Deep Air Diving - thoughts

[Bismark]

Funny, I don't remember forgeting any part of my deep air dives..

Now that is the funniest comment of the day

 

[Geoff_H]

Maybe if they learned that if they lacked a feeling of psychological impairement, then they wouldn't actually be physically impaired?............ I will have to remember to tell the police that I didn't really feel drunk so therefore I must not have been impaired. Doubt they will go for that either.........

Well, surely you can accept that different people can tolerare different amounts of alcohol? I know some who get drunk on a glass of wine, and others who can down several beers without any discernible effect on their motor skills or judgement.

Just like narcosis - alchohol impairment is variable and affects different people differently. You may be a cheap date, others may not?

 

[String]

Ive never really understood the "forgotten parts of dive things". Yes i've been narked and sometimes severely but on surfacing i can still remember just as much of the dive as on air. My reactions may have been slower and more muddled, my mental state maybe altered but it doesnt create amnesia.
I think at times people are comparing narcosis to alcohol too literally - although similar in effect it isnt the same thing in action at all.

For for helium being more dangerous it isnt. I would say though that helium is less forgiving of errors.

 

[Bismark]

Ive never really understood the "forgotten parts of dive things". Yes i've been narked and sometimes severely but on surfacing i can still remember just as much of the dive as on air. My reactions may have been slower and more muddled, my mental state maybe altered but it doesnt create amnesia.
I think at times people are comparing narcosis to alcohol too literally - although similar in effect it isnt the same thing in action at all.

For for helium being more dangerous it isnt. I would say though that helium is less forgiving of errors.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but how do you know if you have forgotten what you don't remember? Not trying to make a joke here, but perception is a difficult thing to nail down. If you don't want to compare narcosis to alcohol, how about to anesthesia? Ask anyone who as been under general anesthetic and they will tell you about the last thing they remember.......but if you talk to the doctors or nurses they remind you of all the things you said or did (sometimes a bit embarassing.....) when you were kind of "semi-conscious". This may be closer to what we are talking about than being intoxicated via alcohol. Thoughts?

 

[Bismark]

Well, surely you can accept that different people can tolerare different amounts of alcohol? I know some who get drunk on a glass of wine, and others who can down several beers without any discernible effect on their motor skills or judgement.

Just like narcosis - alchohol impairment is variable and affects different people differently. You may be a cheap date, others may not?

Not arguing this at all. Ask my wife, I am definitely a cheap date....So I would ask you where do we go from here? Not only do different people handle alchohol differently, they will do so differently from day to day and from situation to situation. However, I would caution that this is a perceived ability to handle alchohol and as far as I know, it has not been supported by actual measurements of physical impairment (remember the kid running out into the middle of the road as you drove home after a half dozen beer after the game). So what do we do? Where and how do we establish a defensible limit? Some agencies have come right out and set a limit, GUE for example, set the standard at 100' as the narcotic limit for their agency. Others will argue that it is no ones right to establish such a limit, and I personally have problems with someone dictating such things to me. However, we seem to have done it "for the greater good" concerning blood alcohol limits. I prefer to look at the evidence, and make to me what are reasonable conclusions concerning my own conduct in an environment that will kill me without much of a second thought. I look at my responsibility to my family and dive buddies and have concluded that I will approach my diving the same way I approach my driving: I will so so with very little impairment and enjoy the rest of my life. The way I see it, there are enough variable in the equation that we can not control, so I will control those I can and tilt the odds in my favour as much as I can.

 

[Geoff_H]

. So what do we do? Where and how do we establish a defensible limit? Some agencies have come right out and set a limit, GUE for example, set the standard at 100' as the narcotic limit for their agency. Others will argue that it is no ones right to establish such a limit, and I personally have problems with someone dictating such things to me. However, we seem to have done it "for the greater good" concerning blood alcohol limits. I prefer to look at the evidence, and make to me what are reasonable conclusions concerning my own conduct in an environment that will kill me without much of a second thought.

I think that we are getting down to the nub of it now.

There is no "right" limit for everyone, few would argue 70m on air is extremely narcotic for most and most agree that 20m is pretty safe for most. Just like a glass of wine will render some incapable of safe driving while having little to no effect on others (and alchohol impairment can be as wildly variable as nitrogen narcosis in a single indivdual on different days)

We accept blood alcohol limits because the government is a recognised source of authority, however much we may disagree with the decisions themselves most governments have a democratic mandate to impose limits on blood alcohol, so we do accept them.

However GUE doesn't really have any sort of mandate whatsoever, and plenty feel their maximum END is far too conservative. I think this is the reason there is a lot of bad feeling when GUE trained divers lecture or look down on people who exceed the GUE narcotic limits - they take the attitude "Who the hell are these guys to tell me how to dive?"

 

[Thalassamania]

For for helium being more dangerous it isnt. I would say though that helium is less forgiving of errors.

Surely that's fainting with damn praise.

 

[dsteding]

Congrats to Doug and the gang.

Thanks Guy, all I can say is I'm addicted to helium at this point . . .

We should get our crews together up there or down here for some diving at some point.

 

[Tomeck]

Thanks Guy, all I can say is I'm addicted to helium at this point . . .

We should get our crews together up there or down here for some diving at some point.

I am addicted to nitrogen, but not helium.

 

[Bismark]

I think that we are getting down to the nub of it now.

There is no "right" limit for everyone, few would argue 70m on air is extremely narcotic for most and most agree that 20m is pretty safe for most. Just like a glass of wine will render some incapable of safe driving while having little to no effect on others (and alchohol impairment can be as wildly variable as nitrogen narcosis in a single indivdual on different days)

We accept blood alcohol limits because the government is a recognised source of authority, however much we may disagree with the decisions themselves most governments have a democratic mandate to impose limits on blood alcohol, so we do accept them.

However GUE doesn't really have any sort of mandate whatsoever, and plenty feel their maximum END is far too conservative. I think this is the reason there is a lot of bad feeling when GUE trained divers lecture or look down on people who exceed the GUE narcotic limits - they take the attitude "Who the hell are these guys to tell me how to dive?"

Sigh.....I was hoping this would not turn into a "GUE versus the world" debate regarding acceptable END's...... with your last statement you are painting with very wide brush strokes. One of the mandates of GUE's training program is to create thinking divers who (contrary to a lot of misinformation on the internet)are not mindless automatons who simple regurgitate the party line. The "why" as it were, as much as the "what". In that respect, a considerable portion of class room time during Fundamentals and Tech classes is given over to an analysis of narcosis. The evidence is pretty persuasive but like I said above, the analysis considers the "why" and "how come" as much as the "what". It is not simply a case of "here is the party line and that is that". It is really beyond the scope of this thread to explain how the 100' END works into the standard gas selection, which helps in dive planning....blah..blah..blah. but suffice to say, there is a lot more going on here than simply picking an arbitrary number out of a hat and saying anything beyond that depth is wrong.

My concern, as stated several times earlier in this thread is not to keep people from doing what they want to do; it is to make sure that they are making the decision about what they want to do from an informed position. Hopefully from the collision of arguments, students and others will be able to make informed decisions based on the most up to date research and evidence and not just on opinions with no basis of support other than "I did it and do it so what is the big deal".