i got bent - long
jim frei
Decompression sickness (DCS) is a class of injuries suffered primarily
by scuba divers and other people who work at pressures different than
the normal 1 atmosphere absolute (ata) we all experience at the sea
level; 1 ata = 14.7 psi. DCS is often called the “bends”, and someone
who gets DCS is referred to as being “bent” or “hit”. On July 7, I got
hit by a very serious type of DCS called Decompression Illness Type II.
What this means, DCI Type II, is there is damage to the central nervous
system.
As an avid scuba diver, I’m also interested in diving physiology, diving
safety, and of course DCS theory. Therefore, I participate as a
research subject in diving studies conducted by Divers Alert Network
(DAN) and Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) at Duke’s hyperbaric
chamber. All studies and treatments described in this report are
conducted in a dry chamber. I have done a few studies in the wet
chamber.
The study in which I participated is an Ascent Rate Study where various
profiles with an ascent rate of either 10 feet per minute (fpm) or 60
fpm are compared. I had successfully completed about eight previous
profiles in this study. The profile that bent me was to a depth of 100
feet sea water (fsw) for 30 minutes with a 10 fpm ascent. Twenty
minutes after surfacing, I experienced incredible pain and swelling in
my umbilicus (abdominal) area extending around to my sides. The pain
was terrible and getting worse. During the initial examination, I began
to feel tingling and numbness in my feet and ankles; I do not remember
this numbness spreading up my legs prior to entering the chamber for
treatment.
I entered the chamber where I began a Navy Treatment Table 6. This
table starts at a depth of 60 fsw and then ascends to 30 fsw while
breathing cycles of Oxygen. During this table, my conditions worsened,
and I became paralyzed from the waist down. The doctors immediately
commenced with Treatment Table 7 which compresses to a depth of 165 fsw
for two hours, then slowly ascends for the next 58 hours. I am
breathing cycles of Oxygen during this time.
At normal pressure (1 ata) and normal percentage (O2 = 21% in the air we
breathe), Oxygen is benign. At higher partial pressures, Oxygen can be
either a wonder drug or a poison, depending on how long it is
administered. I was administered Oxygen in 20 minute cycles with 5
minute air breaks interspersed with 4-hour air breaks for the duration
of my initial treatment.
Now, while I was undergoing Table 7, lying in an uncomfortable bed (for
lack of better term), two tenders, Dan and Donna, were in the chamber
with me, administering drugs and water, and looking after me. We all
three became saturation divers – all of our tissues were completely
saturated with Nitrogen – there was no more available Nitrogen uptake.
At some point in the Treatment Table, the dive profile was calculated
according to the tenders’ decompression obligation. Since I was
breathing so much Oxygen, my ascent could have been quicker, but the
tenders’ required a longer ascent time.
Finally, Monday morning, we emerged from the chamber. As for me, I was
no longer a paraplegic, but I still could not stand nor walk, but at
least I had some leg movements and sensations. I was admitted to Duke
Hospital and began additional hyperbaric Oxygen (HBO) treatment on
Tuesday. Since being hit with the bends, I have experience terrific
abdominal pain, headaches, nausea, high blood pressure, rapid heart
rate, leg tremors, loss of appetite, numbness, tingling, inability to
self-urinate or to move my bowels. Most of these symptoms have
diminished quite a bit.
My HBO treatment consisted of two-hour cycles in the chamber breathing
Oxygen at depth of 33 fsw twice a day. I underwent seven HBO treatment
cycles.
Why did I get bent? That’s the million dollar question – there is still
so much unknown about DCS and the human body. Theoretically, we know
that some nitrogen bubbles lodged near my lower spinal column,
disrupting the blood supply. An MRI shows splotches of damage along an
8 cm section. This spinal damage broke the circuitry that controls my
legs.
Nitrogen bubbles form when divers ascend. The air we breathe is
approximately 21% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen. We can ignore the other
minute gases. As a diver descends, the Oxygen is used by the body.
Nitrogen is not used, and simply dissolves into the tissues and blood
where it circulates harmlessly until the diver ascends. Under most
normal circumstances, this excess nitrogen is exhaled. If the divers
ascends too fast, or has accumulated too much Nitrogen by staying at
depth too long, then the bubbles increase in size, or can’t be exhaled
(off-gassed) fast enough.
Imagine a bottle of beer. Sitting still, you cannot see the CO2 in
solution. But shake the bottle and open it. The CO2 comes out of
solution as tiny bubbles – in other words, foam. By opening the bottle
cap, the pressure is released and bubbles form.
Divers can control this nitrogen bubble problem by diving to shallow
depths for short periods, ascending slowly, or using an air supply with
a lower percentage of Nitrogen ( e.g., Enriched Air Nitrox).
The profile that bent me was long according to most recreational dive
planning tables, but the ascent rate (10 fpm) is much slower than most
divers practice in open water. Therefore, I thought the risk was
tolerable for my own personal comfort level. Unfortunately, the odds
were against me, and I got hit bad. I still feel that diving is safe
(or safer) as driving a car or many other activities we pursue. To
avoid getting bent with 100% certainty, then divers should not dive.
A ultrasound test during my treatment showed a patent foramen oval
(PFO), or hole, in my heart septum. Every mammal is born with a PFO in
its septum; it allows air from the mother’s placenta to reach the
embryo’s circulation system. Upon birth, the PFO usually closes as the
lungs take over. Twenty percent of humans have a PFO with knowing it
unless they are tested for some reason. Usually, a PFO causes no
problems. In a human, the PFO allows some blood that has already
circulated, to bypass the lungs, and go back into the circulation system
without purging its load of CO2 and other gasses – in my case Nitrogen
since I had been diving.
I have completed over 300 dives with no hint of DCS since 1991.
Probably 20% of these dives were to depths greater than 100 fsw
including at least one to 168 fsw with deco stops. Why did I get hit
this time? The 30-minute bottom time was a little aggressive, but not
extreme, the air I breathed was normox, not nitrox, and while the ascent
was slower than the usual, there was no 5 minute safety stop at 15 fsw
as is encouraged but not required by most recreational training
agencies. I almost always do a safety stop before surfacing. I also do
not exceed the no-deco limits unless that is the dive I plan. Maybe the
PFO played an important role. My advice is that if you plan to
regularly dive deep (> 100 fsw) and long (pushing the no-deco limits)
then you may want to consider getting tested for the presence of a PFO –
then you can choose your level of risk with one more fact to consider.
I fully support DAN and its mission to improve diver safety. Without
human research, we would not learn much applicable to the typical
recreational diver. I knew the profile was aggressive when I
volunteered, but it was my choice, and there is no one to blame. It was
just my unlucky turn to get hit. Like they say, if you don't want to
get bent, then don't dive. At least a lot of knowledge will be gained
from this incident, and I feel proud that I have contributed to the body
of science.
--
jim frei
stormwater services group
raleigh, north carolina
(919) 819-4229
http://stormwatergroup.com
James Connell
a speedy recovery, and all the best. you are to be admired!
i must say i'm not suprized you got bent however, i ran the profile and
even with an ascent rate of 10ft/min you still have a deco of 10 min!
and that's with no safety factor.
jim frei wrote:
>
> my story - i got bent doing an experimental dive study.
< story removed>
--
James Connell
Do not Fold, Spindle, or Mutilate.
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
reflect those of the author.
mjbl...@my-deja.com
In article <3974BE1A...@stormwatergroup.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
MHK
jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote in message
news:3974BE1A...@stormwatergroup.com...
> my story - i got bent doing an experimental dive study.
Jim,
Glad to hear that you are recuperating. Pretty scary stuff that you have
experience. Thanks for sharing and I'm particularly grateful that you
mentioned the idea of getting a PFO test. We have been pushing this issue
for a while now and maybe based upon your experiences others will make a
point of getting one.
As a side note, I had my doctor recommend my test and it was therefore
covered under my HMO insurance policy. Here in Los Angeles the cost of the
test is about $300.
Feel better..
Bob Crownfield
Simple. Keep your nose out of your armpit.
--
Bob Crownfield, Crown...@Home.com
Photography, Flying, Delphi Rad Addict
Now diving the Pacific in the LA Area.
"Protect freedoms before they become extinct."
Popeye
>
>my story - i got bent doing an experimental dive study.
>
I would greatly encourage every participant of Rec.scuba to read this, and to
forward it to every diver they have ever known.
Jim, thanks for your candor. I personally appreciate that the risk you took
will help other divers avoid these dire consequences. These are the thinks that
most people take for granted today. Not me. Please keep us posted on your
recovery. I don't pray often, but I will for you tonight.
Doug Frederick
jim frei
> i congratulate you on volunteering for important research, and wish you
> a speedy recovery, and all the best. you are to be admired!
>
> i must say i'm not suprized you got bent however, i ran the profile and
> even with an ascent rate of 10ft/min you still have a deco of 10 min!
> and that's with no safety factor.
>
i was the only one of 16 subjects to get bent - my unlucky day!
jim frei
> I smell a troll. MJB
>
i've been flat on back since july 7 with limited leg movement - i can
neither piss nor shit. this is no troll. i will gladly trade places with
you anytime, fool. my post is meant a factual account of one DCS incident.
i'm sorry you are always so cynical.
Rosalie B.
>>From: jim frei
>>
>>my story - i got bent doing an experimental dive study.
Jim, you say you were the only one of the 16 to get bent. Do you have
any idea why?
>
>I would greatly encourage every participant of Rec.scuba to read this, and to
>forward it to every diver they have ever known.
>
> Jim, thanks for your candor. I personally appreciate that the risk you took
>will help other divers avoid these dire consequences. These are the thinks that
>most people take for granted today. Not me. Please keep us posted on your
>recovery. I don't pray often, but I will for you tonight.
>
>
> Doug Frederick
grandma Rosalie
Ross Bagley
jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote:
>mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> I smell a troll. MJB
>i've been flat on back since july 7 with limited leg movement - i can
>neither piss nor shit. this is no troll. i will gladly trade places with
>you anytime, fool. my post is meant a factual account of one DCS incident.
>i'm sorry you are always so cynical.
Don't get bent (sorry :) out of shape at rec.scuba's resident punching
bag. The eye doctor has a completely unique view of reality (as a
still practicing doctor, he has threatened bodily harm to several
members of this newsgroup). By posting an honest message involving
medicine, diving, and your own immediate personal contribution, you
are now, in his eyes, an obvious fake looking for attention.
Many people have killfiled him. I still read for the comic relief.
I, for one, hope that DAN had enough information about your dives
leading up to this one so that all of us can use your experience to
increase our understanding of safe diving.
Thank you,
Ross
-- Ross Bagley & Associates http://rossbagley.com/rba
"We don't just write software, we help you write software better!"
James Connell
bad as it got you i'd realy like to know just how everybody else did.
and don't let black get to you he's just always a jerk!
jim frei wrote:
>
> James Connell wrote:
>
> > i congratulate you on volunteering for important research, and wish you
> > a speedy recovery, and all the best. you are to be admired!
