Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 320 posts

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#301

Post by mikeleung »

benzofuran wrote: post #18

When you're learning to cave dive, one of the first things that you learn is that you may very well die in there. Most of the training focuses on systems, skills repetition, and understanding and using redundant systems - folks getting into cave diving typically are already extremely experienced divers who if anything need only some minor skill tweaks - most cave instructors will not take on students who don't alread…

I would also add shadow divers: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Divers-Adventure-Americans-Eve...

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#302

Post by chimprich »

ljf wrote: post #279
gaius wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cave diving in the UK is totally different to the Florida scene. There is almost no overlap in skills and equipment.

Can you elaborate?

There was no mention of Florida in the post I replied to, but I would expect the average Florida cave dive to be in significantly larger passage, with consequently clearer water, and being able to dive with a buddy. Warmer water too. This might make it a bit safer compared to the UK's constricted, silty passages, but I doubt it would be the orders of magnitude that would make it as safe as driving.

Saying there is almost no overlap in skills and equipment seems like a big stretch (at least from my second-hand knowledge). You might e.g. mount cylinders differently and use a scooter in Florida, but you still have similar challenges and potential hazards to overcome.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#303

Post by gaius »

ljf wrote: post #279
gaius wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cave diving in the UK is totally different to the Florida scene. There is almost no overlap in skills and equipment.

Can you elaborate?

UK is mainly caving with just enough diving to clear sumps. You see people with a helmet and a single 3L cylinder. Florida and Mexico are the opposite, the scene comes out of diving, big and lots of cylinders and/or rebreather is the norm. And no helmets.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#304

Post by jonahx »

Someone wrote: post #246
jonahx wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you just asked them, in all their ignorance, you're undoubtedly right. If you asked the children who chose the adventurous dad after he had died pursuing his passion, nearly 100% would trade the world to reverse that choice.

The 'choice' isn't between "dull and alive" and "adventurous and dead", but between "dull, 99.9% chance of living to an old age" and "adventurous, 95% chance of living to an old age" (actual percentages for illustration only) I think many kids, especially those with an adventurous mom/dad, would think "my mom/dad is strong and knows what he is doing, so (s)he won't be in that 5%"

Most adults don't really understand how likely 5% is. You're ascribing a level of mathematical sophistication and risk assessment to children that they simply don't possess -- not even close.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#305

Post by jonahx »

curun1r wrote: post #251
jonahx wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you just asked them, in all their ignorance, you're undoubtedly right. If you asked the children who chose the adventurous dad after he had died pursuing his passion, nearly 100% would trade the world to reverse that choice.

Your hypothetical survey method has a literal survivorship bias (and a statistical one...you're not asking the children of parents that took risks and didn't die). Looking at risk the way you're looking at it is a recipe for wasting your life. The better way to think of it is like the way that poker players look at their decision making...don't be outcome oriented. There's a logical, statistical way to do this and it…

> Put another way, would you say a father that chooses to drive a 2 hour commute (each way) per day is being reckless?

This question appears rhetorical (with an intended answer of "no"), but I absolutely think such a risk should be considered, whether or not you're a parent. The higher-order bits here are probably the time you're wasting with 100% probability, perhaps the increased life satisfaction of a great job, etc, but the p% additional chance you die in a car crash, as you said, is non-trivial, and even though I know very people incorporate such thinking into their decision making, I think they should.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#306

Post by artur_makly »

JshWright wrote: post #150
putsteadywere wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really liked this: 'I have seen lots of parents do terrible things because they failed to "put their own oxygen mask on first."' Thanks for writing that!

