"Undeserved" DCS hits

[Blackwood]

Certainly from a reporting standpoint as well as time-to-treatment which is rediculously delayed due to denial.

I've never really thought about it, but you're right: if people are taught that DCS means they necessarily ****ed up, they're significantly more likely to play the "I lifted too many heavy sets of doubles and just need some advil" card.

 

[Tortuga68]

By the same token, if people are taught that DCS means they just do a lot of diving, and is like a sports injury, they're significantly more likely to not try and gain a better understanding of it so they can avoid it

 

[Slamfire]

One of my instructors said, "If you haven't been bent yet, you haven't been diving often enough, long enough."

By the same token, if people are taught that DCS means they just do a lot of diving, and is like a sports injury, they're significantly more likely to not try and gain a better understanding of it so they can avoid it

Not just that, but then people start wearing DCS as a badge of "honor" -- similar to what some mma fighters do with cauliflower ears. I've read in threads here in SB of people questioning comments about DCS because the author has never been bent. Basically sounding like, you're not qualified enough because you haven't been bent. So what? Do I have to celebrate when I get my DCS cherry popped? Will I be a real diver then? Frankly, I think that's somewhat dumb.

I get that if you do a high enough number of dives, there is a high likelihood (certainty?) that you'll get a hit. I get that large number of dives = experience. But we have to be very careful not to preach or communicate that

DCS hit = large number of dives = experience​

.
There's nothing glorious in DCS. I'm doing everything in my power to avoid a hit.

It is as simple as this, if you get bent it is because of one thing, and one thing only!! YOU DID NOT DECOMPRESS LONG ENOUGH FOR THE DIVE YOU MADE!!

JC's statement is true regardless of the conundrum of after-the-fact-useless-circular-logic. You did run out of fuel because you drove too far -- still remains true albeit useless after the event. I'm no dive god. I do easy conservative dives. I know GF 30/85 is fairly popular. I dive 30/80 and then some. 30 ft/min ascent is fairly popular. I do 10ft/min from 70' and up. I'll extend my last two stops just for the heck of it. I hydrate, avoid strenous exercise right after, avoid alcohol b4 and after, etc. Echoing JC, I try to be as "sure" as possible that I am decompressing long enough.

I've heard it said that, "you have to listen to your body". I get the meaning, but I would rather have my body silent because it has nothing to tell me regarding DCS. Does this make me a lesser diver? I'm I reflecting my inexperience? I don't care if it does. It still does not change the fact that I have been diving for more than half of my life, nor that diving has been practically a rite of passage in my family for three direct generations. Cauliflower ears are not a good thing, irrespective of the many glorious battles that caused them. DCS is never a good thing, irrespective of it being a sports injury or an indirect sign of experience.

 

[rjack321]

Actually I think you are the one who doesn't understand statistics - but do go ahead and "explain" why you don't agree with my statement

That way there can be a "discussion" about it, and someone may "learn" something

You seem to think that every bent diver "violated" some rule and I can tell you there are reams and reams of DCS incidents which are completely unexplained and fell well within all model and experience suggestions to the contrary. There is undoubtably a hit rate, which for tech divers following all the "rules" is probably greater than 0.1% (1:1000ish). For recreational divers its closer to 1:10,000 plus or minus maybe 3,000.

Play this sport, those are the dice you roll.

I'm sure your vast experience has taught you all the tricks, but you can't avoid the statistical "undeserved" rate.

 

[rjack321]

I've never really thought about it, but you're right: if people are taught that DCS means they necessarily ****ed up, they're significantly more likely to play the "I lifted too many heavy sets of doubles and just need some advil" card.

After the fact, assigning blame is just completely counterproductive.

