 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / Scuba Locations / March 2005Fire coral
I recently returned from a sailing/diving trip to British Virgin Islands. I hit my arm hard against fire coral while diving at Blonde Rock (was trying to get a photo of a lobster). The scar appears to be getting more red and swollen, and it now itches. The accident was two weeks ago. Does anyone have suggestions on how to treat it? Will the scaring be permanent? It's a V-shaped scar on my forearm. Each leg of the V is around 3 or 4 inches long. -Brien > I recently returned from a sailing/diving trip to British Virgin Islands. I > hit my arm hard against fire coral while diving at Blonde Rock (was trying [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -Brien Ouch! I was floating one lazy afternoon sans fins in Coz, drifted into a down current and dragged a foot across one or two fronds. No worries mate, it clears up - just don't sctach it.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >I recently returned from a sailing/diving trip to British Virgin Islands. >I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Will the scaring be permanent? It's a V-shaped scar on my forearm. Each > leg of the V is around 3 or 4 inches long. Fire coral injects a poison. The effects of contact and injection is highly dependent on your body's reaction to that poison. Think of it as an allergic reaction. Some people hardly notice they've been stung while others can have a strong reaction. Since you're obviously not in the former category and, it seems, are having a fairly strong reaction to the poison, I suggest you contact a physician, preferably one that has a practice in an area where stings from marine organisms are common. There may be drugs, salves or something else that will lessen the irritation and long term results. In the future, prevention is better than treatment. Try to do a better job of avoiding contact with coral and other marine life. Since you now know you're vulnerable to at least one marine toxin, spend a few bucks on a lycra, or similar dive skin to give you an extra barrier between your body and things that sting. Speaking of things that sting, not all of them are attached to the bottom. Some jellyfish can deliver a much more potent sting than fire coral. Some, for some people, can be fatal. Some shells, cone shells come to mind, can deliver a fatal dose of toxin as can some fish and some marine reptiles. Lee > >I recently returned from a sailing/diving trip to British Virgin Islands. > >I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Fire coral injects a poison. They inject the venom by way of nematocysts, which are miniscule little firing darts. >The effects of contact and injection is highly > dependent on your body's reaction to that poison. Think of it as an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > salves or something else that will lessen the irritation and long term > results. At this point, it sounds like he probably has an infection. Steroid cream treatment is not recommended for an infection. He should get himself to a doctor and get antibiotic treatment if necessary. Heck, he should get himself to a doctor anyway. It's nice for us that he thinks we are so wonderful that we can diagnose . . .whether we are doctors or just playing one on the internet. > In the future, prevention is better than treatment. Try to do a better job > of avoiding contact with coral and other marine life. Since you now know > you're vulnerable to at least one marine toxin, spend a few bucks on a > lycra, or similar dive skin to give you an extra barrier between your body > and things that sting. Improving his buoyancy skills prior to continuing with his photography will serve the reef, him and the rest of us much better. > Speaking of things that sting, not all of them are attached to the bottom. > Some jellyfish can deliver a much more potent sting than fire coral. Some, > for some people, can be fatal. Some shells, cone shells come to mind, can > deliver a fatal dose of toxin as can some fish and some marine reptiles. While one can unexpectedly come into contact with jellyfish and/or their tentacles, contact with a coneshell would virtually have to be deliberate and therefore, one deserves what one gets. > While one can unexpectedly come into contact with jellyfish and/or their > tentacles, contact with a coneshell would virtually have to be deliberate > and therefore, one deserves what one gets. I was night diving Tobias, in the Red Sea, a few years ago and my buddy and I came across a Spanish Dancer traveling along on the rocks. I knelt down in the sand and took my shots of the rascal while he waited behind me. When I was through he moved in and was taking his shots, while I waited and watched from behind him. At some point during his shoot the sea stirred a bit and the surge pushed him to his left....instinctively he put his left hand down (we were in sand and rock) but there was a spiny anemone that got him before his hand reached the rock, in natural reaction he pulled away from the sting, at almost the precise moment the surge receded and pushed him to his right to his right. Again by instinct he put his right hand down and suffered a sting from a Lionfish (which most of us know love to hunt by our dive lights). Before we made it to the surface he had passed out and I brought him the rest of the way to the surface and started trying to resuscitate him. My point is that things like this can happen within a few seconds (as it did that night) and I don't know if I would say he got what he deserved. It could have been a coneshell, or a stonefish, or any other variety of stationary dangerous animal. Sometimes despite the best intention you git-bit anyway :^) > > While one can unexpectedly come into contact with jellyfish and/or their > > tentacles, contact with a coneshell would virtually have to be deliberate [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > stationary dangerous animal. Sometimes despite the best intention you > git-bit anyway :^) That's quite the story. If it weren't for bad luck, he'd have no luck at all. Did you hear the one about the photog in Mabul that was standing on the coral and leaning with one elbow against a coral head, to steady himself for a shot of the manadarins? He was run over by a flying scuba diver. > Did you hear the one about the photog in Mabul that was standing on the > coral and leaning with one elbow against a coral head, to steady himself > for > a shot of the manadarins? He was run over by a flying scuba diver. I hadn't heard that one, though have heard of similar. In fact I saw one in Palau in the late 80's. Some chick was screwing with something and this big Palauan guide came roaring across the reef, snatched her up (pun not intended :^) and kind of road-raged her underwater. She was scared shitless, yet I don't know if his point ever got made. I found out later he was quite famous for his stringent defense of the reef and it's animals. Photogs get a bad rap though. On the average I don't find them any worse or better than sightseeing divers. When you start looking at the best of both groups though, photogs are probably better, at least in terms of buoyancy, control etc. Sometimes just having to understand the environment certain animals live in, and the behaviors they exhibit and the inter-dependencies of flora and fauna makes one a better citizen of the reef by default. By and large sightseers don't really have to have knowledge to that specific. On the whole though, scuba divers as a group are real shitheads. We've all seen it :^) > > Did you hear the one about the photog in Mabul that was standing on the > > coral and leaning with one elbow against a coral head, to steady himself [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yet I don't know if his point ever got made. I found out later he was quite > famous for his stringent defense of the reef and it's animals. Maybe she was about to pick up a cone shell and he didn't want her to get hurt? ;^) > Photogs get a bad rap though. On the average I don't find them any worse or > better than sightseeing divers. When you start looking at the best of both > groups though, photogs are probably better, at least in terms of buoyancy, > control etc. That might be true with *very* experienced photogs . . . very experienced photogs that have had some training in consideration for the environment. That then only leaves the issue of what many photogs perceive to be "entitlement" but that's another subject and has been discussed here before. >Sometimes just having to understand the environment certain > animals live in, and the behaviors they exhibit and the inter-dependencies > of flora and fauna makes one a better citizen of the reef by default. By and > large sightseers don't really have to have knowledge to that specific. Right, or they wouldn't be going around picking up cone shells, just to see whether or not something was living in it. > On the whole though, scuba divers as a group are real shitheads. We've all > seen it :^) :^) > That then only leaves the issue of what many photogs perceive to be > "entitlement" but that's another subject and has been discussed here > before. I think that is a Red Herring. The issue of "entitlement" isn't one of photographers but one of all divers. Everyone diving has their purpose and everyone at some time or another has to decide what how their desire or intent measures up against that of others, or of the environment in which they dive. Like I said before, I think I on the whole divers as a group are real shitheads. There is essentially a small portion of the diving public, regardless of why they dive, that are really good visitors to the sea. Everyone else is so busy taking every other diver's inventory, that they are blind to their own faults. > > That then only leaves the issue of what many photogs perceive to be > > "entitlement" but that's another subject and has been discussed here [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Everyone else is so busy taking every other diver's inventory, that they are > blind to their own faults. LOL. > Photogs get a bad rap though. On the average I don't find them any worse > or better than sightseeing divers. When you start looking at the best of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reef by default. By and large sightseers don't really have to have > knowledge to that specific. We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many photographers have better than average buoyancy control, that's not the problem. Anybody can stay off the bottom if they pay attention. Photographers are notorious for not paying attention. Lee "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many :photographers have better than average buoyancy control, that's not the :problem. Anybody can stay off the bottom if they pay attention. :Photographers are notorious for not paying attention. Sometimes we do it on purpose. Blue backgrounds are better than sand backgrounds. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many > photographers have better than average buoyancy control, I don't deserve that reputation. Not in the least. Nor do any of the photogs I dive with. That in and of itself renders any claim to the contrary little more than a bitch. Crass generalizations serve no idea well. >While you're right that many photographers have better than average >buoyancy control, And I didn't say buoyancy control...I said "buoyancy, control etc.". It's a small but great difference. I don't find buoyancy control the determining factor in whether a diver is in control or not. And I think the overwhelming infatuation with buoyancy control severely limits what most divers (photogs, sightseers and hunters alike), aspire too. > that's not the problem. Anybody can stay off the bottom if they pay > attention. As if my point was that photogs are good divers because they stay off the bottom? That's a bit of an inane implication.....even for a Usenet. > Photographers are notorious for not paying attention. In the context that most divers are shitheads with attentions spans in the milliseconds, I don't argue that. What I was speaking to was the suggestion that photographers are worse divers than the general diving public. >> We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many >> photographers have better than average buoyancy control, > I don't deserve that reputation. Not in the least. Nor do any of the > photogs I dive with. That in and of itself renders any claim to the > contrary little more than a bitch. Crass generalizations serve no idea > well. Do you dive with any photographers whose names I'd recognize? If not, what makes you think your experience supercedes mine? >>While you're right that many photographers have better than average >>buoyancy control, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the overwhelming infatuation with buoyancy control severely limits what > most divers (photogs, sightseers and hunters alike), aspire too. What's better buoyancy if not buoyancy control? Perhaps you don't find buoyancy control the determining factor in whether a diver is in control or not, but pretty much everybody else does. >> that's not the problem. Anybody can stay off the bottom if they pay >> attention. > > As if my point was that photogs are good divers because they stay off the > bottom? That's a bit of an inane implication.....even for a Usenet. Nobody cares what your point was. That was my point. You don't like it, post one you like better. OK, so you don't think a diver that stays off the bottom is better than one that can't. Guess what, pretty much everybody else does. >> Photographers are notorious for not paying attention. > In the context that most divers are shitheads with attentions spans in the > milliseconds, I don't argue that. What I was speaking to was the > suggestion that photographers are worse divers than the general diving > public. Photographers, as a whole, are worse divers than the general diving public, at least from the perspective of conservation, which is what this thread morphed into. Out of that context, they're probably head and shoulders above the average. They/we long since learned to dive well enough to do so without a lot of conscious thought, to dive safely while focusing almost completely on the subject and on composing and taking the picture. Unfortunately, staying clear of the reef is not something you can relegate to the background. You have to pay attention to your surroundings and to your relationship to them and photographers, as a rule, just aren't all that good at that. Sorry. Lee > >> We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many > >> photographers have better than average buoyancy control, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > bottom is better than one that can't. Guess what, pretty much everybody > else does. :^) > >> Photographers are notorious for not paying attention. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > your relationship to them and photographers, as a rule, just aren't all that > good at that. Sorry. Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one hand on an urchin and the other on the spines of a lionfish. That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody. I can't help but wonder with what the poor guy was holding his camera. I guess he didn't have 'nothing but bad luck' . . .he was lucky enough to have Brad as his buddy. He could have been buddied with someone that wasn't paying any attention, then he'd have been f . . .erm. > Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one > hand > on an urchin and the other on the spines of a lionfish. > That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody. Good point. > Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one > hand > on an urchin and the other on the spines of a lionfish. Oh now chilly, are you calling me a liar, or are you saying a good diver couldn't ever get into a out-of-control circumstance? > That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody. I can't think of anyone it couldn't happen to. > I can't help but wonder with what the poor guy was holding his camera. Who said he continued to hold his camera? > I > guess he didn't have 'nothing but bad luck' . . . Of course it was simply bad luck. > he was lucky enough to have > Brad as his buddy. He could have been buddied with someone that wasn't > paying any attention, then he'd have been f . . .erm. What does f...erm mean? > > Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one > > hand > > on an urchin and the other on the spines of a lionfish. > > Oh now chilly, are you calling me a liar, or are you saying a good diver > couldn't ever get into a out-of-control circumstance? Of course I'm not calling you a liar. I never call anyone a liar. I have no reason to doubt your story. Though, you have to admit, it's a doozy. :^) I'm just having a little fun here. I'd always noticed that you had a great sense of humor. Didn't think you'd mind so much. > > That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody. > > I can't think of anyone it couldn't happen to. Uh . . . > > I can't help but wonder with what the poor guy was holding his camera. > > Who said he continued to hold his camera? OK. What happened to his camera? > > I > > guess he didn't have 'nothing but bad luck' . . . > > Of course it was simply bad luck. Like I said before "if it wasn't for bad luck, he'd have had no luck at all." > > he was lucky enough to have > > Brad as his buddy. He could have been buddied with someone that wasn't > > paying any attention, then he'd have been f . . .erm. > > What does f...erm mean? :^) >> > Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one >> > hand [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > no reason to doubt your story. Though, you have to admit, it's a doozy. > :^) That sounds like you doubt me? But in any case, it wouldn't be worth repeating if it wasn't something out of the ordinary. > I'm just having a little fun here. I'd always noticed that you had a > great > sense of humor. Didn't think you'd mind so much. Oh, I don't mind at all. I was just having some problem figuring out your atitude. Couldn't see if it was a joke or if you were taking a swing at me. The printed word can be like that. >> > That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody. >> >> I can't think of anyone it couldn't happen to. > > Uh . . . Really, I can't think of anyone who couldn't get themselves into that situation. Had it been me, this is 20:20 hindsight, I would have pushed off the bottom, but then at the moment, in the second, would I have really done that or just extended just my arm. >> > I can't help but wonder with what the poor guy was holding his camera. >> >> Who said he continued to hold his camera? > > OK. What happened to his camera? He let it float. It's maybe still floating. >> > I >> > guess he didn't have 'nothing but bad luck' . . . [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Like I said before "if it wasn't for bad luck, he'd have had no luck at > all." I don't know. I was there and when he passed out I knew how to get him to the surface and what to do once we were there. That's not bad luck...just imagine, he could have had someone with good buoyancy control! >> > he was lucky enough to have >> > Brad as his buddy. He could have been buddied with someone that wasn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > :^) I'm serious, what does "f...erm" mean? >> I'm just having a little fun here. I'd always noticed that you had a >> great [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >atitude. Couldn't see if it was a joke or if you were taking a swing at me. >The printed word can be like that. Figured it out yet? SignatureJason O'Rourke www.jor.com >>> We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many >>> photographers have better than average buoyancy control, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do you dive with any photographers whose names I'd recognize? Yes. > If not, what makes you think your experience supercedes mine? What supercedes the crass generalization that all deserve the reputation is the fact that some photographers don't. As far as your experience goes, if you believe it is so encompassing as to make such a generalization, then I believe it is totally irrelevant. Whether or not I believe my underwater photography experience supercedes yours is of no matter. Except maybe to you, which is of no matter to me. >>>While you're right that many photographers have better than average >>>buoyancy control, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What's better buoyancy if not buoyancy control? I think the ability to read, comprehend and articulate a response that bears some semblance of relativity to the original comment is better. > Perhaps you don't find buoyancy control the determining factor in whether > a diver is in control or not, but pretty much everybody else does. Then I am indeed in conflict with "everybody else", as defined by you. I have seen tons of divers with good buoyancy skills who were out of control. Buoyancy control is just part of the equation to being an in-control diver. But because so many people subscribe to your assessment that have that skill is all that is needed, they aspire to little else. >>> that's not the problem. Anybody can stay off the bottom if they pay >>> attention. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nobody cares what your point was. Nobody else but you responded, so in their case that is likely true. But if I am to assume you are not a complete imbecile, then I indeed must believe you responded because you did care what my point was. > That was my point. You don't like it, post one you like better. Don't need to. I can't improve upon the stupidity set forth by you, that any diver with buoyancy control is by default an in-control diver. > OK, so you don't think a diver that stays off the bottom is better than > one that can't. Of course I don't. I sit or lay on the sea bottom all the time. Am I to assume by your comment that just because someone else floats 15 feet above me they are better. And the person who floats 20 feet above is better still? > Guess what, pretty much everybody else does. Nah. I'm certain that "pretty much everyone else" who has an opinion of who is better, based upon who is on the bottom, has a lot to do with why they are on the bottom, how they got there, and where on the bottom they are. In general I find it more appropriate that the bad diver stay way from the bottom and the good diver be the only one close to the reef or seabed. You on the other hand seem to think the diver floating has to be better and the diver with something to do on the bottom has to be worse. I see now why your generalizations seem so insipid to me. > Photographers, as a whole, are worse divers than the general diving > public, at least from the perspective of conservation, which is what this > thread morphed into. Nah, they are no worse or better, on average. They are just another equal part of a diving public that isn't very good in general. > Out of that context, they're probably head and shoulders above the > average. Don't buy that either. They have learned to dive with a camera in their hand, but they still tend to subscribe to your position that buoyancy control is all one needs to be an in-control diver. > They/we long since learned to dive well enough to do so without a lot of > conscious thought, to dive safely while focusing almost completely on the > subject and on composing and taking the picture. That's not they way I dive, nor the way I shoot. > Unfortunately, staying clear of the reef is not something you can relegate > to the background. You have to pay attention to your surroundings and to > your relationship to them and photographers, as a rule, just aren't all > that good at that. They are no better and no worse than anyone else. And they have no greater aspirations to be better divers than anyone else. Most, like you, think having buoyancy control is the equivalent to being in control. I'll let you go on your way Lee. After all, you don't care what my point is, so you won't be replying. Adios schlappschwanz >> Do you dive with any photographers whose names I'd recognize? > > Yes. I'm listening, but I'm not hearing. > Then I am indeed in conflict with "everybody else", as defined by you. I > have seen tons of divers with good buoyancy skills who were out of > control. Funny, I've been at this sport for a bit over 40 years and I've never seen a diver out of control who was demonstrating good buoyancy control . . . ever. > Buoyancy control is just part of the equation to being an in-control > diver. > But because so many people subscribe to your assessment that have that > skill > is all that is needed, they aspire to little else. You're putting your words in my mouth. I did not say that buoyancy control is all that is needed. I didn't even imply it. > Nobody else but you responded, so in their case that is likely true. But > if > I am to assume you are not a complete imbecile, then I indeed must believe > you responded because you did care what my point was. Nope. I cared what my point was. >> That was my point. You don't like it, post one you like better. > > Don't need to. More likely can't. > I can't improve upon the stupidity set forth by you, that any > diver with buoyancy control is by default an in-control diver. So far, you're the only one that has said any such thing. I was quite specific about the level of skill of most photographers and that it was not a lack of skill that resulted in contact with the reefs and other objects. It was lack of attention. You seem to have missed that, or failed to understand. Most likely the latter. >> OK, so you don't think a diver that stays off the bottom is better than >> one that can't. > > Of course I don't. I sit or lay on the sea bottom all the time. Then you kill things that also sit on the bottom all the time. > Am I to assume by your comment that just because someone else floats 15 > feet above > me they are better. And the person who floats 20 feet above is better > still? You may assume anything you like. You've proven yourself quite good at it. If, on the other hand, you wish to know what I mean then here it is. A diver that stays clear of the reef, who does not contact the coral or other living organisms is, from an evironmental point of view, a better diver than one who fails to stay clear and who contacts coral and other living organisms. How far one stays away from the reef and animals is or no real consequence. > In general I find it more appropriate that the bad diver stay way from the > bottom and the good diver be the only one close to the reef or seabed. You > on the other hand seem to think the diver floating has to be better and > the > diver with something to do on the bottom has to be worse. Making things up as you go again, I see. >> Photographers, as a whole, are worse divers than the general diving >> public, at least from the perspective of conservation, which is what this >> thread morphed into. >> Out of that context, they're probably head and shoulders above the >> average. > > Don't buy that either. Nobody cares what you buy or don't. You've already proven to have only the loosest connection with reality. > They have learned to dive with a camera in their > hand, but they still tend to subscribe to your position that buoyancy > control is all one needs to be an in-control diver. See what I mean? You see what you want to see, not what is written. Get some help. > I'll let you go on your way Lee. After all, you don't care what my point > is, > so you won't be replying. Half right. Lee >Funny, I've been at this sport for a bit over 40 years and I've never seen a >diver out of control who was demonstrating good buoyancy control . . . ever. Rough surge? Currents. Sometimes the only answer to staying in