David Strike wrote:

> > OK, so you already know that you are not normal.  Something is causing
you
> > to either be more vulnerable to DCS than "normal" or something is
causing
> > you to have symtoms that suggest DCS.
>
> Lee!  There's no such thing as "normal" when considering DCS.

True, of course.  That's why I used "normal" above.  I probably should have
put quotes around the word every time.  It's simply a convenience to present
a concept.  Normal, in my context, is a range within which most divers will
be free from DCS most of the time, plus whatever safety margins the powers
that be felt it necessary to add.  Those that fit within this range,
presumably a substantial majority of the population, are the "normal" I was
referring to.  Those that are only slighly out of this range can still be
considered "normal" in any other context, but not relative to the tables.
Those that fall way outside of this range probably should not be considered
"normal" in any context.

> Some people - who might be considered to be in the high risk bracket
because of
> weight, age, lifestyle, etc. - can push tables beyond the limit and never
get a hit.
> Others who are careful and operate well within the limits can, after
> performing the same profile many hundreds of times previously, suddenly
> contract DCS.  The fact is that the tables are simply guides that 'seem'
to
> offer a degree of protection.  I'm not aware of any that have a 100%
safety
> record.

Interestingly, I don't assign a risk rating to people based on weight, age
or lifestyle.  In fact, I've found little value in risk rating people on any
basis other than demonstrated ability.  If I rated on appearance, you and I
would both have to reconsider how safe we really are.  8^).  As you mention,
I've seen people who I would not trust to be able to walk 100 yards without
problems out dive those who look like Olympic athletes.  I do tend to
consider known medical conditions.  When I consider someone else's risk to
be too high, I chose not to dive wtih them.  Each has a right to chose what
risks they will take.  I have a right to be somewhere else if/when their
choice proves to have been wrong.

> Rather than thinking of people as being 'normal' or 'abnormal', it is
> better - to my way of thinking - to view the tables themselves, as well as
> our present knowledge of the causes of DCS, to be where the fault lies.

Perhaps, but I don't find this to be a very practical approach on an
individual basis.  Given our knowledge of DCS risk, including our lack of
knowledge, decisions have to be made in the context of what we know.
Something about Carol appears to be causing problems that are inconsistent
with the knowledge we do have.  Two hits on two consecutive dives, to such
modest depths and times suggests conditions not simply outside of the range
considered safe for most, but way outside of the range.  I con't think what
has been observed is at all likely unless something, somewhere, is
contributing to it.  If it were me, I'd want to know what that something is,
even if I'd already made the decision that diving is not for me.

> > Take the time and spend the money to find out the source of your
problem.

> With all due respects to Carol and yourself, but that *might* prove a
costly
> exercise and something that would only be possible if there was any such
> thing as an infallible table!  :-)

You've presented two issues here, cost and possibility.  I tend to dismiss
cost because 1. Without health, the money in my bank account diminishes in
significance.   Money spent on good health is, in my opinion, money well
spent.  2. I have good medical insurance.

I don't agree that determining what is wrong is only possible if there was
such a thing as an infallable table.  If we were talking about dives that
were close to the limits of existing tables that, over a long series of
dives, led to occasional DCS hits, I'd still look for causes, but would be
much more likely to accept that I was just one of those who are more
vulnerable.  I'd either add safety margin to my depth and time or accept
that diving is not for me.  In this case, however, the varation from what
the tables predict is radical and consistent, at least that's how it was
presented.  This suggests to me that the cause is more than random variation
or a glitch in how well the tables predict safety. In this case, my tables
show that the dive should have been safe if done for more than twice the
time Carol was down.  If the fault is with the tables, then we're all in
trouble.  The fault has to lie in what makes Carol different from the
theoretical "normal" person.  My only point is that, if it were me, I'd want
to know what made me so different before trying to figure out what to do
about or because of that difference.

The term normal, or not normal, tends to be taken negatively.  I think it
may be important to say that I intend no such thing.

At any rate, my opinion is: 1. Carol should comply with  by her physician's
advice regarding further diving until/unless she can identify and correct
whatever it is that causes here to be unsafe within the range of what is
expected to be safe and 2. If it were me, I'd be trying to find out what
made me different, including determining whether my symptoms really were DCS
or whether they were something else entirely.

Lee