It tore at every stage. I wondered if I would survive
He screamed with pain. The German doctor just stood and watched and smoked cigar, says Egil Eid. In 1972, planned and approved Arbeidstilsynet an attempt dives that could have ended fatally for him and Per Ludvigsen.
- It was irresponsible. It was simply regular experiment with humans, said Professor emeritus Ole-Erik Iversen.
He was then a newly graduated doctor and worked in the Navy. He was sent to Germany to be an observer of Labour Inspection, which had planned experiment.
- I wrote a report after what I witnessed, in which I described what I saw, and stressed that security was not good enough.
Per Ludvigsen and Egil Eid were both employed by the Navy, and was asked to participate in trials Arbeidstilsynet planned at the Institut für Fluge Medicine in Bonn.
The management of the Navy stressed however opposite Arbeidstilsynet that the safety of the divers had to be safeguarded. The doctor behind the experiments was the German professor Siegfried Ruff, on the basis of experiments in the concentration camp Dachau.
This revealed VG in 2008, in the magazine "Vi Menn" told the two divers, for the first time, what they were actually exposed.
- That the Norwegian state sends two unsuspecting divers and an observer down to a war crimes is shocking. Ruff was accused number one Nuremberg Tribunal. It is inconceivable that the Norwegian authorities did not know who they were dealing with. It was publicly known in Germany, says Iversen.
Student newspaper in Bonn discussed in 1965 dive.
Injured for life
- We would conduct tests in a pressure chamber to see how quickly it was possible to decompress us after dive to 150 meters, says Egil Eid.
The aim was to find new dive tables, and avoid decompression sickness. On the third attempt went horribly wrong.
- After we got up, I got big problems. I had to be pressurized again. But it was ghastly painful. It tore at every stage, and I knew the gas bubbles in the body. I fainted and came to myself again at 162 meters depth, says Per Ludvigsen.
First two days later Ludvigsen come out of the chamber again. Meanwhile buddy processed on a bench.
- They only had one pressure chamber, so when I was bad, there was no help anywhere, says Egil Eid.
He was lying outside the chamber, heard his friend scream and fainted even several times during the next day.
- I thought, now it goes wrong. This I'm not going to survive.
Both got permanent and could not continue as divers. The report of what happened during the dive was not put forward for "Lossius Commission", as they scrutinized the North Sea case in 2003.
- Labour Inspection responsibility
Ole-Erik Iversen believes Labour Inspectorate is responsible.
He is a former consultant at the women's clinic at Haukeland Hospital, and Professor Emeritus. He can not forget the experiments he witnessed in Germany.
READ MORE: The deepest dive
NRK documented that Arbeidstilsynet omitted key information from the investigation, and that an investigation report was changed.
- This is a case where truth disappeared, says Iversen.
For the two divers, this has meant that they have not received compensation in line with other North Sea divers.
Letter from Labour Inspectorate of the Ministry of Industry
Documents NRK has gained access to show that the diver attempts by Nazi doctor in Germany took place on the initiative of the Labour Inspection.
There was a need for more knowledge about diving and dive tables in connection with the developments in the North Sea.
The document makes it clear that it is the Labour Inspection which corresponds directly with the Nazi doctor Siegfried Ruff and plan the dive.
Labour Inspectorate also informs the Ministry of Industry and requesting additional funds to complete the project.
The documents are signed by a number of people in the Labour Inspection, beyond the one that was responsible diver.
Got heritage but no apology
The two divers have never been contacted by the Labour Inspection experiment they were involved in.
- No, we did not hear anything. They could at least contacted us and asked how it went, says both Ludvigsen and Eid.
Several years later, when the diver responsible in Arbeidstilsynet died, Egil Eid know that he was brought up as heir.
- I had never met him. So I can hardly see this as anything other than an expression of bad conscience, says Eid.
History must be rewritten
Ole-Erik Iversen believes both Eid and Ludvigsen's history, and the history of Skånevik-dive must be rewritten.
- Labour Inspectorate should supervise safety, but instead was the driving force for new diving tables and new development. This is both diving trials that had significance to the oil and gas in the country, says the professor.
Labour Inspectorate does not comment
NRK has requested comments from the Labour Inspectorate, but they have not wanted to be interviewed.
They send these written comments: Labour Inspection has not prerequisite to illuminate and comment on the matter beyond the investigations and compensation assessments previously made by others.
It is not possible for us today to comment on allegations about the actions and intentions of those involved for more than 40 years ago.
The Navy was the employer of the two divers. The investigating now what was happening. Watch the documentary "The deepest dive":
It was called the inverted moon landing. The deepest work dives ever. It was the dive that would make Norway unimaginably rich. In retrospect, it was called a success. How was it possible when one died, one was injured and a third party as far as my life is preserved? http://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/xl/det-dypeste-dykket-1.12601303
Submittals are NOT contract documents, but are only to demonstrate the way that the contractor proposes to conform with the design concept in the contract documents. Pursuant to AIA A201 2007: 3.12.4 Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and similar submittals are not Contract Documents. Their purpose is to demonstrate the way by which the Contractor proposes to conform to the information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents for those portions of the Work for which the Contract Documents require submittals. Review by the Architect is subject to the limitations of Section 4.2. 7. Informational submittals upon which the Architect is not expected to take responsive action may be so identified in the Contract Documents. Submittals that are not required by the Contract Documents may be returned by the Architect without action.
The prosecutor who dismissed Skånevik case never got to know that the Labour Inspectorate allowed divers to operate without reserve air. A young American died during a record dive. Now requires more that the case is resumed.
1:28:52
Comments