login
You are in violation of the EPA (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-12-07 5:33 PM in reply to: #2546490 |
New user 900   , |  Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPATriRSquared - 2009-12-07 1:17 PM drewb8 - 2009-12-07 1:53 PM TriRSquared - 2009-12-07 11:31 AM It's a good thing those pesky dinosaurs and their polluting cars all died off... I'm confused. Are you saying that because CO2 was high millions of years ago that it's impossible that the incease in CO2 today can be due to humans? Or that dinosaur cars are responsible for todays warming? There have been studies that show that dinosaurs cars did not emit any CO2 since they were powered by feet going thru the bottom of the car. LOL, well played...!...Actually the driver had to exert more so they CO2 would have been greater  No I'm not saying it's impossible...but I'm not as bold (or foolish) as the EPA and UN to say that it's 100% unequivocally BECAUSE of humans... I'm saying that CO2 levels were MUCH higher in the past and life evolved pretty well on Earth despite this. It's asinine for government to start declaring that CO2 is a "health hazard" when it's obvious they have a political and monetary agenda. You hit the nail right on the head. Its a pure and simple money grab. As far as the EPA announcement, it is purely political. A move to give POTUS a little clout when he goes to the climate conference. So he can tell the world HE will do something about CO2 emissions. |
| 2009-12-07 7:43 PM in reply to: #2546012 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Yeah it's a money grab. All those thousands of scientists are all in a conspiracy together to falsify the data and corrupt the peer review process to sneak in findings that are blatantly false. And all under the noses of the noble energy companies who are looking for any sign we're not affecting the climate and just want to protect us... Again you can claim the politicians are twisting the findings and overhyping the extreme worst possibilities to further their agenda (like saying Florida will be underwater in 20 years unless we act NOW!!!!!). I'm with you that that happens. No argument here. But it still doesn't invalidate the underlying science that we're causing a portion of the warming. |
| 2009-12-07 7:56 PM in reply to: #2546242 |
Veteran 210 | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA gearboy - 2009-12-07 12:36 PMI think you are totally missing the point- or deliberately trying to mislead. The issue is not to elimate all CO2. It's to figure out how much can be present and maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to human life. That's odd, I've gone SCUBA diving many times and haven't seized up and died...strange.We all breath oxygen. We need it to survive. In certain conditions, higher concentrations are desirable. But breathing pure O2 is deadly. When SCUBA diving, you get oxygen toxicity, seize, and die. For many years we used high doses of oxygen for premature babies whose lungs were not developed - it caused blindness in thousands. And if you breathe pure O2, it will depress the respiratory drive, and you will die. The point is that regulations are meant to identify acceptable levels of things. Like mouse hairs and insect parts in food. |
| 2009-12-07 9:01 PM in reply to: #2547161 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA drewb8 - 2009-12-07 7:43 PM Yeah it's a money grab. All those thousands of scientists are all in a conspiracy together to falsify the data and corrupt the peer review process to sneak in findings that are blatantly false. And all under the noses of the noble energy companies who are looking for any sign we're not affecting the climate and just want to protect us... Again you can claim the politicians are twisting the findings and overhyping the extreme worst possibilities to further their agenda (like saying Florida will be underwater in 20 years unless we act NOW!!!!!). I'm with you that that happens. No argument here. But it still doesn't invalidate the underlying science that we're causing a portion of the warming. Well if the leaked emails are any indication, they were at the very least manipulating data and somewhat manipulating the peer review process as well. Besides, I have never noticed a person's ideology disappearing when they got a PhD or when they walked into a lab. |
| 2009-12-07 11:00 PM in reply to: #2547260 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA NXS - 2009-12-07 8:01 PM drewb8 - 2009-12-07 7:43 PM Yeah it's a money grab. All those thousands of scientists are all in a conspiracy together to falsify the data and corrupt the peer review process to sneak in findings that are blatantly false. And all under the noses of the noble energy companies who are looking for any sign we're not affecting the climate and just want to protect us... Again you can claim the politicians are twisting the findings and overhyping the extreme worst possibilities to further their agenda (like saying Florida will be underwater in 20 years unless we act NOW!!!!!). I'm with you that that happens. No argument here. But it still doesn't invalidate the underlying science that we're causing a portion of the warming. Well if the leaked emails are any indication, they were at the very least manipulating data and somewhat manipulating the peer review process as well. Besides, I have never noticed a person's ideology disappearing when they got a PhD or when they walked into a lab. If you look at the entire messages from the stolen emails in context it looks like the charges of manipulaing data are just based on cherry picked phrases from