This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nitrogen narcosis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Nitrogen narcosis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nitrogen narcosis.
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I found this good quote:
in this online book. (Presumably it could be found in the original book too). I think it'd be nice to include, as fair use text, but I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy on that is. I'll leave it here for now. -- Andrew 08:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
" neon at a fixed pressure has a narcotic effect equivalent to nitrogen at 0.23 times the pressure, so in principle it should be usable at four times the depth." This sounds to me like neon is more narcotic than nitrogen, if the intention correct it must be reformulated to make it usefull...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Togo ( talk • contribs) 5 May 2006
I tried to add 2 references in an attempt to improve the section on Effects, but although I think I followed the guide at Wikipedia:Footnotes, some of the references now seem to have gone awry. Can anyone help me to regularise the footnotes? RexxS ( talk) 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
To replace that reference with older research (Fowler, Ackles & Porlier, 1985), which is unable to form any conclusion about physiological tolerance, seems to miss the point of the original reference. I will therefore reinstate the Rogers & Moller reference. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)"These results are taken as evidence that there is little or no behavioral adaptation to nitrogen narcosis in response to brief, repetitive exposures to narcosis-inducing hyperbaric air."
Better references on hyperbaric exposure and marijuana in animals are available. BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF THE INTERACTION OF MARIJUANA AND INCREASING PARTIAL PRESSURES OF N2 AND O2. Walsh and Burch. UHMS Abstract 1978. RRR 4320 and Reduction of the Behavioral Effects of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol by Hyperbaric Pressure. Walsh and Burch. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, v7 p111-116 1977. RRR 4226 Gene Hobbs ( talk) 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
then we both know it's true for alcohol (e.g. effects of hyperbaric air in combination with ethyl alcohol and dextroamphetamine on serial choice-reaction time) and false for marijuana (as your reference clearly shows). However, given the "political" sensitivity of suggesting that diving reduces the effects of marijuana, I would prefer to see some discussion here before amending the latter part of that sentence. I know about WP:BOLD - what do others think? -- RexxS ( talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Nitrogen narcosis is known to be additive to even minimal alcohol intoxication, and also to the effects of other drugs such as marijuana...
Is it just me, or is the claim about marijuana's additive effects to nitrogen narcosis completely unfounded? The cited study has nothing to do with nitrogen narcosis, it's just a general study about marijuana's cognitive effects. If there is a relationship between marijuana and narcosis, it should be clearly and explicitly stated on the Wikipedia page with citations, because it is currently unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.155.234 ( talk) 05:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I just removed an EL as the article it linked to contained nothing new. I checked WP:ELNO to be sure I could justify the removal (WP:ELNO #1) and looked at WP:ELNO #13:
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
On that basis, I would question all of the ELs in this article. I know those are useful resources but as they don't seem to meet the criteria for EL in Nitrogen narcosis, can we justify keeping them here? -- RexxS ( talk) 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done an overhaul of Nitrogen narcosis at User talk:RexxS/Narcosis (diving) by taking the content of the article and re-arranging it to conform with WP:MOSMED as we did with Oxygen toxicity. I'm now adding references (slowly) and think it's capable of becoming a good article. I'd like to know if anyone has any comments, suggestions or objections before I consider replacing the current article. Thanks -- RexxS ( talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
At present the articles states that some agencies will certify you to 130 feet on air, but some Tec diving agencies will certify you much deeper. TDI's extended range certification is good for up to 180 feet on air, and I think the PADI/DSAT course is very close to that. Do we need to amplify? -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The following table was published on message board that I frequent (see post #33 on this page). It is said to be lifted from NOAA diving manual, but I don't have a copy of the NOAA manual myself. If correct, I think it would be a useful addition to the article, but it really needs to be checked by somebody (I am sure the NOAA manual is a reliable source, but somebody needs to check that it is in fact in the manual!). I also think something must have been lost in the "translation", as they seem to have key single depths alternating with ranges, so it would be good if we could tidy that up. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Depth | Comments |
---|---|
0-100 fsw | Mild impairment, mild euphoria |
100 fsw | Reasoning and immediate memory affected, delayed reaction |
100-165 fsw | Laughter, idea fixation, overconfidence |
165 fsw | Hallucinations, sleepiness, impaired judgement |
165-230 fsw | Terror, talkative, dizziness, uncontrolled laughter |
230 fsw | Severe impairment of intellectual performance |
230-300 fsw | Mental confusion, sounds seem louder, gross delay to stimuli |
300 fsw | Hallucinations (similar to drug induced) impairment of memory, judgement, loss of intelligence |
Current:
"Abstinence time needed for marijuana is unknown, but due to the much longer half-life of the active agent of this drug in the body, it is likely to be longer than for alcohol.[17]"
Marijuana's most commonly cited active ingredient has a half life shorter than ethanol's. The refrence given only shows that cognitive impairment is correlated with marijuana use even after the drug is removed from the body.
