Scuba-Jay:
Just finished reading an article (or at least most of the article on In water re compression.) Obviously we are tought that this is a no no, except possibly with the correct training and when diving remote locations, BUT, from the studies discussed it appears to me as if the benefits of IWR have been ignored or at least downplayed?
It is FACT that administering 100% oxygen topside is more beneficial than taking the diving down to a pre-determined depth (30ft in this article) and applying treatment via a full face mask? Not sure what im asking here, but rather just thinking out loud.
Jay
http://www.bishopmuseum.org/research/treks/palautz97/iwr.html
IWR can be done safely under specific conditions. It is recommended only for technical divers, as its methods are extensions of in-water decompression procedures.
Just as DCS is not one disease, but a spectra of different diseases, the confusion, as exemplified by the discussion on this thread, is where the cutoff for treatment begins.
Commercial and military diving often have little use for IWR as dive regulations often require fully capable chambers in dive operations. In rare instances, such as in SEAL operations or SpecOps, there may be a need for IWR in deep infiltration operations.
In general, IWR is often adequate, and done frequently under-the-table by many seasoned cave divers, for joint bends or less. It has been often mislabeled as extending deco, but once symptoms begin and a return to the water is done, it is IWR.
It is riskiest in any form of neurologic bends because the patient must cooperate with treatment and follow directions, and if consciousness is impaired in any way, it is difficult to monitor status even when fully supervised underwater as a tenderer is part of the protocol.
In risky conditions, its used as a last resort.
Edmunds has described the Australian protocol very well.