Posted by Ken Kurtis on October 30, 2000 at 12:27:35:
In Reply to: Re: Half as bad posted by MHK on October 30, 2000 at 10:06:01:
Just some quick thoughts on Mike's comments . . .
I fully agree that ALL of this discussion (nitrox tables, air tables, table models, etc.) are based on theoretical data and assumptions.
And that's why I'm amazed (and this was sort of the underlyting gist of my reply) that some on the one hand contend that there are statistical ambiguities that factor in when we're diving air, but imply that when we switch to nitrox, everything becomes carved in stone.
My point is simply that BOTH are mathmatical models that may or may not pertain to your particular body phsyiology and there is no way to state with certainity that either is absolutely correct when you follow the numbers they generate.
People get bent diving deep. People get bent diving shallow. People get bent on air. People get bent on nitrox. People get bent on nitrox diving air tables. (All according to DAN stats.)
The other point I've raised repeatedly but no one seems to address has nothing to do with a comparative risk of nitrox vs. air. I haven't been raising that issue. None of my comments have anything to do with "Is nitrox an appropriate gas to use on the Yukon?"
I have merely stated that you can dive (in this case) the Yukon safely on air. Does anyone want to contend that this statement is wrong, that it's impossible to safely dive the Yukon on air?
Ken Kurtis
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, Ca.