Why the reluctance to call for help?

[Mark Chase]

Originally Posted by TerryH

Yep the biggest problem area for DCI and long-term damage is a specific
demographic of an experienced diver in the 35-45 age group. These
guys/gals have done the easy stuff and are well into other types of diving,
but not quite old enough to start cutting back. Actual incidents are less
than the newbie group, but the dives are more severe and the likelyhood of
denial very high.

?
Yep, experienced deco divers and that's an absolute fact.

An absolute fact thats not suported by the BSAC incident reports.

It 2006 75% of all decompesion incidents were on dives of less than 30m

If i remember corectly there were NO reported incidance of DCI on dives deeper than 50m


There were 190 incidance involving divers from novice up to advanced level and only 10 involving advanced + level divers.


ATB

Mark

[TerryH]

Originally Posted by Mark Chase

An absolute fact thats not suported by the BSAC incident reports.

It 2006 75% of all decompesion incidents were on dives of less than 30m

If i remember corectly there were NO reported incidance of DCI on dives deeper than 50m

There were 190 incidance involving divers from novice up to advanced level and only 10 involving advanced divers.

ATB

Mark

I am repeating directly the considered opinion, based on the facts gained
by the treatment of hyperbaric injuries in the UK.

FACT: The highest demographic of those in denial and failing to seek
treatment are experienced divers in the non-recreational realm.

The term "recreational" is defined as being any dive which does not allow
a direct return to the surface.

It's an absolute Mark, wouldnt say it if I didnt hear it from 3 seperate
directors of hyperbaric medicine, who I might suggest are not strangers
to the topic.

Besides we are talking the difference between a single visit to the pot, with
a 6 week diving ban and getting around for the rest of your life without the
need of a wheelchair.

I'm really glad that you have the confidence to diagnose yourself. Others
may call it bravado, you can probably guess what i'm calling it.

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by Mark Chase

An absolute fact thats not suported by the BSAC incident reports.

It 2006 75% of all decompesion incidents were on dives of less than 30m

If i remember corectly there were NO reported incidance of DCI on dives deeper than 50m


There were 190 incidance involving divers from novice up to advanced level and only 10 involving advanced divers.


ATB

Mark

You mis-remember Mark. A quick scan shows a 72m incident, 59m & repeat diving, 60m and 84m with repeat diving. I did not look at all records.

Where did you get the grade bit from?

I'd also be very wary of using the stats like you have. There are less deeper dives done, so more scope for a DCI shallower. Also there are less divers at the more advanced end of things, so less events can happen to them. Direct correlation between grade and depth?...

Adrian

[Mark Chase]

Originally Posted by TerryH

I am repeating directly the considered opinion, based on the facts gained
by the treatment of hyperbaric injuries in the UK.

FACT: The highest demographic of those in denial and failing to seek
treatment are experienced divers in the non-recreational realm.

The term "recreational" is defined as being any dive which does not allow
a direct return to the surface.

It's an absolute Mark, wouldnt say it if I didnt hear it from 3 seperate
directors of hyperbaric medicine, who I might suggest are not strangers
to the topic.

Besides we are talking the difference between a single visit to the pot, with
a 6 week diving ban and getting around for the rest of your life without the
need of a wheelchair.

I'm really glad that you have the confidence to diagnose yourself. Others
may call it bravado, you can probably guess what i'm calling it.

I have the confidance to diagnose you. I have the confidance in the divers I dive with to diagnose me. There is a diference.

Call it what you like, its worked for the last 19 years


Scare mongering coments dont make you right.

Please advise me of the number of incidance of DCI that have left a diver in a wheel chair in the last 20 years.

Then tell me if the incidance was known imediatly at the time or if it was the result of leaving treatment for multiple days / hours.

The BSAC reports are here: Annual Diving Incident Report - BSAC


Happy hunting.

ATB

Mark

[TerryH]

Originally Posted by Mark Chase

I have the confidance to diagnose you. I have the confidance in the divers I dive with to diagnose me. There is a diference.

Call it what you like, its worked for the last 19 years


Scare mongering coments dont make you right.

Please advise me of the number of incidance of DCI that have left a diver in a wheel chair in the last 20 years.

Then tell me if the incidance was known imediatly at the time or if it was the result of leaving treatment for multiple days / hours.

The BSAC reports are here: Annual Diving Incident Report - BSAC


Happy hunting.

ATB

Mark

Why should I need to hunt? When you are told how it is by the main man
at the chamber, there isnt much point. I already have the definative awnser.

[Mark Chase]

Originally Posted by TerryH

Why should I need to hunt? When you are told how it is by the main man
at the chamber, there isnt much point. I already have the definative awnser.

I think his definitive answer is lacking any credibility when compared the the BSAC incidence list which is the benchmark for diving injury's. All chamber incidence are reported on the BSAC list.

Page 2 for the skills v incidence list.

I had a look through and there was one dive in July 2006 to 77m with DCI I couldn't find any others. Just read the first couple of pages of DCI incidents and you can get a feel for the level of diver we are discussing. What were the dates for the others?

Any how read the top of page 3. In total there were 10 incidence of injury or death (not just DCI) in water greater than 50m depth. There were in total 105 incidence of DCI

ATB

Mark

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by Mark Chase

I think his definitive answer is lacking any credibility when compared the the BSAC incidence list which is the benchmark for diving injury's. All chamber incidence are reported on the BSAC list.

Page 2 for the skills v incidence list.

I had a look through and there was one dive in July 2006 to 77m with DCI I couldn't find any others. Just read the first couple of pages of DCI incidents and you can get a feel for the level of diver we are discussing. What were the dates for the others?

I had originally looked at the 2007 report, worth remembering that the reports end the year to September. Anyway I went over the 2006 and 2007 reports.

2005/06 by incident ref in date order, 105 DCI incidents

* 06/066 50m
* 06/354 58m
* 06/155 57m (plan was for 50m)
* 06/356 64m
* 06/360 77m
* 06/359 55m
* 06/371 51m
* 06/407 54m

2006/07 81 DCI reports (89 divers affected)

* 07/029 50m
* 07/307 72m
* 07/143 59m
* 07/358 60m
* 07/316 84m
* 07/170 55m

So that is 7.6% and 7.4% respectively. Now I don't read too much into the similarity of the value, but I do wonder how it relates to the number of overall dives. Personally I don't believe that 7.5% (I'll use the similarity anyway) of dives are 50m and deeper, I suspect that it is far less that that. However I have no proof.

Even if it is as high as 7.5%, then this shows that advanced/technical (insert superlative of choice) are no safer at depth than 'lesser' skilled are shallow. Indeed worse than that as I have no doubt that the more advanced divers also have problems at shallower depths. The reverse is less likely IMO.

If the number of dives to 50m+ is less than 7.5% of all dives, then this shows that those doing such dives are more at risk of DCI.

Any how read the top of page 3. In total there were 10 incidence of injury or death (not just DCI) in water greater than 50m depth. There were in total 105 incidence of DCI

ATB

Mark

Mark,

I have not included fatalities as I think any information derived is distorted due to the, thankfully, relatively low amount of data.


I think we are all likely to be generally good at spotting 'obvious' DCI. However the less obvious we may well write off as asymtomatic and thus the diver is OK. Apart from denial, we don't come across it that often, appear to be less likely to, (I think the stats bear this out) and don't have much clue to the subtleties. We've even had a Doctor deny they have DCI. If we are to be really honest with ourselves, we would recognise our inability. If a chamber DOC pots you because they are not sure, how on earth can we be sure?

Edit: I have no doubt that the reports do not have all the DCI incidents. I have no doubt that some may be written off as niggles and aches - I may have done it myself. I have no doubt that some of those missed/unreported have lead to DCI as a result of tissue damage and/or incomplete recovery due to no treatment.

Adrian

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Adrian Kelland

....don't have much clue to the subtleties. We've even had a Doctor deny they have DCI. If we are to be really honest with ourselves, we would recognise our inability. If a chamber DOC pots you because they are not sure, how on earth can we be sure?
....

I think that's fair comment but the problem comes when asymptomatic DCI is diagnosed due to a deviation from someone else's OPINION about what is the correct diving procedure. That is unacceptable and is the implication from the threads where a minutes' missed stops leads to O2 leads to chamber treatment.

There seems to me no way to win the situation. Only the so-called "experts" can diagnose DCI and we have no say in the matter. Yet, as you rightly say Adrian, the "experts" don't actually know.

The more I see people's views on this the easier it is for me to understand why some people deny the problem.

Chris

[Hazel W]

Why the reluctance to call for help?


Testosterone poisoning !




next question please

hazel

[principia]

Originally Posted by Hazel W

Testosterone poisoning !

next question please

hazel

What is the cure for testosterone poisoning?

J