Scuba Deaths

[halocline]

Comparing scuba to mountain climbing needs some clarification. There's recreational scuba, which we can all more less agree is no-deco, no overhead diving. Then there's cave and tech diving. On the mountain climbing side, there's non-technical climbing, which IMO involves basically walking to your destination w/out ropes, pitons, etc, and then there's technical mountaineering, which involves equipment that's every bit as much life support as scuba gear, and takes place in some very hostile environments. (high altitude, dangerous weather, avalanches)

If you were to follow the careers of most high altitude pro climbers, you would find that an alarmingly high percentage of them end in death on a mountain. I feel fairly confident that pro tech and cave divers have a higher survival rate, although I'd be interested in statistics.

Comparing the relative danger of rec diving and rec (non-technical) mountain climbing is probably a more useful exercise. I would imagine that incidence of death/injury is about the same; very low. I would also venture a guess that statistically, swimming in lakes and the ocean is as "dangerous" as scuba.

 

[HowardE]

Comparing the relative danger of rec diving and rec (non-technical) mountain climbing is probably a more useful exercise. I would imagine that incidence of death/injury is about the same; very low. I would also venture a guess that statistically, swimming is as "dangerous" as scuba.

Figure 4.3-5 shows breathing gear and breathing gas. Scuba was used in 94 percent of cases
and most frequently with air (78 percent). Nitrox and trimix were used in six cases each.
Rebreathers were used in four cases and surface-supply in one.

I was told by the marketing director for a large SCUBA company that "tec" divers make up 7% of the "market share" or population of divers as a whole. Based on the accident data from DAN (and the percentage of "tec" divers), it would seem that "tec" divers have a lower % chance of incident than Rec SCUBA divers.

 

[diver 85]

It seems like our sport has one of the highest death rates out of all other sports. What others do you think have more deaths? and why do we have so many?

opinions[/A

Along these lines, I just read about the one from Saturday out of Pampano- so sorry for the family of the diver, that's 3 in 3 days now that I know of-.....

I honestly feel like there needs to be 2 separate, dictinctive classifications of divers(for insurance company reasons).....(1)(old timey I guess) single tank-keep it below 100cf of air- divers limited to 130'( no wreck penetrations thrown in)and (2) multiple tank ie teck,gue, whatever you want to call them that the Titantic is yours if you want it divers......

You wannabees can have it, just don't mess up my playparty.......lol.......Fire away, I will further the differences when I have more time on my hands...later.....

 

[srt1548]

Very interesting debate and facinating to read so many views.

Sure there is risk involved in SCUBA. And many other sports too. Accidents can happen through diver/human error, equipment failureunforseen circumstances in environment or weather (to name but a few). part of the skill and responsibility in the sport is making a proper risk assessement.

I have had three "life preserving" experiences in my life to date and none have been in SCUBA. My view is now "when your time is up your time is up". I personally feel most vunerable when i surface after a boat dive - as you are completely at the mercy of the weather and skill of the boat skipper.

My 2 pennies worth...

 

[fisherdvm]

It seems like our sport has one of the highest death rates out of all other sports. What others do you think have more deaths? and why do we have so many?

opinions

How can it be. Scuba diving is safer than bowling, safer than being a passenger in an automobile, and last I heard, it is safer than opening the lid to the toilet!!

We need to stop the dissemination of these misleading statements. Who am I going to believe, YOU, or a scuba diving magazine???

Ha, ha, ha..... These marketing folks thinks we are really stupid, or what??

 

[drew52]

I reckon stupidity is more dangerous than scuba diving. Add that to scuba diving and you've got a serious problem.

See reasons below, no need to rewrite anything here:

I agree with the people who say that the issue with scuba is that you do it in a medium where you cannot survive more than a couple of minutes without life support equipment.

I've had a BUNCH of accidents riding horses, including one which was potentially life-threatening. But in all of those accidents, there was never a time when I couldn't breathe. Similarly, in a small airplane, you can have an engine quit -- but you have TONS of time to figure out what to do about it, compared with someone underwater who has no gas.

