OP
An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc
- Thread starter The Chairman
- Start date
Please register or login
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
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Pete, go out and get a medical degree. Follow that up with a doctorate (or two), then publish multiple papers, attend and speak at countless conferences and charge no fees for your work. Lawyers will be lining up for your services. You will have a much easier time answering the absurd "are you being paid professionally for your services today Doctor? Is it true that you no longer have a practice"? etc etc. Someone has to do it.
Is this board being run strictly as a labor of love? Why not do this for free too? (Yeah, it probably feels like it).
1. I thought that his report was obviously manufactured as per the lawyer's requirements and should easily be picked apart by an expert on the other side - (also being paid mega bucks).
2. My buddy is a plaintiff's attorney and he edits his 'expert' doctor's reports until it looks exactly the way that they need to look. I would not be surprised if that did not happen here.
I get it, I think, but correct me if I am wrong. The 1:1 is for drills in open water when pool/confined water in not available. There were no pool drills and the "confined water" drills weren't really done either because the conditions were not pool-like quality. Rather than then doing the 1:1 drills in open water, the instructor took the participants straight to the DSD open water experience which has a maximum ratio of 4:1, reduced to what the instructor needs to manage the dive. Essentially, Tursiops is saying that there is no requirement for 1:1 on the experience portion of the DSD if you have skipped all the required drills in their appropriate setting. That's true.
Again, not quite. The 1:1 is only applicable in the case of no confined water being available, in which case you can do 1:1 skills on a line, in deep water but at less than 6 ft down on the line. There is NO situation in a which you can skip the required skills.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
scagrotto
Contributor
Not being able to find the specific gravity of the water doesn't mean there's not a lot of other information that may reconcile the claimed facts with the experience of others who are familiar with the lake. Using Google maps to measure a bunch of straight line segments along a meandering river, Bear Lake looks to be a minimum of 160 miles upstream from Great Salt Lake. Between the point at which water flows out of the lake and reaches Great Salt Lake it flows past "Soda Springs" and "Maple Grove Hot Springs", and is joined by several other streams and rivers. The watershed at the Bear Lake outflow is a bit under 3500 square miles; shortly upstream of Great Salt Lake it's a bit over 7000. Checking data from USGS streamflow gauges wasn't helpful for comparing actual discharge volumes, probably as a result of the reservoirs and other factors.
I freely admit that I'm only guessing, but there's a good chance that the water flowing out of Bear Lake at any given moment accounts for well under 50% of the water flowing into Great Salt Lake from Bear River, and that the physical properties of water at the two locations could be very different. Of course it's also possible that the intervening distance doesn't increase the density of the water.
You can also bend the truth through the choice of words. The instructor clearly made mistakes, but I'm seeing a lot of words that may not be fair descriptions of his actions, or at least his intent. Case in point:
That and "uncaring" are great for inflaming the jury, but seem extremely unlikely to accurately reflect the instructor's intent. Just because he screwed up big time doesn't mean it wasn't just the result of mistakes and errors in judgment.
Small nit, but as divers we're supposed to understand the inverse relationship between pressure and volume. Reducing pressure to 4/5 would result in volume increasing to 5/4, which is a 25% increase.
It's definitely hard to reconcile slightly negative at 1.3 ATA with anything close to neutral at .8ATA, particularly since the other boy indicates that he appeared to be unconscious (or at least unresponsive). That would seem to preclude the possibility that he added air while descending, but that descent should have resulted in a significant loss of buoyancy through wetsuit compression even if the BC was already empty. About the only thing I can imagine (or wildly speculate) as an explanation would be that the increased pressure at depth might have increased arterial ppO2 enough for a brief period of consciousness during which he added air.
Having been there, the water in Bear Lake is not salty, it is fresh water. The fact that water runs into the Great Salt Lake means little to nothing. I don't have any "proven" details but the claim the density of the water is greater than seawater is just not true, in fact I would highly doubt it is even a smidgen over the SG of fresh water at 1.0. Of course if you stir up a bunch of solids it might be a bit over fresh water. Keep in mind that the density would include dissolved and undissolved solids. Still, I call BS on the report that says the water is more dense than seawater, let alone the density of the water in the Great Salt Lake, in fact I call that a flat out lie.
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,744
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
I guess that depends on how one defines "best".
Since this is a central document in an ongoing lawsuit, I think I'll refrain from giving my opinion about it in public. And I've refereed a few manuscripts for scientific journals.
--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug
Similar threads