a few emails and that there was no manipulation going on. The manipulation of the peer review process is a little dodgier. In the end, the articles that the guys in stolen emails were trying to suppress WERE bad science and SHOULDN'T have been published, but the fact that they were trying to suppress them just because they were critical IS worrying. But even if you say that this data set is irrevocably corrupted, it doesn't change the fact that there are three other independent data sets which are nearly identical and tell the same story of us changing the climate. I never said anyones ideology disappears when they walk into a lab, and the peer review process isn't the end all and be all of truth. Bad articles or studies occasionally make it thru to print. But the nature of science and publication of findings is that when this happens it usually doesn't take long before it is discovered by others examining the data and replicating the procedures. If someone is twisting the results to align with their ideology or if there are errors in the data it doesn't take long before this is discovered. For an example, a few years ago there was an analysis of publically available satellite data that showed that temperatures in the troposphere were cooling, which was contrary to what the climate models predicted. This analysis spurred a further examination of the data and discovered that corrections had been applied incorrectly and that the temperature data actually DID agree with the model predictions. All of these studies which support the idea we are changing the climate (and those that raise questions about certain specific areas where we aren't as certain) are out there for anyone to scrutinize. To say that the entire climate science community is conspiring to falsify these thousands of data and studies to advance some agenda without being discovered seems pretty paranoid to me. |
| 2009-12-07 11:25 PM in reply to: #2546012 |
COURT JESTER 12230  ROCKFORD, IL | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA I'm sure I violate daily methane production on a daily basis and our newborn is off to a great start on that capacity. |
| 2009-12-07 11:37 PM in reply to: #2547366 |
Extreme Veteran 430 Madison, WI | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA tupuppy - 2009-12-07 11:25 PM I'm sure I violate daily methane production on a daily basis and our newborn is off to a great start on that capacity. Stop threatening my freedoms. I can't believe that we still have arguments over whether or not it is beneficial to emit less CO2 into the atmosphere. Now if the government was actually making it illegal to emit CO2, we'd have a problem. All they are doing is holding corporations responsible for emitting TOO MUCH CO2. We have treated this planet as our personal dumping and pillaging grounds for entirely too long and it's time that we start realizing that for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Once we go past the point of our planet's infrastructure (plants, trees, etc.) being unable to accommodate our emissions, it will go elsewhere. Where? Up, down, I don't care what your theory...it's not good. |
| 2009-12-07 11:52 PM in reply to: #2546012 |
Elite 3972 Reno | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA I don't have the time to come up with all the back up, but a ranch of more than 25 cows will have enough cow fart to be in voilation and require . I heard that at a technical talk the other day at a conference. I will get back to you with some backup. Science needs to return to climate science. |
| 2009-12-08 1:41 AM in reply to: #2546012 |
Veteran 184 Ft. Leonard Wood, MO | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Well, I guess everyone should just stop breathing right? That will cut down the the CO2 emmissions. According to the government aren't we damaging our health by simple exhaling? We're all gonna die and my seat is too high. |
| 2009-12-08 6:00 AM in reply to: #2547184 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA SeminoleTriathlete - 2009-12-07 8:56 PM gearboy - 2009-12-07 12:36 PMI think you are totally missing the point- or deliberately trying to mislead. The issue is not to elimate all CO2. It's to figure out how much can be present and maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to human life. That's odd, I've gone SCUBA diving many times and haven't seized up and died...strange.We all breath oxygen. We need it to survive. In certain conditions, higher concentrations are desirable. But breathing pure O2 is deadly. When SCUBA diving, you get oxygen toxicity, seize, and die. For many years we used high doses of oxygen for premature babies whose lungs were not developed - it caused blindness in thousands. And if you breathe pure O2, it will depress the respiratory drive, and you will die. The point is that regulations are meant to identify acceptable levels of things. Like mouse hairs and insect parts in food. Are you using air tanks, or using pure O2? An "air fill" is atmospheric air. Pure O2 is used by tech divers to more rapidly off-gas nitrogen . Below about 15-20 feet, it is deadly. The one death I had the misfortune to witness on a dive boat occured when the diver, who was using a full face mask with several feeds, including a nitrox mix and pure O2 forgot to switch over on his second dive from the line feeding him pure O2 to the one for nitrox. The last person to see him alive was witness to the seizures at around 30-40 feet, before he was grabbed near the bottom of the dive, had his BC inflated, and the corpse was sent to the surface, where we had to perform CPR on it until the coast guard arrived. Or just ask your local dive shop about oxygen toxicity. Or google it. |
