Editorial
 The MORE THINGS CHANGE
By Alex Brylske Photo by Marty Snyderman
If you have a respectable number of miles on your diving odometer, you're bound to enjoy the article this month by Marty Snyderman, "A Long Way From the 'Early Days': How Innovation has Transformed the Diving Experience." I certainly did. Even if you're new to diving, Marty's piece offers a useful and entertaining historical perspective from a technology perspective on how we got to where we are. For me it was more like a romp down memory lane. My own diving career began in 1966 as a young teenager; and aside from making my own wet suit, I experienced every technological advancement Marty relates.
For starters, I learned, and dove for many years, using a double-hose regulator. In fact, for those of you who know what it means, mine was a double-hose, single-stage regulator. (We called them "lung busters" because of their egregious breathing characteristics.) I also remember using a surplus pilot's flotation device, dubbed a Mae West vest. And I lived through the transition, and controversy, of the buoyancy compensator. I also remember wet suits that were only slightly better than wearing just a bathing suit, Jet fins (the first vented design), and the early analog decompression meter we lovingly called the "Bend-o-matic," which, by the way, I used for many years diving off the coast of New Jersey without a single incident.
On many early dives I observed divers wearing surplus military web belts to hold their weight (virtually impossible to ditch in a hurry), snorkels with ping-pong balls on the end to keep them from flooding (it never worked), and jury-rigged scuba systems that looked to be straight out of a decade-old issue of Popular Mechanics. I also remember in the mid-1970s being scorned when I decided to add an octopus regulator to my own rig (my trusty old double-hose was long gone by then), and laughed at when I had the audacity to don a piece of equipment that wasn't black, international orange or army green.
On the whole I'm glad diving evolved to where it is today, but I've got to admit that I do miss some aspects of those good old days. Though sprinkled with a large dose of machismo, the camaraderie and sense of shared experience was unequaled. And the sense that we were truly explorers, if not rebels, was palpable.
Of course, there was a downside, too. Today, fewer divers don't return from their last dive. And when you adjust the lower number of deaths to the increased total number of divers compared with the past, diving is actually far safer now than it was then.
But in the end, when all is said and done, what strikes me most is not how much but how little the diving experience has changed. When someone is truly in the moment underwater, the technology that got them there is irrelevant. Being totally at one with the environment is wholly an internal experience in which everything from last night's quarrel with your spouse to how much it cost to get there melts away. And to me, whether it was in 1966 or 2010, that experience is still the same. Clearly, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Buddy Lines
'Carbon Dioxide Retainer'
'Carbon Dioxide Retainer'
I read Mort Weber's question with interest as I too experienced these symptoms when I first started diving last summer (No Dumb Questions, Dive Training, December 2009).
After every dive, I had a headache and was extremely nauseous. During our confined-water dives, I attributed my condition to hunger, as we were in the water for five to six hours at a time, with nothing to eat. So for our open-water dives I made sure to pack lots of food and ate between each dive. Didn't help. Over the next 10 dives or so, I tried a variety of things to alleviate the symptoms. Because it was so much like seasickness, I tried Dramamine — no help. Because I had problems equalizing, I thought it might be related to sinus problems, so I took Sudafed — no help.
My doctor and an ear/nose/throat doctor she referred me to didn't know what it was either, so I called DAN (Divers Alert Network). Since there were no dive doctors listed in our area, DAN recommended I ask a local dive shop if they knew of any doctors. After my last dive I was so sick I was prepared to quit, even though we had already bought all of our own equipment, with a considerable outlay of cash. The dive shop owner knew the answer. "You're a carbon dioxide retainer." His solution: At the end of each dive, before ascending, make five to six deep exhalations, from the belly, as if saying, "Huh." I was skeptical but desperate so I tried it on my next dive. When I surfaced I felt fabulous. No symptoms. We have made about 15-20 dives since then, and haven't suffered a single symptom. This was such a simple solution to an awful problem that would have made me quit diving.
Marian Dabay
Via e-mail
Article on Women
and Scuba Criticized
As a young female divemaster pursuing my instructor's license, I found Linda Lee Walden's article ("Diving Beyond Small & Pink: Women and the Sport of Scuba," Dive Training, December 2009) to be both disturbing and patronizing.
Walden's views on women divers are quite stereotypical and, frankly, ridiculous. I have been diving since I was 12, and the idea that an "issue facing women divers is the ability to carry large, heavy scuba cylinders" is misleading, as many female divers who wish to carry large-capacity cylinders do just that. Those who cannot either have a genuine medical reason for not doing so, lack physical conditioning or are playing off the role of the "weaker sex." Though I stand only 5 feet, 1 inch tall, I have successfully worn, and have observed other female divers successfully wear, steel 80-, 100- and 130-cubic-foot tanks, and we did so on wreck dive boats or through the surf line.
Walden makes excellent points concerning health issues that women face. For example, diving while going through chemotherapy and concerns of pregnancy. However, the issue of diving after Botox injection raises an eyebrow for those of us who are still able to.
While I enjoy and always read Dive Training, several of the thoughts put forth in this article promote stereotypes, and send the wrong message to both women who dive and to women who wish to become certified divers.
Kaitlyn McPherran
California
Restoration Project Applauded
In December 1972, I visited the reefs off Southwest Puerto Rico (La Parguera). One of my most indelible memories was floating above a vast, endless forest of staghorn coral. In December 2006, I returned to that magical place with great expectation — and was mortified to find barren sand. That magnificent forest was utterly gone. It was in this frame of mind that I read Alex Brylske's article about Ken Nedimyer's colossal effort to restore staghorn coral stands. One of the "byproducts" of having been around a long time is the opportunity to have seen, firsthand, what things were like back in the "old days." Divers of today cannot have a firsthand sense of how profound the loss of these magnificent reefs have really been. But I have and so, in light of this report, all I can say is Godspeed Ken Nedimyer.
Michael Tove
Cary, North Carolina
Divers and Conservation
In light of your recent article on whale sharks by Marty Snyderman ("A Fish as Big as a Whale: The Whale Shark," Dive Training, December 2009), I would like to bring a related subject to your readers' attention. I'm curious to know what divers think about the concept of keeping whale sharks in captivity and diving with them in a confined setting.
I am of the opinion that this species and other large, pelagic fish and marine mammals are not appropriate subjects for unnatural confinement unless for rehabilitative purposes. I also see the diving industry as duty-bound to educate divers on conserving coral reefs and other aquatic species and ecosystems.
Most marine biologists are convinced that (anthropogenic) climate change is having a devastating effect on our coral reefs, yet dive industry sources seem to be complicit in their silence.
Keeping whale sharks and marine mammals in captivity also seems to run counter to the industry's long-term interests in promoting conservation, yet this, too, continues to be endorsed.
Isn't it time for our industry to take a clear stand on these issues and in the process help to ensure the future of scuba diving for generations to come?
Steve Mussman
Lawrenceville, Georgia
Palau Whereabouts
Unless it moved, isn't Palau north of the equator? That would put it in the North Pacific, not South ("World's First Shark Sanctuary Established," Diving Notes and News, Dive Training, December 2009). Good issue, though!
Alan Hughes
Norman, Oklahoma
Photo Questioned
I thumbed through your December 2009 issue and I really enjoy reading your magazine. There is a lot of useful information. The article, "Final Check: What It Looks Like When … You Dive as a Team," mentions that "good buddy teams gear up, enter the water and descend together." So how can your picture of the correct version be right? I may have only been diving for two years but call me out of line here. Did the buddy in the water do all his final buddy checks to ensure that his and his partner's equipment was functioning properly? How about the valves? Were they turned on? I have learned over the past two years that a well-formed team not only reviews from start to finish but would not set one toe in the water until both buddies were completely set and reviewed the plan one last time.
So how is this buddy team prepared for this dive if one has no clue that the other's gear is ready and functional? I think that the photograph used for the correct version was poorly chosen and should have depicted the buddy team donning the gear together. At any rate, keep up with the awesome magazine and articles.
"Ls"
Via e-mail
Editor's note: We can attest that the dive team did in fact conduct a thorough predive check. The divemaster shown in the bottom photo also aided both divers, ensuring their readiness to enter the water.
DNN
By Gene Gentrup
IN CO2-RICH ENVIRONMENTS, SOME OCEAN DWELLERS INCREASE SHELL PRODUCTION
In a finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide's (CO2) effect on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists say that some shell-building creatures — crabs, shrimp and lobsters — unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean, causing it to "acidify," researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater — one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.
The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem. (For more information, see "Carbon Dioxide's Role in Global Warming: A Litmus Test for the Ocean," Dive Training, October 2009.)
But in a study published in the December 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to  varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased, scientists say.
"Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate … dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them," says Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. "They were somehow able to manipulate CO2 … to build their skeletons."
Organisms displaying such improvement also included calcifying red and green algae, limpets and temperate urchins. Mussels showed no effect.
"We were surprised that some organisms didn't behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2," says Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study's co-authors. "What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn't seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm]." Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she says. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster.
The "take-home message," says Cohen, is that "we can't assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms." WHOI and the National Science Foundation financed the work.
Conversely, some organisms, such as the soft clam and the oyster, showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2. In the most extreme finding, Ries, Cohen and WHOI Associate Scientist Daniel C. McCorkle exposed creatures to CO2 levels more than seven times the current level.
This led to the dissolving of aragonite — the form of calcium carbonate produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers. Under such exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins began to lose their shells. "If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely," he says, "rendering them defenseless to predators."
"Some organisms were very sensitive," Cohen says, "some that have commercial value. But there were a couple that didn't respond to CO2 or didn't respond till it was sky-high — about 2,800 parts per million. We're not expecting to see that [CO2 level] anytime soon."
The researchers caution, however, that the findings — and acidification's overall effect — may be more complex than it appears. For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms respond to carbon dioxide.
"We know that nutrients can be very important," she says. "We have found that corals, for example, that have plenty of food and nutrients can be less sensitive" to CO2. "In this study, the organisms were well fed and we didn't constrain the nutrient levels.
"I wouldn't make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail."
Ries says that any possible ramifications are complex. For example, the crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification. "This may initially suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-prey dynamics. But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way, as well," Ries says.
In addition, Cohen says, even though some organisms such as crabs and lobsters appear to benefit under elevated CO2 conditions, the energy they expend in shell building under these conditions "might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building."
Since the industrial revolution, Ries says, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. Climate models predict levels of 600 ppm in 100 years, and 900 ppm in 200 years.
"The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere," Ries says. However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost.
"It's hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems, he says. "In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could restabilize at a new steady state.
"The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere."
For more information about the research, visit www.whoi.edu.
DNA Tools Help
Scientists Trace Shark Fins to
Geographic Home
Millions of shark fins are sold at market each year to satisfy the demand for shark fin soup, an Asian delicacy, but pinpointing which sharks from which regions are most threatened by this trade has been nearly impossible.
Now DNA research has, for the first time, traced scalloped hammerhead shark fins from the Hong Kong market all the way back to the sharks' geographic origin. In some cases the fins were found to come from endangered populations thousands of miles away.
The findings have been published in the journal Endangered Species Research based on research led by the Guy Harvey Research Institute (GHRI) and the Save Our Seas Shark Center, both at Nova Southeastern University in Florida, and the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University (SBU) in New York. The information will be used to push for more protection of sharks during the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) at its March meeting in Qatar.
The United States has proposed that CITES list the scalloped hammerhead and five other shark species under the organization's "Appendix II," which would require permits for, and monitoring of, all trade in these species across international boundaries. Knowing the species and geographic origin of fins being traded would allow management and enforcement efforts to be allocated more effectively.
"Although we've known that a few million hammerhead shark fins are sold in global markets, we now have the DNA forensic tools to identify which specific hammerhead species the fins originate from, and in the case of scalloped hammerheads, also what parts of the world these fins are coming from," says Dr. Mahmood Shivji, senior author on the paper and director of the GHRI and Save Our Seas Shark Center. "This trade has operated for years and years under the cover of darkness," says lead author, Dr. Demian Chapman, now with the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science. "Our work shows that the scalloped hammerhead fin trade is sourced from all over the globe and so must be globally tracked and managed."
The new research paper, "Tracking the fin trade: genetic stock identification in Western Atlantic scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini)," is published in a special issue of Endangered Species Research, "Forensic Methods in Conservation Research." Using CSI-like methods known as "genetic stock identification" or GSI, Chapman and Shivji along with Danillo Pinhal of the GHRI and Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brazil, analyzed fingernail-sized DNA samples from 62 scalloped hammerhead shark fins that had been obtained in the Hong Kong fin market. By examining each fin's mitochondrial DNA sequence, a section of the genetic code passed down by the mother and traceable to a shark's regional birthplace, the researchers were able to match 57 of the 62 fins to an Atlantic or Indo-Pacific ocean
origin. The team also analyzed mitochondrial sequences taken from 177 live scalloped hammerheads in the Western Atlantic and determined that the species is further divided into three distinct stocks in this region: northern (U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico), central (Belize and Panama), and southern (Brazil). The scientists traced 21 percent of the Hong Kong fins back to these Western Atlantic stocks. Scalloped hammerheads in the region have been categorized as endangered by the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) since 2006. This coastal species appears to have collapsed in the western North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
"The premium prices commanded by fins have fueled a global shark hunt of epic proportion," says Dr. Ellen Pikitch, executive director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at SBU, which financed a portion of the research. "Earlier work found that up to 73 million sharks are killed annually to supply the fin markets, and approximately 1 million to 3 million are hammerheads," says Pikitch, who is also a marine science professor at Stony Brook University. "Inadequate protection, combined with inexorable pursuit, has placed many shark species at grave risk." One kilogram (2.2 pounds) of scalloped hammerhead fin can sell for about $120 at Hong Kong markets due to the large size and high "fin needle" content of this species' fins. Needles are the sought-after portion of the fins, used as thickener in the soup.
"The fact that scalloped hammerhead shark DNA shows strong population DNA signatures means that we can trace the geographic origin of most of their fins sold at markets," Shivji says. "From a broader perspective, this type of DNA forensic testing of fins will be an incredibly useful tool to prioritize areas for conservation and ensure sharks aren't wiped out in particular regions by excessive fishing."
For more information, visit http://ocean
conservationscience.org, www.nova.edu/
ocean/ghri or www.saveourseas.com/.
NAMED STORMS FEWEST SINCE '97
The 2009 Atlantic hurricane season officially ended November 30, with the fewest named storms and hurricanes since 1997 thanks, in part, to El Niño.
Nine named storms formed this year, including three hurricanes, two of which were major hurricanes at Category 3 strength or higher. These numbers fall within the ranges predicted in NOAA's (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) midseason outlook issued in August, which called for seven to 11 named storms, three to six hurricanes, and one to two major hurricanes. An average season has 11 named storms and six hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.
"The reduced activity was expected and reflects the development of El Niño during the summer," says Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Weather Service. "El Niño produced strong wind shear across the Caribbean Sea and western tropical Atlantic, which resulted in fewer and shorter-lived storms compared to some recent very active seasons."
Two systems, Claudette and Ida, brought tropical storm-force winds to the U.S. mainland. For the first time in three years, no hurricanes hit the United States. There were 38 hurricane hunter aircraft reconnaissance missions flown by NOAA and the U.S. Air Force over the Atlantic Basin this year compared with 169 in 2008 — another indication of a less active season.
"El Niño is expected to reach peak strength this winter, and will likely continue into the spring. It is far too early to say whether El Niño will be present next summer," Bell says. NOAA will issue its initial 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook in May, prior to the official start of the season on June 1. For more information, visit www.noaa.gov.
TEXAS DIVE SHOW FEBRUARY 12-13
The Texas Dive Show is scheduled for February 12-13 at the Embassy Suites Dallas-Frisco/Hotel, Convention Center & Spa, 7600 John Q. Hammons Drive, in Frisco, Texas.
Show hours are set for 5-8 p.m. Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday. Programming and other details will be announced soon. For updates, check out www.divechronicles.com/texas.
UNDERWATER
INTERVENTION SET FOR FEBRUARY 9-11
Underwater Intervention is planned for February 9-11 at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans.
Topics for seminars at the technical conference include remotely operated vehicles, commercial diving and training, manned submersibles, marine construction, scientific research affecting underwater operations, and sonar and acoustics.
Exhibits and other programs are planned. For additional details, call (800) 316-2188 or visit www.underwaterintervention.com.
WINDY CITY EXPO FEBRUARY 19-21
Our World-Underwater, 40th Annual Consumer Dive and Travel Exposition, is scheduled for February 19-21 at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont, Illinois.
The three-day show includes workshops on underwater photography, closed-circuit rebreathers, how to get started in video production, and a closer look at technical diving. Other programs include "Titanic's Last Secrets" by Richie Kohler and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Excavation of Capt. Kidd's Shipwreck" by Charles Beeker. Exhibits, a film festival, silent auction and book signings also are planned. For a look at the entire program agenda, visit www.ourworldunderwater.com or call (708) 226-1614.
CALIFORNIA WRECK DIVERS BANQUET MARCH 6
Shipwreck explorer Gary Gentile is scheduled to address the California Wreck Divers during the group's annual banquet March 6 in El Segundo, California.
Gentile has discovered more than 40 shipwrecks, written more than 50 books and published more than 3,000 photographs. Gentile will share his experiences exploring the Lusitania, the luxury liner sunk by a German U-boat that led to the U.S. involvement in World War I.
The banquet is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. at the Hacienda Hotel in El Segundo. For more information, call Steve Lawson at (949) 462-0462 or visit cawreckdivers.org.
BOSTON SEA ROVERS CLINIC MARCH 6-7
The Boston Sea Rovers 56th Annual International Clinic is set for March 6-7 at the Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel in Boston. Programming and other details will be announced soon.
For more information, phone (617) 424-9899 or see www.bostonsearovers.com.
OHIO SCUBAFEST MARCH 19-21
The Ohio ScubaFest and annual OCSSDI (Ohio Council of Skin and Scuba Divers Inc.) Banquet Hall is scheduled for March 19-21 at the Crowne Plaza Columbus Hotel in North Columbus, Ohio.
Featured speakers include Valerie van Heest and David Trotter. Each will make presentations on shipwrecks. Returning this year is Michael Brittsan, curator
for the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. Presentations on dive destinations also are planned.
Workshops scheduled are "Photoshop Elements 6: The Basics and Beyond" by Rich Lauer; "Simple Underwater Videography" by Bill Margiotta; and "Underwater Archaeology" by Carrie Sowden. Workshop fees range from $25 to $289.
Full descriptions of the workshops and more information about the show can be read at www.scubafest.org.
BENEATH THE SEA MARCH 26-28
Beneath the Sea 34th Annual Undersea Dive & Travel Exposition is scheduled for March 26-28 at the Meadowlands Exposition Center in Secaucus, New Jersey.
Programming and other details will be announced soon. For more details, call (800) 536-EXPO or visit www.beneaththesea.org.
2010 International Legends of Diving set for April 12-19
Pleased with the first "International Legends of Diving" event held last year in The Bahamas, organizer Jeff Rice has announced that it will be staged again, April 12-19, 2010, but in Cozumel. Rice is managing director of Portage Quarry in Ohio, where he has staged "Legends of Diving" events for the last few years.
Next year's international gathering will feature a Southern California flavor, with appearances by Bob Meistrell, owner and co-founder of Body Glove, and James Stewart, scientist and diving officer emeritus with Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Both will be recognized for their achievements in diving.
More information on the event is available at www.legendsofdiving.com.
QUARRY PLANS
SECOND WORLD-RECORD ATTEMPT
Gilboa Quarry in Ottawa, Ohio, wants to break the world record for "Most Divers Submerged at One Time."
Plans are under way to attempt the feat July 17, 2010. The record, established last year in Indonesia, is 2,486. Last July, Gilboa Quarry registered 912 divers and had 794 divers submerged at once.
If you're interested in being part of the 2010 record attempt, visit www.divegilboa.com, e-mail scuba_fuz@hotmail
.com or inquire at your local dive center.
'U.S. SEA TURTLES'
Oceana has released a report designed to raise awareness about the state of six sea turtle species found in U.S. waters. "U.S. Sea Turtles: A Comprehensive Overview of Six Troubled Species" provides information about the six species, including what they eat, where they are found, threats they face and what can be done to save them.
If you would like a copy of the 34-page report, visit www.oceana.org or call toll-free (877) 762-3262.
---------------
PHOTO CAPTION
Photo by Tom Kleindinst, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
The conch shell at left was exposed to current CO2 levels; the shell at right was exposed to the highest levels in the study.
 Always Learning
Story and photos by Marty Snyderman
Picture Progress:
A Photographer's Struggle to Keep Up
One of my earliest jobs as an underwater cameraman was filming episodes of a television series called Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. In its day, the series was very popular, and many in my generation were dedicated fans.
I had a wonderful time traveling the world while working on that series, but I cringe when I try to watch one of those old episodes these days. The writing is so dated and the films move so slowly that if watching didn't bring back so many good memories of experiences diving around the world, I would find the films to be intolerably boring.
Television is a very different animal today, and audiences are far more sophisticated. Back in the day when we moved from scene to scene in a film we didn't ask audiences to make great leaps of faith. We didn't assume they would "get it." We filmed and showed every step along the way even when someone did something as simple as turn on a light or drop anchor.
Today's audiences "get it" very fast, and they tend to get impatient when films move too slowly for their taste. Back in the old days it was routine for a single shot in a film sequence to be on screen for as long as 12 seconds, sometimes longer. Holding a shot for less than four seconds was rare. Today it is commonplace for shots to be on screen for one second or less. Today's action is fast-paced. Complete stories are told in two-minute-long MTV videos, and trying to hold an audience's attention for long periods is increasingly difficult.
When Film Was King
In similar fashion, the way we share our underwater still images has changed dramatically. When I started as an aspiring underwater still photographer, film was still king. For the first 25 years or so of my career I shot 35-mm slide film (as opposed to prints). To share my images of sharks, dolphins and manta rays with an audience, I had to put the slides in order on a light table and then load them upside down and backward into a carousel so the slides could be properly projected onto a screen.
During a presentation, when I changed from one slide to the next, the screen would momentarily be transformed from "pretty image" to solid black with no image before the next slide dropped into place and was projected. No matter how quickly the next image appeared on the screen, being interrupted with black screen was annoying. But it was accepted as the state of the art.
Along came the multiprojector slide show to solve the dreaded "black screen" problem. As the name implies, in a multiprojector show more than one slide projector was used. Two projectors allowed images to dissolve with one another. As the brightness of the image in projector number one faded, the next image, in projector number two, was made brighter. The images from the two projectors overlapped so the viewing audience no longer had to endure the annoying black screen between slides.
