SCUBA-SE Archives

June 2000

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:
Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SouthEast US Scuba Diving Travel list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:11:31 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (77 lines)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bjorn Vang Jensen" <[log in to unmask]>


> Mike wrote:
>
> > I have never been on a liveaboard, but I have done in excess of
> > five dives a
> > day. Sometimes I have those days that I just want to dive, so I
> > go diving. I
> > have been known to dive our quarry, then drive 100 miles south and dive
> > anotha er in Pelham, and then drive about an hour east and dive
> > another one
> > in Glencoe and then drive about an hour and a half and dive
> > either the river
> > or  a local lake and then back to our quarry for a night dive.
>
> You are a sad man with a very, very sad life, Mike :-)

You noticed!  :-)


>
> > I
> > would most
> > likely be like Bjorn indicates above though on a liveaboard. Many times,
a
> > GOOD dive day includes a couple of great dives and several hours
> > of surface interval with good company......
>
> This is VERY true! Also, when you are gone for a whole week, it is in fact
> prudent to declare a non-diving or limited-diving day in the middle.

Definitely.


>
> > I seem to remember some of that discussion. I tend to agree that it can
be
> > safer dived on air tables as long as you are diving within NDL's... For
> > decompression exposures, it is safer than deco'ing on air by
> > far....... :-)
>
> I don't think we can get further than belief, for recreational diving.
Side
> A says we are already as safe on air as we are going to be, and that even
if
> we could cut the risk associated with air in half, that risk would still
be
> infinitesimally small. Side B says that logic dictates that diving EAN on
> air profiles must be much safer. There are undoubtedly many flaws on both
> sides, but the obvious ones are that Side A bases its assumptions on
> statistics which are highly questionable at best, and Side B assumes that
> the "logic" of decompression is cut-and-dried without exceptions.

I like this example. :-)   Actually, combine Nitrox within air NDL's and
VERY SLOW ascents and your risk should be reduced somewhat, assuming that
it's not your day in the barrel and then no matter what you do, you will get
bit.... :-)


>
> In the case of Peter Hughes, however, MY problem with their policy is the
> double standard:
>
> Standard A: "We want to protect you, so you can only use EAN on an air
> profile."
>
> Standard B: "Here's a mix with a max operating depth of 33 meters - and
> here's a wall which bottom out only 10 times deeper than that!"
>
> Oh my, I may have started a thread...

OOPs.....

Mike

ATOM RSS1 RSS2