Looking for used tanks

[JDMerk]

Well, I'm usually standing right there too while it's being filled and analyzing the tank and driving around with it in my car and storing it at my house and strapping it on my back so I guess I'm (at least) sharing the risk.

No..your not (at least) sharing the risk until you've got your nuts hanging over a dozen of these things a day as you fill them. Cylinders almost exclusively let go in fill stations, not in the trunks of cars, not in closets at your house and not (as you so viscerally put it "while strapped to your back".

I was going to say something smarmy but let's keep it on topic.

Since you have nothing to say I will leave what I said stand.

Do you refuse to fill them too?

My shop doesn't have a policy not to fill them but I wish we did.

Does that include pre 1990 Catalina tanks too and if so why?

No it does not include Catalinas, but I have oddly enough never seen a pre-1990 Cat...seen lots of WKs and pre-1989 Luxfers though.

This reminds me of two things:

First was the time that AIDS first began to makes its presence known on the international stage. I was an EMT at the time and remember many discussions within the field regarding treating patients with HIV/AIDS. Many EMTs even when so far as to (privately) suggest that they would refuse to rescue breath such a patient even though the risk of oral transmission was very low. I always thought that if they were that risk averse they should be in another field. It took a while for the knee jerk reaction to risk to be replaced by a more reasoned examination of the facts.

The other is the response that occurs when a shark rarely attacks somebody. There is the very understandable human reaction of wanting to eliminate the threat so a call goes out to cull every potential man eating shark around. Someone (a dirty cold hearted man hating shark lover no doubt) pipes up and questions the very low risk of actually being attacked by a shark but they are countered by a graphic photo of the victim with their legs bitten off and asked if keeping those lousy sharks around is worth even one human life.

Stay on topic, stop introducing unrelated and irrelevant arguments. We aren't talking about not saving someone's life with AIDS or hunting down an threatened/endangered species. We are talking about money...and you, or people like you being too cheap to spend $150 to virtually eliminate the risk of life and limb to another human being.

As to the new tank profit comment that undoubtedly will follow...To most, if not all SCUBA shops, tanks and specifically Al80's are a loss leader. Many LDS will sell tanks at cost or at a slight loss because they know it will keep people diving and they will come back for air fills and fins or whatever. We are practically giving the things away.

I wish someone could just answer my question about the eddy current testing instead of showing that guy with his legs bitten off (oops) I mean that blown up scuba tank again.

And which question was that?
I can tell you that 80-90% of all 6351 alloy tanks that we send off for hydro fail the VE test before they even get wet...does that speak to your assessment of their safety?

 

[DaleC]

So you are saying I as a FSO shouldn't manage risk?

In post 32 I said: But I also agree that everybody has the right to evaluate and accept their own risk accordingly.
In post 35 I said: I also respect your right to assess your risks differently and don't criticize you for doing so.

So I suppose this statement doesn't stand:

You lost this, "intelligent" conversation when you tried to justify my risk with your damage prone gear.

Perhaps it is a Canadian/American thing but you guys sure have a hard time with people who disagree with you.

We are talking about money...and you, or people like you being too cheap to spend $150 to virtually eliminate the risk of life and limb to another human being.

I don't know why but that "Dirty cold hearted man hating shark lover" comment would fit in so nicely here.

Well, for me it's $500-$600 retail for a problem I don't think poses an immediate risk (though I'm open to new facts). But take your number $150 and times it by 7 million = $1,050,000,000. That's a lot of "lousy" money to manage a 12/7,000,000 risk that may/or may not be present.

I can tell you that 80-90% of all 6351 alloy tanks that we send off for hydro fail the VE test before they even get wet...does that speak to your assessment of their safety?

I don't believe your "stats" bear out nationally. If 80-90% failed pre hydro there would be an immediate recall. Nice try though.

I never said you had to fill my tanks. I just said I don't see the immediate need to scrap them. You can debate that issue (if you want) but I sure hope you guys don't talk to your customers (and their lousy $5) like this when they happen to dissagree with you on some point.

It's your right to not fill tanks if you want but it is also my right to say that a blanket ban on all 6351 tanks regardless of testing is excessive (at this point).

 

[JDMerk]

Well, for me it's $500-$600 retail for a problem I don't think poses an immediate risk (though I'm open to new facts). But take your number $150 and times it by 7 million = $1,050,000,000. That's a lot of "lousy" money to manage a 12/7,000,000 risk that may/or may not be present.

The fact that you are obviously being ripped off by your LDS isn't a concern to me. You seem bitter about it and I would suggest you cross over the boarder to shop for tanks in the future...I'm sure you will be able to find reasonably priced tanks in the states.

Since you insist on placing a dollar amount on it, exactly how much are 12 human lives worth?

 

[dwhthediver]

Can't you guys realize that you both have some valid points and play nice together?

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

In post 32 I said: But I also agree that everybody has the right to evaluate and accept their own risk accordingly.
In post 35 I said: I also respect your right to assess your risks differently and don't criticize you for doing so.

So I suppose this statement doesn't stand:



Perhaps it is a Canadian/American thing but you guys sure have a hard time with people who disagree with you.



