Posted by MHK on October 30, 2000 at 09:41:45:
In Reply to: RE (from Eins): Ken, are you sure you know what you're saying? posted by Ken Kurtis on October 28, 2000 at 21:33:06:
This is more of a general statement as opposed to Ken's points. Trust me on this one guys Ken and I have had our share of private discussions and no one wants to be a part of them ;-)
But I don't buy the marketing arguement as a practical reason to dive Nitrox.. In my view the * dive industry* such as it is is guilty of marketing everything to the extreme so why is marketing diving to 10 year olds acceptable but not marketing a gas that commercial and military diver's have beend using for decades not acceptable.. As for any notion that it is a money making scheme, maybe it is maybe it isn't but I'm trying to keep the focus on Nitrox -v- air, money issues notwithstanding.. Moreover, I don't buy the blanket notion of *unresolved legal issues*.. Again, I don't want to re-hash Ken and my private ( and very boring ) discussions, but this arguement holds no water in my view..
The benefits of Nitrox are manifest in terms of EAD's, extended bottom times, shorter surface intervals, physiological benefits, long term cell rigidity issues just to name a few... But the larger picture in my mind speaks to the mindset that must be changed.. Any diver that refuses to continue to learn and continue to aspire to new levels should give up diving. I learned a great deal about physiology, decompression issues, gases etc. etc. when I decided to learn about tech diving. Those benefits apply equally as well in the recreational environment as they do in a technical environment.. In the tech world you don't shy away from discussions about the bends or the use of 02, in fact these type of discussions are what form the basis for conversation on the dive boats or in the restaurant afterwards..
The ONLY material drawback associated with Nitrox is a potential oxygen toxicity hit, which can very well be fatal.. In dives such as the Yukon this risk is VERY easily managed and if planned properly is really a non-issue.. Not that I'm making light of oxygen toxicity but it shouldn't be a factor if you use the right gas...
Furthermore, as to comparing *hits* that happened -v- *hits* that didn't ahppen, well this arguement is a red-herring that holds no merit. That's like comparing a driver on the 405 driving 55 mph -v- 65 mph and then trying to compare how many cars *active* driver's and on and on.. Karl Shreeve's article was wasted space in my view, just as Dr. Bennett's ( DAN ) article that concluded you were 2 times as likley to get bent on Nitrox than you are on air.. Fortunatley Dr. Bennet retracted that analysis and admitted that it was based on * crued* data. Ironically enough when I challenged Dr. Bennett I was attacked for challenging such an authority...
The facts are the facts and the Nitrox debate has been settled and the majority of the dive industry is now moving into trimix.. Those that are still arguing about Nitrox are people who still think Beta is going to overtake VHS and are completely ignoring DVD... It's a done deal and if the only arguement that is left is how is it being marketed that should speak volumes.. The physiological benefits alone should be enough and certainly the Yukon is a perfect dive to use Nitrox. I was pleased when we ( me , Walker and Terry ) dove the Yukon on Saturday and almost 1/2 of the boat was diving Nitrox, while we were all on trimix...
Now if we could just get those damn maps out of there ;-), OK sorry that's another thread ;-).
Later