Skin Diver Assault on Nitrox
geary%cf...@cfa.harvard.edu
greeted by an absolutely unrelenting assault on nitrox for sport
diving. Four (that's right, 4 !!) "articles", one after another,
each bashing the concept that sport divers can in ANY way benefit
from nitrox. To quote Bill Gleason's conclusion to his lead-off
editorial: "JUST SAY NO TO NITROX".
I won't go into the details of these "articles" (read "more editor-
ials"), because those interested should read them for yourselves
and draw your own conclusions, but I would like to comment further
on just one point that was brought out prominently. Part IV of the
SD assault, entitled "Nitrox Ban in the Caribbean", details how the
Cayman dive operators have used their organization to essentially
ban nitrox on their islands, INCLUDING BANNING NITROX DIVERS FROM
USING THEIR CHAMBER !!! They cite DAN as supporting them in this.
Is this true ?? Let's hear from somebody close to DAN on this.
I am not a nitrox diver, nor do I have any immediate plans to become
one. However, this assault by SD on nitrox can only be viewed as a
hatchet job for the sake of crass commercial interests (e.g. the
big resort operators that don't like computer divers, let alone the
thought of having divers requesting nitrox too). Their unstated
agenda is clearly that the Cayman ban should be extended EVERYWHERE.
That's my interpretation, anyway, and I look forward to hearing
some other views on this after you have seen these SD editorials.
John Geary
PADI DM-52283
ge...@cfa.harvard.edu
Karl Schutz
>
> I am not a nitrox diver, nor do I have any immediate plans to become
> one.
Ditto for me.
> However, this assault by SD on nitrox can only be viewed as a
> hatchet job for the sake of crass commercial interests (e.g. the
> big resort operators that don't like computer divers, let alone the
> thought of having divers requesting nitrox too). Their unstated
> agenda is clearly that the Cayman ban should be extended EVERYWHERE.
> That's my interpretation, anyway, and I look forward to hearing
> some other views on this after you have seen these SD editorials.
>
> John Geary
> PADI DM-52283
> ge...@cfa.harvard.edu
I just finished reading these articles and I think that this interpretation is a
little extreme.
Bill Gleason repeatedly qualified his objections of nitrox use by "recreational
divers." His tone was toward the reader ... you, the reader, should say no to
nitrox; not, let's ban nitrox for all divers.
Fred Bove basically presented some physiological information and concluded by
suggesting the reader ask themself if the added complexity of nitrox diving is
worth the "small amount of additional bottom time ..."
E.R. Cross, surrounded by (IMHO) an attempt at supporting information, gave his
personal opinion and, too, asked the reader to judge for themself whether the
"risk/benefit" of nitrox warranted its use by you (a recreational diver).
The last article by Geri Murphy was meerly a reprinted of the position of a dive
industry organization trying to prevent its members from getting sued. No
question here that this is "for the sake of crass commercial interest;" but hay,
they should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit. If you don't
like their agenda, don't patron their establishments.
What I see in this editorial series is a continuing discussion on is nitrox right
for you ... you make the choice. Their slant is toward the negative and I'm sure
it will generate responses in the positive. We need this exchange so that we can
make informed decisions for ourselves. I am not trained in nitrox, and
accordingly, don't use it. Let's hear some rebuttals from the nitrox folks
regarding SDM's arguments and position.
--
Karl F. Schutz
PADI DM-50321
Lee Jones
[ fairly rational review of the SDM "articles" deleted ]
>accordingly, don't use it. Let's hear some rebuttals from the nitrox folks
>regarding SDM's arguments and position.
IMHO, if SDM would print letters to the editor, it would be a whole different
story. Much to my disgust, they are the only magazine I can think of in
*any* field that doesn't. Can anybody think of a single other magazine
that doesn't print its readers' letters?
Regards, Lee
William Mayne
>divers." His tone was toward the reader ... you, the reader, should say no to
>nitrox; not, let's ban nitrox for all divers.
So is Skin Diver assuming that its readers are all on the lower end of the
competence/intelligence scale?
>Fred Bove basically presented some physiological information and concluded by
>suggesting the reader ask themself if the added complexity of nitrox diving is
>worth the "small amount of additional bottom time ..."
The additional bottom time is not always small, nor is it the only reason
to use nitrox. Safety is the biggest consideration, IMO. The main negatives
are cost and availability. These problem wouldn't be so bad if the use of
nitrox was more wide spread.
