Nitrox workshop dings - Divers Alert Network

Rubicon Foundation Archive (http://rubicon-foundation.org)Lang (ed.): DANNitrox Workshop, Divers Alert Network, November 2000R. Moon: One last point. This has been a bit of a bee in my bonnet. I would like to dosomething to get rid of the fly by night mixers which, despite what has been said in thisworkshop, do exist. I would add to the oxygen analysis bullet, which is the fifth one down,that oxygen analysis should be performed by the dispenser and verified by the end user.M. Lang: Does everybody operate that way?R. Moon: Verification I think we understood did not necessarily mean analysis, but the gasshould be verified in some way by either observing the analysis or performing it oneself.M. Lang: Care to re-phrase that suggestion?R. Moon: Oxygen analysis of the breathing gas should be performed by the dispenser andverified by the end user.D. Rutkowski: IANTD will agree with that statement from Richard Moon.E. Betts: That's a standard procedure. ANDI agrees with that.D. Kesling: Sometimes those two processes don't happen simultaneously. That's the only caveatthat I would try to clarify.B. Bjorkman: The person mixing the gas isn't necessarily the person dispensing it.M. Lang: Should dispenser be changed to mixer?B. Bjorkman: Or blender.M. Lang: Blender/dispenser/mixer.J. Hardy: Provider?M. Lang: Provider is not necessarily the person who mixed the gas. You always have to havethe person mixing the gas analyzing the gas.J. Hardy: Bill could probably talk to that, but from a legal point of view, the dispenser would bethe shop owner.M. Lang: Bill Turbeville, which term would you prefer? Blender, dispenser or mixer?T. Mount: The point is the mixer has to verify it, but the dispenser is the person who wouldprobably be legally liable.B. Turbeville: They're all legally liable at some level. The question is on whom do you want toplace the greater burden? If we say that the end user has to verify, that places some of theburden upon the end user, but by no means all of it. The fact is that they're creating aproduct. They cannot get rid of all the liability. They can only get rid of some liability. Interms of the definitions, that's not for the lawyers to say, that's for the training agencies andfor the participants to define.D. Kesling: There are three phases that now come to mind. You can have the glass blended anddelivered by a supplier. You can have a person in the next phase dispense that gas to an enduser and then, of course, the end user. Operationally, there could potentially be a potentiallythree-level process.K. Shreeves: Let me suggest then that the way it's written right now is exactly what we need tosay.E. Betts: The possibility that the dispenser and the blender is one and the same person, iscovered there. We want to say that the gas mixer or the one who creates the breathingmedium analyzes the gas. Then we're attempting to transfer liability to the end user bysaying the end user has to verify the mix. We are trying to cover the ground, but I want toacknowledge the fact that you could have three different phases here.A. Marroni: Why don't you simply word it by the blender, the dispenser, and verified by the enduser?192