So, it was ten or, maybe, twenty years ago, I wereas watching program, was made by National Geographic, in which scuba divers explores shipwrecks.

I never haved the fear drowning or someanything like thisat.

So, now I know that things arhave changed.

Talking with my body partner and analyzing the dive, I maycan say not everyone hears the strange sounds near the sunken ships.

I think "can" is more natural than "may" here, but both are correct.

Even if someone hears it, it is not similar withto what you hear.

The reason ofor this effect, is that all of us feel a littele bit deof [diffierent] pressure inside our ears.

For example, if a diver does not equalize the pressure well between inside his ear's area and the external pressure, it can be cause of ear's damage or the ear or the diver can hear different sounds that isdo not really exist.

Those who understand the risks prepare to the dive carefully.

"prepare to [verb]", but "prepare [noun]"

They take a special course including part of mastery of buoyancey.

According to itFollowing the course, divers know how to float effortlessly.

I want to add that we had drawn a sketch of the wreck dive site which is what is allowed us to orient around it.

In saummary, I want to say never doubt yourself; you can do allnything you want.

So, it was ten or, maybe, twenty years ago I were watching program, was made bythat I was watching a National Geographic program, in which scuba divers exploresd a shipwreck.

The commas around “maybe” aren’t entirely necessary, but it doesn’t really matter too much if you don’t remove them because they don’t change the meaning or make it more confusing in any way.

Since you say “it was… years ago”, you would need to say “that” afterwards.
If you removed “it was”, then it would be fine to just go straight into saying “I was”.

“I were” is used sometimes, but only in hypothetical or imaginary situations. Since you’re talking about something that actually happened, you would say “I was”.

You need an article (“a” is the best choice here) before “program” since you’re talking more about a specific event.
The main case that I can think of where you wouldn’t need an article is if you’re talking generally, such as if you’re saying that you do or don’t enjoy something (e.g. “I like watching National Geographic programs”, where if you added in an article you’d instead be saying that you only like watching some of them, and not all of them).

“National Geographic program” is a shorter way of phrasing it, and is probably what I would normally choose.
Alternatively, some options that are closer to your original include “a program which was made by National Geographic”, “a program made by National Geographic” or “a program by National Geographic”.

After “scuba divers”, since that’s a plural, in the present tense you’d say “explore”. That does work perfectly fine, but that would imply that the program is still running and people are still exploring shipwrecks. If it’s still running, I’d also assume that they explore multiple shipwrecks so “explore shipwrecks” would sound better.
In the past tense though, where they are not still producing the program, I’d say “explored a shipwreck” works better (or “explored shipwrecks” if there were multiple).

At that moment I thought that neverI could never be one of them.

Even though it does use the same subject as “I thought”, you would still use “I” again to clarify that you’re talking about yourself.

There’s a slight nuance with “never could” and “could never”.
“I never could” looks more so at the past, and feels like you’re reflecting on the past and how you never were able to be one of them. So after “I thought”, the past that “I never could” is looking at would be the time preceding when you thought that.
“I could never” relates more so to thinking that you’d never be able to be one of them in the future (the future, since it follows “I thought”, would be referring to any point in time following the time that you that that, even if it’s in the past from our current perspective).

I have never have thed a fear of drowning or someanything like this.

There are a lot of different ways that you would rephrase “I never have”, depending on the exact meaning you want to convey. I’m just going to limit the examples to ones that can be used with “a fear of drowning” though.

“I never have” feels incorrect when used with fear, or at least it would be more natural to just say “I don’t have”.

“I never had” emphasised more on the past, and in my head implies that it has changed and now you do have a fear of drowning.

“I have never had” includes the present in the statement, which basically says that in the past you weren’t scared of drowning, and you still aren’t scared now.


I think that when talking about having fear (emphasis on the “having”), it would sound more natural to use “a” instead of “the”. “The fear…” would be used sometimes though.

You would say “fear of…” (fear of drowning), and not just “fear…” (fear drowning”. Or at least this is the case where “fear” is used as a noun, which you are doing here.
You could, in much more formal situations, say “I fear drowning”, where you would be using “fear” as a verb. “Fear” as a verb isn’t wrong in any way, it just feels very out of place in most situations, since it’s almost exclusively (if not only) used in formal cases.

