Dan_P
Contributor
@Dr Simon Mitchell duly noted.
As for amends in terms of apt quotation, I'll simply let stand the following to support my point regarding the use of "unsafe" and "defective":
The tail-biting snake can work both ways;
1) "It couldn't be ratio deco because nobody can take a hit if they use ratio deco", and
2) "It had to be ratio deco because everyone in that specific group was allegedly using ratio deco"
Obviously, I don't know the details of the dives, but the logic stands;
If groups A through C all use ratio deco, and group A has all hits while groups B and C have none, surely, claiming that ratio deco caused all the hits in group A, would look strange.
The thing that I take away is that there was a great disproportion of hits in that group, comparing to probably any control group in the history of water or bubbles.
As for amends in terms of apt quotation, I'll simply let stand the following to support my point regarding the use of "unsafe" and "defective":
Hello Dan,
Since you are referring to me I just want to clarify this.
I did not state RD should not be characterised as `unsafe`; you did. The post in which that appeared was generally well reasoned, and I `liked` it, but you shouldn`t infer that I would `state` everything you said in the post.
To the specific point, I think we have ample evidence pointing to the fact that RD as it stood when Georgitsis confidently predicted its superiority was less efficient and therefore less safe than available alternatives. Whether that constitutes unsafe depends on how one would define unsafe, and we do not have the data (relative DCS rates) to resolve the debate no matter what that definition is, which is why I said:
"Setting unresolvable arguments about the magnitude of differences in risk aside, if divers seek the "truth in the universe" about the most efficient approach to decompression (least risk in the same decompression time), all the current evidence suggests that approaches which emphasise deep stops are not it."
If an individual diver (such as you Dan) has a reason to use RD based on its utility in specific situations I would not consider that irresponsible, and I could not put my hand on my heart and give you an evidence-based reason to call it unsafe (we have no data on DCS rates). But I would definitely be comfortable (based on existing evidence) to say that you are sacrificing decompression efficiency and therefore some degree of safety for whatever perceived utility exists for using it.
Simon M
That said that the proof that RD works is that people don't get bent using it. When I pointed out the number of people in our small group who got bent, they said they did not count, because they got bent for some other reason. What was that other reason? Don't know. How do you know it was not RD? Because people don't get bent using RD, so any case in which it happens has to be caused by something else.
Hard to beat that kind of logic.
The tail-biting snake can work both ways;
1) "It couldn't be ratio deco because nobody can take a hit if they use ratio deco", and
2) "It had to be ratio deco because everyone in that specific group was allegedly using ratio deco"
Obviously, I don't know the details of the dives, but the logic stands;
If groups A through C all use ratio deco, and group A has all hits while groups B and C have none, surely, claiming that ratio deco caused all the hits in group A, would look strange.
The thing that I take away is that there was a great disproportion of hits in that group, comparing to probably any control group in the history of water or bubbles.
Last edited: