Michael Guerrero
Contributor
Wow, RBW all over again...
Ok, I pulled up the paper, which is one that I've read in the past, and which comports with what I've already stated.
Quoted from Andrew's paper in 2007, "While there is some theoretical reasoning behind the adoption of deep decompression stops and some empirical and historical evidence that they may be of value, the available studies do not support their introduction.", emphasis added.
and..."It would seem that, from the available evidence, decompression profiles where more time is spent deep do not always reduce decompression stress as might be expected. This may be especially true of dives involving mixed gases and inert-gas switching. While accepting that stops deeper than those prescribed by the Buhlmann model may be optimal for safe decompression from significant depth, several workers in the field are now questioning the validity of deep stops as generated by ‘bubble’ models.", emphasis added.
The studies Andrew cites to substantiate his conclusion are:
36 Gerth WA, Gault KA, Doolette DJ. Empirical evaluation of the efficacy of deep stops in air decompression dives. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2007; 34 (suppl): 231-2....this is the NEDU study,which apparently some think is irrelevant because they don't understand how science works...
37 Gutvik CR, Mollerlokken A, Brubakk AO. Difference in bubble formation using deep stops is dependent on length of bottom time; experimental findings and theoretical support. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2007; 34 (suppl): 230-1.
38 Brubakk AO, Gutvik C. Optimal decompression from 90 msw. In: Lang MA, Smith EB, editors. Proceedings of the Advanced Scientific Diving Workshop; 2006 February 23-24. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution; 2006. p. 39-46.
39 Imbert JC. Commercial diving: 90 msw operational aspects. In: Lang MA, Smith NE, editors. Proceedings of the Advanced Scientific Diving Workshop; 2006 February 23-24. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution; 2006. p. 103-18.
---------------------------------
I think he makes a sound argument. And let's not forget, anything less than a GF Lo of 100 is a "deep" stop when considering Bhulmann.
Ok, I pulled up the paper, which is one that I've read in the past, and which comports with what I've already stated.
Quoted from Andrew's paper in 2007, "While there is some theoretical reasoning behind the adoption of deep decompression stops and some empirical and historical evidence that they may be of value, the available studies do not support their introduction.", emphasis added.
and..."It would seem that, from the available evidence, decompression profiles where more time is spent deep do not always reduce decompression stress as might be expected. This may be especially true of dives involving mixed gases and inert-gas switching. While accepting that stops deeper than those prescribed by the Buhlmann model may be optimal for safe decompression from significant depth, several workers in the field are now questioning the validity of deep stops as generated by ‘bubble’ models.", emphasis added.
The studies Andrew cites to substantiate his conclusion are:
36 Gerth WA, Gault KA, Doolette DJ. Empirical evaluation of the efficacy of deep stops in air decompression dives. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2007; 34 (suppl): 231-2....this is the NEDU study,which apparently some think is irrelevant because they don't understand how science works...
37 Gutvik CR, Mollerlokken A, Brubakk AO. Difference in bubble formation using deep stops is dependent on length of bottom time; experimental findings and theoretical support. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2007; 34 (suppl): 230-1.
38 Brubakk AO, Gutvik C. Optimal decompression from 90 msw. In: Lang MA, Smith EB, editors. Proceedings of the Advanced Scientific Diving Workshop; 2006 February 23-24. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution; 2006. p. 39-46.
39 Imbert JC. Commercial diving: 90 msw operational aspects. In: Lang MA, Smith NE, editors. Proceedings of the Advanced Scientific Diving Workshop; 2006 February 23-24. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution; 2006. p. 103-18.
---------------------------------
I think he makes a sound argument. And let's not forget, anything less than a GF Lo of 100 is a "deep" stop when considering Bhulmann.