Since no similar data is available for ethanol, the conclusion really can't be drawn that marijuana is different. At most it should mention the correlation and state what that may indicate if other factors are presumed.
Objections to removing refrence to relative halflives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Δζ ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This reference: http://www.techdiver.ws/exotic_gases.shtml#4.2 gives a narcotic value of 7.14 for krypton as compared with nitrogen (obviously calculated from partion in oil/water), which is about what would be expected, as an intermediate between Ar at 2.3 and Xe at 25.6. I think the table is probably wrong and should be checked. Incidentally this makes a difference, since it means that breathing Kr at 80% would be about like breathing air at 200 ft depth in seawater. That's significantly narcotic, and would mean krypton has additional dangers beyond a simple asphyxiant. Even 40% krypton might make a person feel more dizzy than just getting 60% of normal oxygen would by itself (what you'd get with 40% argon, say). S B H arris 03:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) which is generally considered as reliable a source for diving physiology as exists. The
summary table at Techdiver is claimed to be derived from the 4th Edition (1993), which I don't have. However, Bennett does cite multiple sources for his figures and points out that "By far the most satisfactory correlation is afforded by lipid solubility" - which of course is not the same as saying there is a direct relationship. (As an aside, it's worth noting that relative oil-water solubility ratio differs from relative lipid solubility - for example, argon has almost the same oil-water solubility ratio as nitrogen, but twice its lipid solubility.) I do agree though that krypton's relative narcotic potency as quoted by Bennett is anomalous. It is possible that the figure of 2.5 is a mistake; or that krypton as a breathing gas has been so little studied that its measured narcotic potency is inaccurate; or that it actually is anomalous in its correlation with lipid solubility. At the moment, I don't know the answer and still prefer a direct quote from Bennett & Elliott to an indirect one from a website, but I'll see if Gene Hobbs can comment - or if he can ask Peter Bennett what the answer is! --
RexxS (
talk) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)There is a video on YouTube, illustrating several points in the article, that I thought might make a useful external link. Unfortunately, it looks like it may be copyright and may be being used without permission, so it would be unusable as an external link. Does anybody recognise it? If so, it's possible that we could then determine whether it is on YouTube with permission and make the link. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the paragraph in "Prevention" about the "Thumbs test" has remained uncited since March, and I can find no WP:RS for it, I've cut it and pasted it here, in the hope that someone can find a ref for it.
Some diving organizations teach their divers to frequently check their mental state while immersed using the "thumbs test". The two companions regularly show each other their fingers. One shows a number of fingers (e.g. 2), and then the other must respond by showing back one more or one less (i.e. 3 or 1), depending on previous agreement. If either of them botches the arithmetic, they should suspect narcosis. citation needed
-- RexxS ( talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This topic has been known as "Nitrogen narcosis" since the beginning of the last century. Nevertheless, it was demonstrated in 1939 that many other inert gases also cause the effect; therefore "Inert gas narcosis" is likely to be more appropriate. However, following work in the 1970's it became clear that oxygen could exert the same narcotic effect as well, so I suggest "Narcosis (diving)" is the most accurate title for this article. All of these are contained within the lead, and the single word "narcosis" has been used throughout, without any loss of clarity.
