Death v # of Divers and Scuba Oversight

[Rich Keller]

It sounds like a lot of deaths but the total number of fatalities doesn't mean much without knowing the approximate number of dives that took place during the time period, and the percentage of deaths as compared to other popular dive destinations, and the rate of fatalities by age group.

One death sounds like a lot to me but you seem okay with this amount. So how many more deaths are you comfortable with?

---------- Post added April 15th, 2015 at 06:35 PM ----------

Dan Reports - latest I could find - http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/report/DAN2000DCIreport.pdf

Happy Reading...

This is based on data from 1998. Got anything from this decade?

---------- Post added April 15th, 2015 at 06:41 PM ----------

My point was that the mentality that no death rate except zero is acceptable leads to the progressive mindset that brings the bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, etc… Therefore it is important not to adopt that mindset.

Richard.

So you think ignoring a certain amount of deaths will not raise red flags with the bureaucrats?

---------- Post added April 15th, 2015 at 06:48 PM ----------

According to DAN statistics

This report is based on data from 2006. Got any reports from this decade?

---------- Post added April 15th, 2015 at 06:54 PM ----------

One of the best things about this sport is that it is being regulated by the people who know more about it then the bureaucrats. If the industry can not set high standards and live by them then someone else will step in eventually and take these rights away.

 

[boulderjohn]

This report is based on data from 2006. Got any reports from this decade?

Try to follow along with this.

The person to whom I was responding talked about a sudden spike in fatalities that he said occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The statistics I quoted showed that there was not only not a significant spike in fatalities then, there was a significant drop in fatalities then.

I am sure you can explain how statistics after 2006 will give better information about the 1980s and 1990s. I will eagerly await that explanation.

 

[dmaziuk]

Your observations of bureaucrats dealing with the health care industry is irrelevant to sport diving.

Wrong. Bureaucrats will deal with diving exactly the same way they deal with health care. That's what they do, that' why they're called bureaucrats and not, say, sport divers. The issue is not getting them involved.

---------- Post added April 15th, 2015 at 07:45 PM ----------

One death sounds like a lot to me but you seem okay with this amount. So how many more deaths are you comfortable with?

According to CDC's faststats (google it) in the US unintentional injury is responsible for 41.3 deaths in 100,000 population whereas suicide is 13 per 100,000. You can't beat suicide with better emergency plans so I'm comfortable with 13 per 100,000 divers. I'm OK with 41/100,000: not comfortable, but sh*t happens and 41/100K's par for the course.

 

[RJP]

Wrong. Bureaucrats will deal with diving exactly the same way they deal with health care.

No they won't.

Healthcare accounts for 17% of the gross domestic product in the US. $3 trillion dollars annualy... and that's just direct costs. The amount of money involved in diving is less than the rounding error on the sales tax on gauze pads. No money... no bureaucratic interest.

 

[Rich Keller]

I am still looking for current statistics. Why don't they put them out any more? Is there an organization besides DAN that does this type of report? The only current info I can find is in the accidents and incidents reports on SB. If you read through those you might come away with the idea that everyone dies of natural causes.

 

[DougCoDiver]

The better reporting certainly would account for the apparent increase in incidents back then.

 

[RJP]

The better reporting certainly would account for the apparent increase in incidents back then.

The curve showing an increasing number of incidents appears to mirror the curve showing an increasing number of certified divers.

More divers would certainly go a long way towards explaining more incidents.

 

[drrich2]

So you think ignoring a certain amount of deaths will not raise red flags with the bureaucrats?

Yes, if it's low enough. Granted, bureaucrats are a fickle lot, and a lot of damage can get started by one busy body with nothing better to do. Public reaction may be a bigger trigger than a specific body count.

Richard.

 

[RJP]

Maybe they should have gone diving in the Cayman Islands instead...

79 tourists die while snorkeling in Hawaiian waters over five year period | Local News - Home

Bill could require snorkels have safety valve | Local News - Home

 

[shoredivr]

Sport diving is entirely self regulated and most customers are pretty loyal to their service provider (LDS). There is no clamoring for change, and thus, no interest in regulatory bodies to inflict regulations on the sport. Your assertion that determining the root cause of an accident, then implementing preventative policies will somehow invite regulation makes no sense at all.

Welcome to Quebec, Canada, where a cold-water scuba death led to an inquest which resulted in the government mandated FQAS. It is not enough to have a NAUI, Padi, SSI etc scuba certification which are accepted around the world including all cold water locations. No, to dive Quebec you also have to have a government approved FQAS card by law, even to dive in a pool. For this extra level of nanny state safety you are required to fork over some cash. Ridiculous tax grab.

FQAS --> Diving Regulations of Quebec