There IS an environmental issue - when its gone, its gone. Its kinda like saying that oil consumption for no good reason (e.g. to have a big bonfire) is not an "environmental issue." Sure it is - there's only so much of it.
(Yes, I know parade floats use uh, a lot and that diving uses, as a percentage, a very small amount of the total consumption. However, waste is still waste.)
To use Helium "just because", when it is not a renewable resource (at least not until you manage to get fusion reactors online and in common use!) seems pretty crass to me, especially for a group that preaches conservation.
But enough of that.
The point that I've tried to make (and which Kane doesn't want to talk about - he skirted it yet again!) is that if you're going to teach a class that "certifies" someone down to 120' (+10 for slop, so the cert is "good" to 130), AND you follow a "holistic diving system approach", where only logical actions are considered "approved", then single-tank diving at that depth is a violation of standards (and thus, now what you were certified to do.)
We can argue over whether the CO2 loading Kane talks about is significant or not in the real world, or whether the narcosis issues he talks about are significant or not in the real world. Certainly, at 130' narcosis might be for a significant number of people, so I'll grant him/you/whoever that much - but the CO2 argument is one that is, at this point, simply bald assertion without an ounce of factual backup. That line was run over on SDN and resoundingly debunked when the referenced article(s) he provided were looked up and found to be not only grossly out of date but superceded.
So let's leave the narcosis issue on the table as a "potential" benefit, and a reason for the class, and discard the bald assertions.
I think we can all also agree that at 70', diving Heliox is kinda silly. Neither narcosis or CO2 loading is a factor there to any significant extent with anyone who is in good enough shape to be in the water (certainly to GUE standards anyway!) in the first place, AND GUE tests that with watermanship, so we've already set that bar.
So when we get down to brass tacks, what GUE appears to be doing here is certifying you to do something they haven't actually seen you master!
Again, I go back to the "holistic diving system" and "setting a higher bar." This isn't the PADI forum, and I'm not debating what other agencies think is "ok" or "not ok."
This is about the contradiction in terms within the DIR philosophy and this particular class and what it says is ok and not ok, by the card they award.
Its kinda like having someone dive in a cavern and then giving them a Cave 1 card. You never saw them dive in a cave! But - they're ok to do it, 'cause you saw them run a line and do the drills in a cavern.
Nobody would accept that, but its what's being accepted here.
Doubles are different. Beyond the fact that they feel really strange the first time you dive in them, and require figuring out your trim again, there's the valve skills that are required to use them and get something more than just a larger capacity tank out of the bargain.
If GUE-the-agency or DIR-the-dive-system wants to argue for a holistic dive system in which logic and proper configuration, along with attitude and approach are all part of the equation, then to certify somone to do dives that requires (by their own admission as to how their system is "structured") equipment you've never seen them use seems more than a bit odd.
(Yes, I know parade floats use uh, a lot and that diving uses, as a percentage, a very small amount of the total consumption. However, waste is still waste.)
To use Helium "just because", when it is not a renewable resource (at least not until you manage to get fusion reactors online and in common use!) seems pretty crass to me, especially for a group that preaches conservation.
But enough of that.
The point that I've tried to make (and which Kane doesn't want to talk about - he skirted it yet again!) is that if you're going to teach a class that "certifies" someone down to 120' (+10 for slop, so the cert is "good" to 130), AND you follow a "holistic diving system approach", where only logical actions are considered "approved", then single-tank diving at that depth is a violation of standards (and thus, now what you were certified to do.)
We can argue over whether the CO2 loading Kane talks about is significant or not in the real world, or whether the narcosis issues he talks about are significant or not in the real world. Certainly, at 130' narcosis might be for a significant number of people, so I'll grant him/you/whoever that much - but the CO2 argument is one that is, at this point, simply bald assertion without an ounce of factual backup. That line was run over on SDN and resoundingly debunked when the referenced article(s) he provided were looked up and found to be not only grossly out of date but superceded.
So let's leave the narcosis issue on the table as a "potential" benefit, and a reason for the class, and discard the bald assertions.
I think we can all also agree that at 70', diving Heliox is kinda silly. Neither narcosis or CO2 loading is a factor there to any significant extent with anyone who is in good enough shape to be in the water (certainly to GUE standards anyway!) in the first place, AND GUE tests that with watermanship, so we've already set that bar.
So when we get down to brass tacks, what GUE appears to be doing here is certifying you to do something they haven't actually seen you master!
Again, I go back to the "holistic diving system" and "setting a higher bar." This isn't the PADI forum, and I'm not debating what other agencies think is "ok" or "not ok."
This is about the contradiction in terms within the DIR philosophy and this particular class and what it says is ok and not ok, by the card they award.
Its kinda like having someone dive in a cavern and then giving them a Cave 1 card. You never saw them dive in a cave! But - they're ok to do it, 'cause you saw them run a line and do the drills in a cavern.
Nobody would accept that, but its what's being accepted here.
Doubles are different. Beyond the fact that they feel really strange the first time you dive in them, and require figuring out your trim again, there's the valve skills that are required to use them and get something more than just a larger capacity tank out of the bargain.
If GUE-the-agency or DIR-the-dive-system wants to argue for a holistic dive system in which logic and proper configuration, along with attitude and approach are all part of the equation, then to certify somone to do dives that requires (by their own admission as to how their system is "structured") equipment you've never seen them use seems more than a bit odd.
