Why Recreational Triox ??

[DeepScuba]

Damn you're cordial!!!

My hat is off to you MHK. If I was that diplomatic, I'd have friends!

heheheh

Respectfully, DS.

 

[cornfed]

Let me just make a few points and then I think we've beaten this horse to death and it might be time to move...

I would like to point out that the saying is "beating a dead horse," so if this horse is just now dying we ain't no where near the end of this thread!

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm not saying that there's absolutely no benefits from Triox.

The crux is that everything has risk, and it is logically counterproductive to waste a lot of time/effort/money on something that result in only a negligible change to overall system risk.




Sure. And since there is a medical test for PFO's and ~30% of the adult population has one, DCS risks could be reduced by mandating a PFO test for OWI, and if positive, require special Tables/Dive Computers to be used by that Population segment.

There's lots of problems with this. First is requiring the test. Another is these special tables. Science just isn't there. Were still wourking on figuring out the best way for a healthy diver to decompress.

IIRC, its even higher in children, so restoring the minimum diving age would also not be a bad idea.

I also have reservations about children diving but I don't think DCS in children has been a problem at all.

Sure, and if we choose to use a gas mix with the lowest risk of AGE/DCS during rapid ascents, we are forced to eliminate Helium.[\QUOTE]

The rapid ascents are most often skill issues. That's the place to start, IMO, rather choose the gas that we think is best for rapid ascents. I also don't think that an increased risk of DCS or AGE has been demonstrated with the use of helium.

And this really is my point about net system risk: having a lower CO2 and Narcosis can be a good thing, but Helium's higher AGE/DCS risk in rapid (unintended) ascents forces us to consider the significance of each factor before making a final trade-off determination.

Think of it as system optimization instead of just component optimization.

I am looking at it as a system. GUE isn't just handing students helium. They are also addressing the typical causes of rapid ascents and other problems. Solid skills along with minimized narcosis and CO2 all work together to eliminate the rapid ascents in the first place. That's a system approach.

My personal opinion here is that for this depth range, it is my personal experience (and risk tolerence) that I don't believe that the Narc & CO2 benefits are significant enough to outweigh the known disadvantages of He. Therefore, it is not my first choice for this application.

That's certainly your choice. Other than cost I haven't found a downside to using helium. Even at that though I'd have to suck up a lot of helium before I spent anywhere near what most divers spend on plane tickets and resorts.

I think think some of these "disadvantages" are largely mythical. This reminds me of the things the recreational agencies were saying about nitrox in its early days.

 

[-hh]

I think the largest difference in our position(s) stems from your belief that by adding Helium to a mix if a diver does a rapid ascent then they are at a greater risk for an AGE.

The risk corrolates to respective diffusion rates, and He has a higher diffusion rate, does it not?

You may come from a school of thought that rapid ascents occur frequently, whereas we believe they shoud rarely, if ever, occur.

Incorrect assumption.

For the general application, the risk of a rapid ascent is IMO influenced more by training and buddy protocols than by the gas that they happen to be using. In other words, He affects P(I/RA) and training affects P(RA).

Note: P(I/RA) = Probability of Injury given a Rapid Ascent,
and P(RA) = Probability of a Rapid Ascent.

That being said, do you alter every dive you do and compromise your approach because there's a off chance you'll find yourself in the position to need CESA and then perhaps be worse for the wear because you added 30% helium to your mix??

See where incorrect assumptions lead you?

BTW, if I recall correctly you have a vast amount of diving experience, have you ever needed to do a CESA???

Something seems wrong, doesn't it?

Its not important to know that its only been once over the past 4 decades, because every dive is a new dive: my past performace does not eliminate it as an objective risk in the future. Same is true for every other diver too.

If that is your logic and approach, I agree that GUE training isn't for you.

See how far astray a bad assumption can take you?

We look at this from the standpoint and approach that every dive we do we try to reduce the potential for hypercapnia, we try to reduce the narcotic level, we dive in a unified team...

And while you fail to say it here, these are all merely risk management tools.

Accordingly, you use a less efficient gas every dive you make because...

More extention of an incorrect assumption...particularly since its been a long time since I've publically said what gasses I've been using.

I'm just trying to distinguish the two positions and allow the reader's to make their own judgements..

You've done an amazingly poor job understanding my position. Perhaps its because I've articulated it poorly, or perhaps it is because you really don't want to hear it.

It sorta reminds me of when Nitrox was first introduced to the recreational market...

What it should remind you of is when one of the big selling points was the decreased risk of DCS if you dived Nitrox on Air tables.

As you should recall, the long debates on the Web that then took place reached the end conclusion that yes, diving Nitrox on Air tables does decrease your DCS risk, but the objective risk went from approximately zero to "half of zero." As such, while there are good reasons to adopt Nitrox, this was not one of them. This summary has since been revalidated in DAN and the Rec Magazines.

Parallel that history now to GUE's Triox hypercapnia claim:

We have a claim that Triox reduces CO2 retention, but what we don't have is any measure: what has been unanswered is if its actually significant (risk), or if we have another example of a "half of zero" claim that's being used to sell the product.

Its happened before, so who's to say that its not happening again?

I'm sorry that you and GUE are currently unable to meet my consumer standards, but I hope I'm making it crystal clear as to what I do expect so that you can improve your product.