>The last article by Geri Murphy was meerly a reprinted of the position of a dive
>industry organization trying to prevent its members from getting sued. No
>question here that this is "for the sake of crass commercial interest;" but hay,
>they should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit. If you don't
>like their agenda, don't patron their establishments.
So many rules are head-in-the-sand approaches designed to cover some business
from risk of lawsuits rather than any legitimate safety consideration.
>What I see in this editorial series is a continuing discussion on is nitrox right
>for you ... you make the choice. Their slant is toward the negative and I'm sure
>it will generate responses in the positive. We need this exchange so that we can
>make informed decisions for ourselves. I am not trained in nitrox, and
>accordingly, don't use it. Let's hear some rebuttals from the nitrox folks
>regarding SDM's arguments and position.
We've been over this before in rec.scuba. Except for cost and convenience
there is no significant advantage of air over nitrox for recreational,
non-technical divers staying within accepted depth limits, which the bottom
often enforces. Normal regulators are fine for up to 40% nitrox. 32% nitrox
is fine to 130 feet deep. Recreational divers can't exceed the CNS clock at
that depth on one tank anyway. Even if they could get anywhere near the CNS
limit they would be well into decompression, which is quite rightly
considered technical diving by most folks. Now if anyone is so careless as
to exceed 130 feet without knowing what they are doing and planning for it
they are a great danger to themselves no matter what they are breathing.
Those who are merely careless about using tables to limit their exposure
arguably need the safety margin of nitrox the most. They would be safer
using computers (based on air models) and nitrox - or better yet get their
*(&* together or stay out of the water.
Bill Mayne
Dillon Pyron
>greeted by an absolutely unrelenting assault on nitrox for sport
>diving. Four (that's right, 4 !!) "articles", one after another,
>each bashing the concept that sport divers can in ANY way benefit
>from nitrox. To quote Bill Gleason's conclusion to his lead-off
>editorial: "JUST SAY NO TO NITROX".
>
>I won't go into the details of these "articles" (read "more editor-
>ials"), because those interested should read them for yourselves
>and draw your own conclusions, but I would like to comment further
>on just one point that was brought out prominently. Part IV of the
>SD assault, entitled "Nitrox Ban in the Caribbean", details how the
>Cayman dive operators have used their organization to essentially
>ban nitrox on their islands, INCLUDING BANNING NITROX DIVERS FROM
>USING THEIR CHAMBER !!! They cite DAN as supporting them in this.
>Is this true ?? Let's hear from somebody close to DAN on this.
DAN says "Absolutely not." They take no position on Nitrox except that, like
all diving, proper training is required. She (Barbra) said she had heard
something like that was coming out of the Caymans, but it was untrue.
>
>I am not a nitrox diver, nor do I have any immediate plans to become
>one. However, this assault by SD on nitrox can only be viewed as a
>hatchet job for the sake of crass commercial interests (e.g. the
>big resort operators that don't like computer divers, let alone the
>thought of having divers requesting nitrox too). Their unstated
>agenda is clearly that the Cayman ban should be extended EVERYWHERE.
>That's my interpretation, anyway, and I look forward to hearing
>some other views on this after you have seen these SD editorials.
>
>John Geary
>PADI DM-52283
>ge...@cfa.harvard.edu
>
Everyone should belong to DAN.
--
Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here) |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home) |I'm back from vacation and I don't know why.
py...@skndiv.dseg.ti.com |
PADI DM-54909 |
Lee Jones
take a Nitrox course - I figure it will render my concerns groundless, or
give me some factual basis for them. However, there are a couple of
concerns I have that I think are reasonable before I take the Nitrox
course (because they're social/political concerns rather than technical
ones)
#1 ( High cost of fills -> Lots of home brewing which is a Bad Thing)
Getting a Nitrox fill at a reputable shop is expensive - I
hear numbers like $9-$15. I will assume that's a reasonable price based
on the equipment, care, extra insurance etc. required to pump Nitrox.
I am afraid that the relatively high cost will lead to lots of home-brewing,
and that will be a Very Bad Thing for divers and the diving business
as a whole. You know: bad mixes->accidents, fire/explosion, untrained divers
using the stuff, etc.
#2 ( Takes diving a step away from being a Fun Easy Family Sport )
I think it is very healthy for the dive business if SCUBA is viewed as
something that is great fun, relatively easy to learn, and by gum, good old
Aunt Monica (age 63) can do it. Over the years, we have developed more of
that image, and less of the Macho Men in Black Suits Killing Marine
Creatures image.
I am in favor of divers having access to Nitrox, but I do fear that if it
becomes a status symbol or something, that we will be taking a step back
down the slope toward the latter image - an image that I don't want to
diving to have, nor do I believe promotes the long term health of the sport.
Regards, Lee
William Mayne
>I will admit to some concerns about Nitrox. Because of that, I'm going to
>take a Nitrox course - I figure it will render my concerns groundless, or
Good plan. As you should expect people who develop and teach nitrox courses
are on the pro-nitrox side. But a realistic look at the problems is
included.
>#1 ( High cost of fills -> Lots of home brewing which is a Bad Thing)
>
>Getting a Nitrox fill at a reputable shop is expensive - I
>hear numbers like $9-$15. I will assume that's a reasonable price based
>on the equipment, care, extra insurance etc. required to pump Nitrox.
Home brewing is not exactly cheap, either. You have to have transfer
hoses, an oxygen safe valve and regulator with a flow meter to
control the transfer, an O_2 bottle (or more than one to cascade),
another regulator and flow meter to feed an analyzer... Get the picture?
In home brewing you also wind up wasting a lot more oxygen than a shop
set up would. I agree that home brewing except by serious, careful,
committed technical divers is a bad thing. That is one reason why it
would be a good thing if nitrox became the standard gas for most
sport diving. This would make homebrewing unnecessary.
>#2 ( Takes diving a step away from being a Fun Easy Family Sport )
It need not do that. With wider acceptance and hence a bigger market
to spread costs around the extra cost of nitrox compared to air
should come down. The extra safety would actually make diving more
of a Fun Easy Family Sport.
>I am in favor of divers having access to Nitrox, but I do fear that if it
>becomes a status symbol or something, that we will be taking a step back
>down the slope toward the latter image - an image that I don't want to
>diving to have, nor do I believe promotes the long term health of the sport.
Who is suggesting that it is or should be a status symbol? It is simply
the safest gas for most dives in the 60-130 foot range. If you could
buy it at any shop that should, if anything, reduce the mystery/status
about it. It would be taking a step not toward the image of diving as
a technical or macho sport toward something anyone in reasonable health
with reasonable brains can do.
Bill Mayne
Gregory Stewart-Nicholls
> Can anybody think of a single
> other magazine that doesn't print its readers' letters?
Lee Jones
found them very interesting.
2. Here's a *really* interesting question: WHY is SDM so hung up about
Nitrox? I would like to hear all possible theories AS LONG AS YOU CAN
SUPPORT THEM WITH REASONABLE HYPOTHESES. I'm especially partial to
"Big Brother/Big Business/Conspiracy" sorts of theories, as long as
you can offer a reasonable argument to support them.
Here's my shot at it:
Places like the Caymans that run cattleboats charge per dive. The more
dives they sell, the more money they make. That's why it's very convenient
for them to have relatively short dives:
while (1)
{
putEmIn(water);
wait(ShortInterval);
bringEmOut(water);
}
(That's why I'm especially partial to places like Dive Makai that tell
me to stay as long as I want - they'll be waiting for me on the boat -
if they're not helping me look for more cool things an hour into the
dive)
Computers and Nitrox make longer dives easier and safer. Fewer dives/day.
Less $$$$. It's not a great leap of faith to assume that the Cayman
Dive Operators and SDM are in cahoots, and there you have it. I guess
the only flaw in this argument is why there hasn't been a major editorial
blast at computers.....
Regards, Lee (wondering why the CIA South America Branch Chief was in
Dallas on November 22, 1963).
Karl Schutz
>
> [ ...discussion regarding home brewing deleted... ]
>
> I agree that home brewing except by serious, careful,
> committed technical divers is a bad thing. That is one reason why it
> would be a good thing if nitrox became the standard gas for most
> sport diving. This would make homebrewing unnecessary.
>
Question (not a criticism or stand): why make nitrox the standard gas for sport
diving? Why not just make it available on demand?
If safety in terms of dive profiles based on air while actually using nitrox
(within the depth limits of nitrox) is the reason, this could be accomplished by
building very conservative dive tables (at the expense of bottom time :-( ). Not
necessarily the most desirable approach, but less diver training (with respect to
nitrox if appropriate) is necessary and dive shops won't be strapped to
buy/modify compressors for nitrox. Besides, should a diver inadvertantly exceed
the depth limits, problems are augmented with potential oxygen toxicity
(yes/no?). So, the added safety in air dive profiles while using nitrox could be
compromised by desires to go a few feet deeper to see what's hiding in that hole.
