Benthicity

Freediving Part II - Kona Advanced!

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:53:00 +0000

Following my intermediate freediving course with Performance Freediving in Malibu/Catalina, I leapt at the opportunity to take their six-day advanced course in Kona, Hawaii. Warm water, colorful corals and fish, and 100-foot visibility — how could one resist? So last Friday I found myself on the plane to Hawaii, oversized Riffe fins safely in the overhead bin, weight belt in the checked luggage (coals to Newcastle?), and brand-new silver freediving wetsuit carefully wrapped and ready to go. I'd been practicing and training for several weeks beforehand, and just a few days earlier had set a personal best of 5 min 45 sec for static breath-holding. My previous deepest dive had been 97 feet, just shy of 30 meters, and my personal (and ambitious) goals for the course were to attain a 6-minute breath-hold, and 40-meter (132ft) depth. Would I make it?

I arrived Friday afternoon, and had a few hours to look around and settle in. There was heavy construction on the highway near Kona, so the ten-mile drive took nearly an hour. However, I decided to drive halfway back up to stop at Blue Water Hunter, a dive shop specializing in spearfishing gear. I'm not all that interested in spearfishing, but hoped to find a set of carbon-fiber freediving fins; lighter and more efficient than my plastic ones. But the carbons are something of a rare commodity, and generally have to be custom-ordered; the store didn't stock any. So I spent the next few hours wandering around the little town of Kona, browsing the mostly touristy shops, enjoying the warm evening weather. Around ten o'clock one of my course-mates, Deedee, arrived and we went to chow down on a sushi dinner. (The service was definitely island-time, but the food was tasty.) Deedee had been at my static session where I set my 5:45 mark, and she had set her own personal best of 5:00. Both of us were aiming to go it one better.

Saturday began with a shared session between basic, intermediate, and advanced classes; a safety review and refresher. I had anticipated that the first day would be classroom and pool only, so I only had my standard scuba mask with me, instead of my low-volume (and delicate) freediving mask. We started out in the pool, with safety drills and easy breath-holds. I got to 5:15, not pushing it, knowing we still had six days to go -- being in Kona in August, the sun was directly overhead and there was no easy way to cool off, even in the water in a tight form-fitting wetsuit. Of course, immediately after lunch we headed to the ocean; a beautiful site known as Honaunau Bay, the Place of Refuge. In ancient Hawaiian times, any person who violated a kapu (taboo) could come to this sacred site and be absolved, provided they survived the swim across the neighboring shark-infested bay. So naturally, we jumped right in the water and swam out to the deep channel, 45m of crystal blue.

On that first day of diving, my full-size scuba mask felt huge, almost like a miniature glass-bottom boat on my face. In freediving, the mask forms an incompressible airspace that must be equalized as you go deeper, by exhaling air into it. This takes directly away from usable air, and can have a significant impact on achievable depth. Some freedivers even use fluid goggles (filled with saline) to remove this airspace completely, and to maximize their depth. But on this day I wasn't aiming for records; just re-acclimatizing to the feeling of going deep, pulling slowly down the line to 10 meters, then 15 meters, then 20 meters, each time waiting a minute or two until feeling the urge to breathe, then pulling slowly back up to the surface. We tested ourselves for buoyancy on these pull-downs, adjusting our weight to be neutral at 15m depth. (For me, that turned out to be 5lbs.)Then we performed two target dives, for me 29m and 27m, kicking both down and up. I experimented with the dolphin-kick technique; moving both fins together, rather than alternating left-right. In theory the dolphin-kick is more efficient than a flutter-kick, but takes some practice and uses a different set of muscles.

We finished off the ocean session with two rescue scenarios; timed dives to 10m and 20m to meet a deep diver on their way up, and assisting them to the surface. On my second rescue dive, Mandy wasn't expecting the rescue quite yet at 20m and at first shook me off, then remembered what she was doing and went limp. After all the day's activity, it's a very a long swim up from 20 meters, towing another diver! Especially because I hadn't brought any water out to the rig; after a couple hours of diving, I had gotten very dehydrated. But on return to Kona, we scarfed down a delicious dinner at Thai Rin (loads of carbohydrates, no alcohol) and gladly called it a night.

Sunday brought more classroom training, with some advanced techniques not covered in the intermediate course. These included packing, or forced overexpansion of the lungs to increase maximum breath-holds and depth. (Kids, don't try this at home!) We also experimented with reverse-packing, or using the throat and jaw muscles to force more air out of the lungs beyond an ordinary exhalation. This requires a fair amount of coordination, and for me it became the trickiest part of the deep freediving.

After lunch, however, I started feeling somewhat under the weather, like the beginnings of a sore throat. Exhibiting an uncharacteristic abundance of caution, I opted to skip the ocean dive, in favor of a three-hour nap. (The last thing I needed was to develop a cold, with four days to go!) Luckily, the nap did the trick, or else it could have been just residual jet-lag, or perhaps the vog from the volcano. On the advice of Deedee and some of the other freedivers, I picked up a bottle of NeilMed Sinus Rinse, which simulated the effect of having a snootful of seawater blasted up one's nose after a particularly bad wipeout. But oddly, it did seem to help. I joined the group that evening at La Pasta for some surprisingly good Italian food; calamari so tender, I thought we must be in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (oh, wait), and an unusual but tasty fusion coconut spaghetti.

Monday began in the pool; another round of statics, this time with extra packing to fill the lungs. On my third hold I pushed it to 5:30, still not quite my limit; I still presumed we'd have another chance before the week was through. Also, the overhead noontime sun was uncomfortably hot, especially for activities that require staying as peaceful and relaxed as possible! After a break for a light lunch, and giving ourselves plenty of time to digest, we headed back down to Honaunau for the next round. (I had the proper mask with me this time; the ultra-low-volume plastic Sphera.) I chugged a bottle of artificial pink Gatorade Berry Blast, and this time took my water bottle with me out to the dive rig. After easy pull-downs to 10m, 18m, and 23m, it was time to do some deep dives. My first was to 32m (106ft), an easy personal best, though I didn't quite make it to my 35m target. The pressure at depth triggered the stretch receptors in my diaphragm, prompting the urge to breathe, even though I still had plenty of air. But as soon as I began ascending, the feeling went away. This reflex is overcomeable with repetition, so on my next dive I resolved to fight through it and go deeper. After a long breathe-up, I dove down again, but hit the wall at exactly the same point: my depth was 33m (108ft). I had one more chance, and through sheer force of will, managed to reach the target plate at 35m (114ft). I dolphin-kicked my way back to the surface, dropped my arms at 10m, exhaled as I reached the float, took my recovery breaths, and it was time for high-fives! We practiced a few more rescue drills, and called it a very happy day.

Tuesday gave us a break from deep-diving, and we spent the morning at the local recreational pool, practicing our dynamic skills. We spent half an hour constructing neck-weights for ourselves, out of inner tubes, lead shot, and duct tape, to give us the proper balance and trim in the water. (Apparently, neck weights have a tendency to vanish out of airplane luggage, due to their uncannyresemblance under x-ray to pipe bombs.) The swimming lanes were 25m, and after establishing weighting and trim (for me, 3lbs on the neck and 6lbs on the waist), we took a few underwater laps, establishing our dolphin kick technique and style. We worked on our turning skills, touching the wall and twisting to change direction. We swam through several 50m dynamics, and I had a chance to try out a monofin for the first time. It certainly felt different to have my legs locked together, but it also felt much more efficient and streamlined, and I looked forward to trying it in the ocean! Finally, we kicked off our fins and tried a few laps of dynamic-no-fins, with a modified underwater breaststroke. I made 50m a couple times, and felt like I could have gone even further. We didn't get a chance to try for full dynamic target swims, but it was great to get a bit of experience in the pool.

Back in the classroom, we worked on our CPR/resuscitation/oxygen techniques. In competition to put together a disassembled oxygen administration kit, most of us had times in the 1:30-2:00 range, but one of the divers in our course, Mark, pulled off a 1:06! Not long after that we discovered that we had gone to the same college (Harvey Mudd), two years apart, which explained his competitive streak, and also why we looked vaguely familiar to each other. Mark had brought along his girlfriend Rachel to do the basic course; she had never been in water more than six feet deep in her life, and hated the ocean and the beach and the water. But after the first day she was hooked; she ended up tagging along with the advanced course for the rest of the week, and eventually pulling out an amazing 3:40 breath-hold and 75-foot dive! Watching someone set a personal best by over a factor of ten is certainly a source of major inspiration. In the afternoon we took a field trip to some of the local dive shops, and I picked up an Aqualung MicroMask, a very low-volume mask with glass lenses that fit into the ocular orbit. A bit more robust than the Sphera, though not quite as low-volume, I looked forward to trying it out in the ocean.

Wednesday morning brought another session of diving in Honaunau, and I was eager to try to extend my depth past the 35m wall I'd been hitting. The bright noontime sun was a bit distracting, the heat interfering with the relaxation and dive reflex, and my new MicroMask must not have been scrubbed properly; it kept on fogging up. Still, I did my best, and went for thre deep target dives with the plate at 40m. Though each dive felt exceptionally deep, my depths were 111ft, 109ft, and 110ft, and I just couldn't seem to break through the barrier to get deeper. Mandy calls this psychological barrier "the monkeys", which is ironic, because I like monkeys. :) I would get down to depth, but my reflex to bring up air just wasn't there, so I had a hard time equalizing. I would get stuck at around 100ft, be forced to stop to think for a few seconds about what I was doing, feel the urge to breathe, and have to turn around. Also, the first dive gave me a pretty good ear squeeze, as I descended the last several feet without equalizing. All this put me in a fairly frustrated mood, but I was still glad that we had one more day to go, and determined to conquer my limitations.

That evening I spent quite a long time visualizing my dives; I would hang off the end of the bed with my head and torso upside-down, and practice reverse-packing, opening my jaw to pull more air into my mouth, and exhaling through my nose. I also visualized the technique of doing several reverse-packs and exhaling into my mask, then one more reverse-pack, and sniffing in the mask air to create enough volume to get a good equalization. (The flexibility of the Sphera mask makes this possible.) I found that a bit of a squeeze with my core muscles helped the reverse-packing when it became difficult, and I visualized reverse-packing immediately after equalizing, so I'd always have the air to equalize when I needed it. I also visualized slowing my dive down; not kicking down so hard that it used up my oxygen right away, just swimming at a leisurely pace. I visualized becoming half-asleep as I entered the sink phase, focusing only on my equalizations. and letting my body relax. After a while, the sequence began to feel more natural, and I was optimistic about reaching my 40m goal the next day.

Thursday was the last day of diving, and after a morning spent finishing up our CPR certifications and reviewing videos of our dives, we headed back to the bay one final time. The weather was perfect; glassy water, overcast sky, but still warm. Out in the water, counting down the 45 minutes for our target dives, I quickly got in the zone; the warm-ups felt great, hanging out at 20m for two minutes before slowly pulling back up the line. I had my Sphera mask on, and felt totally relaxed during my target breathe-up. Thirty seconds to go, a few quick purges to get rid of CO2, ten seconds, five, four, full inhale, fifteen packs, roll over and dive. I pretended I was swimming horizontally instead of vertically; keeping my left hand straight above my head, equalizing with my right, focusing on conserving energy and equalizing. By 20m my lungs felt nearly empty, but I had no urge to breathe. At 30m I started to feel the squeeze, but my practiced equalizing reflexes were working fine, and I got a good mouthful of air without any problem. I continued to drift down, thinking I was around 35m, and heard some quick grouper-calls from Mandy to get my attention. I glanced at the line, and it was the candy-cane; I was at the plate! I grabbed the line, reached down with my dive-computer hand to tap the plate, swiveled around and started the dolphin-kick back up. I could see Kirk in the background, and he flashed me the shaka "cool" sign with both hands. The swim back to the surface was long and tiring; by the time I passed 20m I was pretty anxious to get to the surface. But I kept my form, dropped my arms at 10m, and reached the float with plenty in reserve. Six recovery breaths, and a glance at my gauge; 131ft, just a hair shy of 40m! My dive watch has a once-per-second sampling rate, so perhaps it missed the lowest point of my dive, but I had touched the plate, and could easily have plowed headfirst into the bottom at 45m if Mandy hadn't stopped me. Still, a personal best by over 5m, and was able to equalize all the way down; I was completely stoked!

We had time to do one more target dive, so I asked Kirk to set the plate at 42m, just so I could unambiguously break the 40m barrier. (Plus, 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of Life, The Universe, And Everything, isn't it?) So the plate was reset, and I began my breathe-up, ready to go for another personal best. After the exertion of my first dive, I wasn't quite as relaxed as before, but my confidence was through the roof. So the time counted down, I purged, packed, flipped... and started kicking down the line. I found it just as easy to make it down, and my equalizing technique was working fine, although by the time I reached the plate I was pretty sure I had reached my limit. I tapped the plate, turned around, and suddenly realized I didn't have quite as much air reserve as I thought I did!... Completely choiceless, I began dolphin-kicking my way up the line. The marks on the line went by far too slowly, and by 25m I was in contractions. With so much happening, I completely forgot to sniff in the air from my mask as it expanded, and it escaped uselessly out the sides, bubbling into the blue. At about 20m I dropped my arms; wishfully thinking that it would magically raise me to 10m so I'd have less distance remaining. My legs burned from dolphin-kicking; I switched to ordinary flutter-kicking, and for a few moments I thought about signaling to Kirk or Mandy for help. Maybe they saw my wide eyes through my mask. But I didn't want to give up unless I absolutely needed to; they were right there in case anything went wrong, so for the few seconds I was thinking about it, I kept kicking. And before I knew it, I glanced up and the float wasright above me; the air was expanding to fill my lungs and I was feeling better. I exhaled for the last couple meters, broke the surface, cleanly completed my recovery protocol, and gave high-fives. My gauge read 137ft; right around 42m, with a total dive time of 1 minute 31 seconds! Woohoo!!

After a round of safety drills, including a sprint to 10m and back followed by a rescue swim (it's amazing how effortless 10m is after this course, considering that that was my personal best only a few short years ago), and Rachel's amazing tandem swim with Mandy to 75ft (they told her the plate was at 66ft, to trick her into swimming deeper), the course came to a satisfying end. We took our hero shots on the lava rock in our silver suits and long freediving fins, then went out for a celebratory dinner. Mark had managed to tweak his throat the day before by looking upwards for the plate at 40m, but still managed a couple 40m dives on the last day. Our other course-mates, Howard and David, had both done very well; everyone had made it to 30m, and we all looked forward to our next chance to try again, even though all of us were glad to have the break. Howard had been on track for a comfortable 40m dive, gotten a full mouthful of air to equalize, and then inexplicably swallowed it, cutting his dive short. My shoulder, which had been bothering me all week from carrying a heavy kayak the week before, decided that evening to lock up; I could barely move my head, and it took several motrin to start feeling normal again.

But for all that, we had had the time of our lives, and were already planning our training schedules and repeat visits, with a refresher course coming up in Kona in November. I've been working on my static tables (currently O2 level 9, CO2 level 10), and recently did a five-minute hold with no contractions, so six minutes seems in sight. I've also experienced my first a samba while practicing the CO2 tables; I hyperventilated through the 15-second break between the final two 3-minute holds, and after I took the deep breath and five packs, I simply couldn't hold it in, with some of it escaping in a series of weird staccato 'moogli' noises. Even as it happened, I was laughing to myself at how silly it sounded. After a few seconds as my CO2 levels normalized, I got control, though I barely managed to hang on through the 3-minute hold. Again, the point of these exercises is to establish and expand one's limits, so one can dive comfortably within them. It's a very strange sport, strange but wonderful and addictive. I have to thank Kirk and Mandy and the team once again for providing such an intense experience, and encouraging me to break through boundaries I wouldn't have thought possible! Kirk and Mandy, your efforts are appreciated very, very deeply :)

Freediving - Breathlessly Deep on a Deep Breath

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Sat, 24 May 2008 00:08:00 +0000

This past weekend I had the opportunity to participate in a sport that is quickly gaining popularity among today's athletes, and is truly without parallel in the sporting world. I'm talking about freediving, which is the sport of underwater breath-hold diving, used in spearfishing, snorkeling, underwater photography, or pure recreation.

The sport involves a basic contradiction: athletic activity usually involves high consumption of oxygen, while diving underwater necessarily requires conservation of oxygen, for lack of a scuba tank. Finding the balance between these opposing factors is part of what makes the sport so fascinating. In fact, taking the course felt like becoming a superhero; all these amazing abilties to hold my breath, to dive deeper than I ever thought possible, considering that I had been barely able to touch the bottom of my grandparents' swimming pool growing up.

Unlike most any other sport, the pace of record-breaking in freediving is actually accelerating. Of sixteen competitive categories recognized by the sport (eight men's, eight women's), thirteen have seen new world records in the past year alone.

I had signed up for a four-day intermediate-level course with Performance Freediving Inc., run by Kirk Krack and Mandy-Rae Cruickshank, both world-class freedivers. Mandy has held several world records, and it's no exaggeration to say that she gives dolphins a run for their money. Also assisting was Craig Gentry, a member of the USA national freediving team.

The course was hosted by Malibu Divers, a scuba outfit I've dived with extensively. The owner, Carter, was kind enough to arrange the course, and another Malibu Divers regular, Matt, joined me for the four-day training session. Matt have never really free-dived before, so the sport was totally new to him; I've had some amount of experience with breath-hold diving while snorkeling, but never any formal training.

Day 1: Apnea

The course began with several hours of classwork: learning the physiology and safety aspects of the sport. Learning about the Mammalian Diving Reflex; why hyperventilation is counterproductive; the signs and symptoms of hypoxia and blackout; rescue techniques for emergencies; proper breathing techniques to slow your metabolism; and how to build up your CO2 tolerance and maximize breath-hold time.

Later in the afternoon we headed over to the Pepperdine swimming pool, where we slithered into our custom form-fitting wetsuits (an awkward endeavor, requiring several dollops of hair-conditioner to expedite the way), ultra-low-profile freediving masks, rubber weight belts, and extra-long fins. An hour of rescue drills, how to handle an unconscious or semi-conscious diver, how to protect the airway, how to make someone start breathing again. Matt and I took turns rescuing each other in simulated situations, until we got the hang of it.

Then it was over to the shallow end, for static apnea (breath-holding). Two minutes of controlled breathing (quick inhale, hold for two seconds, slow exhale for ten seconds, hold two seconds, repeat), followed by a one-minute breath-hold. Piece of cake. Then a three-minute breathe-up, followed by five "purges" (deep inhale, four-second deep exhale), and a two-minute breath-hold. Easy. Then a four-minute breathe-up, five purges, and a three-minute breath-hold. I had done this before, so I didn't have much difficulty, but some of my classmates were starting to struggle. Finally, a five-minute breathe-up, five purges, and a four-minute-max breath-hold. I was completely in the zone, and spent the first few minutes nearly asleep, eyes closed, just floating. Periodically Matt would give me two taps, and I'd signal that I was still doing fine. As four minutes approached, I started to feel a slight urge to breathe, but didn't want to up yet. I heard Craig say: "You're making this look way too easy; go for 4:15." As that time approached, I slowly planted my feet, grabbed the edge of the pool, and at 4:20 lifted my head out of the water. Six quick breaths, an "okay" signal, and within a few seconds I felt completely back to normal. According to Kirk, this breath-hold time theoretically corresponds to over a 200-foot dive (taking exertion into account), so I was stoked! My personal bests are 5:30 for breath-holding and a 60-foot dive, so I was eager to get into the ocean and put my training into practice.

