I think I have been "had" just a bit

[scubatoys]

Not to stir the pot here, but I was looking at the data on the tanks, and given what you just said, it is essentially a failure rate of near 0.

I understand the shop owners are looking out for themselves and the welfare of their employees, understandbly so. But if they won't fill tanks because of a few incidents and they are looking out for their safety, shouldn't they essentially be telling their employee's not to go scuba diving, since it too has a extremly low fatality rate. Or for that matter, tell them not to fly drive, or even get out of bed?

I've had this argument happen several times... Just wanted to give you a slightly different twist on your stats. You looking at about 10 tanks blew up (failed sounds so tame) in the US. We know there were about 25 million of these tanks made - so that makes the chance of a tank blowing up very small... but let's not look at how many tanks were manufactured, as we both know, a lot of these were condemned, traded in in the old trade in program they had, scrapped, or sitting in a basement waiting to be given away, or sold for 15 bucks as in this case.

So let's look at the numbers a bit differently. There are about 2000 shops and fill places in the US. Now about half the shops don't fill these tanks.. so that means about 1000 shops with 10 tanks blowing up... so now the stats say if my shop fills these, I have about a 1 in 100 chance of blowing up my shop, one or more of my employees and perhaps a customer or two... to make under 50 cents profit on a fill after maintenance, labor, and amortization of the equipment.

So we decided not to fill those tanks at our shop... And yes, you might make the case that if they are properly tested, there is no danger - but years ago, I personally did a VIP Plus test on a tank with a very bad crack that already had a current VIP Plus sticker. Did the other people do a bad test?? Did the tank rapidly go bad?? Did it never get tested and someone just bought a sticker on the internet to slap on it?? Don't know - but it was on that day, I decided, we would no longer fill the 6351 tanks no matter what sticker they had on them.

For a tank that costs 150 bucks 20+ years ago, you can say this tank depreciates less per year than a single fill costs - so for safety sake - say it's had a good life and turn it into a beautiful planter.

 

[DaleC]

ST,
Even though I have two 6351 tanks in service at the moment I commend you for putting forward your case in an intelligent and non insulting manner. If some people presented their case in this manner a more civil and meaningful discussion would probably result. Phil Ellis is another poster who presents his issues in a way that, while I may not act on them at the moment, I certainly take the time to consider his POV.

 

[matts1w]

ST,
Even though I have two 6351 tanks in service at the moment I commend you for putting forward your case in an intelligent and non insulting manner. If some people presented their case in this manner a more civil and meaningful discussion would probably result. Phil Ellis is another poster who presents his issues in a way that, while I may not act on them at the moment, I certainly take the time to consider his POV.

Here is a link with a few more pictures. Maybe think about how you would feel if one of your tanks let go and hurt someone as bad as Chris Hawkins- especially since you have this information.

http://vapiemojo.fr/spip.php?page=bout&id_article=209

 

[MichaelRyanSd]

I agree with dale, and don't get me wrong if something can easily be replaced or swapped for the sake of safety, and if somehow replacing all the old tanks cost somewhere around a million dollars, it would still be worth it to save one life (note, these are arbitrary numbers to prove a point)

But the way you deduced to get your statistic is a little wrong, basically what you are saying is there is a 1 in 100 chance one of these tanks will blow up in your shop, and if that were the case, these older tanks would be a pandemic and the federal government would almost certainly ban them. Because if it really is 1 in 100, then out of the twenty five millions tanks made, that means 250,000 of them will be blowing up pretty soon or should have already. And obviously this is not the case.

To get a more accurate statistic what you would really need is, the average amount of fills a tank has in its service life over 40 years, compared to the 10 or so that failed, and how many fills they had before they failed.

Lets just generalize for a second and say the average tank is filled twice a month (again an arbitrary statistic) so that is 24 times a year, multiplied by 25,000,090 that comes out to 600,000,000...now compare that to the 10 tanks that exploded, we will say all exploded this year and they were all made in 1980. So 10 multiplied by 24 fills a year for 29 years comes out to 6960 fills before failure among the tanks that failed. So if I take the successful fill rate and divide it by the unsuccessful, you actually have a 1 in 86206 chance of having a tank explode on you.

For comparison I looked up some sites and this one seemed to be the most reliable will it came to other statistics (source:Don't Be Terrorized - Reason Magazine)
For example, in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83.

What about your chances of dying in an airplane crash? A one-year risk of one in 400,000 and one in 5,000 lifetime risk. What about walking across the street? A one-year risk of one in 48,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 625. Drowning? A one-year risk of one in 88,000 and a one in 1100 lifetime risk. In a fire? About the same risk as drowning. Murder? A one-year risk of one in 16,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 210. What about falling? Essentially the same as being murdered. And the proverbial being struck by lightning? A one-year risk of one in 6.2 million and a lifetime risk of one in 80,000. And what is the risk that you will die of a catastrophic asteroid strike? In 1994, astronomers calculated that the chance was one in 20,000. However, as they've gathered more data on the orbits of near earth objects, the lifetime risk has been reduced to one in 200,000 or more.


So like I said earlier, if the presumption is, scuba shops wont fill these tanks because of the risk of injury, then they should be prepared to tell their employees not to do any of the above, because from the looks of it, those things are going to kill em first

 

[DaleC]

Here is a link with a few more pictures. Maybe think about how you would feel if one of your tanks let go and hurt someone as bad as Chris Hawkins- especially since you have this information.

Club de Plongée Aquarillon

Well, I've pulled a decapitated body out of a car before (sorry I didn't take a pic) but maybe you could think about that the next time you climb in your car. I don't mean I'm worried about you per se but rather the person you will hit. Don't take the chance of injuring someone else by driving please, especially if you drive a big truck or SUV (I won't even get into the risk posed to others by Hummers). Makes about as much sense and statistically far far far far far far far far more likely to occur.
Will you do it? If your answer is no fine... But don't try to pull some penny ante guilt trip on me because I don't pander to your sense of unacceptable risk.

Micheal, welcome to the jungle.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Why yes I am clever, clever enough not to take anything you say on the subject seriously. I still remember you stating that 6351 tanks require 3 visual inspections a year and that you would require a vis AND HYDRO before filling unfamiliar tanks. I can provide the links to the thread if you want to argue that I am taking those words out of context.

Got a big old memory eraser handy?

They do require that from several shops for tanks in heavy rotation and unfamiliar 6351 bottles that have the propensity to crack. The problem is you have an agenda. You have some old ass tanks, and your not as informed on the subject as you like to think. It's ok that you were wrong here and that you have old tanks No ones counting other than you.

So let's see, in this thread you have stated that posters are full of hooey, personally attacked me and ridiculed the industry for the mere suggestion that your equipment may develop a problem. Does that about sum up the "intelligent" delivery of information in regards to a field you have no actual hands on experience with? Dale, you're not very good at this and you've been wrong more times than right. You believe anything you like about the topic but trying to come across as the reasonable intelligent poster here just isn't in the cards for you.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

So like I said earlier, if the presumption is, scuba shops wont fill these tanks because of the risk of injury, then they should be prepared to tell their employees not to do any of the above, because from the looks of it, those things are going to kill em first

In diving we use risk assessment to minimize the potential for catastrophic events. You are asking another person to overlook that assessment with no risk of your own.

You can "what if" it to death, just use yourself as the possible victim instead of someone else and maybe you'll feel more empathetic.

The best we can hope for is that 6351 alloy tanks will eventually weed themselves out of circulation and that those continue using them understand why DOT/TC, Luxfer and personal shop owners require additional testing. With proper VIP and Hydro's there is a good chance your tank will serve you for a number of years, then again maybe not only time will tell.

 

[scubatoys]

To get a more accurate statistic what you would really need is, the average amount of fills a tank has in its service life over 40 years, compared to the 10 or so that failed, and how many fills they had before they failed.

