What do veteran divers think about Air vs Nitrox

[TheRedHead]

Since it is a fact that rich mixes of Nitrox accelerate deco, then leaner mixtures of Nitrox should do the same to a lesser degree.

 

[Rick Inman]

I made a few dives on Nitrox after getting EAN certified until a buddy asked me why I was paying $10 to make the same dives I was diving for free a week earlier. The only time I use Nitrox now is for Deco gasses (50% and 100% O2). I rarely make more than two dives per day and have never been on a multi day dive boat, where I would consider Nitrox. I agree with two posters about air vs. Nitrox. One said that his best dive purchase was his Nitrox cert for the way he felt after diving. His worst purchase was his Nitrox cert because of the placebo effect. And as Dr. Bill says, after making several dives on air he feels invigorated, not fatigued.

Interesting, coming from a guy whose name is MaxBottomTime.

So Maxie, let me axe you this. If Nitrox was the same cost as air, and you were doing, say, a single tank dive to 85', would you still choose air for the dive?

 

[MaxBottomtime]

IMHO, another example of an agency writing for the courts and not for divers' best interests. Does it make any sense to you that if you reduce the nitrogen fraction from say 79% to 64% that for the same pressure exposure the risk of DCS is the same? Horse pucky! And as to that second statement, without the reference for the study in which, "statistical estimates suggest that using enriched air within normal air limits only reduces the incidence rate a fraction of a percent," I frankly do not believe it. Just because nonsense finds its way into print does not mean that anyone should believe it without independent corroboration.

I think what PADI is saying is that, as mentioned in their course, the risk of DCS is already so low when following the guidelines that reducing it doesn't make a big difference.

 

[Wayward Son]

Voodoo gas. Can't get enough of it.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

Interesting, coming from a guy whos name is MaxBottomTime.

So Maxie, let me axe you this. If Nitrox was the same cost as air, and you were doing, say, a single tank dive to 85', would you still choose air for the dive?

As for any advantage on a single tank dive to 85', I wouldn't really care. The main difference for me is that I normally fill my own tanks, so my cost for air is considerably less.
If I were on a liveaboard trip making 5-6 dives per day for a week I would choose Nitrox just so I could make more dives.

 

[Thalassamania]

So ... the chance of being hit by a car when walking across a country road is low and we should not look both ways before we cross?

 

[adurso]

EAN was suggested to me due to the presence of significant scarring due to cervical surgery, titanium screws and plates and other scarring throughout my body. The reason for the suggestion was the lack of data about bubble formation in scarred areas. One school of thought is that reduced vascularity results in LESS formation, the other that reduced vascularity results in reduced off-gassing. I dive the richest mix I can get for my MOD, using air tables. I also feel less fatigue after diving....I am also middle-aged

 

[MaxBottomtime]

So ... the chance of being hit by a car when walking across a country road is low and we should not look both ways before we cross?

Not a great analogy. Increasing O2 content would be more in line with wearing Keds before crossing the street instead of Nike shoes.

 

[Thalassamania]

Whatever

 

[mccabejc]

Yeah, horse pucky. I agree.

But then again, nobody knows for sure. It's kinda like chicken soup and a cold. Nobody's certain it makes your cold better, but it can't hurt. By the way, how do you actually prove that using EAN did or didn't avert a case of DCS? Since you can't predict DCS in the first case, how do you predict the effects of adding EAN to the mix?

It's also a liitle like the science of global warming. Nobody is absolutely certain that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the apparent warming we're seeing, but lots of folks think we should cut them down anyway just in case.

To me it just seems logical that lower nitrogen levels are a good thing. The logical extension is that if we lower them down to normal surface levels we WON'T get DCS, so at least we're heading in the right direction. So is there a proportional benefit as you decrease levels, or are ANY levels above normal bad?