Research?

[CAMPER]

There are a lot of holes in our knowledge of DCS. Is there any plans to do wide spread research in this matter or is it considered to rare and money/time better spent in other areas.

I for one would participate/contribute to any study that involved older divers, a growing class of participants and one their are a lot of questions regarding DCS.

My knowledge of medical research is limited , but it does seem to me that the wide spread use of computers that track minute details of dives would lend itself to easy tracking of useful info. The migration of large numbers of divers to popular dive destinations, who would then do multiple dives in short time frames, would also seem to lend itself to research on this subject.

Any possibility of something happening in the near future?

Ed B

 

[BillP]

Hi Ed:

DAN does a fair amount of research. You can read more about it on their website at:

http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/research/index.asp

Much of their work involves retrospective review of dive accidents (they generate a whole lot of numerators for statistical analysis, but the denomimators are lacking to give the data meaning) but they're doing some prospective studies too.

I participated in one of their prospective studies in '99 by answering a medical questionaire and then carrying a DAN dive computer on my dives on a trip. The computer went back to DAN to have the data from the dives downloaded. You might be able to participate in their studies too- ask them.

You are a member of DAN, aren't you?

HTH,

Bill

 

[Dr Deco]

Dear CAMPER:

Research in the field of decompression research as it affects the recreational diver is very slim. There are several reasons for this that I could offer. Other scientists might proffer additional ones.

1. Manufacturers of diving equipment do not fund diving research. I am told that the market for equipment is quite small and the total revenue generated would not allow the funding required. I do not know what the profits are and therefore do not know how true this actually is.

2. There is a considerable amount of archival data from which dive table and dive computers can be made. Because of this, new experiments are not necessarily required. Models can be made using computers and historical data and prospective studies can be avoided.

3. Experiments involving humans are not without risk and issues of insurance and liability arise. This is not a trivial situation in the current legal climate of the US.

4. The federal government funds some research through the Office of Naval Research. This group had an almost 20 year hiatus in work regarding diving and has only recently reentered the field in the form of research grants. These are quite limited.

5. US Navy research seldom involves such areas as short-duration scuba diving. This is not the problem area for military divers. Current Navy work is examining methods of rescuing sailors from a sunken submarine (similar to the Kirsk situation).

6. Non-military (e.g., National Institutes of health) funding of research in DCS and decompression by the federal government is limited. We are currently in an era of molecular biology. Since DCS is, by and large, an organ-level disorder, it is being bypassed by funding agencies.

7. Similarly, decompression sickness is not a big, national medical issue. Few individuals actually get DCS per year. There is not a big economic impact from this problem.. Most research work in the 1960s and 70s was performed with regard to commercial divers and 500 to 2,000 fsw depths. Nothing is being done today.

8. NASA supports some research, but it is primarily directed at scenarios specific to astronauts, viz., altitude decompression from saturation. What responses appear in this FORUM are my interpretations of our research modified for scuba diving.

As of this is quite glum, I will admit. It is typical of a scientist, that I say we are not well funded....:box:

Dr Deco :doctor:

 

[CAMPER]

It's as I suspected there are more pressing subjects that need to be explored.

I am a DAN member and do support there philosophy I would be suspicious of manufacturer supported research however.

The info on computer profiles would be useful I suppose, but would you not also have to cross reference with body fat, conditioning, hydration levels, actual blood gas uptake among other factors?
It would be interesting to see what a detailed study would cost and if it could be funded by rec divers themselves. Also what benefits we could expect.

I would love to be more comfortable with my age condition factors and how deep for how long I can dive. I always am conservative but is that enough? I know there is no answer to this question now.

Ed B

 

[Dr Deco]

Dear CAMPER:

Research that is supported by the manufactures of various commercial products should not be viewed with suspicion unless the claims are extravagant and the data is not ever available.

Unsupported claims are similar to those found in, for example, weight reduction products that do not have any data to support the claims. Rather they give testimonials by satisfied users. We do not see testimonials in diving, thank goodness! (“Wow! I’ve dived with the Bends-Buster for twenty years and have not even gotten a sprained finger!”)

When organizations perform studies and inform the world what they have found, that is very good information. The problem with commercial diving research these days is that there isn’t any. Many claims appear but there is not much upon which an evaluation can be based. Realistically, some things cannot be disclosed for a certain period in order to protect the commercial investment.

As far as dive computers are concerned, the dive community must begin to realize that these are only guides. They cannot protect someone 100% of the time. In actuality, the failure rate is very low. The failure rate from protection against some common diseases is not as good as protection from DCS by divers.

It is important to realize that DCS is the result of bubble growth from nuclei. If there were no nuclei, you could surface directly from thousands of feet beneath the sea! Nuclei number in a particular individual is not a part of any calculation algorithm. There is currently not a straightforward way to evaluate it. Someday this might change, but that day is not yet here. The diver must adjust activity levels following the dive while on the surface or he/she is in for a possible surprise. :boom:

There is no question that gas supersaturation is the biggest determinant since you can jump and create all the nuclei you want in the gym. No one ever got the bends in a gym. Benign overuse myalgia, yes, but “the bends,” no.

If I ever get it all together, maybe I'll make my own Bends-Buster:mean:

Dr Deco:geek: