[HN Gopher] MI couple running out of time to prove they found Gr...
___________________________________________________________________
MI couple running out of time to prove they found Great Lakes'
oldest shipwreck
Author : rmason
Score : 13 points
Date : 2024-09-23 17:19 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lansingstatejournal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lansingstatejournal.com)
| rmason wrote:
| If the firewall blocks you: https://archive.is/dDjOP
| dahdum wrote:
| > When I ran short of air at the wreck, Tom would swim over and
| hold out his backup breathing line, known to divers as a "reserve
| regulator." I'd catch a breath to stay down longer.
|
| Taking breaths off a scuba tank at depth is something only
| someone trained as both a diver and freediver should do. I don't
| get the impression the reporter is either. Tom seems a bit
| cavalier.
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| I know very little about either of these worlds -- can you
| explain why that is such a dangerous thing to do? Is it just
| that you might run out when you don't expect to?
| sellmesoap wrote:
| Breathing pressurized air from a tank while you're under
| pressure in the water can dissolve extra nitrogen into your
| system, as you ascend the nitrogen can bubble out in your
| blood stream causing nitrogen narcosis aka the bends
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness
| ljsprague wrote:
| Nitrogen narcosis is a different thing than the bends.
| dahdum wrote:
| Lung over expansion injury if he holds his breath on ascent
| like many free divers naturally do. He was taking compressed
| air breaths at depth and then ascending. If you fill your
| lungs at 33ft and ascend, the gas will double in volume at
| the surface, causing tons of damage and bleeding.
| theideaofcoffee wrote:
| What? No, not at all. That's a technique that's taught at the
| most basic levels of even open water diving. It might be not as
| ideal if you're near maximum depths for a general air mix where
| you might start to run into nitrogen saturation (say longer
| than 10 mins) at 100+ ft depth, but in the article they were
| down what seems like no deeper than 15 ft. You could pretty
| much stay down all day that shallow.
|
| It's standard training, at least with my NAUI knowledge to
| practice rescue breathing with another divers spider. My
| instructor added a few curveballs in that he'd mess up my tank,
| make me take it off and fix it while without a mask with my
| eyes closed and breathing off a fellow student's tank. Nothing
| to it.
|
| Edit: ok I see you mean as the reporter ostensibly not having
| any dive training, yeah, probably a bit inadvisable, but they
| dove with someone with experience and only at shallow depths,
| the danger is probably a bit overblown after a short amount of
| instruction. You're not gonna get bent at 15 ft.
| dahdum wrote:
| It's not getting bent, it's lung over expansion injury from
| taking a compressed air breath at depth and ascending
| afterward as a free diver. Yes, you could explain the danger
| to him, but people panic and forget.
| willcipriano wrote:
| > Tom seems a bit cavalier.
|
| We should all aspire to be more like Tom.
| alwa wrote:
| The article specifies that the wreckage in question was 10 feet
| below the surface. Is that deep enough to matter?
| InMice wrote:
| Looks like their claim was already debunked almost 10 years ago
| after state authorities dove to inspect. They did find a wreck,
| just not the one they claim.
|
| https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2015/06/four_reasons_why...
| sparky_z wrote:
| Is that the same shipwreck? Your link is about a wreck
| discovered by two men "Kevin Dykstra" and "Frederick J. Monroe"
| in 2014. This article is about a wreck discovered by a married
| couple before 2013. I think they're completely unrelated
| stories.
| InMice wrote:
| Whoops you're right. Cant delete my useless comment now oh
| well
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| Is this link mistaken? As far as I can tell it points to the
| usatoday homepage, not a specific story?
| dang wrote:
| Our software replaced the submitted URL
| https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/michiga...
| because it listed https://www.usatoday.com/ as its canonical
| URL. Fixed now. Thanks!
| stevage wrote:
| Had to scroll all the way to the end to find the "running out of
| time" bit:
|
| > That "something good" needs to happen soon. The Liberts said
| they're feeling their age. His dive pals are, too. They can't
| keep diving. And the couple can't afford more court battles for
| salvage rights, they said. They said they expect no treasure, no
| material benefits at all from their find. They just want, in
| their lifetimes, to see the wreckage identified and protected.
|
| > They'd like to be assured that this exciting and very early
| slice of Michigan history doesn't stay lost in the sand under
| Lake Michigan. I'm on board with that.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Whether this pans out as the oldest wreck in the Great Lakes or
| not it sounds pretty cool. Wreck diving in the Great Lakes is
| great. If you're into that kind of thing it's worth the trip.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-25 23:00 UTC)