Day 2: Heat

Alas, the ocean would have to wait one more day. Day 2 consisted of more classroom and pool training, focusing on stretching exercises and negative compression, getting used to the feeling of 100 feet of water compressing your lungs and chest. The standard training maneuver: bend over and exhale as much air as you can, then stand up straight and suck in your diaphragm, compressing your chest and lungs. This typically triggers an urge to breathe, even though you have plenty of oxygen; the stretching helps to overcome this reflex. It also helps diminish the residual lung volume, making more air available for equalization during a deep dive. The second training maneuver was to breathe all the way out, then sink to the bottom of the 16-foot pool, simulating the chest compression of a 200-foot dive. We learned to use our throat muscles to make "grouper call" sounds, using the throat as a piston to force bits of remaining air up from our lungs, enabling equalization at depth. An odd and uncomfortable sensation at first, but increasingly more comfortable as we got used to it.

Unfortunately, this day found us in the middle of a heat wave, wearing thick wetsuits in a heated pool with the sun straight overhead, and pretty soon we were suffering from the heat. (I hadn't gotten much sleep the night before, either.) After more rescue practice, we headed over to the shallow end for another static-apnea attempt. I wasn't feeling nearly as good as the day before, possibly fighting off a cold, but I gamely went through the preparation exercises: a five-minute facial immersion to stimulate the diving reflex and slow the metabolism, then a three-minute breathe-up, and a two-minute breath-hold. Comfortable, but not effortless. Then a four-minute breathe-up, and a three-minute breath-hold. The day before this had been trivial, but this time I was starting to overheat; I felt the urge to breathe around 2:45, and knew I was nowhere near my best performance. Finally, a five-minute breathe-up, and a maximum breath-hold attempt. I started feeling the CO2 buildup in my lungs around 3:30, and by four minutes I was struggling. My diaphragm started going into periodic involuntary contractions, a typical and expected symptom of extended breath-holds; uncomfortable, but not painful. I also got a bit self-conscious, since I had never done this in front of anyone before. By 4:30 the contractions were getting intense, and I was losing my willpower, so I stood up. Six quick breaths, ok signal, but I was feeling pretty wiped out.

Astoundingly, one of our classmates was a 60-year-old spearfisherman and triathlete, who managed to pull out a six-minute breath-hold, approaching the elite level. He came up smiling, to cheers and applause. Another classmate made 4:45 but blacked out momentarily on surfacing, definitely making the highlights reel. Within seconds he was fine; competitive freedivers regularly lose consciousness, with no persistent ill effects. (Note: I have little desire to become a competitive freediver; I'm doing this for recreation!)

After the pool session we raced down to Long Beach to catch the Catalina ferry, making it by minutes. An uneventful crossing, a big spaghetti dinner, and a good night's sleep to prepare for the next day!

Day 3: Depth

Woke up early, bright and sunny, and went off to eat a light breakfast. Sixteen of us in a kitschy Catalina pancake house, all ordering oatmeal with raisins and no coffee, all added up to a very confused server. An hour later, we walked up to Casino Point, and swam out a couple hundred yards to the dive floats, in 100 feet of water. I was still feeling a bit out of sorts, but the sun was out, the surface water temperature about 66 degrees, and I felt comfortable enough in the water. I floated at the surface, letting my black wetsuit soak up the sun's rays.

After a five-minute facial immersion to kick-start the dive reflex, we took turns pullling ourselves down a line, hanging underwater until we felt the urge to breathe, then coming up. We started at 5 meters, then went to 10, 15, and 20 meters. A wicked thermocline at 50 feet dropped the water temperature to 55 shivering degrees, but I wasn't down there that long. With the dive reflex, even at 60 feet with my lungs compressed, I felt totally fine; staying underwater for a minute and a half on each dive. Then we went through some rescue scenarios, learned the techniques for finning up and down instead of pulling on the line, and headed back to shore for lunch and a rest.

Later in the afternoon, back out for more diving. After some preparatory dives, the line was lowered to 80 feet, and after a breathe-up I started back down. Kick hard down to 33 feet, then softer down to 66 feet, then drift deeper as negative buoyancy kicks in.The difference between 60 and 80 feet was night and day; I felt serious compression on my lungs, and had difficulty finding air to equalize, using the grouper-call technique to get air. Yet I never felt out of breath, and hung on the line for several seconds at 80 feet acclimatizing to the pressure, before slowly swimming back up, streamlined with hands overhead. Drop hands at 33 feet, exhale halfway at six feet, then on hitting the surface, take a deep breath and hold for three seconds; breathe out and in quickly; hold three seconds; out and in, hold. Then three quick breaths to blow off the last CO2, and an okay signal.

Still feeling good, I decided to attempt a 100-foot dive. Breathe-up, take a huge breath, and dive down. Strong kicks to 33 feet, soft kicks to 66, then drift down. I was able to equalize to about 90 feet, then stretched to reach the plate at the bottom of the line. Tap, turn, kick back up. And up. And up. And up. Whew! My dive watch read 95 feet; over 50% deeper than my personal best. After a ten-minute break, I tried one more time, and reached 96 feet. Then a few more rescue exercises, and we called it a day.

Day 4: Cold

Woke up with a slight fever; probably the same cold I'd been fighting all week. Low-energy, and not enough time to eat a proper breakfast; half a power bar, collected my stuff together, and we walked out to the dock to catch the King Neptune, a dive boat that would carry us out to the deep water site. 15 minute boat trip, then we slithered into our cold wetsuits, donned the gear, and jumped in the water. I was still feeling under the weather, but really didn't want to miss the opportunity. The weather itself was also under the weather; cloudy and cold, with some wind blowing. We started with the five-minute facial immersion, lowering our metabolism; within a few minutes, I was shivering. I should have been smart and headed back to the boat; more on that soon.

We went through the pull-downs to 5 meters, 10 meters, 15 meters, 20 meters, and my shivering was getting intense. The boat was 200 feet away, and no one else was swimming back, so I didn't want to be the first to wimp out. As this was my last opportunity to try a deep dive, and I really wanted to see 100 feet on my watch, I tried to pull myself down the line. Got to 91 feet, couldn't equalize, felt out of breath, so I came back up. Rested a bit, and my shivering began to subside. (Bad sign.) Figured I'd try one last time: Kicked down to 33 feet, 66 feet, drifted down, and got within a few feet of the bottom plate: my watch read 97 feet, but I was already out of breath. The kick back up felt interminable; never any panic, but a long, long swim. Reached the surface, shivered my way through a few last rescues, then we swam back to the boat. By this time I was seriously hypothermic; perhaps 94 degrees core temperature by my best guess, but it didn't occur to me to worry about it.

So we got back on the boat, got out of our wetsuits, and went to the on-boat shower to rinse off. Hot shower. Really, really bad idea. As I discovered afterward, a hot shower is perhaps the worst possible thing I could have done with hypothermia. The heat stimulates the circulation in the limbs, which makes the cold blood stream straight back to the heart and lungs, lowering the core temperature even more. After a few minutes, I started to feel a very peculiar sensation, like my chest and lungs were shivering. I checked my heartbeat, and it was erratic; fluttering randomly between 60 and 120 beats per minute in a chaotic dance. Otherwise I still felt okay, so it didn't seem like an emergency; I just tried to stay warm, and although I was very tired, I didn't feel dangerously bad. The arrhythmia persisted for over an hour, but finally subsided after we ate a hot lunch and walked over to the ferry.

In hindsight, there were several contributing factors, all preventable. I woke up with a fever; that alone should have kept me out of the water. My electrolytes were imbalanced from no breakfast, which can aggravate arrhythmia. After an hour in the water, I was probably a bit dehydrated. And I let myself get way too cold, which is really the wrong time to do strenuous exercise and breath-holding. And finally, the hot shower triggered the further drop in core temperature and resulting arrhythmia.

I'm planning to get an EKG test to be safe; I don't anticipate anything out of the ordinary, but I've never had one before, so it's long overdue. Besides, I'll need a doctor's note to get clearance for the advanced freediving course in Kona this August, which I'm very much looking forward to. I also look forward to writing a blog entry that focuses less on medical mishaps, and more on the beauty of freediving!

Update: Clean bill of health, EKG normal, all systems go. Excellent!

Update 2: Turns out the arrhythmia was nothing but Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia, which is a perfectly normal occurrence, and actually A Good Thing. From the article: "In humans, the magnitude of the RSA increases with physical conditioning and self-induced, relaxed breathing. RSA becomes less prominent with age, diabetes and cardiovascular disease."

And here is a Class Video !

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 8

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Fri, 23 May 2008 20:13:00 +0000

Rincon Votes Down Sewer -- But Overruled By Three Other Communities!!

The sewer annexation vote has now been certified in the four communities, and the final tally comes to 73 for, 67 against. A sad day for Rincon, considering that the Rincon precinct (including parts of Sand Point Road) actually voted against the sewer, 58 to 48! Since Sand Point is generally in support of the sewer, this suggests that the opposition at Rincon is stronger still. Yet the gerrymandering of all four communities together has flipped the tables against us, and obtaining justice will be an uphill fight.

CA Elections Code, Section 14251:
"Any doubt in the interpretation of the law shall be resolved in favor of the challenged voter."

