Incident on the Spiegel

[hardtime]

deleted

 

[hardtime]

Easy there hardtime. Just pitching in some advise from EXPERIENCE with seizures. Not trying to play doctor. I have always read the posts from people claiming to get beat up on this forum and I am starting to see what they mean. As for hijacking the thread, I thought that the original post regarded seizures and diving. Am I mistaken?

Hey moubike1, Nothing is directed at you or your post. just highlighting the fact that this a tread about an incident that happened to a diver not a medical debate about what is the root cause or the proper method to be tested or evaluated. That is where the hijacking came in. having read the post further down the line it appears that the thread is back on track. I hope I didn't offend you, and if I did I apologize.

Hopefully this does mend any bridges that were burnt over my “physical assault” of the patrons of this site…. Consider it a cyber hug!

Jake

 

[nikifranz]

This may have been addressed, but was the air ever checked? Just saying it could've been contaminated air, or a bad mix. As he said, first nitrox, so that could be a root cause.

 

[DandyDon]

This may have been addressed, but was the air ever checked? Just saying it could've been contaminated air, or a bad mix. As he said, first nitrox, so that could be a root cause.

I am fairly confident that the hospital checked his blood gases. The bad air question is more relevant in cases where the diver does not seek treatment, does not survive, or is diving in another country. I do think that dive shops should furnish Analox CO testers tho, along with Nitrox analyzers, but I'm taking mine to Mexico Saturday.

 

[Ayisha]

...Just saying it could've been contaminated air, or a bad mix. As he said, first nitrox, so that could be a root cause.

First nitrox would not be a root cause. If anything, the nitrox probably saved him from further injury. If the EANx was for the course, he would have analyzed the tank(s) with the instructor. Even if not for the course, he would presumably have analyzed the tank to verify the correct mix. I don't know if analyzing your own tank is required in Florida; it is required here. I know when I did the Spiegel Grove, I analyzed my tanks to verify the mix as did others in our group and it seemed pretty routine to do so.

 

[LAFNMORE]

Tommy I'm so glad you are ok, especially bc you are a father & a husband! I actually know one of the people who you mentioned had helped you, Casey. I'm not surprised he jumped in to lend aid bc he is one of the kindest people I know. He is a do'er & if anyone needs help, he finds a way to make it happen, so I'm glad he was nearby. I can't believe, after all you went through, that you remember his name & how thoughtful of you to include it in your posting. His full name is Casey Galaspie...dive instructer by day, super hero by night ...in all seriousness, if I were stranded on a deserted island, I'd want him to be there too. Take care & be safe. --Becca

 

[scubadada]

Sorry, I did not read all the posts and this should have already been suggested. You need to see your primary care physician and need to be referred to a compentant neurologist and worked up for your seizure disorder. It sounds as if you should have no good reason for a DCI hit but you may have underlying CNS pathology. Do it. I would not dive until this is sorted out, you could kill yourself. Personally, I doubt PFO commonly presents as seizures in an otherwise normal individual. I would love to hear the outcome of this investigation. I'm sorry you've had trouble and hope all works out well for you.

Best, Craig

 

[scubadada]

Don, I would base this on the fact that a PFO is a serious threat to a diver , and I would not consider it prudent to wait for absolute scientific proof on this, when that proof would mean the dive Industry would lose MORE than 25 % of it's revenue....this kind of thing tends to make the research less likely to be effective.

I would also suggest that it is well known in scientific circles, that there are massive differences between indovidual divers, and their offgassing abilities. Some divers that DO NOT have PFO's and that do have efficient cardiovascular systems, could do a 160 foot dive for 20 minutes, come up just like this guy did ( but not pulling on a rope, that is a stupid practice which begs for contraction induced blood restriction problems) and have been just fine.

I am not saying the "pull your self up the rope nonsense" is what actually caused this, I expect there will be a medical issue/cardiovascular issue/or epileptic issue which comes out...but whatever fitness level you have for diving, the pulling your self up the rope after a deep dive is a NEGLIGENT PRACTICE where current exists and where the diver will be struggling on the rope....the constriction in the contracted muscles will impede bloodflow, and the diver experiencing this, will have more bubbling in the heavily contracted muscles by far, than would their "evil twin" that did a slow free ascent( same ascent speed) without holding on to a rope.

Also, the notion that DCS can hit any of us, at any time, with no ryme or reason, is nonsense. This is junk science. It is going to hit people who probably should not have been diving, and the testing proceedures that could have discovered contraindications for diving, DO NOT EXIST in any useful way for the masses, today.

For any of you guys to be telling this injured diver that he should be looking forward to diving again soon, I think you should hold off on this..... He should not have had this incident, and given that he has a family that needs him, the BETTER advice would be to have a much more complete set of tests done, before ever diving again. who does the testing is huge, as all doctors, and all facilities, are NOT equal. There are some sharp minds in medicine, that could probably get right to the issue, and others that may just ride the insurance testing train for as long as they can...and may never determine the real cause. You could hope someone like TS&M (Lynne) takes and interest, as she could be a huge resource for picking the right tests, and deciding if you are getting the right medical "strategies".


P.s.

