Does the body get better at removing nitrogen?

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!

"The words mean what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less". And in this case it appears the two meanings are both correct.

Could be worse: where I work Humpty-Dumpties come and say "the Internet is broken" when they mean their iPon wants to be rebooted.
Care to explain? This doesn't make sense to me. It might be a language issue, but I'm not totally convinced.
 
I can't offer any scientific evidence for this so it is just based on my own observations. For about two years I was doing about 350 dives a year on air to max depths in the 180-200 fsw range. I subjectively assessed any degree of narcosis by determining whether I could easily locate, frame and follow subjects I was filming. I rarely experienced any noticeable narcosis. About a year later I was doing fewer dives per year and generally no deeper than 100 fsw. I got very noticeably narced on a 151 fsw dive on the squid boat Infidel and again at a mere 107 fsw on another dive.

It is my belief that given the frequency of my previous diving and the significant nitrogen loading, my body was acclimating to higher nitrogen loads in my tissues. Once I ceased the deep air diving, my body had a more normal response to nitrogen loading.
 
Answer to what? Are you saying "the immune system's response" to mechanical damage caused by microbubbles is "immune response"? Or isn't because it's not a molecular-recognition-antibody-producing "immune response" to the bubbles themselves?
Not my area but tarponchik only addressed one aspect of the immune system, the adaptive. But there is another side, the innate, that is not specific to an antigen and is quick acting. I believe it is the innate immune system that has been implicated in DCS. As already said “inflammation” is a major player in the immune response. And it is a response to the damage done by bubbles and not the bubbles themselves.
 
It is my belief that given the frequency of my previous diving and the significant nitrogen loading, my body was acclimating to higher nitrogen loads in my tissues.
Well, the ability to function while narked is a quite different thing from not getting bent (some folks seem to be able to drive - however not necessarily safely - with a BAC which would render me unable to operate any vehicle). Just sayin'.

While the former may be trained to some extent, I have a hard time believing the latter can be.
 
Care to explain? This doesn't make sense to me. It might be a language issue, but I'm not totally convinced.

Which part: the Alice quote, or the reboot?
 
Well, the ability to function while narked is a quite different thing from not getting bent (some folks seem to be able to drive - however not necessarily safely - with a BAC which would render me unable to operate any vehicle). Just sayin'.

Having been narced, I can tell the difference. In 57 years of diving, I've never been bent.
 
The immune system and the inflammatory cascade intersect, and a strong immune response can produce strong inflammation depending on the insult. Anaphylactic reactions are a good example. The inflammation that results from bubbles originates from direct mechanical damage to the vascular endothelium. It's a different pathway.

Yes, the latest layperson fad is “everything bad comes from inflammation”. Which is odd considering sexual response in men and women involves inflammation, as does the healing process for everything from broken bones and contusions, to inflammation of the mucus membranes in fighting off the common cold.

As I understand it, immune response encompasses a range of physiological actions, a sort of “whatever it takes” reaction to kill or neutralize an antigen/pathogen. Inflammation is certainly often a part of an immune response, but it is not the only way in which the body responds to threat or injury. I believe blood chemistry is also altered by immune response. I guess the next question is whether changes in blood chemistry affect rates of perfusion and diffusion of inert gas in the exchange between blood and tissues. If we are looking for potential adaptive responses to repeated deco stress, it seems hematology should also be investigated.

And of course, just like any other immune responses, any deco stress adaptation would be variable from person to person. Which means studying the possibility would be difficult and possibly dangerous to some volunteers.

Please feel free to correct any misunderstanding on my part, I’m here to learn...
 
Or maybe cellular membranes stretch under repeated application of pressure and start passing bigger bubbles out...
 
....In 57 years of diving, I've never been bent.

Maybe....But "Bent" is not a solid defined clear cut line that is crossed. More like a fuzzy grey area.
You are like me and diving a long time and I've also never taken a chamber ride after diving. But I've done some self service IWR bubble removal, which can also be done topside with an O2 bottle in limited bent cases. I'm sure there's definitely been times you've been unusually tired and had aches & pains after diving. A painter will tell you there is no such thing as a single color 'white', just lots of variations of the term. "Bent" is no different.
 
Interestingly, the Dive Training magazine (the issue with a dorky family shot on the cover) mentions a study of 30 divers that supposedly demonstrated that divers with higher blood cholesterol levels were more "bubble prone".

Re the innate immune system, I seriously doubt it can be triggered by bubbles since the innate response requires some biomaterial. For example, large double-stranded RNA, like yeast RNA or the synthetic poly (I)/poly (C) duplex are good inducers, most likely, because they resemble viral RNA.
 

Back
Top Bottom