I don't know why but that "Dirty cold hearted man hating shark lover" comment would fit in so nicely here.

Well, for me it's $500-$600 retail for a problem I don't think poses an immediate risk (though I'm open to new facts). But take your number $150 and times it by 7 million = $1,050,000,000. That's a lot of "lousy" money to manage a 12/7,000,000 risk that may/or may not be present.



I don't believe your "stats" bear out nationally. If 80-90% failed pre hydro there would be an immediate recall. Nice try though.

I never said you had to fill my tanks. I just said I don't see the immediate need to scrap them. You can debate that issue (if you want) but I sure hope you guys don't talk to your customers (and their lousy $5) like this when they happen to dissagree with you on some point.

It's your right to not fill tanks if you want but it is also my right to say that a blanket ban on all 6351 tanks regardless of testing is excessive (at this point).

You have nothing in the game except old gear and a PERFECT American liberal syndrome of the poor that can't afford new tanks.

I can't afford a new hand or shop if I blow up the ones I've got.

You're of course welcome to disagree but it's a much more effective argument when you have some experience or stake in the object being debated.

I get the same argument from owners of bottles that don't pass hydro.

 

[DaleC]

I give up with you guys. Unfortunately there is no fund for people with crappy attitudes. Such cheap shots, marginalizing and minimizing in what could otherwise be a good discussion. Mock me all you want but you're the one living in the most fear motivated, litigious, risk adverse nation around, not me.

I've provided a counter point to the discussion and quite reasonably so I think. Forgive me for not swallowing the rhetoric of the retail dive industry without question but I'm still a little gun shy after that whole imminent risk of Satan/Salem witch hunt, imminent risk of Communism/McCarthyism, imminent risk of WMB's/Iraq "thingy".

Agree, disagree or think there's room for more information; I'll leave it up to the rest of the readers to consider.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

I give up with you guys. Unfortunately there is no fund for people with crappy attitudes. Such cheap shots, marginalizing and minimizing in what could otherwise be a good discussion. Mock me all you want but you're the one living in the most fear motivated, litigious, risk adverse nation around, not me.

I figured you brought up nationality for some reason. We're all super impressed with Canada and it's $500-600 Al80's if it makes you feel any better.

I've provided a counter point to the discussion and quite reasonably so I think. Forgive me for not swallowing the rhetoric of the retail dive industry without question but I'm still a little gun shy after that whole imminent risk of Satan/Salem witch hunt, imminent risk of Communism/McCarthyism, imminent risk of WMB's/Iraq "thingy".

Counter point? Think of the poor divers who own busted up tanks and there lifestyles ahead of mine? Brilliant. Remain gun shy; behind every blade of grass is an American with a gun. It worked for the Japanese.

Agree, disagree or think there's room for more information; I'll leave it up to the rest of the readers to consider.

Bye now.

:mooner:

 

[DaleC]

I said I was giving up on you guys, not the issue.

For an update on the actual (potential) risk:

"According the the US Department of Transport(DOT) In 1999, of the estimated 25 Million cylinders made of 6351 only 12 were reported to have ruptured."
So it's a little over 1/2,000,000 with a recall value of (using the $150/tank value): 3 billion, 750 million or 3,750,000,000.



For those interested in a balanced approach to 6351 tanks here's one businesses viewpoint (which I think is reasonable):
Adventure_Scuba_Diving_INC.
and here:
http://www.fillexpress.com/library/al6351.shtml

For a short message from the president of PSI about 6351 cylinders look here: http://www.psicylinders.com/library/Current/6351_review.htm

For those dive industry professionals that promote the idea that 6351 cylinders should be condemned outright this quote from that article may be of interest (I have bolded some text):

"Some air stations no longer fill cylinders made from 6351 alloy. While that is a personal decision, it may be a poor business practice. A few dive business employees have told cylinder owners that 6351 alloy cylinders have been recalled. NO, scuba cylinders have been recalled. Others state that the cylinder must be condemned outright. Such statements border on fraud and it is illegal to condemn a cylinder without proof that it is damaged beyond allowable limits. The Luxfer 2003 voluntary voucher program allowed owners of older cylinders to replace their cylinders at a reduced cost. That program has ended".

 

[DaleC]

Some more reading for those interested in the subject (about half way down the page):
Facts & Fictions

and from the president of PSI (Bill High) again:
http://www.hawaii.edu/ehso/diving/Cracking%20and%20Ruptures%20of%20SCBA%20and%20SCUBA%20Aluminum%20Cylinders.pdf

A snippet from the article: "Can SLC related ruptures be stopped? Yes they can."

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Yawn, like I said. If WE aren't familiar with the bottle and it's history we don't fill them.


This is based off of all the information you just dug up. This isn't new.

MANY "inspectors" are not PSI trained or have little to NO training at all when it comes to this.

When we get unfamiliar bottles made from questionable materials we explain to the customer that we would be happy to fill it just as long as they allow us to hydro it and vip it.

Nowhere did I say condemn the bottle.

Why don't you go take the PSI course, it will keep you from having to root up all this old information?