RELATED CONCEPTS OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF:

• According to the softdrink industry, their is no scientific proof that Aspartame is dangerous to you. It is dangerous, if you ask me, and I have zero doubts about this. I also have no doubt it would cost the softdrink industry a fortune if a definitive study came out directly linking aspartame consumption with cancer, liver damage, insulin sensitivity, and inflamation related illnesses.
• Put a raw egg between two cell phones connected ( call each other) for 5 minutes, and I believe you will have a "cooked egg"...However, as with the tobacco industry 40 years ago, profits mean a lot more than safety, so there continues to be studies showing no link to neural damage or incidence of brain tumors.
• Do you need "Scientific Proof" to realize that a drink like normal Gatorade, with over 35 grams of sugar in a serving, will CAUSE insulin insensitivity and adult onset diabetes in many people that consume it regularly--believing it to be Healthy--you know they have "science" that shows it is hi tech nutrition/hydration
• Science can be a wonderful tool, or , the worst form of prostitution. Each of us needs to apply common sense for "who has paid for the scientific studies", and who will "lose out" if a concern is ever "proven". Science in the 50's and 60's may have been mostly moral..Mostly.....Science today is more typically "bought and paid for", and any thought about morality, or rightness, or validity, will need to be investigated by each of us, not just assumed as in the old days. Thankfully we do have many great scientists today, but they are hidden by all the corporate lapdogs paid to prove whatever is asked of them.

Oh, come on Dan. Your arguments need to be at least minimally evidence based. I'm still trying to cook your egg but it's not working. I'm a skeptic too but I will accept reasonable evidence vs anecdotal or personal experience anytime. How would you like your physicians to choose your therapy, evidence or voodoo?

Best, Craig

 

[danvolker]

Oh, come on Dan. Your arguments need to be at least minimally evidence based. I'm still trying to cook your egg but it's not working. I'm a skeptic too but I will accept reasonable evidence vs anecdotal or personal experience anytime. How would you like your physicians to choose your therapy, evidence or voodoo?

Best, Craig

The egg experiment has been widely duplicated, but takes more like an hour...some phones are sending out much more radiation than others, and this is also widely known and admitted by the cell phone companies.

The aspartame issue is a much bigger concern, and better example, due to so many entities being complicit in this massive lie.

This discussion is long over, lets move on ...

 

[Thalassamania]

From Hoax Busters:

According to this message it is possible to cook an egg by placing it in between two call-connected mobile (cell) phones. Versions of the message have been circulating via email, blogs and online forums since at least 2006. The version discussed here typically travels as a Microsoft Word email attachment, complete with photographs.

The information in the message is untrue. An article that detailed how to cook an egg with mobile phones was first published on the Wymsey Village website in 2000, supposedly by Suzzanna Decantworthy and Sean McCleanaugh. However, the article was a hoax and the names of the writers were made up. The creator of Wymsey Village Web, Charlie Ivermee, eventually admitted to Gelf Magazine in 2006 that he was the real author of the prank article. He explains that, back in the year 2000, he decided to "add to the silliness" surrounding mobile phone health concerns by penning the piece. He explained to Gelf that he "really underestimated how many people would take it seriously".

During 2006, two Russian journalists, Vladimir Lagovski and Andrei Moiseynko, gave the hoax a whole new life when they claimed to have cooked an egg in around 65 minutes using two mobile phones. Ivermee's original hoax article was apparently the inspiration for the experiment. An article discussing the experiment was featured in Russian publication, Komsomolskaya Pravda. The photographs and text in many of the circulating versions of the story are derived from this Russian article. However, the results of the Russian experiment have never been substantiated and are highly questionable. Others who have tried the same experiment have failed to even warm the egg, let alone actually cook it. The Three Wise Men website details an experiment in which three mobile phones, and several other devices that emit radiation were all combined in an egg cooking attempt that turned out to be a dismal failure. Freelance food writer Paul Adams also attempted the experiment and subsequently wrote about it in a New York Times article. He told National Public Radio (NPR) that, although he left an egg between two cell phones for around an hour and a half, the egg did not cook. Moreover, UK television science show, Brainiac, tried the experiment with no less than 100 mobile phones, but, again, the egg did not cook.

Most commentators agree that two mobile phones simply could not emit enough energy to actually cook an egg. An article debunking the hoax on the Mobile Manufacturers Forum website notes:

[T]he claim that RF energy from two mobile phones can cook an egg in 60 minutes cannot be true as it is impossible for the egg's temperature to rise to a level that will cook the egg. We can demonstrate this as follows: even if you assume that each mobile phone is emitting RF energy at its maximum average power of 0.25 W (based on a peak power of 2 W per phone) for 60 minutes; and even if the total power (2 X 0.25 W = 0.5 W) of both phones was completely absorbed by the egg (assuming it weighs 50 g), then the result would be a maximum temperature rise after 60 minutes of only 13 C. Even if the egg was at room temperature before starting the experiment, the result would still be far below the temperature actually needed to cook an egg (which is approx. 65- 70 C).

In reality, an egg placed between two phones would have a much lower temperature rise because the egg is not thermally insulated and it would only absorb a small portion of the energy emitted.
​

So, although this story has spread far and wide, and some of the sites on which it has been published still claim it to be true, in reality, it has no basis in fact. You cannot cook an egg with a pair of mobile phones.

References:
Wymsey Weekend - Weekend Eating: Mobile Cooking
How to Cook an Egg (and Create a Viral Sensation)
Translated Version: Can I cook the egg with a mobile phone?
Original Russian Version: Can I cook the egg with a mobile phone?
HOW-NOT-TO, Cook an Egg With Your Cell Phone
Take Egg Off Speed Dial
A Hard-Boiled Writer Eggs Himself On
Brainiac - Episode 14: Micro Waves
Mythbusters Fanclub: Cooking an egg with cell phones
Cooking an egg by two mobile phones: Hoax