control is not to be there in the first place. That aside, I agree with you. Have fun with the guy. SignatureJason O'Rourke www.jor.com >>Funny, I've been at this sport for a bit over 40 years and I've never seen >>a >>diver out of control who was demonstrating good buoyancy control . . . >>ever. > Rough surge? Currents. Sometimes the only answer to staying in control > is > not to be there in the first place. At that moment, the diver's not demonstrating good buoyancy control. I agree that, sometimes, the only answer to staying in control is not to be there in the first place. I take that a step or two further. Not being there, sometimes means being sufficiently far from fragile objects that the surge or current can't bring you into contact with them. Staying in control requires knowledge of conditions, knowledge of your own limitations and paying attention to both. Regardless of the creative misunderstanding of one particular poster, photographers tend to have the skills, experience and knowledge it takes to stay in control and away from fragile things but far too often are not paying sufficient attention to apply them effectively. In calm water, I'm fully capable of hovering inches from the bottom without every touching anything, but I have to pay attention to where I am and everything in my environment to do so reliably. I can't do that through the range finder of a Nikonos. I still have my underwater camera equipment, but it has not been wet in years. As much as I enjoy having pictures or what I love and love to do, I find that my focus on the picture detracts from the dive experience more than the resulting photographs adds to it. Lee "Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Adios schlappschwanz schlappschwanz??? Vat der heil ist das schlappschwanz? Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > Photogs get a bad rap though. On the average I don't find them any worse or > better than sightseeing divers. When you start looking at the best of both [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of flora and fauna makes one a better citizen of the reef by default. By and > large sightseers don't really have to have knowledge to that specific. I side with Lee on this one. There are plenty of divers who grab all sorts of things to have a look, or who just don't have a clue, but nowadays a lot of photographers are just your average diver with a few bucks to spend on a camera. On the whole, it seems to me that photographers are more likely than the non-photographers to be trying to get closer in order to get the shot, whether that simply means being closer to the reef in general, or finding the right camera angle. At the extreme, it's photographers, not sightseeing divers, who break off pieces of coral to improve their composition or put the seahorse where they want it. > On the whole though, scuba divers as a group are real shitheads. We've all > seen it :^) We're all playing in a fragile environment for which we aren't adapted. Some divers are just careless or clueless, but until we grow pectoral, dorsal, or ventral fins we all lack the manueverability of fish. Adding a camera to the mix reduces the ability for sculling, which makes it that much easier to end up closer than you intended when there's a bit of current or surge even for those who are still paying attention. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. > for sculling, which makes it that much easier to end up closer than you > intended when there's a bit of current or surge even for those who are > still paying attention. I view sculling as the mark of an out-of-control diver, on the bottom or not. It's like soccer: no hands allowed. That way your fingers are left free to poke things. SignatureThe trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so. > >> for sculling, which makes it that much easier to end up closer than you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not. It's like soccer: no hands allowed. That way your fingers are left > free to poke things. Interesting statement. I suppose sculling is a sign of an out of control diver, at least out of fine control. Every time I've found the need to skull, it's because I've over or underestimated something and need to react in order to avoid the consequences of my failure to maintain perfect control. On that basis, however, I'll continue to skull when necessary. Looking a bit out of control is better than the alternative. Lee > I side with Lee on this one. There are plenty of divers who grab all sorts > of things to have a look, or who just don't have a clue, but nowadays a > lot of photographers are just your average diver with a few bucks to spend > on a camera. You are talking about bad divers who carry a camera around. There is a difference between them and photogs who are committed to the craft. Believe me, *most* people committed to being successful at the craft are over-the-top in terms of being good visitors to the sea. > We're all playing in a fragile environment for which we aren't adapted. > Some divers are just careless or clueless, but until we grow pectoral, > dorsal, or ventral fins we all lack the manueverability of fish. > Adding a camera to the mix reduces the ability for sculling, which makes > it that much easier to end up closer than you intended when there's a bit > of current or surge even for those who are still paying attention. I don't know what to say....even a diver without a camera should know how to dive and control their body without using their hands. You are talking about a bad diver making himself worse by carrying something underwater, This isn't a comment on photographers, but rather a comment on a bad diver. Judging all photographers on the basis of the average diver with a few bucks to spend on a camera, is like judging all scuba divers on the basis of the newly cert'ed on their first open water dive. > Believe me, *most* people committed to being successful at the craft are > over-the-top in terms of being good visitors to the sea. Why should anybody believe you? Cousteau was possibly the most famous underwater photographer of all time. Read Cousteau, by Richard Munson and then tell us again who those comitted to being successful at the craft are so concerned. Read Cathy Church's words on using Cheese Whiz to attract fish into her camera's range and then tell me about photographers and their environmental concerns. Lee > You are talking about bad divers who carry a camera around. Or, as those of us who know what a camera is call them, photographers. >>Adding a camera to the mix reduces the ability for sculling, > I don't know what to say....even a diver without a camera should know how to > dive and control their body without using their hands. If you actually do much diving in any place where you see other divers and you're at all observant you should be well aware that a lot of divers use their hands quite a bit. There's not a fish out there that uses only it's tail to swim, and the typical diver isn't any