Importantly: note that were it not for eleven No votes thrown out under dubious circumstances, we would have outright won the election. At least one of these registrations was thrown out based on sworn testimony from the pro-sewer side that was pathetically, flabbergastingly false; the voter in question was never contacted to verify these allegations, and there was no time or opportunity for appeal. (I would provide details, but the circumstances are fairly personal.) I will just observe that the CA Elections Code has been flagrantly violated in this election, in both letter and spirit. Truly sickening; politics at its worst.

Finally, I will point your attention to a recent article in the SB Daily Sound. Here are some excerpts:

Santa Barbara beaches made the grade in Heal the Bay’s annual Beach Report Card released Wednesday, ranking as some of the cleanest places to take a dip along the state’s coastline.
During the dry, beach-going months, water quality at all 20 locations tested weekly from the Guadalupe Dunes to Rincon earned very good or excellent rankings, according to the report.
Santa Barbara beaches with the most issues during the rainy season include Arroyo Burro Beach, East Beach at Mission Creek and Carpinteria State Beach. Those locations have the largest and most urbanized waterways spilling into them, Brummett said, lending to water quality issues.
East Beach near Mission Creek earned an “F” rating during the wet season. Arroyo Burro Beach, Goleta Beach and Carpinteria State Beach are among those with “C” ratings during rainy periods.
Health officials also closed two local beaches following sewage spills in the past year, something Brummett said is a rare occurrence.

So remind me again why Rincon needs a $7 million sewer system?

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 7.5

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:45:00 +0000

Sewage leak shuts Coast Highway in Laguna Beach

Is this really what we want for Rincon??

'Nuff said.

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt 7

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:54:00 +0000

This began as a response to a poster's comment, but has expanded to deserve its own its own blog entry. So here is the anonymous comment in full, followed by my response.

Anonymous said...:

Bensciousness, I am sure you will want your readers to know the real truth of what is going on at Rincon, and to know that the recent (April 4, 2008) letter by Rincon Point Foundation is full of errors.

The RPF lettersays:
"The Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point is currently 303(d) listed for "Indicator Bacteria." Your fans need to go to http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/final/r3_final303dlist.pdf
and look at page 17. It does not say "indicator bacteria." It says the pollutant/stressor is Fecal Coliform and Total Coliform. the Pacific Ocean at Point Rincon (mouth of Rincon Creek) ARE 303(d) listed.

The RPF letter says "The DNA investigation of Rincon Lagoon showed that the majority of coliform DNA matches (for which only trace amounts were found, all non-pathogenic) were NOT from human sources/species."
If your fans go to the DNA report itself they'll find this statement is not true. Go directly to the chart on page 21 - it's very clear:
http://www.healtheocean.org/articles/dna_report/index.htm

that big, high purple column represents the number of DNA matches made for HUMAN bacteria, and anyone reading the report will see specific discussion on pathogens. Human fecal material IS pathogenic, saying otherwise does not make it true.

The RPF letter says "Routine beach testing throughout Santa Barbara County demonstrates that Rincon is NOT one of the most contaminated beaches..."
That's because RPF is looking in the wrong place. Ventura County Environmental Health tests Rincon, not Santa Barbara County. Go to: http://ventura.org/rma/envhealth/programs/ocean/log.htm , and check out 2008, 2007 and 2006. You will find Rincon posted with warnings in 2008 for 16 days already (three days in January, 13 days between January and February); in 2007, Rincon beach was posted in May and July, and in 2006, Rincon was posted with warnings 11 times during the year - February, April, May, July, August, September, October. Heal the Bay has given Rincon 'BEACH BUMMER' status for 2006-2007. To see Heal the Bay's denouncement of water quality conditions at Rincon, go to: http://www.healthebay.org/brc/annual/2007/counties/ve/analysis.asp

(The "Beach Bummer" for Rincon will be very noticeable in upper right corner of screen.)

Rincon Point Foundation says "the Questa study shows there are NOT failing septc systems in the area." Your fans should go directly to the Questa study, see the chart on p. 158; summary on page 162, and they'll see the above statement is also not true: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2B27EA-CE1C-4829-966F-D4D7468BE52D/0/WaterQualityReportSepticSystemSurveyforSBCounty.pdf

I'm sure you don't want to be spreading misinformation. The above documents and charts are the real deal. How RPF makes up the stuff it says is mystifying.

Dear Anonymous:

First of all, Rincon Point Foundation is not myself. But I thank you for your comments, and would like to respond to your points.

You're correct that 0.06 mile of Rincon Beach is 303(d) listed for Fecal + Total Coliform. However: the source of pollution remains listed as "Unknown." Keep in mind, Rincon represents only about one ten-thousandth of the total California beachfront that is 303(d) impaired; to clean up the entire coast at this price point would bankrupt Bill Gates, even presuming the sewer would help at all. If our goal is to improve the environment, this amount of money is far better spent somewhere else, beginning by identifying and fixing any problematic septics. A scorched-earth attempt to sewer all of Rincon just to keep half a teaspoon of fecal coliform out of the creek is ludicrous overkill, to say the least.

From the DNA study, approximately 80% of the DNA matches came from non-human species. The fact that none of those other species individually came in above 20% is irrelevant; your argument is like saying that most people alive today were born in 2007. (Think about it.) You also overlook the bigger picture, which is that the study found only trace amounts of pollution during the testing period; the ocean and lagoon water met all recreational standards for water quality. Significantly, only on a single day of the study (the very last day) did the human DNA tallies spike, suggesting a fault in the data or collection methods, or at least demanding some alternate explanation. Gradual septic leakage would not cause a spike like this, but a dirty diaper would. As the author of the DNA study states: "One human with an infection can contaminate an entire beach. It doesn’t take much if the bather has a highly contagious illness. Babies at the beach are like bacteria tea bags." Also, it stands to reason that a background level of pollution from septics (if any) would be relatively constant; the spikes that result in beach closures (due to increased creek flow) are likely to contain a higher proportion of animal bacteria, due to increased runoff from the watershed, yet this has not been explicitly tested for. The sewer will do nothing to reduce animal pollution; even in the original DNA study, the fecal traces from ducks + dogs outnumbered those of humans. Good luck teaching mallards to use indoor lavatories.

On fecal coliform and pathogens, here's what the DNA report says: "Unfortunately, the limitations inherent with this particular scientific method and application in this setting does little to identify pathogens, or measure any significant infectious levels (doses) within the watershed. E.coli is a coliform bacterium that has many subspecies; the majority are hosts of normal intestinal flora. Only a few, such as E. coli 0157:H7 have been found to be pathogenic... Dr. Samadpour did examine each of the species matches to determine if the E.coli isolates were pathogenic E.coli 0157:H7. Dr. Samadpour reported that no E.coli 0157:H7 was present in the isolates tested from the Lower Rincon Creek Watershed... As indicated above, the presence of E.coli alone does not address pathogenicity per se... Sterilization of the creek, via removal of all fecal coliform bacteria would devastate the ecosystem of the creek. Some level of nonpathogenic coliform is essential to preserving creek biota."

From the Questa study, page 5-7, regarding Septic failures: "The areas reporting the lowest number and rate of failures were Rincon Point, Orcutt area, Ballard, Painted Cave, and Mission Canyon. " Table 5-1 of the Questa report shows that for the period 1983 - 2002, Rincon Point septic systems had zero cases of surfacing effluent, zero incidents of deliberate public discharge, zero incidents of deliberate sink drain discharge, zero plumbing problems causing backup or surfacing, zero reports of suspicious orders, and two false alarms; complaints that turned out not to be septic-related. Table 5-2, likewise, shows zero septic failures at Rincon. The Questa study states: "No direct link between septic systems and beach closures has yet been established." So with all due respect, I'm not sure what you're inhaling, but I doubt it's from a failing septic.

Now, granted, Rincon may not be best-case for Septic. It is incumbent on us to inspect and upgrade our onsite systems now and then, as problems arise. However, Rincon is not best-case for sewer, either! The Questa report glosses over the excessive costs, complexities, and environmental impacts and risks of the sewer, and treats it as a black-box miracle solution. It is not. On top of the $88,000 per household for sewering our streets, PLUS $500+ per year for service, PLUS inevitable re-assessments when the project runs over budget, we are dealing with the installation and maintenance of an inordinately complicated and mickey-moused piece of infrastructure, that by the Sanitary District's own admission has NOTHING TO DO WITH WATER QUALITY. We all want cleaner water, but it is our duty to tackle the problem in a way that's both meaningful and cost-effective. The sewer is a crushingly misguided boondoggle that will only allow further mansionization of the Point, and increase our net footprint on the environment. For the record, Beach Club Road residents concur unanimously. It's no coincidence (to my knowledge) that all the surfers who live at Rincon, who have the most to actually gain from improved water quality, have done their homework and unanimously concluded that, regardless of the question, the sewer is not the answer.

I look forward to your comments.
-Ben

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 6

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:04:00 +0000

On April 22nd, the South Coast Communities vote on whether to be annexed into Carpinteria Sanitary District, a necessary step for the proposed septic-to-sewer conversion project. Proponents of the project recently submitted the following statement. I am reprinting it here, followed by my comments:

Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure U2008

The residents of Rincon Point and other South Coast Beach Communities do NOT oppose Measure U2008. On October 16, 2007 an overwhelming majority of homeowners in all four communities voted in favor of septic to sewer conversion and agreed to pay for this long overdue project. To say a collective annexation prevents each community from making its own decision is false – each community has already decided in favor of public sewers, and annexation to CSD is simply one step in the process.

A multi-year CEQA process analyzed "project risks" and "environmental hazards" over and over again. The opponents failed to make their case through ten years of opposition and frivolous lawsuits.