> >
> > i must say i'm not suprized you got bent however, i ran the profile and
> > even with an ascent rate of 10ft/min you still have a deco of 10 min!
> > and that's with no safety factor.
> >
>
> i was the only one of 16 subjects to get bent - my unlucky day!
>
> --
> jim frei
> stormwater services group
> raleigh, north carolina
> (919) 819-4229
> http://stormwatergroup.com
--
Jack Connick
suffering. Hope you feel better RSN.
Good Luck
Jack
--
Jack Connick
OWC - NAUI, LA County; 1969
Rescue Diver - PADI, Nitrox - TDI, DAN O2; 2000
Please remove the words "NOSPAM" from my address when replying.
Icarus
I pray for your full recovery.
Dennis
jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote in message
news:3974BE1A...@stormwatergroup.com...
<snip>
surfinspacegirl
Thank you for your courage in volunteering for a research program that makes
diving safer for all of us. Wish you a speedy and full recovery; we'll be
thinking of you.
surfinspacegirl
jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote in message
news:3974BE1A...@stormwatergroup.com...
> my story - i got bent doing an experimental dive study
<SNIP>
Jason O'Rourke
>Jim, you say you were the only one of the 16 to get bent. Do you have
>any idea why?
That he has a PFO is probably a big reason why. Even if it allowed him to
do countless other dives, it is considered a risk factor.
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
Last dive @ Metridium Colony, Monterey. 60 mins @ 53ft depth max
Einar Hagen
Einar
MHK <mhk...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote in message
news:8l2i9u$3avq$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote in message
> news:3974BE1A...@stormwatergroup.com...
> > my story - i got bent doing an experimental dive study.
>
>
Einar Hagen
Tried to compute your profile with Decoplanner and no
matter how i twisted it, this was a deco-dive and you omitted
a lot of deco.
Thanks for voluntering your services, and get well soon.
Einar
jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote in message
news:3974E0EA...@stormwatergroup.com...
> James Connell wrote:
>
> > i congratulate you on volunteering for important research, and wish you
> > a speedy recovery, and all the best. you are to be admired!
> >
> > i must say i'm not suprized you got bent however, i ran the profile and
> > even with an ascent rate of 10ft/min you still have a deco of 10 min!
> > and that's with no safety factor.
> >
>
> i was the only one of 16 subjects to get bent - my unlucky day!
>
Einar Hagen
Rosalie B. <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Jim, you say you were the only one of the 16 to get bent. Do you have
> any idea why?
> >
Cause we are dealing with physiology, not math.
All kinds of things come into play in a situation like this.
My guess would be hydration, PFO and general physical fitness.
Einar
Øystein Mehus
>
> In my book, the profile you did Jim, was a bit too agressive.
> Tried to compute your profile with Decoplanner and no
> matter how i twisted it, this was a deco-dive and you omitted
> a lot of deco.
I guess they'll have to run some semi aggressive profiles to
get results in these tests...
If you run straight Buhlman in DecoPlanner, GFLo = 100, GFLo =
100, ascent rate 3m/min, your deco obligation is 4minutes, but
you will have used 9 minutes to get from 30m to 3 (so total
time to surface is 9 + 4 = 13min)
If you run the same profile with 10m/min ascent rate, your
deco obligation comes out as 7min at 3m, and you will have
made from 30m to 3m in 3 minutes (so total time to surface is
3 + 7 minutes = 10min)
I don't think the profile they ran was all that bad, Jim was
just out of luck. I'd dive that profile any day, instead of
going with the faster ascent rate, and repairing at 3m.
> Thanks for voluntering your services, and get well soon.
Ditto.
--
Oystein
John Appel
DAN?
Do they pay, or are you left hanging out to dry?
John
"jim frei" <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote in message
news:3974BE1A...@stormwatergroup.com...
> three became saturation divers - all of our tissues were completely
> saturated with Nitrogen - there was no more available Nitrogen uptake.
> At some point in the Treatment Table, the dive profile was calculated
> according to the tenders' decompression obligation. Since I was
> breathing so much Oxygen, my ascent could have been quicker, but the
> tenders' required a longer ascent time.
>
> Finally, Monday morning, we emerged from the chamber. As for me, I was
> no longer a paraplegic, but I still could not stand nor walk, but at
> least I had some leg movements and sensations. I was admitted to Duke
> Hospital and began additional hyperbaric Oxygen (HBO) treatment on
> Tuesday. Since being hit with the bends, I have experience terrific
> abdominal pain, headaches, nausea, high blood pressure, rapid heart
> rate, leg tremors, loss of appetite, numbness, tingling, inability to
> self-urinate or to move my bowels. Most of these symptoms have
> diminished quite a bit.
>
> My HBO treatment consisted of two-hour cycles in the chamber breathing
> Oxygen at depth of 33 fsw twice a day. I underwent seven HBO treatment
> cycles.
>
> Why did I get bent? That's the million dollar question - there is still
> so much unknown about DCS and the human body. Theoretically, we know
> that some nitrogen bubbles lodged near my lower spinal column,
> disrupting the blood supply. An MRI shows splotches of damage along an
> 8 cm section. This spinal damage broke the circuitry that controls my
> legs.
>
> Nitrogen bubbles form when divers ascend. The air we breathe is
> approximately 21% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen. We can ignore the other
> minute gases. As a diver descends, the Oxygen is used by the body.
> Nitrogen is not used, and simply dissolves into the tissues and blood
> where it circulates harmlessly until the diver ascends. Under most
> normal circumstances, this excess nitrogen is exhaled. If the divers
> ascends too fast, or has accumulated too much Nitrogen by staying at
> depth too long, then the bubbles increase in size, or can't be exhaled
> (off-gassed) fast enough.
>
> Imagine a bottle of beer. Sitting still, you cannot see the CO2 in
> solution. But shake the bottle and open it. The CO2 comes out of
> solution as tiny bubbles - in other words, foam. By opening the bottle
> cap, the pressure is released and bubbles form.
>
> Divers can control this nitrogen bubble problem by diving to shallow
> depths for short periods, ascending slowly, or using an air supply with
> a lower percentage of Nitrogen ( e.g., Enriched Air Nitrox).
>
> The profile that bent me was long according to most recreational dive
> planning tables, but the ascent rate (10 fpm) is much slower than most
> divers practice in open water. Therefore, I thought the risk was
> tolerable for my own personal comfort level. Unfortunately, the odds
> were against me, and I got hit bad. I still feel that diving is safe
> (or safer) as driving a car or many other activities we pursue. To
> avoid getting bent with 100% certainty, then divers should not dive.
>
> A ultrasound test during my treatment showed a patent foramen oval
> (PFO), or hole, in my heart septum. Every mammal is born with a PFO in
> its septum; it allows air from the mother's placenta to reach the
> embryo's circulation system. Upon birth, the PFO usually closes as the
> lungs take over. Twenty percent of humans have a PFO with knowing it
> unless they are tested for some reason. Usually, a PFO causes no
> problems. In a human, the PFO allows some blood that has already
> circulated, to bypass the lungs, and go back into the circulation system
> without purging its load of CO2 and other gasses - in my case Nitrogen
> since I had been diving.
>
> I have completed over 300 dives with no hint of DCS since 1991.
> Probably 20% of these dives were to depths greater than 100 fsw
> including at least one to 168 fsw with deco stops. Why did I get hit
> this time? The 30-minute bottom time was a little aggressive, but not
> extreme, the air I breathed was normox, not nitrox, and while the ascent
> was slower than the usual, there was no 5 minute safety stop at 15 fsw
> as is encouraged but not required by most recreational training
> agencies. I almost always do a safety stop before surfacing. I also do
> not exceed the no-deco limits unless that is the dive I plan. Maybe the
> PFO played an important role. My advice is that if you plan to
> regularly dive deep (> 100 fsw) and long (pushing the no-deco limits)
> then you may want to consider getting tested for the presence of a PFO -
Wombat
Einar wrote
> My guess would be hydration, PFO and general physical fitness.
>
Interesting comment, I would tend to agree exempt for the following
situation. The RAN Clearance Divers run similar testing into physiology to
the USN. within one week in 1990 4 divers out of a team of 12 got bent doing
profiles they had done MANY times before. These were fit guys, professional
divers and were diving under research conditions i.e. many facets of there
lives were being monitored. Nothing was found to suggest what occurred this
phenomena, when it is going to happen it is going to happen I suppose.
Get well soon mate.
Wombat
mjbl...@my-deja.com
DIRT that this post looked out of place. Apologies to Jim Frei.
No offense intended to you, Jim, and yes I have become VERY cynical
of many regular posters on this newsgroup.
When I have time, I'll reread the post. Was it an embolism or DCS?
MJB
In article <8l2o3c$peq$1...@news.jump.net>,
r...@jump.net (Ross Bagley) wrote:
> In article <3974E17C...@stormwatergroup.com>,
> jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote:
> >mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> I smell a troll. MJB
>
> >i've been flat on back since july 7 with limited leg movement - i can
> >neither piss nor shit. this is no troll. i will gladly trade
places with
> >you anytime, fool. my post is meant a factual account of one DCS
incident.
> >i'm sorry you are always so cynical.
>
> Don't get bent (sorry :) out of shape at rec.scuba's resident punching
> bag. The eye doctor has a completely unique view of reality (as a
> still practicing doctor, he has threatened bodily harm to several
> members of this newsgroup). By posting an honest message involving
> medicine, diving, and your own immediate personal contribution, you
> are now, in his eyes, an obvious fake looking for attention.
>
> Many people have killfiled him. I still read for the comic relief.
>
> I, for one, hope that DAN had enough information about your dives
> leading up to this one so that all of us can use your experience to
> increase our understanding of safe diving.
>
> Thank you,
> Ross
>
> -- Ross Bagley & Associates http://rossbagley.com/rba
> "We don't just write software, we help you write software better!"
>
mike_...@my-deja.com
mjbl...@my-deja.com
way you cretins put words in my mouth. Acknowledging what difference,
Gault? Is the DIRT-ball trying to say that I don't know what DCI is?
Get back in your swimming pool, little boy. MJB
In article <8l4dcu$mf4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8l4csn$m1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > When I have time, I'll reread the post. Was it an embolism or DCS?
> > MJB
>
> Finally acknowledging there is a difference, doctor?
>
mike_...@my-deja.com
it both ways. Do you remember your smart ass comments to me regarding
the physics of bubble formation? Your hypocrisy and double standards
are showing again.
In article <8l4efg$ncc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> And another DIRT-ball jumps in, this time Gault. I just love the
> way you cretins put words in my mouth. Acknowledging what difference,
> Gault? Is the DIRT-ball trying to say that I don't know what DCI is?
> Get back in your swimming pool, little boy. MJB
>
> In article <8l4dcu$mf4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8l4csn$m1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > When I have time, I'll reread the post. Was it an embolism or
DCS?
> > > MJB
> >
> > Finally acknowledging there is a difference, doctor?
> >
Ross Bagley
>DIRT that this post looked out of place.
Glad to hear it :) Anything more I can do to help you look like the
idiot you are, don't be afraid to point it out...
mjbl...@my-deja.com
discuss anything with an annelid, and I can't believe how you
guys managed to crawl out of the soil and find rec.scuba. God
I would love to kick your ass in a one-on-one verbal debate
(you, Milak, Crownfield, and about twenty others here). Sigh.
MJB
In article <8l4gf5$p83$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Did you forget about our prior communications, Black. You can't have
> it both ways. Do you remember your smart ass comments to me regarding
> the physics of bubble formation? Your hypocrisy and double standards
> are showing again.
>
> In article <8l4efg$ncc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > And another DIRT-ball jumps in, this time Gault. I just love the
> > way you cretins put words in my mouth. Acknowledging what
difference,
> > Gault? Is the DIRT-ball trying to say that I don't know what DCI
is?
> > Get back in your swimming pool, little boy. MJB
> >
> > In article <8l4dcu$mf4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8l4csn$m1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > When I have time, I'll reread the post. Was it an embolism or
> DCS?
> > > > MJB
> > >
> > > Finally acknowledging there is a difference, doctor?
> > >
mike_...@my-deja.com
you are typing, are you? Do you really expect us to believe you sound
any less stupid when you speak?
Is 1.9 actually 1.4 when you speak the words? Does "inside these
wrecks" come out as "outside these wrecks" when you speak?
In article <8l4jbh$rhc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Rosalie B.
>Rosalie B. <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Jim, you say you were the only one of the 16 to get bent. Do you have
>>any idea why?
>
>That he has a PFO is probably a big reason why. Even if it allowed him to
>do countless other dives, it is considered a risk factor.
I didn't see that until after I asked - sorry.
I was just trying to determine if some of the other things I hear
about getting bent (will be more likely if this or that factor)
applied here.
grandma Rosalie
Jerome O'Neil
> mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I smell a troll. MJB
>>
>
> i've been flat on back since july 7 with limited leg movement - i can
> neither piss nor shit. this is no troll. i will gladly trade places with
> you anytime, fool. my post is meant a factual account of one DCS incident.
> i'm sorry you are always so cynical.
Jim, you'll know Black pretty well before long.
Personaly, I'd rather be bent than Black.
mjbl...@my-deja.com
In article <8l4k2f$s9t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Is 1.9 actually 1.4 when you speak the words? Does "inside these
> wrecks" come out as "outside these wrecks" when you speak?
No, only when you interpret, which isn't possible for annelids.
Bye, you aren't worth my time. MJB
Bob Crownfield
>
> And another DIRT-ball jumps in, this time Gault. I just love the
> way you cretins put words in my mouth.
And with your mouth so full of feet and all.....
Acknowledging what difference,
> Gault? Is the DIRT-ball trying to say that I don't know what DCI is?
> Get back in your swimming pool, little boy. MJB
>
> In article <8l4dcu$mf4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8l4csn$m1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > When I have time, I'll reread the post. Was it an embolism or DCS?
> > > MJB
> >
> > Finally acknowledging there is a difference, doctor?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Bob Crownfield, Crown...@Home.com
Photography, Flying, Delphi Rad Addict
Now diving the Pacific in the LA Area.
"Protect freedoms before they become extinct."
Bob Crownfield
>
> And again, DIRT-ball Gault dreams one up. It is impossible to
> discuss anything with an annelid, and I can't believe how you
> guys managed to crawl out of the soil and find rec.scuba. God
> I would love to kick your ass in a one-on-one verbal debate
> (you, Milak, Crownfield, and about twenty others here). Sigh.
the proverbial battle of wits, with you unarmed...
> MJB
>
> In article <8l4gf5$p83$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Did you forget about our prior communications, Black. You can't have
> > it both ways. Do you remember your smart ass comments to me regarding
> > the physics of bubble formation? Your hypocrisy and double standards
> > are showing again.
> >
> > In article <8l4efg$ncc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > And another DIRT-ball jumps in, this time Gault. I just love the
> > > way you cretins put words in my mouth. Acknowledging what
Popeye
>>DIRT that this post looked out of place.
Hey Doctor Scumbag, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean were not out to
get you. :-)
Popeye
The Beatings Will Continue
Until Moral Improves
.
jim frei
> buzcu...@aol.comMJBBITZ ( Popeye ) wrote:
>
> >>From: jim frei
> >>
> >>my story - i got bent doing an experimental dive study.
>
> Jim, you say you were the only one of the 16 to get bent. Do you have
> any idea why?
the pfo may have contributed, but no one can say for certain. getting bent is still
just a random roll of the dice. divers get bent when they do everything by the
book, and others drink and stay down deep and long and don't get bent. that's why
we are conducting the research.
jim frei
> Rosalie B. <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > Jim, you say you were the only one of the 16 to get bent. Do you have
> > any idea why?
> > >
>
> Cause we are dealing with physiology, not math.
> All kinds of things come into play in a situation like this.
>
> My guess would be hydration, PFO and general physical fitness.
>
> Einar
i'm pretty fit for 42 yo, and i was well hydrated with water and juice. it
is not known if the other 15 divers have a pfo, and i doubt if they will be
tested - your typical recreational diver is not tested for a pfo, and these
DAN studies are meant to represent recreational diving as taught by most
agencies.
jim frei
> 1 of 16! that's on the same profile? were they doing doppler tests? as
> bad as it got you i'd realy like to know just how everybody else did.
all divers are subject to doppler bubble detection for several hours after each
study dive. i've had bubble a few times before, but never got bent - so have
other divers in the study.
>
>
> and don't let black get to you he's just always a jerk!
no problemo with black
jim frei
> In my book, the profile you did Jim, was a bit too agressive.
> Tried to compute your profile with Decoplanner and no
> matter how i twisted it, this was a deco-dive and you omitted
> a lot of deco.
i knew the BT exceeded every recreational table limit (the US Navy table allows
25 minutes at 100 fsw) and also omitted the safety stop, but i felt that with
the slow 10 fpm ascent rate, that the risk was acceptable for me. i crapped
out this time!
btw - DAN cannot test any more subjects at this profile due to their safety/
reject rules.
jim frei
> Who pays the hospital and recovery/recuperation bills when this happens at
> DAN?
> Do they pay, or are you left hanging out to dry?
DAN is paying - its covered in the consent form all subjects sign.
jim frei
> On 18 Jul 2000 16:27:40 EDT, jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com>
> wrote:
>
> >my story - i got bent doing an experimental dive study.
> <snip>
>
> Great story, Jim. I hope you recover soon.
>
> Have you had any indication about why you got bent? Were you
> particularly tired that day, or were there any other possible
> contributing factors?
the only difference was that i had had some sinus congestion several
days before the dive, but i felt clear the morning of the dive. i took
two snorts of Afrin (very rare for me) - i had no trouble clearing.
everything else was within my normal physical condtion.
mjbl...@my-deja.com
"Einar Hagen" <einar...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> My guess would be hydration, PFO and general physical fitness.
Good guesses Einar. Here are mine: PFO, and idiopathic (which
is medical terminology for indeterminable). A severe DCI II hit
like Jim's breaks the rules, and shows how little we understand
about DCI. Would be interesting to hear DAN's report, but I
somehow doubt this will appear in their Alert Diver magazine.
Hope you recover, Jim. MJB
mjbl...@my-deja.com
alters its testing protocols to test all their subjects for PFO's
prior to conducting experimental dives. Tough decision. MJB
In article <8l5748$c8a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mjbl...@my-deja.com
profile in the presence of PFO (patent foramen ovale). Some of the N2
bubbles that evolved during ascent shunted from the right atrium to
the left, entered Jim's arterial circulation, and lodged in his lower
spinal cord, affecting his nerves from the waist down. His story is
not unexpected given the PFO which was discovered after the fact.
Hope you get well Jim, and applaud your efforts (and apologize again
for the troll comment--your story seemed unusually accurate for a
recreational diver). MJB
In article <39761809...@stormwatergroup.com>,
chilly
using it in sentences so that you will remember it. Good for
you.
mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
(snip) annelid (snip)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
chilly
are my hopes for your full return to health. You really took
the bullet for us. How do we thank you for that?
jim frei <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote:
>Einar Hagen wrote:
>
>> In my book, the profile you did Jim, was a bit too agressive.
>> Tried to compute your profile with Decoplanner and no
>> matter how i twisted it, this was a deco-dive and you omitted
>> a lot of deco.
>
>i knew the BT exceeded every recreational table limit (the US
Navy table allows
>25 minutes at 100 fsw) and also omitted the safety stop, but i
felt that with
>the slow 10 fpm ascent rate, that the risk was acceptable for
me. i crapped
>out this time!
>
>btw - DAN cannot test any more subjects at this profile due to
their safety/
>reject rules.
>
>--
>jim frei
>stormwater services group
>raleigh, north carolina
>(919) 819-4229
>http://stormwatergroup.com
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
jim frei
> Sure sorry to hear what happened. My thoughts are with you as
> are my hopes for your full return to health. You really took
> the bullet for us. How do we thank you for that?
go diving, but do it conservatively...then drink a rolling rock or two
after the dive.
John Appel
"jim frei" <jdf...@stormwatergroup.com> wrote in message
news:39761777...@stormwatergroup.com...
> John Appel wrote:
>
> > Who pays the hospital and recovery/recuperation bills when this happens
at
> > DAN?
> > Do they pay, or are you left hanging out to dry?
>
> DAN is paying - its covered in the consent form all subjects sign.
> stormwater services group
> raleigh, north carolina
> (919) 819-4229
> http://stormwatergroup.com
Thanks, Jim. Good to know that.
John
Randy F. Milak
>
> Jim developed DCI-Type II due to an aggressive experimental dive
> profile in the presence of PFO (patent foramen ovale). Some of the N2
> bubbles that evolved during ascent shunted from the right atrium to
> the left, entered Jim's arterial circulation, and lodged in his lower
> spinal cord, affecting his nerves from the waist down. His story is
> not unexpected given the PFO which was discovered after the fact.
> Hope you get well Jim, and applaud your efforts (and apologize again
> for the troll comment--your story seemed unusually accurate for a
> recreational diver). MJB
Psssst, the proper convention is _DCS_ type II, not _DCI_ type II.
--
Randy F. Milak
Windsor, Ontario
~A conclusion is simply the place where one got tired of thinking!~
El Stroko Guapo
>
> John Appel wrote:
>
> > Who pays the hospital and recovery/recuperation bills when this happens at
> > DAN?
> > Do they pay, or are you left hanging out to dry?
>
> DAN is paying - its covered in the consent form all subjects sign.
Were you using a computer?
m
jim frei
not on this dive...i had taken my computer in the chamber on a previous dive where
the profile was 100 fsw, 27 minute BT, and 10 fpm ascent rate. that dive violated
the deco stop requirement and locked out my aladin for 24 hrs - but no one of 9
subjects got bent on that particular dive.
--
Sam
Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Others will be helped because of what is learned. Your sacrifice will probably
save lives. It is commendable of you to do it.
Sam
Einar Hagen
news:39757F57...@hitec.no...