You can do a lot of stupid stuff rock climbing, mountain climbing, riding horses, even racing motorcycles, and survive it. An incident of the same gravity underwater is far more potentially lethal . . . And we haven't even begun to discuss the idea that being underwater and in trouble is a potent trigger for panic. If you have an engine quit in a small airplane, you may be frightened, but you can breathe and see and you have time to talk to somebody in the tower, get advice, get support, and figure it out. If you have your gas quit at 100 feet, you can't talk to anybody, you can't breathe, you're in water you know you can drown in, and you probably don't have any training in how to maintain your composure in such a situation. Is it any wonder that you're unlikely to manage it well?

 

[TCDiver1]

Frankly, I think the most dangerous part of your dive will occur when you are driving to and from the dive site.

No doubt in my mind either Bob. Now if only i could my family to believe that.

 

[diver 85]

Yep. Guy playing Football or Rugby or something has a stroke or heart attack, they don't call it a "Rugby death." Same thing happens to a guy 90 feet down, it's a "Scuba death." I'm not saying it's not dangerous- it clearly is dangerous. But- in the last year, here around Seattle, I know of 2 different Scuba deaths that most defenitely were Scuba deaths, and they were both totally avoidable- 1 was a woman who ran out of air at ~ 100 fsw and refused to buddy breathe, shot to the surface and embolized, and the other death involved some thrill seekers doing a "bounce dive" to ~ 200 fsw on AL80s- one of them never came up.....these were both completely avoidable deaths. I just don't think it's that dangerous, if you play by the rules......at any rate, it's a heckuva lot safer than driving to the dive site.

Agree 100% with your 2nd to last statement ie playing by the rules....when (some)people discover we don't have a set of gills as our tertiary backup system-WE'RE NOT FISH-, this diving world will be a lot better off......

 

[BKP]

...So I think we can safety conclude that diving is more dangerous than playing football. Exactly how much more dangerous is anyone’s guess.

Welllll... if you wanna get technical (and do a proper statistical analysis), since the vast majority of diving deaths were cardio-vascular related, you would have to include the ages of the football players, their physical conditioning, and frequency of involvement in the sport, as well as the corresponding ages of the divers, *their* physical conditioning, and how frequently they dove. Might change the outcome a bit...

Bottom line, I think we all know there *are* inherent dangers in diving. You're not going to have an OOA emergency kicking a field goal, or embolize scoring a safety... However, heeding the proper precautions, and remembering your training, I don't think it's any more hazardous than extreme skiing or tornado chasing...

 

[ArcticDiver]

Is scuba dangerous? If you accept that playing in a lethal environment where support equipment is required to sustain life then scuba is very dangerous. But so is flying on a commercial airliner. The difference is that the life support equipment in the first case is carried by each individual and in the airliner it is the airplane itself.

Does being in a lethal environment directly translate to a high death rate? Obviously, no.

Of course since there are no reliable statistics on scuba, unlike aviation, one cannot do a bullet proof statistical risk analysis. Complicating the issue is the fact that many commentators have self-interest, especially financial self-interest, in taking a particular view.

Sure there are various people who will build a case one way or another by doing a "comparable analysis". Like the football analysis even though they sound good they fail under examination. Why? GIGO. No reliable, verifiable information in means no reliable verifiable information out.

So there is a difference between a dangerous environment and actual death rate. There is also the matter of our perceptions and acceptance of risk. Because we do it every day we are very insensitive to a risk that kills approximately 110 people every day. That risk is driving.

The reality is that for most people, including us sport divers, the most dangerous environment we operate in and the one most likely to bring injury or death is the highway and us driving on it. But, we don't think much about it because we are desensitized.

Life is a lot like Deal or No Deal. Once you are born, or the case chosen, the outcome is determined unless you choose to bail out before hand. But, there can be lots of drama in between.