An age-old question: ways to 60m.

[Kay Dee]

...............My understanding from Dr. Simon Mitchell's research is that sufficiently high gas density (with some correlation to narcosis) with an equipment failure is at a higher probability for having a really bad day.

This being scubaboard, I do not expect a science based counterargument.

Yes, probabily, not certainty. And that answer is real world / evidenced based, as opposed to 'science based'. Of course, and with all due respect to Simon, you and others are entitled to believe what you have heard just as much as I am to what I have seen / experienced.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Yes, probabily, not certainty. And that answer is real world / evidenced based, as opposed to 'science based'.

The validity and applicatability of scientific studies (peer reviewed of course) always trumps some random divers experience (that includes you)

 

[Kay Dee]

The validity and applicatability of scientific studies (peer reviewed of course) always trumps some random divers experience (that includes you)

Yes, on paper, it does.

 

[ofg-1]

Yes, on paper, it does.

Absolutely. Never let the facts confuse the issues.

 

[CG43]

The validity and applicatability of scientific studies (peer reviewed of course) always trumps some random divers experience (that includes you)

Science is what explains why one diver has problems at 30 meters under certain conditions while another diver has few problems at 100 meters.
The conclusions and recommendations one draws from sience is another matter.
That at 30 meters one can only breathe half as much air is science,
but that one should not dive deeper than 30 meters with air is not a necessary conclusion from sience.
As long as this is made clear that this is a recommendation, and even further justified, that is also okay.

The issue is handling an emergency (like equipment failure) when one is impaired by narcosis.

Of course, being impaired and hight gas density is a disadvantage in this situation, I believe this is undisputed by anyone.
This is one point among many in the risk assessment and it is difficult to quantify.

 

[old frogman]

Many people are throwing around the term "science-based" to defend their particular position on choice of gases and scuba unit and decision making in relation to deeper diving. So, what is science based?

Assuming you have a penchant for a particular type of scuba and gas combination for a particular depth/situation, how do you apply your so-called science-based thinking?

Do you simply follow rules/standards of your particular dive training agency/club for decision making?

Conversely, do you follow recent thinking, for example risk management and human factors for enhanced decision making?

Which approach is the more science based?

Which approach is the more valid for your particular diving?

After all, this is Scubaboard.

 

[Celt]

For some a hangnail is, “ a really bad day” others manage fine with one hand. I know who I’d prefer to have as a buddy.

 

[old frogman]

For some a hangnail is, “ a really bad day” others manage fine with one hand. I know who I’d prefer to have as a buddy.

A pirate?

No, I believe you are looking for someone with emotional resilience to cope with uncertain challenges.

Maybe a pirate after all?

 

[Celt]

A pirate?

No, I believe you are looking for someone with emotional resilience to cope with uncertain challenges.

Maybe a pirate after all?

A one legged pirate would tic all the boxes,

 

[old frogman]

A one legged pirate would tic all the boxes,

To be sure.