You continue to make schoolboy inferential errors in relation to this issue. Yes, many hyperbaric services (including my own) have noted a decline in DCS case numbers over the last 20 years. But proper scientists recognise that you can make no sense of this trend in the absence of a denominator (number of divers or number of dives) which would allow calculation of a rate. When we looked at this in our own jurisdiction [1] using new entry level certification numbers as a denominator we found that the number of new divers fell in approximate proportion to the fall in numbers of DCS cases (see below).
View attachment 437676
The publication of the UHMS remote DCI workshop proceedings in 2005 [2] also resulted in a reduction in recompression of milder cases globally. This will have contributed to the apparent reduction in recompressed cases reported by hyperbaric units.
Your notion that the downward trend in DCI case numbers can be attributed to the use of bubble models and deep stops is delusional, not least because all the directly comparative human studies in decompression diving show that deep stops approaches appear to be inferior. Why would you then conclude that a downward trend in DCI numbers is due to the use of an inferior approach? Moreover, the vast majority of the DCI cases that make up these data are from scuba air no decompression diving. Whatever is responsible for the trend, it provides us with little knowledge of relevance to decompression diving.
You have some strange notions about what constitutes "winning" or "losing" an argument Ross. You were claiming that perfusion of tissues does not play an important role in tissue gas kinetics. First me, then the world's foremost decompression modeller came on to the thread citing substantial bodies of published evidence demonstrating that you were completely wrong. In reply you cited nothing except your own flawed perceptions. And here you are again, claiming that you "won" the debate. Why would anyone believe anything you say? For those interested, the discussion is on this board here. It is worth a read.
Ross, you categorically stated, multiple times, that tissue gas kinetics do not depend on tissue perfusion, they depend on the tissue's half time or "tissue absorption rates". The thread is at the link above and is definitely worth a read, but here are some examples:
and this classic....
Your position that it is half times or "tissue absorption rates", not perfusion that limits gas uptake is like saying its not oxygen that keeps us alive it is air. The most important component of a tissue's half time / gas absorption is its perfusion. Whilst everyone has a right to speak on public forums, I believe you go beyond those rights in commentating in such an authoritative manner on something you clearly don't understand on a forum where divers come to get educated.
Simon M