ScubaBaby
Contributor
if I just keep my mouth shut!
Diving facts/rumors/ anything like that ;)
- Thread starter mlrtime99
- Start date
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
CGoheen
Registered
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." So reportedly said Benjamin Disraeli, prime minister of Great Britain from 1874 to 1880
Rstone,
I'm in the real world. I'm not in your imaginary world of stats pulled out of the air. You are correct when you say that PADI using stats to mislead people is speculation. OTOH, with their position in the diving community if they've been mislead I wouldn't trust them either.
"regardless of if a diver is still diving or not they are still divers and have dived at some point and still alive and able to dive if they wish should make them part of any stats"
Wrong, false and incorrect. Many of those counted are dead. Others are physically incapable of diving. Many have not dived for years and will never dive again. While you may not be aware of it, there actually are some c-cards that have expired.
"second what does multiple certs have to do with anything?? if they hold a PADI c-card they are counted."
Once again, you are mistaken. Every c-card from every agency is counted, I'm in their count about 15 times.
"what do you want them to do? pull accidents out of a hat and add them to the numbers because someone decided to not report it??"
No, I'm merely pointing out reasons why the stats are inaccurate and useless.
"And since your so concerned with the truth why dont you come out with your own stats since you seem to no better then everyone else at these agencies"
My stats would be no better than any other stats on this topic. In order to have accurate stats you need accurate numbers. There is no way to get those accurate numbers.
In order to know how safe diving is, you'd need to know two numbers. First, how many dives are made in a given time period and second, how many accidents occur. How many divers there are is not useful in determining how safe diving truly is. Even if it were, it would be impossible to know. It is extremely useful to count total certifications regardless of level if you want to show a declining accident rate. Yes, it's speculation on my part, but it looks like intentionally misleading people to me.
BTW, what is your native language?
Abby,
There's no reason for you to keep quiet. Discussions are very useful in learning.
WWW
I'm in the real world. I'm not in your imaginary world of stats pulled out of the air. You are correct when you say that PADI using stats to mislead people is speculation. OTOH, with their position in the diving community if they've been mislead I wouldn't trust them either.
"regardless of if a diver is still diving or not they are still divers and have dived at some point and still alive and able to dive if they wish should make them part of any stats"
Wrong, false and incorrect. Many of those counted are dead. Others are physically incapable of diving. Many have not dived for years and will never dive again. While you may not be aware of it, there actually are some c-cards that have expired.
"second what does multiple certs have to do with anything?? if they hold a PADI c-card they are counted."
Once again, you are mistaken. Every c-card from every agency is counted, I'm in their count about 15 times.
"what do you want them to do? pull accidents out of a hat and add them to the numbers because someone decided to not report it??"
No, I'm merely pointing out reasons why the stats are inaccurate and useless.
"And since your so concerned with the truth why dont you come out with your own stats since you seem to no better then everyone else at these agencies"
My stats would be no better than any other stats on this topic. In order to have accurate stats you need accurate numbers. There is no way to get those accurate numbers.
In order to know how safe diving is, you'd need to know two numbers. First, how many dives are made in a given time period and second, how many accidents occur. How many divers there are is not useful in determining how safe diving truly is. Even if it were, it would be impossible to know. It is extremely useful to count total certifications regardless of level if you want to show a declining accident rate. Yes, it's speculation on my part, but it looks like intentionally misleading people to me.
BTW, what is your native language?
Abby,
There's no reason for you to keep quiet. Discussions are very useful in learning.
WWW
BillP
Senior Member
Hi All:
I agree with Walter. Diving accident statistics are at best an informed guess, are likely often wishful thinking or best-case scenario, and probably just plain wrong.
Scubababy gave us some interesting numbers, but didn't say what the numbers purportedly measured. Was it accidents per dive? Accidents per diver? Accidents per c-card held? For a statistic to hold any validity at all, you must at least describe what you're measuring. Walter seems to believe the number claims to measure the latter (accidents per c-card held), which would be the least accurate measurement in my opinion. (And he's likely right in his assumption that PADI was smart enough to know that. If they weren't I'd worry about them too.)
Walter is also correct that for any statistics on dive accidents to be even close to helpful you would need to know (or at least have very accurate approximations of) the number of diving accidents and the number of dives- or at least the actual number of active divers. I don't believe that there's any accurate information available on those numbers.
Inaccurate and estimated numbers are fun to bandy about, but I would hesitate to use them to try to make any kind of informed decision. Mlrtime99 was wise to ask for rumors.
Just my 2¢,
Bill
I agree with Walter. Diving accident statistics are at best an informed guess, are likely often wishful thinking or best-case scenario, and probably just plain wrong.
Scubababy gave us some interesting numbers, but didn't say what the numbers purportedly measured. Was it accidents per dive? Accidents per diver? Accidents per c-card held? For a statistic to hold any validity at all, you must at least describe what you're measuring. Walter seems to believe the number claims to measure the latter (accidents per c-card held), which would be the least accurate measurement in my opinion. (And he's likely right in his assumption that PADI was smart enough to know that. If they weren't I'd worry about them too.)
Walter is also correct that for any statistics on dive accidents to be even close to helpful you would need to know (or at least have very accurate approximations of) the number of diving accidents and the number of dives- or at least the actual number of active divers. I don't believe that there's any accurate information available on those numbers.
Inaccurate and estimated numbers are fun to bandy about, but I would hesitate to use them to try to make any kind of informed decision. Mlrtime99 was wise to ask for rumors.
Just my 2¢,
Bill
blacknet
Contributor
Hello,
Any comments on the stats that I pasted?
Ed
Any comments on the stats that I pasted?
Ed
BillP
Senior Member
Hi Ed:
I'll comment. First, I find .pdf format hard to read on my browser so I didn't even look at your link until you asked for comments. (Wait, that wasn't a helpful comment, was it? Sorry.) Second, the document was about cave diving and not diving in general. Useful, if you're just interested in cave diving, but not at all useful if you're trying to answer a different question. Third, it doesn't clearly state to my read exactly what they're measuring (except when they discuss fatalities). What exactly qualifies as an "incident" to be counted?
Finally, and most importantly, it gives a lot of interesting numerators, but it doesn't give any denominators (except when they discuss fatalities per incident) so the information isn't really helpful in making informed decisions. Take for example their "Cave Certification" chart that shows a total of 190 incidents. The way they label the graph is confusing to me, but it would appear they're saying of the 190 total incidents reported 47 occured in divers with some type of cave/cavern training and 143 occurred in divers with no cave/cavern training at all. So it's safer to have training, right? Well if there were 1,273,856 cave dives by non-trained individuals and 47 dives by trained individuals giving an incident rate of 0.0000007% for the untrained and 100% for the trained, maybe you'd decide to forego training.
Of course my example is ludicrous, but it shows how important it is to know all of the relevant numbers before you make a decision. If no one knows the numbers and there's no way of finding out the numbers, then "statistics" don't really help and can be (sometimes intentionally?) misleading.
HTH,
Bill
I'll comment. First, I find .pdf format hard to read on my browser so I didn't even look at your link until you asked for comments. (Wait, that wasn't a helpful comment, was it? Sorry.) Second, the document was about cave diving and not diving in general. Useful, if you're just interested in cave diving, but not at all useful if you're trying to answer a different question. Third, it doesn't clearly state to my read exactly what they're measuring (except when they discuss fatalities). What exactly qualifies as an "incident" to be counted?
Finally, and most importantly, it gives a lot of interesting numerators, but it doesn't give any denominators (except when they discuss fatalities per incident) so the information isn't really helpful in making informed decisions. Take for example their "Cave Certification" chart that shows a total of 190 incidents. The way they label the graph is confusing to me, but it would appear they're saying of the 190 total incidents reported 47 occured in divers with some type of cave/cavern training and 143 occurred in divers with no cave/cavern training at all. So it's safer to have training, right? Well if there were 1,273,856 cave dives by non-trained individuals and 47 dives by trained individuals giving an incident rate of 0.0000007% for the untrained and 100% for the trained, maybe you'd decide to forego training.
Of course my example is ludicrous, but it shows how important it is to know all of the relevant numbers before you make a decision. If no one knows the numbers and there's no way of finding out the numbers, then "statistics" don't really help and can be (sometimes intentionally?) misleading.
HTH,
Bill
blacknet
Contributor
Hello,
Well they also stated it's impossible to find *ALL* the stats and figures but they tried to give as best they could. I can justify their figures more so than the padi figures.
Ed
Well they also stated it's impossible to find *ALL* the stats and figures but they tried to give as best they could. I can justify their figures more so than the padi figures.
Ed
uwsince79
Guest
98% of all statistics are made up on the spot...
I just could not help myself....
I just could not help myself....
BillP
Senior Member
Hi Ed:
If you read the actual "conclusions" of the document you posted the link to I think they are valid conclusions. Their conclusions seem to be that they need to decide exactly what to try to measure, and that they need a lot of help collecting the necessary information.
But those are the only conculsions I could draw from the information. The link poses some very interesting questions, and it's a good start toward collecting some data, but it's not quite an "answer".
Bill
If you read the actual "conclusions" of the document you posted the link to I think they are valid conclusions. Their conclusions seem to be that they need to decide exactly what to try to measure, and that they need a lot of help collecting the necessary information.
But those are the only conculsions I could draw from the information. The link poses some very interesting questions, and it's a good start toward collecting some data, but it's not quite an "answer".
Bill
terrydarc
Guest
...is that there are probably very few deaths associated with say, bowling. The US Coast Guard keeps stats on scuba deaths and it's for sure that the severity of accident has something to do with the overall safety of a sport. It's also true that the US Coast Guard probably doesn't know about scuba deaths in Australia.
Another common way of measuring sports injuries is emergency room visits, but I doubt that anyone would accept this as much of a measurement. Might be good for skiing and snowboarding, but of little relevance for divers in Belize, say.
On what Scubababy's stats showed: I believe those are injuries per 1000 persons per year. A bowling ball dropped on one's toe is equivalent in this measure to a scuba lung rupture incident, but clearly is not in the same league. Although I hate to admit it, Walter's right - there's not enough truth in the stats to make them mean much of anything, especially since they were released by PADI who have a vested interest in keeping the sport's appearance up.
Terry
Another common way of measuring sports injuries is emergency room visits, but I doubt that anyone would accept this as much of a measurement. Might be good for skiing and snowboarding, but of little relevance for divers in Belize, say.
On what Scubababy's stats showed: I believe those are injuries per 1000 persons per year. A bowling ball dropped on one's toe is equivalent in this measure to a scuba lung rupture incident, but clearly is not in the same league. Although I hate to admit it, Walter's right - there's not enough truth in the stats to make them mean much of anything, especially since they were released by PADI who have a vested interest in keeping the sport's appearance up.
Terry
Similar threads