More sophisticated presentations used even more projectors. At least it all seemed very sophisticated when things worked as they were supposed to. To make the multiprojector shows work you had to program the projectors or the audiotapes that directed the projectors to show the various slides as planned. All too often things went badly awry. A programmed cue somehow got missed and the slides got out of order. There was no way to correct the problem in a live show without bringing everything to an abrupt halt. In short, the glitches were show killers.
The Exit Door
Here's how I learned that painful lesson: Somewhere back in the early 1980s I was giving a two-projector show about my globe-trotting diving adventures to an audience of 1,500 paying customers in an auditorium in Washington, D.C., when one of the projectors acted up and my images of Southern California kelp forests got mixed up with my images of great white sharks from Australia. The projection crew quickly reset the show, but once again the projectors did their own thing. The crowd started to heckle me. I panicked and bolted for the door.
To my absolute horror, when I pushed on the exit door I discovered that it was locked. I was trapped. I returned to the stage and, miraculously, when we tried again the show ran like a Swiss watch. The audience thought the whole debacle was intentional, and I received a huge ovation. It was all very surreal.
Stories get around in the diving world, and every once in a while someone asks me about this incident. For years, I have looked them straight in the eye and said, "You have me mixed up with IMAX film producer Howard Hall. It was Howard that ran off the stage." Sorry, Howard.
The great but extremely painful lesson for me was that when giving live presentations I should keep the technology as simple as possible. I will always try to emphasize marine life and the underwater world, and I will use technology in an appropriate yet simple manner to help me accomplish that goal. Someone else can show off all the fancy transitions and special effects.
The Balancing Act
All of that said, I am well aware that for today's audiences my presentations need some pizazz. I can't just project an image and talk, and project an image and talk ad infinitum. Audiences expect and deserve better production value, and they can get it from almost everyone that gives a computer-based presentation. Software programs such as Keynote and PowerPoint enable all of us to use a variety of transitions when we move from image to image.
In recent years it has become relatively easy for almost any computer owner to put together QuickTime movies that make a sequence of still images appear to be a single video clip. With the right software and a little effort, the presenter can determine the length of time each image appears, whether the image is still or moves across the screen, and the transitions between images. It's easy to add music to presentations as well. In fact, several royalty-free programs enable users to create their own songs, and it's fairly simple to coordinate the appearance and movement of images with the music.
The Latest Greatest
The ability of traditional still cameras to capture moving images is a recent innovation, one that gives us new opportunities and that presents new challenges for presenters. For many years we distinguished cameras according to whether they created still images or video scenes, but many models of newer cameras can shoot both stills and video. Instead of being limited to multiprojector as we once were, we now have multimedia opportunities.
I don't know how to refer to these cameras. Do you call them still cameras that also capture video or vice versa? In any case the name is far less important than their capabilities. Some of the new cameras produce high-definition video that looks better than the video captured with many high-end, video-only cameras, and the still images are first-class. No doubt about it, the world continues to change at breakneck speed.
The wonderful image quality and the fact that both stills and video can be acquired with the same camera leads me to believe that the way we present material to audiences is certainly going to change. Very soon all of us are going to have the ability to capture top-quality still images and moving images with the same camera. We will soon need to decide which underwater scenes should be shot as stills and which ones are best suited for video.
The next challenge will be to determine how we should tell our stories to our viewing audiences. How should we mix the two mediums? What are the opportunities, the limits and the potential pitfalls? Do we need to incorporate a better use of sound? If so, how do we best go about that task? As presenters, if we are going to please our audiences we are going to have to learn about the capabilities of the newer cameras and software. Once again the challenge for all of us who present our underwater imagery to the world is to keep abreast with the times without overdoing the use of every new tool. We need to emphasize marine wildlife, the underwater world and the joy of diving. The fancy features and special effects of today will be old news before too long, but the wonders of the marine kingdom will continue to captivate our audiences as long as we use technology to show and share those wonders in the best ways possible.
No Dumb Questions
By Alex Brylske photo by Barry & Ruth Guimbellot
Buddying Up:
Initiating the Predive Discussion
Q:Reader Bob Costigan, who has written to us before on a different matter, sent in another excellent query about an issue that's rarely discussed. It addresses a topic that I believe is so important that it warrants the space of the entire column. "I'm primarily a shore diver in Southern Maine.