> I guess they'll have to run some semi aggressive profiles to
> get results in these tests...
>
Of course they have to push the envelope,
i just said that it was to agressive for me.
I too have had a mild case of DCS and found that i would
like to be more conservative with the profiles that i do.
I used to adjust my Decoplanner to: GFLo: 20 and GFHi: 100
After i got a bubble in my elbow on a profile i had done a
lot of times i adjusted my settings to 15/80. This setting gives
me 19 minutes of deco on Jims profile.......
That said, i wouldnt have done it with just air. I would have used
EAN35, this would have gotten me out of thew water with 5 minutes
of deco. Or if i was to do it on air i would have brought a deco-bottle
with EAN50 to use from 21 meters and up, this would have given
11 minutes of deco.
> I don't think the profile they ran was all that bad, Jim was
> just out of luck. I'd dive that profile any day, instead of
> going with the faster ascent rate, and repairing at 3m.
Would you really?? I mean 30 meters on air for 30
minutes and then off you go to the 3 meter stop?
Einar
Mike Gray
>
>
> Others will be helped because of what is learned. Your sacrifice will probably
> save lives. It is commendable of you to do it.
I STRONGLY disagree with the above.
Let's review:
A chamber dive was done without deco, and without even a "safety stop",
well beyond NDLs.
Within 24 hours, an in-water dive was done, without deco and without
even a "safety stop", which even in the absence of the chamber dive was
well beyond NDLs.
Proving that repetitive dives beyond NDLs will eventually get you bent
teaches nothing, is not a sacrifice that will accomplish anything, and
is damned foolish.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for conducting dives outside tables that
have proven reliable for over 70 years, except to intentionally induce
DCS, and IMNSHO someone needs their ass reamed BUT GOOD!
It was stated that these dives were conducted under the auspices of DAN,
which I question. In any event, I have contacted DAN and requested an
explanation.
regards
m
jim frei
> Sam wrote:
> >
> >
> > Others will be helped because of what is learned. Your sacrifice will probably
> > save lives. It is commendable of you to do it.
>
> I STRONGLY disagree with the above.
>
> Let's review:
>
> A chamber dive was done without deco, and without even a "safety stop",
> well beyond NDLs.
it was only 5 minutes beyond the navy tables. "safety stops" are not required by
any recreational diving agency.
>
>
> Within 24 hours, an in-water dive was done, without deco and without
> even a "safety stop", which even in the absence of the chamber dive was
> well beyond NDLs.
there was no second dive - in-water or dry.
>
>
> Proving that repetitive dives beyond NDLs will eventually get you bent
> teaches nothing, is not a sacrifice that will accomplish anything, and
> is damned foolish.
the purpose of the study is to derive provable statistics that may be able to
predict the risk factor for getting bent given a particular profile. this knowlegde
is very useful.
was it foolish for chuck yeager to attempt to break the sound barrier?
> There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for conducting dives outside tables that
> have proven reliable for over 70 years, except to intentionally induce
> DCS, and IMNSHO someone needs their ass reamed BUT GOOD!
there is always a risk of DCS when breathing compressed air at depth. Don't dive,
avoid the bends!!!!
> It was stated that these dives were conducted under the auspices of DAN,
> which I question. In any event, I have contacted DAN and requested an
> explanation.
it is a DAN sponsored research project conducted by DAN and DUMC personnel.
James Connell
read the first post. jim was a volunteer in a DAN study of 10ft/min
ascent rates. go to the DAN web site and you can read about the study
for yourself. otherwise keep your mouth shut and pull your head out of
your ass!!!
Mike Gray wrote:
>
> Sam wrote:
> >
> >
> > Others will be helped because of what is learned. Your sacrifice will probably
> > save lives. It is commendable of you to do it.
>
> I STRONGLY disagree with the above.
>
> Let's review:
>
> A chamber dive was done without deco, and without even a "safety stop",
> well beyond NDLs.
>
> Within 24 hours, an in-water dive was done, without deco and without
> even a "safety stop", which even in the absence of the chamber dive was
> well beyond NDLs.
>
> Proving that repetitive dives beyond NDLs will eventually get you bent
> teaches nothing, is not a sacrifice that will accomplish anything, and
> is damned foolish.
>
> There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for conducting dives outside tables that
> have proven reliable for over 70 years, except to intentionally induce
> DCS, and IMNSHO someone needs their ass reamed BUT GOOD!
>
> It was stated that these dives were conducted under the auspices of DAN,
> which I question. In any event, I have contacted DAN and requested an
> explanation.
>
> regards
> m
--
James Connell
Do not Fold, Spindle, or Mutilate.
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
reflect those of the author.
Øystein Mehus
>
> Would you really?? I mean 30 meters on air for 30
> minutes and then off you go to the 3 meter stop?
>
ascent profile, instead of going 30ft/min and then hanging out
on the deco-stop for an extended period of time.
--
Oystein
Mike Gray
>
> >
> > A chamber dive was done without deco, and without even a "safety stop",
> > well beyond NDLs.
>
> any recreational diving agency.
There is no one anywhere anytime under any conditions that plans to be
out of the water with a deco obligation. Period. Ending a dive with a
deco obligation is stupid and dangerous.>
> >
> >
> > Within 24 hours, an in-water dive was done, without deco and without
> > even a "safety stop", which even in the absence of the chamber dive was
> > well beyond NDLs.
>
> there was no second dive - in-water or dry.
My misunderstanding on the in-water, but you stated, in response to a
question as to whether you were using a computer:
"not on this dive...i had taken my computer in the chamber on a
previous dive where the profile was 100 fsw, 27 minute BT, and 10 fpm
ascent rate.
that dive violated the deco stop requirement and locked out my aladin
for 24 hrs - but no one of 9 subjects got bent on that particular dive."
So, was there or wasn't there?
> >
> >
> > Proving that repetitive dives beyond NDLs will eventually get you bent
> > teaches nothing, is not a sacrifice that will accomplish anything, and
> > is damned foolish.
>
> the purpose of the study is to derive provable statistics that may be able to
> predict the risk factor for getting bent given a particular profile. this knowlegde
> is very useful.
BULSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!!!!! The risk factors of getting bent on a
particular profile have been known for 80 years. The NDLs work. They
always have. They always will. Come out of the water with a five minute
deco obligation and 8% take a hit. Surprise? Research? BULLSHIT!
>
> was it foolish for chuck yeager to attempt to break the sound barrier?
Had he decided to do a two-mile run toward the center of the earth from
5,000', as you did, it would have been damned foolish. The world knew
BEFORE YEAGER WAS BORN that you get bent when you fail to honor a deco
obligation. Comparing this incredible stupidity to Yeager's work is
ludicrous. Why don't you jump off a tall building to see if there's any
validity to gravity?
>
> > There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for conducting dives outside tables that
> > have proven reliable for over 70 years, except to intentionally induce
> > DCS, and IMNSHO someone needs their ass reamed BUT GOOD!
>
> there is always a risk of DCS when breathing compressed air at depth. Don't dive,
> avoid the bends!!!!
WRONG! OBSERVE DECO OBLIGATIONS, AVOID THE BENDS. The risk of bends
within the NDLs is so small as to be no more than a scientific
curiosity.
>
> > It was stated that these dives were conducted under the auspices of DAN,
> > which I question. In any event, I have contacted DAN and requested an
> > explanation.
>
> it is a DAN sponsored research project conducted by DAN and DUMC personnel.
If that is the case, then someone at DAN and DUMC needs their ass reamed
BUT GOOD.
You also said:
> getting bent is still just a random roll of the dice. divers get bent when they do everything
> by the book, and others drink and stay down deep and long and don't get bent. that's why we are conducting the research
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. It is no random roll of the
dice. As you exceed the NDLs, the risk of bends increases exponentially
and predictably. When divers do everything right, the risk of bends is
insignificant.
Stooooopid!
m
jim frei
>
> WRONG! OBSERVE DECO OBLIGATIONS, AVOID THE BENDS. The risk of bends
> within the NDLs is so small as to be no more than a scientific
> curiosity.
enough divers get bent when they follow the tables that some scientists believe further research is warranted.
> > getting bent is still just a random roll of the dice. divers get bent when they do everything
> > by the book, and others drink and stay down deep and long and don't get bent. that's why we are conducting the research
>
> NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. It is no random roll of the
> dice. As you exceed the NDLs, the risk of bends increases exponentially
> and predictably. When divers do everything right, the risk of bends is
> insignificant.
the risk may be insignificant until you get bent, then its 100%. if you are so sure of the statisitcs, then i suggest your
forward your peer-reviewed data to DAN so they can stop this horrid research.
James Connell
bent. in ALL cases dives were made and a point plotted on a graph to
show exceptable bend rates, Not no bends. thats why there are
unexplained hits today, fools like you that place absolute faith in 80
year old research. lets see no jet engines, no semiconductors, no TV
(not sure thats a bad thing). even the venerable navy tables are the
result of people getting bent. so you remain a fool.
> WRONG! OBSERVE DECO OBLIGATIONS, AVOID THE BENDS. The risk of bends
> within the NDLs is so small as to be no more than a scientific
> curiosity.
>
> >
> > > It was stated that these dives were conducted under the auspices of DAN,
> > > which I question. In any event, I have contacted DAN and requested an
> > > explanation.
> >
> > it is a DAN sponsored research project conducted by DAN and DUMC personnel.
>
> If that is the case, then someone at DAN and DUMC needs their ass reamed
> BUT GOOD.
>
> You also said:
>
> > getting bent is still just a random roll of the dice. divers get bent when they do everything
> > by the book, and others drink and stay down deep and long and don't get bent. that's why we are conducting the research
>
> NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. It is no random roll of the
> dice. As you exceed the NDLs, the risk of bends increases exponentially
> and predictably. When divers do everything right, the risk of bends is
> insignificant.
>
> Stooooopid!
mjbl...@my-deja.com
DCS or air embolism, and the rapid onset of symptoms (within 10
minutes) favors embolism. And you are a hyperbaric technician?
As for Mike Gray's comments, I agree. My suspicion that DAN would
conduct such an aggressive profile in part led me to believe Jim's
post was a troll. It would be interesting to hear DAN's version of
the story.
MJB
In article <3976875E...@divemed.zzn.com>,
NE333RO
>required by
>any recreational diving agency.
<snip>
>the purpose of the study is to derive provable statistics that may be able to
>predict the risk factor for getting bent given a particular profile. this
>knowlegde
>is very useful.
>was it foolish for chuck yeager to attempt to break the sound barrier?
I had a couple of questions about this myself. Not throwing stones at you,
I appreciate your contribution (though I wouldn't have done it myself) but I
was wondering about testing procedures.
What kinds of tests did they use to determine how close you were to getting
the bends? We know that the navy dive tables are reasonably safe by years of
trial and error and we also know that exceeding them is a bad thing. What kinds
of tests were they doing post dive, to see how close you were to the bends?
It sounds like your simulated dives were meant to exceed the limits but
just barely. I didn't realise that enough was known about bubble formation or
that it could be measured accuratly enough, to get any kind of data that would
be useable.
I really hope they aren't going by the old methods of sending 100 divers
down on a given excessive profile, 5 get bent, and figuring the odds.
Pleeeeease tell me that they have accurate enough tests to make your sacrifice
worthwhile.
El Stroko Guapo
>
> so how did you think the tables you use got made? by people getting
> bent. in ALL cases dives were made and a point plotted on a graph to
> show exceptable bend rates, Not no bends. thats why there are
> unexplained hits today, fools like you that place absolute faith in 80
> year old research. lets see no jet engines, no semiconductors, no TV
> (not sure thats a bad thing). even the venerable navy tables are the
> result of people getting bent. so you remain a fool.
Back to school, doofus.
None, repeat NONE, of the tables were constructed by "plott(ing) on a
graph to
show exceptable bend rates". None. Not even acceptable bend rates. All
are theoretical constructs based on off-gasing rates, and there's no
shortage of recent data correlating bends and NDLs. There may or may not
be a correlation between your understanding of the subject and your
being dropped on your head as an infant to test how high bouncing baby
boys bounce.
Before you run off at the mouth, learn the basics.
And until you learn the basics, stay out of the water.
love & kisses
El Stroko Guapo, TS
Bob D.
form of decompression. Whether the dive is no-stop in nature or a stage
decompression dive the ascent has a major affect on off-gassing. Hopefully
every diver also realizes there's as much about DCS and its avoidence that we
don't know as there is that we do know. As such it is a reasonable research
subject.
These are actually some interesting questions that are worth examining: Which
has the greater effect on the rate of off-gassing and DCS risk, rate of ascent
or stops? Does a slower ascent rate decrease DCS risk or actually increase it?
Is there a rate of ascent that's slow enough to off-set the need for staged
stops? If ascent rate is reduced can no-stop time be increased?
>There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for conducting dives outside tables that
>have proven reliable for over 70 years, except to intentionally induce
>DCS, and IMNSHO someone needs their ass reamed BUT GOOD!
>
There has been a great deal of change in decompression *theory* in the last 70
years. The models and procedures we use today are significantly different that
what was used 70 years ago. Safety stops are a realitively new concept added to
no-stop diving procedures. Today many models implement phase-gas modeling,
incorporating deeper stops to get divers out of the water faster *and*
"cleaner." From doppler studies we know that asymptomatic bubbling is common
but don't know how that correlates to DCS risk. Six or seven years ago you
never heard the term PFO mentioned, let alone had a clue that it might have an
effect on DCS risk expsosure. There is a still a lot to be learned.
Jim volunteered with his eyes wide open. He recognized the risk and opted to
participate in the study. The only aspect of this entire thread that I really
found disturbing was the comment that the divers that didn't experience DCS
would not be tested for PFO. I'd think looking into the possibility of a
correlation there would be important.
Robert (Bob) Decker
PADI./NAUI Inst.
Morehead City, NC
<A HREF="http://www.sportdiverhq.com">SportDiverHQ</A>
<A HREF="http://www.OlympusDiving.com">OlympusDiving</A>
(remove "NoSpam" to reply)
El Stroko Guapo
>
> Mike Gray wrote:
>
> >
> > WRONG! OBSERVE DECO OBLIGATIONS, AVOID THE BENDS. The risk of bends
> > within the NDLs is so small as to be no more than a scientific
> > curiosity.
>
Too many scientists with not enough to do. The hard part is finding
confirmed DCS cases occuring within the NDLs. (Misdiagnosed muscle
strains treated in chambers don't count).
> > > getting bent is still just a random roll of the dice. divers get bent when they do everything
> > > by the book, and others drink and stay down deep and long and don't get bent. that's why we are conducting the research
> >
> > NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. It is no random roll of the
> > dice. As you exceed the NDLs, the risk of bends increases exponentially
> > and predictably. When divers do everything right, the risk of bends is
> > insignificant.
>
> the risk may be insignificant until you get bent, then its 100%. if you are so sure of the statisitcs, then i suggest your
> forward your peer-reviewed data to DAN so they can stop this horrid research.
"the risk is insignificant until...then it's 100%"???? I'm beginning to
understand. Is this the DIR concept of risk?
And yes, I have contacted DAN. They have the peer reviewed data in their
possession. I want to know why they've ignored it.
And you hit the nail on the head with "horrid research".
m
Scott
"Bob Crownfield" <Crown...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:3975D9...@Home.com...
> mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > And another DIRT-ball jumps in, this time Gault. I just love the
> > way you cretins put words in my mouth.
>
> And with your mouth so full of feet and all.....
I think there is something else in there as well...
Scott
Scott
> mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I smell a troll. MJB
> >
>
> i've been flat on back since july 7 with limited leg movement - i can
> neither piss nor shit. this is no troll. i will gladly trade places with
> you anytime, fool. my post is meant a factual account of one DCS
incident.
> i'm sorry you are always so cynical.
Jim, Black wouldn't know it if you were up his ass with an armload of
deckchairs. He contributes *nothing* to this NG or any other to which he
posts. We just like to kick him around the floor.
Thanks for your post. The howler monkey will be put to sleep shortly.
Scott
Scott
Scott
"surfinspacegirl" <surfins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8l3ed1$8i...@news.emirates.net.ae...
> Jim,
>
> Thank you for your courage in volunteering for a research program that
makes
> diving safer for all of us. Wish you a speedy and full recovery; we'll be
> thinking of you.
>
> surfinspacegirl
mike_...@my-deja.com
console and a head that contains feet and something else Scott is
suggesting that I don't even want to imagine. He's really living up to
his name.
In article <sngru27...@corp.supernews.com>,
mjbl...@my-deja.com
surfacing, not 10 minutes, and DCS is more likely than embolism,
especially ascending at only 10 feet per min. It is still best termed
DCI-Type II, which is what DAN called it. MJB
In article <8l9p4k$fa8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
James Connell
Haldane test goats in chamber.
Workman looks at navy data and concludes tables need to be adjusted.
the navy tested it's tables, (all subject were male 20-30 years of age
and resonablty fit) criteria were DCS?no DCS (doppler wasn't in use at
the time) after testing and final revisions the table are released for
fleet use.
use of doppler on human test subjects by Spencer results in a rework of
Mvalues for more conservitive NDLs.
DSAT does 1000+ human (females, larger age spread and phisical types)
test dives to verify the Theoretical tables. after adjustments the RDP
is released.
Buhlmann published two sets of M-values which have become well-known
in diving circles; the ZH-L12 set from the 1983 book, and the ZH-L16
set(s) from the 1990 book (and later editions). The ZH-L12 set has
twelve pairs of coefficients for sixteen half-time
compartments and these M-values were determined empirically (i.e. with
actual decompression trials).
The ZH-L16A set of M-values for nitrogen is further divided into subsets
B and C because the mathematically-derived set A was found empirically
not to be conservative enough in the middle compartments.
a table that is only calculated but is not verified is
James Connell wrote:
>
> so how did you think the tables you use got made? by people getting
> bent. in ALL cases dives were made and a point plotted on a graph to
> show exceptable bend rates, Not no bends. thats why there are
> unexplained hits today, fools like you that place absolute faith in 80
> year old research. lets see no jet engines, no semiconductors, no TV
> (not sure thats a bad thing). even the venerable navy tables are the
> result of people getting bent. so you remain a fool.
>
> Mike Gray wrote:
> >
> > jim frei wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A chamber dive was done without deco, and without even a "safety stop",
> > > > well beyond NDLs.
> > >
> > > it was only 5 minutes beyond the navy tables. "safety stops" are not required by
> > > any recreational diving agency.
> >
> > There is no one anywhere anytime under any conditions that plans to be
> > out of the water with a deco obligation. Period. Ending a dive with a
> > deco obligation is stupid and dangerous.>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Within 24 hours, an in-water dive was done, without deco and without
> > > > even a "safety stop", which even in the absence of the chamber dive was
> > > > well beyond NDLs.
> > >
> > > there was no second dive - in-water or dry.
> >
> > My misunderstanding on the in-water, but you stated, in response to a
> > question as to whether you were using a computer:
> >
> >
> > "not on this dive...i had taken my computer in the chamber on a
> > previous dive where the profile was 100 fsw, 27 minute BT, and 10 fpm
> > ascent rate.
> > that dive violated the deco stop requirement and locked out my aladin
> > for 24 hrs - but no one of 9 subjects got bent on that particular dive."
> >
> > So, was there or wasn't there?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Proving that repetitive dives beyond NDLs will eventually get you bent
> > > > teaches nothing, is not a sacrifice that will accomplish anything, and
> > > > is damned foolish.
> > >
> > > the purpose of the study is to derive provable statistics that may be able to
> > > predict the risk factor for getting bent given a particular profile. this knowlegde
> > > is very useful.
> >
> > BULSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!!!!! The risk factors of getting bent on a
> > particular profile have been known for 80 years. The NDLs work. They
> > always have. They always will. Come out of the water with a five minute
> > deco obligation and 8% take a hit. Surprise? Research? BULLSHIT!
> > >
> > > was it foolish for chuck yeager to attempt to break the sound barrier?
> >
> > Had he decided to do a two-mile run toward the center of the earth from
> > 5,000', as you did, it would have been damned foolish. The world knew
> > BEFORE YEAGER WAS BORN that you get bent when you fail to honor a deco
> > obligation. Comparing this incredible stupidity to Yeager's work is
> > ludicrous. Why don't you jump off a tall building to see if there's any
> > validity to gravity?
> >
> > >
> > > > There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for conducting dives outside tables that
> > > > have proven reliable for over 70 years, except to intentionally induce
> > > > DCS, and IMNSHO someone needs their ass reamed BUT GOOD!
> > >
> > > there is always a risk of DCS when breathing compressed air at depth. Don't dive,
> > > avoid the bends!!!!
> >
> > WRONG! OBSERVE DECO OBLIGATIONS, AVOID THE BENDS. The risk of bends
> > within the NDLs is so small as to be no more than a scientific
> > curiosity.
> >
> > >
> > > > It was stated that these dives were conducted under the auspices of DAN,
> > > > which I question. In any event, I have contacted DAN and requested an
> > > > explanation.
> > >
> > > it is a DAN sponsored research project conducted by DAN and DUMC personnel.
> >
> > If that is the case, then someone at DAN and DUMC needs their ass reamed
> > BUT GOOD.
> >
> > You also said:
> >
> > > getting bent is still just a random roll of the dice. divers get bent when they do everything
> > > by the book, and others drink and stay down deep and long and don't get bent. that's why we are conducting the research
> >
> > NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. It is no random roll of the
> > dice. As you exceed the NDLs, the risk of bends increases exponentially
> > and predictably. When divers do everything right, the risk of bends is
> > insignificant.
> >
Clifford Beshers
> Come on Mike. Hopefully every diver realizes that the ascent procedure is a
> form of decompression. Whether the dive is no-stop in nature or a stage
> decompression dive the ascent has a major affect on off-gassing. Hopefully
> every diver also realizes there's as much about DCS and its avoidence that we
> don't know as there is that we do know. As such it is a reasonable research
> subject.
>
> These are actually some interesting questions that are worth examining: Which
> has the greater effect on the rate of off-gassing and DCS risk, rate of ascent
> or stops? Does a slower ascent rate decrease DCS risk or actually increase it?
> Is there a rate of ascent that's slow enough to off-set the need for staged
> stops? If ascent rate is reduced can no-stop time be increased?
Which brings up a question I've had. When people do deco stops, what
orientation are they in? PADI says the safety stop should be done
vertical. George Irvine says in the DIR II video that deco stops
should be done with the diver horizontal, not vertical.
I haven't gone on to advanced reading about this yet, but I'm curious
about the discrepancy and how wide spread it is. If the community
doesn't agree on this issue, then I would say there is definitely room
for more research.
________________
Clifford Beshers
bes...@cs.columbia.edu
James Connell
gradiant you are. (in some other thread someone said 'you can't get bent
-under- water', you sure as hell Can!)
if you're at 100% of max gradient at your waist - then the 3' your blood
travels is enough to cause bubbling by the pressure reduction. although
you probably have bubbles anyway because it's not a case of bubbles/no
bubbles.
it's easier for a diver to remain vertical and hold position than to do
so when horizontaly (you can fin slightly up and stay a little neg).
remember PADI works with divers of All skill levels and i doubt the
difference between vert. and hor. is as great by far as that between a
safty stop and none.
the least pressure differental between any part of your body is to be
prefered, so horizontal is better by an unknown ( by me at least,but i
guess almost insignificant) amount.
--
Mike Gray
>
> Come on Mike. Hopefully every diver realizes that the ascent procedure is a
> form of decompression. Whether the dive is no-stop in nature or a stage
> decompression dive the ascent has a major affect on off-gassing.
And we know that a deco obligation is a deco obligation and terminating
a dive with a deco obligation is a VIOLATION of any and all ascent
procedures.
Hopefully
> every diver also realizes there's as much about DCS and its avoidence that we
> don't know as there is that we do know. As such it is a reasonable research
> subject.
We know (1) beyond the NDLs the risk of DCS increases predictably and
exponentially, and (2) DCSII usually means permanent damage.
We know that the dives reported here, in the frequency reported here,
were virtually certain to result in permanent DCS damage. This has
either been misreported, or the researchers are incredibly stupid and
unethical.
Of course it is a reasonable research subject. So is auto crash safety,
which seldom asks volunteers to step off the edge of a twenty story
building to see if a sudden stop causes appreciable damage.
> These are actually some interesting questions that are worth examining: Which
> has the greater effect on the rate of off-gassing and DCS risk, rate of ascent
> or stops? Does a slower ascent rate decrease DCS risk or actually increase it?
> Is there a rate of ascent that's slow enough to off-set the need for staged
> stops? If ascent rate is reduced can no-stop time be increased?
I don't believe any of these questions cannot be accurately and
completely answered with existing deco theory, and the answers tested
more efficiently and accurately with doppler et al. Counting the number
of paraplegics created by a given profile is hardly good science.
>
>
> There has been a great deal of change in decompression *theory* in the last 70
> years. The models and procedures we use today are significantly different that
> what was used 70 years ago.
Actually, no. The numbers have been refined, the methods of testing have
improved, but the theory, models, and procedures are essentailly as
Haldane wrote it.
Safety stops are a realitively new concept added to
> no-stop diving procedures. Today many models implement phase-gas modeling,
> incorporating deeper stops to get divers out of the water faster *and*
> "cleaner." From doppler studies we know that asymptomatic bubbling is common
> but don't know how that correlates to DCS risk. Six or seven years ago you
> never heard the term PFO mentioned, let alone had a clue that it might have an
> effect on DCS risk expsosure. There is a still a lot to be learned.
All nice bells and whistles. The fact remains that stepping outside the
NDLs is stepping from very safe into very dangerous ground. That was
true in the beginning, it's true today.
>
> Jim volunteered with his eyes wide open. He recognized the risk and opted to
> participate in the study.
Anyone that volunteers to get bent is suspect.
Any researcher that intentionally bends someone is a dangerous fool.
The only aspect of this entire thread that I really
> found disturbing was the comment that the divers that didn't experience DCS
> would not be tested for PFO. I'd think looking into the possibility of a
> correlation there would be important.
Jesus H. Christ, how much correlation do you want? A bunch of dives were
done outside the NDL. At least one resulted in a serious bent. Of course
it did. It was statistically inevitable. Any asshole with basic scuba
cert should be able to eyeball the data and predict, within a few, how
many would be bent. We need a fucking university medical center to do
it?????
Repeat that profile twenty five times, one will get seriously bent.
Today. Tomorrow. Every day, with the same certainty that drawing two to
a pair and an ace will get you four of a kind once every 1,080 times you
try. That's the disturbing aspect.
ESG
El Stroko Guapo
>
> Which brings up a question I've had. When people do deco stops, what
> orientation are they in? PADI says the safety stop should be done
> vertical. George Irvine says in the DIR II video that deco stops
> should be done with the diver horizontal, not vertical.
>
> I haven't gone on to advanced reading about this yet, but I'm curious
> about the discrepancy and how wide spread it is. If the community
> doesn't agree on this issue, then I would say there is definitely room
> for more research.
More DIR bullshit. Yer chin is 1.1 psi above average, yer ankle is 1.1
psi below, when hanging vertical.
A healthy fart is between 2.0 and 2.5 psi.
The pressure differential is, for practical purposes, totally
irrelevant.
But it is good for another laugh at DIR's expense (is that horizontal
with the spine up or the belly button up? or do ya roll like yer on a
rotisserie?)
regards
El Stroko Guapo
who farts at 3.7psi
mike_...@my-deja.com
pressure differential of being in a vertical position at relatively
shallow depths? I understand the pressure differential is relatively
small, but can you share with us your knowledge of how that affects the
transfer of gas in the lungs? Please elaborate more than, "it's a
small pressure differential therefore there obviously is no effect."
In article <39788CA3...@TeamStroke.gov>,
Randy F. Milak
>
> DCI Type II is correct, Milak, because we don't know if this was
> DCS or air embolism, and the rapid onset of symptoms (within 10
> minutes) favors embolism.
DCI Type II as you state is not wrong, its just not the generally
accepted convention according to the UHMS. It's a generally accepted
convention that Decompression Illness (DCI) is a term used to describe
any of a broad range of hyperbaric injuries. DCI is then divided into
two general categories, Decompression Sickness (DCS), and Barotrauma
(1,2). Therefore, when discussing a hyperbaric injury in general, one
would use the term DCI, (could be DCS and/or embolism and/or combo) as
you've already stated. However, if one specifies type, as in 'type II',
then they're clearly indicating DCS and excluding any barotrauma or,
extra alveolar air syndrome (EAAS) etc. (BTW, I think it was actually a
guy from DAN/DUKE who first introduced the term DCI way back when. If I
find the reference I'm thinking of, I'll send you the ref., maybe Harris
knows?)
DCI
|
DCS <----------------------------->Barotrauma
______| |________
| |
|-->Type I DCS Ears/Sinuses<--|
| |
|-->Type II DCS Lungs / EAAS<--|
> And you are a hyperbaric technician?
Always a pissing contest with you isn't it? As far as my resume in
hyperbarics go, let me just say this ... I was just asked last week by a
Mr. Ludwik Fedorko Ph.D. M.D., who is the associate professor of
anaesthesiology at the U of Toronto, if I would be interested in
calibrating in a study on experimental chemical DCS treatment involving
swine. I'm reviewing the hypothesis to be tested later this week ...
And just what are YOU doing these days at the U. of Wisconsin in
hyperbaric research my friend? Oh, and, since you think everything is a
troll, feel free to check my hand, I'm sure Fedorko would get a laugh
out of it.
> As for Mike Gray's comments, I agree. My suspicion that DAN would
> conduct such an aggressive profile in part led me to believe Jim's
> post was a troll. It would be interesting to hear DAN's version of
> the story.
Well, your previous argument about the PFO being a direct cause of
frei's symptomatic type II DCS, I would say, is very accurate.
Excessive emboli where obviously caused by insufficient decompression,
but since no other diver became (as dramatically) symptomatic, I would
say your PFO hypothesis is dead nuts bang on.
I appreciate the concern with regards to what may appear to be
extremely aggressive decompression for human trials. I believe *that*
is what you said, lead you to believe frei's post was a troll. However,
I would not discount this (Jim's) testimonial in the least. Secondly, I
would be very hesitant to label any human hyperbaric trial as unethical
(not your implication, but a few others). The process through an ethics
committee to conduct human trials are very stringent as you well know.
The profile Jim suggests is not all that aggressive in the scheme of
things mind you and its hardly unethical.
As well, the study does not appear to be DCS vs NDL, rather a study
of ascent rates. There is much criticism and controversy surrounding
current day suggested ascent rates. We all know that slower is better,
but what exactly? Hence, DAN addresses yet another challenge.
DANs version of the story will end up as averaging; percentile
rank; probabilities; distribution; variability by standard deviation;
correlation and prediction; methods of likelihood etc. I wouldn't
expect too much commentary unless someone at DAN presents this as a case
study/review somewhere down the line.
> Jim's symptoms developed within 20 minutes (I reread the post)
> after surfacing, not 10 minutes, and DCS is more likely than
> embolism, especially ascending at only 10 feet per min. It is
> still best termed DCI-Type II, which is what DAN called it. MJB
Firstly, I agree with your hypothesis. CNS spinal (and cranial)
abnormalities are usually gradual in onset with initial subtle symptoms
often masked by pain distractions. As far as terminology goes, you say
specifically, "...DCS is more likely...", then you go and generalize it
and call it DCI. If you think its DCS, call it DCS and if you think its
type II, well ...
One things for sure, frei, is being treated by some of the best in
the world. Not to worry.
--
Randy F. Milak
Windsor, Ontario
~Rig for silent running. Aye sir, All ahead lurk...~
(1) Francis TJR, Smith DHM editors. Describing decompression illness.
Kensington, MD: Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, 1991.
(2) Dutka AJ. Clinical findings in decompression illness. A proposed
terminology. In: Moon RE, Sheffield PJ, eds. Treatment of decompression
illness. Kensington, MD: Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society,
1996:1-9
mike_...@my-deja.com
> anaesthesiology at the U of Toronto, if I would be interested in
> calibrating in a study on experimental chemical DCS treatment
involving
> swine.
What? No Hogarthian dig this time.:)
mjbl...@my-deja.com
complex where you feel you must prove something? Maybe others learn
from your textbook recitations, but frankly doc-wannabe, you bore me.
The reason DCI is the preferred term is because the pathology is the
same for DCS and air embolism, even though the physiology differs.
The day I learn something from you Milak, I will make a major post
praising your efforts. Until then... MJB
In article <3978A993...@divemed.zzn.com>,
"Randy F. Milak" <mi...@divemed.zzn.com> wrote:
Randy F. Milak
mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <3978A993...@divemed.zzn.com>,
> "Randy F. Milak" <mi...@divemed.zzn.com> wrote:
> > Mr. Ludwik Fedorko Ph.D. M.D., who is the associate professor of
> > anaesthesiology at the U of Toronto, if I would be interested in
> > calibrating in a study on experimental chemical DCS treatment
> > involving swine.
>
> What? No Hogarthian dig this time.:)
DAMN!! Missed opportunity! Nothing gets past you swill, uh, er, um, I
mean, swell divers. :=)
Scott
it out and stonp on it in message news:8la877$rld$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Milak, why the sermon? What is it with you, some kind of inferiority
> complex where you feel you must prove something? Maybe others learn
> from your textbook recitations, but frankly doc-wannabe, you bore me.
Guess what Chromedome? You not the only person reading this list.
No shit! There are actually a *lot* of people who read through a lot of crap
from cheesedicks like you, to get some real information from someone who
knows. How do we know he knows, and you dont? Simple, you pompous jerk, he
works in hyperbarics!!!! *YOU DONT*!!!! And if there is *anyone* who is
stale, old and boring, around here, its you and your sophomoric bullshit.
> The day I learn something from you Milak, I will make a major post
> praising your efforts. Until then... MJB
"Until then...I prefer to remain ignorant."
The day *anyone* learns *anything* but what a complete tool you are, will,
indeed, be a date worthy of note.
Bob Crownfield
>
> Milak, why the sermon? What is it with you, some kind of inferiority
> complex where you feel you must prove something? Maybe others learn
> from your textbook recitations, but frankly doc-wannabe, you bore me.
> The reason DCI is the preferred term is because the pathology is the
> same for DCS and air embolism, even though the physiology differs.
> The day I learn something from you Milak, I will make a major post
> praising your efforts. Until then... MJB
and having seen the difficulties you have learning new things,
we will not hold our breath.
We must remember
that "Doctor" does not mean "in the top of his class'.
--
Bob Crownfield, Crown...@Home.com
Photography, Flying, Delphi Rad Addict
Now diving the Pacific in the LA Area.
"Protect freedoms before they become extinct."
Einar Hagen
consider this profile and gas-choice when there are so
many better options ?
Einar
Øystein Mehus <ome...@hitec.no> wrote in message
news:3977F23F...@hitec.no...
> Einar Hagen wrote:
> >
> > Would you really?? I mean 30 meters on air for 30
> > minutes and then off you go to the 3 meter stop?
> >
> What I was trying to convey, was that I'd rather do the slow
> ascent profile, instead of going 30ft/min and then hanging out
> on the deco-stop for an extended period of time.
> --
> Oystein
mike_...@my-deja.com
Crown...@Home.com wrote:
> We must remember
> that "Doctor" does not mean "in the top of his class'.
Nor does it mean he knows jack about Hyberbaric Medicine.
El Stroko Guapo
>
> Mike can you tell us anything about gas exchange in the lungs given the
> pressure differential of being in a vertical position at relatively
> shallow depths? I understand the pressure differential is relatively
> small, but can you share with us your knowledge of how that affects the
> transfer of gas in the lungs? Please elaborate more than, "it's a
> small pressure differential therefore there obviously is no effect."
Figger it out. In water, the pressure differential is about 0.45 psi per
foot. Yer lung's about 9' tall and 6" thick. The fart pressure is no
joke. 2 psi positive pressure in the gut is where we get that urge. Your
blood flows at about 0.23 psi. Yer body is full of pressure
differentials all the time.
Go to extremes: a six-footer has an ambient pressure diff of 2.7 psi
between his scalp and the soles of his feet. The scalp is offgasing like
a warm Bud, while the toe is ongasing like Carroll Shelby's chili,
assuming we start at stasis. Right away, we have a problem. The scalp's
low partial pressure blood refuses to stay still, running off to the toe
and creating a pressure differential that sucks gas out of the toe and
into the blood, then goes back to the scalp and does just the opposite.
Balls! The scalp remains more saturated, snd the toe less saturated,
than the models imply. We can rotate him every 45 seconds. Or we can lay
him down. He's still pretty near a foot thick and the pressure diff
between his upside and his down side is about half a pound.
But in all these gyrations, one thing has remained nearly constant: the
position of, and the ambient pressure at, his lungs. (my gauge is right
where the DIR gauge is, just at the bottom of the lung). If we turn a
vertical diver upside down, the pressure change at the lung is, at most,
about 1.3 psi. That's if we keep him vertical but flip him over! And the
difference between the top of his lung and the bottom is about a third
of a pound.
Theoretically, it makes a difference, the same difference as doing yer
60'stop at 57' instead of 60' But you do not have that degree of
accuracy in your instruments, nor do you have anywhere near that degree
of accuracy in your deco models. There simply is no deco model that can
discriminate between a vertical hang and a horizontal hang.
The idea of accelerating the offgasing of yer feet and slowing the
offgasing of your head (which is what horizontal deco does) is
theoretically seductive but of absolutely no practical value. If it did,
you would also want to remain horizontal throughout yer dive and at the
surface, and slither onto the platform like a seal.
Just another goofy idea from George.
regards
El Stroko Guapo, TS
embolism in my toe from coming up the ladder too fast
mjbl...@my-deja.com
they have learned ANYTHING from this cheesedick? Even Milak
imparts useful information to some. Scott teaches us NOTHING
(but demonstrates the mouse-that-roared syndrome beautifully).
Even the techdiver DIR folks are getting sick of this juvenile's
rants. Can somebody show me the last time he has posted something
informative, either here or techdiver? And the best part is, he
thinks he is so good. What a legend. MJB
In article <snhakf...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Scott" <sco...@hctc.removethis.com> wrote:
> I let <mjbl...@my-deja.com> out of my killfile long enough for him
to reel
> it out and stonp on it in message news:8la877$rld$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Milak, why the sermon? What is it with you, some kind of
inferiority
> > complex where you feel you must prove something? Maybe others learn
> > from your textbook recitations, but frankly doc-wannabe, you bore
me.
>
> Guess what Chromedome? You not the only person reading this list.
> No shit! There are actually a *lot* of people who read through a lot
of crap
> from cheesedicks like you, to get some real information from someone
who
> knows. How do we know he knows, and you dont? Simple, you pompous
jerk, he
> works in hyperbarics!!!! *YOU DONT*!!!! And if there is *anyone* who
is
> stale, old and boring, around here, its you and your sophomoric
bullshit.
>
> > The day I learn something from you Milak, I will make a major post
> > praising your efforts. Until then... MJB
>
> "Until then...I prefer to remain ignorant."
>
> The day *anyone* learns *anything* but what a complete tool you are,
will,
> indeed, be a date worthy of note.
>
> --
> http://www.gap-software.com/decotheory.html
>
>
mike_...@my-deja.com
I understand the physics of pressure and I understand the math
involved. My question is about physiology. I'm not asking about
offgassing at your feet compared to your head, either. I'm asking
about the efficiency of the lungs. Your answer boils down to exactly
what I wasn't looking for..."it's a small difference, therefore it's an
insignificant difference". I'm asking about the function of the lungs,
not gas absortion/off gassing.
Randy, are you on this thread? Last time I recall this subject coming
up you asked, and I answered, where we were getting this from. Did you
ever check into it further. I'd be interested in hearing your input.
In article <3978B569...@TeamStroke.gov>,
El Stroko Guapo <"ESG,TS"@TeamStroke.gov> wrote:
Randy F. Milak
>
> Milak, why the sermon? What is it with you, some kind of inferiority
> complex where you feel you must prove something? Maybe others learn
> from your textbook recitations, but frankly doc-wannabe, you bore me.
> The reason DCI is the preferred term is because the pathology is the
> same for DCS and air embolism, even though the physiology differs.
> The day I learn something from you Milak, I will make a major post
> praising your efforts. Until then... MJB
Awwww, see, there you go again with that pissy, uncivil rant of
yours. You seem to have trouble with simple concepts don't you? Just
how far, are you willing to let your ignorance be explored? It would
appear that mike_gualt was correct about your knowledge, or should I
say, lack thereof, of DCI! My hats off to you mike_gault, you hammered
the court jester once again!
mjbl...@my-deja.com
and ALWAYS PISSED AT MJB. Damn this is fun. MJB
In article <3978C642...@divemed.zzn.com>,
"Randy F. Milak" <mi...@divemed.zzn.com> wrote:
> mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Milak, why the sermon? What is it with you, some kind of
inferiority
> > complex where you feel you must prove something? Maybe others learn
> > from your textbook recitations, but frankly doc-wannabe, you bore
me.
> > The reason DCI is the preferred term is because the pathology is the
> > same for DCS and air embolism, even though the physiology differs.
> > The day I learn something from you Milak, I will make a major post
> > praising your efforts. Until then... MJB
>
> Awwww, see, there you go again with that pissy, uncivil rant of
> yours. You seem to have trouble with simple concepts don't you? Just
> how far, are you willing to let your ignorance be explored? It would
> appear that mike_gualt was correct about your knowledge, or should I
> say, lack thereof, of DCI! My hats off to you mike_gault, you
hammered
> the court jester once again!
>
> --
> Randy F. Milak
> Windsor, Ontario
> ~Rig for silent running. Aye sir, All ahead lurk...~
>
Randy F. Milak
mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Mike, you missed it.
>
> I understand the physics of pressure and I understand the math
> involved. My question is about physiology. I'm not asking about
> offgassing at your feet compared to your head, either. I'm asking
> about the efficiency of the lungs. Your answer boils down to exactly
> what I wasn't looking for..."it's a small difference, therefore it's an
> insignificant difference". I'm asking about the function of the lungs,
> not gas absortion/off gassing.
>
> Randy, are you on this thread? Last time I recall this subject coming
> up you asked, and I answered, where we were getting this from. Did you
> ever check into it further. I'd be interested in hearing your input.
>
I still don't get what was posted by Dan V. and you a while back,
that you got from Bill Mee, and honestly, I haven't investigated it yet
either -- so I can't say. I can't discount what El Guapo states either.
His theory's' as good as the next guys. Although there's a measurable
difference in the on/offgassing gradient of the vertical vs. horizontal,
its significance to the diver's effective decompression is only
subjective theory.
No study exists TMK, that measures the effective difference. In
vitro study is out, and it obviously couldn't be done in a chamber. In
vivo, in the field, you'd have to measure subcutaneous pressure changes
in the diver, from at least two points, head/toe, which would then need
to be transmitted to a transducer recorded system via some kind of
fluid-filled subcutaneous needle. When the gas phase developed in
subcutaneous tissue, and pressure would rise, and you'd get a maximum
pressure (Pmax) for each. Problem is, it'll never happen, cause no-one
would give a shit. Its not applicable to saturation diving. A non-sat.
SS helmet diver needs to be vertical in the water because of equipment
logistics. Recreational divers need to be vertical for vertigo, and
other logistics as well. There's no statistically significant data to
suggest that the latter groups are in peril because of the difference.
So, that leaves only one group. My wings keep me horizontal and face
down. I like it. Thats about as scientific as I'll take it.
Randy F. Milak
mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Amazing, simply amazing. Always wrong, always finger-pointing,
> and ALWAYS PISSED AT MJB. Damn this is fun. MJB
OH MY GAWD! Now you play the victim. You are truly master of the
contorted. OldSalt said it straight ... you're an educated man with
many years of experience in diving but your hubris I think, gets the
best of you. I wouldn't killfile you for all the tea in China friend.
--
Randy F. Milak
Windsor, Ontario
~Rig for silent running. Aye sir, All ahead lurk...~
>
> In article <3978C642...@divemed.zzn.com>,
> "Randy F. Milak" <mi...@divemed.zzn.com> wrote:
> > mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Milak, why the sermon? What is it with you, some kind of
> inferiority
> > > complex where you feel you must prove something? Maybe others learn
> > > from your textbook recitations, but frankly doc-wannabe, you bore
> me.
> > > The reason DCI is the preferred term is because the pathology is the
> > > same for DCS and air embolism, even though the physiology differs.
> > > The day I learn something from you Milak, I will make a major post
> > > praising your efforts. Until then... MJB
> >
> > Awwww, see, there you go again with that pissy, uncivil rant of
> > yours. You seem to have trouble with simple concepts don't you? Just
> > how far, are you willing to let your ignorance be explored? It would
> > appear that mike_gualt was correct about your knowledge, or should I
> > say, lack thereof, of DCI! My hats off to you mike_gault, you
> hammered
> > the court jester once again!
> >
> > --
> > Randy F. Milak
> > Windsor, Ontario
> > ~Rig for silent running. Aye sir, All ahead lurk...~
> >
>
Dan Bracuk
the safety stop should be done vertical. "
They do?
Dan Bracuk
Toronto, Canada
It's bad luck to be superstitious.
rec.scuba faq http://scifi.squawk.com/scuba.html
Scott
<mjbl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ladlq$46$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
--
DIR Links:
GUE: http://www.gue.com/
WKPP: http://www.wkpp.org/
Dan Volkers Page: http://www.sfdj.com/
Undersea & Hyperbaric Medicine Society http://www.uhms.org/
Jim Cobbs Page: http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/trimix.html
Todd Leonards Page: http://www.mindspring.com/~toddleonard/caverig/
Halcyon: http://www.halcyon.net/
Extreme Exposure: http://www.extreme-exposure.com/
GAP: http://www.gap-software.com/
Tech list Archives: http://www.aquanaut.com/bin/mlist/aquanaut/techdiver
Shea
Bob Crownfield <Crown...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:3975D9...@Home.com...
> mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > And another DIRT-ball jumps in, this time Gault. I just love the
> > way you cretins put words in my mouth.
>
> And with your mouth so full of feet and all.....
>
>
I've missed you, Bob!
Shea
Bob Crownfield
>
> mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Amazing, simply amazing. Always wrong, always finger-pointing,
> > and ALWAYS PISSED AT MJB. Damn this is fun. MJB
not mad, not pissed. Pity is more the word.
In our worlds, a grown man who acts like a child,
takes criticism poorly, is learning handicapped,
troubled by reading comprehension problems,
and has a poor perspective
on the world and others in it who do not think his way
is pitied.
Mad at him, no.
Sad for him maybe.
Too much lonely time in the dark.
>
> OH MY GAWD! Now you play the victim. You are truly master of the
> contorted. OldSalt said it straight ... you're an educated man with
> many years of experience in diving but your hubris I think, gets the
> best of you. I wouldn't killfile you for all the tea in China friend.
>
> --
> Randy F. Milak
> Windsor, Ontario
> ~Rig for silent running. Aye sir, All ahead lurk...~
>
> >
> > In article <3978C642...@divemed.zzn.com>,
> > "Randy F. Milak" <mi...@divemed.zzn.com> wrote:
> > > mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Milak, why the sermon? What is it with you, some kind of
> > inferiority
> > > > complex where you feel you must prove something? Maybe others learn
> > > > from your textbook recitations, but frankly doc-wannabe, you bore
> > me.
> > > > The reason DCI is the preferred term is because the pathology is the
> > > > same for DCS and air embolism, even though the physiology differs.
> > > > The day I learn something from you Milak, I will make a major post
> > > > praising your efforts. Until then... MJB
> > >
> > > Awwww, see, there you go again with that pissy, uncivil rant of
> > > yours. You seem to have trouble with simple concepts don't you? Just
> > > how far, are you willing to let your ignorance be explored? It would
> > > appear that mike_gualt was correct about your knowledge, or should I
> > > say, lack thereof, of DCI! My hats off to you mike_gault, you
> > hammered
> > > the court jester once again!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Randy F. Milak
> > > Windsor, Ontario
> > > ~Rig for silent running. Aye sir, All ahead lurk...~
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
--
Bob D.
>a dive with a deco obligation is a VIOLATION of any and all ascent
>procedures.
>exponentially, and (2) DCSII usually means permanent damage.
Mike,
You're assuming that "the NDLs" were exceeded. Tables tend to be
theorethical in nature. To my knowledge virtually every no-stop table you or I
are familar with was designed around the parameters of a 30, 33 or 60 FPM
maximum ascent rate. How do you know, or I, that the profile tested exceeded a
NDL for a model designed around a 10 FPM ascent rate?
If I dive to the NDL for a particular depth on the US Navy table I've exceeded
the NDL for a number of other tables. So, based on your contention, I'm at a
serious risk of DCS because I "exceeded a NDL?" Comparing the theoretical
limits for a table based on a 60 FPM ascent rate to one based on a 10 FPM
ascent rate is virtually an apples to oranges type of approach.
>We know that the dives reported here, in the frequency reported here,
>were virtually certain to result in permanent DCS damage.
You may know that, I don't. I have no personal knowledge concerning the
frequency of DCS resulting from a model using a 10 FPM ascent rate. That data
is not available to me. What we do know is executing dives as reported, using
ascent rates we're accustomed to, would indeed result in an increased risk of
DCS.
>This has
>either been misreported, or the researchers are incredibly stupid and
>unethical.
Or they are aware of theories we are not. Slower ascent rate... leading to more
efficient off-gasing during the ascent... permitting a longer no-stop exposure
time.... doesn't really sound all that unreasonable.
>Actually, no. The numbers have been refined, the methods of testing have
>improved, but the theory, models, and procedures are essentailly as
>Haldane wrote it.
Not entirely true. Haldanian theory tends to deal with the elimination of
bubbles and preventing asymptomatic bubbles from becoming symptomatic. More
recent theories seek to eliminate the formation of bubbles entirely, disposing
of the inert gas while in the gas phase rather than in the form of bubbles.
>All nice bells and whistles. The fact remains that stepping outside the
>NDLs is stepping from very safe into very dangerous ground. That was
>true in the beginning, it's true today.
Stepping outside of which NDLs? There are almost as many different NDLs as
there are tables. The odds are we all exceed some model's NDL everytime we
dive to the limit of our trusty table/computer.
>Anyone that volunteers to get bent is suspect.
I sincerely doubt Jim expected to get bent. However, I'm sure he recognized it
as a possibility. A possibility we all face, I might add, everytime we choose
to make a dive.
>Any researcher that intentionally bends someone is a dangerous fool.
I also doubt the reseacher(s) intentionally planned to bend any of the
volunteers.
Clifford Beshers
> From Clifford Beshers
> "When people do deco stops, what orientation are they in? PADI says
> the safety stop should be done vertical. "
>
> They do?
Yes, they do. Put the chest at fifteen feet, feet down, head up. I
think it's in the Advanced Open Water text, but I will have to look it
up to be sure. No instructor of mine ever mentioned this that I
recall, just the text.
________________
Clifford Beshers
bes...@cs.columbia.edu
Einar Hagen
news:m3wvifl...@bertin.beshers.net...
> Which brings up a question I've had. When people do deco stops, what
> orientation are they in? PADI says the safety stop should be done
> should be done with the diver horizontal, not vertical.
>
> I haven't gone on to advanced reading about this yet, but I'm curious
> about the discrepancy and how wide spread it is. If the community
> doesn't agree on this issue, then I would say there is definitely room
> for more research.
>
> Clifford Beshers
> bes...@cs.columbia.edu
Where does PADI say that a safety-stop is to be done in a
vertical orientation? I know that the "Deep Diving"-video
shows divers vertically on a rope, but i dont think this is
more than stupidity on the part of the divers involved.
(At least i hope it is......)
If you do a safety-stop vertical then your lungs are not
working optimally regarding offgassing due to the the
increased work of breathing. One simply does not use the
entire volume of lungs in this position, and consequently
offgassing is less effecient.
How about some info from the big guns on this?
(Oystein, Milak, MHK, you guys are up....)
Einar
jim frei
> I had a couple of questions about this myself. Not throwing stones at you,
> I appreciate your contribution (though I wouldn't have done it myself) but I
> was wondering about testing procedures.
> What kinds of tests did they use to determine how close you were to getting
> the bends? We know that the navy dive tables are reasonably safe by years of
> trial and error and we also know that exceeding them is a bad thing. What kinds
> of tests were they doing post dive, to see how close you were to the bends?
the only post-dive "tests" are to listen for doppler bubbles - but - there is no
storng correlation between detecting bubbles and getting bent (yet). there is no
test or diagnostic tool for DCS - you either hurt or don't hurt. you can only
observe symptoms and make an educated diagnosis.
> It sounds like your simulated dives were meant to exceed the limits but
> just barely. I didn't realise that enough was known about bubble formation or
> that it could be measured accuratly enough, to get any kind of data that would
> be useable.
this particular study started with a profile of 100 fsw, 15 BT, and two different
ascent rates (10 fpm or 60 fpm). three minutes were added to the BT when the
profile was accepted. see this month's Alert Diver (the article is about 2 months
old)
--
jim frei
stormwater services group
raleigh, north carolina
(919) 819-4229
http://stormwatergroup.com
Gordon Gunn
----------
In article <39788CA3...@TeamStroke.gov>, El Stroko Guapo
<"ESG,TS"@TeamStroke.gov> wrote:
>More DIR bullshit. Yer chin is 1.1 psi above average, yer ankle is 1.1
>psi below, when hanging vertical.
>
>A healthy fart is between 2.0 and 2.5 psi.
>
>The pressure differential is, for practical purposes, totally
>irrelevant.
But wouldn't the effect of that differential be dependent on the absolute
ambient pressure, i.e., depth? Seems to me that the shallower you are, the
more that 2.2 psi delta would affect bubble size. If one were on a shallow
safety stop right on the hairy edge of a DCS hit, mightn't it make a
difference?
Flamers note: the above is a question, not a statement of fact.
Gordon in Austin
Øystein Mehus
>
> You are making more sense now, but would you even
> consider this profile and gas-choice when there are so
> many better options ?
>
chosen a different gas, and a more conservative schedule. I
think adding five minutes at the 3m stop would be enough to
make it acceptable though. The slow ascent should really help
prevent bubblegrowth.
--
Oystein