different. If you get close to the reef your options for getting farther away again are mostly going to include directions other than forward. Up and down are pretty easy if you've got decent buoyancy control. Without fins someplace other than your feet, left, right, and backwards aren't as easy, and most divers can't (or at least don't) swim backwards using their fins. > You are talking about > a bad diver making himself worse by carrying something underwater, This > isn't a comment on photographers, but rather a comment on a bad diver. If you go back and pay attention to the sequence you'll see that I'm talking about your assertion that all divers are shitheads, and only incidentally tying that back to the bit about photographers. > Judging all photographers on the basis of the average diver with a few bucks > to spend on a camera, is like judging all scuba divers on the basis of the > newly cert'ed on their first open water dive. Nobody but you is judging all photographers on the basis of a few. Everybody else has been comparing photographers, as a whole, to non-photographers. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. > If you actually do much diving in any place where you see other divers and > you're at all observant you should be well aware that a lot of divers use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > feet, left, right, and backwards aren't as easy, and most divers can't (or > at least don't) swim backwards using their fins. I try not to do much diving in any place where I see other divers because it makes me wince too hard, but I do consider myself observant and I'm not aware that any decent divers use their hands at all on most dives. I find it no problem to move up and down and left and right using only my fins, and backwards too if I must though on the open reef it's usually easier to flip and fin in the other direction, shooting upside down if necessary. Having said that, I will grab rocks if the current is totally unmanageable, but only for photographs. >> If you actually do much diving in any place where you see other divers >> and you're at all observant you should be well aware that a lot of divers [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it makes me wince too hard, but I do consider myself observant and I'm not > aware that any decent divers use their hands at all on most dives. "on most dives" are the operative words here. The best divers, generally, don't use their hands a lot. In most cases, the hands are a much less efficient tool for motion than feet and fins. There are still times when they are the right tool for the job. > I find it no problem to move up and down and left and right using only my > fins, and backwards too if I must though on the open reef it's usually > easier to flip and fin in the other direction, shooting upside down if > necessary. Having said that, I will grab rocks if the current is totally > unmanageable, but only for photographs. It all depends on how close you are to what you wish to avoid touching. Sometimes it's necessary to get very close to see what you're trying to view . . . or photograph. If a bit of skulling is what it takes to do what you want without damage to the environment or its inhabitants, then a bit of skulling is the tool to use. Lee > "on most dives" are the operative words here. The best divers, generally, > don't use their hands a lot. In most cases, the hands are a much less > efficient tool for motion than feet and fins. There are still times when > they are the right tool for the job. Well, yeah. I didn't mean that you have to capture lobsters with your toes. > It all depends on how close you are to what you wish to avoid touching. > Sometimes it's necessary to get very close to see what you're trying to > view . . . or photograph. If a bit of skulling is what it takes to do > what you want without damage to the environment or its inhabitants, then a > bit of skulling is the tool to use. Or get a better pair of fins. >> It all depends on how close you are to what you wish to avoid touching. >> Sometimes it's necessary to get very close to see what you're trying to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or get a better pair of fins. Nothing wrong with the ones I have. Fins are great for going forward and even pivoting around the center. They allow backing up, but not real well. Breathing patterns are fine for gradual changes in depth, but not real good for quick ones, particularly when you're on the wrong part of the cycle when you need to move. For fine tuning the position of the front half of my body, hands are better and more precise than the fins attached to the other end, so I use them. The no hands rule came about to try and stop those using their hands to swim underwater from wasting the energy. Swimming forward with fins alone is more efficient than swimming with hands and fins. I once, long ago, saw the information on energy expended both with and without the hands. It was a bit of a surprise at the time. That does not, however, mean that using the hands for find tuning is a bad idea. Lee > Breathing patterns are fine for gradual changes in depth, but not real good > for quick ones, particularly when you're on the wrong part of the cycle when > you need to move. While moving away fromthe reef after getting close to take a picture I find that breathing is the best way to increase my distance if I can do so by moving up or down. The timing of exhaling or inhaling deeply is the main reason I was hoovering my air so much on the last trip. > For fine tuning the position of the front half of my > body, hands are better and more precise than the fins attached to the other > end, so I use them. Which is pretty much what I meant when I mentioned sculling. Often the direction you need to move after getting close to something is directly backwards. Finning may work in theory, but sculling back a foot or two works perfectly well, even if you're in a narrow spot. As a bonus I can always see exactly where my hands are if I'm sculling. With fins, my legs are about 6 feet long which offers an excellent chance to hit things if I'm not very careful. Believing in function over form, I've got no problems with sculling while better divers laugh at me. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: : Having :said that, I will grab rocks if the current is totally unmanageable, but :only for photographs. I'll do it for whatever reason seems appropriate at the time. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. Steve, I'll pass on all the extraneous argument here. It's really irrelevant how you dive, or how I dive, or how fish swim, to the subject at hand. Lee said all photographers deserve this reputation (of being out of control and dangerous to the reef environment). And that is a shitheaded thing to assert. Both you and I know some don't, and as such all cannot be deserving. The bottom line is that idiotic comments like that sit well with most divers because photographers are not the most pleasant and sharing people to dive with, or share a dive site with. They tend to hog a good subject, hog a good location on the reef, they take up too much room on a boat, many of the knuckleheaded ones think they are better than someone else without a camera, or someone with less of a camera. This I agree to. No problem, but saying that every photgrapher deserves the reputation is pure ignorance. > Nobody but you is judging all photographers on the basis of a few. No I'm not, I mention a few for no other reason than to dispute Lee's ignorant assertion that they all deserve the reputation. If, say, 25% of photographers are good divers with good environmental awareness and practiced in the skills of diving with a camera in hand, how can every single underwater photographer deserve the reputation of the shitty ones? And by the way, 25% is probably a pretty good percentage to use for both photographers as well as sightseers, when speaking about how many of each group are good visitors to the sea. The scuba public is awash in people who could care less about being preficient enough to be a safe and friendly visitor to the oceans. Hell, 25% might even be a gimme, when you get down to thinking about it. > Everybody else has been comparing photographers, as a whole, to > non-photographers. Yes, :^) I realize that. And I maintain that on average photographers are no worse divers and no more a danger to the underwater environment than sightseeing divers. But hey, I know stupid crass generalizations fit the mindset of those who find photographers a pain in the a.s under any circumstance. It's about a bitch, rather than about being honest and accurate. > Lee said all photographers deserve this reputation . . . I don't believe I used the term "all photograhers." Care to show me where I did? > Both you and I know some don't . . . I'm still waiting for the names of photographers you dive with that I'd recognize. >> Everybody else has been comparing photographers, as a whole, to >> non-photographers. Including me. > Yes, :^) I realize that. And I maintain that on average photographers are > no worse divers and no more a danger to the underwater environment than > sightseeing divers. . . . and I maintain that, all else being equal, photographers are more likely to kick the reef than non photographers. Remember, I'm also the person that said that, on the average, photographers are probably head and shoulders above the average . . . when they're paying attention to their diving rather than concentrating on their photo. Lee > Lee said all photographers deserve this reputation My perception is that he made a broad generalization that's not inaccurate. I suppose it's a subtle distinction, and I'll agree that it's not fair to paint everybody with the same brush, but *as a group* I think a lo tof the stuff photographers do is more detrimental than the average actions of divers as a whole. > The bottom line is that idiotic comments like that sit well with most divers > because photographers are not the most pleasant and sharing people to dive > with, or share a dive site with. Ironically enough, on my last trip I heard that at least one diver deliberately broke some coral to relocate a seahorse for a picture, but on the whole I saw quite a few photographers taking turns and being quite cooperative with one another as well as the non-divers there. > They tend to hog a good subject, hog a good > location on the reef, they take up too much room on a boat, many of the > knuckleheaded ones think they are better than someone else without a camera, > or someone with less of a camera. This I agree to. No problem, but saying > that every photgrapher deserves the reputation is pure ignorance. Careful, you're basically agreeing with Lee, except that you note that the generalizations don't apply to everyone. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. >> Lee said all photographers deserve this reputation > > My perception is that he made a broad generalization that's not > inaccurate. As a generalization it is inherently inaccurate, but within that context you may find more truth to it than less depending on where you diving interests have led you. > Ironically enough, on my last trip I heard that at least one diver > deliberately broke some coral to relocate a seahorse for a picture, Of course I would have no patience or agreement with that behavior. I've been around long enough to see a once pristine and spectacular G Cayman ravaged and an astoundingly beautiful Egyptian Red Sea all but relegated to spot diving. But having been around long enough to see that, I have also witnessed what slice of the diving public is really harmful to the environment. I don't see that it is either photogs, hunters are sightseers, but rather newly minted divers or divers practicing a new (to them) activity underwater. But given that there are seriously more new divers than there are new photographers at any given time, it isn't difficult to see that the blame is spread over both groups, rather than just one carve-out. In some ways I think that where we dive has a lot to do with who we see doing what things. It obviously isn't without exception, but by and large you will see better divers across the board in the remote locales than you will in the Caribbean and Florida, so our own personal sampling will be tainted by that. There is little doubt in my mind that if your experience are more limited to Florida and Caribbean, it is likely your view will be that the photographers you see aren't up to snuff. But as people, divers and photographers become more experienced and more willing to spend money of better photo ops they tend to travel past Florida and Caribbean to more interesting, at least to them, destinations. Hence, far away there is *often* a higher percentage of experienced divers, than you find close to home.....in our case, the USA. Diving Red Sea isn't unlike diving the Caribbean in that sense, because it is an easy trip for most Europeans and they tend to dump a lot of bad/part-time/newbie Euro divers into the Red Sea (much the same way we do in Florida and the Caribbean). > Careful, you're basically agreeing with Lee, Nah, he said they deserve the reputation of being bad for the environment. I'm saying that many photographers are, shall we say, impressed with themselves (which in my view is what some sightseeing divers are guilty of when making broad statements about photographers). Nonetheless, what he said and what I said are quite dissimilar. >> In the future, prevention is better than treatment. Try to do a better >> job [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will > serve the reef, him and the rest of us much better. Hence the first part of the suggestion. The second part's there because nobody's perfect and because not everything that can sting is on the bottom or, for that matter, readily visible. > While one can unexpectedly come into contact with jellyfish and/or their > tentacles, contact with a coneshell would virtually have to be deliberate > and therefore, one deserves what one gets. Picking up a shell just to look at it or, perhaps to see if it's vacant and available for collecting is a crime deserving of death? Lee These "welts" will clear completely after ten days or so. Check with your pharmacist as to which cream to apply, maybe ant-histamine, and one to soothe the skin temperature to stop itching. Had one once. Now I know what to avoid! All the best, Seadeuce > I recently returned from a sailing/diving trip to British Virgin Islands. I > hit my arm hard against fire coral while diving at Blonde Rock (was trying [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -Brien >These "welts" will clear completely after ten days or so. >Check with your pharmacist as to which cream to apply, maybe >ant-histamine, and one to soothe the skin temperature to stop itching. This is why medical information from online forums is a crapshoot at best. It's been two weeks, he still has it, and I fear it may be too late to prevent some scarring. But waiting 10 more days is definitely not the approach to take. SignatureJason O'Rourke www.jor.com Brien Alkire Wrote: > I recently returned from a sailing/diving trip to British Virgin > Islands. I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -Brien Ive had this too, ouch, try to get hold of an Aloe Vera plant and use the gel out of the leaves on the scar twice, three times daily, it will clear up in no time. To get the gel, cut about 1" off, cut it sideways down the middle then scrape the inside gentley and repeatedly with the knife onto a plate, keep it in the fridge, it will last for 24 hours like that SignatureAlison Started scuba diving when I was 15 way back in 1975 became an instructor when I was 18 followed by advanced instructor at 20. Moved to Qatar in 1980 took up freediving because of decompression worries with my job flying. Started spearfishing in 1985 > Brien Alkire Wrote: >> I recently returned from a sailing/diving trip to British Virgin [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > knife onto a plate, keep it in the fridge, it will last for 24 hours > like that There are people, and Brien may be one, who's makeup includes both a hypersensitivity as well as incidental allergic reaction. For these people a persistent cutaneous reaction can last a very long time, sometimes months and months, particularly in the case of a heavy discharge of nematocysts. Often, at this point, a steroid regimen is imposed. It is hard to say what precisely your condition is, but I would be a bit more strident at this point than simply applying aloe. Two weeks after the sting and your arm is still itching, becoming more red and swollen? I think it may be time to see a doc and find out really if this is still a venom reaction, if this is a resulting infection or if your body is now on the long road to reacting to it's own defense mechanisms. For those of you who were willing to share their own experiences and make useful suggestions, thanks. For those of you who flamed me, well, all I can do is laugh since I expected that. I've been applying a topical antibotic and it is improving. I think the increased sensitivity I experienced was because it was beginning to dry out and itch more than anything. I care very much about coral and try to avoid touching the bottom, and use moorings as opposed to anchoring whenever possible. I am fairly experienced and have good buoyancy control, but it is certainly worth emphasizing the importance of it. However, know that it can happen to even very experienced divers (it happened very quickly and was not the result of repeated dragging along the bottom). When I got back onboard the diveboat my guide recommended any kind of citrus, and I used oranges. It stopped the stinging fairly quickly. Thanks for the help. Brien > I recently returned from a sailing/diving trip to British Virgin Islands. I > hit my arm hard against fire coral while diving at Blonde Rock (was trying [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -Brien >I think the > increased sensitivity I experienced was because it was beginning to dry > out > and itch more than anything. This is what you said on Sunday: "The scar appears to be getting more red and swollen, and it now itches. The accident was two weeks ago." Which is it......dry and itchy, or becoming more red and more swollen after two weeks? Because one symptom is relatively meaningless and the other, cause for concern. Right now I would say it is dry and itchy. Also, I miscalculated. It happened on 18 February, much less than two weeks. Sorry about the confusion. The antibiotic seems to be helping and I am less concerned than I was on Sunday. > >I think the > > increased sensitivity I experienced was because it was beginning to dry [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > two weeks? Because one symptom is relatively meaningless and the other, > cause for concern. > I miscalculated. It > happened on 18 February, much less than two weeks. Miscalculated? I don't know where you're posting from, but in my time zone it's mid afternoon on the 23rd. Your original post was 3 days ago, so it sounds like you should have blamed it on a typo, saying you meant to say two days. Or maybe it just hurt so bad for the first couple of days that it felt a lot longer? SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. I'm replying to you much later than the others... but for what it's worth... <grin> I'm an RN and when you said it was itching you, I immediately knew that it was healing. That's the body's way... send more white cells with histamine to the site. The site gets red... due to this increased 'blood activity" and the itching is the histamine response. If you said it pained you or that you had a purulent discharge, than it could be infected, but that was not the case. I was stung severely on my back by fire coral that was living on a mast of a shipwreck. The mast extended above water and I had finished the dive but was wearing only a tee-shirt, not a skin or wetsuit.. and I drifted on the surface into the mast. This was in Aruba. The pain was intense and had me in tears by the time I was able to get back to the boat. The reddened areas on my back lasted for a long while so I know what you went through. When we got back, the divemaster had me 'soak' in the hotel pool for a bit because the chlorine helped... and then he picked an aloe plant leaf from the hotel landscape and broke it open, applied the juice to my back and that helped. I'm glad to hear that you're doing well. :) Ohh... I forgot to say... No, it will not be a permanent scar. It will completely disappear if you stop scratching it and let it heal. :) >Ohh... I forgot to say... No, it will not be a permanent scar. It >will completely disappear if you stop scratching it and let it heal. :) But it feels SOOOOO good. Signaturedillon "When the French are against it, you know we can't be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.