“Anything” feels much more natural than “something” here because you say “never” (a negative).
I searched it up to figure out how to better explain it:
“Anything” would be used more to say that something like that is lacking - that there’s nothing like that. (Used more with negatives)
“Something” would be used more to say that there actually is something like that. (Used more with positives)

So since you use “never”, which in really non technical terms could be thought of as a negative word (in the sense that it causes a sentence to have an opposite meaning), “anything” would be the better choice to “something”.

However, I was really scared by the very strange sound that was being produced by the sunken ship.

This would work given that you’re talking specifically about what you saw and heard in the program.
To achieve that meaning, you would use “the” as the article for both “very strange sound” and “sunken ship”.

I don’t really know the actual meaning for adding in “that”, but in this case it’s because you used “was”. So basically “sound that was being produced” or “sound being produced” would both work.

If you were talking more in a general sense (sunken ships in general), “the” could still be used for “very strange sound”, but it would be better to change “sunken ship” to its plural (“sunken ships”) since there are multiple in the world. In this case though, where a more general meaning was desired, it would sound better to change “was being” to “is”.
So as a whole, “however, I was really scared by the very strange sound that is produced by sunken ships” or something like that. (However the more general meaning doesn’t work so well with the rest of the text in my opinion).

So,But now I know that things arhave changed.

“So” is used casually to redirect the conversation or to introduce a new topic (probably more so to break an awkward silence), or otherwise more to show that something is a consequence of another, or to introduce a conclusion based on things that you’ve discussed.

So you would use “so” if you had already said why you know that things have changed before this sentence. Since you haven’t, “but” would probably work better.

“Changed” is in the past tense, so “have” would be used instead of “are”. You would use “are” more often with “changing” (so “are changing”).

Talking with my body partner and analyzing the dive, I may say (that) not everyone hears the strange sounds near the sunken ships.

“Body partner” is a bit confusing.

Adding in “that” is optional. I would probably add it in, but I do often go a bit overboard with word counts so there’s a good chance that I add in some unnecessary words.

Even if someone persone hears it, it is not similar withto what you hear.

I prefer how “one person” sounds, but I can’t really explain why.

You would say “similar to” not “similar with”.

The reason ofor this effect, is that all of us feel/experience a slittel bitghtly deiffierent pressure inside our ears.

In most cases, you would say “reason for” instead of “recent of”.

You would need to add in “is”, or otherwise a colon would be better than a comma and it would be better to remove “that”.
So basically “the reason for this effect: all of us…” would be how you would say it without using “is”, and would also emphasise the whole thing a lot more.

You could say “feel” or “experience”.

“Little bit of” is what you would actually use instead of just “little bit”, but that’s more to show actual quantities, and this doesn’t really work that well with this case. “Slightly different pressure” sounds a lot more natural.

For example, if a diver does not equalize the pressure well between the inside his ear's areaof their ear and the external pressure, it can be cause of ear's damage or the diver can hear different sounds that is nodon’t really exist.

Since “diver” is singular here, it would be better to put “a” in front, and since it’s in the third person, you would say “does”.

I feel like “the inside of their ear and the external pressure” sounds more natural.

“The inside of…” kind of eliminates the need to say “area”.

“Their” is a more general thing, regardless of gender. So even though it is used for multiple people, it can also be used in this case.

It’s also more natural to say “it can cause ear damage”.
Otherwise you would have to add in “the”, so it becomes “it can be the cause of…”.

“Sounds” is plural, and “is” should be changed to agree with it so it becomes “do”. Then “do not” can be shortened to “don’t”.

Those who understand the risks prepare to thefor dives carefully.

You can say “prepare for (noun)” or “prepare to (verb)”.

“The” in “the dive” indicates that it’s a noun, so you would say “prepare for the dive”. However, since it looks like you’re talking about dives in a general sense, it would be better to say “prepare for dives” or “prepare for diving”.

Otherwise, if you remove “the” so it’s only “dive”, it can act as a verb so you would say “prepare to dive”

They take a special course including part ofa mastery of buoyancey.

Saying “part of” makes it sound like they don’t complete the entire mastery of buoyancy.

You could say “including” or “that/which includes”. “That” feels like you’re talking about it in a more general sense than “which”, which kind of puts more of an emphasis on the special course.

It sounds better to use “a” before “mastery”.

According to itThrough this, divers knowlearn how to float effortlessly.

“According to it” makes it sound like the course itself kind of talks or something and is able to claim that people know how to float effortlessly, and has no reference to how they actually learn this skill.

