The author monitors his rebreather's oxygen displays; the system has three for redundancy. (Photo: Doug Weinstein)

Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Technology is opening
all sorts of places to human exploration, including areas of the sea
previously too remote to spend much time lingering in. I had occasion
to reflect on whether this is a good or a bad thing when I went scuba
diving with a rebreather in the Caribbean last summer. Rebreather
technology, though new to me, has been gaining popularity among
technically inclined recreational divers — enabling them to dive deeper
and for longer periods than with comparably sized, traditional
open-circuit scuba systems.
When you inhale using a traditional system, compressed air or
nitrox (a blended gas containing more oxygen and less nitrogen than
ordinary air) is drawn from a tank to a regulator to your lungs. When
you exhale, the air — now containing less oxygen plus carbon dioxide —
bubbles out into the water.
Though robust, reliable and inexpensive, open-circuit systems have
significant drawbacks. For one, the waste of all that perfectly good
oxygen. Inhaled air is about 21 percent oxygen; when you exhale, the
oxygen level is still about 15 to 16 percent. In addition, those noisy
bubbles can scare fish. (They also make military divers conspicuous
when they'd rather not be noticed.)
Rebreathers, in contrast, employ a closed or semiclosed circuit;
instead of releasing exhaled air into the water, the system forces it
through a chemical scrubber that removes the carbon dioxide. The
scrubbed air is then supplemented with oxygen from a small tank,
bringing it up to the 21 percent concentration that is easily
breathable. Because gas gets compressed as a diver descends, diluent
(often ordinary air or trimix, a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen and
helium) from another tank maintains the gas volume in the rebreather
circuit.
While the concept isn't entirely new — primitive rebreathers have
been around for more than a century — modern technology has made the
system much safer and more capable. (Nevertheless, the label on the
unit I used read, "DANGER: This device is capable of killing you
without warning!") The development of sensors that provide reliable and
accurate measures of oxygen was a major breakthrough. Though
rebreathers are a long way from becoming as widely used as open-circuit
scuba gear, they have gone from being the exclusive equipment of
military and scientific divers to a staple of sophisticated, committed
recreational divers.
Wanting to see for myself how the technology has progressed, I
contacted Divetech on Grand Cayman Island and asked to be taken on a
familiarization dive using the KISS Sport rebreather system.
Several divers told me that most people who go from open-circuit
scuba systems to rebreathers find it to be a shock — and the more
skilled the diver, the harder the transition. This was certainly true
for me. I felt very awkward at first, as many techniques used by
experienced open-circuit divers — such as controlling buoyancy by
breathing deeper or shallower, depending on whether you want to go up
or down — didn't work with a rebreather. I did get better, though, as
the dive progressed.
Frequent diving with a rebreather demands a considerable investment
in time and energy — one that I'm not sure I'm ready for, at least
right now. Among other things, rebreathers require more maintenance
than regular scuba gear because the technology is more complex. The
KISS system is a respectable unit that's been out for a couple of
years. It works fine, but looks to me like it was put together as a
shop project. The Inspiration system, used by Nat Robb, my instructor
at Divetech, is much more sophisticated. It is fully computerized, and
its innards look more like a fighter jet's than a vacuum cleaner's. It
costs $10,000 (compared to $5200 for KISS). But over the coming years,
the growing popularity of rebreather diving will no doubt result in
falling prices, improved capabilities and, most important, better
safety.
(Illustration: Agustin Chung)
My experience with the rebreather got me thinking about the many
technological improvements that have made scuba diving safer and more
accessible than in the Sea Hunt era. Because of better buoyancy-
control devices, regulators, spare-air devices and, especially, dive
computers that track nitrogen uptake and bottom time to help divers
avoid the bends, more divers are taking up the sport than ever before.
Some people assume that's a bad thing. All those new people, they
figure, will ruin it for everyone. But I'm not so sure. Yes, some sites
are overdived, but the big picture is probably more positive. In his
recent book, Sprawl, historian Robert Bruegmann notes that interest in
preserving the environment took off at about the same time that people
began flooding into the suburbs — and getting a little closer to
nature.
And ocean explorer Jean-Michel Cousteau, in his foreword to Cathy
Church's book, My Underwater Photo Journey, wrote that if more people
were exposed to the beauty and complexity of the undersea world, they'd
be much less likely to pollute and destroy it. People who have seen a
coral reef up close tend to care more about reefs than people who
haven't.
The instinct of many people who spend time in nature is to wall it
off from the great unwashed masses. But I wonder if we would be better
off encouraging people to appreciate it. Underwater, at least, advances
in technology are doing just that.