My lord, Gen... Are you really bored today? Why not go out and do some diving instead?
Sheesh.
Genesis once bubbled...
Michael, its clear that instead of answering the substantive points I've raised in this debate, you have chosen instead to attempt to quote nonsensical irrelavent "studies" that STILL don't make your point and STILL ignore the actual focus of what I've had to say on the matter.
Gen, you haven't raised any "substansive points." What you've said, in a nutshell, is that you have proof that there are a lot of studies that show that there are certain percentages of dissolved gasses in the bloodstream. Well, duh. You go further (and frankly drone quite a bit) to discuss the CO levels and CO2 levels in the bloodstream, which are completely irrelevant and independent of what Mike said in the first place. Read again.
What you've really done here, Gen, is dominate this post with mile-long, pointless arguments about chemical reations in the bloodstream, which are both independent and unaffiliated with what we were all talking about in the first place.
The other thing you've managed to do is drive off the people who have the experience and expertise on the matter. When was the last time you dove the 'Doria, Gen? I'd love to see you and MHK go head-to-head with a simple skill test. And based on those, I choose to listen to his experience and expertise.
Your pointless drivel has done nothing but made you feel good about yourself. So be it. I hope it worked. Enjoy it, however pointless.
The bottom line, as I've always said, (and DD said the same) is that smoking's bad for you, and it impairs your diving. GUE says, "No smoking." That's the rules. If you don't want to go by their rules, then don't. We don't care.
The Von Burg study you reference is a 1990 work on patients with pre-existing neurological illness!
I found a cite to it in a few minutes, although I haven't been able to find the entire study itself online. However, the study that referenced it (a work published on 6/15/1990 at the University of Arizona) produced the following quote:
This is from a study at the University of Arizona that was published and peer-reviewed, and which cited your "claimed" one.
Note the TWO TO FIVE PERCENT IMPAIRMENT producing physiologically-significant symptoms including nausea and vomiting!
You see, Gen... There you go again. "Two to five percent impairment." Two to five percent of what? Two percent of the blood was unable to carry O2? Two percent of the person's body mass was CO2? Two percent of the O2 in the person's blood was replaced by nicotine?
What's worse, is that you go on these long rants, once you find a number that you like... Which have no relevance to the topic at hand. It's very strange. As I've said before, I think you just like ot hear yourself talk. I'm not even reading all of your posts any more.
I was looking for that point of view SPECIFICALLY because I know, from personal experience with my daughter at birth, and also due to an aunt of mine who has been an RN for more than 30 years, that even a 95% O2 saturation reading in a patient - down by as little as 5% from normal - is cause for SERIOUS concern and immediate remedial action. It was that personal knowledge that tripped my "BS" detector when you made your original claim.
Whatever. Then you're still missing the point. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Smoke = impaired. GUE says "no smoke." Take it or leave it. Obviously, you want to leave it. Fine. Leave it.
Nor is this the only example. A long debate on the medical forum here a few months ago roundly debunked the GUE claim that offgassing efficiency was affected in any manner of physiological significance by a horizontal body position, never mind that GUE has long maintained this as "fact" as well. Yet there is zero scientific, peer-reviewed data to support THAT position, and when the physiologists and physicians weighed in, the bottom line was that the claim was pure bunk.
Ascending horizontally has other advantages as well. It makes your body resistant to depth changes. It allows you to better fend for yourself in a current. It allows you to get to your buddy quicker. Perhaps someone said that it was better for deco, too... I don't know, and I don't have any evidence for or against that. Again, it doesn't matter. The other advantages are there anyway.
Of course, if you had any experience with these courses, then you'd know that. But you haven't... And so you just continue to drone about pointless drivel.
My issue has all along been the absolute VOID in response, filled by misdirection and complaints about irrelevancies, along with attempted diversions (as with the Von Berg study you claimed to "cite") when the lack of OBJECTIVE evidence is brought to the forefront in these debates related to GUE postulates.
In other words, you haven't seen "proof" of the claims. Why don't you just say that?
This is exactly why I've recommended the class since day one. They'll show you all the proof you need. No need for citations... Prove it to yourself.
But you refuse. Well, that's cool then... Continue to call the sky green. We don't care. Enjoy it. If one day you want the answers, then come take the class and have them show you. If you don't feel that you learned anything, you'll get a full refund. See how simple that is?
This is not about smoking and diving Mike. It is about GUE's credibility in making claims of scientific fact that appear to this individual to be entirely manufacturered, in that when challenged GUE's response, instead of producing the compendium of scientific, peer-reviewed evidence backing the position, is one of obfuscation, claims that the data is "proprietary", or some other form of misdirection.
Man, you're just outta control. Why won't you simply step up to the plate and go get the answers? I think you've used every combination of words you can possibly think of to express your position of uneducation. Yes, we hear you. We see you. Come find out or quit bellyaching.
This thread here is just ONE example of many. I nailed you and good on Usenet related to the Triox claims you made about CO2 retention and the significance of it, or lack thereof, at 100' on Triox .vs. Nitrox. You claimed that the data was "proprietary" and that you "wouldn't give it away on the Internet". Well, if its unpublished, then its unverified, and is nothing more than a claim, not a fact. If it IS published, peer reviewed, and verified, then there is nothing to hide.
There IS nothing to hide. You simply want to scream and yell. I don't have any other explanation as to why the answers would be offered you, but you refuse to take them.
I agree that information, which the understanding of could mean the difference between life and death, should not be shared in passing on a board or BBS. That's simply a really dangerous way to give people information. Rarely does the internet allow for the perfect thought to be conveyed correctly.
You ran away from that debate when I called you out on it and you're running away from this one as well.
He's not running. He said, "Here's my number, call me." He said, "Come take the class... I'll give you a money-back guarantee." He said, "I'm not sharing that information with you ober the internet. If you want to know, then by all means, come take the course and I'll teach you." Later, after many paragraphs of argument from you, he said, "I've said my peace, and my offer stands to you. I'm not discussing it any longer." Simple. You'd do the same if someone such as yourself came up and demanded to know your most important knowlege, arguing the entire way, out of complete ignorance. Eventually, you simply say, "Enough is enough." That's not the sign of a coward running... That's the sign of a leader drawing the line and keeping his promises.
I believe that as dive training consumers we have not only a right but an obligation to call on the carpet ALL agencies who push conjecture, opinion, and innuendo as scientific fact. After all, its our butt (and I'm not talking about a cigarette butt either) on the line down there.
Agreed. However, you're attempting to "call on the carpet" and you have no idea what you're talking about. You've never taken the class. You've never dived with one of these guys. You've never had any formal training whatsoever from any of them. You've never been exposed to any of their training. Why do you think you are qualified to pass judgement on thier training if you've never been exposed to it?
Instead of considering that option and responding with a rational debate on the matter at hand, you (and GUE, by extension) have chosen to simple circle the wagons and attempt to defend the original policy with quotes out of context and science of questionable applicability AT BEST.
That's not how the rest of us see it. We see it that you challenged some of GUE's ideals, and Mike said, "Come find out. Class is free if you don't learn anything." From that point, I think you wrote a small book on your beliefs, which include the concept that smoking isn't "all that bad" for you, and that a diver has the ability to still be their best even if they smoke. You went to great lengths to discredit GUE, even though you have no personal experience with them or personal knowlege of what their ideals really are. The funny thing is that in all of your ramblings, very little of it was even pertinent, and of that, none of it proving anything but the fact that you have no experience or knowlege of GUE.
By doing so you've gone from seeking a check-mark to tattooing a big red "X" on GUE's forehead - a development I find most unfortunate.
*yawn* Not for those who've been there. We know better because we were there.