| 2009-12-08 6:28 AM in reply to: #2547355 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA drewb8 - 2009-12-07 11:00 PM I never said anyones ideology disappears when they walk into a lab, and the peer review process isn't the end all and be all of truth. Bad articles or studies occasionally make it thru to print. But the nature of science and publication of findings is that when this happens it usually doesn't take long before it is discovered by others examining the data and replicating the procedures. If someone is twisting the results to align with their ideology or if there are errors in the data it doesn't take long before this is discovered. For an example, a few years ago there was an analysis of publically available satellite data that showed that temperatures in the troposphere were cooling, which was contrary to what the climate models predicted. This analysis spurred a further examination of the data and discovered that corrections had been applied incorrectly and that the temperature data actually DID agree with the model predictions. All of these studies which support the idea we are changing the climate (and those that raise questions about certain specific areas where we aren't as certain) are out there for anyone to scrutinize. To say that the entire climate science community is conspiring to falsify these thousands of data and studies to advance some agenda without being discovered seems pretty paranoid to me. Never said the entire climate community was conspiring to falsify data, just the leading researchers for those that believe AGW. If the leading researchers are doing this and getting mega grants, then what about the lesser known reseacher trying to become a player in the movement and grab some grant money? There are many researchers that don't buy into the man made version, for many reasons including that for the last 10 years there has been no warming. Many believe GW is related to solar activity and have data to back it up as well. I guess when the leaders in research are manipulating and dumping original data, it should call into question ALL of their research and the role they play in the whole global warming movement. |
| 2009-12-08 7:11 AM in reply to: #2546228 |
Extreme Veteran 604 Carrollton, Virginia | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Magnum27 - 2009-12-07 11:30 AM With Cap & Tax as well at this business is going to be impacted - and the economy is moving along so well. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories The one place I suppot government regulation is when it spurs something that the free market won't support on its own. Pollution has, and always will be, a way for companies to save costs. It is good business to pollute. Consumers don't care enough to vote with their dollars enough against companies that are bad for the environment in this manner. If we agree that greenhouse gases are bad, then the government has to regulate them... because we won't do it ourselves. |
| 2009-12-08 7:22 AM in reply to: #2546012 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA You'd have to think that our leaders would have to have some pretty convincing evidence before they handed over our sovereignty to UN. You would also think that rock solid proof that human caused global warming before we burden industry and taxpayers with Cap and Tax. Edited by Jackemy 2009-12-08 7:24 AM |
| 2009-12-08 7:31 AM in reply to: #2547521 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Jackemy - 2009-12-08 7:22 AM You'd have to think that our leaders would have to have some pretty convincing evidence before they handed over our sovereignty to UN. You would also think that rock solid proof that human caused global warming before we burden industry and taxpayers with Cap and Tax. The black helicopters are circling, and the stormtroopers are polishing their helmets even as we speak. I have a great new tin-foil hat, so I am in the clear. |
| 2009-12-08 7:41 AM in reply to: #2547533 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 7:31 AM Jackemy - 2009-12-08 7:22 AM You'd have to think that our leaders would have to have some pretty convincing evidence before they handed over our sovereignty to UN. You would also think that rock solid proof that human caused global warming before we burden industry and taxpayers with Cap and Tax. The black helicopters are circling, and the stormtroopers are polishing their helmets even as we speak. I have a great new tin-foil hat, so I am in the clear. I don't think you understand the ramifications of the potential treaties that are being tossed around in Copenhagen under the guise of an unproven science. |
| 2009-12-08 7:45 AM in reply to: #2547542 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Jackemy - 2009-12-08 7:41 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 7:31 AM Jackemy - 2009-12-08 7:22 AM You'd have to think that our leaders would have to have some pretty convincing evidence before they handed over our sovereignty to UN. You would also think that rock solid proof that human caused global warming before we burden industry and taxpayers with Cap and Tax. The black helicopters are circling, and the stormtroopers are polishing their helmets even as we speak. I have a great new tin-foil hat, so I am in the clear. I don't think you understand the ramifications of the potential treaties that are being tossed around in Copenhagen under the guise of an unproven science. Enlighten me, please. I would really ike to see how we are "handing over our sovereignity".
