Air Quality Certificate

[James Pate]

Pufferfish,

Thank you for posting the details regarding air quality testing. It gives me something concrete to work with. I have also been doing some foot of my own. I have been in contact with the Proficiency Testing Manager at CAEAL.ca and have calls into A2LA and SCC. But the information you have posted will save a lot of time.

As posted earlier, we are interested in what you are saying but we need to research the issue in order to make an informed decision. We came to you folks in a constructive manner and asked that you present your critical details/documentation that would support what your stance. All we received in return was more of the same personal opinions that were already present throughout the thread. I got involved when you did not answer any of the questions put to you regarding this topic. You just repeated what you had posted previously. If we had found the answers we are looking for in the earlier posts we would not have asked the questions.

Also, you cannot fault sJ for the typo of SneakyB’tard and I do believe I have thanked sneaky for his help. As far as my village idiot comment goes, it was merited. Soze admitted the same. Yes I could have shown a little patience but my patience is running pretty thin. I have had 3 years of people poking at my training. It is just natural to poke back. I will also continue to call crap when I see it. Even in this last posting of yours at least 3 of the paragraphs fall into the crap category. I will always call a spade a spade. When you want to discuss the critical nature of air qualitiy testing it should not be based on emotional pleas and what if’s. In order to keep the issue clear you have to stay focused on the documentation.

As much as you may not care for my tone. I do not care much for your tone and defensive posturing either. The only consistency you folks have shown is to start mud slinging each time someone post a question or offers a difference of opinion until proving otherwise. As I stated in an earlier post: In order for us to support your position we have to make an informed decision based on critical documentation. I am not sure how you interpret that statement but it means we are looking to support you. In order to make a critical decision we have to look at what you have and what the OUC does and compare this to accredited testing. Hence, critically evaluate the evidence. We will not act blindly.

I did consider that some people on this board might actually be experts in some of the fields regarding air quality testing and standards. That is why I asked for your documentation instead of wasting 2 more months attempting to reinvent the wheel; hence my surprise and frustration when the information was not forthcoming. If you have such a solid case you should not hesitate to bring it to the table. It makes no sense to hide the details, especially when you have people approaching you to offer support.

In parting, you can buy your own DIR-F book.

Safe dives
james

 

[Bubble Boy]

James Pate once bubbled...
[B. I have had 3 years of people poking at my training. [/B]

Well then they are fools.

James Pate once bubbled...
[B.
You are also quick to drop your hydrocarbon statement from this morning.

[/B]

Please re-read it. I did not drop the hydrocarbon statement.

 

[James Pate]

My mistake about the hydrocarbons, I understand what you mean now that Pufferfish has posted some details. It would not of been misunderstood had you been able to provide a little more detail at the time of your posting.

Safe dives
James

 

[Dan MacKay]

SneakyB'tard once bubbled...
I do believe I produced the documents and information requested by James Pate.


Tom R quoted the CFAOs but simply re iterated the point I made...or is Jimmy actually Tom R..or is Tom R Jimmy and the Tick???

What if you had a family member dead due to someone's elses mistake?
Maybe some of us have motive to implement change,
When 8 year old children are now breathing this air...wouldn't you
want the absolute best?

Hi Sneaky et Al,

Once again the questions has been dodged. Show me one example of where an OUC test has failed or one documented case of death due to bad air.

Just to enlighten a bit on the CO2 problem. Testing the victim for CO2 in the event of a death proves nothing. As a rather eggrecious by product of our metabolism we create CO2. Normal levels of CO2 are not exacerbated by trace levels in SCUBA cylinders. What does send us down the slippery slope is being overweight, out of shape, uncomfortable, poor equipment, ...etc need I go on. By far I would think that most unexplained deaths are caused by this mechanism but it what the diver has done (or not done) that put them at risk not what is in their tank. I have to admit that I have no evidence whatsoever to support this but at least I am willing to admit that.

If there are any engineers out there they will recognize the credo that sometimes good enough is good enough. Once again I reiterate show me the stats.

If you wish the comercial industry to overtake the recreational world and goverment (MOL) intervention to start legislation standards and rules then the recreational industry will die overnight. Does anyone here see the need to have a tender, safety divers and a chamber on site to do a dive? Well the MOL certainly does. Be careful for what you ask for.

Good to see you back from that breath hold dive from the deep end Sneaky.

 

[Jimmy B]

Puffer Fish,

Here’s another possible solution.

