pufferfish
Contributor
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.