|
| 2009-12-08 8:04 AM in reply to: #2547548 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 7:45 AM Jackemy - 2009-12-08 7:41 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 7:31 AM Jackemy - 2009-12-08 7:22 AM You'd have to think that our leaders would have to have some pretty convincing evidence before they handed over our sovereignty to UN. You would also think that rock solid proof that human caused global warming before we burden industry and taxpayers with Cap and Tax. The black helicopters are circling, and the stormtroopers are polishing their helmets even as we speak. I have a great new tin-foil hat, so I am in the clear. I don't think you understand the ramifications of the potential treaties that are being tossed around in Copenhagen under the guise of an unproven science. Enlighten me, please. I would really ike to see how we are "handing over our sovereignity".
It is pretty neat that the Wall Street Journal answered that for me today. "Today, of course, the very idea of totalitarianism is considered passé. Yet the course of the 20th century was defined by totalitarian regimes, and it would be dangerous to assume that the habits of mind that sustained them have vanished into the mists. In Copenhagen, they are once again at play—and that, comrades, is no accident." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574581673107794380.html |
| 2009-12-08 8:24 AM in reply to: #2546012 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA So, because an editorial in WSJ claims: One of those things, I suspect, is what I would call the totalitarian impulse. This is not to say that global warming true believers are closet Stalinists. But their intellectual methods are instructively similar. Consider: We are giving up soverignty? This strikes me as a particularly falacious arguement that in no way addresses the actual issue, but merely stirs the pot by calling the other side names. If the climate change control folks are Stalinists, that must make the other side the Emperor. Imperial policy is, after all, designed to keep the elite and powerful in power above all other considerations. All hail His majesty Exxon the great! |
| 2009-12-08 8:38 AM in reply to: #2546012 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Are we not attending the COP15 event so that new climate policy for the world may be set by the UN and the COP15? If we then adopt this policy, would that not be bending to the will of an outside power? Remember when the "evil one" was in power we did not ratify Kyoto because it would have placed demands on our infrastructure and manufacturing sector that could not have been withstood especially with developing nations like China being exempted. And we all know how well our current President likes to please the world. The EPA announcement was timed to make it appear that we are getting tough on climate change as well. How about we make our own decisions? Edited by TriRSquared 2009-12-08 8:39 AM |
| 2009-12-08 8:43 AM in reply to: #2547630 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 8:24 AM So, because an editorial in WSJ claims: One of those things, I suspect, is what I would call the totalitarian impulse. This is not to say that global warming true believers are closet Stalinists. But their intellectual methods are instructively similar. Consider: We are giving up soverignty? This strikes me as a particularly falacious arguement that in no way addresses the actual issue, but merely stirs the pot by calling the other side names. If the climate change control folks are Stalinists, that must make the other side the Emperor. Imperial policy is, after all, designed to keep the elite and powerful in power above all other considerations. All hail His majesty Exxon the great! Actually, I made the statement before I read the journal. Yes, by definition, moving towards international control of domestic policy is giving up sovereignty. The article had nothing to do with name calling but it is telling when one side walks like a duck and talks like a duck but deny that they are indeed ducks. |
| 2009-12-08 9:23 AM in reply to: #2547675 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Jackemy - 2009-12-08 8:43 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 8:24 AM So, because an editorial in WSJ claims: One of those things, I suspect, is what I would call the totalitarian impulse. This is not to say that global warming true believers are closet Stalinists. But their intellectual methods are instructively similar. Consider: We are giving up soverignty? This strikes me as a particularly falacious arguement that in no way addresses the actual issue, but merely stirs the pot by calling the other side names. If the climate change control folks are Stalinists, that must make the other side the Emperor. Imperial policy is, after all, designed to keep the elite and powerful in power above all