We might stop diving

[boulderjohn]

^^ always the serious one.... obviously not blonde.

R..

Blonde my whole life--even mostly so in my old age.

 

[Diver0001]

That's scalp showing through, John. Look again

j/k.

Alas my colour is going to grey. Not a happy camper.

R..

 

[TMHeimer]

Scalp showing: That's OK, I've never had a "hair in mask" seal problem.
Refresher: I have a "self" refresher routine since I may be called on to demonstrate skills and don't DM that often. It's a list of the 20 OW skills with side notes on getting them "perfect". I don't have a regular buddy anymore, so this helps, especially since I probably won't DM again until at least Spring. I physically go through such things as alt. air source, etc. on land. Of course most of them you can do in the water by yourself. I also review setting up the O2 kit and EFR stuff. I know most wouldn't do this, but I do what works for me and haven't been caught yet with my pants down.

 

[billt4sf]

Nevertheless, we do have an estimate, based on data, that seems to be consistent with objective observation.


The web site I linked to seems to have relied on the 2010 DAN Fatalities Workshop, which found .472 fatalities per 100,000 dives, or about 5 micromorts per dive. For comparison's sake (apples to apples), driving 100 miles in a car is equivalent to ½ a micromort, and 100 miles on a motorcycle, 17 micromorts. Hang gliding is worth 8 micromorts and giving birth in the USA, 170.

Understanding uncertainty: Small but lethal | plus.maths.org

Hey Vladimir,

Thanks for the info on fatalities. My point on this is that, even though there is an estimate, there could easily be much better estimates -- all that is necessary in my mind is for each LDS to count the number of fills and report. (OK, they can subtract the number of returned filled bottles.) Not perfect, but likely much better than what we have now.

BTW I really enjoyed reading the link on micromorts -- very interesting! Thanks for posting that.

- Bill

 

[nimoh]

Hey Vladimir,

Thanks for the info on fatalities. My point on this is that, even though there is an estimate, there could easily be much better estimates -- all that is necessary in my mind is for each LDS to count the number of fills and report. (OK, they can subtract the number of returned filled bottles.) Not perfect, but likely much better than what we have now.

BTW I really enjoyed reading the link on micromorts -- very interesting! Thanks for posting that.

- Bill

I think it would be a monumental task to not only provide a way for dive shops to report these statistics, but also to get them all to do it. Then factor in that many people do two distinct dives on one tank, and many people fill their own tanks.

 

[drrich2]

Thanks for the info on fatalities. My point on this is that, even though there is an estimate, there could easily be much better estimates -- all that is necessary in my mind is for each LDS to count the number of fills and report. (OK, they can subtract the number of returned filled bottles.) Not perfect, but likely much better than what we have now.

I don't think the better estimates would make much difference.

People aren't robots, and hence there is more to the human perception and decision-making process than data-crunching logical analysis. When did you ever see someone decide not to do something because the risk exceeded his millimort threshold?

It's like relative risk comparisons that show some things people fear are much less likely to kill them than things they do in daily life (we hope), like use the bathroom.

How many people wading into the ocean for a swim at a popular beach worry about drowning more than great white sharks? What 'preys on people's minds'?

My reasoning holds mainly for decisions where the risk of fatality or serious injury is very low. So a better risk estimate might be, just grabbing numbers at random, 1 in 500,000 instead of 1 in 300,000. What's the difference, practically speaking?

Decisions for overtly riskier scenarios, like whether to use a rebreather, are another matter.

Richard.

 

[vladimir]

Hey Vladimir,

Thanks for the info on fatalities. My point on this is that, even though there is an estimate, there could easily be much better estimates -- all that is necessary in my mind is for each LDS to count the number of fills and report. (OK, they can subtract the number of returned filled bottles.) Not perfect, but likely much better than what we have now.

BTW I really enjoyed reading the link on micromorts -- very interesting! Thanks for posting that.

- Bill

You make a valid point, data could be much better. We always want better data, but the incentives to collect it aren't always there. Nimoh highlights some of the other obstacles above, and I could add to his list, but what would we do with the improved data? What if the true figure for your diving is 10 micromorts per dive, or just 2? Would it change your behavior? We all make flawed decisions on risk; we lock up the gun and open the pool, we endure a colonoscopy and skip a vaccination, we might even sell our scuba gear and buy a motorcycle. Perhaps your gut assessment is the best indication you have, but our intuition is often wrong when it comes to risk.

Edit: I just read Drrich2's post above, and I think he stated my point more clearly.

 

[flots am]

None? There are no statistics whatsoever on the number of dives done per year? Of course there are.

No, there aren't.

It doesn't come from divers. They don't report to anybody.

It doesn't come dive shops. They fill tanks, but also have no reporting requirement and might not even keep records, and one tank doesn't necessarily mean one dive.

Not from dive operators.

Where would this data come from?

DAN keeps stats, but they only know about incidents reported to them. Not all are. And even then, they only have a guess at the number of injuries/deaths, they have no information on the number of dives done. Without this information, any stats are completely meaningless.

flots.

 

[vladimir]

I linked the 2010 DAN Fatality Workshop above. It is self-explanatory.

 

[flots am]

I linked the 2010 DAN Fatality Workshop above. It is self-explanatory.

Yes you did, but that still doesn't turn guesses into data.