Talk:Blue Hole (Red Sea)

map needed It would be nice to have a map showing location of The Blue Hole in relation to Sinai

ERROR in Graphics

The map seems to show the arch starting at twice it's actual depth?

I noticed errors in the first para text and have fixed them, as the depth at the arch start is only just over 100m as noted in the source cited for other elements (and having dived it :-) ) Greg (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 13:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Clean up

Removed some plugs for some diving agencies. They are all listed under the technical diving training agency link. Removed "anoxic". If at all it should be "hypoxic", however to dive 52m you do not need a hypoxic mix. Removed "howto" sections and tag. Changed 1.6 ATM O2 limit to the common 1.4 ATM. --77.1.43.67 (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

IMO, "Blue Hole" should redirect to Great Blue Hole since it's the one that in my experience scuba divers always are referring to. Jacques called it one of the 10 top dive sites, so that should seal the discussion. Then the disambig page pointed to by the opening sentence can point to the blue hole off the Sinai. Alternatively, "Blue Hole" should point to the disambig page and this page should be renamed. Mainly I just want "Blue Hole" to not point to the Sinai location; this would be misleading to dive novices. Tempshill 04:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disgree with Tempshill. Until I came to wikipedia I was only aware of the blue hole on the Sinai. I personally can't see much scope for confusion, since all the relavent pages explain the situation in their opening paragraph.--Stuartyeates 12:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stuartyeates. When I've spoken to other divers they tend to refer to the Great Blue Hole as exactly that. The Blue Hole (without the "Great") is more likely to be the one in Sinai. Trewornan 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nitrogen narcosis

For the last time, you CAN NOT die from Nitrogen narcosis. I'm going to modify the final sentence accordingly. --71.48.249.234 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that nitrogen narcosis affects divers at depths shallower than 40 meters, I think that should be changed in the text. Abiermans (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it says about narcosis on standard air at 90m. You cannot go past 60m on standard air without the oxygen becoming toxic. You therefore need a trimix at that depth anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.189.220 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all - nitrogen narcossis doesn't kill you. What you do intoxicated with nitrogen decides if you live or die. More dangerous problem is that oxygen intoxication which happens (according to PADI standards) when O2 reaches partial pressure of 1.4 which happens at about 56meters. It kills for sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.185.85 (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nitrogen narcosis DOES kill, by making the diver do silly things. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hyperoxia is not like you die instantly when O2 partial pressure goes above 1.4 (or 1.6, or 2...). You might go below 100m without suffering from it. Anyway it is silly to go down to 90m on air. Even more when the arch is supposed to be at 52m. WTF was Yuri doing there ? Narcosia was involved, for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2ECD:5260:D863:72FB:95C3:D8A7 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The mixture heliox does not have nitrogen inside and would not cause nitrogen narcosis. I have read he was simply on air. Is there a mistake in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.177.65 (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, this is completely inconsistent in the article. Either Yuri was diving heliox OR he had nitrogen narcosis. These are mutually exclusive.Martinlong1978 (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

″technical divers at the planned dive depth more commonly use multiple stage tanks filled with trimix (oxygen, nitrogen, and helium) to reduce narcosis and decompression times″ - this is not entirely true. Trimix will reduce narcosis (though not as much as heliox, if Yuri was indeed using it, which would eliminate nitrogen narcoses, leaving only the narcotic effect of oxygen). However, Trimix does not reduce decompression times. The addition of helium, if anything, will actually increase decompression times. This is somewhat under debate at the moment, but best case is that it has no effect on decompression times. The mention of trimix here seems to be irrelevant. Martinlong1978 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I find unacceptable to state that the Ach is almost not a technical dive, and that one should not use mixes of gases to do it, at 55m. Narcosis kills, as you reckon, because of poor judgment, there are videos about guys disoriented and diving to the bottom, then suffering from oxygen toxicity and dying in this hole. Narcosis can be felt at 30 m already. Going deeper than 40m IS a technical dive, that's why recreational diving goes up to 40 meters. I bet this kind of thinking is the reason why there are so many casualties, not respecting the 40 meter limit and trying to test one's limit by doing one feat that clearly requires proper planning, training and equipment exceeding that of recreational diving. We should avoid more stupid deaths by writing conservative diving guidelines, always falling to the safe side. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmgomez (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Russian?

