Dr Deco
Contributor
- Messages
- 2,384
- Reaction score
- 96
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
Hello Readers:
DCS
As TS and M states, [and I in my posting], the intravascular fluid will be changed by drinking fluid. This will have a bigger effect on Doppler-detectable gas bubbles. DCS is the result [probably] of extravascular bubbles. This study did not address this aspect. [Many scientists simply do not know this.] Therefore, without any cases of DCS, the question remains unanswered, although few would probably doubt that drinking water is good for divers and drinking alcohol is bad [since it depletes the bodys water stores.]
Full Paper
Gene Hobbs was kind enough to send to me the full paper. To my surprise, the authors did detect quite a few bubbles in the nonhydrated divers on their dive protocol - more than I would have suspected with such a long safety stop.
The study is still deficient in subjects, but this will probably be amended in the future. It is the habit of these authors to first publish a paper with a few subjects and later a bigger paper with more individuals. We will just need to wait.
As far as significance goes, remember that statistics can only demonstrate that the data are different more than random chance. Statistics cannot tell you that the interpretation, or experimental design, is correct.
Dr Deco :doctor:
DCS
As TS and M states, [and I in my posting], the intravascular fluid will be changed by drinking fluid. This will have a bigger effect on Doppler-detectable gas bubbles. DCS is the result [probably] of extravascular bubbles. This study did not address this aspect. [Many scientists simply do not know this.] Therefore, without any cases of DCS, the question remains unanswered, although few would probably doubt that drinking water is good for divers and drinking alcohol is bad [since it depletes the bodys water stores.]
Full Paper
Gene Hobbs was kind enough to send to me the full paper. To my surprise, the authors did detect quite a few bubbles in the nonhydrated divers on their dive protocol - more than I would have suspected with such a long safety stop.
The study is still deficient in subjects, but this will probably be amended in the future. It is the habit of these authors to first publish a paper with a few subjects and later a bigger paper with more individuals. We will just need to wait.
As far as significance goes, remember that statistics can only demonstrate that the data are different more than random chance. Statistics cannot tell you that the interpretation, or experimental design, is correct.
Dr Deco :doctor:
