship between a diver’s gender and the incidence of decompression sickness. For example:
In Women in the fast jet cockpit--aeromedical considerations, Lyons TJ, Aviat Space Environ Med 1992 Sep;63(9):809-18 stated that "Women may be more susceptible to motion sickness, radiation and decompression sickness than men, but may be more resistant to cold water immersion and altitude sickness."

Another Study: Lakartidningen 1999 Feb 17;96(7):749-53 [Medical aspects of diving--a sport for both women and men]. Gustavsson LL, Hultcrantz E Mariakliniken, Stockholm.
As interest in scuba diving is increasing in both sexes, doctors need to be aware of the risks encountered when diving and about gender-related differences in these risks. Individuals prone to panic attacks, claustrophobia or reckless risk-taking should avoid diving. In tolerating cold, muscle mass is more important than the amount of subcutaneous fat. The risk of decompression disease seems to be slightly greater among women, probably due to their fat distribution.

Other studies show that this isn't accurate. I believe that it's a consideration when assessing the conservation factor you wish to add to your computer or tables. Each of us should assess physical fitness, fat content, age, temperature of the diving environment, expected physical demands and other factors and plan accordingly.

 

[dpaustex]

For all you folks "guessing" what would be okay. You might want to have even a minor understanding of oxygen toxicity before offering a really dumb suggestion. That, along with a potential narcosis hit.

It is amazing that what people don't know they don't know makes them think it might be "okay".

My first suggestion is to let Darwinism work itself out in this numbskull.

But in reality, I'd tell the guy not to do it, and just get a dumb response of "why?".

 

[lamont]

There are conflicting studies [...]
Other studies show that this isn't accurate. [...]

there, i removed all the extraneous intellectual posturing for you.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

For all you folks "guessing" what would be okay. You might want to have even a minor understanding of oxygen toxicity before offering a really dumb suggestion. That, along with a potential narcosis hit.

It is amazing that what people don't know they don't know makes them think it might be "okay".

My first suggestion is to let Darwinism work itself out in this numbskull.

But in reality, I'd tell the guy not to do it, and just get a dumb response of "why?".

Most "guessing" posters in this thread seem to have a better grasp on narcosis and the ppO2 issues posed by air at 200' (a relatively conservative 1.45, rounding up) than your bloviating suggests you possess. Indeed, the risks posed by narcosis and a CNS hit (among others) from air at 200' have been rationally discussed in good detail for 6 pages now . . . and most of the guessing has come from divers who proudly state they've never been below some relatively low END in their lives.

So, was there some substance you wanted to add?