MHK
Guest
Genesis once bubbled...
some SCIENTIFIC, peer-reviewed studies on this matter.
Right now all we have is anecdotes. That's unfortunate, but it is the way of the world for now....
One can only hope that there will, sometime in the future, be an OPEN study made by some of the proponents. Not "proprietary anecdotes", but real, honest-to-god study.
There you go signing the same one note that you always sing.. Perhaps if you put into context George's statements, and perhaps if you consider that George's motivation isn't to satisfy you, you'll perhaps understand why George doesn't have a peer-reviewed studyhandy everytime you ask for one..
I am a member of the WKPP, and I'm there often when they do these dives that exceed the NOAA recommendations by nearly 10,000%. Accordingly if you are looking for peer-review please see Rutkowski or Hamilton.. Then ask yourself why Hamilton, Rutkowski and Morgan show up at Wakulla to learn from George and JJ..
When NOAA adopted their time limits, depending on whether you are talking about Pulmonary or CNS toxicity you'll look either to the Repex studies or the NOAA studies. The underlying presumption in those studies provides for a 90 minute half-time decay recovery theory. BTW, there is no peer review study for why Rutkowski and/or Hamilton used 90 minute half-time decay recovery it was just an accepted recovery time. Once you accept that 90 minutes is the "wrong" recovery time, you can then move on and see why at the WKPP we exceed NOAA by 10,000%.. George, and/or the WKPP isn't interested in providing you with peer-review studies every single time you make a post. Perhaps if you made an effort to understand what is involved, rather then simply claiming everything we do is junk science and screaming the same one note "peer-review" you'd have greater success with our responses.
According to the very peer review study that you want a diver should spend 45 minutes at 1.6.. Did it ever occur to you to wonder how it is that George and JJ did in excess of 4 hours and nearly 10,000% in excess of what your peer reviewed studies provide for??? Could it just be that the peer-reviewed study is flawed and by adjusting the recovery life half-time that we can achieve far greater results??? I guess what you don't understand is that George isn't out to convice you that what he does every week is correct. He doesn't care if you accept it without peer-review. What he does is report what is done every week at Wakulla. Some will look at the information and learn from it, other's will stand aside and ask for peer-review because they refuse to accept that they are much more efficient ways to do things.. The choice is yours which you want to do, but every time you ask for peer review I crack up because it tells me that you can't think on your own and you need other's to do your thinking for you.. Just like you claims of in excess of 8% hemoglobin binding would mean emphesemya, even though I provided several Cancer Society peer-reviewed studies offering up to 20% in smokers.. If what you were trying to say in your last peer-review mantra was that the "carboxyhaemoglobnin levels" is smokers range up to 8% I would have agreed with you, but that isn't what you were saying. You didn't understand teh difference between binding hemoglobin and reducing 02 transport and the psychomotor effects within the Carboxyhaemoglobnin levels.. All you did was cry about peer-review.. You did the same thing on the other board when you ceeded that the molecular weight of Helium is lower but yet couldn't understand why that transcended into reduced C02 accumulation, and you are doing the same theing here.. You don't understand what you are talking about so your knee-jerk reaction is to demand peer-review..
Ask yourself why is it that George and JJ spent 4 hours when NOAA said they should only spend 45 minutes.. Then provide me with a peer-review study when you figure it out..
Later