well this bites...

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!

It always amazes me the bizarre skew that people have when dealing with statistics.

Roger’s rule of inverse headlines: The rarer the event, the more you’ll hear about it.

Take airplane crashes: Very rare, in the US we loose a couple hundred people a year, but it’s always front page headlines, sometimes for days.

Car crashes; in the US we loose over 25,000 people a year. Mostly page two or three news or more likely in the “Metro” section.

Before I go any further, realize that I’m not downplaying anyone’s death, it’s tragic. But we make risk/benefit decisions every day. Like getting in a car, the most likely place for any one of us to die by accident.

Just because something’s improved, does not make its predecessor “dangerous”. If a car manufacturer improves its seatbelts, it does not make the previous year’s model a deathtrap.

Aspirin and other NSAIDs cause over 7,000 deaths in the US every year (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/6/429) – who’s going to now head to their medicine cabinet and throw out their aspirin?

So let’s look at 6351 and 6061. Well, so far 6061 looks like a better material, but we don’t have the “run time” on the alloy that we have on 6061. Perhaps in ten more years some failure mode will show up with 6061 too. Time will tell.

But is 6351 dangerous? Again, just because 6061 may be better doesn’t make 6351 bad.

With close to 4 million 6351 alloy cylinders in use there have been less than two dozen well publicized failures of 6351. Roger’s rule of inverse headlines comes in here (though in this case it’s how much you hear about it on the internet). Failures are rare. Very rare. Extremely rare.

If you feel the amount of deaths from 6351 justifies the removal of the cylinders from service, let’s look at one more statistic:

About 100 people A YEAR die SCUBA diving. If you really want to be safer, give that up BEFORE you start looking at 6351 as a risk factor. And if you’re a smoker, don’t even bother to complain about 6351. Eventually you’ll be one of the over 400,000 people in the US that die from tobacco use every year in the US.

Again, any death is tragic. But if you’re really serious about saving your life or someone else’s life (like the tank filler at your LDS) you really need to look at what will statistically save the most lives per dollar spent. And in the tank filler’s case, you’d get more bang for your buck through properly training tank inspectors than blaming 6351 for the problems we’re seeing.

Roak
 
JahJahwarrior:
No, seriously Cooltech, 12/25000000 of them have ruptured, according to DOT as of 1999. I think my chances of winning the lottery might be around there too.

You are attacking me personally, an Ad Hominem fallacy and something I personally resent. Several people have taken this from an informative thread about the possible dangers of a 6351 alloy aluminum tank to a thread full of rude comments. That's annoying, at one point I was learning something in every post, now I'm being insulted in every post.
We all want you to show us something to prove your points can stand on their own. We have the industry to show ours, now it is up to you to prove yours.

Remember, the industry has made a determination. It is up to you to prove otherwise, or the tank will parish as a valid SCUBA tank
 
roakey:
If you feel the amount of deaths from 6351 justifies the removal of the cylinders from service, let’s look at one more statistic:
Obviously the powers that be have decided that it is justified to ban the use of these tanks based on the dangers.

The industry will not fill them. I pose the same two items to you, that are not being answered by JahJahwarrior:

We all want you to show us something to prove your points can stand on their own. We have the industry to show ours, now it is up to you to prove yours.

Remember, the industry has made a determination. It is up to you to prove otherwise, or these tanks will parish as a valid SCUBA tanks
 
CoolTech:
Obviously the powers that be have decided that it is justified to ban the use of these tanks based on the dangers.
The DOT, the organization you put your trust in to create the cylinder specifications, testing procedures, transport rules and regulations, etc. (need I go on?) has NOT banned them. Please don't use the term banned.
CoolTech:
The industry will not fill them.
You’re right. Some INDIVIDUALS have started to refuse to filling them (which flies the face of the regulating agency), but they're not banned. If you want to discuss this, please use correct terminology.
CoolTech:
I pose the same two items to you, that are not being answered by JahJahwarrior...
I can't possibly explain why individuals, logic flying in the face of the experts and the regulatory organization, are not filling cylinders. Since that is YOUR position (to disagree with the regulatory industry on this one point, but agree with everything else it does – requiring hydros, renewal of exemptions, etc.), I believe you have the shoe on the wrong foot. It’s up to YOU to explain to US, why, in the face of such a tiny, re, minuscule risk factor (brought about by the dive shops themselves by using poor inspection methodology) why we, the customer, should shoulder the burden of their incompetence? (being forced to buy new cylinders from the very shops that are creating the problem in the first place?)

Do explain. I’m not an expert on high pressure vessels, but it appears you are. I await your response – perhaps you could simply repost the contribution you gave to the DOT during their last comment period on 6351 – after all, a expert on pressure vessels such as yourself would CERTAINLY have responded to the DOT’s RFI on 6351.

Or is this just more FUD?

Roak
 
CoolTech:
Remember, the industry has made a determination. It is up to you to prove otherwise, or these tanks will parish as a valid SCUBA tanks
Actually you have what will perish completely wrong. The SCUBA industry has fought long and hard to be a self-regulating industry. By some shops (NOT the “industry” as you like to state) refusing to fill cylinders that are completely sound according to the regulating organization (the DOT). They’re driving two nails into their “self regulating” coffin:

1) They are admitting that when it comes to being “self regulating” they have completely failed. Refusing to fill perfectly good cylinders because they’re afraid that some tank monkey at another shop didn’t do a correct VI on a cylinder can only lead to the conclusion that the industry has failed at self regulation.
2) They have a conflict of interest by being self regulating. By refusing to fill perfectly good cylinders, they make the owner buy new cylinders. And where do they buy them? From the same industry that made their old cylinders obsolete. This is another reason for the industry not to be self regulating.

