Jump to content

Talk:Barotrauma

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Descending

[edit]

Descending and ascending in water. There are two components to the surrounding pressure acting on the diver: the atmospheric pressure and the water pressure. A descent of 10 metres (33 feet) in water increases the ambient pressure by approximately the pressure of the atmosphere at sea level. So, a descent from the surface to 10 metres (33 feet) underwater results in a doubling of the pressure on the diver.

This text from the article (and experience) implies to me that the ear pain felt when descending in water is due to the proportional difference in pressure, not the pressure difference.

In example, descending from sea level to 33 feet would double the pressure, while the pressure difference would be 1 atmosphere. Descending from 33 feet to 99 feet would again double the pressure, but the pressure difference would be 2 atmospheres. I contend that the effect on the ear would be the same going from sea level to 33 feet, as descending from 33 feet to 99 feet. I would love an expert to corroborate this... I have a buddy who is a physics prophessor that does not buy this argument. 65.204.218.243 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pain is due to the overstretching of the eardrum. This is caused by the change in volume of the air in the middle ear (assuming that the external auditory canal is open). Volume change is proportional to absolute pressure change (see Boyle's law), so changing the absolute pressure by say, 1 bar, will have a difference on the volume change depending on what the pressure was that it changed from, and the effect on the eardrum will be proportional. Your ears are giving you accurate information. A descent of 1m from the surface (10%)will have the same effect as a change of 10m from 90m (also 10%) Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lung squeeze (thoracic squeeze) seems pretty important in the descending section, and is pretty common in competitive free diving. Mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diving_hazards_and_precautions, described in http://www.britannica.com/science/thoracic-squeeze — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.97.84 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Access article to evaluate: Azizi (2011) Ear Disorders in Scuba Divers

[edit]

Stumbled across this while messing with MeSH ;) Readable review might find a place here:

  • Azizi, MH (January 2011). "Ear disorders in scuba divers". The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2 (1): 20–6. PMID 23022815. Open access icon

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

[edit]

(for WikiProject Scuba diving - no guarantees it will be good for WP Medicine)

B
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.

    2. Looks OK to me.checkY
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

    3. Looks OK to me from diving aspects, may be a bit thin for medicine. Several of the standard headers for WPMED articles are missing. checkY
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

    4. Looks OK to me.checkY
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

    5. Looks OK to me.checkY
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

    6. Some images would be nice I will put on hold while I try to find something.. Better now. Good enough for B at any rate. checkY
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

    7. Looks OK to me, though a couple of items should be clarifiedcheckY
All boxes now ticked. Good enough for B-class for WPSCUBA. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who conducts these Reviews? How do we get an article reviewed? I would like to get Shallow water blackout reviewed among others. Ex nihil (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ex nihil, Up to and including B-class, anyone can do it. GA is done by someone who has not worked significantly on the article, FA is done by more than one person who have not worked significantly on the article. GA and FA are formally nominated, up to B-class you just do it. If anyone disagrees, you discuss and if appropriate, fix or relegate. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a long list on the WPSCUBA page of B-class reviews either recently done or in process, add anything you think should be there. There are always a few that don't get noticed, like Shallow water blackout, which I missed because it wasn't tagged for WPSCUBA. I have added a template for review to the talk page, Feel free to comment and help. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Does not cover the full scope of the article. For example, Pulmonary barotrauma is major part of the content. I don't know my way around infoboxes to fix. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barotrauma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swim bladder overexpansion

[edit]

The picture says note the swim bladder but there's no indication on the picture what the swim bladder is. It needs a lot better clarification 68.52.233.112 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Fixed · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sections and headers

[edit]

Thumperward, you tagged the article for too many section headers. Do you have any specific and actionable suggestions regarding which headers you consider extraneous, and which sections should be merged? Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Practically every paragraph has its own section heading, and paragraphs are too short to start with anyway. This is so egregious that it's difficult to even start. But let's pick one particularly bad section: right now the ear barotrauma section has third-level headings for each of the various types. The first two are a single paragraph long, each consisting of a mere 3-5 short sentences. The longest section is on by far the least common case. Indeed it's only things like this (where boldly killing off all the headings would have resulted in the larger sections having massive skew towards the wrong areas) that stopped me from fixing it in passing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like more content is needed for the sections than too many section. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles naturally generate a lot of headings because they are complex subjects with many components, each a subject in its own right. This is such an article. Removing headings can make it hard to navigate where each section is, indeed, its own topic. Moreover, most of the headings have links to their main articles where the matter is expanded on. Consequently, adding content to these headings will tend to duplicate content across Wiki. My personal opinion is that the headings have just about the right amount of content for the article to read coherently while providing ample opportunities to link out to more detail if required. Ex nihil (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barotrauma&oldid=1205755094"