New CNS oxygen exposure limit for 1.3 atm

[Rebreather Rabbit]

On the subject of pulmonary oxygen toxicity (a similar issue to that raised by Mobulai), what we are saying is that if you take advantage of the new 1.3 limit to perform longer dives, there is an increased chance that you will encounter symptoms of pulmonary oxygen toxicity. Yes, in those long 1.3 exposures we would expect pulmonary symptoms to be more prevalent than convulsions. However, to our knowledge, there has never been a diver who suffered permanent lung injury from pulmonary oxygen toxicity, and so long as you allow any symptoms that appear to resolve between dives it should present no long lasting hazard.

Simon M

The new recommendation obviously blasts past the single-day OTU exposure guideline for multi-day trips (no more than 300 per day).

Assuming a typical rebreather diver wants to use this new recommendation during a week-long trip to a dive destination, would you recommend using something like Shykoff's pulmonary toxicity calculator (as posted on RESA's website) as part of planning and assessing possible pulmonary toxicity risk during the trip?

 

[atdotde]

The paper is self-explanatory and so I will not replicate the narrative. I believe this is a significant event in the evolution of technical diving. Happy to discuss.

Thanks for putting in the effort. The empirical foundation for the old limits was really abysmal (including the Hamilton money quote). It's not much better for OTU's as I explain in A few thoughts on Oxygen Toxicity – The Theoretical Diver but of course as you also write in your paper, consequences of pulmonary O2 toxicity are much less severe.