In other words, am I the only one that thinks this "argument" on deep air should be about over by now?
Me as well! 5 pages ago no less
Are we done with this one yet? I'm sure we're overdue for a bungieed wing debate by now.
EDIT: 6 pages
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
In other words, am I the only one that thinks this "argument" on deep air should be about over by now?
Are we done with this one yet? I'm sure we're overdue for a bungieed wing debate by now.
So what you're saying is that diving deep on air is more dangerous than having a low END? Check. Thanks for making my point.
As for the PADI report, there were certainly more deep air deaths than 1 from 1989-1998. Poor reporting is the obvious cause here.
There were at least 10 different ships called the HMS Hermes, one of which is the one you're talking about which served in the Falklands
This is the one in Sri Lanka: HMS Hermes (95) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How would you like me to go about giving you a non-list? I can't prove a negative (obviously), so I'm asking for someone to prove the positive (a list of divers with low ENDs who died on deep dives). I've been following this stuff for a few years now, and I've yet to come across any, and no one has helped me find any despite multiple requests for assistance.
In other words, am I the only one that thinks this "argument" on deep air should be about over by now?
No, the point is that any diving activity has an element of danger. If you are overweight, a women, dive in cold water, work, are older than 30, are less than a perfect physical specimen, dive in an overhead environment, do decompression, or dive at an increased END, you are diving with increased risk. You either accept it, or you don't. Complaining about someone else's diving choices when they have been trained to do so, just isn't acceptable. Especially when you make rash statements that are false.
uh, wut?
There are conflicting studies [...]
Other studies show that this isn't accurate. [...]
For all you folks "guessing" what would be okay. You might want to have even a minor understanding of oxygen toxicity before offering a really dumb suggestion. That, along with a potential narcosis hit.
It is amazing that what people don't know they don't know makes them think it might be "okay".
My first suggestion is to let Darwinism work itself out in this numbskull.
But in reality, I'd tell the guy not to do it, and just get a dumb response of "why?".