Why Recreational Triox ??

[cornfed]

I should clarify for those non-thinking divers. I won't waste my $$$ on Helium for depths less than 100 ft.

You... um... err, nevermind... *shakes head*

 

[Genesis]

But to start another philosophical debate. Are divers feeling better after diving with helium because of the helium or because they have learned how to dive a better profile?

Shhhh.... the emporer needs those clothes!

 

[-hh]

Does that mean that you're not going to take the class?

It means that I take all opportunities under due consideration, and weigh their value and my needs before deciding.

The value in diving helium is best illustrated by diving it. The fact that MANY people are finding that they feel better both during a dive and after when using trimix is substantiation of benefit.

Yes, Helium has its place, but the majority of it is deep, not shallow.

And "feeling better" claims also exist for Nitrox...and Placebo's.

I won't say that I'm completely uninterested in psychological-based effects, but rather that I rank physiological-based Human Effects much higher: the facts are that Decompression is a physiological effect no matter what your psychological feelings are about it.

Layman's Translation: you can't make a Deco Stop 25% shorter just by being happy.

The fact that we can't yet describe it with an equation doesn't really matter.

That is your personal choice. My risk management philosophy takes PT Barnum's motto of: "There is a sucker born every minute" into account.

My standard is not an 'Equation' as you've chosen to call it, but rather the existence of reasonable confidence that the claimed benefits are actually real, tangible and measurable...in other words, I don't buy "smoke and mirrors" Bullhockey.

Divers who at one time only used helium for deep dives are finding they like it at shallower depths too.

I found that I liked it that my Porsche is not red or black, because I have a completely unfounded belief that those colors would attract more speeding tickets. I hope this analogy is not being lost on you.

Passing this class or one of the other recreational classes available from other agencies gives the diver the choice to dive it if they want.

Sure, but that truism says nothing about which class is a better value for the consumer. If you want to take this particular class, be my guest.

Personally, I've decided that my money is better spent elsewhere for my personal diving needs, and since I don't consider myself to be all that unique, have said so.

Anyone considering taking the class is free to look at the merits of our individual rationales and come to their own decision.

If they have any questions regarding my rationale, I'll be happy to answer them. And if such a dialog results in me reevaluating my personal position, I'm fully capable of admitting that I've amended my position.

Failing to retain reasonable objectivity is a safety risk factor, and diving is ultimately about managing risks, so I will always think for myself: if you want to change my mind, you have to build a successfully convincing case, and to date, you have not done so.


-hh

 

[-hh]

I guess Mike, that what they're saying is the GUE and others are pushing a class that is of limitted value to divers.

Yes, good summary.

Since when did we become so lame we couldn't manage to stay clear headed and easy breathing at 100ft?

In fairness, public perception and opinion of what is an 'acceptable risk' can and do change over time.

However, I simply do not appreciate hyperbolic 'Chicken Little' style calls for a major change without a sufficient case to show that its really a worthy actionable problem. If we're going to logically approach the issue of dive safety, the top contributors are the first priority, so we would be addressing general health, heart disease and PFO's.


-hh

 

[MikeFerrara]

hh,

Your argument doesn't make much sense. You seem to want the benefit of using trimix at a given depth quantified for you and that won't ever happen. The fact that this isn't done for you is not evidence that the benefit is psychological rather than physiological. Narcosis is real and less is better. An increase in gas density at depth is real and less dense is better. Is the narcosis survivable at 130 ft? Sure. It's also survivable at 200 ft.

The only "smoke and mirrors bullcocky" around here is your argument. Just about anything can be discounted by demanding absolute proof and that's what you're trying to do. My only question is why? Maybe you have quantifiable evidence that helium is never of benefit at 120 ft? If you do you should let us in on it.

 

[DeepScuba]

My thoughts exactly cornfed

I'm sitting this round (and the next) out.

I am now but a casual observer.

Helium is good, Nitrogen is bad, regardless of cost

 

[MikeFerrara]

However, I simply do not appreciate hyperbolic 'Chicken Little' style calls for a major change without a sufficient case to show that its really a worthy actionable problem.

I missed the chicken little part I guess.

If we're going to logically approach the issue of dive safety, the top contributors are the first priority, so we would be addressing general health, heart disease and PFO's.


-hh

It's also a logical choice to adess the things that you're most under control first. There isn't much a traiing agency can do about heart disease so maybe you should take that one.

There's plenty of evidence that rapid ascents are a significant problem in diving. Improvid skills, better planning and less narcosis seem to be sensible ways to address that.

 

[-hh]

hh,
Your argument doesn't make much sense...

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.

It's also a logical choice to adess the things that you're most under control first. There isn't much a traiing agency can do about heart disease so maybe you should take that one.

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.

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

There's plenty of evidence that rapid ascents are a significant problem in diving. Improvid skills, better planning and less narcosis seem to be sensible ways to address that.

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.

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.

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.


-hh

 

[Dan Gibson]

Maybe there are those that place a higher risk on CO2 and O2 toxicity than DCS caused by rapid ascents. I don't quite understand argument about unintentional rapid ascents. If one follows the team concept and doesn't panic, there should really be no need for rapid ascents. If one can't manage buoyancy, one shouldn't be diving anyway.

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.

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.

-hh

 

[MHK]

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 if we choose to use a gas mix with the lowest risk of AGE/DCS during rapid ascents, we are forced to eliminate 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.

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.


-hh

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 on since we aren't trying to convince you of anything. We explain what we offer and if it isn't for you then I wish you the best of luck...

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. You may come from a school of thought that rapid ascents occur frequently, whereas we believe they shoud rarely, if ever, occur. 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?? BTW, if I recall correctly you have a vast amount of diving experience, have you ever needed to do a CESA???

If that is your logic and approach, I agree that GUE training isn't for 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 [ meaning I go to my buddy further reducing the need for CESA's], we use gas management tools called rock bottom which provide for adequate gas reserves for 2 divers to ascend in an OOA without blowing off any stops.

Accordingly, you use a less efficient gas every dive you make because you believe there's a slight chance you may do a uncontrolled rapid ascent, we look at it differently. I respect your right to dive any way you see fit, and I have no interest in trying to change your mind or convince you of anything, I'm just trying to distinguish the two positions and allow the reader's to make their own judgements.. It sorta reminds me of when Nitrox was first introduced to the recreational market, all the naysayers kept screaming about how so many diver's were going to die because they can't manage their buoyancy and then they'd violate the MOD and tox.. It hasn't happened with Nitrox and I suspect the same result will apply to your CESA theory respecting Triox.

Regards