other considerations. All hail His majesty Exxon the great! Actually, I made the statement before I read the journal. Yes, by definition, moving towards international control of domestic policy is giving up sovereignty. The article had nothing to do with name calling but it is telling when one side walks like a duck and talks like a duck but deny that they are indeed ducks. We sign international treaties with some regularity, and have since the inception of the U.N. and before that. As far as I can tell, we are no less an independent nation than we ever were. Additionally, conventions like United Nations Convention against Torture, and Convention on Cybercrime may affect our domestic laws, and yet we survive. Isolationism is a bad, if not impossible idea. The U.S. has proved time and again, that when we join international efforts, things get accomplished, and we can often steer the outcome in a favorable direction. Denying and fighting change isn't going to work. Let's look at it this way, if some mandate for a technological change comes out of this convention, (let's just hypothetically say that something like an increased threshhold for percentage of wind-driven power generation, just a hypothetical). Let's also say that the U.S. has no part of it, but the Europeans or the Koreans sign on and develop some awesome wind turbine breakthrough, then we get left behind in yet another technological breakthrough ( like near universal broadband or cell phone coverage). There are economic risks in NOT participating too. |
| 2009-12-08 9:34 AM in reply to: #2547770 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Since when does technology not get spread over the world? We invent things ALL the time, and it gets brought into Europe and other locations around the world. I just don't get how you take wind technology and say if we don't sign a treaty we will be left behind? Right now, the USA is the cleanest country in the world when it comes to pollution per unit of production created. Other countries pollute less yes, but they also produce far less. If the entire world would be as efficient as the USA, the world would pollute far far less. We do not need the UN to dictate how our businesses run and give us yet another tax for this economy. |
| 2009-12-08 9:40 AM in reply to: #2547467 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA NXS - 2009-12-08 5:28 AM Never said the entire climate community was conspiring to falsify data, just the leading researchers for those that believe AGW. If the leading researchers are doing this and getting mega grants, then what about the lesser known reseacher trying to become a player in the movement and grab some grant money? There are many researchers that don't buy into the man made version, for many reasons including that for the last 10 years there has been no warming. Many believe GW is related to solar activity and have data to back it up as well. I guess when the leaders in research are manipulating and dumping original data, it should call into question ALL of their research and the role they play in the whole global warming movement. Again, show me where the data was falsified, other than a few cherry picked phrases taken out of context. 95% of the data that went into the CPU model is freely available to the public and no one has raised any questions about it. And you can be sure there are people looking for just such holes. There has been no manipulating or dumping of data and to call into question the integrity of every scientist working on the subject because a couple of guys tried to keep some papers from being published is no more valid than saying everyone serving in the army is a torturer because of Abu Grhaib. Not to mention that there are other data sets which were collected independently which are nearly identical to the one you are questioning. Yes, the researchers probably steer their research towards where the grant money is, just like any research field. But it doesn't change the fact that they still have to publish their findings and have it scrutinized by other scientists, including ones who disagree we're causing warming. No one questions whether or not cancer is real and you can be sure that those scientists chase the funding dollars and want to show that their findings are correct just as much as in any other hot field for research The bottom line is that climate change is a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing and provides explanations for why we are seeing them. It's obviously not 100% bombproof, there are several areas where our understanding is still incomplete, such as the effect of clouds, but overall the theory does a good job of predicting what were are observing and we can have a high confidence that the overall theory that were are causing a portion of the warming is correct. Other theories, such as that it's just a natural cycle have