Will http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25525213 change deco procedures?

[shoredivr]

Instead of crowd funding, which will never happen given the small population of Tec divers, why not something along the lines of "crowd testing". Meaning, hundred of Tec dives happen everyday around the world. If there is a way that we can all band together and give our individual and dive profile data to a team of scientists, perhaps they could study it and reach some conclusion.

Yes, many have tried this form of data collection, including DAN, but somehow, we don't hear anything coming out of it. Maybe it's the lack of resources to do the analysis? If so, why not just make the raw data available to the public, and have a "crowd analysis" in forum discussions like this thread.

Can someone please provide the leadership and create a movement to make this happen?

This kind of self-reported information collection has been discussed elsewhere, IIRC the Rebreatherworld thread. The major problem with self-reported information is that there is reporting bias, so it's not scientific, more like a trend rather than actual data. Those who get injured may not report, which is also part of the bias.


Deep stops debate (split from ascent rate thread) - Page 95

edit: here's a bit from RBW post #946

"Further on the idea of validation; a scientific method starts with a question which is refined into a hypothesis, and then one designs an experiment to validate it. A database cannot be an experiment, strictly speaking, because the information cannot come before the experiment, because the actions which generated the information were not properly controlled by method, conditions, etcetera, in the first place. This is something many people don't understand when talking about science; it's not just a bunch of assembled 'facts', no matter how many 'facts' you've got. In order to glean incontrovertible facts from all those dives, they ALL must be done under the same properly conceived, controlled conditions. That's in addition to Simon's earlier point about pushing a model to it's extremes of duration, workload, temperature, by finding the point at which it begins to produce DCS in multiple subjects, something which must be pursued with the utmost care and detail, if it's to produce any definitive results."

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

There you have it folks. When asked directly and seriously, Simon can't provide that detail.

The entire RBW thread and most of this one has been about answering your various questions.

This deep stop argument against VPM-B is a sham, with only a hint of truth in unconnected places.

As I said before, I am glad you are comfortable making that argument in the face of contradictory beliefs from the world's most prominent and active decompression scientists.

What is the conclusions of this sham show - the believers pooh pooh the fabricated VPM-B+7 they invented, but then embrace VPM-B+4 in the similar form of an emulation by choosing a GF 40/70.

Now 40/70 is still a deep(er) stop approach, and a long way from home of the underlying real ZHL plan. If one really wanted to follow the nedu test result, it would need a GF setting something like 100/45. Anyone want to swap to this? No, I didn't think so.

The believers soak up the sham show and its fallacy explanations, but when it comes to go diving, they use deep(er) stop style plans. Hypocrites, the lot of you.

Nobody has ever said that we should go back to raw Buhlmann as a result of the NEDU study. I have clearly articulated the logic for an "intermediate" position in the posts Kev Rumboa cross posted earlier. There is nothing hypocritical about recommending that we back away from emphasising deep stops, but admitting that we don't know how far. That is what is called intellectual honesty Ross.... and it is something you could take note of. You only have to look at UWSojourner's supersaturation heat maps to see that there is an important difference between VPM-B+4 and GF 40/74, and the difference is that the VPM profile clearly exhibits the supersaturation pattern that was associated with the higher incidence of DCS in the NEDU study, whereas the GF profile much less so.

There are other hidden financial interests at play here that you are not aware of. I'm the only honest one with my name on my work.

Here we go again, and others have called you out on this. First it is "paid trolls" and now it is "other hidden financial interests". I suppose the best way of overcoming the crippling damage that your undisputable financial conflict of interest does to your arguments is to fabricate allegations that there are other mysterious financial conflicts among those who debate you. What will it be next Ross? Why not just go the whole hog and suggest that arguments supporting the NEDU study should be ignored because some of those making them have been accused of child molestation? Seriously, this is a very slippery slope that you are on. Either name names and provide evidence to support your allegations, or withdraw them. There is no intermediate option that any sane person on either side of this debate would consider fair.

Simon M

---------- Post added December 29th, 2015 at 05:53 PM ----------

Hi Simon!

Can you comment or expand on practical applications on finding the best compromise "Sweet Spot" Gradient Factors now, with regard to the NEDU Deep Stop & He/N2 Kinetics? And what GF's are you now using for a typical multi-week expedition like we did at Bikini Atoll and Truk (especially over consecutive days/weeks of deep "bounce" deco dives)?

Hello Kev,

I think the commentary that I wrote to Mark Chase that you cross posted still sums up my feelings pretty well. Probably the only thing I would change is the advice to bubble model users to ensure high conservatism. That would still be my advice if you are unwaveringly hooked into using a bubble model, but since the various supersaturation analyses have emerged I have doubts that it really fixes the disadvantage of deep stops prescribed by bubble models.

