David Strike <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 04, 2000 2:23 PM, Huw Porter wrote:
>
>> Stop me if I'm leaping to unwarranted conclusions here, but does this
>imply
>> elevated partial pressures of O2 less than 0.50 are considered 'safe'?
>
>I think that 'more practical' is a better  term than 'safe' - and then
>providing that it doesn't drop below, say, a PPO2 of 0.16, or more
>realistically, 0.21! :-)
>
>Just to quote PPO2 as doseage (in ATA's) - from the ANDI manual.
>"0.30 - Normal saturation dive doses.  Exposures are usually 24 hours or
>more.

So we're now down (up?) to nitrox 27 at an abyssal 1 metre! :-)  Oh well, it
was a nice thought! :-)

>0.35 to 0.50 - Chambers and bells - low doseage/long term - less than 24
>hours.
>0.50 - Maximum saturation dive dosages - Lorraine Smith effect symptoms
>begin to manifest."

<snip>

>> So surely the air in the lungs of a
>> (strong-lunged) guy at the end of a garden hose at 10m is going to be
>> compressed to 2 ATM?  So therefore he'd get as nitrogen-saturated as a
>diver
>> at the same depth? :-?
>
>Hypothetically?  :-)
>
>Try sucking air down a tube when you're just one-metre below the surface!
>:-)

If you see me near any garden ponds holding a length of garden hose, stop
me, please! :-)

Cheers,
Huw