SCUBA-SE Archives

November 2002

SCUBA-SE@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reef Fish <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SCUBA or ELSE! Diver's forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Nov 2002 02:06:29 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (61 lines)
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:07:55 -0500, Michael Doelle
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Feesh wrote:
>
>>To recap, my ENTIRE contention is that it depends on the responsible
>individual to dive within his limits, and it's up to the INDIVIDUAL to
>assume his own risks, be it climbing the Everest or setting a deep dive
>record.  It's THEIR business.
>
>The particular Everest incident you referred to is very specific to a
>business that literally "carries" those affluent enough up to the summits
>for 50K a pop. Then when things go bad, there are maybe two or three
>"qualified" people around. And then people start dying. And pointing out
>where they screwed up is still necessary, no matter how much those involved
>"chose to do it".

Then you're missing my point, still!

It's THEIR business.  They can analyze how they screw up.  They certainly
know much more about Mt Everest climbing that Mika or the rest of us put
together on THIS list!


 The fact that "deep air" has been practiced much more than
>the "new kid on the block" trimix makes it all that much more significant
>that so many have died so soon, using trimix.    ;-)<
>
>This is a circular reasoning. And completely misses the point of criticism
>regarding "deep air". Namely that there  are many cases where an accident
>can be *directly* related to the choice of gas in some air dives.

Of course there are.  Then you missed my point that it must be considered
on a CASE by CASE basis.  I can speak for myself that my no deco deep air
bounces are as safe as any dive I do to no deeper than 60 fsw.  Take it
or leave it.


>>Trimix is not going to save an irresponsible diver!<
>
>So who claimed anything different here?

Go argue with Lee.  He likes to argue more than you do.  :-))


>Strike said the first diver toxed. The second one surfaced for reasons
>unrelated to his gas. You get 1:1 out of that?
>
>>So, how is it that we know so much that trimix is NOT to blame, when
>a diver is dead diving trimix and was never recovered?<
>
>Look at his profile and apply reason, maybe?  Surfacing in distress just
>minutes after starting the dive can be blamed on *any* type of gas just
>how?

What profile?  This guy was DEAD and the body was NEVER recovered.  There
was NO autopsy.  Believe anything you want.  I just drew the unparallel
of the two situations in the analysis of "blame".

-- Bob.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2