No-fly in Subsurface?
dirk at hohndel.org
Tue Jul 26 06:53:38 PDT 2016
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 6:16 AM, Robert Helling <helling at atdotde.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>> On 26.07.2016, at 14:30, Robert Helling <helling at atdotde.de <mailto:helling at atdotde.de>> wrote:
>> I haven’t had time to read in the proceedings of the DAN workshop that was linked before. What I saw that came most closely to a recommendation was a report of a plan to do a study trying to bend subjects in a simulated fly after dive scenario. Which is not much that could be put into software. Maybe one should check the Rubicon Archive for more scientific information on the issue.
> ok, I did some Rubicon search and follow up reading an the two most relevant papers seem to be
> http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/6255/SPUMS_V9N3_4.pdf?sequence=1 <http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/6255/SPUMS_V9N3_4.pdf?sequence=1>
> http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/5611/DAN_FAD_2002.pdf?sequence=1 <http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/5611/DAN_FAD_2002.pdf?sequence=1>
> (in particular the executive summary).
> Upshot seems to be: Very hard to asses given the low number of cases (boarding a place when you already have DCS symptoms seems to be a totally different game, though), but 12-18h limits, maybe 24h seem to be a good idea and there is no model on the marked that is able to predict this.
This seems to match my expectations.
a) made up random shit
b) semi-scientific algorithms, tuned by random numbers without any scientific basis in order to match pre-conceived notions of "this sounds about right"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the subsurface