I suggest a "straw poll" of preferences be taken now for the most appropriate title for the article. Please indicate your preference as first/second/third or support/oppose as you see fit and sign each preference. Any additional brief comments to explain your preference would be valuable. Please use the "Discussion" subsection for any threaded debate. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Narcosis (diving)
2. Inert gas narcosis
3. Nitrogen narcosis
BTW, what exactly is the best evidence that oxygen is narcotic? S B H arris 02:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)As stated above there are 3 options, lets see at the wikipedia policy NAME says:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
That should mean that Nitrogen narcosis is the right name (remeber we do not have the most correct scientific name) but the 'most easily recognizes' name. Reading on, NAME states
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
So by that I would grade the three choises like this:
Nitrogen narcosis: Is best at two of three of the considerations, easily recognize, linking and maybe second comes to reliable sources
Inert gas narcosis: Maybe best for reliable sources, same for linking and second for easily recognize
Narcosis (diving): Very bad for easily recognize, linking and reliable sources So I can not understand why we want to change the name?? -- Stefan talk 06:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term (
common,unscientific, and/or slang name) [wc 1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded. [wc 2] These alternative names may be specified in the lead. Create redirects to the article to help those searching with alternative names. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction.
You may not know that Google page ranks by exact article name (or whatever links they've set as equal to the name), and does not see any hits based on internal wiki-redirects, if those aren't obvious. Thus, flu shot redirects to influenza vaccination on Wikipedia, but not on Google, because Google hasn't performed it's own redirect. Thus, a google search on "Flu shot" will NOT get you the wikipedia article, or any redirected article, for many pages (and this article hardly gets any pageviews, showing that most Wikipedia hits still come from Google). In effect, the Wikipedia article doesn't exist for Google, and this cannot be helped at the Wikipedia end except by naming it "Flu shot."
However, in another case, where Google itself has done the redirect, typing "Flu" into Google will get indeed get you the Wikipedia Influenza article, as your second hit. But that's because Google has redirected the search.
My point is that if you're not careful, you'll end up naming your Wiki technically "correctly" but if Google doesn't follow you in the redirect, nobody will ever see the Wiki article on the Google search, no matter how you re-direct things on Wikipedia. It's well to remember that. If you want this stuff to be read, keep the titles as something Google users will search on.
BTW, feel free to test what I say. Look at the number of page hits for this article using http://stats.grok.se/ then do the same after you've renamed it and redirected to it. You'll find to your shock that it doesn't work. It's not the same. You have to write a letter to Google to "fix" it. S B H arris 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
To do list
Strike when done. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Also check this autogenerated peerreview. -- Stefan talk 01:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Text size is 20 kB. Dablinks check; as do external links. -- RexxS ( talk) 03:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is an interesting, well-researched, and well-written article. It should be worthy of the GA rating pending a few minor adjustments. Here's how it stacks up against the six Good Article criteria:
Thank you for offering to review Nitrogen narcosis. I'll give my detailed responses below:
I'm most grateful for your comments and hope that this initial response goes some way to meeting them. Please let me know if you feel I'm moving in the right direction, and if there are any other issues that I can address. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The article meets the GA Criteria and will be listed. Nice work. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Just finished reading through the DAN Tec Diving conference report (free download here), and it had some interesting things to say about lots of things, including Narcosis. Before I start hacking away at what is presently a very good article, I wanted to push them out onto the talk page for discussion:
I think some or all of these might properly be included in the article, but I don't want to trample on the excellent work of RexxS and Gene Hobbs (Gene, I think you were listed as a key participant at the conference, weren't you?). The nice thing about the report is that it is heavily footnoted, so we have good sourcing on hand. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 20:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Edited a couple of references to make it clear that Helium is narcotic, just less so than Nitrogen, using an existing reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.6 ( talk) 21:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)“ | Helium is not narcotic ... On the basis of lipid solubilities, if helium were to have narcotic properties, the signs and symptoms should have been similar or worse than 91 msw (300 fsw) compressed air at about 408 msw (1340 fsw). However, owing to antagonism of the weak narcotic effects of helium by the increased hydrostatic pressure (the so-called pressure reversal effect) (Johnson & Flager 1950), there is no helium narcosis and the same is true for neon. | ” |