Here are the facts:
• The Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point is listed by EPA as a 303(d) impaired water body for fecal coliform;
• A DNA investigation of Rincon Lagoon has shown the major source of fecal coliform to be human;
• Routine beach testing shows Rincon Beach to be one of the most contaminated beaches in Santa Barbara County;
• Public sewers are environmentally superior to aged, leaking septic systems in sandy soils with high groundwater;
• CSD has an outstanding record of environmental compliance and continues to invest in infrastructure improvements as needed and required.

County Health and Environmental officials endorse this project, as do the Boards of Supervisors of both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. The State Water Resources Control Board approved a $2.1 million grant for this project through its Clean Beaches Initiative. Where in all this is the "betrayal of public trust"?

Signed:

Hillary Hauser, Executive Director, Heal the Ocean
Scott Bull, Director, Santa Barbara Surfrider
Debbie Trauntvein, President, Santa Barbara Surf Club
Jim DeArkland, Rincon resident
Lachlan Hough, President, Sandyland Cove Homeowners Association

Now, let's go through this point by point:

The residents of Rincon Point and other South Coast Beach Communities do NOT oppose Measure U2008.

The upcoming vote is to determine who is opposed. It is presumptuous and circular reasoning on the part of the proponents to assert the outcome in advance.

"On October 16, 2007 an overwhelming majority of homeowners in all four communities voted in favor of septic to sewer conversion and agreed to pay for this long overdue project."

The vote at Rincon was 57% to 43%. If just five of the Yes votes at Rincon had been different, the outcome would have split evenly. These numbers are far from "overwhelming." In fact, the Ventura half of Rincon Point voted against the sewer, and at least some of the Yes voters have since changed their minds and now oppose the project.

To say a collective annexation prevents each community from making its own decision is false

In a recent protest, out of 147 voters in the four communities, 83 protests were received. 30 of these protests were invalidated for various reasons, but of the 53 valid protests, it stands to reason that a large proportion were from Rincon. This suggests that a majority of Rincon voters currently oppose the sewer project. As voters have become aware that their original stance may have been tainted by ignorance or misinformation, or perhaps by intimidation, it is important that their voices now be heard. It's true that a majority of homeowners in the other communities are in favor of the sewer; naturally, it costs them half as much, and the logistical and environmental factors are different. But if the current consensus at Rincon is that the sewer is bad, then this should not be overruled by other communities' votes. If the upcoming vote fails, the project is still likely to proceed in those communities. Rincon should not be held hostage by this gerrymandered consolidation of unconnected voting regions.

Here are the facts: • The Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point is listed by EPA as a 303(d) impaired water body for fecal coliform;"

Approximately 100 sites on that list are impaired for fecal coliform, suggesting that this is a widespread problem up and down the coast, likely caused by sewage outfalls; not septic sources. The source of the pollution at Rincon is listed as "Unknown." Note that Rincon Creek and Lagoon are NOT 303(d) impaired for coliform bacteria, suggesting they are not the source of the problem.

• A DNA investigation of Rincon Lagoon has shown the major source of fecal coliform to be human;

On the contrary; 80% of the coliform samples were linked to non-human species. More to the point, the total pollution level was extremely slight, cleaner than swimming-pool standards; if the collected samples had been milk, it would be considered safe to drink. For more information, the DNA study is here. And for the record, milk standards are here: maximum 10 coliform per milliliter. Even the dirtiest samples taken at Rincon Point were at least twice this clean.

• Routine beach testing shows Rincon Beach to be one of the most contaminated beaches in Santa Barbara County;

Just the opposite is true. This chart shows pollution exceedances for several Santa Barbara County beaches. In 2007, Rincon Beach experienced ZERO exceedances, making it the cleanest beach on the coast. Even in 2000, when the samples were taken at the creek mouth, Rincon was no more polluted than Leadbetter or Hammonds (both of which are on sewer), and considerably cleaner than many other beaches along the coast. Each year since 2000, Rincon Beach has tested cleaner than average among Santa Barbara County beaches. The only real pollution spikes (1998 and 1999) correspond to massive sewage spills by Carpinteria Sanitary District. Heal The Bay's 2006-2007 Beach Report Card speaks for itself: Rincon Beach at Rincon Creek received straight A's.

• Public sewers are environmentally superior to aged, leaking septic systems in sandy soils with high groundwater;

This is a straw man argument; not one of the septic systems at Rincon has been shown to be failing. And even if one or two of them are, by all means let's fix them, for a tiny fraction of the cost, complexity and environmental impact of the proposed sewer.

• CSD has an outstanding record of environmental compliance and continues to invest in infrastructure improvements as needed and required.

Between 1997 and 2002, Carpinteria Sanitary District was responsible for 31 sewage spills, 17 of them into the ocean. These spills could easily account for the anecdotal surfer illnesses later blamed on Rincon septics. In mid-2004, Carpinteria Sanitary District raised its rates 28% for existing customers, claiming the money would be used to "relocat[e] a pipeline away from eroding coastal bluffs.The pipeline is in danger of collapse with serious environmental consequences." But now, three and a half years later, this dangerous pipeline remains untouched. This is far from an exemplary record of investment or compliance. Sewers are not the answer.

County Health and Environmental officials endorse this project, as do the Boards of Supervisors of both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

These organizations likely endorse the project because it is politically expedient to do so, and because it costs them nothing. Understandably, it's politically difficult for such organizations to oppose environmental-sounding projects. And what's more, they may not have done the proper research to fully understand both sides of this complex issue. A Surfrider representative expressed to me that their organization would probably still support the project even if the cost were ten times greater (a ludicrous $880,000.00 per homeowner!); of course, it's not their money. But whatever happened to the moral imperative of using funds and resources wisely?? In the case of the sewer project, our money would probably be better spent by following the raccoons around with little plastic baggies.

Where in all this is the "betrayal of public trust"?

The blatant misrepresentation of scientific data, subversion of truth, and political maneuvering in the proponents' statements are an egregious betrayal of public trust. Ironically, nowhere has this been shown more clearly than the document in which this statement was contained.

I welcome your comments.

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 5

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:25:00 +0000

50% Protest Vote Achieved! (But will LAFCO acknowledge it?)

The Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) recently held a protest vote which gave residents of the four communities the opportunity to block their annexation into the Carpinteria sewer district. If 50% of registered voters protested, the annexation would be stopped, and the sewer project would be killed. A protest by at least 25% of registered voters would bring the annexation to a confirmation yes-or-no vote.

Based on information from a Jan. 11 letter from LAFCO to Carpinteria Sanitary District, 83 protests were received out of 166 potential voters, or exactly 50%. However, thirty of these protests were declared invalid, for the following reasons:

a. Eighteen protests invalid because, according to LAFCO, the signers were not registered to vote. (65 / 148)
b. Ten protests invalid because they were signed before the individuals registered to vote. (55 / 148)
c. One protest invalid because it was allegedly not signed. (54 / 148)
d. One protest invalid because the signer was registered at an address outside the proposal area. (53 / 147)

Thus, LAFCO determined that the final tally was 53 protests out of 147 registered voters, or 36%. In any event, this is more than enough to bring the protest to a confirmation vote, which will take place in the next few months.

However, most if not all of the thirty invalidations are suspect. The cutoff date for the protest was December 3rd, yet word is that LAFCO arbitrarily decided to throw out the protests of anyone who registered to vote after November 30! This potentially accounts for the eighteen invalid protests in (a), as well as the protest in (d).The ten protests in [b] were improperly invalidated due to an obvious misreading of Government Code Section 57051, which states: "All signatures without a date or bearing a date prior to the date of publication of the notice shall be disregarded for purposes of ascertaining the value of any written protests." Nowhere does it state that individuals must be registered to vote before signing the protest. Finally, the single supposedly unsigned protest in [c] could be counted if it the individual's name was handwritten, which could arguably be considered a signature. (Admittedly, this is legal speculation.)

LAFCO is holding a hearing on Thursday, February 7, where we'll try to get more information. More on this situation as it develops.

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 4

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:52:00 +0000

Will Raw Milk Soon Be Banned in California?

Foodies are up in arms over new legislation that sets tighter cleanliness standards for unpasteurized milk. The new standards (not more than 10 coliform per milliliter) stand to make the production of raw milk in California "very, very difficult, if not impossible," according to Mark McAfee, managing partner of Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno, which produces the bulk of California's raw milk.

Obviously, this safety standard is for a food product intended for direct human consumption, so we shouldn't expect a recreational body of water to be held to the same high standard. And yet, if you look at the 1999 Rincon Watershed DNA Study, every single water sample would have passed the new raw-milk coliform test by a considerable margin. In other words, our lagoon and ocean water is safe enough to drink, let alone swim in! So, will someone please remind me again why we need an $88,000-per-household sewer system??

The Pipe To Nowhere

Anyhow, in mid-2004, Carpinteria Sanitary District raised its rates 28% for existing customers, claiming the money would be used to "relocat[e] a pipeline away from eroding coastal bluffs.The pipeline is in danger of collapse with serious environmental consequences."

But now, three and a half years later, this pipeline remains untouched, and the cost of relocation has been silently passed along to Rincon homeowners as part of the proposed Septic to Sewer project. Is it any wonder that so many residents are strongly opposed to the project?

[UPDATE: Clarification -- The cost to Rincon homeowners is indirect, in that the Rincon line will initially be hooked up to the old decrepit bluffs pipeline, which must still be relocated in the future. If the pipeline had been relocated beforehand, the complexity of hooking up to it from Rincon would have been greatly reduced, and our expense considerably smaller. Specifically, City Planner comments indicated that locating the proposed line away from the bluff edge would not only facilitate relocation of the existing line, but would avoid impacts to biological resources on the Carpinteria Bluffs and reduce the environmental impacts of the project (FEIR Vol. II at page I - 51). Presumably, the eventual cost of relocation will be shouldered not only by Rincon homeowners but by all the sewer customers, even though it was represented that they had already paid for it through the 2004 rate increase. Carp San has tried but so far failed to to secure an additional grant to pay for this relocation. The FSEIR states: "The district has indicated that there is a goal to implement such a relocation project, however, this plan has not been scheduled or adequately financed to date." (FSEIR, page I-60.) This is in direct opposition to the statements used to justify their 28% rate increase in 2004.]

The Protest Vote

Speaking of which, on December 3rd, LAFCO held an official protest vote to oppose the annexation of Rincon Point into the Carpinteria Sanitary sewer district. Anyone registered to vote inside the four communities was given the option to protest the annexation, and if 50% of the registered voters protested, the annexation would be cancelled. If 25% protested, then the annexation would be brought to a subsequent yes-or-no vote.

In light of this protest, many part-time residents of Rincon realized that they were technically registered to vote at an address outside the Point. As a consequence, several of these residents decided to change their official voter address to Rincon Point, so that their protests would be counted. But since the only cutoff date specified in the LAFCO protest announcement was December 3rd, a substantial number of residents modified their voter registrations and filed their protests on the last day, not anticipating any problem. At a LAFCO hearing on December 6th, LAFCO's legal counsel confirmed the December 3rd cutoff date for registrations and protests.

But, out of nowhere, the word is that LAFCO is planning to throw out the protests of anyone who changed their voter registrations later than November 30, effectively disenfranchising all residents who updated their voting address on the day of the protest. Furthermore, Heal The Ocean has requested that the cutoff date be regressed all the way back to October 30 (the date the protest notice was mailed), which would disenfranchise even more voters! It's appalling to me that a nonprofit organization would resort to such blatantly anti-democratic tactics, but this is where we are. It also indicates that the protests easily reached at least the 25% level, and perhaps the 50% level, otherwise why would they fight so hard to retroactively change the cutoff date? More on this situation as it develops.

The State Grant

The Clean Beaches Initiative Grant #601 ostensibly allocates $2.1 million toward the Carpinteria sewer project, about half of which is targeted toward Rincon Point. From what I understand, Carp San will get reimbursed for 25% of their sewer-related expenses as they go along, but Rincon homeowners will not be reimbursed this 25% until the very end of the project, and only if the project comes in under budget! (Realistically, what are the odds?) The upshot is that Carp San will actually be in possession of funds totaling 125% of their projected cost of the project, with no mandate or incentive to return any of it to homeowners. The grant money, if it ever materializes, will essentially go into a slush fund with no public oversight. Slick.

Finally, here is a quote from the EPA on Septage, which is the waste product of septic systems that the pro-sewer folks seem to be so worried about:

"When properly managed, domestic septage is a resource. A valuable soil conditioner, septage contains nutrients that can reduce reliance on chemical fertilizers for agriculture. A good septage management program recognizes the potential benefits of septage and employs practices to maximize these benefits."

I welcome your comments.

Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:31:00 +0000

Now that we've survived the winter solstice, let's talk about something bright and sunny: Solar Energy!

My Tesla is still several months off (July-ish), but in preparation I've re-wired my electric service at 400 amps to support the Roadster's 70-amp charger. At 220 volts, that's over fifteen thousand watts. Zzzappp!! And like many prospective owners, I've pondered whether I should add a few solar panels to my roof to help offset the electric bill.

Now, here's the confounding issue. Rincon Point is dusty. I'm not quite sure why, but around here, any clean outdoor surface soon becomes covered with a significant layer of dust. After a week or two, that becomes a rather thick layer of dust. (It could be salt spray off the ocean, or soil from the local hills, or even particulates from the nearby freeway.) For solar power, in which the most optimistic statistics are computed based on clean panels, and still take 10-20 years to break even, this is a showstopping problem, unless I'm regularly out on my roof cleaning the panels. Also, the custom work required to install the panels, on my slanted tile third-floor roof, would likely be prohibitive.

But then, the whole point is that the power flows back onto the grid, where it can be used from anywhere! So... why can't I turn the idea on its head, and place the solar panel somewhere that's NOT my house??

Here's my vision: I'd like to see a company buy up a few acres of cheap flat dust-free land (or unused flat rooftops), start setting up arrays of solar panels, and let individuals like me SPONSOR the panels (by paying the cost of installation) in exchange for a monthly rebate or credit on my electric bill. I'd gladly sponsor 10kw of solar panels in such an arrangement; the setup and maintenance of the panels would benefit from standardization and economy of scale, and I'd get both an ongoing financial benefit, and peace of mind from doing something nice for the planet. Does such an arrangement already exist? If not, it certainly should!

On the Rainbows front, I have a bone to pick with fluorescent lightbulbs. I've installed a dozen of them at my house in the past few months, and two of them have already burned out. (So much for their highly-touted 6-year lifespan. Also, if you buy a 4-pack at Home Depot and one burns out, they won't replace it. I've tried.) But I can live with that. At full brightness, they're virtually indistnguishable from incandescent, in terms of color temperature. I also like the fact that dimmable CFL's are now available; although they have a minimum brightness about 10% of maximum, as opposed to incandescent, which scales all the way to 0%. That's fine; I can live with that too. But I still highly miss the warmth of dimmed incandescents; the reddish tint really helps set a mood, whereas a dimmed CFL tends to evoke nothing more than a poorly lit public restroom.

So, I have a suggestion. Manufacturers should add a couple cheap orange LEDs to each dimmable CFL bulb, with frosted outer glass to blend the light. That way, the perceived color temperature will change as the bulb is dimmed; from bright white to dim orange! What do you think, is there a market for this?

Finally, on the Lollipops front, I don't really have much to say, except that candy canes are in season. (And particularly cheap this week.) Crunch all you want!!

Big Wednesday

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:03:00 +0000

It always seems to be a Wednesday, doesn't it? Huge west swells pounded Rincon over the past couple days, providing the best waves I've seen in a very, very long time. Here are a few highlight photos (click for larger version in new window):

Big Rincon.

The largest waves were starting to feather and break at the outer-reef bombora.

Viewed from the rivermouth, a large set wraps into the cove.

This was the most relaxed surfer I saw all day.

Double overhead in the cove.

Five seconds later, the guy popped out of the barrel!! Just sickening...

Horn of plenty.

Just for fun, this photo is flipped. For you goofyfooters, this is what the Rincon Indicator would look like if it were a left!

Interesting peaks happening between the indicator and rivermouth.

An unidentified surfer prepares to attempt a Reverse Patrice Lumumba.

Between the indicator and rivermouth.

Shorebreak in the cove at low tide... Crunch!!

Unidentified ex-surfer (and his soon-to-be ex-surfboard!!)

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 3

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:07:00 +0000

[UPDATE]: I've finally heard back from Laura Peters at the State Water Board. In reference to the SB [1002] citation in the State Water Board's documents, she says:

"...that citation is incorrect. The Prop 84 CBI funds were appropriated in Senate Bill 77 (SB 77), Chapter 171, Item No. 3940-101-6051 as a part of the $101,200,000 Item."

So, presuming that's the case, the grant is evidently still alive. I'll leave the affected section of my original post intact but grayed out. More to follow.[/UPDATE]

-Ben

Pop quiz: Given that the majority of homeowners' Yes votes on the sewer were strongly influenced by a promised $2.1 million state grant to offset the project's costs, how many days after the vote did California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger politely wait, before VETOING the bill containing the grant?

A) 3 days
B) 7 days
C) 14 days
D) 21 days

It is, disturbingly, a trick question. The relevant bill was struck down on October 14th, two days before the sewer vote!! Naturally, Rincon residents were kept in the dark about this, even at the public hearing at Carpinteria Sanitary District on Oct. 16th, which was their last chance to cast their vote. Instead, the community continued to be led down the garden path of reassurance that the state grant was a sure thing.

It's true that the state assembly and senate could technically override this veto by a two-thirds vote (note the irony; a two-thirds vote at Rincon would have soundly defeated the sewer project), but the votes are not there; especially in the current fiscal environment of budget cuts, a veto override is vanishingly unlikely. So as the sewer project goes forward, each of us will be on the hook for 20% more cash than we thought before.

So, what can we do? There are unresolved issues surrounding the validity of several of the cast ballots, potentially enough to affect the outcome. Also, the annexation of Rincon Point into the Carpinteria Sanitary District has not yet occurred, and if 25% of affected homeowners sign a protest by December 3rd, the issue will be brought to a vote again. No doubt the sewer mavens will once again tell us to shut up, and simply allow them to shove the sewer down our throats and be done with it, but I'm sorry; that's just not a foie gras I'm willing to swallow. As if I haven't mentioned it before, there are Other, Cheaper, Better Solutions.

I'll leave you with a quote from Mansour Samadpour, the author of the 1999 DNA study, that unwittingly set off this whole chain of events: "One human with an infection can contaminate an entire beach. It doesn’t take much if the bather has a highly contagious illness. Babies at the beach are like bacteria tea bags." (Source.) Eliminating every last bacterium from the surf zone is an unattainable and unrealistic goal, and huge and dubious infrastructure projects to pump the waste two miles up the coast and dump it into someone else's surf zone are emphatically not a "solution."

I welcome your comments.

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 2

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:58:00 +0000

Well, the ballots are in, and it looks like the sewer may be too, in a couple years. Although the Ventura half of Rincon Point opposed the sewer (21 to 17), the overall community voted for the project, 56% to 44%, with an astonishing 100% turnout. 31 of 72 homeowners voted NO; we needed only six more votes to block the project. Close, but no cigar (or as the case may be, pipe?)

So, what does this mean for the community, and for the surfers? Well, here is a short list:

1. Instead of minimal traces of effluent being filtered through the soil, the sewer will guarantee that ALL of our sewage is pumped up the coast, loaded with chlorine and other toxic chemicals, intended to hopefully kill some (but not all) of the bacteria, and then flushed straight back into the surf zone, 300 yards off the beach. Ironically, this probably stands to make our water dirtier, not cleaner.