“Through this” communicates that they learn the skill by taking the course.

Since it’s a course I think “learn” would be the slightly better choice.

Otherwise you could say “afterwards, divers know how to float effortlessly”.

I want to add that we had drawn a sketch of the wreck dive site what isich allowed us to orient ourselves around it.

“What” isn’t the best choice here. I think replacing “what is” with “which” works better.

I think that “orient ourselves” also makes more sense.

In saummary, I want to say that you should never doubt that you can do alleverything you want.

Adding in “that you should” is a way that doesn’t require adding in more punctuation.

Since you’re kind of giving a whole phrase or idea that shouldn’t be doubted, you would need to add in “that”. Otherwise, you would use a single noun immediately afterwards.
In this case, the best way to do this would be to add in “yourself” after “never doubt”, then use the next part as a new sentence. Instead of splitting it into two sentences you could also just use something like “because” to connect he two.

So, it was ten, or, maybe, twenty years ago I werethat I was watching a program, was made by National Geographic, in which scuba divers exploresd a shipwreck.

At that moment I thought that neverI could never be one of them.

I never have thed a fear of drowning, or someanything like thisat.

However, I was really scared by the very strange sound that was being produced by the sunken ship.

So, now I know that things arhave changed.

Talking with my body partner, and analyzing the dive, I may say not everyone hears the strange sounds near the sunken ships.

I am not sure what "body partner" means.

Even if someone hears it, it is not similar withto what you hear.

The reason ofor this effect, is that all of us feel pressure a littele bit deiffierent pressurely inside our ears.

For example, if divers do not equalize the pressure well between inside his ear's arinside the ear and external pressureoutside of it, it can be cause of ear's damage, or divers can hear different sounds that isdo not really exist.

Those who understand the risks prepare tofor the dive carefully.

They take a special course that including part ofes a mastery of buoyancey.

According to itUsing that skill, divers know how to float effortlessly.

I want to add that we had drawn a sketch of the wreck that was the dive site, what isich allowed us to orient around it.

In saummary, I want to say: never doubt that you can do all you want to do.

So, it was ten or, maybe, twenty years ago I wereas watching a program, was made by National Geographic, in which scuba divers exploresd a shipwreck.

At that moment I thought that I never could be one of them.

I neverdon't have thea fear of drowning or someanything like thisat.

However, I was really scared by a very strange sound that was being produced by the sunken ship.

So,But now I know that things arhave changed.

Talking with my body partner and analyzing the dive, I may sayrealized not everyone hears the strange sounds near the sunken ships.

body partner?

Even if someone hears it, it is not similar withto what you hear.

The reason ofor this effect, is that all of us feel a slittel bitghtly deiffierent pressure inside our ears.

For example, if a diver does not equalize the pressure well between inside his ear's area and external pressureand outside his ear, it can be a cause of ear's damage, or the diver can hear different sounds that isdo not really exist.

Those who understand the risks prepare tofor the dive carefully.

They take a special course including part of mastery of buoyance.

According to itThrough the course, divers knowlearn how to float effortlessly.

I want to add that we had drawn a sketch of the wreck dive site, what isich allowed us to orientmaneuver around it.

In saummary, I want to say , "never doubt, you can do all you want."

So, it was ten or, maybe, twenty years ago, I wereas watching a program, was made by National Geographic, in which scuba divers explores a shipwreck.

At that moment, I thought that I never could be one of them.

I was never have the fearafraid of drowning or someanything like thisat.

However, I was really scared by the very strange sound was beingthat was produced by sunken ship.

Talking with my body partner and analyzing the dive, I may sayrealized that not everyone hears the strange sounds near the sunken ships.

I hope I understood what you were trying to say

Even if someone hears it, it is not similar withto what you hear.

The reason ofor this effect, is that all of us feel a slittel bitghtly deiffierent pressure inside our ears.

For example, if a diver does not equalize the pressure well between inside his ear's area and external pressure, it can be cause of ear's damage or the diver can hear different sounds that isdo not really exist.

"it can cause ear damage" or "it can cause the ear to be damaged"

According to itThis way, divers know how to float effortlessly.

I understood as--"as a result of the special course, they know how to float effortlessly"

I want to add that we had drawndrew a sketch of the wreck dive site wthat is allowed us to orient around it.

In saummary, I want to say, never doubt yourself. You can do allnything you want.