By the same token, if people are taught that DCS means they just do a lot of diving, and is like a sports injury, they're significantly more likely to not try and gain a better understanding of it so they can avoid it

Ummm treatment is not like a pill that washes DCS away. Most people don't avoid repeating DCS because they are too lazy to think about why they are sitting in a chamber for 4 to 6+ hours on just one Table 6a, nevermind the pain, cost and repeat visits. This is the same fallicious logic that people use to rationalize the concept that women routinuely use abortions as birth control because its are just so much more convenient than actual prevention. Yeah that chamber ride was a blast, let's do it again woot! Not

 

[Tortuga68]

My comment referred to the vast majority of people who have not yet been bent or for a chamber ride

Play this sport, those are the dice you roll... you can't avoid the statistical "undeserved" rate

Like I said, you don't understand statistics

Let's talk dice, since you mentioned them... if you shoot craps, the odds or risk of rolling 'snake eyes' is 35:1 or 1/36. That doesn't mean that if you roll 36 times or 100 times or 1000 you will ever get snake eyes, because the outcome of each roll is independant, like tossing a coin. While the probability of the outcome of subsequent rolls changes, the odds don't. If you've made a thousand rolls without coming up double 1, there is no point at which that outcome is gauranteed

On every dive you have a risk of getting bent, or not. The risk isn't contant because it changes according to the profiles & physiological factors etc which have already been mentioned in this thread. Some dives might have a 99% chance of you getting bent, others might be 0.01 or 0.001% to use the odds you mentioned

The statistical "undeserved" rate doesn't mean that every person is equally subjected to the same risk, or that everyone is going to get bent sooner or later if they do enough dives. That's just not true, and I don't think having an instructor telling students that is constructive

The amount of 'experience' I've had is irrelevant

 

[Blackwood]

By the same token, if people are taught that DCS means they just do a lot of diving, and is like a sports injury, they're significantly more likely to not try and gain a better understanding of it so they can avoid it

Not sure I agree. When I play sports, I try to avoid injuring myself. Mountain biking? Wear a helmet. Rock climbing? Ropes and a harness. Knowing that I may injure myself doesn't mean I don't care if I injure myself.

But even if what you suggest were true, what's worse: someone highly educated about DSC who simply can't believe that he took a hit and thus delays treatment via a series of rationalizations and denials (seen in), or someone who isn't ashamed of having taken a hit proceeding directly to the chamber (also seen in)?

 

[LiteHedded]

Not sure I agree. When I play sports, I try to avoid injuring myself. Mountain biking? Wear a helmet. Rock climbing? Ropes and a harness. Knowing that I may injure myself doesn't mean I don't care if I injure myself.

But even if what you suggest were true, what's worse: someone highly educated about DSC who simply can't believe that he took a hit and thus delays treatment, or someone who isn't ashamed of having taken a hit proceeding directly to the chamber?

agreed. get bent that first time and I guarantee you will not want it to happen again and will take steps to avoid it

 

[boulderjohn]

The amount of 'experience' I've had is irrelevant

Additionally, pure statistical chance assumes that every chance has an equal opportunity of achieving a result, as in rolling dice.

Let's say we have a statistic that says that X number of dives out of 1,000 results in DCS. That can only relate to normal statistical probability if the risk factors for each dive are the same. Some dives are more likely to produce DCS than others and some divers are more prone to DCS than others. The fact that we do not know for sure what causes DCS to the point of being absolutely certain we can avoid it does not mean that all dives are equally likely to produce DCS.

Let's say that we were to determine that for every 1,000 homeowners in America, X number have to shovel the snow off their driveway at least once every year. That does not mean that homeowners in Miami can expect to shovel their driveways X number of times per year.

 

[Tortuga68]

It's not chance that's the issue, it's probability. The statement Lynne quoted assumes that if you do enough dives, you *will* get bent, which is a probability of 1, as opposed to a probability of 0 (it's impossible). There is no statistically sound evidence to support either extreme when it comes to diving and DCS, in my opinion

But even if what you suggest were true, what's worse: someone highly educated about DSC who simply can't believe that he took a hit and thus delays treatment via a series of rationalizations and denials (seen in), or someone who isn't ashamed of having taken a hit proceeding directly to the chamber (also seen in)?

I take your point, but instead of asking what's worse, ask what's better: getting DCS or not getting DCS? Assuming of course that it were possible to avoid it, which is part of the topic of this thread

Once you are bent, you're talking about a different situation... people who know nothing about DCS still rationalise and deny, delaying treatment. Someone who is highly educated ab out the causes of DCS would know that it is still possible to get bent