Diving Deeper

[large_diver]

Despite arguments to the contrary, this is a great thread.

I especially enjoyed the article where the author states that she has yet to meet a man who will admit he is a poor lover, a bad driver or that he has suffered the effects of Nitrogen Narcosis.

I'll certainly admit to feeling the effects of narcosis at or deeper than 90 ft.

As for the other 2 -- I KNOW I'm the best ;-)

 

[Stone]

I've only done one test for narcosis: At depth, subtract 7 from 101 and write it on your slate, then subract 7 from that number and write it on your slate, etc. Do this for one minute and compare how many correct answers you get with the same exercise on the surface.

I was able to get the same number of correct answers at 100 fsw as I did at the surface.

My conclusion: I can do math in my head while narced!

 

[rstone]

Originally posted by uwsince79
My first question to you in regards to your first statement written above is, Do you dive or have you ever dove mix? I have repeatedly dived beyond the 200-fsw mark many times on AIR.

I have only used Nitrox. I have never had a need to use heliox or trimix or the money for that fact.

Can you learn to work under the influence? Hell yes, ask any alcoholic or former alcoholic who did their job every day. A learned task can be done quite well under the influence even on hard drugs.

I also assume you have something to back this statement up by experts? or is that from personal experience to?

Can you operate and function without question YES. But that does not mean it is not there and it does not state you have a tolerance to it.

u7 the disagreement has never been if it is present, I have stated repeatedly that narcosis may be present but the degree in which we are affected varies from diver to diver. Which may or may not have anything to do with tolerance, but Ill leave that up to the experts to conclude.

A.What were the tasks at hand and were they learned tasks or known?

It did not state. I'll see if i can find more data on that test.

I do not see a conclusion at all in what you posted, maybe you can clarify this as I am a simple man and get lost very easy. I see the word “adaptation” which I agree with, but they all are still under the influence of narcosis.

None of them said that a person is not under the influence of narcosis. Some stated and others infered that the effects of Nitrogen Narcosis in individuals varies as there level of susceptibility does to and therefor affects divers differently, just as alcohol does. So at what point does one become impaired at 0fsw - 100fsw? It depends on the person.

Blargh, interested article, but Jill Wright is not a expert, and all you have managed to prove is her husband is a idiot. Which I'm sure you can relate to.

hahaha, that was funny large_diver.

 

[The Chairman]

for the most salient post of all. Awesome URLs... You can lead a horse to water, but they are still not trained on NitrOx...

 

[Se7en]

Net Doc
I seem to have offended you, slightly I'm sure. I actually picked you as a proponent of the 'don't dive narced' school of though as I though you were not likely to take offence.
My apologies anyway.

What I was trying to do was gently ridicule the school of thought that suggests that if you experience narcosis, you are automaticually dangerous to yourself and others. I was making the absurd suggestion that we should not dive below 10m because narcosis is demonstratably present at that depth. I was making this suggestion to support the position that whilst we are all subject to narcosis, it does not become a problem until the effect reaches a level such that it affects our diving.

I would define 'narced' as precisely that point where the level of narcosis (due to nitrogen, oxygen or whatever) affects someones ability to dive safely - NOT the point at which an individual can detect the presence of some level of narcosis.

Again, the beer corollary: I define drunk as the point whereby I cannot legally drive, not the point where I first detect the signs of intoxication (which may be one crap american beer on a hot day )

So, finally, my point.
.EVERYONE is subject to some narcosis at X depth. However the depth at which this causes them to be affected to the extent that their diving (ie they are 'narced') is affected can differ markedly.

Therefore, using this definition of 'narced', it is quite true for people to say they are not 'narced' at 120 feet. Narcosis is present, yes, but it is not affecting their ability to dive competantly.

For myself, for what it's worth, I have a sliding scale.
Diving with someone inexperienced (ie less that 100ish dives) I won't go deeper than the depth at which I'm sure I have enough control to rectify any CF and bring them safely to the surface. This point is around 100 fsw - shallower on a cold dark wall, deeper on a nice warm light tropical dive.

Diving with experienced divers who I have dived with before, I'm generally comfortable into the 40m range.

Diving with a couple of divers who I have a lot of confidence in, and have dived with a lot, I'll push to 50ish m - providing we are both comfortable and the conditions are good. At this depth I can definately identify narcosis, but it is not sever enough to affect my ability to perform tasks which have been strongly overlearned.
I'll also not task load at these depths - ie I'll avoid stressful conditions and tasks beyond pointing my torch at the fish.

Perhaps I'm in that egyptian river of ill repute, and a danger because I'm 'narced'.
Or perhaps because I'm not afraid to admit that any dive below 20m is both a decompression dive, and narcosis is present, means that I do plan and practice for the conditions.

Who knows?

Ciao
Mike

 

[uwsince79]

quote:

I also assume you have something to back this statement up by experts? Or is that from personal experience to?



There is so much written & Known on this topic I will just state the following;
Ask any friends of Bill W. The second half of the statement I will not reply to because I am only typing with one hand and have a martini in the other……….

quote:

U7 the disagreement has never been if it is present, I have stated repeatedly that narcosis may be present but the degree in which we are affected varies from diver to diver. Which may or may not have anything to do with tolerance, but Ill leave that up to the experts to conclude.


