|Re: You're right...|
Posted by WAlt on June 23, 2006 at 21:30:17:|
In Reply to: You're right... posted by seahunt on June 23, 2006 at 19:54:47:
Part of my point was 'it depends' - on the time into the dive and one's spatial relationship to the surface. Your car anology is most appropriate - a wreck at 20 MPH is a lot less damaging than one at 120 MPH, all other influences being equal. Followng this train of thouught (assuming a train isn't on the tracks and the car is at 0 MPH), a problem at 30 feet has different consequences than one at 70, 130, or 160, again, all externalities being equal. This would plot out to a 'scale of consequence' (value of c) with a risk factor of beta, a base risk factor of alpha and a factor n which represents the number of things that go wrong in a common event cycle as a factoral (or an exponential): c = a + b x n!
The base level of risk (a) is a constant and is defined as a diver's preparedness (experience, training, equipment, physiology, mental state, etc.). The beta is a value that 'depends on the dive' (site and condition factors, physical conditioning for that type of dive, preparation for the dive...add your own here). Then comes the (n) factor - the compounding influence of "things". I have a clear head and I deal with a simple problem; I'm narced and I screw up that simple problem, perhaps compounding its consequences by adding other 'oops' into the equation.
As fun as this might be, I must retire for the night. You've started a good train of thought, seahunt!
|Optional Link URL:|
|Optional Link Title:|
|Optional Image URL:|
|Post Background Color:||White Black|
|Post Area Page Width:||Normal Full|
|You must type in the
scrambled text key to
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.