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

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!

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 :eek:ut:

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.
 
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

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 :wink:


CO in Recreational Boats

IDLH= Immediate danger to life and health.


Boat Related CO poisonings
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' :)
 
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... :)

 
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...
 
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...
 
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.
 
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
 
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. :)
 
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 :wink:

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.
 
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
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom