Posted by Ken Kurtis on October 28, 2000 at 01:31:56:
In Reply to: Re: What's to argue? posted by Frank, AADIVER, Farmer on October 27, 2000 at 16:40:50:
(Frank Farmer alleges) The reason he gave me a couple of years ago when he 86'd me from a trip on the MR. C for having a Nitrox pony was, it's a rip off to beat the average Joe Diver out of more training and gas bucks. I understand most of his instructors got EANx certification behind his back. But I've no actual proof of that.
Although I really don't feel like getting into the pro/anti-nitrox discussion again, I would like to clarify what Frank has said since what he represents as facts don't jive with my recollection.
1. I don't feel I 86'd Frank but that Frank 86'd himself off the trip after I reminded him of our non-nitrox stance. I told him that he'd have to do the dives on air, not nitrox (I even offered him my personal tank if he didn't have air). He said he didn't feel comfortable doing that. I told him that if he didn't want to dive on air, we'd issue him a refund for the trip. We discussed it for perhaps 30-40 minutes. He then told me that he just didn't feel comfortable diving on air and chose to leave. I apologized for the inconvenience and told him he'd be refunded. (And for the record, he was issued a full and complete refund the following business day.)
2. I recall him having an 80cf nitrox tank (ros oemmthing close to it), not just a pony but I might be mistaken. But it seems to me what I noticed was the nitrox markings on a big tank, not a small one. Had it been just a pony with nitrox and Frank was doing most of the dive on air, I would have suggested that the benefits of a 3-minute safety stop on nitrox 32 or 36 would have been minimal and that he could safely do the dive (perhaps with a bit shorter bottom time) on air.
3. The boat was the Cee Ray, not the Mr. C. (This year, 2000, is the first year we've booked the Mr. C and this incident happened a few years ago.)I know it's a minor, nit-picking point but given that I feel Frank's other "facts" are wrong, I feel it merits mention.
4. The reasons I gave Frank for our no-nitrox-on-Reef-Seekers-boats had nothing to do beating people out of $$$ for training and gas but had to do with our concerns over logistics of divers bringing multiple tanks on already-crowded boats as well as then-unresolved and still-unresolved legal issues that included, but were not limited to, OSHA concerns for our employees (which wouldn't affect Frank since he's not our employee) and legal concerns on whether or not non-nitrox certified DMs are qualified to supervise nitrox dives. I also explained to Frank that our non-nitrox position was very public, explained and detailed frequently in our newsletter (of which he received copies), and listed on our boat tickets (which he received in the mail after he paid for the trip), as well as being noted on our master boat schedule.
5. My instructors are free to do whatever they want. I believe only two of my staff instructors (John Lumb and R.A. Buck) are nitrox-certified and they both did that with my full knowledge. A number of our current and former DMs (Michael Kane, Troy Bagwell, and Kendal Raine among them)are also nitrox-certified. Whether I agree with it or not, I'm glad they got the extra training and knowledge. Many might even be surprised to find out that even I, the anti-Christ of Nitrox, have read through the texts and related materials. I just choose not to dive the stuff.
6. If you've got no actual proof of something (as you state) maybe you should consider the possibility that it's false.
As far as the Yukon is concerned (and Michael Kane and I have discussed this previously), I fully agree that the hard bottom mitigates the oxtox concerns.
But the other side of the coin is that you can dive it safely on air. KIt is not the air that can make the dive dangerous but how you dive the air. (Same argument applies to nitrox.) Granted that air will mean shorter bottom times &/or longer surface intervals but it can still be done safely.
The problem with this whole argument in general is that we're trying to show a reason for something that didn't happen (the bends) and there's simply no way to prove someone didn't get bent on a dive because they used nitrox, or that they would have been bent if they'd used air, or if they did get bent on air that they wouldn't have been bent if they'd dove on nitrox.
We all believe what we believe and for most of the people posting who have already investigated both sides of the issue for themsevles, nothing short of an Act of God or some change in the Laws of Physics are going to alter any opinions.
As I've said repeatedly (for those who bothered to listen), nitrox has a place as a bottom-time-extending gas. Period. The safety factors (compared to the bends hit %) are statistically insignificant and the "feel better" clinically unproven. If you want to take the time to get the extra training and spend the extra money on fills, O2 cleaning, etc., have at it.
From a business standpoint (a slightly different animal) my partner Bill Wright and I have decided that Reef Seekers will not go down the nitrox road. Aside from our belief that it IS somewhat snake oil and a consumer rip-off, we feel that there are still some unresolved legal issues and we don't feel like being the guinea pigs if someone chooses to makes us a legal target. Also, we're trying to avoid the practical matter of having people bringing multiple tanks on already-crowded dive boats.
But if you feel nitrox is for you, then we wish you well with it. Just remember it's another tool of diving and isn't a panacea and won't make you bulletproof for the bends. Educate yourself on oxtox, watch your depth, and dive conservatively.
But most of all, whether it's air, nitrox, tri-mix, or whatever, dive safely and have a good time. Isn't that why we all do this sport?
Ken Kurtis
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, Ca.