Simon M

 

[rossh]

Here we go again, and others have called you out on this. First it is "paid trolls" and now it is "other hidden financial interests". I suppose the best way of overcoming the crippling damage that your undisputable financial conflict of interest does to your arguments is to fabricate allegations that there are other mysterious financial conflicts among those who debate you. What will it be next Ross? Why not just go the whole hog and suggest that arguments supporting the NEDU study should be ignored because some of those making them have been accused of child molestation? Seriously, this is a very slippery slope that you are on. Either name names and provide evidence to support your allegations, or withdraw them. There is no intermediate option that any sane person on either side of this debate would consider fair.

Simon M

Simon,

You haven't been around these matters long enough, and you wouldn't know the history, and you know zero about the relations between me and other around here. So your comments are a little off base there Simon.



You have deliberately misconstrued the meaning of what is written, and tried to turn into an attack on you. That has never been the intention. No one would ever expect you as a scientist, to fall on your sword like that. I wouldn't wish that onto anyone, because I'm not a nasty guy.

I find this ad hominem method of your to be disgraceful, and fail to see how you balance your scientific integrity with such under-handed and viscous and coordinated attacks. But that's your problem. These ongoing arguments are littered with rubbish posts from trolls, antagonists, and some of your "friends" that you agitate into a frenzy with pre set talking points and more.


******

Now because you actually said "please" once when asking for a change, and because I can now see the conflict it might have created in your professional life, I have removed the comments you find offensive. They are all gone, except for 1 that SB wont edit, so you can arm wrestle SB mods and request an edit if you like.

I can't apologize for what others have done Simon, but I have recognized and removed the cause of this professional stress issue for you. I trust the matter is now settled.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Simon,You have deliberately misconstrued the meaning of what is written, and tried to turn into an attack on you.

I think that given the circumstances of these debates many others would have interpreted it as an attack on me too.
At the very least it was unfairly ambiguous.

I have recognized and removed the cause of this professional stress issue for you. I trust the matter is now settled.

Thank you.

Simon M

 

[shoredivr]

Simon,

You haven't been around these matters long enough, and you wouldn't know the history, and you know zero about the relations between me and other around here. So your comments are a little off base there Simon.



You have deliberately misconstrued the meaning of what is written, and tried to turn into an attack on you. That has never been the intention. No one would ever expect you as a scientist, to fall on your sword like that. I wouldn't wish that onto anyone, because I'm not a nasty guy.

I find this ad hominem method of your to be disgraceful, and fail to see how you balance your scientific integrity with such under-handed and viscous and coordinated attacks. But that's your problem. These ongoing arguments are littered with rubbish posts from trolls, antagonists, and some of your "friends" that you agitate into a frenzy with pre set talking points and more.


******

Now because you actually said "please" once when asking for a change, and because I can now see the conflict it might have created in your professional life, I have removed the comments you find offensive. They are all gone, except for 1 that SB wont edit, so you can arm wrestle SB mods and request an edit if you like.

I can't apologize for what others have done Simon, but I have recognized and removed the cause of this professional stress issue for you. I trust the matter is now settled.

Paragraphs two and three are at complete odds with paragraphs four and five?

 

[PfcAJ]

Paragraphs two and three are at complete odds with paragraphs four and five?

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Jack Hammer]

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

Some things are worth repeating... +1

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[shoredivr]

somebody set set up a crowd source fund for research on technical dive profiles.

Seems like the Bell Island MineQuest expedition in Newfoundland, Canada is doing research on in-the-field DCS in challenging tech diving conditions.

Bell Island Minequest – 2016 Expedition

"Dr. Neal Pollock, research director for the Divers Alert Network and scientist at the Center for Environmental Physiology and Hyperbaric Medicine at Duke University Medical Center wants to close the gap between the theory and reality behind decompression sickness. He says that much of the information on decompression provided to divers and astronauts is based on theoretical modeling. While theory is important, human testing is incomplete, and theory does not include many variables that can affect individual risk.

His team will use ultrasound on Mine Quest divers to track the presence of microbubbles in their hearts—indicators
of decompression stress. They will monitor the divers closely after each dive to determine if and when microbubbles appear and progress. They will also collect blood samples to assess other measures of decompression stress to compare with the bubble data. Studying divers in the field is important since “they’re diving profiles that are difficult to produce in the lab.” The Mine Quest team will provide an opportunity to study decompression stress over repeated days of repetitive, cold-water diving."