Article on Death In Ginnie Springs

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I see nothing that makes the having the wrong gas implausible.

The gas in the tank was the one which the tank was correctly marked for - O2 in a clearly O2 labeled tank.
 
The gas in the tank was the one which the tank was correctly marked for - O2 in a clearly O2 labeled tank.

Are you saying that it is implausible for a tank to have the exact gas that its label says it has?
 
To the author: I request you establish a motive for all the concerned parties to lie. The thing is, unless you can establish a motive your blog simply pounds the table.
 
Are you saying that it is implausible for a tank to have the exact gas that its label says it has?

No, on the contrary.

That is the norm, and that is what was found to be in Carlos' incident.

He had an O2 bottle marked O2 and filled with O2.

Nothing wrong with that.
 
Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes that reason is you are stupid and make dumb decisions.
 
Keep digging and something will eventually come out.

The story we have been fed while possible is implausible.

There must be a little more to it.

The gas in the tank was the one which the tank was correctly marked for - O2 in a clearly O2 labeled tank.

No, on the contrary.

That is the norm, and that is what was found to be in Carlos' incident.

He had an O2 bottle marked O2 and filled with O2.

Nothing wrong with that.

OK, I give up. What is it about the story that is implausible?
 
When forensic evaluation of a diver's gear is called for here in the Seattle area, the gear is sent to one of the local dive shops, where the gas is analyzed and the gear is tested. I wonder if there is ANYWHERE where there are enough diving accidents for a police department to employ diving specialists. My guess is that they always depend on outside experts, and I have no doubt at all that a respected cave instructor can analyze the contents of a tank.


Actually, unless that dive instructor has a way to test for: Volatile Organic Compounds, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Oil Mist, Relative Humidity, and Oxygen, Helium and Nitrogen levels what they are doing is not a true forensic analysis.

That being the case, in this particular instance a straight dip with a nitrox analyzer was all that was performed or needed. Carlos Fonseca did not drown as a result of getting pneumonia or CO or Co2 poisoning...
 
I wonder if I would've called the dive if I were his buddy, BEFORE reading about the accident. I certainly would now, after having read it, if my buddy insists he knows the mix is different than marked and we hadn't talked about it before the dive.
 
OK, I give up. What is it about the story that is implausible?

I just think the guy breathed from the wrong tank.

That is the most simple and obvious explanation.

Everything else I have read is simply implausible (but possible).
 

Back
Top Bottom