Time For Some Industry Standards for Dive Computer Alarms

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!

This statement may be controversial, but frankly, if you want to make diving safer... you should require that people who dive are in good physical condition.

I would not be in favor of such a requirement but it would cut scuba deaths by 1/3.
 
In response to 150 deaths a year as being insignificant, diverrex wrote:

Yes it is actually.

Take out the stats for 2001, Firefighter deaths hoover around an average between 70 -80 per year. Firefighting is considered a highly hazardous occupation by the public, yet, more people are dying annually from scuba diving.
 
In response to 150 deaths a year as being insignificant, diverrex wrote:



Take out the stats for 2001, Firefighter deaths hoover around an average between 70 -80 per year. Firefighting is considered a highly hazardous occupation by the public, yet, more people are dying annually from scuba diving.


Do more people fight a fire - or scuba dive per year? You cant take the states as pure numbers. If you broken it down to the actual people that fought a fire - and compared that to the people and number of dives - I think it would break out to a completely different number of deaths/occurence.

Also - FF is an ocupation - thus the standards and legal regulations. Scuba is COMPLETELY voluntary HOBBY/Activity. You keep comparing apples to horses.
 
While this may be quite true, who is to determine the definition of "good physical condition"? I don't disagree at all. Just not exactly sure if the cure is worth the price of the treatment.

This statement may be controversial, but frankly, if you want to make diving safer... you should require that people who dive are in good physical condition.
 
No matter how idiot proof you make something... there will always be a bigger idiot.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2


Didn't you mean "nothing is idiot-proof to the sufficiently talented idiot"?:)
 
In response to 150 deaths a year as being insignificant, diverrex wrote:



Take out the stats for 2001, Firefighter deaths hoover around an average between 70 -80 per year. Firefighting is considered a highly hazardous occupation by the public, yet, more people are dying annually from scuba diving.

If a firemean is at the fire station and has a heart attack and dies is it considered a firefighter death?

Plus you keep repeating the 150 deaths a year but from DAN I think the number is more around 90 in the US and Canada.
 
If a firemean is at the fire station and has a heart attack and dies is it considered a firefighter death?

Plus you keep repeating the 150 deaths a year but from DAN I think the number is more around 90 in the US and Canada.

I believe so.
 
In response to 150 deaths a year as being insignificant, diverrex wrote:



Take out the stats for 2001, Firefighter deaths hoover around an average between 70 -80 per year. Firefighting is considered a highly hazardous occupation by the public, yet, more people are dying annually from scuba diving.

Before you quote stats please take a stats class. You obviously have no grasp of stats. You only give death rates. No thought about deaths per 'X' number of dives/fire fights. In order to have meaningful stats you have to normalize your data.
 
If a firemean is at the fire station and has a heart attack and dies is it considered a firefighter death?

Plus you keep repeating the 150 deaths a year but from DAN I think the number is more around 90 in the US and Canada.

According to the 2008 DAN report, the latest available on their web site, here are the numbers for all of North America for the last 20 years for which they have published results:

1988 - 66
1989 - 114
1990 - 92
1991 - 67
1992 - 97
1993 - 92
1994 - 97
1995 - 104
1996 - 85
1997 - 82
1998 - 83
1999 - 78
2000 - 91
2001 - 77
2002 - 89
2003 - 89
2004 - 88
2005 - 89
2006 - 75
2007 - 120

That is an average of a little under 90 a year.

That represents about a significant drop from the first 10 years of the study, which started in 1970. In that decade, the annual average was about 124 per year. In that first 10 year period, the numbers were for the United States only--Canada was not added until later.
 

Back
Top Bottom