For the OUC to meet the accreditation standard, I believe it is a money thing.
The costs vary from 3000.00 yearly to 5000.00 every 2 years. They are the voice for divers in Ontario, so lets support them. Lobby all the dive shops for this and have them prepare to pay for the extra testing. Sounds good so far. To pay for this extra testing have all divers pay 10.00 for a fill. Two reasons here, One; they’re now guaranteed to receive grade a 100% accredited air by the current standard as requested. Two; Offset the costs of the extra testing.

 

[cat]

(I can't believe I'm still reading this thread but here goes.)

Why does this thread keep coming back to the argument on *which* standard is acceptable (or legislated) when it's clear from examples given that the main problem is that a number of stores aren't getting air tested AT ALL.

What's the priority here? Convincing the stores that are currently testing to the US standard into switching to the Ontario standard *ought* to be coming in a distant second to pressuring the stores that don't test at all should be first. Shouldn't it? Fix the big problem first, then work on the lesser one.

I don't agree with The Tick on the need for a documented death from bad air (any volunteers? didn't think so) - the higher standard may be designed to protect divers from chronic, low-level exposures to hydrocarbons, etc. Waiting until the epidemiological study is in (assuming one is even possible) before tightening the standards isn't terribly ethical. The standards are likely based on toxicological information from unpressurized air exposures and were probably derived seperately for each component, with a hefty "safety" factor thrown in. That's how it usually works, especially for human health standards, where even one statistically probable death or injury may be considered unacceptable (would be nice to know where the numbers came from, though).

It *would* be useful to find out how many of the samples that fail to meet the Ontario standard did meet the US standard as this would show whether air that is meets the US standard is also likely to meet the Ontario standard. This is analogous to testing water for coliforms - no fecal coliform bacteria usually means no Giardia, Cryptosporidium or Hepatitis - all come from the same source)
I don't know if information on failed samples is available.

I'm going to commit the crime of putting a second analogy into this post (I do water quality, not air and it shows). Please think about this:
Most bottled water is not tested to the same high standards required of tap water (especially big-city tap water) but it is tested. Some of you appear to be arguing over bottled versus tap when there are people out there drinking completely untested water that might be contaminated with sewage.

BTW - any thoughts on what to do about the uncompressed air in SW Ontario? Got so bad I had to move...

Ok, JMO, etc. etc. Cat (chemist, biologist, toxicologist and breather of both compressed and uncompressed air)

PS: I do agree with those posters who are saying that it's hard to find the information and documentation in this thread - and that's as someone who knows what to look for, too. Any chance of putting it all together in one post with minimal verbiage diluting it? Thanks. (Hypocritical of me - this is a long post)

JimmyB: a cost per fill increase to pay for testing wouldn't be anywhere near that much - unless I'm doing the math incorrectly or the store doesn't do many fills ($0.50 surcharge/tank X 20 weeks/season X 100 fills/week gives a store an extra $1000 to pay for testing). You've made some good points - please don't ruin it for me by exaggerating the costs here.

Umm, how many divers in the province? Cost of accreditation for the OUC would work out to less than a dollar per diver - likely considerably less.

 

[UpperCanDiver]

Take the fundementals course Puffer and I'll give you that book as a bonus, saves you from betting. I believe that there is a spot available in Aug, it's right down your alley, higher standards that's what it's about.

In parting, you can buy your own DIR-F book.

I hate this thread. But...
Shame on you two!
You are pushy for answers from the others, yet when the tables turn and you both are asked a question you answer like the above????

I think the DIR community, would like some good, thoughtful representation here..you guys are the A Team...show them the stuff they want!

 

[Tom R]

I think the point that is being hashed out is why is the OUC not good enough as it was the standard for the last X amount of years, then all of a sudden just not good enough.

It was suggested that first get the compressors testing, then raise the bar -- not good enough.

So we're back to square 4 but getting educated and I will say this publicly quite well by Puffer and Bubble.

There must be a reason why this was brought out in the first place. No answer.

I actually still reading puffers links. A couple of phone calls I have made have yet to be returned.

Pufffer were you on the testing dives conducted in Toby this weekend?

 

[KeyserSoze]

A quote I though applicable to the DIR ideology of instruction and information seen thus far......

"The most striking success of a revolution based on a philosophy of life will always have been achieved when the new philosophy of life as far as possible has been taught to all men..."

 

[vlada]

but i felt it had to be addressed

A quote I though applicable to the DIR ideology of instruction and information seen thus far......

Keyser, you obviously did not have any exposure to real GUE and its instructors, and have no idea what DIR ideology is about

If you did, i highly doubt that you would have thought that Hitler's statement from the Main Kampf that you sited above was appropriate

Vlada