Long-term neurological effects of diving - revisited

[kafkaland]

Academic honesty? Not what they taught me in grad school. Maybe the scientific method and intelectual honesty has been modified in the many years since. But I was taught that any hint paradox indicates your hypotheses (note - not theory) is incorrect and you are certainly missing something. There is far more than a hint of paradox here.

To flagrantly state that this may be a prolonged risk of diving when there is absolutely no evidence other than your own bias, no indication that number of dives or years diving have any effect is just bushwah. So definitely, yes - junk science. Or "alternate facts" as seems to be the current trend.

I don’t see the paradox here. This is an epidemiological study that tries to pick up a very small effect out of a big, noisy data set. Statistical analysis shows that there is a certain probability (not certainty!) that there is a correlation between diving and certain neurological impairments. When you now ask how the number of dives, or years diving, affect that correlation, you have to effectively break up your data set into, let’s say, people with few, or hundreds, or thousands of dives. Now you have even fewer data points and try to see an effect in them. And all that is stated in the article is that the data is then too noisy to see a correlation of neurological impairment with diving frequency. With a bigger data set, they might have been able to make more specific statements, but right now it’s just enough to suggest, with some certainly, an effect in the overall population. And that’s what they report. I don’t see any junk science here whatsoever. But what it really tells me is that the effect is very small to begin with, certainly nothing I have to worry about as an occasional diver.

 

[Duke Dive Medicine]

I don’t see the paradox here. This is an epidemiological study that tries to pick up a very small effect out of a big, noisy data set. Statistical analysis shows that there is a certain probability (not certainty!) that there is a correlation between diving and certain neurological impairments. When you now ask how the number of dives, or years diving, affect that correlation, you have to effectively break up your data set into, let’s say, people with few, or hundreds, or thousands of dives. Now you have even fewer data points and try to see an effect in them. And all that is stated in the article is that the data is then too noisy to see a correlation of neurological impairment with diving frequency. With a bigger data set, they might have been able to make more specific statements, but right now it’s just enough to suggest, with some certainly, an effect in the overall population. And that’s what they report. I don’t see any junk science here whatsoever. But what it really tells me is that the effect is very small to begin with, certainly nothing I have to worry about as an occasional diver.

I do see what @Kharon is saying. Read a certain way, the two statements he quoted seem contradictory. I just don't think that's what the authors meant.

Best regards,
DDM

 

[Kharon]

For over 50 years when talking about older divers, we have been saying "too deep, too often, too long".
There has to be some truth in that saying!

Michael

Seriously??? Then you must believe all the other old wives tales that have caught hold from someone simply blowing smoke out their butt.

I don’t see the paradox here. This is an epidemiological study that tries to pick up a very small effect out of a big, noisy data set. ... Now you have even fewer data points and try to see an effect in them. And all that is stated in the article is that the data is then too noisy to see a correlation of neurological impairment with diving frequency. ...

And yet they state: "Diving by itself seems to cause some decrease of short-term memory and higher cognitive function, including visual-motor skills; this resembles some of the effects of nitrogen narcosis and we suggest that this may be a prolonged effect of diving." even though the data is not there to support such a conclusion. You are absolutely correct in one thing - they are trying to see an effect - not seeing it. Something that seems to have become all too comon in "scientific investigation" these days.

 

[Sam Miller III]

@Duke Dive Medicine

My very early AM activity is reading the "board" I was attracted to this thread and the many responses. Soooo I am reposting and old post of mine

During the 1980s and 1990s we in SoCal - where recreational diving began had a loose organization called "The fathers of free diving and spear fishing, " which was composed of as the title describes the fathers of free diving and spear fishing -- The ones who formed basis for "recreational" diving." All began long before Cousteau arrived in the US in 1948 with his bubble machine, long before the exposure suit, personal floatation devices, instrumentation. for most even before swim fins appeared . These were the men and occasional women who were there in the early days of the sport , some in the 1920s, others in began in the 1930s and the youngsters in the 1940s which included me and my companions who were honored; the late ' Allan "O" Woods and Ron Merker, (our own @drbills basic instructor) Now only I remain

We met periodically for a period of about 10 years and soon noticed our ranks were thinning in numbers and those attending were rapidly advancing in age..