Lets just generalize for a second and say the average tank is filled twice a month (again an arbitrary statistic) so that is 24 times a year, multiplied by 25,000,090 that comes out to 600,000,000...now compare that to the 10 tanks that exploded, we will say all exploded this year and they were all made in 1980. So 10 multiplied by 24 fills a year for 29 years comes out to 6960 fills before failure among the tanks that failed. So if I take the successful fill rate and divide it by the unsuccessful, you actually have a 1 in 86206 chance of having a tank explode on you.

Ah! Fun with numbers!!!

The part of the stat that people keep using however is that they fall back on the 25 million tanks made number.... How many are still getting 2 fills a month? I don't have that number... don't believe anyone does... but according to my Hydro Test guy - they see very, very few of these tanks - we see maybe one or two a month, but if people know our policy - that may be why....

But as long as we are tossing out arbitrary numbers, I would take a wild stab that of tanks that are 20 years old, that had a buy back program, and the number of stores that will not fill them, less than 1 in 100 are getting filled twice a month... in fact, I guess way less... but lets be totally crazy, and say it's 1 in 10! Well your number you came up with was 1 in 6960... But if 90% are out of service - that lowers it to one in 696.

But keep in mind, that is how many fills till a perhaps deadly explosion, which will most likely happen in a shop while being filled. So if I say, sure, we fill those, and 2 tanks show up per day for filling... I guess that means, I can plan on hiring a new employee and remodeling the back of my shop within a 2 year period. Now since it's your tank, and you don't stand near them when being filled you don't need to worry as much, and if you only get it filled twice a month (and I don't think I know anyone in texas who gets a tank filled twice a month!) then you should make it 29 years before it blows up. But you've got one of these.... a dive shop, if they were filling them, could fill thousands.... that's the big difference.

And looking at the other stats... sure... Driving a car - you show a one in 83 by your stats... I would maintain that that is so very skewed, as a majority of the car accidents are alcohol related. So me... I drive a big ole truck, I don't find myself on the streets near bars at 2 am, I stay home for New Years, I never drink and drive, so I would bet my odds are at least 10 times less than what you show...

And that is the whole point... Numbers are great - lots of fun, but should you guzzle down a six pack of beer, then drive home on a wet night?? Well sure right? My odds are only 1 in 6500 right??

Not with that behavior. So then it would make sense to modify behavior as to not become a statistic, which is what we are doing with the tanks.

Heck, it's 15 bucks worth of scrap aluminum, and by the time you look at a hydro, etc that most these old "discovered" tanks need... you are maybe saving 100 bucks - for that increased hassle and risk? Not for me... but again.. I'm not a drink and drive kind of guy.

 

[matts1w]

Well, I've pulled a decapitated body out of a car before (sorry I didn't take a pic) but maybe you could think about that the next time you climb in your car. I don't mean I'm worried about you per se but rather the person you will hit. Don't take the chance of injuring someone else by driving please, especially if you drive a big truck or SUV (I won't even get into the risk posed to others by Hummers). Makes about as much sense and statistically far far far far far far far far more likely to occur.
Will you do it? If your answer is no fine... But don't try to pull some penny ante guilt trip on me because I don't pander to your sense of unacceptable risk.

I am thrilled to take on all kinds of risks that either A) give me a rush (diving, surfing, living in a third world mega-city)or B) allow me to exist in our world (driving a car, flying in a plane, etc..). Filling some old a$$ tank to save some cheap stranger a few bucks just ain't one of them.

 

[Jerzi]

So like I said earlier, if the presumption is, scuba shops wont fill these tanks because of the risk of injury, then they should be prepared to tell their employees not to do any of the above, because from the looks of it, those things are going to kill em first

Why would you want to endanger someones life more than it already is because of your equipment choice?

Why would any owner want to take an uneeded risk with the safety of himself or employees because you went bargain shopping for life support equipment?

A tank can be easily rented.