-hh

 

[-hh]

I think think some of these "disadvantages" are largely mythical. This reminds me of the things the recreational agencies were saying about nitrox in its early days.

Fair enough. My point is that the "advantages" can be mythical too.

(...at least when we've partitioned the discussion to only the contribution of the gas portion of the class, which I think some of us have done).


Refer to my "half of zero" parallel to Nitrox just posted above for the specific example.

-hh

 

[MHK]

The risk corrolates to respective diffusion rates, and He has a higher diffusion rate, does it not?

Incorrect assumption.

For the general application, the risk of a rapid ascent is IMO influenced more by training and buddy protocols than by the gas that they happen to be using. In other words, He affects P(I/RA) and training affects P(RA).

Note: P(I/RA) = Probability of Injury given a Rapid Ascent,
and P(RA) = Probability of a Rapid Ascent.


-hh

HH,

It's obvious to me that your interest isn't in understanding the issue, but to engage in cyber debate. That type of exchange is best left for rec.scuba and I no longer wish to engage in those type of discussions no matter how much someone tries to bait.

We stipulated time and time again that helium has a higher diffusion rate, so I'll say one final time I agree that GUE training isn't for you and I respect your right to dive as you see fit.

As to your idea that I don't want to understand your point, I disagree perhaps you did articulate poorly because I've received 3 PM's from people that also read your point to be more concerned about CESA's. Perhaps you should review your earlier posts because that seems to be the point you were making, and to some degree since you are still talking about higher diffusion it seems clear that you are still concerned about it as it relates to CESA's.

Since in 4 decades you've only needed one CESA, and you've shown no peer reviewed study [ since I know how important they are to you ;-)] that quanitifes how much greater risk a diver doing a CESA using a 30% helium mix is, I suspect your points are more posturing then true concern. The fact is that it's a subjective concept and would vary from diver to diver, from day to day and from dive to dive, so the real question a diver should ask themselves is do they want to approach every dive they make with the greatest advantages available, ie; reduced hypercapnia, reduced narcosis, reduced gas density, unified team, proper gas management versus increasing the narcosis levels, increasing the potential for hypercapnia, increase gas density just in case once in 4 decades they need to do a CESA??? In my risk analysis I'm more comfortable doing every dive I make with greatest advantages. I respect your right to worry about CESA's and we note, once again, that GUE training isn't for everyone so I wish you the best of luck in your diving endeavours..

This is a DIR forum, we are happy to answer questions and help explain any reasonable question. Given the history of our exchanges and given that it seems clear to me that you are not interested in honest dialogue why not save this type of stuff for rec.scuba??

If something still isn't clear, and if you really want to learn this stuff you are free to take a class [ which I'm confident you won't] or you can feel free to call me and I'll be happy to discuss the issue but I have no interest in playing games on scuba forums.

Regards,

PM me privately if you want to call me and I'll gladly give you my number

 

[cornfed]

HH,
It's obvious to me that your interest isn't in understanding the issue

What a minute... that sounds familar. Where have I heard that before? Oh right, hh just said the same thing!

You've done an amazingly poor job understanding my position. Perhaps its because I've articulated it poorly, or perhaps it is because you really don't want to hear it.

And I thought the DIR forum would be boring... silly, silly cornfed!

 

[MHK]

In reviewing this thread a couple of final thoughts came to my mind:

1) The red-herring that is being bantered about is that somehow or another the concepts that we are recomending are new, radical and/or un-tested. That is an untrue premise, meaning of course the starting point of the discussion is wrong. In other words, the concept(s) of gas density; hypercapnia; narcosis et. al. are not in dispute.

2) What the naysayers are disputing is the fact that these concepts are inapplicable in the ranges that we are advocating. So the misdirection game that they play is to acknowledge the points, but then say since we didn't do a specific peer review study that "certifies" the idea in the 100' - 120' range that therefore the concept is invalid. That is red-herring 101..

3) The real issue to undertand is that the premise of our position isn't in dispute per se, but where we disagree with other agencies and guys like Genesis and/or hh is where the application of the "accepted" fact applies.

4) For example, IANTD, TDI, NAUI et. al accept the premise for dives in the 170'+ range, PADI accepts the premise in the 165' range, so the conceptual point isn't whether the premise is true, which is what Genesis & hh have been advancing, the dispute is more along the lines of at what depth?? Similar to saying that an Indy 500 driver wants every advantage that he can get during a race, but since Joe Schmoo doesn't drive at 170 mph we should all ignore the ergodynamic advances in the auto industry..

The only issue at question is at what measure do you want to judge the "goal line".. Some think the benefits apply in the 170'+ range, others think they apply in the 165' range, whereas we continue to believe that recreational divers, that dives in the 100'-120' range are capable of deriving the benefits through proper education. We respect everyone's right to draw their own line in the sand and we continue to suggest that we recognize that our training isn't for everyone so if you want to continue to dive outdated principles then we appreciate that GUE training isn't for you. However, if you want to understand the benefits associated with helium based diving in the recreational realm then we remain available.

Regards

 

[chrisch]

The IANTD course starts at 100fsw also MHK - I think they kinda agree with you.
Chris

 

[Scott M]

so if you want to continue to dive outdated principles

Nice Shot!