Sharkbanz - total Scam!

Source.

Remember that ludicrous gizmo?

Then I was merely making fun of it.

But now it is being sold to the public, and this is just simply egregious.

Shark attack survivor Paddy Trumbull, 65, who had her buttocks torn off by a bull shark in Queensland in February 2010 said such a device would have 'absolutely' prevented her attack.

The poor woman got no clue and is obviously being used.

The Shark repellent bible states.

Passive electrical repellents – permanent magnets 

Possible alternatives to EPM repellents are permanent magnets, which are thought to act on the electrosensory system indirectly through electromagnetic induction (O'Connell et al. 2013c), which is the same physical mechanism that is thought to allow sharks to detect the earth’s magnetic field (Kalmijn 1978; Kalmijn 1982). Both ceramic (barium-ferrite) and rare-earth type (neodymium–iron– boron) magnets have been investigated as possible shark repellents (O'Connell et al. 2013c). Ceramic magnets are comparatively cheap and do not degrade in seawater but are relatively weak (typical residual flux density 2,000–5,000 gauss (G), ASTM 2007) compared to rare-earth magnets. 

Therefore, larger ceramic magnets are required to provide a given magnetic field strength. Rare-earth magnets contain EPM elements that degrade in seawater and are more expensive than ceramic magnets but are considerably stronger (typically 8,300– 14,100 G, MMPA n.d.). Given that the earth’s magnetic field (~0.5 G at the surface) is thought to be capable of inducing electrical potentials in ocean currents (50– 500 nV cm-1) that would be readily detected by the shark’s highly sensitive electroreceptors (detection threshold ≤5 nV cm-1; see above), strong permanent magnets are probably capable of inducing large potentials that would be quite unlike anything encountered by sharks in their natural habitat. Sharks are clearly able to detect and respond to strong magnetic fields. Stroud et al. (2005) showed that juvenile N. brevirostris, C. limbatus and G. cirratum could be aroused from a state of tonic immobility by magnetic fields of about 50 G, generated by moving a 10,000 G rare-earth magnet within 10-20 cm of their head. Rigg et al. (2009) demonstrated that free-swimming captive sharks, including S. lewini, grey reef sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) and Australian blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus tilsoni), react to static magnetic fields greater than 25 G at distances of 0.26– 0.58 m by swimming faster or turning away from the source. 

However, studies investigating the ability of magnets to protect baits from depredation have provided conflicting results. 
Captive S. acanthias and wild C. galapagensis displayed behaviors suggestive of irritation or aversion when encountering small rare-earth magnets attached to tethered baits, but the presence of the magnetic field (4–1475 G in the case of C. galapagensis) did not significantly reduce the overall likelihood of depredation compared to controls (Stoner & Kaimmer 2008; Robbins et al. 2011). In contrast, O’Connell et al. (2010) showed that G. cirratum avoided bait protected by a C8-grade barium–ferrite 27 magnet (150x100x50 mm; residual flux density ~950 G) compared to baits paired with a nonmagnetic clay brick control. Smith and O’Connell (2013) found that S. canicula actively avoided baits protected by an N52-grade neodymium rare-earth magnet (20 mm diameter  30 mm height; residual flux density ~14,000 G) compared to baits associated with a lead weight control. Mixed results were also obtained in a dual longline and hook-and-line study (O'Connell et al. 2011b). Shark catch rate on longline gear was not reduced by the presence of strong (14,800 G) neodymium magnets on the hook shaft but was significantly less than controls (bare hooks or hooks with a lead weight on the shaft) when using weaker (3,850 G) C8 barium–ferrite magnets (O'Connell et al. 2011b). 

The repellent effect of the barium-ferrite magnets was also species-specific in that they significantly reduced the catch of C. limbatus, but not of C. plumbeus, N. brevirostris, and other species. 
Using hook-and-line gear with either a magnet or lead weight control attached directly to the bait rather than the hook, strong neodymium magnets did result in a reduction in the catch of M. canis and R. terraenovae, but not S. canis. In a further example that the repellent efficiency of magnets and other deterrent technologies is highly species-specific, field trials with C. carcharias show that tethered baits protected by a strong ceramic magnet were actively avoided and eaten significantly less frequently than baits protected by a non-magnetic clay brick control (O'Connell et al. 2013a). In an attempt to combine both EPM and magnetic repellent technologies, a so-called SMART™ (Selective Magnetic and Repellent-Treated) hook has been developed that generates a voltage of up to 1.3 V when immersed, as well as a magnetic flux of 80 G, and has been shown to reduce the catch rate of S. acanthias on longline fishing gear (O'Connell et al. 2013b). The fact that the relatively weaker magnetic fields generated by barium-ferrite magnets and the SMART hooks are more effective in reducing depredation across these studies, rather than stronger fields generated by neodymium magnets, highlights the need to establish a repellent ‘strength’ that is optimally effective rather than just opting for the maximum that can be generated.

Long story short?

Some Sharks do react, some don't - but when they do, it only happens at very short distances, meaning that a band worn on the wrist or ankle would certainly not have prevented that bite on the buttocks - nor would a band worn on one's wrist prevent a bite to the other hand let alone the torso and legs, etc etc. And in addition to the differences among specie, there are also differences among regions and of course, individuals!

You get the gist - and of course those bastards know it all too well!. 

And this so-called ultimate test?

Watch.

See what's happening - those target areas are tiny!

Here's a test for you the would impress me: build a two meter long chumsicle, insert a band at one end and then throw it to a pack of Sharks!

Any bets as how much of it would be left?

This is abhorrent on so many fronts.

The whole bloody marketing campaign is callously using images like these ones to con the public; the whole thing is nothing but a cold-hearted scam; and it may ultimately suggest to people that they are now bullet proof, meaning that there is a real risk that wearers will start throwing away common-sense precautions and engage in riskier behavior.

I say, shame on the Garrisons.
They're either totally naive or total hypocrites.

And especially, shame on the researchers from Shark Defense who are accomplices in this shameful travesty! But we've seen that one before haven't we - pecunia non olet all over again!

To be continued - alas!