2. The sewer stands to promote significant real-estate overdevelopment at the Point. Expect to see much larger houses, more resource consumption and sewage as a result, and more intensive use of this ecologically fragile niche.

3. There will be a large, stinky pump station near the front gate. (Home sweet home?) Several homes will be directly affected by the smell. Property values will go down, not up. (relative to what they would have done with onsite treatment.)

4. Despite the fact that a State Water Quality grant may potentially cover part of the cost of the project, no followup testing is planned to check whether the sewer actually improves the water quality. (All the scientific evidence suggests that it will not.) Your tax dollars, down the drain.

For the 31 homeowners who voted against the project, it remains to be seen what the options are. Perhaps those homes with proven effective onsite systems will be allowed to continue using them, which will lower the burden on the Rube Goldberg-esque contraption of pressure lines and pump stations designed to carry our waste to Carpinteria and dump it back into the ocean? Perhaps, if the sewer project goes over budget or becomes too expensive to implement, the local infrastructure can be repurposed for an effective onsite system like this one? Or perhaps we will just have to hold our nose and live with it, as the residents of Solimar Beach have unfortunately had to do for the past 25 years?

Meanwhile, I look forward to the next couple years of clean water and fresh air, before the sewer system mucks things up. Although the $7 million would more effectively have been spent following around individual raccoons with Ziploc baggies, our silver lining may only be the ability in the future to say, "I Told You So." Or more accurately, with noses held: "I Dold You Zo?"

Playing with iMovie '08

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:49:00 +0000

Here are a couple videos I've spliced together using Apple's iMovie '08 software. The first is a compilation of video from my recent scuba-diving trip to Grand Turk in the Caribbean. (Apologies in advance for the puns.) Can you spot the sole clip [again, no pun intended] that's NOT from the Caribbean?

Second, a remix of my Tesla test drive, put to music! Although the song dates from 1958, the lyrics are uncannily accurate, seeing as how the Tesla Roadster is a tiny car with a wimpy horn (at least in the prototypes), that nevertheless goes over 120 miles per hour in second gear...

Enjoy!
-Ben

Cleaning Up Rincon Point?

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:52:00 +0000

The New York Times recently published an article regarding the ongoing Septic vs. Sewer controversy at Rincon Point, a premier surf break in Southern California, and nexus to a small community of 72 homes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm the first to admit that sewer systems are not the most appealing coffee-break conversation, but I actually care deeply about this issue, because I live there -- and most importantly, because I surf there!

In the interest of full disclosure, I am the President of the Rincon Point Property Owners Association, a volunteer board that consists of a handful of community-conscious homeowners and residents. I should make it clear that the Association has no official position on the septic vs. sewer issue, and that these are my own personal opinions.

Now, the setup: In 1999, Heal the Ocean director Hillary Hauser commissioned a DNA study of the Rincon Point Watershed, to determine the extent of bacterial contamination in the lagoon and creek mouth, and to identify its most likely sources. On the ostensible basis of that study, the Rincon Point community will soon be voting on whether to hook up the Point to a large-scale sewer system, or whether to remain on septic. Here are a few relevant excerpts from that study:

"Recreation 1” bathing standards found in the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan indicate that waters that are used for recreational purposes where full body contact (swimming, surfing, and wading) is likely, should have levels of fecal coliform below 400 mpn (or cfu’s). Only one water sample of the 150 collected tested at a level above 400 cfu’s.

Translation: The Rincon Point Lagoon already meets swimming-pool standards for cleanliness.

Unfortunately, the limitations inherent with this particular scientific method and application in this setting does little to identify pathogens, or measure any significant infectious levels (doses) within the watershed. E.coli is a coliform bacterium that has many subspecies; the majority are hosts of normal intestinal flora. Only a few, such as E. coli 0157:H7 have been found to be pathogenic. However, while not specifically a component of the workplan, Dr. Samadpour did examine each of the species matches to determine if the E.coli isolates were pathogenic E.coli 0157:H7. Dr. Samadpour reported that no E.coli 0157:H7 was present in the isolates tested from the Lower Rincon Creek Watershed.

Translation: No known pathogenic bacteria were found in the Rincon Point Lagoon or creek mouth.

Although the majority of species matches were due to wild animal population, 46% of the species matches were attributed to domestic animal sources (which includes human sources). The observance of domestic animal waste in the watershed, especially in the lagoon and surfzone area, suggests that source reduction strategies should initially be targeted in these areas.

Translation: Most of the bacterial DNA matches were from non-human sources. Therefore, even if a sewer system were to remove every trace of human bacteria from the lagoon, the total (already low) level of contamination would not be significantly reduced. Moreover, our initial attention should be focused, not on septic tanks or sewers, but merely on cleaning up after our pets!

And yet, here we are, eight years later, on the verge of committing over $88,000 per homeowner (!) to hook up to an elaborate sewer line, that may not even be warranted in the first place. To put this in perspective, this project is MORE expensive, on a per-household basis, than Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens' infamous (and rightly-lampooned) $398 million Bridge to Nowhere.

Furthermore, the New York Times article states that sewage from Carpinteria Sanitary District is pumped 1000 feet offshore, but they neglect to mention that the sewage outfall is in only 27 feet of water, easily accessible with a mask and flippers. That's barely deeper than some college swimming pools, so it is hardly out of sight, let alone out of mind (and more to the point, out of the surf zone), and is a fish you'd hardly want to see!

In a telling and ironic twist, Heal the Ocean is now pushing for an environmental study of such sewer outfalls, a bona fide admission that sewage disposal is no panacea, as it would have Rincon residents believe. From Heal the Ocean's Spring 2007 Newsletter:

There are more than 37 direct-to-ocean sewage outfalls discharging into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California. Of these wastewater treatment facilities, at least 13, or 35% of them, are discharging treated sewage effluent into particularly shallow waters, 40 feet or less, where there may be a high probability of contact between treated sewage and people recreating in the water. More than 21 million gallons per day of sewage goes into the ocean off California daily in less than 40 feet of water, at distances less than a mile from the shore.

Now, there's no dispute that we all want cleaner water, and a cleaner ocean. And some homeowners understandably look forward to expanding their lots, or building bigger homes; it's undeniable that staying with septic might complicate the permitting process for such projects. But spending $7 million to hook up all of Rincon Point with a massive sewer infrastructure, when the scientific case for it is dubious at best (and harmful at worst), is an appalling misallocation of funds and resources. Five percent of that money should easily cover any possible septic repairs or upgrades that might be required to achieve an equivalent water-quality result. The initial Rincon Point DNA study was a thoughtful and appropriate exercise, but I fear that its benign tale is now being misconstrued to wag a very, very large dog.

One final thought, and then the vote will be up to the community: If Rincon Creek is so polluted... why is a barefoot Hillary Hauser stepping in it?

Tesla Test-Drive: The Silver Bullet

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:31:00 +0000

On a beautiful Saturday afternoon in Malibu, with puffy white clouds left over from the rain, I had the opportunity to test-drive drive the Sterling Silver Roadster VP10. After driving down from Santa Barbara in my Mitsubishi 3000GT Spyder (which the Roadster will replace, shown below), I met three Tesla representatives: Zak Edson, Darryl Siry, and Aaron Platshon, and we spent a while chatting about the Roadster, with the occasional interruption from googly-eyed Pepperdine undergrads. One particularly noteworthy detail: the 3.5-hour recharge time is dictated not the battery pack itself, but rather by the 70-amp limit of the home charging unit. With an industrial-strength charger, the Roadster's input could theoretically accept over 200 amps, and top off in about an hour! This is brilliant news for those of us pondering roundtrips between LA and SF, presuming Tesla can make such a charging station available. Back in Malibu, I first expected to be taken for a short spin to get used to the car, but instead, Darryl simply tossed me the car keys and said "go!"

So, with Darryl riding shotgun, we drove up Malibu Canyon past Pepperdine, and along twisty Mulholland Drive. Zak and Aaron followed behind in their silver 328i chase car. My driving soon became more aggressive, and the car's handling soon felt natural. The Roadster was pleasure to drive, even without first gear; there was plenty of acceleration (0-60 in about 5.6 seconds, compared to the theoretical 5.3 for my Spyder), and I can only imagine what first gear will feel like! The acceleration off the line was a thrill, and I found several opportunities to test 0-60 on a straightaway, as well as the motor-mediated 60-0 braking. The braking felt somewhat different from my other car; less of a friction-based grind, and more the sensation of a spring being wound up, which is more or less the case.This made the brake feel slightly over-controlled, but I'm sure this will be tweaked for the production models. On the regeneration front, my preference would actually be for less regen; when I take my foot off the accelerator, I expect and prefer the feel of efficient coasting, particularly at highway speeds. (Too much regen makes me constantly feel like I need to upshift.) One size obviously doesn't fit all in this department, and I hope Tesla finds a way to incorporate user-adjustable regeneration settings; or perhaps have it adjustable at the dealer during servicing.

Compared to my familiar Spyder, the most noticeable handling difference was the steering wheel itself. The Roadster lacks power steering, and this fact, when combined with the Elise-vintage 12" steering wheel, made twisty roads feel like the Teacups at Disneyland: Oodles of torque, applied to a fairly small disc; resulting in dizzying changes in direction. I suppose that this goes with European sports-car tradition (by contrast, my Japanese-made Spyder has a power-assisted 15" steering wheel, decidedly on the luxury-sport side), and it's obvious that a short time with the Roadster will do wonders for one's arm strength, let alone motion-tolerance! Still, this didn't prevent me from cornering hard enough to feel the computer limiting the throttle as I accelerated into the turn; the car is over a thousand pounds lighter than my Spyder, and felt incredibly responsive and well-balanced both in turns and on straightaways. The driver's seat, though non-adjustable, was surprisingly comfortable, particularly compared to the red EP2 prototype I squeezed into at the TED conference last March. Even after forty miles of high-speed twists and turns, my body felt fine, though my head was definitely spinning... Nice job, Tesla!

