accident at whitecliffe park

[Henry]

I may be wrong but I would just like to know where you got your information?

I didn't say you were wrong. I was clarifying who the "buddy" was. The ambulance driver was told 60 feet for 30 minutes when he shot up.

The information was given by the divers to the ambulance guys. It was passed on to me by one of many Wednesday night divers at the park who was there when the diver was loaded in to the ambulance.

Doesn't mean I am right either. It is just information that was everyone had witnessed to at the site. A closer look at the dive computer can still proof me wrong.

Henry

 

[Rick Murchison]

There is however a difference between having a heart attack out of water and having one while diving.

Sometimes... but usually not. I don't know where this (apparently widespread) perception comes from that heart attacks (as opposed to heart disease/heart failure - which is a different matter) are usually - or even often - treatable. It just isn't so. Perhaps it's because you only get to talk to the heart attack victims who survive. But usually, the first symptom of a heart attack is sudden death. And while there are predisposing factors that make a CVA more likely, (like heart disease) they are only predisposing factors, and many who suffer fatal heart attacks have none of them. Ask any cardiologist.
My point is simply that citing "five deaths" is not a good indicator that there is "something wrong" with Scuba diving practices without a whole lot more information.
Realizing that Scuba didn't really take off as a recreational activity until the 60's - and that at that time it was mainly a young man's sport, and that those young men are now in their late 50's or older (I'm 56 and a mere pup among them), combined with more and more folks taking up diving later in life, a simple truth is that the Scuba diving population's average age is rising, and with it we can expect to see rising fatality rates among divers over the next twenty years or so.
I mean, when you get right down to it, I hope I live a long time... but I also hope to be diving on the day I die.
Rick

 

[deepdiverbc]

Sometimes... but usually not. I don't know where this (apparently widespread) perception comes from that heart attacks (as opposed to heart disease/heart failure - which is a different matter) are usually - or even often - treatable. It just isn't so. Perhaps it's because you only get to talk to the heart attack victims who survive. But usually, the first symptom of a heart attack is sudden death. And while there are predisposing factors that make a CVA more likely, (like heart disease) they are only predisposing factors, and many who suffer fatal heart attacks have none of them. Ask any cardiologist.
My point is simply that citing "five deaths" is not a good indicator that there is "something wrong" with Scuba diving practices without a whole lot more information.
Realizing that Scuba didn't really take off as a recreational activity until the 60's - and that at that time it was mainly a young man's sport, and that those young men are now in their late 50's or older (I'm 56 and a mere pup among them), combined with more and more folks taking up diving later in life, a simple truth is that the Scuba diving population's average age is rising, and with it we can expect to see rising fatality rates among divers over the next twenty years or so.
I mean, when you get right down to it, I hope I live a long time... but I also hope to be diving on the day I die.
Rick

Good points and I agree that health risks can not be accurately forecast. I do feel that poor health does increase your risk while diving frequently due to overexertion.

I am also taking note that my fellow divers do not seemed as concerned with the accident rate as I am and I take some comfort in that. I do hope however that the rate isn't going to continue creating a total of 10 by years end.

I agree with the concept that these accidents could have numerous causes and I don't expect to ever know what happened but I can't help but feel deep inside that most if not all of them were preventable and that buddy skills or a higher level of personal emergency preparedness may have saved some lives.

 

[AtomicWalrus]

To understand if the incident rate is truly increasing, we need better statistics to evaluate the problem. The incidents we talk about are the ones we've heard about. I think what we really need is incident data from the VGH Hyperbaric Unit. They're the primary treatment centre for diving injuries in BC, or at least the Lower Mainland, so they'd be able to say whether we're seeing a significant increase or not.

The other thing we have to look at, as others have pointed out before, is how many incidents there are relative to the total number of dives taking place. If we refer to Project Abacus, a study conducted by the Underwater Council of BC from October 1999 to November 2000, we find that there were 3 recreational diving fatalities over 14 months and 14 reported DCI treatments. The total number of dives was estimated based on 146,291 tank fills provided by local dive shops in BC over the 14 month period. Based on this, the incidence of death was calculated at 0.002% and the incidence of DCI was 0.010%.

You're referring to 4 fatalities over a 5 month period, which is definitely more than the 3 fatalities over the 14 month study. However, if we assume that dives are occuring at the same rate now as they were in 1999-2000, there were about 52000 dives over that 5 month period. That would make the fatality rate 0.008%. Again, this is 4 times higher than the numbers previously reported, it's actually a very small statistic: we're talking about a difference of a few incidents out of tens of thousands of dives. When you're talking about 3 or 5 incidents, 1 or 2 additional or fewer incidents can create a large swing in the reported incident rate. In the case of BC, I think we're seeing a statistical blip.

This isn't to discount the importance of learning from each and every incident - if we're not vigilant, we WILL see a significant increase in the incident rate!

 

[bcsean]

Do you remember the stat in OW? Scuba diving was ranked evenly with Bowling for being dangerous.

 

[deepdiverbc]

Do you remember the stat in OW? Scuba diving was ranked evenly with Bowling for being dangerous.

I don't think I would call scuba diving dangerous. Whats dangerous is unsafe attitudes about scuba diving.

Too often I run into divers that don't believe in buddy teams on group dives, are over or under weighted, dive with new untested gear at advanced sites, skipping safety stops, ignoring tidal exchange information, drinking excessively the night before a dive or surfacing without a buddy. This is what is unsafe not the sport of diving and this is what causes accidents.

I would rather dive with a new diver who has a good attitude about safety than an experienced diver with a bad attitude.

 

[Diver0001]

Do you remember the stat in OW? Scuba diving was ranked evenly with Bowling for being dangerous.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone coughing up their lungs or drowing, being hit by a boat or getting DCS/DCI while bowling....

It only looks as safe as bowling if you only look at the frequency of accidents and choose to ignore the rest.

R..

 

[String]

Sometimes... but usually not. I don't know where this (apparently widespread) perception comes from that heart attacks (as opposed to heart disease/heart failure - which is a different matter) are usually - or even often - treatable. It just isn't so.
Rick

Interesting point and worth noting.

In our rescue training here when discussing CPR and AV and discussing when to stop the current thought now from various medica agencies here is if its an unconcious non breathing diver with no pulse and no obvious sign of injury or drowning then its probably a heart attack of which there is a 95% or higher chance they're already dead, especially without defibrillators on scene and you should stop after a few minutes, especially if there are other injured parties who stand a higher chance.


On a slightly related note, scuba is an odd "sport". It can be physically and mentally tiring but unlike most sports where the participating people are athletes or at least train for it, SCUBA people can and do get away with just literally jumping straight in.

You dont see soccer, tennis or squash players who are generally overweight, chain smoking and have other health problems that often. You DO find scuba divers like that.

This means the increased heart attack risk from being unfit shows through more than it does in other sports. Also underwater, a heart attack is pretty much untreatable especially given the time frame most treatment needs to be administered.

 

[H2Andy]

hmmm... having a knack for stating the obvious, i would say that how one defines
"dangerous" makes a huge difference.

also, danger is relative.

are you more in danger bowling or diving?

well.. what are you in danger OF?

in bowling, your worst danger is straining something, or falling and hurting
yoruself, or dropping a ball on your foot or whatever...

in scuba, you are in an alien environment on life support, and the danger of drowning
is there.

so while the incidence of accidents may be close in bowling and scuba, the consequences of those accidents in scuba are far more dangerous.

it's like Herpes and AIDS. Herpes is really easy to catch, but it won't kill you.
AIDS is really hard to catch, but if you develop it, it will likely kill you.
what is more dangerous? AIDS, of course.

 

[bcsean]

I think the bowling thing was number of injuries. You're just as likely to die of a heart attack in a bowling alley as you are diving. Just a stat I remembered.

I also agree, a ton of it is based on mindset. Some of the people I see climb out of the water scare me. gear dragging on the ground, ill fitting suit, bcd, tank falling out of straps... Most people are quite capable of diving. We need to look at what is causing injuries and accidents and do our best to prevent it. I have yet to see a stat in diving that would make me question why I do it.