Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 385
  1. #351
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    274
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by jturner View Post
    Perhaps I misread that paper but you appear to need to complete the highlighted part above. To paraphrase: "detection of bubbles doesn't diagnose DCS but having lots of bubbles correlates with a higher probability of getting DCS, and therefore the measure can be useful in some studies". So it appears that they can be "relevant" (to use your own words) after all.
    See, the suggestive, but un-validated, and implied associations..... i.e. it might work, until it doesn't. Be cautious - YMMV.
    x

  2. #352
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    2,926
    Likes (Given)
    845
    Likes (Received)
    1143
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    See, the suggestive, but un-validated, and implied associations..... i.e. it might work, until it doesn't. Be cautious - YMMV.
    What do you mean by "might work"? That the correct measurement of the bubbles as stated in the paper might not indicate the probability of DCS? If so, you are wrong as far as I can tell from everything I have read. The paper you referenced appears to discuss the problems associated with taking the measurements reliably and interpreting them, along with suggestions for a standardised approach and method of reporting them etc... none of which would be worth doing if VGE weren't correlated to the probability of getting DCS.

  3. #353
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    274
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by jturner View Post
    ... none of which would be worth doing if VGE weren't correlated to the probability of getting DCS.
    Is it really? Lets see.

    An individual can make grade 4 VGE every dive, and never gent bent in a lifetime, while the next guy gets bent on a grade 1 or 2 VGE. No correlation there.

    We know that we make more VGE as we age (proven), so do older people get more DCS? No, normally the younger ones get DCS. No correlation there.

    We know that helium dives make more VGE than plain N2 only dives, and helium is reported to be a safer approach vs the Air only version. No correlation there.

    We know that VGE can be reduced with vibration, pre-dive heating, exercise, etc. No correlation there.

    If you double the size of a dive, does VGE go from a 2 to a 4? You have more than doubled the gas load involved, and the dive stress goes up accordingly. No correlation there.

    We are partially certain that VGE are not directly related to gas load, day over day, and actually decline despite the small day to day increase in gas load. No correlation there.

    Wise people in the industry know we can't cross compare VGE from one dive test data set to another, because the datum for each is different.

    And when someone does get a hit, the VGE numbers they make are no longer realistic because their circulation system has been compromised because of the DCS.


    **********

    Where is this correlation they talk about? It is this: They stand way back and measure hundreds of dives and come up with some mass average and a statistical result, that is irrelevant at the individual level.


    Above all else, no one knows where or how or why VGE actually form, or what they are actually connect to. It's been this way since Spencer discovered them in the 70's, and ever since people have been trying to invent reasons to use VGE as some form of hard measure.



    But JT, if you think there is some magic formula to bypass all that reality above, and turn some vague number into a true risk value, well good luck to you.
    Last edited by rossh; 29-05-2019 at 01:58 PM.
    x

  4. #354
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    2,926
    Likes (Given)
    845
    Likes (Received)
    1143
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    Is it really? Lets see...........
    Ok, so we're clear at last. You do not believe the scientific consensus is correct. I would ask what your basis for this profound conclusion is, but I'm not sure I can be bothered any more. I think Storker has summed it up already:

    Quote Originally Posted by Storker View Post
    A computer programmer with absolutely no scientific credentials whatsoever is telling most of the hyperbaric research community that they're all doing it wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    But JT, if you think there is some magic formula to bypass all that reality above, and turn some vague number into a true risk value, well good luck to you.
    I don't believe in magic and I'm pretty sure I'm not the one bypassing reality, if for no other reason than you seem to be in a minority of one with your version of it.

  5. #355
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    274
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by jturner View Post
    Ok, so we're clear at last. You do not believe the scientific consensus is correct.
    I did NOT say that. So, do NOT try your straw man argument BS on me.... Like I told the last guy - Shove Off !
    x

  6. #356
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    2,926
    Likes (Given)
    845
    Likes (Received)
    1143
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    I did NOT say that. So, do NOT try your straw man argument BS on me.... Like I told the last guy - Shove Off !
    So what did you say then?

  7. #357
    New TDF Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    14
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    6
    Wait...

    So the chap who sells software to help divers plan their decompression, based on a bubble model, is arguing that bubbles have no correlation with DCS???

    What?

  8. #358
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    West Lothian
    Posts
    1,935
    Likes (Given)
    687
    Likes (Received)
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by jturner View Post
    So what did you say then?
    Jturner - I would forget trying to have a reasoned discussion with him. If you ask for something he doesn't like you just get told to shove off.

  9. #359
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    274
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Pandora's Box View Post
    Wait...

    So the chap who sells software to help divers plan their decompression, based on a bubble model, is arguing that bubbles have no correlation with DCS???

    What?
    Oh

    This may come as a surprise to you. VGE is not DCS! VGE is intra-vascular micro-bubbles. They used to be called silent bubbles, and have no correlation to DCS. Deco models do not get concerned with these.

    Not to be confused with.... extra-vascular micro-bubbles which are the tissue micro-bubbles that all models work with, and are thought to be what the DCS occurs from.

    I won't criticize you for not knowing this distinction. Some senior people in these argument, conveniently forget these basics of physiology, and try to blur it all into one so they can falsely accuse bubble models with the normal occurrence of VGE.
    Last edited by rossh; 29-05-2019 at 04:34 PM.
    x

  10. #360
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    2,926
    Likes (Given)
    845
    Likes (Received)
    1143
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Neilwood View Post
    Jturner - I would forget trying to have a reasoned discussion with him. If you ask for something he doesn't like you just get told to shove off.
    I want to try because I'm trying to understand if this is an argument that is worth consideration. I'm beginning to fear that it isn't, especially as my alleged "straw man BS" seemed pretty accurate... So, one more time and with feeling:

    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    I did NOT say that. So, do NOT try your straw man argument BS on me.... Like I told the last guy - Shove Off !
    Ross, help me to understand the serious point you are raising:


    1. do you disagree with, or have issues with the excerpt from the paper you'd referenced (I paraphrased it above but you can read the original text back easily, just so there's no chance that I misrepresented what's in it)?
    2. if you do not agree, why, and what do you believe is the actual relationship between high levels of VGE and the probability of DCS, if any?


 
Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •