Doc Deep dies during dive.
- Thread starter stcroixscuba
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Hickdive
Contributor
There is sports psychology and there is diving physiology. The latter will trump the former any day of the week. You cannot think your way through HPNS, Compression neuralgia, or decompression illness.
Has Garman declared that his intention was to push the limits of science, explore the limits of human physiology, or conduct experiments? My impression is that this is something he did for fun, maybe I am wrong. Isn't all non-commercial diving done for fun? Different people have different ideas of fun. Some play golf, others enjoy dog-piling on ScubaBoard. Maybe for some, diving deep is fun.
There is a lot of criticism in this thread revolving around the fact that his dive served no practical purpose, that nothing new has been learned, it can be done cheaper and better with surface-supplied gas, etc. I wonder how many people ever made a dive that had a "meaningful" purpose (other than fun)? What is the purpose of re-confirming the presence of a wreck, or the absence of a rock, at the same depth and location, when a dozen others have already done that before? Actually, why do that even once? Why is exploration necessary, what problem does that solve? Just so someone else can come to the same spot later? Why should someone do that, though? If there was any commercial interest in exploring caves around the world, it would presumably also be more efficient to do that with robots. Probably much less of a challenge than self-driving cars or sending an autonomous vehicle to another planet.
People like to attach all sorts of reasons to what they do to feel important. Everyone likes to feel important. Maybe for Garman, diving deep made him feel important. Unless someone was coerced, what's the deal? One could argue that it comes at a cost to society. Eating bacon also comes at a cost to society, it affects the cost of healthcare.
There is a lot of criticism in this thread revolving around the fact that his dive served no practical purpose, that nothing new has been learned, it can be done cheaper and better with surface-supplied gas, etc. I wonder how many people ever made a dive that had a "meaningful" purpose (other than fun)? What is the purpose of re-confirming the presence of a wreck, or the absence of a rock, at the same depth and location, when a dozen others have already done that before? Actually, why do that even once? Why is exploration necessary, what problem does that solve? Just so someone else can come to the same spot later? Why should someone do that, though? If there was any commercial interest in exploring caves around the world, it would presumably also be more efficient to do that with robots. Probably much less of a challenge than self-driving cars or sending an autonomous vehicle to another planet.
People like to attach all sorts of reasons to what they do to feel important. Everyone likes to feel important. Maybe for Garman, diving deep made him feel important. Unless someone was coerced, what's the deal? One could argue that it comes at a cost to society. Eating bacon also comes at a cost to society, it affects the cost of healthcare.
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,745
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
IMO there's a fundamental difference between a dive (or any other activity) that incurs an insignificant risk of dying and a dive that incurs a very significant risk of the same. If the dive (or other activity) serves no practical purpose, there's no reason whatsoever to incur a significant risk of dying.
YMMV, of course.
That is not my basis for the suggestion at all. I see no reason for a distinction between any mixed gas dives beyond depth, the body being exposed to ambient pressure, and survival. Risk is not a consideration in my mind. Should there be a depth record for open circuit Scuba dives with double hose regulators? How about the color of their suit? With or without a BC? Left or right handed from a small town in Poland? This kind of qualification is equally irrelevant as how they get the breathing gas. It would be just as stupid to have a distinction for a saturation depth record from a bell made in the US, UK, or Norway.
I respect your point of view, although I wonder to what extent pleasure is a legitimate purpose. If not, why not? And if the answer is that it is, should a cost-benefit analysis apply? Is there an amount of pleasure, or pleasure-to-risk ratio, that makes the decision to engage in the activity justifiable? When an elderly man with high cholesterol and heart disease makes love to a woman, one could argue that this is a high-risk activity... should pleasure-to-risk analysis apply as well? What if someone goes off chemo to enjoy the last few weeks of their life? Why is decreased discomfort worth months of their life? Who gets to decide where to draw the line?
drrich2
Contributor
Agreed. I wasn't advocating the mentality; I'm something of a cynical realistic who almost compulsively nitpicks when optimists launch into their distortions. Just trying to understand why more team members didn't challenge what was going on, which seems to be a big question on the table.
It's speculative, buuuut...I wonder if he was one of those 'intense' personalities? I'm not talking about overbearing; I'm talking about the kind of person who likes, and maybe even needs, intensity. It's not exactly the same thing as a thrill seeker. Some people preferentially thrive on intensity, and may engage in boundary pushing (even exceeding) in pursuing it. Reminds me of a conversation or two I've had with future surgeons; given the sheer demands of residency training, and in some cases post-residency practice, why would you put yourself through that? Not all intense people perform highly dangerous acts, of course, so even if he was, that wouldn't explain it.
Richard.
infieldg
Contributor
Have they deleted the closeup picture of his bottom tanks from the Scuba Tec page? I'm sure that's where I saw it last week, but can't find it anymore - had downloaded it onto my phone tho.
Excuse my maths, I'm metric so may have stuffed the conversions up, is this right?
- MOD was calculated on PPO2 around 1.56, giving a PPO2 of 1.47 at his 366m/1200ft goal?
- END is about 50m/165ft at his MOD and 46m/152ft at his goal - isn't that conservative given how fast he wanted to descend with so much helium?
Would a bit less helium and more nitrogen have been safer? (asks the guy who knew nothing about HPNS and END til I read this thread).
I wonder if the likes of Ahmed Gabr use a little hydrogen or neon (apparently that's a thing?) to minimise HPNS on a fast descent?
Thanks again for all the info I'm absorbing here
Excuse my maths, I'm metric so may have stuffed the conversions up, is this right?
- MOD was calculated on PPO2 around 1.56, giving a PPO2 of 1.47 at his 366m/1200ft goal?
- END is about 50m/165ft at his MOD and 46m/152ft at his goal - isn't that conservative given how fast he wanted to descend with so much helium?
Would a bit less helium and more nitrogen have been safer? (asks the guy who knew nothing about HPNS and END til I read this thread).
I wonder if the likes of Ahmed Gabr use a little hydrogen or neon (apparently that's a thing?) to minimise HPNS on a fast descent?
Thanks again for all the info I'm absorbing here
Last edited:
I was actually agreeing with you about the lack of distinction between surface supply through an umbilical vs. surface supply via multiple ferried tanks.
Not sure I understand this, though. I was saying that there are a lot of risky records in the record books, and was wondering to what extent the Guinness people contribute to that risk assumption in people predisposed to chase these records.
Certainly nothing wrong with deciding to assume risk, thought. All of us who don't get paid to dive are assuming that risk just for fun, right. Certainly, there is no need for a human diver to be in a cave, people do it because they enjoy it. As with deco, it's a bright line through a grey area when you say this person is being prudent but that person is being foolhardy.
Ken Kurtis
Contributor
Along those same lines, you recruit people who not only think the task is possible but that YOU can do it. In the context of discussing politics in the media, it's known as the Echo Chamber Effect. For example, conservatives gravitate to Fox News because it reinforces what they already believe. Same thing here: You get people on your "team" who keep telling you you can do it instead of saying "The Emperor has no clothes."
- Ken
Similar threads
