Mike Wallace wrote:

> > It is my personal opinion that few diving accidents are a direct result
of
> > narcosis.  The effects are quite obvious before one is sufficiently
affected
> > to be the root cause of a serious problem.  The real impact of narcosis,
> > still in my opinion, is that it exacerbates problems which may be
completely
> > unrelated to the gas in use.
>
> People who would have survived if only they
> > could have thought clearly, didn't because they couldn't.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Which is a direct result of narcosis.

Not in my opinion.  My position is that there was a separate root cause and
that narcosis became a contributing factor.  I see sufficient difference
between what I think you are saying and what I'm trying to say, to make a
difference.  Note, that I do not believe that being a contributing factor
makes narcosis less deadly.  To the contrarey, I believe it makes it even
more so.  It's the basis for what I think Strike means when he says
"insidious."  Narcosis sneaks up on you.  It's there, but often unrecognized
until something goes wrong.  It is then, when what could have been handled
effectively, isn't, that narcosis shows its deadly side.  This aspect is
also why I think that some divers are better able to deal with narcosis than
others.  It is not that they are not affected, but that, knowing that they
are, they plan and execute each step of their dive more carefully, making
extra sure that the triggering event, the root problem, does not arise in
the first place.  YMMV.

Lee