I thought Yuri Lipski was Israeli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.51.190 (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• The hole is actually 32.99 kilometers ssw at 28°28'32.50"N 34°30'19.62"E

64.234.4.99 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the coords in the article appear to be correct. The ones you give 28°28′33″N 34°30′20″E point to (per WikiMapia) Kite Lagoon, not the Blue Hole. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

The correct coordinates should be 28°34'19.95"N 34°32'13.31"E Sivicako (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 122.54.96.53 (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The coordinates currently in the article are fine. The ones you suggest are only a couple of meters (at most) away from the ones given in the article. Deor (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dahab Blue Hole is rather likely not an underwater sinkhole

Am I nit-picking? IMHO "underwater sinkhole" should be replaced with sth along these lines, which is very likely a lot more accurate:

"the Blue Hole is a natural reef formation where an almost perfect circle has been created in the coral." http://www.simplybluedahab.com/post-blue-hole-reputation/

The reef in Dahab is a fringing reef with very steep walls and ample hard coral growth which might very possibly have created such a structure. Yes, I know, no original research. Just… there won't be very many reliable sources out there on how the geological formation of the Dahab blue hole actually came about. I'd delete sinkhole. It's very likely not correct. Satu Katja (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is OK as-is. The rock there is limestone sandstone, and it looks a lot like (and I suspect it is) a classic sinkhole where the surface layer has fallen into a cavern below. I'd also note that it isn't circular. Greg (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC) edited 10:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of large part of 'deaths' section

For future reference, and as I missed putting notes in edit comment, I have removed a chunk from the deaths section that related to one specific persons death which was not really notable (vs. the other deaths) even in the context of this article aside from there being a video of the death .. which beyond risking making the article sensationalist, also made the article read more like a human interest magazine article (which is what the source was in any case). I have also reworded what remains to make it clearer. Greg (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Avaya1:, you added back a section on this one specific death, noting that I hadn't put anything in the edit comment ... which is true and was an error on my part. But, I had put this section on the talk page, and could not find a way to edit the edit the comment after I had made the edit, so I left it rather than immediately reversing and re-adding it myself. I stand by the point I made above, and don't think this material really belongs in wikipedia anywhere, at least in its current form. Greg (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I added part of this section. It is sourced/notable story - there are actually many more articles on this incident and even a whole documentary (on Channel 1 (Israel)). I don't see how removing an interesting incident is constructive. A good suggestion might be to move the content to a separate article of its own - but that would require work and adding more sources first, improving the section a lot, to make it notable for its own article.Avaya1 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think it should be here for reasons above, or at least not that 30% of the text should be on that. But, I am only one voice, so will leave as-is - if others feel strongly one way or another they can weigh in here. FWIW, there is a 'filmed accidental deaths' category that might be appropriate to add to the article. Greg (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Greg. I would leave the 'Deaths' section but without the specifics of that accident. It's too much for the size of this article. And it's only one of many accidents there.Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.238.176 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Buoyancy at depth

I removed this sentence: "At the depth to which he fell, the body loses its buoyancy, and the water pressure makes it difficult to rise, without strong flotation aids".

It's false that the body loses buoyancy at depth. The wetsuit/drysuit does lose buoyancy from compression, but it's also true that the tank gains buoyancy as you consume the gas from it. You don't need 'strong flotation aids' unless you carry a few negatively buoyant tanks (usually steel or full aluminum ones) or way too many weights.

The water pressure making it difficult to rise is just hilarious. Liquids are not compressible, so water isn't denser at depth. Where did that come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.238.176 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently you have no knowledge of diving physics. Indeed, water is (almost) incompressible - but divers control their buoyancy via a BCD (buoyoancy control device), which they fill / deflate with gas according to the required buoyancy. That gas is compressible and the further you go below neutral buoyancy, the faster the diver descends, because the gas in the BCD (and the suit as well) is getting more and more compressed (and conversely, the further they go above neutral buoyancy, the faster they ascend). This is a runaway process. Hence, divers are tought make a "controlled descend/ascend" by gradually adding/releasing more and more gas to/from the BCD, the deeper/higher they go (of course initially, to start the descend, some gas needs to be vented from the BCD to achieve (slightly) negative buoyancy. (Again, for ascending, it's the opposite)).