I began diving approximately four years ago, have about approximately 150 dives and recently completed my Advanced Open Water certification. Largely due to the fact that I have become affiliated with a local dive club, I have begun to expand my diving outside of the circle of friends I am accustomed to diving with. I am excited about meeting new divers, as this has the potential of adding a new degree of enjoyment to my dive experiences. By inviting others to dive with me on local dives, it's common practice that 'he who invites, leads the dive.' I do not have a problem with leading dives with those I am accustomed to diving with. For the most part, we all know what to expect from each other. We're familiar with each other's abilities and how we dive. We have gotten used to buddy checks, discussing how everyone is feeling, going over details of what our plan and purpose of the dive are, who each other's buddies are, who is carrying the flag, navigating, turnaround pressure, and anything else that needs to be addressed. This is often done in an informal (but thorough) manner, as we are all friends and dive with each other often. The problem is that I'm now finding it a bit difficult when diving with someone whom I have never dived with. It's especially tough coming up with an efficient manner or sequence to cover all of the required predive topics that need to be discussed. Do you have any suggestions or formal guideline in place that will help lead a predive discussion and dive with those I am not accustomed to diving with?"
A:Your letter is very timely because I recently finished writing a feature article addressing some of your concerns in the context of avoiding out-of-air emergencies. Your question also illustrates, in a positive way, how habitual practice maximizes the effectiveness of dive planning. It also shows the benefit to gaining experience through an active local dive club, something the diving community has gotten away from in recent years. In challenging diving environments, such as Maine, there's no better way of ensuring safety than joining a group of dedicated, safety-conscious divers, and I applaud the efforts of you and your friends.
Now to the matter at hand. The reality of the modern diving experience is that it's very common, perhaps even typical, for divers to be paired with a buddy whom they do not know. This can be an uncomfortable social situation for many, which can lead to a lapse in proper dive planning. Often, not wanting to impose or insult someone you don't know, you'll avoid asking questions that could have great bearing on your safety. Additionally, given the novelty of the situation, you could simply forget to ask or even consider something that's vital, like the type of alternate air source device your buddy has (or whether he even has one).
In this case I think we can take a lead from the way pilots and many technical divers go about the planning process, and that's to use a formal checklist. Aside from not forgetting anything because it's written down, using a checklist with an unfamiliar buddy has other advantages. First, it's a good icebreaker. The more formalized procedure also provides a bit more seriousness and focus to the discussion, and therefore your newfound buddy may take the matter of planning more to heart. Furthermore, it demonstrates that you're a conscientious diver worthy of being followed and listened to.
You might consider making a waterproof checklist and keeping it in your dive bag when you travel. It's a simple matter of printing out the pertinent information and laminating it between two sheets of plastic. You can either use self-adhesive laminating sheets, or have your local office supply store do the laminating for you.
Of course, the important thing isn't how to make the checklist, but what it contains. Here are some considerations:
The first important piece of information is your buddy's background. You'll want to know more than just his certification level. Find out how long and how many dives he or she has made and, equally important, what type of dives. Specifically, does he or she have experience in the type of dive you're about to make? It's also instructive to know when he or she made their last dive, and under what conditions. It's important to know if you'll be diving with someone who has done this type of dive even more than you have, or if you'll be dealing with a newbie right out of a certification course.
The next thing can be a very delicate matter. You should always try to ascertain if your buddy has any medical condition that could affect his performance (and thus your safety). Look for signs of past surgical procedures or disabilities. Did you happen to notice anything unusual when the diver carried his or her equipment on board? Where they able to do so without assistance? The best approach, in my experience, is to come out and ask directly, "Is there anything that I should know about concerning your health and how it may affect our dive?" To me it's way better to risk offending someone's sensibilities than to risk an accident that could have been prevented with a little prior knowledge.
One assessment technique that I use is, before I even introduce myself, I casually look over my would-be buddy's equipment. Is it primarily rental gear? If so, this sends up a red flag that the diver may not be that experienced, as experienced divers normally own most of their own gear. On the other hand, if the gear looks so old and tattered that it could have been used by Jacques Cousteau himself, it's another red flag that the diver hasn't been diving in a while, or hasn't bothered to stay up to date with his or her equipment and maybe their skills and knowledge. Of course, anything that's not assembled properly is very disconcerting. Yes, anyone can make an innocent mistake, but my antenna would be up and alert.
It's even better, if you know who your buddy will be before leaving the dock, to watch him or her assemble the rig. You can tell a lot about someone's level of familiarity, and even their psychological state, by the way they engage in the simple act of equipment assembly.
Once you're engaged in a conversation, although pleasantries are nice, you need to get down to matters that will affect your safety. What course will you follow? Is it the same one or different from what the divemaster recommended? I'd be very suspicious of someone who thought he or she knew better than the divemaster. The same holds true for anyone who suggests exceeding the bottom time recommended or required by the divemaster. Most importantly, under what conditions (bottom time, air pressure, location) will you turn around and head back? This should be a definitive and well-considered decision, not a causal, "I guess when we use half our air."
Another consideration not always addressed is what, if any, safety margin will you build into your decompression status? Will you follow your computer as indicated or avoid the maximum no-decompression limit by a certain margin? Another decompression safety issue is agreeing that, before ascending, you'll make a safety stop; and make sure you agree on what depth. (It's becoming increasingly common to add a deeper safety stop at one-half the maximum depth, followed by the normal shallow stop at 15-20 feet [4.5 to 6 m].) This is also the point in the conversation when you decide who will lead the dive, and this should be a specific and overt point. Never leave the role of leader to question or, as I've overheard many times, "figure it out once we're on the bottom."
While most dives are uneventful, you still need to consider that something may go wrong. What will you do if the current is worse than you anticipate, or if you get separated? What happens if you make a navigational error and end up well downcurrent of the boat, or if one of you simply isn't able to swim back to the boat? Are either of you carrying surface signaling gear like a whistle and safety sausage?
Next is the actual equipment check. Do you both have full tanks and are your valves turned on fully? Are there any air leaks? Getting rid of weight or finding air when it's needed are the two most important tasks in an emergency. So make sure that each of you knows how to locate and operate the other's weight system (belt or integrated) and alternate air source (spare second stage, integrated with inflator or redundant system). Also, be sure to check the location and function of the various releases on the BC (buoyancy compensator) and weight system. Do they all work properly and is there anything that
either of you aren't familiar with?
Once you're actually in the water, it's a good idea to do another brief check to confirm everything is still in place and functioning properly. Did some release pop open, or is an alternate air source freeflowing? And don't begin your descent until both are ready and have agreed to descend at the same time. Many buddy separations occur right at the start of the dive. It may also be a good idea, if you notice your buddy is a bit rusty or inexperienced,
to give him or her a minute or two to acclimate before descending.
Finally, during the descent, watch your buddy closely. His or her behavior will tell you a lot about their level of comfort and familiarity. Smooth, deliberate actions and a calm consistent breathing pattern say experience. Quick, jerky or uncertain movements, fumbling or preoccupation with gear and heavy breathing are a sign that you aren't diving with the most comfortable or experienced diver in the ocean that day.
As you can see, dive planning is a much more important and complex process than many realize. And doing it with someone you may have just met can be quite challenging. But safety is far too important to be left to chance, and the attitude of "hope for the best" just isn't good enough. At least, not if you expect the dive to be safe and enjoyable.
-------------
PHOTO CAPTION
Before each and every dive — especially when paired with an unfamiliar buddy — divers should review and agree upon a predive plan.
Dive Training Quiz
Test your knowledge of the information
featured in this month's issue
of Dive Training.
marty snyderman photo
1. The volume of air that moves in and out of the lungs with each breath is called:
A. Barometric pressure.
B. Respiratory pressure.
C. Respiratory volume.
D. Tidal volume.
E. Breathing rate.
2. Immersion in water causes dramatic changes in our breathing. Compression of the chest by hydrostatic pressure causes a reduction in tidal volume by as much as:
A. 10 percent.
B. 20 percent.
C. 30 percent.
D. 50 percent.
3. On descent, as the pressure of the air we breathe from a tank increases, so does the:
A. Density of the air.
B. Breathing resistance.
C. Bottom time allowed.
D. A and B are correct.
E. B and C are correct.
4. The mere act of breathing underwater is a physiologic challenge requiring that you use more oxygen than under comparable conditions on land.
A. True
B. False
5. The BVI National Parks Trust has established a habitat for rare and endangered species such as the:
A. Roseate flamingo.
B. Anegada rock iguana.
C. Dwarf python.
D. A and B are correct.
E. B and C are correct.
6. To float yourself adequately on the surface, always inflate your BC until it begins to vent excess air.
A. True
B. False
7. The dive site in Indonesia known as Cannibal Rock is named after:
A. A local tribe.
B. The Komodo dragon.
C. Nomadic headhunters.
D. An unusually shaped rock.
8. All scorpionfishes are believed to possess venomous spines that are used for defense.
A. True
B. False
9. Early horse-collar-style buoyancy compensators:
A. Were chest-mounted.
B. Placed the buoyancy in front
of the diver.
C. Were rather uncomfortable.
D. All of the above.
10. The first jacket-style BC appeared in 1971 and was nicknamed the:
A. "Slow leak."
B. "Suit coat."
C. "Stab jacket."
D. "Sink or swim."
Answers
1. D. 2. B 3. D 4. A 5. D 6. B 7. B 8. A 9. D 10. C
|
