The "Smoking" Diver

[ams511]

I realize I have come across pretty strongly in my last posts, much more so than is my normal wont. I apologize for that.

My problem is that I am pretty passionate about the topic.

As a child, I was plagued by chronic childhood bronchitis. In elementary school, some of my classmates called me "coughdrop" because of my the deep, raspy, painful coughs that persisted whenever my bronchitis would flare up. It was with me through high school, and my scarred lungs did not recover until I was an adult.

I have not had a single bout of bronchitis in the last 30 years.

Research indicates that chronic childhood bronchitis is almost always found in children who live with a smoker, and almost never with a child who grows up in a smoke-free environment. My parents both smoked when I was very young, although my father quit while I was still in elementary school.

I therefore tend to get emotional when I sense that smokers are asserting their rights to smoke and minimizing the damage it does to others.

I am sorry if I went too far here.

John,

No offense taken, we are open minded people here. Thanks for the links but there is one problem. When I see such statements made I take them very lightly and look to see what the original studies say. The problem is that the government quotes another government study which quotes another one and so on until you find the original research report. Given this type of research there is a high probablility that the original author gets misquoted and then it goes on from there. The govenment also says pot has no medical use while the medical profession disagrees. It seems to help people with glaucoma and chemo patients. I don't smoke pot so don't care either way but is the government's position true or the result of political considerations?

BTW I do not think that smoking helps SAC.

 

[ams511]

I have never smoked and if saving a few psi means I have to start...Shoot me now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe try yoga breathing excercises.

 

[Meng_Tze]

John,

I do not think that smoking helps SAC.

Hmm,
What about this....

When you smoke, your body is 'used' to coping with less O2/breath.... therefore, performance of muscles and brain is based on the lower O2 content in the system. 'You do more with less' relatively speaking.


No? Okay back to the drawing board......

(this is light hearted, so no flaming ,pls)

 

[boulderjohn]

John,
The govenment also says pot has no medical use while the medical profession disagrees. It seems to help people with glaucoma and chemo patients. I don't smoke pot so don't care either way but is the government's position true or the result of political considerations?

The federal government does not deny the medical benefits of marijuana--it just says that it should still be illegal.

That is a similar position to how they feel about drugs like Heroin, which, like Aspirin, started its existence as a registered trade name a pain killer developed by Bayer in 1898. My mother-in-law was given it by her doctor in her final stages of cancer. Legal for hospital use--illegal on the streets.

 

[Michael Schlink]

we would ever be able to tell if smoking had some benefit to diving would be to compare the same diver on the same dive with healthy lungs and a smokers lungs. Comparing different divers on different dives is waste of time, it doesn't prove a thing.
But does anyone really believe that there is an advantage to smoking and diving?
How many Non-smokers believe that smoking can help your SAC rate?
How many smokers believe that there lungs are damaged by smoking and that they could have a better SAC rate if they didn't smoke.
Listening to a smoker trying to justify or minimize any damage done by smoking is really funny. Really, some of you can't be serious. You're trying to convince me that you have a better lung function and gas exchange because of smoking and that your body needs less O2?
I'll say it plain and clear-if you smoke your SAC rate is not better because of your smoking-it's worse, and if you think your smoking isn't damaging your lungs you're in denial, period.
There is not one single good reason to smoke, nor are there any benefits to smoking and diving.

 

[ams511]

The federal government does not deny the medical benefits of marijuana--it just says that it should still be illegal.

That is a similar position to how they feel about drugs like Heroin, which, like Aspirin, started its existence as a registered trade name a pain killer developed by Bayer in 1898. My mother-in-law was given it by her doctor in her final stages of cancer. Legal for hospital use--illegal on the streets.

From: http://www.policy.ucsb.edu/research/1640_controlled_substances.html

A. Schedules of Controlled Substances:

Five schedules of controlled substances have been defined as
follows (the composition of these schedules may change by
amendment to the Controlled Substance Act):

1. Schedule I Substances. Drugs in this schedule are those
having a high potential for abuse, having no currently
accepted medical use in the United States, or a lack of
accepted safety. Some examples are: heroin, marijuana,
LSD, peyote, mescaline, psilocybin, tetrahydrocannabinols,
morphine methylsulfonate, and nicocodein.


Medical researchers are upset that pot is a schedule 1 substance because it prevents them from actually doing research in this area. Most medical research in marijuana is done in other countries such as Canada where it is illegal but the government recognizes that there could be some medical benefit. I doubt your mom was given heroin but rather some other opium derivitive.

 

[ams511]

Hmm,
What about this....

When you smoke, your body is 'used' to coping with less O2/breath.... therefore, performance of muscles and brain is based on the lower O2 content in the system. 'You do more with less' relatively speaking.

You have a theory but you need to prove that theory, which is difficult if not impossible. Another poster gave a methodology, which I could suggest some improvements on. However, even if we establish that smokers have lower sac rates than non-smokers we still do not know the mechanism why. For example maybe they are just calmer from the nicotin and breath less. It would have nothing to do with coping with less O2.

I used to play underwater hockey as a grad student. I worked out back then also and was just as strong as any of the other guys I played against, even though they were roughly half my age. I smoked they didn't, they could outlast me on a breath hold every time. I could hold my own under the water but always needed to come up for air before them.

 

[ckjacques53198]

I think smokers are used to taking deeper breathes (inhaling smoke). That may help them take deeper and better breathes underwater.

 

[Vayu]

Don't smoke and dive people... The two should be mutually exclusive. Smoking is counterindicative to healthy lung function.

 

[boulderjohn]

I doubt your mom was given heroin but rather some other opium derivitive.

She was given a "Brompton's Coctail." I just researched that and learned it as originally made with heroin, but morphine was also used. We were specifially told it had heroin.