following their deco profile is far more likely to land you in the hospital than the Z-system based on the results of that study
Conclusion is that RD is more dangerous
We can have a sound discussion on the pro's and con's of the Z-system, I'm all for that, and I've presented some of the benefits I see, relevant to my personal diving.
You make your points, and you account that it's your personal take on it. I'm okay with that.
Some of the principles you mention in your evaluation are met in your view, others in your view less or not so. I don't have a problem with that.
Of course there should be room in a discussion for personal views.
I think such discussions are what fora are good for.
What I don't think they're good for, is taking study findings and extrapolating on them to fit a subjective narrative.
If you don't see any other pro's and con's in choice of decompression strategy and gas than bubble-for-bubble evaluation, that's one thing.
I had a pleasant conversation with Dr. Mitchell about that in the string you link to.
But as for the study, which unless I'm mistaken is the first of it's kind performed with sports divers, it clearly states in its conclusion section that the results can't be extrapolated. Nor that there is understanding to support correlation across the findings toward risk evaluation.
That is what the rapport you're referring to, says.
The words of the rapport stand in stark contrast to your exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims quoted above.
Further, reading the rapport, looking at the dive profile in the experiment and comparing it to the RD blueprint, you'll see that it's exactly on the limit of one deco compartment in RD and another, on the side that in RD emphasises deep stops more heavily. Only just.
With a bottom time 60 seconds shorter, the ascend looks very different, with less emphasis on deep stops.
How would that change the results? We don't know. There's a lot about decompression that we don't. I think we'd all be better off accepting as much and working on from there.
