Headed to Ginnie Springs this weekend

[Dive-aholic]

First off, you are getting narc'ed (even if you don't recognize it). Second, there are several (at least) therapeutic uses for hyberbaric oxygen therapy, including treatment for chronic pain (I think the jury's still out on that one though). I would think that diving nitrox at 90fsw would qualify for hyperbaric oxygen therapy. I know that physically, I feel more relaxed AND refreshed after a deep dive, even if I'm breathing air but.......

Not really. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy brings people to much higher pressures than nitrox at 90fsw. Typically patients are brought to 60fsw on 100%. You're not going to do that in water and you're not going to get the same effects of that with less oxygen. There is no therapeutic value to diving recreational nitrox mixes to their maximum operating depth.

 

[BelchFire]

I think people would much more likely take 3x the bottom time, 3x the experience, rather than 3x the depth.

I'm not saying there's no reason to go deep. Sometimes what you want to see IS deep(and I'm not talking about the numbers ticking by on your depth gauge).

These statements hold true for me, at least.

I'll admit, the lure of depth was strong at first, but when my OW instructor took us to Blue Grotto the day after cert (for a "supervised" dive), I was a bit concerned about his bravado, not to mention my own safety. Then, when he took a few around the loop (again, that "supervised" term was prevalent), I declined. Not that I didn't want to go, but I felt that it wasn't prudent at my level of experience (virtually NONE at the time). Once everyone surfaced, several others couldn't wait to show me their depth gauges showing 89' or 90'. I thought it was cool and wondered what I'd missed, but I took consolation in the fact that as long as I dive, NO ONE is responsible for my own safety but ME.

Since that time, I've had a course in deep diving and I've been certified as advanced with a rating to 130'. There is a time and place for everything. I think depth is great if, as SuPrBuGmAn says, the objective is down there. But when it's just a dive, I'll stick to the shallows and limit out on gas pressure before I limit out on bottom time. I just enjoy my time underwater too much to want to worry about the clock too.

But that's just my take.

 

[rostato]

I agree that I would rather have a longer bottom time, and would also rather see more at a shallower depth. Whats done is done, I just need to get some more dives in before our trip to Maui in august. Not much time left...

 

[Hetland]

These are not physiological changes based on depth A shark in 15' of water is just as amazing as at 80'.

Agreed. Though I would say I'm more relaxed with the shark at 80, I'm willing to concede that it may be the structure I'm close to or the feeding habits of sharks that offer that security. I'm open-minded on the subject.

It'd take hours on hours to get hypothermia in the waters I dive shorts in...

But you are in fact spending that much time underwater because it's so shallow and you have so much bottom time

Diving deep? You're cutting your dive short, with increased gas consumption, possibly also by staying within NDL times if your not trained for decompression diving. I like to dive, cutting my dives shorter to reach some magic number is counterproductive. Especially if its something I can view shallower.

I don't disagree. The lighting is better for photography as well, though in our area viz is usually crappier closer in.

We don't negate it completely, but we do the best we can to cut narcosis back as much as possible. Its damn sure not the reason we dive to depth

Agreed. But I'm saying all else equal, most people will chose deep.

My point is... after burning an AL80 for two hours on the 30' dive. I'm going to have A MUCH better understanding of what I was looking at than the diver at 90'.

I totally agree!

I think you're making an incredibly incorrect generalization about 'most folks'. I think people would much more likely take 3x the bottom time, 3x the experience, rather than 3x the depth.

I'm open to the fact that my view of the general dive population may be dim on the subject, but I'm including all divers, not just the ones that dive regularly. I know I was all about hitting 130 when I first got started, but I learned, well before I passed 100ft that depth was, pretty much a number, and that the extra planning and resources for deeper dives made them best reserved for special circumstances.

I'm not saying there's no reason to go deep. Sometimes what you want to see IS deep(and I'm not talking about the numbers ticking by on your depth gauge). Depth for the sake of depth, is stupid <--no doubt about it.

​

I agree again. Your original question was about why depth for depth's sake was attractive. I think I offered a reasonably good answer for that: 1. Physiological feedback. 2. People want to press limits (even imagined ones). How many divers have died in pursuit of depth or penetration records? Even the man who wrote the cave bible himself died going deep did he not?

There is no therapeutic value to diving recreational nitrox mixes to their maximum operating depth.

Personally I believe there is a therapeutic, physiological value to diving recreational depths and mixes well within the established safety limits. But I want to be clear that I never suggested, hinted, advocated, or thought about meeting or exceeding nitrox mixes to their maximum operating depth. Same goes for no decompression limits. If someone got that idea then I apologize.

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

Sheck died going deep, it was a stupid waste.

 

[Dive-aholic]

Personally I believe there is a therapeutic, physiological value to diving recreational depths and mixes well within the established safety limits. But I want to be clear that I never suggested, hinted, advocated, or thought about meeting or exceeding nitrox mixes to their maximum operating depth. Same goes for no decompression limits. If someone got that idea then I apologize.

You're taking part of my post and responding to it out of context. I was responding specifically to your statement. You said,

'I would think that diving nitrox at 90fsw would qualify for hyperbaric oxygen therapy.'

That is not true. You need much higher pressures than what recreational diving considers safe.

 

[Hetland]

You're taking part of my post and responding to it out of context. I was responding specifically to your statement. You said,

'I would think that diving nitrox at 90fsw would qualify for hyperbaric oxygen therapy.'

That is not true. You need much higher pressures than what recreational diving considers safe.

Sorry Rob, I only had issue with the part I quoted, but I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I think I get it now.