To the extent that it is really true that narcosis is totally reversed in every last person upon ascent, it is redundant to then add that there are no lasting effects. By logic it goes without saying, so why bother to say it? S B H arris 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Reading the sources given (Bennett & Elliott), it can be seen that no narcotic effect has ever been observed in either helium or neon, although there has not been much research done into neon because its higher density makes it less useful than helium. There is a quote from Peter Bennett two sections above #Helium narcosis that makes this point clear. It seems that I ought to quote the exact text from page 305 of the source:
I don't think it can be any clearer than that. I've restored the previous text. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
94.14.134.76 posted this comment on 12 December 2012 ( view all feedback).
more easy-to-understand writing for young people
I fear this may be a cry in the darkness. Link to an article on Simple English? (I have just started one for the purpose) Any thoughts?
• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The graph needs clarification. Superficial reading suggests that N2 with a potency of around 50 or 60 is the strongest anaesthetic of the compounds measured. The meaning of the term gas partition coefficient is not explained in the text, which makes the data in the graph inaccessible to anyone without this knowledge. I will try to look it up, but if anyone has a good reference please go ahead and explain. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the Y-axis is actually MAC (Minimum alveolar concentration) to prevent movement in 50% of patients in response to a noxious stimulus. And MAC is inversely proportional to anaesthetic potency, indicating that much higher concentration of nitrogen is required in the alveolar gas that the compounds lower on the graph. So as it stands the graph is misleading.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have modified the graph to provide the correct information. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So the chart reads, in the lowest row, that at 90+ meters, a diver will experience levitation (it even hotlinks). I find this highly unlikely, especially since it is stated earlier in the article that helium is non-narcotic. Looking at older versions of the chart say "sense of levitation". I think this is clearer, and that the article should be reverted to this wording. Mykal ( talk) 13:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Sense of impending blackout, euphoria, dizziness, levitation, manic or depressive states. It depends how you read it - It could mean: Sense of impending blackout, sense of euphoria, sense of dizziness, sense of levitation, sense of manic or depressive states, but I agree that it is ambiguous and could be improved. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Narcosis results from breathing gases under elevated pressure
. This is a gross oversimplification, as there are several anaesthetic gases which are effective at normal atmospheric pressure when mixed with sufficient oxygen to sustain life. Nitrous oxide and Xenon are just two of them. I am not sure whether this was intended to refer to gases which are not generally considered narcotic at atmospheric pressure, or to the proportionality of narcotic effect to partial pressure of the gas. Either way it should be clarified. I would do so myself except not sure what was intended. • • •
Peter (Southwood)
(talk): 09:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nitrogen narcosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Not mentioned in article yet. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the article mention the use of the term "Deep water blackout" to refer to loss of consciousness at depth on air as mentioned by David Elliott in "Deep water blackout" (PDF). SPUMS Journal. 26 (3): 205–208. September 1996.? This article is linked from the disambiguation page for Deep water blackout for this meaning along with Freediving blackout for the alternative meaning, which is explained there in reasonable detail. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
There's been a spike in page views, likely due to people reading the US news and looking for information about using this as a method of killing someone. I'm glad we have a good article for them to read. Thanks to all who brought it to this point and have maintained it over the years. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nitrogen narcosis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Nitrogen narcosis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nitrogen narcosis.
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I found this good quote:
in this online book. (Presumably it could be found in the original book too). I think it'd be nice to include, as fair use text, but I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy on that is. I'll leave it here for now. -- Andrew 08:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
" neon at a fixed pressure has a narcotic effect equivalent to nitrogen at 0.23 times the pressure, so in principle it should be usable at four times the depth." This sounds to me like neon is more narcotic than nitrogen, if the intention correct it must be reformulated to make it usefull...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Togo ( talk • contribs) 5 May 2006
I tried to add 2 references in an attempt to improve the section on Effects, but although I think I followed the guide at Wikipedia:Footnotes, some of the references now seem to have gone awry. Can anyone help me to regularise the footnotes? RexxS ( talk) 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
To replace that reference with older research (Fowler, Ackles & Porlier, 1985), which is unable to form any conclusion about physiological tolerance, seems to miss the point of the original reference. I will therefore reinstate the Rogers & Moller reference. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)"These results are taken as evidence that there is little or no behavioral adaptation to nitrogen narcosis in response to brief, repetitive exposures to narcosis-inducing hyperbaric air."
Better references on hyperbaric exposure and marijuana in animals are available. BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF THE INTERACTION OF MARIJUANA AND INCREASING PARTIAL PRESSURES OF N2 AND O2. Walsh and Burch. UHMS Abstract 1978. RRR 4320 and Reduction of the Behavioral Effects of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol by Hyperbaric Pressure. Walsh and Burch. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, v7 p111-116 1977. RRR 4226 Gene Hobbs ( talk) 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
then we both know it's true for alcohol (e.g. effects of hyperbaric air in combination with ethyl alcohol and dextroamphetamine on serial choice-reaction time) and false for marijuana (as your reference clearly shows). However, given the "political" sensitivity of suggesting that diving reduces the effects of marijuana, I would prefer to see some discussion here before amending the latter part of that sentence. I know about WP:BOLD - what do others think? -- RexxS ( talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Nitrogen narcosis is known to be additive to even minimal alcohol intoxication, and also to the effects of other drugs such as marijuana...
Is it just me, or is the claim about marijuana's additive effects to nitrogen narcosis completely unfounded? The cited study has nothing to do with nitrogen narcosis, it's just a general study about marijuana's cognitive effects. If there is a relationship between marijuana and narcosis, it should be clearly and explicitly stated on the Wikipedia page with citations, because it is currently unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.155.234 ( talk) 05:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I just removed an EL as the article it linked to contained nothing new. I checked WP:ELNO to be sure I could justify the removal (WP:ELNO #1) and looked at WP:ELNO #13:
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
On that basis, I would question all of the ELs in this article. I know those are useful resources but as they don't seem to meet the criteria for EL in Nitrogen narcosis, can we justify keeping them here? -- RexxS ( talk) 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done an overhaul of Nitrogen narcosis at User talk:RexxS/Narcosis (diving) by taking the content of the article and re-arranging it to conform with WP:MOSMED as we did with Oxygen toxicity. I'm now adding references (slowly) and think it's capable of becoming a good article. I'd like to know if anyone has any comments, suggestions or objections before I consider replacing the current article. Thanks -- RexxS ( talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
At present the articles states that some agencies will certify you to 130 feet on air, but some Tec diving agencies will certify you much deeper. TDI's extended range certification is good for up to 180 feet on air, and I think the PADI/DSAT course is very close to that. Do we need to amplify? -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The following table was published on message board that I frequent (see post #33 on this page). It is said to be lifted from NOAA diving manual, but I don't have a copy of the NOAA manual myself. If correct, I think it would be a useful addition to the article, but it really needs to be checked by somebody (I am sure the NOAA manual is a reliable source, but somebody needs to check that it is in fact in the manual!). I also think something must have been lost in the "translation", as they seem to have key single depths alternating with ranges, so it would be good if we could tidy that up. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Depth | Comments |
---|---|
0-100 fsw | Mild impairment, mild euphoria |
100 fsw | Reasoning and immediate memory affected, delayed reaction |
100-165 fsw | Laughter, idea fixation, overconfidence |
165 fsw | Hallucinations, sleepiness, impaired judgement |
165-230 fsw | Terror, talkative, dizziness, uncontrolled laughter |
230 fsw | Severe impairment of intellectual performance |
230-300 fsw | Mental confusion, sounds seem louder, gross delay to stimuli |
300 fsw | Hallucinations (similar to drug induced) impairment of memory, judgement, loss of intelligence |
Current:
"Abstinence time needed for marijuana is unknown, but due to the much longer half-life of the active agent of this drug in the body, it is likely to be longer than for alcohol.[17]"
Marijuana's most commonly cited active ingredient has a half life shorter than ethanol's. The refrence given only shows that cognitive impairment is correlated with marijuana use even after the drug is removed from the body.