Additionally, from what I've read, there is extra equipment required to dispense
nitrox vice air. Unless the additional equipment cost is subsidized by the
dispensing facility, doesn't that cost have to be passed on to the consumer?
I would think that the extra cost to the consumer would have to be justified by
the returns to diver well being. In light of a previous paragraph, is there
evidence (data) to suggest nitrox merit as the "standard?" In Bill Gleason's
article in SDM, he claims that "Divers are not following strict guidelines in the
preparation of the gas [nitrox], even going so far as to jury-rig their own
systems for mixing and using nitrox. They are ignoring the very stringent depth
limits imposed with responsible nitrox use and, unfortunately, paying the
ultimate price. Decompression accidents have also occurred, which seems somewhat
paradoxical."
I'm not sure of Bill Gleason's data source, but if true, why is it true? If part
of the blame lies with the nitrox education/training process, then in the future,
maybe nitrox would be the perferred standard. There is some statistical evidence
which suggests that the maturation of training agencies (with respect
education/training curriculum) has had something to do with reduction in diving
accidents. (Note, I said "suggests" not "proves;" I'm a Statistician by
profession which means never having to say you're certain :-) ... sorry, a little
stat humor there.) The problems Mr. Gleason refers to may very well be
correctable. I remember 20 years ago when people advised me of the dangers of
scuba, but today I hear quotes that bowling is more dangerous that scuba diving.
Do any of you nitrox folks know of what Mr. Gleason speaks? Do you see flaws in
the nitrox education/training system which should be addressed?
Greg Dawe
Lee Jones recently wrote:
> Here's a *really* interesting question: WHY is SDM so hung up about
> Nitrox? I would like to hear all possible theories AS LONG AS YOU CAN
> SUPPORT THEM WITH REASONABLE HYPOTHESES.
The recreational diving industry is not a large dollar business, and many
organizations (mostly the national training agencies) have gone to great
lengths to grow the diving market. SDM depends on the health of this
market.
Now along comes NITROX, a fine new technology in its infancy, as far as
the recreational market is concerned. SDM, and perhaps even PADI, are
probably very concerned that a mismanaged marketing approach with NITROX
could seriously damage the recreational market by creating "dangerous
perceptions about the safety of diving" in the minds of perspective NEW
divers. SDM (et al) goes to great lengths to emphasize the positive aspects
of recreational diving, in an effort to keep current divers interested and
attract new ones. SDM has never had a bad word to say about an item of
equipment or a vacation spot. Why should they bite the hand that feeds them?
Perhaps the thing that scares SDM (et al) more than anything is lots
of standards that we take for granted in the recreational market are just
evolving with NITROX. For example: standardized filling procedures,
agreement on VIP and maintenance procedures, agreement on equipment
compatability with NITROX etc. SDM is probably going to grow a few grey
hairs while recreational NITROX matures, but I think their concerns are
basicly self-serving.
Who was it that said, "If you hang around long enough you'll get to see the
whole show repeat itself"? This brings to light perhaps the most ironic
twist to the whole NITROX saga. Imagine the censure that a few ex-navy
divers got when they decided to take diving public back in the 1950's.
They probably heard plenty of things like, "It's too dangerous". Back then
there was absolutely NO recreational diving infrastructure. Now the
mouthpiece of the recreational diving market is censuring the emerging NITROX
industry with a 1990's version of "It's too dangerous" when they tell you to
"Just say no to NITROX". I'm willing to bet that in 10-20 years there'll be
rabid discussion about the safety and appropriateness of rebreathers in the
recreational diving market. Ahhhh, change... :-)
--
Greg Dawe | Disclaimer: I don't speak for my employer,
Voice : (508)-490-6666 | nor they for me...
e-mail: Greg...@vos.stratus.com|
Peter Rigsbee
In article <1cnhfc...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, le...@sgi.com (Lee Jones) writes:
> Less $$$$. It's not a great leap of faith to assume that the Cayman
> Dive Operators and SDM are in cahoots, and there you have it. I guess
> the only flaw in this argument is why there hasn't been a major editorial
> blast at computers.....
I'm afraid I don't accept your theory. But your refence to computers suggests
what I think is the real rationale. SDM's value system is easy -- if they
can sell ads for something, its good. They sell ads for computers; most
issues also have a "review" of a computer. So they aren't going to object
to computers.
But I think they hear some of the criticism about the magazine, and maybe
sales are being affected by the new magazines. So they decide they will
take stands on controversial issues to show their "responsibility" and
demonstrate they aren't just a catalog for advertisers. But what do they
pick? Things that wouldn't generate advertising revenue anyway, like deep
diving and Nitrox. Or their push on buoyancy control last year, where they
were able to sell some extra ad space for the dive operators who signed
up to give the program.
How about the issue of divers feeding fish, going to places where fish are
regularly fed, or swimming with captive or semi-captive porpoises? This
issue is somewhat controversial, but I'll bet SDM never editorializes
against this, since they have advertisers who make money on these things.
(Ever see a Cayman "review" that *didn't* talk about how wonderful Sting
Ray City is?)
Even if Nitrox really took off and became the norm, it woudn't increase
their revenues any. So they can look responsible and turn down any Nitrox
advertising, pretty confident that they aren't giving up anything. I don't
remember seeing any ads in the past related to Nitrox; does anyone else?
- Peter Rigsbee
Greg Dawe
Peter Rigsbee writes:
>what I think is the real rationale. SDM's value system is easy -- if they
>can sell ads for something, its good.
Applause. Applause. I was being too kind in my posting, but you said what
I wanted to say. I terminated my subscription to SDM because of this kind
of self-fulfilling philosphy.
Lee Jones
>
>
>Even if Nitrox really took off and became the norm, it woudn't increase
>their revenues any. So they can look responsible and turn down any Nitrox
>advertising, pretty confident that they aren't giving up anything. I don't
>remember seeing any ads in the past related to Nitrox; does anyone else?
>
Interesting idea. I hadn't thought about the big difference between
potential nitrox ad revenues and computer revenues. It's the same reason
Bush, Clinton, and Perot came charging into Florida to shake hands with
Hurricane Andrew victims, but didn't blink when Hawaii got clobbered by
Iniki - no electoral votes there :-(.
I do remember Gleason swearing they weren't going to take any Nitrox
advertising. That may be similar to saying they weren't going to take any
nuclear weapons advertising. The only Nitrox ad I remember seeing in SDM
was a 1/8 page thing about DiveDiveDive in the Bahamas offering a Nitrox
course.
Regards, Lee
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
> Computers and Nitrox make longer dives easier and safer. Fewer
dives/day.
> Less $$$$. It's not a great leap of faith to assume that the Cayman
> Dive Operators and SDM are in cahoots, and there you have it. I guess
> the only flaw in this argument is why there hasn't been a major editorial
> blast at computers.....
Probably because they also gets lots of $$$ from computer
manufacturers.
If I ever get the bucks to go somewhere warm, I hope I don't
wind up on a cattle boat like that. Now that we have computers
our dives tend to be between 50 and 60 minutes with a maximum
depth of 100 feet or a bit more. The trip reports I've been
reading lately imply that many operators think that's a no-no.
Charli...@mindlink.bc.ca
"I'm cursed with hair from HELL!" -- Night Court
Frank Deutschmann
I agree with the money issue driving SDM away from NITROX, but the
funny thing is that they, in conjunction with DEMA and the NITROX
groups (IAND and ANDI) could probably turn the NITROX situation into a
revenue generator.
How could they do this? Well, DEMA has been tossing around the idea
of requiring NITROX-only equipment -- special tanks, valves, regs. In
particular, they would really like to see a NITROX tank valve: last I
heard, it wouldbe a DIN with a left-hand thread, with Sherwood doing
manufacturing (they have already done some prototypes). DEMA likes
this as it eases the percieved liability problems with O2 in systems
not designed for it -- some manufacturers are very anti-NITROX because
of equipment incompatibility (Dacor reportably spent mega-bucks two
years ago on a redesign of the O-ring, but the new design is not O2
safe...).
Now, imagine this: DEMA gets together with ANDI, IAND, the cert
agencies, and comes up with an equipment strategy. The manufacturers
start producing O2 compatible equipment, the certifying agencies start
give the blessing to instructors and shops that do fills, and the
shops get O2 safe fill equipment. Everyone wins: consumers get
safety, with no chance of equipment-related problems, the
manufacturers get liability protection (no O2 problems, equipment
restricted to certified individuals) + bucks, agencies get liability
protection + happy instructors + students, SDM gets advert bucks.
Unfortunately, the consumer gives up big bucks -- to the shop for the
O2 safe fill equipment, to the cert agancy for the NITROX course, to
the equip people for the equipment, and to dive operators for new
rental equip and higher compensation for NITROX cert'ed DM's and
instructors.
Will this happen? Not on your life!!!!!
It will only happen very slowly, as consumers are not yet convinced,
andare unwilling to spend the bucks (and everyone knows that -- the
divce industry does not yet see the demand, except from the tech dive
community, and they don't want to touch that one!). In particular,
the dive industry, not yet seeing the demand, is loathe to take the
risk of promoting NITROX. One of the real unfortunate aspects of
NITROX is that anyone can plant the seed of fear: the mention of
convulsions and CNS toxicity is all it takes to scare the daylights
out of most "family divers"! Again, the irony is that NITROX is
really SAFER than air (simply put, air is the WRONG NITROX BLEND for
the diving the typical sport diver engages in)! How can we expect the
industry to take on the economic risks of developing NITROX, when it
could all be blown away by someone who does not yet see the benefit?
Unfortunately, it seems that SDM has a pretty good hold on the
industry by invoking the "scare tactics"; I think the only real hope
may be the Rodale Scuba Diving mag, which is thankfully taking a much
more logical and realistic approach to issues than SDM. It certainly
seems more consumer oriented than industry oriented.
As long as my shop keeps doing my NITROX fills, and maintaining my O2
cleaned Posseidon, I'll be happy, though -- SDM and other nay-sayers
can do what they like, but they better not try to take MY NITROX away!
--
-frank
(f...@panix.com)
Craig Campbell
>I am in favor of divers having access to Nitrox, but I do fear that if it
>becomes a status symbol or something, that we will be taking a step back
>down the slope toward the latter image - an image that I don't want to
>diving to have, nor do I believe promotes the long term health of the sport.
Nitrox should be no more a status symbol than Premium gasoline. It should
be (is) just another option available in order to achieve desired results.
craig
--
Craig Campbell | These opinions are entirely the result of a
Systems Engineer | small butterfly crashing into the far side
NCR Canada, | of the planet. Chaos Rules.
an AT&T Company | I speak for no one, except, possibly, myself.
Greg Ryan, g10b, xtn 4809
> How could they do this? Well, DEMA has been tossing around the idea
> of requiring NITROX-only equipment -- special tanks, valves, regs. In
> particular, they would really like to see a NITROX tank valve: last I
> heard, it wouldbe a DIN with a left-hand thread, with Sherwood doing
> manufacturing (they have already done some prototypes). DEMA likes
> this as it eases the percieved liability problems with O2 in systems
> not designed for it -- some manufacturers are very anti-NITROX because
> of equipment incompatibility (Dacor reportably spent mega-bucks two
> years ago on a redesign of the O-ring, but the new design is not O2
> safe...).
It is the case in Australia that the Australian Scuba Council, with IAND Australia
is putting together a standard for a nitrox tank valve - this will be a minimum
pressure retaining valve with a DIN fitting (not the "standard" one).
It is already the case here that Airdive makes an O2 regulator, and I'm sure
they will adapt it for the new valve. The local manufacturer of Command Air
regs is also said to be producing an O2 reg, and will also be making converting
kits for other regs to match the new valve.
Knowing the story of the introduction of nitrox into this country quite well, I would
say that money has not been a driving force behind this standard. Rather, given
the concerns that many have with nitrox, and its safety both in and out of the
water, the approach here has tended to be conservative, and the MPR valve is
another reflection of that conservatism - basically the nitrox divers here can't
afford to get the diving medical communitry any more offside, so can't afford to be
seen to be slack in their approach or standards.
> Now, imagine this: DEMA gets together with ANDI, IAND, the cert
> agencies, and comes up with an equipment strategy. The manufacturers
> start producing O2 compatible equipment, the certifying agencies start
> give the blessing to instructors and shops that do fills, and the
> shops get O2 safe fill equipment.
> Will this happen? Not on your life!!!!!
Well the move is afoot here.
Greg Ryan gr...@cs.su.oz.au
Anthony DeBoer
> ...
>Bill Gleason repeatedly qualified his objections of nitrox use by "recreational
>divers." His tone was toward the reader ... you, the reader, should say no to
>nitrox; not, let's ban nitrox for all divers.
So, if I understand correctly, he's saying that if you're smart enough
to stop reading Scam Divers Monthly, you could be smart enough to use
nitrox? :-)
--
Anthony DeBoer NAUI # Z8800, D5482 | Why watch TV, when Netnews provides
a...@herboid.uucp | a...@geac.com | 100% of your daily requirement for
uunet!geac!herboid!adb | trivia and meaningless entertainment?