It’d take someone probably about 10 minutes in court to show that the vast majority of people doing VIs on cylinders are NOT certified by any agency. Most shops send one person to PSI class, then they come back and “teach” everyone else. That doesn’t hold up in court.

Though you may be right – this unfounded fear about 6351 may cause the cylinders to perish – but what’s worse is that it’s the greatest threat to the SCUBA industry’s “self regulation” status if they continue with this totally bogus jihad against perfectly good cylinders.

Roak

Ps. Get a dictionary.
 
roakey:
It always amazes me the bizarre skew that people have when dealing with statistics.

Roger’s rule of inverse headlines: The rarer the event, the more you’ll hear about it.

Take airplane crashes: Very rare, in the US we loose a couple hundred people a year, but it’s always front page headlines, sometimes for days.

Car crashes; in the US we loose over 25,000 people a year. Mostly page two or three news or more likely in the “Metro” section.

Before I go any further, realize that I’m not downplaying anyone’s death, it’s tragic. But we make risk/benefit decisions every day. Like getting in a car, the most likely place for any one of us to die by accident.

Just because something’s improved, does not make its predecessor “dangerous”. If a car manufacturer improves its seatbelts, it does not make the previous year’s model a deathtrap.

Aspirin and other NSAIDs cause over 7,000 deaths in the US every year (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/6/429) – who’s going to now head to their medicine cabinet and throw out their aspirin?

So let’s look at 6351 and 6061. Well, so far 6061 looks like a better material, but we don’t have the “run time” on the alloy that we have on 6061. Perhaps in ten more years some failure mode will show up with 6061 too. Time will tell.

But is 6351 dangerous? Again, just because 6061 may be better doesn’t make 6351 bad.

With close to 4 million 6351 alloy cylinders in use there have been less than two dozen well publicized failures of 6351. Roger’s rule of inverse headlines comes in here (though in this case it’s how much you hear about it on the internet). Failures are rare. Very rare. Extremely rare.

If you feel the amount of deaths from 6351 justifies the removal of the cylinders from service, let’s look at one more statistic:

About 100 people A YEAR die SCUBA diving. If you really want to be safer, give that up BEFORE you start looking at 6351 as a risk factor. And if you’re a smoker, don’t even bother to complain about 6351. Eventually you’ll be one of the over 400,000 people in the US that die from tobacco use every year in the US.

Again, any death is tragic. But if you’re really serious about saving your life or someone else’s life (like the tank filler at your LDS) you really need to look at what will statistically save the most lives per dollar spent. And in the tank filler’s case, you’d get more bang for your buck through properly training tank inspectors than blaming 6351 for the problems we’re seeing.

Roak

At last a light in the darkness, good post!
 
captain:
At last a light in the darkness, good post!

Roger knows his sh**.

Personally, I still get the hebbie gebbies every time an old one comes in. I know it's silly but I can't seem to get past it... body parts flyin' and all. I just wish the cheap son of a guns would spend the 140 on a new tank!
 
roakey:
I can't possibly explain why individuals, logic flying in the face of the experts and the regulatory organization, are not filling cylinders. Since that is YOUR position (to disagree with the regulatory industry on this one point, but agree with everything else it does – requiring hydros, renewal of exemptions, etc.), I believe you have the shoe on the wrong foot. It’s up to YOU to explain to US, why, in the face of such a tiny, re, minuscule risk factor (brought about by the dive shops themselves by using poor inspection methodology) why we, the customer, should shoulder the burden of their incompetence? (being forced to buy new cylinders from the very shops that are creating the problem in the first place?)

Do explain. I’m not an expert on high pressure vessels, but it appears you are. I await your response – perhaps you could simply repost the contribution you gave to the DOT during their last comment period on 6351 – after all, a expert on pressure vessels such as yourself would CERTAINLY have responded to the DOT’s RFI on 6351.

Roak
I will put in very simple terms (as a non-expert)

Dive shop has the air
You want the air
It is up to YOU to comply with what the shop will/will not fill, or convince them that the tank is safe

So, prove that the tank is safe

That should be easy enough to understand
 
I have an old aluminum tank I got in a local package deal (no shipping expense). I would have never bought it separately because I knew I would have problems getting it hydroed. It looks brand new, had a tank boot and tank protector, and was only used for 9 fresh water dives. The inside is shiny and it was stored with 300 psi. I sent it off for hydro and was told I could never get it hydroed because it was made in Canada under a Canadian exemption that had expired.

I took the valve off and put it on an aluminum tank that had a valve that needed servicing. I also put the tank boot and protector on another tank. Between the cost of the valve, boot, and protector, I feel I got my money's worth out of the old tank. Too bad it can't be used for diving, so I use it as a doorstop when I carry my gear in and out of the house.

Sometimes we just have to accept our losses and move on, and it's much easier to do this when we don't have much money invested to start with.

Just my 2 psi...
 
realdiver7:
I have an old aluminum tank I got in a local package deal (no shipping expense). I would have never bought it separately because I knew I would have problems getting it hydroed. It looks brand new, had a tank boot and tank protector, and was only used for 9 fresh water dives. The inside is shiny and it was stored with 300 psi. I sent it off for hydro and was told I could never get it hydroed because it is made from the older alloy.

I took the valve off and put it on an aluminum tank that had a valve that needed servicing. I also put the tank boot and protector on another tank. Between the cost of the valve, boot, and protector, I feel I got my money's worth out of the old tank. Too bad it can't be used for diving, so I use it as a doorstop when I carry my gear in and out of the house.

Sometimes we just have to accept our losses and move on, and it's much easier to do this when we don't have much money invested to start with.

Just my 2 psi...

And whoever the mental genius was that told you it couldn't be hydroed lied or didn't know better.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom