Posted by MHK on January 14, 2001 at 08:35:52:
In Reply to: Re: Ken Kurtis and the Solo -v- Nitrox discussion/promotion posted by Ken Kurtis on January 13, 2001 at 00:20:01:
Ken,
I appreciate your comments,and as you stated we don't share the same views with respect to either the solo and/or Nitrox issues.
However I believe you missed my question which simply put is that I recognize your positions with respect to the two issues but it is the inconsistency with respect to the excpetions that puzzle me..
As I noted, NAUI, PADI, GUE, IANTD, TDI,ANDI, BSAC, YMCA, SSI and a whole host of other agencies actively support and encourage the use of Nitrox and as far as I know no agency actively supports and/or promotes solo diving.. Even to the extent there is an acknowledgement of the practice they require added imdenmifications as a result of the increased risks...
With respect to your business points, while I respect your right to run your shop the manner with which you see fit, it still doesn't answer the questions as to why you believe it's OK to accept the additional risks in one case, but denounce the practice so strongly and actively in the other more accepted practice...
Furthermore, with respect to the OxTox issue, as you and I have debated on many occasions, I strongly believe that you over state the issue.. While for certain someone exceeding the recommended Maximun Operating Depths is running the increased risk of OxTox, it seems clear and easy enough for me to marginalize the risk by using a 1.4 P02, paying attention to your surroundings and for certain when you have a hard bottom such as the Yukon the issue is frankly a moot point.. Perhaps if you take the time to take a class and continue your education process, you would learn that your fears are easily resolved. Remember, a good diver NEVER stops learning...
As for the tank issue on the boats, once again you are addressing problems that don't exsist and to the extent they do exsist they can be easily overcome...
If more divers would dive Nitrox and obtain the added safety benefits associated therewith, more boats would install the necessary equipment to pump on board. Several boats have already moved in this direction and my sense is that more and more will follow.. But to that end, while it's recommended to have dedicated cylinders it is not required when dealing with mixes of less than 40%.. Particularly if we are talking about a DNAx system, I would be slightly more cautious when partial pressure blending, but realistically a membrane is more than adequate for boats and it wouldn't involve the boats to have pure 02 cylinders aboard..
But this point speaks to the fundamnental lack of education respecting the issue.. It simply isn't good enough to get on here and posts *would be* problems that simply don't exsist and then take the position that there are obstacles that can't be overcome..
Furthermore, you say that you can * get the same benefits by diving air*.. This statement can't be any further from the truth.. The very reason to dive Nitrox is to get the added benefits, but since it's your statement please explain...
I'll cite for example a diver diving the Yukon using a 34% mix,please tell me how a diving using air can get the same Equivalent Air Depth benefits????????? You can NOT accomplish the clearer head using air, that's the very point you don't get.......
Also it's short sighted to simply compare BT's on a airdiver -v- a Nitrox diver.. And then say a Nitrox diver should simply stay down less time to equal a air diver.. Again, the whole idea is to gain added BT's, shorter SIT's, clearer heads, physiological benefits, long term cell rigidity issues, added safety margins when comparing M-values and peace of mind particularly on multi-day and live aboard trips..
Ken, we know that we don't agree but I'm trying to stick to facts and not reduce the discussion to hyperbole.. You have invented issues that simply don't exsist to justify a means to your desired end...
I encourage you to please compare the two risks and explain the inconsistency..
Have fun down under...
Later