It was determined to have one last meeting of what was remaining of the tribe ( no disrespect to native Americans or Canadians First Nations ) but that was our accepted name --no supper duper pooper diver/instructor ...Just a member of "the tribe."

2000 was the date..the last gathering of the tribe.. letters were sent, telephoned calls were made and the fathers world wide responded and attended. This was the last great gathering of a group that was privileged and honored to be a participant and observer of a series of events that occurred for a very short time and never ever will be experienced again up on this earth.

The common thread was hearing aids and orthopedic devices which almost all indicated was related to diving

That was 19 years ago all of the tribe from the 20s and 30s have departed to the big reef in the sky and only a smattering remain of the 1940s tribe .My fellow "Fathers" who began with me in the 1940s, Al Woods and on Merker are among those in the big reef in the sky

I am now experiencing the long term effect of hyperbaric exposures -- hearing is reduced (a lot!) we all had lots of trauma to the ears, plus exostosis in the EAM, equilibrium difficulties and a minimum amount of dysbaric osteonecrosis, and of course some expected ambulatory difficulties ---.But -- I would not hesitate do it all over again !!!

My dear wife and all my five children have been diving in excess of 50 years and all the grand children are on their way as divers . Yes we are all aware of the possible long term effects...

Now less than a half dozen of the fathers are alive and their numbers are dwindling

I question
Where were all the scientist when all the fathers were alive ? One can only speculate the data they could have collected ..

It is also questioned where is al the accident data collected by the late John Mc Aniff (S) who was associated with Duke in the 1960s &1970s ?


Sam Miller, 111

@Akimbo
@Scuba Lawyer


@Marie 13 CE

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I'd be a horrible test subject, as I'm brain damaged before I even started diving, so who can detect any change when I'm this far gone?

Seriously though, I'd imagine this is fairly compress. Diving for me is a great way for me to decompress (pun intended), and is my underwater yoga. I'm so relaxed afterwards. It really helped me when I had a stressful job. So while there may be negative impacts from diving, there are also positive ones as well. This is from my purely non-academic background, so my statements are worth less than what you all paid for to read them. Just an idea.

 

[Akimbo]

I am now experiencing the long term effect of hyperbaric exposures -- hearing is reduced (a lot!) we all had lots of trauma to the ears, plus exostosis in the EAM, equilibrium difficulties and a minimum amount of dysbaric osteonecrosis, and of course some expected ambulatory difficulties ---.But -- I would not hesitate do it all over again !!!

Even that is hard to evaluate. A lot of that can also be caused by living longer than our non-diving ancestors. Hyperbarics is "probably" a contributing factor but may not be causal. Scientists would have to add rock and roll music to the equation when evaluating my generation. Medical science statistics is phenomenally complex... as is the human body.

Remember that freediving goes back long before recorded human history. Heavy gear diving was invented in the 1830s. Unfortunately medical statistics on these divers is hard to come by.

 

[Scuba Lawyer]

...
I am now experiencing the long term effect of hyperbaric exposures -- hearing is reduced (a lot!) we all had lots of trauma to the ears...

I can attest to this. Sam and I had Breakfast together yesterday (Sunday) and both of us responded with a "What was that..." after each of us said something to the other across the booth.

 

[Storker]

Edited for links! First two are free to view.

Just FTR and as a PSA: PubMed usually only quotes the abstracts, and while a good abstract will give you a good summary of the article's content, it sometimes pays off to read the full article. Not all abstracts are good and no abstracts tell the full story.

However, these days every scientific article has a DOI. http://doi.org The DOI is a unique code linking directly to the actual article. Now, many of those articles aren't available to the public since the journals operate on a subscription basis, but many are open access (some after a certain period of time) and available to the general public. And quite a few SB members have academic jobs and can access for-subscription articles and could provide summaries.

So it'd be really nice if those who link to scientific articles could be arsed to provide also the DOI of that article. It'd make things a lot easier for many of us.

 

[Storker]

It is all too common today to refer to junk science as anything you do not agree with.

And to refer to fake news as anything you don't agree with.