Bob,
Your opinion is simply yours alone- and while it may be a shared
opinion- it is still that and nothing more without your definition of
factual sizeable data- you certainly know that of course-
It is not the responsibility of others to prove out or disprove your
assertion ( opinion) as it sits squarely on you to provide the backup..


THis seems kinda like the election rhetoric being spewed out in the last
couple of week- 'everything they say may be true- but none of it is the
truth" ... and again it is not our requirement to wade through to figure
it out...

I thought about this since your first post on the subject where YOU
misinterpreted JG"s post to rec scuba that set you off to where this is
now--- (BTW He DIDN'T say in that post that the Death was due to the one
500+ dive )

Any way, have a good vacation and Im sure you will see more than most of
us ( combined) during its duration..

Cheers,
Ken

Reef Fish wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:29:26 -0600, Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Of course it's my opinnion.  But my opinion is never pulled out from thin
>>>air.  There are TOO MANY sources to cite.  For starter, if you want to
>>>start looking at SOME of those sources, just do a google advanced search
>>>with the keywords "trimix fatality".
>>>
>
> Neither you nor Lee did that and read the 70 hits did you?
>
> Lee>  If there is data that you can't or won't access while on vacation,
> Lee>  then table the discussion until you have it.
>
>
>>Just as I expected, you cannot back up your statement, that appeared to be a
>>'fact' that there have been more deaths using Trimix than air.
>>
>
> The very first TWO of the hits were posted in 2002, on trimix fatalities.
> I am not aware of any deep air fatality in 2002.
>
> Score 2 to 0.     <that's a START>
>
> Start with THAT.   Now read some of the rest and do your OWN SEARCH
> and research.  I already said I don't know many "deep air" fatalities
> in the past 5 years.  If you want to contradict that, then do the
> count yourself on "deep air" fatality and compare it to the fatalities
> in trimix in those references I pointed to in google.  There are.
> as I said, many OTHER sources!
>
> This is all I am going to do now.  That's where we started.  I ask you
> to do the count FIRST.  YOu didn't and accused me of having no data.
>
> Now I pointed to the START of some data sources, you didn't look and
> didn't count, and expect me to do all the work for you?  FORGET IT.
>
>
>
>>>That'll be a good START.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not interested in specific numbers. Just in your sources for your statement
>>>>noted below.
>>>>
>
> Mike, those ARE some of the sources!  The 70 hits in google.
>
> I have had time to read only a FEW of them myself.  Here're the couple
> I had read long ago BEFORE I made my present statement:
>
> hh in 1999>  these 52 are basically all "tech", although they don't
> hh in 1999>  represent just one year's worth of fatalities, either.
>
> Here's another:
>
> 1997>  The US scientific diving community has never exeperienced a
> 1997>  fatality in the depth range of 130 to 190 feet despite many
> 1997>  dives in that region.
>
> Now you and Lee read the below AGAIN:
>
>
>>>Those are SOME of the sources.  If you use other search engines, you'll
>>>find many other sources.  As I said, I don't have the time or interest
>>>for it now, and not much interest later either.  It's a worthless COUNT
>>>
>
> Call it whatever you will, but this thread is as DEAD as the trimix and
> deep-air dead bodies.  If you want to dispute my original statement, then
> count the  "deep air" fatalities in the past 5 years, and the trimix
> fatalities in the same 5 years.
>
> THEN, and only THEN, will I waste my time looking up the other sources
> to correct yours (or Lee's) counts.
>
> There will be NO FOLLOW-UP on this new "subject" by ME before December,
> and certainly not the others.  BUt this new "subject" will enable me to
> go to the archives in December and see whether there is any need for me
> to follow-up on it.
>
> Why don't you guys go out and do some dives instead?  :-)  And just
> apply the infallalable rule, "Know YOUR limits ..." and you wouldn't
> have to worry about what gas OTHERS use or how many of them are dead!
>
> -- Bob.
>
>


--


Kmbh Associates
47 Rocket Circle
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742  U  S  A
510-714-5055 Efax- 510 217 4421 or 561 658 6136

High Purity Float Zone and Specialty CZ Silicon  for Power, IR and
Mirror Optics, Optoelectronics, MEMS, SOI, and other Semiconductor
applications. Service in SOI, Polishing SSP and DSP.
Quartz, Glass, Pyrex and Borofloat Wafer Supply. Anodic Bonding. SOG, SOS.