No car is perfect (though the Roadster comes impressively close), and my most prominent area of concern was with the driver-side blind spot. Preparing to merge left, my reflexive over-the-shoulder glance yielded an expansive view of the B-pillar and not much else, giving an oddly claustrophobic sensation (and I am 6'0"). As a conscientious driver, I don't like to rely on mirrors exclusively while changing lanes, especially in unpredictable city traffic (and particularly in LA, where the crazy drivers are out in, er, droves). I'd prefer it if the Roadster had slightly larger, wider-angle side-view mirrors (e.g. Multivex Mirrors), or perhaps some sort of active warning system (e.g. Volvo's BLIS) to compensate for the limited rear views. I'm sure Zak would say that the blind spots are small enough that only another Tesla could fit into them (which may be fine THIS year, but what when it's the most popular car out there??)... Come to think of it, it might be appropriate for Tesla to offer a training course to emphasize safe lane-changing techniques, as well as proper mirror adjustment. The Roadster feels different enough from the average car to warrant this, and these skills should NOT be learned by trial and error!

Naturally, no test drive would be complete without a thorough shakedown of the car's audio system, soft-top, cruise control, bluetooth cellphone integration, carbon-fiber hardtop, A/C controls, night-driving ability, iPod connector, wet-weather performance, heated seats, navigation system, low-gear acceleration, and cup-holder! To this end, I must humbly request a follow-up test drive, posthaste... ;-) My color choices are locked in (Thunder Gray, with red and black interior leather), and I eager await the day I can ease my very own Tesla Roadster into my red-carpeted driveway!

Special thanks to the Tesla team for such a wonderful opportunity,
-Ben

Fractals, Fractals Everywhere

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:14:00 +0000

You know you've really reached the big time, when your mathematical algorithms show up on a Linens 'N 'Things gift card. Ring me up for 2π dollars, please!

Review - Oceanic DataMask with Heads-Up Display

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:01:00 +0000

Dive toys just keep getting better and better, don't they? On a recent trip to Grand Turk, I tested out the new Oceanic DataMask, a stylish black dive mask with a futuristic heads-up display. No more SPG's, no more wristwatches, just floating information at your eyeball-tips. Sounds great, huh?

The mask comes in a high-tech molded case, with a hefty instruction booklet and software CD. The design is somewhat asymmetrical, with the heads-up-display unit protruding in the lower right, and two control buttons on the outside of the mask. The right side of the frameless visor is somewhat smaller than the left, to accommodate the HUD lens assembly. The left side also has a nice little side-view window, which the right side lacks. My first impression was that the mask was somewhat higher-volume than my previous mask, but the difference wasn't noticeable during my dives.

As I soon found out, the only way to operate the dive computer is while you're physically wearing the mask; since there's no external display. I took a while to get used to the stark two-button operation (my previous computer, the Suunto D9, had a generous four buttons), but the interface is logically laid out, and after a couple dives I stopped referring back to the manual. While wearing the mask, a glance to the lower right shows the LCD display, hovering in black space, about ten inches away.

After scrubbing out the mask, and applying liberal amounts of defog (especially to the HUD lens), it was time for my first dive. The DataMask fit well, no problem with comfort or leaks. The balance of the mask was noticeably uneven on the surface, but this went away underwater, and it was easy to forget I was wearing a special mask. (So easy, in fact, that for my first few dives I found myself looking at my D9 wristwatch, forgetting about the heads-up display!) The display is in the corner of peripheral vision, so it didn't distract at all from the actual diving. The field of view seemed significantly less than my usual mask, but not problematically so.

During a dive, all the dive information is accessible with a couple clicks; one button flips through pages of data, and the other toggles the HUD display on and off. I found it most convenient just to leave it on; the display was unobtrusive enough that I could ignore it easily.

Both the DataMask and my D9 use wireless transmitters, attached to the high-pressure ports of my first stage. Not once during a solid week of diving did the transmitters interfere with each other or fail to sync, and the pressure and depth gauges were in exact agreement between the two computers. (The D9 wristwatch regularly reported a depth one foot lower than the mask, which stands to reason, if you think about it.) The only real discrepancy was with temperature; the D9 consistently reported 84-85 degrees, but the DataMask consistently 79-80 degrees. (Diving comfortably in a 1-mil vest, my money's on the D9.) I may send it in to have it calibrated, or I may simply consider it a nice nitrogen-narcosis test, having to add five in my head...

On my first dive, I developed an itch on my nose, and gave in to the temptation to remove the mask to scratch it. Putting the mask back on, some sunscreen got into my right eye, and for a minute or so I was diving left-eyed. As soon became apparent, this meant I couldn't see my gauges! (Nicely, I had the D9 for backup.) On a related note, I'm not sure how much of a safety concern it is that my gauges aren't readable by my buddy, and it isn't clear how this could be remedied, short of some wireless data-sharing. Another problem I noticed was that the viewable angle of the HUD is very limited; the mask has a tendency to slide up on my face a bit, which greatly reduced contrast on the display. I occasionally had to push the mask down into place before I could see the display properly. (Or this could just be due to my funny-shaped nose; I have the same problem with most masks.)

Fresh off the pixel-happy iPhone technology-fest, I had subconsciously expected the visual LCD itself to be a bit more high-tech. Instead, it resembled something of an 80's Casio wristwatch, with large blocky LCD digits and an oddly speckly blackish background. Perhaps this low-res approach was done for reliability, but it certainly leaves room for aesthetic improvement. The backlight is adjustable from 5% to 100% brightness, and I had it at 5% during my night dive, which was perfect; the trouble came when I went to dive again at noon the next day, and the display was nearly impossible to read. I had to squint a lot and try to find some shade before I was able to adjust the controls back to a more legible 75%. Perhaps the display should default to a higher brightness level after a few hours, just as the nitrox setting defaults to 21% one day after a nitrox dive? (The D9 always remembers the nitrox level, which is great; I wish the DataMask would just stay at 32% and display the percentage on the main screen. Instead, it just says 'nx'.)

The one feature of the D9 that I most missed in the DataMask was an ascent rate indicator. It's true that the mask beeps if you ascend too quickly, but it would be much nicer to see a visual indicator, so you have some warning. On the other hand, the DataMask shows a nice nitrogen-exposure bar graph; when it hits the top, you're in deco. (I didn't do any deco dives this trip, so I wasn't able to test this mode.) The mask was a little squirrelly about safety stops; once when I swam up to 19 feet and then descended to 27 feet, it kept counting down the three minutes. It also was fairly annoying about 10-minute air warnings; I would get an alarm for 10-minutes of air time left (til hitting 500psi), then ascend two feet and have 12 minutes left, then go down a foot and the alarm would go off again. The mask also freaked out a couple times when I hit the 10-minute limit during the safety stop, and it wasn't quite obvious what it wanted me to do, just displaying a blinking "ATR" (air-time remaining) instead of the three-minute countdown. With 650PSI left at the time, 12 feet from the surface, that seemed a little odd.

Finally, a feature of the mask that I really wanted to test, but wasn't able, was its freediving mode. In freediving mode, times are in minutes and seconds, instead of hours and minutes; you can set time-based alarms and countdowns, and it does its best to track nitrogen levels for freediving mixed with SCUBA. The one time I did some light freediving was just after a shallow dive, when the mask was still locked into scuba mode. (I was somewhat paranoid about locking up the computer, which the D9 is prone to if used for freediving after scuba.) This will have to wait for the next trip!

So, in summary, I'd say that my overall impression was mostly positive. (4 out of 5 starfish, I'd say.) The DataMask was very natural and comfortable to use, and I got used to it after the first couple dives. However, on balance, I did not find it overwhelmingly better or more convenient than my D9. There is, however, lots of obvious room to improve, and I heartily expect that versions 2.0 and 3.0 will knock my watery socks off!

Happy diving,
Ben

Helical Flight Logic

noreply@blogger.com (Ben Weiss) — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:40:00 +0000

Regarding the recent midair collision between a commercial 737 and a Legacy executive jet over Brazil... It struck me that a simple change would greatly reduce the incidence of such events. The 737 was traveling eastbound at 37,000 feet; with modern avionics and GPS, this altitude is maintained almost exactly. (Next time you're on a plane with live flight statistics, note that the altitude is almost always an exact multiple of 1000 feet.) The Legacy was traveling westbound, and theoretically should have been flying at an even-numbered altitude; e.g., 36,000 or 38,000 feet. But transcripts show that it was nevertheless cleared for 37,000 feet, inadvertently putting it on a collision course with the 737 jet.

The quantization of altitude into units of 1000 effectively reduces the usable airspace from 3D to 2D, dramatically increasing the probability of collisions. But there is an easy way to not only reduce the random probability of collision (by allowing the full 3D space to be used), but indeed to lower the risk even further. Consider:

Planes traveling east (0 degrees) should fly at XX,000 feet.
Planes traveling north (90 degrees) should fly at XX,250 feet.
Planes traveling west (180 degrees) should fly at XX,500 feet.
Planes traveling south (270 degrees) shoud fly at XX,750 feet.

Furthermore, this system can be made continuous: planes traveling northeast should fly at XX,125 feet, and so on. It creates a continuous helical pattern, in which aircraft at similar altitudes will always be traveling in similar directions, thus dramatically reducing the chances of collision during the long stretches of flights where altitudes are maintained.

Update: Here's a detailed mathematical analysis of this idea.