DAN reports RB deaths up 300%!

[Meng_Tze]

There is something fishie here Papa Bear.

You claim that DAN reported a 300% increase in RB deaths, then you come up with this old report? Read the report carefully... it uses DAN reports... so in effect you are saying DAN is using a report that in itself used DAN data? I can use Google too to come up with this 2005 report.

Pls post/link the actual DAN report you claim indicates a 300% increase....as per your first post.

 

[JeffG]

Here is a link to one of the studies used by DAN:
http://www.deeplife.co.uk/files/How_Rebreathers_Kill_People.pdf

Posting an anti-rb report that uses stats like you do really doesn't help your cause.
(Unless trolling is your cause.)

 

[Casarez]

I am reading DAN's 2007 report and on page 55 they state that rebreathers only account for 6 cases out of 84.

https://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/report/index.asp

Warning - 2007 Report is a PDF file.

Reading over every incident by searching on "rebreather" and "300%" I cannot find that 300% number you did.

 

[Meng_Tze]

Yeah, I saw the 07 report too, but nowhere does it go into :

The newest DAN report say Rebreather deaths up by 300% in the last decade! Problems with gas leaks, O2 Toxicity, different depths on one dive not calculated for properly! ......

Papa Bear.... time to put up or come clean..... were you trolling?

 

[Papa_Bear]

Undercurrent.org has the most comprehensive report on DAN findings! Sorry I will log in and repost it if it is not a copy write violation? Next I have nothing against RB's and have no opinion myself so to say "It doesn't help MY argument" is poppycock (Hows that) I don't have one, buy a clue will you! I am asking a legitimate question when you read about the types of misshapes reported! Is it training or Equipment? People should have a reasonable explanation? It was stated as "Have tripled" = 300% right? Also DAN sights the study as ten years, but gives deaths between 1998 and 2004? Look it is their study not mine so if you have a problem with it contact them not me! I posted a question!

 

[Jeff Toorish]

From a statistical perspective, it seems to me the data would have to be parsed along the lines of number of deaths per some constant, such as 100,000 hours of rebreather diving.

While a simple percentage increase is a meaningless statistic. Even the number of deaths against the number of rebreather divers would also be of limited value because there may be more rebreather divers, but they may be diving fewer hours on average.

For example:

If ten years ago there was one rebreather death and the total number of hours that all rebreather divers dived was 100,000 hours, then the valid statistic would be 1 rb death per 100,000 diver/hours.

Ten years later there are 5 times as many rebreather divers and ten times as many deaths, but more divers are diving rebreathers more often. So, rb deaths are up but the total number of hours is now 5,000,000.

So the number of deaths, based on this model, is now 2/1,000,000 hours, or, using the original format, 1/5 rb death per 100,000 rb diver/hours.

It is important to maintain the constant, in this case, 100,000 hours

Jeff

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

 

[novicediver]

I think a better way of wording things would be to say that 6 deaths were attributed to rebreaters out of 84 scuba related deaths and then to post the link. To argue over 10 posts or so over not posting facts is pointless. So I will ask the question, what do you think was the main cause of the 6 deaths? I have no clue

 

[JeffG]

It was stated as "Have tripled" = 300% right? Also DAN sights the study as ten years, but gives deaths between 1998 and 2004? Look it is their study not mine so if you have a problem with it contact them not me! I posted a question!

for example in 2007, there were 6 deaths on RB's, so ten yrs ago, there were 2, but in this time, the number of RB divers has increase 1000's%.

Is the increase significant?

 

[JeffG]

Stats are so much fun. You can say that deaths have increased 300% in 10 years but Rebreathers are safer.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

Semantics aside, has anyone found a link to this study?

Jeff