Well from the posts that I have read I thought the confusion was that a statement was made that a diver can build tolerance to nitrogen, which is impossible, if I made the error excuse me I misread the thread.

quote:

U7 the disagreement has never been if it is present, I have stated repeatedly that narcosis may be present but the degree in which we are affected varies from diver to diver. Which may or may not have anything to do with tolerance, but Ill leave that up to the experts to none of them said that a person is not under the influence of narcosis. Some stated and others inferred that the effects of Nitrogen Narcosis in individuals varies as there level of susceptibility does to and therefore affects divers differently, just as alcohol does. So at what point does one become impaired at 0fsw - 100fsw? It depends on the person.


I agree with the thought at what point does narcoses impair judgment in a diver is variable. I also agree with the point that each persons ability to deal with narcosis varies and a diver can adapt to operating under narcosis. I guess my issue is with the word tolerance, which should not be use in referring to narcosis. I disagree with the statement that “it may be present.” It is always present, just at different levels at different partial pressures.

Last but not least dive mix, just once, pick a dive you have done a hundred times, not deep, don’t go past 130fsw then tell me all about narcosis………


My rant ends…..

 

[rstone]

Originally posted by uwsince79
Last but not least dive mix, just once, pick a dive you have done a hundred times, not deep, don’t go past 130fsw then tell me all about narcosis………

Next time your in north florida.. let me know

 

[The Chairman]

Sorry if I seemed ticked, I possibly was. This all started on the second page of this thread when RStone said...

"I guess im more the exception, then the rule.. ive been on many deep dives and have never got narc'd, ive always been very aware of what is going on around me, and very alert, although ive never went deeper then 130'."

The point I tried to so delicately make (with my thirty-pound sledgehammer) is that... (and I copied this from page three)

" Narcosis is a fact for EVERY air and NitrOx diver, especially below 90ft! Those who feel differently are certainly free to do so, I just don't want to be diving with you when you go south and continue to deny it. Know your limitations, and dive within them EVEN if it chips away at your precious self-image. Humility is the beginning of all understanding. If you see your self as "above" certain principles and laws, than you need to re-evaluate your safety as a diver. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but just a blanket statement for all to cogitate upon. Ignore it if you will."

Now we are starting to see RStone soften his stance when he said (and not so accurately, I might add)...

"u7 the disagreement has never been if it is present, I have stated repeatedly that narcosis may be present but the degree in which we are affected varies from diver to diver. Which may or may not have anything to do with tolerance, but Ill leave that up to the experts to conclude. "

Many on the board found his first statement to be incredulous. It is what I refer to as a state of denial. That you depicted him as a safe diver for this attitude just plain got my goat. That you portrayed me as overly cautious and illogical only added to it (you could get away with calling stupid more than calling me illogical). My apologies if I took offence where there was none intended. I was simply so exasperated at his first statement and how the whole debate seemed to just twist logical boundaries. I would believe his first statement IF he could get one (just one) of his "Experts" to say that he could dive to 130fsw without being narced.

As for the second statement I quoted, I think the term “back-peddling” comes to mind! The two quotes are not only contradictory, but are mutually exclusive. Still, I have yet to see him say that –HE- was or at least MIGHT have been narced on his dives to 130fsw. I have no way of ascertaining his motives to deny something that most divers, expert and novice alike, would agree to as a certainty. Only he (and some soul searching) could make that determination. I have no problem diving with a narced buddy… I do have a problem diving with a narced buddy in denial. As G.I. Joe so aptly put it “Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!”

 

[Se7en]

NetDoc
We are arguing from the same viewpoint, I am sure, just expressing it differently. The only area of ambiguity is exactly what you (and everyone else) means by 'narced'.

I tried to define it as the point at which the narcosis (which everyone seems to now agree is present ) affects your ability to dive safely.

If rstone is also using that definition, it is quite possible that he has never been narked, given that his deepest dive is still less than 40m. I definately know people who function perfectly at that depth, with no perceptable degradation in any aspect of their diving. They will all admit to feeling narcosis at this depth though.

If, however, rstone meant that he did not experience any narcosis at that depth, then he is a medical marvel

(I mean no offence to rstone, as all along I assumed that you meant you were not significantly impared by narcosis at that depth, not that you did not experience narcosis)

If there is a different definition of 'narced', please feel free to educate me.

Now I'm going to crawl right out on the limb and admit I like the feeling of narcosis - cheaper than a nights drinking, and no hangover to deal with....
(anyone else care to come out of the closet?)

ciao
Mike

 

[The Chairman]

I like the feeling of no pain that sets in at around 90 to 95 fsw. I enjoy the calm feeling that stays to 115 (or so) fsw. At 130 through 165 I feel that I am coldy annalytical... and that I am the smartest sob on the planet... then I get sort of scared! BUT, I do enjoy it down to 115 fsw! After that, I get a bit paranoid about how it affects me and others. There just is no way to enjoy myself when I feel that I am in danger.