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
Thanks happy-diver. But I think I missed conveying the point; the original thread entries were fraught with “he said/she said” type bases for the well-meaning contributors’ trains of thought. And the phrase “against the law” appears many times in reference to the tanks in question. In fact there is no such “law.” In the U.S., such widely applicable “laws” are passed by Congress—which is way too busy for such legislation. The secondary/sub process involves “regulations” proposed and (without opposition) may be adopted by federal agencies. Such was the process used by the DOT (Department of Transportation) to regulate SCUBA tanks. However, at the time of our court case (and still, perhaps) an oversight in DOT’s regulation failed to “authorize” hydro agencies to “drill” or otherwise disable these particular tanks, and the court found in our favor. All of that aside: more broadly, “he said/she said” is a dangerous foundation on which to plan and execute a dive. Thanks again.