Yuri Lipski ignored that and sank faster and faster, the deeper he got. On top of that he had 12 kg of lead on his belt, which was way too heavy for the depth he went. Apparently his BCD was malfunctioning, too. But what could have saved him was to remove a few weights from his belt as soon as he realized that he can't achieve positive buoyancy, or even dump the entire belt to make an emergency ascent (that could have led to decompression sickness, but he was at depth for a pretty short time). But he was too narc'd to realize what to do and just tumbled down the slope to even greater depths, passed out and died. --46.114.170.74 (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Breathing gas dramatics

As a DM Tech60 with 2000 dives I removed the statement about requiring Trimix, Heliox or other special breathing gas mixtures because it is uncited and is plain incorrect. At 54m this dive is not a challenging technical dive at all, hardly even technical. If anything, the only gas indicated would be a 18% reduced O2 mix but even that is not really warranted or even advisable. It is a gas management problem not a gas mixture problem. At a PPO₂ of 1.6 it can even be done on straight air and be within limits. Running this through V-Planner it is very doable on a single tank of air but unwise because it is marginal. My understanding is that the problem is either running out of gas and drowning or running out of gas and getting bent after missing a stop. I have many times done 55m on air, always with a stage, and without anything such as a tunnel to negotiate to keep me down there.

I also put in a 'citation needed' on the Lipski account because I see no reason why he was on Heliox unless he was on a training dive, which he evidently wasn't. You just wouldn't use Heliox on anything so shallow. Heliox is expensive, I'm not even convinced it is available in Dahab (maybe they teach Tech and have it for instruction, but not for a 54m dive!). Being an instructor he would be familiar and comfortable with the narcosis he would expect at 54m, and it would not help his decompression times anyway. So why? Also, if he had gone to the trouble of using Heliox he would also have gone to the trouble of calculating his gas needs and would not have left the stage behind. The Heliox claim I find highly dubious. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Further to last, after an extensive search I could not find his coroner's report and could find no evidence that Yuri Lipski used Heliox. Given that using Heliox was highly improbable and inappropriate for the dive, I remove the 'citation required' along with the whole sentence. If anybody finds a reliable account, please change it. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You are apparently tolerating nitrogen narcosis well and have good buoyancy control even "under the influence". But for the majority of divers, being on regular air at 60 m or lower (you don't scrape against the top of the arch when passing it) causes severe nitrogen narcosis. Diving the arch on a single tank of regular air is the single most relevant reason for the 130-200 fatalities there. To my knowledge not a single casualty was on trimix. What more evidence do you need for it to be a technical dive? When nitrogen narc'd, it happens very easily that they mess up their buoyancy and suddenly they're at 80 m, now getting more intoxicated (and suffer from oxygen toxicity on top of that) and now they're in a vicious cycle that leads to their death. And btw, it doesn't help if they're on 15 or even 24 liters (of regular air). There's a reason why PADI and other organization limit regular air usage to 40 m.

What you wrote is absolutely irresponsible, especially as a dive master. Sure, it can be done on a single tank of air and the vast majority indeed survive that. But 130-200 deaths over 15 years and all of them on regular air (granted, a couple of freedivers included, but that's the minority) is a blatantly obvious indication that the arch at Dahab is a technical dive. And if you recommend, because Heliox is too expensive and maybe not even available on site, the arch should be done on regular air, your licence should get revoked. Putting money concerns over safety may be your way of living and you can do with your life what you want - but you should be stopped from putting other people's lives in danger like that. --217.229.94.115 (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not recommending a single tank of air, far from it. In fact I suspect that single tanks are athemajor cause of the deaths there because it is just, oand nly just, possible on a single tank provided absolutely nothing goes wrong. Of course, Dahab is a tech dive, but tech doesn't necessarily mean gas mixes. The discussion on Heliox was about the probability that Lipski did not use it (if it was indeed available, it's a rare find unless somebody is teaching Tech.60s) and if he had acquired some this fact would have been widely known in the community and there is no mention of it in any texts I have seen. Personally, I would choose to dive it on air even if Heliox was available because doing that complicates a dive that should be simple and short, even the 18% O2 is not recommended for this dive, but the dive absolutely needs two full size tanks both air. If in a group ,I might like to suspend some 100% O2at 5m from the boat outside. There is nothing wrong with air at 60m provided everybody has the right training and in the right circumstances and as a Tech60 I would take them after a full discussion and observing how they do 40m. Ex nihil ^(talk) 16:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Blue Hole (Red Sea" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blue Hole (Red Sea has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Blue Hole (Red Sea until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)