Since no similar data is available for ethanol, the conclusion really can't be drawn that marijuana is different. At most it should mention the correlation and state what that may indicate if other factors are presumed.
Objections to removing refrence to relative halflives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Δζ ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This reference: http://www.techdiver.ws/exotic_gases.shtml#4.2 gives a narcotic value of 7.14 for krypton as compared with nitrogen (obviously calculated from partion in oil/water), which is about what would be expected, as an intermediate between Ar at 2.3 and Xe at 25.6. I think the table is probably wrong and should be checked. Incidentally this makes a difference, since it means that breathing Kr at 80% would be about like breathing air at 200 ft depth in seawater. That's significantly narcotic, and would mean krypton has additional dangers beyond a simple asphyxiant. Even 40% krypton might make a person feel more dizzy than just getting 60% of normal oxygen would by itself (what you'd get with 40% argon, say). S B H arris 03:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) which is generally considered as reliable a source for diving physiology as exists. The
summary table at Techdiver is claimed to be derived from the 4th Edition (1993), which I don't have. However, Bennett does cite multiple sources for his figures and points out that "By far the most satisfactory correlation is afforded by lipid solubility" - which of course is not the same as saying there is a direct relationship. (As an aside, it's worth noting that relative oil-water solubility ratio differs from relative lipid solubility - for example, argon has almost the same oil-water solubility ratio as nitrogen, but twice its lipid solubility.) I do agree though that krypton's relative narcotic potency as quoted by Bennett is anomalous. It is possible that the figure of 2.5 is a mistake; or that krypton as a breathing gas has been so little studied that its measured narcotic potency is inaccurate; or that it actually is anomalous in its correlation with lipid solubility. At the moment, I don't know the answer and still prefer a direct quote from Bennett & Elliott to an indirect one from a website, but I'll see if Gene Hobbs can comment - or if he can ask Peter Bennett what the answer is! --
RexxS (
talk) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)There is a video on YouTube, illustrating several points in the article, that I thought might make a useful external link. Unfortunately, it looks like it may be copyright and may be being used without permission, so it would be unusable as an external link. Does anybody recognise it? If so, it's possible that we could then determine whether it is on YouTube with permission and make the link. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the paragraph in "Prevention" about the "Thumbs test" has remained uncited since March, and I can find no WP:RS for it, I've cut it and pasted it here, in the hope that someone can find a ref for it.
Some diving organizations teach their divers to frequently check their mental state while immersed using the "thumbs test". The two companions regularly show each other their fingers. One shows a number of fingers (e.g. 2), and then the other must respond by showing back one more or one less (i.e. 3 or 1), depending on previous agreement. If either of them botches the arithmetic, they should suspect narcosis. citation needed
-- RexxS ( talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This topic has been known as "Nitrogen narcosis" since the beginning of the last century. Nevertheless, it was demonstrated in 1939 that many other inert gases also cause the effect; therefore "Inert gas narcosis" is likely to be more appropriate. However, following work in the 1970's it became clear that oxygen could exert the same narcotic effect as well, so I suggest "Narcosis (diving)" is the most accurate title for this article. All of these are contained within the lead, and the single word "narcosis" has been used throughout, without any loss of clarity.
