Nitrox for Liveaboard - Great Barrier Reef

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Here is the link to the whole article.

It is a complex article citing many sources. It also presents a complex situation. Take, for example, this quote:
Dumić et al. [147] reported that regular recreational SCUBA diving promotes an anti-inflammatory status, thus contributing to cardioprotection and conferring multiple health benefits. Divers who performed five dives, one per week, at a depth of 20–30 m that lasted 30 min, manifested IgG and TPP N-glycosylation alterations toward anti-inflammatory status over the whole study period with an increase in monogalyctosylated and core-fucosylated IgG N-glycans and a decrease in galactosylated TPP N-glycans. On the other hand, military combat swimmers (O2 divers) are regularly exposed to hyperbaric hyperoxia in addition to intensive endurance training intervals and, therefore, are exposed to extreme levels of oxidative stress. Compared to controls, they exhibited a proinflammatory immune status exemplified by an elevated number of CD4+CD25+ T cells, the elevated expression of proinflammatory cytokine IL-12, and the diminished expression of anti-inflammatory TGF-β1 [148]. Supported by decreased basal gene expression and the prolonged upregulation of anti-oxidative HO-1, these data suggest that higher oxidative stress levels, as those present under intermitted hyperbaric hyperoxia conditions, e.g., through oxygen diving, promote a higher inflammatory immune status.​
The paper's focus on problems with high oxygen pressures is dealing with very long exposures to very high PPO2s, something that has been well understood for many decades. They reference prolonged exposures to PPO2s of 1.0 or above. Technical divers are taught to take air breaks when doing long decompression stops using pure oxygen. People doing decompression therapy in a chamber also take periodic air breaks.
 
According to your theory we should all stop breathing compressed air or else risk premature death.

Do you seriously believe divers are living shorter lives than non divers?
This is your theory, not mine.
 
The paper's focus on problems with high oxygen pressures is dealing with very long exposures to very high PPO2s, something that has been well understood for many decades. They reference prolonged exposures to PPO2s of 1.0 or above. Technical divers are taught to take air breaks when doing long decompression stops using pure oxygen. People doing decompression therapy in a chamber also take periodic air breaks.
Though this is indeed discussed in the paper, this is only part of the paper.
 
The thread went off the rails with post #23 then #27. Too bad; nice thread topic.
And why did you fail to mention #44, Mr Rosencranz? Too bad when I nailed it with a quote from peer-reviewed paper?
 
And why did you fail to mention #44, Mr Rosencranz? Too bad when I nailed it with a quote from peer-reviewed paper?
Because mainly two things: lots of speculative words (may, could, etc) in the quote and the paper, and they tend to reference their own work a lot in the citations in your quote....not a compelling approach.
Most good science is based on consensus and facts, not speculation and self-referential reviews.
Is this a case where you cherry-pick some words out of some quotes, and then explain them with your own ideas? (post #40)
Also, post #49 rather nicely picks apart your quote and its context.
 
Because mainly two things: lots of speculative words (may, could, etc) in the quote and the paper, and they tend to reference their own work a lot in the citations in your quote....not a compelling approach.
Most good science is based on consensus and facts, not speculation and self-referential reviews.
Is this a case where you cherry-pick some words out of some quotes, and then explain them with your own ideas? (post #40)
Also, post #49 rather nicely picks apart your quote and its context.
#49? Nope, it does not. The claim that "The paper's focus on problems with high oxygen pressures is dealing with very long exposures to very high PPO2s..." is false. The paper is a general review of the matter and though very long exposures are reviewed, they are not the paper's focus. Diving with very long exposures is not even mentioned in the Abstract.
 
@tarponchik why do you scuba dive given that you are convinced breathing compressed air is so harmful? Don't you care about your health and well being? Given that you're so knowledgeable and aware of the dangers of high PPO2 it appears you are recklessly endangering your life for no good reason.
Maybe he is diving with hypoxic air and shallow in order to keep his ppo2 low. Thwn he needs to add additonal deco (10 O2 with 90 N2, for a 10-15m dive ) :cool:
 
@tarponchik why do you scuba dive given that you are convinced breathing compressed air is so harmful? Don't you care about your health and well being? Given that you're so knowledgeable and aware of the dangers of high PPO2 it appears you are recklessly endangering your life for no good reason.
I also drive a car frequently, despite the fact that 40,990 people died in road accidents in 2023, according to NHTSA. I also prefer to hike alone and dive solo though this is probably dangerous some times. You keep making silly remarks because you miss the whole point: if diving Nitrox gives you more bottom time and you consider it worthy, dive Nitrox. If diving Nitrox does not give you more bottom time, do not dive Nitrox. It's very simple. If you want a piece of cake, go for it, but too much sugar is bad for you, so do not eat cake 3 times a day. Same here.
 

Back
Top Bottom