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

The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#81

Post by xevb3k »

GuB-42 wrote: post #80
Xylakant wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying this is politically correct. The contentious issue is the question of why this is so. Is it because society shapes us in such a way that men are more inclined to take risks for money and recognition. This would imply things can change and women can be excellent saturation divers. Or is it because our genes shape us in this way, making it impossible for women to excel at diving.

From a biological standpoint, the reason men take more risks (for any reason) is clear. Take a tribe made of 10 men and 10 women, each women give birth to 4 kids during their life. You need 8 people for a very dangerous task. Are you going to send men or women? If you send 8 men and they all die, you are left with 10 women and 2 men. The two men can impregnate all the women and you have 40 kids for the next generatio…

If you believe this is a fundamental biological difference, then back it up with data/research.

Otherwise, this could just as easily be a social adaptation (and if we are seeking equality in our society, which should try and address it).

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#82

Post by Xylakant »

posterboy wrote: post #79
Xylakant wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be true but brings you back to the question why this is so. Are women intrinsically more intelligent due to their gender or does society place different expectations on the upbringing of boys, leading to a different selection of skills that develop. Or is it a mixture of both?

It's a physical job. Men are on average stronger. Even though the distribution of strength might not be proportional, the general perception should lead to a manifest self-image simply by association. And it helps that people like me corroborate this, frequently.

Pure strength is not the only metric that is important on most physical jobs. Endurance is another metric and afaik women tend to rate fairly well on that. This is also a mentally tough job, working in confined spaces in the dark with low visibility requires a whole range of attributes other than mere physical strength.

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#83

Post by Xalron »

mbrameld wrote: post #63
jsjohnst wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand further, oxygen is toxic at 1.6ATA. For those unfamiliar, pressure doubles every 10m (33ft). So if I tried to breath 100% oxygen at 33ft (aka 2.0ATA), I’d die pretty quickly. At 66ft, that caps you at about 40% oxygen. At 99ft, you essentially can’t breath any higher oxygen concentration than natural air. As such, nitrox’s purpose isn’t to increase depth. It’s actually used to increase bottom time (at a los…

> For those unfamiliar, pressure doubles every 10m (33ft). Does it? Or does it increase by one atmosphere every 10m?

It doesn't double every 10m. Each 10m of salt water roughly adds 1 atm. So it only doubles at the first 10m. So the oxygen becomes toxic ~66 meters when diving with air.

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#84

Post by dahdum »

xevb3k wrote: post #81
GuB-42 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a biological standpoint, the reason men take more risks (for any reason) is clear. Take a tribe made of 10 men and 10 women, each women give birth to 4 kids during their life. You need 8 people for a very dangerous task. Are you going to send men or women? If you send 8 men and they all die, you are left with 10 women and 2 men. The two men can impregnate all the women and you have 40 kids for the next generatio…

If you believe this is a fundamental biological difference, then back it up with data/research. Otherwise, this could just as easily be a social adaptation (and if we are seeking equality in our society, which should try and address it).

Sex differences in risk-taking behavior is a well documented finding, and that it has an underlying biological cause isn't controversial as far I've seen.

Testosterone is strongly linked to aggression as well as financial/physical risk taking, so part of the difference between sexes is expected on that alone. [1][2]

The evolution of risk taking is actively researched [3], and we see pretty consistent sex based differences across most species.

On an individual level, women who want to take these high risk physical jobs should clearly have equal opportunity to do so. We're just unlikely to ever hit 50/50.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11206

[2] https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn_a_0044...

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600861/

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#85

Post by Starwatcher2001 »

steve19 wrote: post #77
aksyn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have both the OSTC4 and OSTC3 Plus. The screens are extremely visible underwater, with the OSTC4 having a better resolution and much larger screen (equivalent brightness). There are quite a few YouTube videos of other computers to compare - these stood out. As far as computers go, they have all the features needed (even up to tech). I find having a nice piece of technology on my wrist provides some intangible comfo…

Thanks. I have just started scuba diving and am looking at getting the ultra budget Cressi Leonardo Dive Computer. Is getting that a bad idea given I am just a newbie?