I suggest a "straw poll" of preferences be taken now for the most appropriate title for the article. Please indicate your preference as first/second/third or support/oppose as you see fit and sign each preference. Any additional brief comments to explain your preference would be valuable. Please use the "Discussion" subsection for any threaded debate. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Narcosis (diving)
2. Inert gas narcosis
3. Nitrogen narcosis
BTW, what exactly is the best evidence that oxygen is narcotic? S B H arris 02:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)As stated above there are 3 options, lets see at the wikipedia policy NAME says:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
That should mean that Nitrogen narcosis is the right name (remeber we do not have the most correct scientific name) but the 'most easily recognizes' name. Reading on, NAME states
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
So by that I would grade the three choises like this:
Nitrogen narcosis: Is best at two of three of the considerations, easily recognize, linking and maybe second comes to reliable sources
Inert gas narcosis: Maybe best for reliable sources, same for linking and second for easily recognize
Narcosis (diving): Very bad for easily recognize, linking and reliable sources So I can not understand why we want to change the name?? -- Stefan talk 06:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term (
common,unscientific, and/or slang name) [wc 1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded. [wc 2] These alternative names may be specified in the lead. Create redirects to the article to help those searching with alternative names. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction.
You may not know that Google page ranks by exact article name (or whatever links they've set as equal to the name), and does not see any hits based on internal wiki-redirects, if those aren't obvious. Thus, flu shot redirects to influenza vaccination on Wikipedia, but not on Google, because Google hasn't performed it's own redirect. Thus, a google search on "Flu shot" will NOT get you the wikipedia article, or any redirected article, for many pages (and this article hardly gets any pageviews, showing that most Wikipedia hits still come from Google). In effect, the Wikipedia article doesn't exist for Google, and this cannot be helped at the Wikipedia end except by naming it "Flu shot."
However, in another case, where Google itself has done the redirect, typing "Flu" into Google will get indeed get you the Wikipedia Influenza article, as your second hit. But that's because Google has redirected the search.
My point is that if you're not careful, you'll end up naming your Wiki technically "correctly" but if Google doesn't follow you in the redirect, nobody will ever see the Wiki article on the Google search, no matter how you re-direct things on Wikipedia. It's well to remember that. If you want this stuff to be read, keep the titles as something Google users will search on.
BTW, feel free to test what I say. Look at the number of page hits for this article using http://stats.grok.se/ then do the same after you've renamed it and redirected to it. You'll find to your shock that it doesn't work. It's not the same. You have to write a letter to Google to "fix" it. S B H arris 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
To do list
Strike when done. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Also check this autogenerated peerreview. -- Stefan talk 01:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Text size is 20 kB. Dablinks check; as do external links. -- RexxS ( talk) 03:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is an interesting, well-researched, and well-written article. It should be worthy of the GA rating pending a few minor adjustments. Here's how it stacks up against the six Good Article criteria:
Thank you for offering to review Nitrogen narcosis. I'll give my detailed responses below:
I'm most grateful for your comments and hope that this initial response goes some way to meeting them. Please let me know if you feel I'm moving in the right direction, and if there are any other issues that I can address. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The article meets the GA Criteria and will be listed. Nice work. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Just finished reading through the DAN Tec Diving conference report (free download here), and it had some interesting things to say about lots of things, including Narcosis. Before I start hacking away at what is presently a very good article, I wanted to push them out onto the talk page for discussion:
