- Messages
- 5,721
- Reaction score
- 475
Thanks for taking the time to research a bit of what is already in our archives. Not having to continually re-invent the wheel saves time & bandwidth.
As you appreciate, IWR should only be considered as a last resort (although my article paints some desperation scenarios that are quite possible), and then only when there are the conditions, gear & personnel to support it, and the diver is medically, physically & mentally able to tolerate it.
Under those circumstances, some knowledgeable folks view it not as a "good way to kill yourself," but rather as a fighting chance to avoid very serious neurological impairment. The Australian method is among the more conservative of the techniques. If I were facing the possibility of permanent paralysis, permanent loss of bladder control or the like, then if the ducks were in a row I'd very likely give it a shot.
I would also fully respect the decision of a stricken diver to stay topside and receive whatever conservative treatment was available until emergency services arrived.
In my research/interviews for the Undercurrent piece you referenced, I found more successes than horror stories even when the conditions for IWR were less than ideal, e.g., no or not enough 100% 02.
As regards your questions, obviously much of this has not been studied. The following responses are based on my knowledge of how IWR is approached by its proponents. Keep in mind that as one departs from the optimum circumstances for conducting each type of IWR the risks of these already controversial techniques almost certainly very rapidly increase.
1) (Q) I assume no form of IWR is possible without pure O2? Could the procedure be carried out using standard air if that was all that was available?
(A) It is best to use highest concentration 02 appropriate for the depths suggested by the particular technique. For the Australian method, 100% is directed.
Some have suggested that if pure 02 was not available, the highest concentration of EAN on board would be next in line. If nada, then air.
2) (Q) Could this method be used as a preventative measure for someone at increased risk of DCS, but who was sign/symptom free? If someone were to, say, miss a required deco stop, could they immediately switch to O2, select a tender diver, and re-descend to 30 feet to start the procedure in an attempt to prevent the onset of DCS?
(A) Not recommended. There are other approaches for situations like missed deco obligations. The suggestions below by Dr. Deco are an example, and there are recognized protocols.
3) (Q) 1ft/4min is an EXTREMELY slow ascent rate! 30ft * 4min/ft = 120 minutes to surface. That's 2 hours! In cold water where an additional 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 hours under water may not be possible, what happens if a 1ft/min or 1ft/2min ascent is used? Would that substantially negate any benefits gained from the 30-90 min at 30 feet?
(A) This is at present unknown. If I were overseeing this method of IWR and a 1ft/min or 1ft/2min ascent was dictated by unexpected gas limitations or diver inability tolerate a slower ascent, then I believe that I'd give the slowest ascent rate possible under the circumstances a go, within sensible limits, of course.
4) (Q) What minimum equipment would be necessary to make this option possible? At the very least, I assume some method of anchoring at 30 ft and ascending slowly, sufficient available O2, a knowledgeable tender diver, and environmental protection adequate for the additional period of immersion would be required.
(A) This would seem to be a minimum. Technically, a full face mask with demand valve & surface supply system, or helmet with free flow, a reliable form of communication system between patient, attendant & surface, preferably voice communications, are required. A good book for both tender & victim might be nice as well.
5. (Q) For a rough calculation of what constitutes sufficient O2, how does this look? Assume a SAC of 1cf/min? 30 feet = 2 cf/min O2 consumption. 30 min = 60cf, 60 min = 120cf, 90 min = 180cf. Ascent is 120 min at an average consumtion rate of 1.5cf/min = 180cf. For the maximum treatment of 90 min + ascent, 360cf minimum would be necessary? For the minimum treatment of 30min + ascent, 240cf would be needed? That could be done with a set of double 120's of pure O2.
(A) Haven't worked it out, but, yes, I'd say in a calm diver under conditions of minimal exertion you could do it on double 120s of pure O2.
Please understand that I am neither encouraging nor discouraging the use of IWR. There are lots of "ifs," "it depends" & uncertainties.
Happy holidays.
DocVikingo
As you appreciate, IWR should only be considered as a last resort (although my article paints some desperation scenarios that are quite possible), and then only when there are the conditions, gear & personnel to support it, and the diver is medically, physically & mentally able to tolerate it.
Under those circumstances, some knowledgeable folks view it not as a "good way to kill yourself," but rather as a fighting chance to avoid very serious neurological impairment. The Australian method is among the more conservative of the techniques. If I were facing the possibility of permanent paralysis, permanent loss of bladder control or the like, then if the ducks were in a row I'd very likely give it a shot.
I would also fully respect the decision of a stricken diver to stay topside and receive whatever conservative treatment was available until emergency services arrived.
In my research/interviews for the Undercurrent piece you referenced, I found more successes than horror stories even when the conditions for IWR were less than ideal, e.g., no or not enough 100% 02.
As regards your questions, obviously much of this has not been studied. The following responses are based on my knowledge of how IWR is approached by its proponents. Keep in mind that as one departs from the optimum circumstances for conducting each type of IWR the risks of these already controversial techniques almost certainly very rapidly increase.
1) (Q) I assume no form of IWR is possible without pure O2? Could the procedure be carried out using standard air if that was all that was available?
(A) It is best to use highest concentration 02 appropriate for the depths suggested by the particular technique. For the Australian method, 100% is directed.
Some have suggested that if pure 02 was not available, the highest concentration of EAN on board would be next in line. If nada, then air.
2) (Q) Could this method be used as a preventative measure for someone at increased risk of DCS, but who was sign/symptom free? If someone were to, say, miss a required deco stop, could they immediately switch to O2, select a tender diver, and re-descend to 30 feet to start the procedure in an attempt to prevent the onset of DCS?
(A) Not recommended. There are other approaches for situations like missed deco obligations. The suggestions below by Dr. Deco are an example, and there are recognized protocols.
3) (Q) 1ft/4min is an EXTREMELY slow ascent rate! 30ft * 4min/ft = 120 minutes to surface. That's 2 hours! In cold water where an additional 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 hours under water may not be possible, what happens if a 1ft/min or 1ft/2min ascent is used? Would that substantially negate any benefits gained from the 30-90 min at 30 feet?
(A) This is at present unknown. If I were overseeing this method of IWR and a 1ft/min or 1ft/2min ascent was dictated by unexpected gas limitations or diver inability tolerate a slower ascent, then I believe that I'd give the slowest ascent rate possible under the circumstances a go, within sensible limits, of course.
4) (Q) What minimum equipment would be necessary to make this option possible? At the very least, I assume some method of anchoring at 30 ft and ascending slowly, sufficient available O2, a knowledgeable tender diver, and environmental protection adequate for the additional period of immersion would be required.
(A) This would seem to be a minimum. Technically, a full face mask with demand valve & surface supply system, or helmet with free flow, a reliable form of communication system between patient, attendant & surface, preferably voice communications, are required. A good book for both tender & victim might be nice as well.
5. (Q) For a rough calculation of what constitutes sufficient O2, how does this look? Assume a SAC of 1cf/min? 30 feet = 2 cf/min O2 consumption. 30 min = 60cf, 60 min = 120cf, 90 min = 180cf. Ascent is 120 min at an average consumtion rate of 1.5cf/min = 180cf. For the maximum treatment of 90 min + ascent, 360cf minimum would be necessary? For the minimum treatment of 30min + ascent, 240cf would be needed? That could be done with a set of double 120's of pure O2.
(A) Haven't worked it out, but, yes, I'd say in a calm diver under conditions of minimal exertion you could do it on double 120s of pure O2.
Please understand that I am neither encouraging nor discouraging the use of IWR. There are lots of "ifs," "it depends" & uncertainties.
Happy holidays.
DocVikingo