To take this tangent even further afield... Here's an actual real life demonstration of why you should put your oxygen mask on first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfF2MTnqAw

i think its a nice feature to pass out unconsiously during a high alt plane emergergency where u are about to die.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#307

Post by betenoire »

Chris2048 wrote: post #264
betenoire wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You originally asked me if "identity investment in something life-risking really compatible with reasonable parenting?" I've tried to show that's not a fair question since we don't agree what is reasonable parenting or what is risk. But yes, it is compatible because it is the only way. Consider this, until recently, conception through birth was quite likely to kill you. It didn't get much riskier than having kids, ye…

We don't agree, but what does that matter? Nothing stops coming up with a proper standard - such a thing already exists to some extent. The example of childbirth has more factors to it - other than it being required to further the human race, there is a biological imperative to do it. Plus, in the past, women didn't always have as much choice.

A standard for what? You keep saying standard. You expect a "risk standard" to emerge? An "activity standard"? Hobby Standards? I honestly am not following you. Risk is as diverse as anything.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#308

Post by ajarmst »

stordoff wrote: post #281
ajarmst wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a qualified advanced recreational diver, and most diving by properly-trained (not 'quick tutorial at the dock' like a lot of tourists get) divers has a very manageable level of risk, even at altitude or under ice. Cave diving and mixture diving (esp. in overhead environments like the Andrea Doria) is well beyond my personal acceptable-risk horizon, but most of the people who go there are extremely experienced, we…

What level of tuition should tourist divers be getting? I've only been diving a few times, and we were given (what felt like) a reasonable amount of safety briefings before even travelling to the dive site. IIRC the deepest we went was 12-13m (third dive with the same crew; first two were sub-10m), and I was under the impression (thought I'm __far__ from being an expert!) that it was difficult to cause any major prob…

From 12m, all you'd need to do is hold your breath and surface rapidly to give yourself a potentially fatal lung injury. Note that this is exactly what you would reflexively want to do in nearly any emergency or if you just got claustrophobic in the mask and reg (common) or had a sudden abyss panic (not uncommon) or even a trivial even like having your mask kicked off by a buddy. Recreational training should include a half dozen or so pool dives to practice skills. This gives you the training and confidence to cleanly handle minor emergencies, followed by three or four supervised training dives to test those skills in a real environment, and to give you a comfort level that gelps prevent panicy action later. Those first few dives to shallow depth are actually among the most dangerous you ever do, because you're a novice in an environment where your reflexes will kill you.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#309

Post by artur_makly »

j9461701 wrote: post #33

I might be speaking out of line, but taking on these kinds of risks with young children at home seems kind of selfish. The fact that he went back into the same cave that nearly killed him only a month later...almost as if to say: "I would rather my kids grow up without a Dad than live without my adrenaline fix" I am neither a father or a cave diver though, so I might be missing a piece of the puzzle. Would either gro…

Larry Smith gave a powerful talk on Parenthood + Living the "Safe" Life...

this moment i picked out.. was the heaviest for me :

https://youtu.be/iKHTawgyKWQ?t=10m41s

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#310

Post by BearGoesChirp »

jamra wrote: post #285
curun1r wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hypothetical survey method has a literal survivorship bias (and a statistical one...you're not asking the children of parents that took risks and didn't die). Looking at risk the way you're looking at it is a recipe for wasting your life. The better way to think of it is like the way that poker players look at their decision making...don't be outcome oriented. There's a logical, statistical way to do this and it…

This reads like the most sophistic argument to the point he was trying to make. The diver was a cave diver, not a regular scuba diver. It's very different and notoriously risky. He almost died in the same cave previously. His point was well taken. It doesn't mean that being risk averse is the right way to live. It's a fair point and a good thing to consider when you are a parent. That's all.

>He almost died in the same cave previously.

While I get the emotional impact of this, it really shouldn't be an argument either way once you begin using some framework to judge decisions.

Think of it this way, if I nearly died in a car wreck on the way to work, would it be fine for me to never get in a car again? I almost died doing that once!

It would make more sense to determine the risk. That he already nearly died doesn't really change the risk profile. Cave diving is extremely risky. That should be the important factor. Having nearly died should not.

Post reply on HN