I think some or all of these might properly be included in the article, but I don't want to trample on the excellent work of RexxS and Gene Hobbs (Gene, I think you were listed as a key participant at the conference, weren't you?). The nice thing about the report is that it is heavily footnoted, so we have good sourcing on hand. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 20:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Edited a couple of references to make it clear that Helium is narcotic, just less so than Nitrogen, using an existing reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.141.6 ( talk) 21:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)“ | Helium is not narcotic ... On the basis of lipid solubilities, if helium were to have narcotic properties, the signs and symptoms should have been similar or worse than 91 msw (300 fsw) compressed air at about 408 msw (1340 fsw). However, owing to antagonism of the weak narcotic effects of helium by the increased hydrostatic pressure (the so-called pressure reversal effect) (Johnson & Flager 1950), there is no helium narcosis and the same is true for neon. | ” |
To the extent that it is really true that narcosis is totally reversed in every last person upon ascent, it is redundant to then add that there are no lasting effects. By logic it goes without saying, so why bother to say it? S B H arris 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Reading the sources given (Bennett & Elliott), it can be seen that no narcotic effect has ever been observed in either helium or neon, although there has not been much research done into neon because its higher density makes it less useful than helium. There is a quote from Peter Bennett two sections above #Helium narcosis that makes this point clear. It seems that I ought to quote the exact text from page 305 of the source:
I don't think it can be any clearer than that. I've restored the previous text. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
94.14.134.76 posted this comment on 12 December 2012 ( view all feedback).
more easy-to-understand writing for young people
I fear this may be a cry in the darkness. Link to an article on Simple English? (I have just started one for the purpose) Any thoughts?
• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The graph needs clarification. Superficial reading suggests that N2 with a potency of around 50 or 60 is the strongest anaesthetic of the compounds measured. The meaning of the term gas partition coefficient is not explained in the text, which makes the data in the graph inaccessible to anyone without this knowledge. I will try to look it up, but if anyone has a good reference please go ahead and explain. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the Y-axis is actually MAC (Minimum alveolar concentration) to prevent movement in 50% of patients in response to a noxious stimulus. And MAC is inversely proportional to anaesthetic potency, indicating that much higher concentration of nitrogen is required in the alveolar gas that the compounds lower on the graph. So as it stands the graph is misleading.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have modified the graph to provide the correct information. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So the chart reads, in the lowest row, that at 90+ meters, a diver will experience levitation (it even hotlinks). I find this highly unlikely, especially since it is stated earlier in the article that helium is non-narcotic. Looking at older versions of the chart say "sense of levitation". I think this is clearer, and that the article should be reverted to this wording. Mykal ( talk) 13:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Sense of impending blackout, euphoria, dizziness, levitation, manic or depressive states. It depends how you read it - It could mean: Sense of impending blackout, sense of euphoria, sense of dizziness, sense of levitation, sense of manic or depressive states, but I agree that it is ambiguous and could be improved. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Narcosis results from breathing gases under elevated pressure
. This is a gross oversimplification, as there are several anaesthetic gases which are effective at normal atmospheric pressure when mixed with sufficient oxygen to sustain life. Nitrous oxide and Xenon are just two of them. I am not sure whether this was intended to refer to gases which are not generally considered narcotic at atmospheric pressure, or to the proportionality of narcotic effect to partial pressure of the gas. Either way it should be clarified. I would do so myself except not sure what was intended. • • •
Peter (Southwood)
(talk): 09:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nitrogen narcosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Not mentioned in article yet. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the article mention the use of the term "Deep water blackout" to refer to loss of consciousness at depth on air as mentioned by David Elliott in "Deep water blackout" (PDF). SPUMS Journal. 26 (3): 205–208. September 1996.? This article is linked from the disambiguation page for Deep water blackout for this meaning along with Freediving blackout for the alternative meaning, which is explained there in reasonable detail. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
There's been a spike in page views, likely due to people reading the US news and looking for information about using this as a method of killing someone. I'm glad we have a good article for them to read. Thanks to all who brought it to this point and have maintained it over the years. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)