Narcosis Properties of Different Gases

[nimoh]

O2 is NOT narcotic at recreational diving depths.

this looks like an argument, or was it intended as a joke?

It is a statement of fact, not an argument.

in order to be a statement of fact, it must be verifiable, and it is not. So, it it is not a statement of fact, and not an argument, then it must be a joke.

It is verifiable that no evidence exist that O2 is narcotic at recreational depths.

shame on you for trying to weasel out of owning up to your words.

 

[gianaameri]

One thing you seem to be missing is the difference between narcotic effects and impairment. If oxygen can be narcotic, it can always be narcotic. The narcotic effects or impairment may change, the ppO2 at which impairment starts becoming noticeable, the risks associated with said impairment, etc.....all of that can change, yes. But whether your body treats high ppO2 as a narcotic agent or not is a constant. How is your body to know whether you're in a cave at 100' with low viz, or the Maldives at 100' with a mile of vis? It won't. Also, how is it that at 130' O2 isn't narcotic, but at 131' (out of rec depths) it is? The impairment and risk changes, and your body's reaction changes, but whether or not O2 has narcotic properties is a constant.

We are dealing with the brain, gases, body physiology immersed in water, responses of the body to the environment, responses of the brain to the environment... it is a complex matter, yet to be fully understood, and you cannot isolate O2 and the body/brain response from the environment and circumstances in which the body and brain is.

I could see your point if the subject were on an operating table.

The subject is immersed in a liquid, at depth, with changes in temperature and pressure, and with very different stimuli from those lying on an operating table.

It is a complex and dynamic environment with many variables one affecting the other.

Not a black and white situation at all.

 

[nimoh]

The various comments on this thread do show that we are in the realm/field of theology.

I feel like I am talking with a group of people who firmly believe there is a God.

I say, there is "no proof" that there is a God.

The response is "There is no proof that there is not one... you prove that there is not one..."

This is pure theology and dogma and it supports the fact that there is no evidence O2 is narcotic at recreational depths.

they should make a Star Trek episode about you called "The Anti Spock"

 

[gianaameri]

shame on you for trying to weasel out of owning up to your words.

they should make a Star Trek episode about you called "The Anti Spock"

Bigoted personal attacks. It is not productive.

 

[nimoh]

Bigoted personal attacks. It is not productive.

neither are personal attacks. The first refers to your actions, the second refers to your logic.

Calling someone a brainless chicken would be a personal attack.

 

[dfx]

The various comments on this thread do show that we are in the realm/field of theology.

I feel like I am talking with a group of people who firmly believe there is a God.

I say, there is "no proof" that there is a God.

The response is "There is no proof that there is not one... you prove that there is not one..."

This is pure theology and dogma and it supports the fact that there is no evidence O2 is narcotic at recreational depths.

Not at all.

Since there is proof that O2 is narcotic under some circumstances, this serves as evidence suggesting that O2 may be narcotic under other circumstances, and it is only prudent to assume that it really is. It would be imprudent to assume the opposite. Especially since this is no evidence supporting the contrary.

You are free to disregard this obvious evidence, but don't expect others to do the same.

 

[ScubaSteve]

neither are personal attacks. The first refers to your actions, the second refers to your logic.

Calling someone a brainless chicken would be a personal attack.

Cluck d'uh cluck

 

[gianaameri]

neither are personal attacks. The first refers to your actions, the second refers to your logic.

Calling someone a brainless chicken would be a personal attack.

I should not have used the words brainless chicken as it is not productive.

So, do you have evidence that O2 is narcotic at recreational depth to dispute the fact that there is no such evidence?

---------- Post added August 29th, 2013 at 01:19 PM ----------

Not at all.

Since there is proof that O2 is narcotic under some circumstances, this serves as evidence suggesting that O2 may be narcotic under other circumstances, and it is only prudent to assume that it really is. It would be imprudent to assume the opposite. Especially since this is no evidence supporting the contrary.

You are free to disregard this obvious evidence, but don't expect others to do the same.

I am not disregarding any evidence.

Post 58 I stated: "Based on the available evidence, whilst it would be prudent to treat O2 as narcotic beyond recreational depths, it would be imprudent to suggest Air is preferable to Nitrox at recreational depths in a cave environment."

 

[nimoh]

I should not have used the words brainless chicken as it is not productive.

So, do you have evidence that O2 is narcotic at recreational depth to dispute the fact that there is no such evidence?

As has been indicated several times in this thread there is very little evidence showing that oxygen is narcotic at recreational depths. However, you have claimed that this means that oxygen is NOT narcotic at recreational depths, which is simply not so.

I will admit it has been a little fun for me walking in circles around this train wreck, but don't plan to make another lap.

 

[robertarak]

My sample group of one (1) suggests that this thread has become narcotic at any depth.