Buying a "starter" dive computer makes a lot of sense as many divers quit after a year or two. As your skills and interests progress, you can aways upgrade to a better one.

It's been a while since I bought my last dive computer, but looking at the spec for the Leonardo, it looks okay. Personally I'd prefer one that includes a stop timer, but that's not a show stopper. The ability to download your dives to a PC is a good one to have. Have a chat with your instructors and see what they use and why. Enjoy your diving and keep blowing them bubbles!

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#86

Post by Starwatcher2001 »

A few years ago I did a "hard hat" diving experience that gives a teeny, tiny view into what these divers experience, and wow did it increase my respect for them.

It also included being compressed in the "pot" down to 50m and getting narked to hell. Any UK bods fancy trying the experience lookup "York Diver Training".

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#87

Post by eggy »

eggy wrote: post #58
zackbloom wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he means trimix, not nitrox. Nitrox reduces the maximum depth of the dive vs air, doesn't increase it. - Oxygen 0-20 ft - Nitrox in-between depending on % oxygen - Air 0-200 ft - Trimix 0-250 ft - Hypoxic Trimix up to 500 ft, minimum depending on % oxygen

I you were referring to me, I was using a 36% oxygen Nitrox mix. We were working at less than 10 m, so this increases working time not depth, but you need to be careful with oxygen toxicity as mentioned above. For deeper dives, air and then Trimix for up to 76 m.

Also for anyone interested, you are dealing with partial pressures of oxygen (PO2) with Nitrox. With 36% Nitrox mix (36% O2, 64% N, EAN36)you shouldn't be going below 28 m, since you don't want to exceed a PO2 of 1.4. (36% * 4 ATA = 144% or 1.44 PO2). Oxygen toxicity comes on without warning in most cases, and you convulse and typically drown. You want to stay between 0.16 and 1.6 (max!, hence the 1.4 PO2 guideline). There are some subtleties you can find out by researching Nitrox diving, or taking the course and certifying for Nitrox diving.

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#88

Post by PsylentKnight »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #45
technofiend wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate truth for some people is unless they are very careful, spending money behaves like a gas and expands to take all available volume.

Sure what is money for but to be spent

To accumulate enough to quit your dangerous job that makes your bones brittle.

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#89

Post by posterboy »

Xylakant wrote: post #82
posterboy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a physical job. Men are on average stronger. Even though the distribution of strength might not be proportional, the general perception should lead to a manifest self-image simply by association. And it helps that people like me corroborate this, frequently.

Pure strength is not the only metric that is important on most physical jobs. Endurance is another metric and afaik women tend to rate fairly well on that. This is also a mentally tough job, working in confined spaces in the dark with low visibility requires a whole range of attributes other than mere physical strength.

Yes, and I was alluding to mentally specifically, wasn't I?

Re: The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

#90

Post by xevb3k »

dahdum wrote: post #84
xevb3k wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe this is a fundamental biological difference, then back it up with data/research. Otherwise, this could just as easily be a social adaptation (and if we are seeking equality in our society, which should try and address it).

Sex differences in risk-taking behavior is a well documented finding, and that it has an underlying biological cause isn't controversial as far I've seen. Testosterone is strongly linked to aggression as well as financial/physical risk taking, so part of the difference between sexes is expected on that alone. [1][2] The evolution of risk taking is actively researched [3], and we see pretty consistent sex based differ…

So I’m not sure I’m very convinced by these papers.

The first (nature) paper appears to show that in market traders increased levels of testosterone result in more risk taking.

The third is mostly about fish and other animals, and doesn’t seem hugely relevant (though it’s interesting).

The second seems like the most interesting (MIT press article). They look at risk taking in adolescents. The paper seems to show that testosterone is linked to risk taking in males, but increased (natural) testosterone in females didn’t seem to show much increase in risk taking.

Overall, boys had very slightly riskier behavior than females. From the graphs the error bars are pretty big and the difference in risky behavior is quite small.

The difference doesn’t seem big enough that it would result in skewed gender ratios in jobs for example.

So, if this is well established in the literature, I’d expect to see better results than this. Are there papers that more really show that males are more prone to risky behavior and that this has a biological, rather than social basis?

Post reply on HN