Actually although the word "conservative" is often used; in this context it really has very little meaning. That is because although the basic scientific principals of diving are pretty well understood the same can not be said about their application to a specific individual. That is one of the reasons why people will ocasionally get an "undeserved hit", or will survive a "dangerous event".
Mixed in the discussion are the biases for and against tables that are used in a machine vs. tables that are used manually.
Also, there are several different algorithms. Each has its' supporters and critics. Some are very passionate about their choice. But, none of the modern algorithms seems to produce any better or worse outcome than any other.
When a person realizes that a dive computer is merely a device that allows the individual to take the dive tables with them and then continuously recalculates dive parameters based on actual measurements instead of estimates then using the computer begins to make a lot of sense. Why do it in your head using estimates when you can do it precisely by using the machine? Reserve using your mental estimates for deciding if the computer is in the ballpark.
Blindly following any method without a working understanding is not wise.
As for the comments from the folks at the Chuuk chamber: For them to have any useful meaning a person would have to know what the proportion of computer users were vs. non-users. If almost everyone uses a computer, the case in most locations I suspect, then it would logically follow that most of the people getting DCS would have been using a computer.
Spend an hour or two surfing through the multitude of posts on this subject. Then do some independent research on dive physiology. Then decide for yourself what you want to do. After all, it IS your body.