two major problems 1) they have no way of explaining the warming we are observing (studies have shown that solar forcing is NOT responsible for the warming such as this and this - although if you know of any more recent studies showing it is then point me to them please - and contrary to what you state, there HAS been warming over the past 10 years). And 2) they have no way of explaining why, despite the fact that CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas, the increase of 35% of CO2 that we have added to the atmosphere is having no effect at all. All the people who oppose the idea of climate change seem do so far is to point out uncertainties or inconsistencies in small parts of the overall case for climate change and then justify it by saying the entire theory can't be true because it would wreck the economy. Personally I think that's good and necessary for advancing our understanding - you need people to question assumptions and point out uncertainties so you know where to target future studies or see where mistakes have been made. But overall, it's just smaller areas of understanding, it doens't change the overall picture and if the best argument is that all the data and thousands of studies that show that we are affecting the climate are tainted because all the scientists (or only the leading ones?) are faking their studies and pushing it thru the literature without anyone catching on, that seems like a pretty weak leg to stand on. |
| 2009-12-08 9:41 AM in reply to: #2547807 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA bradword - 2009-12-08 9:34 AM Since when does technology not get spread over the world? We invent things ALL the time, and it gets brought into Europe and other locations around the world. I just don't get how you take wind technology and say if we don't sign a treaty we will be left behind? Right now, the USA is the cleanest country in the world when it comes to pollution per unit of production created. Other countries pollute less yes, but they also produce far less. If the entire world would be as efficient as the USA, the world would pollute far far less. We do not need the UN to dictate how our businesses run and give us yet another tax for this economy. Tell that to the 30% of my county that cannot get broadband internet, or the 20% that can't get cell phone service. My argument does not say that if we don't do X then Y will inevitably happen. What I am talking about is risk, the risk of a big opportunity cost as a result of resistance to change. It seems to me to be a vaild parallel argument to the econimic risks that are the rallying cry of the anti-agreement folks. |
| 2009-12-08 9:43 AM in reply to: #2547447 |
Veteran 210 | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA gearboy - 2009-12-08 7:00 AM SeminoleTriathlete - 2009-12-07 8:56 PM gearboy - 2009-12-07 12:36 PMI think you are totally missing the point- or deliberately trying to mislead. The issue is not to elimate all CO2. It's to figure out how much can be present and maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to human life. That's odd, I've gone SCUBA diving many times and haven't seized up and died...strange.We all breath oxygen. We need it to survive. In certain conditions, higher concentrations are desirable. But breathing pure O2 is deadly. When SCUBA diving, you get oxygen toxicity, seize, and die. For many years we used high doses of oxygen for premature babies whose lungs were not developed - it caused blindness in thousands. And if you breathe pure O2, it will depress the respiratory drive, and you will die. The point is that regulations are meant to identify acceptable levels of things. Like mouse hairs and insect parts in food. Are you using air tanks, or using pure O2? An "air fill" is atmospheric air. Pure O2 is used by tech divers to more rapidly off-gas nitrogen . Below about 15-20 feet, it is deadly. The one death I had the misfortune to witness on a dive boat occured when the diver, who was using a full face mask with several feeds, including a nitrox mix and pure O2 forgot to switch over on his second dive from the line feeding him pure O2 to the one for nitrox. The last person to see him alive was witness to the seizures at around 30-40 feet, before he was grabbed near the bottom of the dive, had his BC inflated, and the corpse was sent to the surface, where we had to perform CPR on it until the coast guard arrived. Or just ask your local dive shop about oxygen toxicity. Or google it. I'm gonna say your explanation of how that person died falls outside of the realm of your statement "When SCUBA diving, you get oxygen toxicity, seize, and die." That's a blanket statement if I've ever heard one. If it were as simple as that no one would every SCUBA dive. But this is foolish, because this has nothing to do with global warming. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK