Cape Cod - Shark Attack Mitigation Alternatives!

And I cite - emphasis is mine.

Personal Shark Deterrents

A growing number of personal shark deterrent devices are commercially available. 
Some are intended to be worn while others are to be attached to surfboards or similar equipment . The deterrents fall into two main categories: electromagnetic (EM) devices and camouflage. 
The EM devices include active (battery powered) and passive (permanent magnet) types that are either worn or are attached to surfboards. Camouflaging patterns are either wearable (wet suits) or applied to surfboards (decals, paint).

EM shark deterrent devices are all based on the same general principal, but they are not equally effective. “Sort of works” versus “doesn’t work at all” are both real possibilities and independent evaluations and comparisons of EM devices that are superficially similar are important...

The evidence for the efficacy of camouflage, whether worn or applied to a surfboard, is limited and inconclusive. We note that claims for camouflage tend towards statements that the swimmer or surfer is less likely to be noticed by a curious shark that just happens to be swimming in the area. This as opposed to statements that the camouflage will prevent the attack of a shark that is actively hunting for a meal.

The existing research suggests that some of these devices may be somewhat effective some of the time....We would always keep in mind that none of these devices provide anywhere near 100% protection under any realistic circumstances.
Finally, from a large shark already on an attack trajectory, arguably none of these devices will provide any meaningful protection at all. 

Indeed.

In brief and with the exception of the Shark Shield some of the time, those Shark repellent gizmos and those ludicrous wetsuits etc are all bullshit, cold-hearted scams and profiteering by unscrupulous con artists - re-read this and this!

And did I just hear, Clever Buoy?

Of the shark detections reported by CB, only ~40% appeared to actually be sharks, while ~60% were other objects, most commonly the baited video stations, which were stationary, or schools of smaller fish, which were moving. Of particular note, when, according to the video record, sharks were present, CB accurately detected them only ~40% of the time and failed to detect them ~60% of the time.... 
Additionally, lifeguard divers swimming in the CB array to clean biofouling off the sonar transducers were continuously tracked and continuously identified throughout the dive as large sharks. Such misidentification might apply to swimmers or seals, clearing the water unnecessarily....

Unfortunately, the documented performance does not remotely approach the promise of the system.
This creates a danger that swimmers and surfers in the vicinity of a system will relax their vigilance and fail to consistently follow safe practices, assuming that this system is protecting them to a far greater extent than it does. It should also be recognized that, even if the system does provide an accurate warning, the shark is already very close to the beach...

Yeah totally not surprised!

And the list goes on and on and on - with the fake kelp being one of the better, albeit prohibitively expensive notable exceptions!
Maybe, sometimes, somewhere! :)

But look for yourselves.

This compendium by Woods Hole is the latest and greatest synopsis of possible Shark Attack mitigation measures, notabene with special emphasis on trying to minimize bites by the resurgent GWS' population on the US east Coast in general and Cape Cod in particular. I must say that I'm seriously impressed - with some notable omissions: where are the wooden spoon and the red broom?

Synopses e.g. here and here, great app here.

Anyway.

As Tashi Blue astutely observes, considering that there are next to no attacks there, it all seems much ado about very little indeed - especially when compared to say, Hawaii, where people get munched  orders of magnitude more frequently but where nobody seems to be unduly hyperventilating much.
That said, what please is  Swimming with sharks in Oʻahu, Haleʻiwa, approx 3 miles from shore?!?

Anyway, it was quite different in the past.

But of course the new attitude makes total sense.
Assuming one observes a modicum of common-sense precautions (and here - plus, don't jump on top of a hunting GWS! :) ), chances of becoming the victim of a Shark attack are really extremely small - and, if more water users get trained and carry some first aid gear, one's chances of survival are very high indeed. In fact, among the known causes of human mortality, I would not be able mention a single one that kills LESS people than Shark attacks!

But on the other side, life in general is certainly most deadly, and people entering the water must be willing to assume a modicum of risk, to wit.

No single alternative or suite of alternatives that can 100% guarantee the safety of individuals who choose to enter the water.

• Since no mitigation alternative can provide 100% safety, reducing the chances of unprovoked attacks on humans requires a strong commitment to education and outreach, which can result in the adoption of behaviors that may reduce the risk of an unprovoked shark-human interaction.


• If water activities are avoided, the risk of attack is effectively eliminated.


• If water activities are not avoided and best management practices and Shark Smart Behaviors are widely adopted, the risk of attack may be reduced, but not eliminated.


• All individuals choosing to engage in water activities should think carefully about the level of risk associated with their preferred activity, and be comfortable with that level of risk before choosing to enter the water.


• The decision to enter the water and assume the risk of shark-human interaction is made at the sole discretion of the individual. 

In diesem Sinne.

Enjoy the Ocean - responsibly!

PS - nice - and so true, too!
PPS - good reading!
  

Sharkbanz - yes it's a total Scam!

Source.

Bingo.

Remember this post?

What followed were a Shark bite and then a devastating impromptu test - and yet the Garrisons and even more problematically, Craig O'Connell of questionable Shark Week fame have continued to defend the indefensible and conned the public (scroll down) into believing that the gizmos had been tested scientifically and proven to be effective, which they clearly never had.

But now those independent tests have been performed.
Bravo to Charlie, and big kudos to Andrew who continues to make GSD proud.

This is a great illustration of the test setup.

And this is the reaction of GWS' to the Shark Shield ( Ocean Guardian ) Freedom+ Surf which is actually the only repellent that worked, albeit only a measly 60% of the time which IMO just ain't quite good enough - or is it?

And the Banz?
And I cite,

Neither the SharkBanz bracelet nor leash affected the behaviour of white sharks or reduced the percentage of baits taken.

These products rely on permanent magnets (Grade C8 barium ferrite), which have previously been used to overwhelm the electromagnetic sense of sharks .....

However, the distance from which sharks reacted to magnets in those studies was small, typically less than 0.5 m  and the effectiveness of the magnets decreased with increasing shark motivation.

Barium-ferrite permanent magnets generate a flux that decreases at the inverse cube in relation to the distance from the magnet, from near 1000 G at the source to an amount comparable to the Earth’s magnetic field (0.25 – 0.65 G) at distances of 0.30 – 0.50 m, showing how rapidly the magnetic field decreases. Sharks would therefore need to be at less than 0.30 m for such magnets to act as real deterrents.

This suggests that magnets are unlikely to be effective at deterring sharks because they will only protect close to the magnet, limiting their applicability as personal deterrents...

Exactly what I said back then!

Incidentally, same same for the ludicrous Chillax wax!

Those of you who remember the episode of Mythbusters where Lemon Sharks were completely unfazed after ingesting balloons filled with mashed habaneros may remember that lacking that necessity, Sharks have simply not developed receptors for capsicain - so a concoction of eucalyptus, chilli, cloves, cayenne pepper, neem, tea tree oil, citronella, coconut, and beeswax was always gonna be a stretch. And it sure was.

Disappointed reaction here - and no, it just doesn't bloody work and sure ain't commonsense, either!

You can read the paper here, and here is a great synopsis by Corey.

Once again (re-read it!), this is not principally about the perpetrators that can (and should!) be taken to court. It's about the public as those things may actually lead to MORE Shark strikes because as Corey states

if a particular type of commercially available shark deterrent happens to be less effective (or completely ineffective) as advertised, it can give users a false sense of security, potentially encouraging some to put themselves at greater risk than is necessary. For example, some surfers and spearfishers probably ignore other mitigation measures, such as beach closures, because they ‘feel safe’ when wearing these products.

Exactly - so be careful people!

If it looks too good to be true, it usually is - so forget those gizmos and best use your common sense, and you should just be fine.

In diesem Sinne.
Enjoy the ocean - safely and responsibly!

Shark Eyes?

Butterfly eye spots: likely not mimicry but rather, aimed at startling and distracting - source.

Watch.

I'm sure this may surprise you - but I kinda like this?

There's a website with some info, some of which quite good - but some probably not so much, as in the whole treatment of (Batesian?) mimicry in general and eye spots in particular, as the scientific  interpretation  of the latter is at best inconclusive. 

But of course we all know that those predatory Sharks are highly opportunistic, and that when they try to sneak up on us, they will generally veer away once we look at them - so the analogy to those Tiger deterrent masks from the Sundarbans may actually be quite fitting!

Any caveats? Most certainly!

• First and foremost, I wonder whether the likely target species, i.e. the archetypal GWS attacking a surfboard would even properly discern those eyes = assuming that it would be attacking from below and thus aim for a silhouette, the underside of the surfboard with those eyes would likely be too dark? Any way of having those eyes glow?


• Secondly, like in all those cases, caveat habituation whereby even those Bangladeshi Tigers did apparently stop being fooled after a while?


• And lastly (but this is by far not exhaustive!), here's to those surfers refraining from feeling bite-proof and negating the benefits of the deterrent by engaging in riskier behavior!

Plus, were it me, I would a) not buy a decal but paint my own eyes onto my board instead, and b) they would be much bigger as I would position them lengthwise!

But, I generally like it!

It is non-invasive, cheap and certainly plausible, as are those mask straps - the latter certainly not for Shark nerds like us, but maybe for other water users like abalone divers etc. 

So godspeed and all.

I obviously doubt that there will ever be (and here!) any conclusive science - but it is surely worth a try!

Shark Repellent from Australia!

Source.

Epic!

And contrary to all that other shit, it's tried and tested and really works!

Story here - enjoy!

Shark Proof?

And talking of pied pipers.

My pal Jaap alerts me to this article.

I must say, I rather like it - the gist being that the Shark Shield is OK (albeit with caveats) whereas the rest is essentially crap.

Bingo.

And yes,

In reality, the best technology we have is probably first aid. Modern skills and medicine mean that the chances of shark attack survival are around 80%.

Absolutely!

Get a couple of these as having used quite a few, I can attest that they really work - and then, don't do anything stupid and enjoy the ocean!

Sharkbanz Test!

Repellent my ass!

And if that bite wasn't revealing enough.

Just saw this.

Doesn't come much clearer than that does it.

Shame on those con artists at Sharkbanz - and again, shame on Shark Defense that continues to promote the indefensible.
Pun intended!

 

Sharkbanz - q.e.d!

And I cite, nor would a band worn on one's wrist prevent a bite to the other hand

Bingo.

Check this out - glad the kid is OK.

And then, stop being suckers - the bloody Sharkbanz and those other bracelets, and those wetsuits etc are all scams! What does work, albeit with caveats, is the Shark Shield!

So be careful folks - and use your common sense!
 

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!

Shark Stopper stopped?

Now THAT's what I call a REPELLENT!

Maybe!

The funding drive has been cancelled.

Provided that the backers get their money refunded, that's good news - this was nothing but a useless noise maker that would have lulled its wearers into a false sense of security and quite possibly triggered more risky behavior.

And the other gizmos?

Hopefully, they too will go the way of the AquaShield and all those other previous scams and failures before somebody gets hurt.

We shall see shall we not!

And what about the Shark Shield?

Wowza. All sharks are dangerous and unpredictable. Source.

And why am I not surprised.

A friend just sent me this.

I hadn't seen it before, but I knew that the gizmo was likely to be pretty useless after talking to the Taylors many years ago. They had tested the then SharkPOD and found the prototype to be rather effective, at least with some species - but the voltage in the final product was then substantially reduced, likely for liability reasons, and the Taylors told me that they were convinced that the device would not anymore deter a motivated Shark.

And here we now have the scientific confirmation - the efficacy is dependent on context, motivation and even differs from individual Shark to individual Shark.

In brief, the Shark Shield is not 100% effective, see at top.

And if so... :)

Sharkbanz?

Batspray - will even stop a Sharknado! Source.

Yay!

We got ourselves a new Shark repellent!

After the wetsuit scam, the rash guard and not one but a second ludicrous noise maker where a bunch of suckers have already pledged 20 grand, here comes the latest and of course GREATEST gizmo of them all!

Watch.

Wow - absolute genius!

After a whopping 3 years of research, no less, guaranteed to keep you safe - and MUCH MUCH more innovative and WAY better than the surfing leash, the Shark Shocker and these unfashionable gizmos!

And this?

Utter balderdash - those banz are, obviously, 100% safe!

Or maybe not?

Next: portable bubble curtains and Rent-a-Dolphin bodyguards!

New Shark Repellent Scams!

Source.

Have you seen this?

Right.

After a decade of scientific research (see any mention of the specific research undertaken by NoBite Technologies?), no less, and a swim in California, surrounded by hundreds of sea lions engaged in a feeding frenzy, in an area known to be frequented by great white, tiger (!!!), and mako sharks, those guys are so confident in the technology that they are giving a $1,000,000 No Bite Guarantee!

Wow!

But they don't have the 175,000 to finish producing the gizmo?

But the video is great!
A pal writes.

• Sound bytes grabbed from quasi shark alliance bumper stickers - check 
• Scared looking surfers - check 
• Technology derived from sketchy research - check 
• Footage of a bunch of reefies looking bored - check 
• Let's do this shi... Now, strap it on and be vewy vewy quiet. Avoid splashing and sudden movements ... 
• Disclaimer: not a guaranteed or proven shark deterrent. Do not immerse for longer than a few seconds. May not work on sharks trying to hug you. Practice aloha and dolphin noises.

And this shit?
Yes they want your money, too - and plenty of it! But fear not, this must obviously be totally legit because they got none other than Collier and Ritter (!!!) as consultants - need I say more!  :)
Through extensive testing, the signal for the SharkStopper' “Personal Shark Repellent” (PSR) has been proven to repel sharks up to 60 feet away, with a minimum protection of approximately 20 feet. 
Really? Show me the fucking data!

I say, these are once again nothing but brazen scams.

To be convinced otherwise, I would have to be presented with evidence = as in a peer-reviewed paper about the testing of, as a bare minimum, a) the success of the gizmo emitting specific Orca sounds in repelling a variety of Sharks, vs a control b) habituation effects c) the effects of hundreds of aquatic recreationists beeping away simultaneously in the ocean. Or failing that - how about producing a suitably verified test protocol!

Yeah I know - never gonna happen!

Incidentally, the bible states.

Crucially, most sounds can elicit withdrawal if they start suddenly and/or rapidly increase in loudness, including medium-frequency pure tones and even low frequency pulsed sounds that would otherwise attract sharks.
...
It is important to note that sharks quickly habituate to both attractive and repulsive sounds (Myrberg et al. 1969; Myrberg et al. 1978), which would mean that for any auditory-based shark repellent to remain effective it would have to be deployed only for short durations rather than being left on permanently. 

And in related news.

Remember Marine Dynamics' zebra decoy?

Check out the pic at the top - there it is, doing what it does best: attracting GWS!

Shark Repellents - the Bible!

Shark repelling Batspray in action!
 

Wow.

Talk about a monumental tour de force!

If you ever want to talk about Shark senses and Shark repellents with any degree of competence, you must get your hands on this simply epic treatise on the topic!

Very impressed!

No I'm not gonna try and write a synopsis.

It's simply too monumental, complex and exhaustive - and when it comes to the finer details, I'm also too stupid!

Just this.

I really had to laugh out loudly when reading the following.

Taking a different approach based on his experiences diving in the western Pacific, marine biologist Walter Starck developed a black-and-white banded wetsuit that was intended to mimic the banded poisonous sea snakes that many sharks appeared to avoid eating (Doak 1974; Nelson 1983).

Whilst T. obesus appeared to be unaffected by the banded wetsuit, it was reported to have a repellent effect on C. amblyrhynchos, C. galapagensis, and silvertip sharks (Carcharhinus albimarginatus Rüppell, 1837). Doubt was cast on the effectiveness of the banded suit based on testing performed in the Marshall Islands in the northern Pacific Ocean, but these negative results might have been because the test sites were not inhabited by sea snakes, and local shark populations may not have had the opportunity to learn to avoid them (Nelson 1983). 

This controversy also serves to highlight the difficulties in assessing repellence when complex multi-sensorial cues are available and the problems inherent in testing shark repellents when sharks must be induced (with food) to interact with them. The repellent effects of some devices may be subtle and provide a useful level of protection against unprovoked bites under normal conditions, but may be significantly reduced when sharks are provoked into feeding, especially when in groups (Gilbert 1962).

Bingo!

Remember this utter nonsense?

Even if we choose to forget the WA Tiger Sharks that target Sea Snakes, and Marine Dynamics' zebra decoy - how many Banded Sea Kraits does a GWS typically encounter in his lifetime?

And the funny disquieting part?

Hart and Collin are the very researchers that are lending scientific credibility to that whole Aussie wetsuit scam where the marketing team has even got the audacity to go and praise themselves on self-congratulatory and eminently deceiving TED talks! 

So what is this. 

Honesty in peer-reviewed articles - but then, aiding and abetting the brazen profiteering?
May this be a case of, gasp, integrity vs money?

Questions questions - but do read that article!

Helen about preventing Shark Strikes!

Source.

Have you seen this?

Shocking!

To be mentioned in the same article as those preposterous (bravo Megalobomb!) Shark repellent wetsuits is the peak of ignominy! But of course we are highly grateful for the plug, and for the equally honorable mention at 20:00ff in her podcast.

Thank you, very much appreciated!

But Helen has of course fallen into the usual trap.

Because with all due respect (!) for the concerned, those Shark strikes are actually totally irrelevant.

They are so incredibly rare, and the variables influencing them, so numerous and complex that any attempts at ever fully understanding, let alone fully preventing them will always fail. With a very few notable exceptions, those poor people that got bitten and sometimes killed did nothing "wrong" besides being in the wrong place at the wrong time - and nothing we will do will ever fully eliminate that infinitesimally small risk.

Obviously there are situations where the risk can be mitigated.

Wherever adequate and possible, ocean pools and Shark exclusion nets work 100%. Some technical solutions appear promising for protecting relatively small areas. Adequate, mostly common sense behavior and risk management can reduce the number of avoidable strikes, as could e.g. seasonal avoidance or even closures of known aggregation sites, etc.

Personal protection devices, not convinced.

Be it e.g. the Shark Shield or those darn wetsuits, they are ultimately untestable and quite possibly nothing more than placebos - but herein lays the danger insofar as the perceived protection may well lead to riskier behavior by their users.

Anyway.

Ultimately, it's all much ado about nothing.

Like Branson remarks, all the noise is actually counterproductive - and many, more savvy tourist destinations have learned that hushing things up may well be the best strategy. 

Because noise or no noise, cull or no cull, stripes or no stripes - people will continue to get bitten by Sharks.

And that's perfectly normal and as such, perfectly OK.

Aquatek - a possible Solution?

Source.

No don't worry, it's not a typo! :)
Watch this.

Pretty impressive ain't it.

I've talked about it to somebody in the know, and he confirms that this is serious research by serious people, and that so far, the results are promising. 

What has not yet been tested is habituation that could play a role with resident Sharks but much less so with transient species like Tigers and GWS. What is also unclear is whether it would deter a highly motivated animal that is already fully committed to an attack - but considering the cautious nature of most, if not all dangerous species which are known to usually first investigate, I am hopeful.

It is now being rigorously field-tested in Reunion Island.

I totally like this article for asking the correct questions that are being honestly and exhaustively addressed by the project team. Should you not speak French, I highly recommend that you peruse Google Translate to get the gist as IMO it's as good as it gets.

WA: hint hint!

So bravo les mecs - can't wait to hear more!

Shark Strikes - Amateur Hour!

Source.

Oh for crying out loud - again!

And I cite.

Victoria - How do you test a shark proof wetsuit? It sounds like it could potentially be a very terrifying test. 

Nathan - Well, we have lots of PhD students who are willing to swim with these suits on (just joking!). 
Really, it is very hard, in actual fact for all shark deterrents to test these things. Limited testing can be done in the lab, but ultimately, you have to take the product out into the wild, try and induce sharks to come up and investigate. Then you have to see how effective it is. We’re at the very early stages of helping the company to test their wetsuit and it would be really nice to validate it and see if the science really works. There's likely to be no downside of the suit, but it would be really nice to know whether it decreases your chances. 

Victoria - Does that really involve putting dummies in different wet suits underwater and inducing sharks to come and investigate and see what happens? 

Nathan - Well obviously, there are ethical problems in putting either a person or even just an entire wetsuit, a mannequin in the water. So, we have to do it in a slightly more controlled way which is to use a piece of the wetsuit material, wrapped around something which doesn’t resemble a human because obviously, we have to be very careful that we don’t want to make any association between humans and food in an area where there are sharks.

Right.

So they want to test those stupid Shark repellent wetsuits on something that does NOT look like a human - and then what? Simply claim that their experiments are applicable to Shark strikes on humans as well?

Wow.

Please re-read this post.

Those various explanations about why strikes by different Sharks occur are at best plausible hypotheses and as Doc eloquently illustrates, they are essentially not testable. Shark strikes on humans can only be rigorously tested by, wait for it...,  having Sharks strike humans, and this against a control group and sufficiently often in order to have an adequate sample size allowing for statistical analysis - and this of course equally applies, mutatis mutandis, to testing those wetsuits!

Nathan is a researcher and knows that.

Or does he? From what I can see, he's essentially an animal physiologist that is now dabbling in Shark behavior - so maybe he would be well advised to refresh his knowledge by corresponding with the Grand Mufti of Sharks?

Because this is just bullshit.

We got plenty of clues as to why different Sharks strike people - but we know nothing with certainty and will have to continue speculating, and no money out of WA coffers is gonna change that anytime soon! That money would be much, much better spent on further perfecting WA's early warning system - and were Nathan not a veritable PROFESSOR, no less, I would have to scream, totally busted!

So there - no screaming!

And anyway, who am I to say! :)

Shark-proof Wetsuits - Questions by Mark Gray!

Source.

And it gets even better!

Mark is this dude.

A renown Shark photographer, he is above all a fellow Shark diving industry professional - and having discovered those Shark repellent wetsuits, he has taken on SAMS and is publicly, and doggedly asking precise questions about their, and I cite, scientifically designed and developed shark repellent wetsuit technology.

Here is the latest exchange.

I c/p it lest as so often, it gets "accidentally" deleted - much like the mentioned "other posting" that has disappeared from SAMS' FB page.

• 

  Mark Gray So you baited up two tiger sharks and they didnt bite the bucket you had your wetsuit wrapped in...........is that the science your using?

  Saturday at 4:52pm · Like
• 

  Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMS Mark, our response to your other post on the site today refers. To clarify, the one minute video sets out one very short extract of a complex testing process, which has been conducted independently by University of Western Australia since January. We welcome you to investigate the science in more detail. The link to which you have responded sets out the science page at the SAMS website, and the FAQ page at http://www.sharkmitigation.com/faq.html may provide more information if you would like to check it out.

• Mark Gray So the research hasnt involved Great White Sharks? Bit irresponsible in Marketing your products and stating that they "Protect" and "hide" without testing on the major species of sharks which has cause the fatalities in Australia in recent years..........?
• 

  Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMS Mark, we are trying to come up with a positive solution, based in science. Independent testing will be an ongoing process, potentially taking many years as we discover how the full range of predatory species respond and progressively refine the visual technology. All ocean users are at risk and discretion and caution is always necessary. We think people know that. We are offering information on what we have found so far scientifically, and an alternative to a black neoprene wetsuit so that ocean users can consider that option and make a choice. We are very clear that we are not offering guarantees. Who could? We invite you to also contribute positively to this page. We have responded to two of your posts already on the same theme. If you have suggestions as to how we could better inform, such as making the position clearer on our website or including more detail in our FAQ's then please let us know. We would welcome your constructive contributions.

  
  
• 

  Mark Gray Well according to your previous posting the testing program has only started in January this year with that testing program only conducted on Tiger sharks with baited drums???. Wouldnt it be wise and responsible to do further testing on different species, namely Great Whites and Bull sharks and using test subjects which honestly represent how your wetsuits present themselves to potential predator shark (ie moving dummy surfer or diver)? With all your press releases and your youtube clip you refer to your products as "Protecting" or "Hiding" from a potential shark attack and base all your supporting evidence on a test which produced very limiting results. You have entered into a full scale marketing event without doing your homework on the so call technology and the testing involved. Now if you can not answer my questions from my own experience with sharks on a regualr basis and with little common knowledge well maybe you have a take a reall good look at your product and how your market it and yourself to the community and consumers. I have asked in a previous posts questions which I and I bet alot of others out there would be asking and the last response I recieved from you was to quote "Mark, we note and respect your perspectives and views" but failed to answer the questions at hand.

• Mark Gray I accept your invitation to contribute positively to this page. What I would like to see is some more transparency to the technology, research, and what you conveyin your marketing of your products to the general public. I would like to see these 10 questions answered: 

   1. When did the in field testing start?
  2. When did your marketing campaign start?
  3. Has there been any testing of your wetsuits on Great White and Bull sharks?
  4. Has there been any other testing procedure which has not included baiting of sharks for attracting? If so what have they been?
  5. Has there been any testing which involved moving a simulated subject wearing you wetsuit through the water (both Diving and Surfing)?
  6. What in field testing program has been used to determine how Cryptic your wetsuits are? And how are the results differ with different visibility, water colour, overhead light ?
  7. Are the Cryptic dive wetsuits loose their ability to “Hide” when a scuba tank, BCD and fins are added?
  8. How does the Cryptic dive wetsuit hide the noise and sight of the bubbles of a scuba diver?
  9. Has the results of the research conducted by the WA University been published and if so which publication?
  10. Do you personally wear your SAMS wetsuit when your diving or surfing?
• 

  Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMS Mark,
  
  Responding as follows:
  
  1. When did the in field testing start? January 2013 – refer previous post.
  2. When did your marketing campaign start? We have not started marketing, we did a media release to let people know what we are doing on Wednesday last week, and opened up the website for review, together with this Facebook page to encourage discussion.
  3. Has there been any testing of your wetsuits on Great White and Bull sharks? Not as yet, we have covered this in your earlier posts and elsewhere in the forum. The next set of tests are proposed to be with Great Whites.
  4. Has there been any other testing procedure which has not included baiting of sharks for attracting? If so what have they been? Not at this stage, the University of Western Australia is precluded from using humans or humanoid forms of any kind and have determined that the existing testing process is satisfactory. Baiting is a necessary practicality to get any engagement with sharks in experimental conditions.
  5. Has there been any testing which involved moving a simulated subject wearing you wetsuit through the water (both Diving and Surfing)? Not as yet.
  6. What in field testing program has been used to determine how Cryptic your wetsuits are? And how are the results differ with different visibility, water colour, overhead light ? We have responded to this question elsewhere on the site yesterday and will include in our FAQ’s at our website.
  7. Are the Cryptic dive wetsuits loose their ability to “Hide” when a scuba tank, BCD and fins are added? We have responded to this in your previous post.
  8. How does the Cryptic dive wetsuit hide the noise and sight of the bubbles of a scuba diver? Obviously it doesn’t.
  9. Has the results of the research conducted by the WA University been published and if so which publication? We have responded to this in the posts above.
  10. Do you personally wear your SAMS wetsuit when your diving or surfing? Yes.
  
  Mark, you have now posted somewhere between 20 and 30 questions to this page in the course of a couple of days, most of them repetitious. Some include personal statements that verge on troll-like behavior. We have respectfully attempted to answer them.
  
  We accept that you are not a fan of what we trying to achieve. Equally there are many people who see logic in the concept and wish to explore it further. Over the last few days, this has included previous shark attack victims making contact with us to see how they can help us in our trials.
  
  We will not be responding to any further posts from you, we hope you understand. If you continue to post in this manner we will, with regret, be obliged to exclude you from the forum.

  
  
• Mark Gray its a shame that after you have invited me for constructive contributions in a previous post your now no longer going to response to my valid questions regarding your product. I am all for trying to achieve a much safer aquatic environment for all to enjoy but I am not a fan on the ways and means in which your company has mislead the general public by telling them that you are scientifically backed, have the technology which has proven itself, hides you from the shark when diving and putting the fear of god into the genral public especially in your youtube clip stating "now the deadliest coast in the world". You have based your whole product line on unfinalised research (Results from 6 months of a 24 months research project) and on a single species of shark which is not the major cause of fatal attacks here in Australia, under different conditions which would not apply for which your products are inteded to be used for. Your Youtube clip and media releases do not included any of the cautionary comments which you have included in you website and your response to my questions above show that your more concerned about getting your product out into the public eye well before any of the scientific results and conclusions have been finalised which to me makes me believe that your company is more concerned with making a quick buck and not addressing the public saferty of water users. Lie to the genral public and you will be bitten on the arse but my concern is more for the safety of potential users of your products who have bought your product based on your mistruths and false advertising.

 Mark has summed up his conclusions as follows.

 Mark Gray From the SAMS face book page they finally answered done of my point blank questions.

1. The field testing is a 24 month on going process which started January 2014. Final results are still 18 months away.
2. The field testing is based on one species of shark (tiger) which was attracted by baits
3. The field testing has not involved Great White sharks or Bull Sharks to date
4. The field testing does not include testing similar sized subject which would represent the shape and movement of a surfer or diver. According to SAMS bait is required to attract sharks to the test subjects.
5. The cryptic dive suits are tested in clear water on a bright day not results given regarding low light, cloudy, or reduced visibility water quality.
6. Cryptic dive suits also require cryptic patterns to be also applied to scuba tanks, BCD, fins to make the wetsuit cryptic.
7. Cryptic dive wetsuits will not hide the user from the sight of their bubbles or the noise of their breathing.
8. SAMS acknowledged that GWS do attack using a breach method on silhouette prey on the surface.
9. SAMS also acknowledged that sharks also use other senses other than vision to hunt prey.

On the basis that field testing was performed by using baited drums on the test subjects of two tiger sharks in clear water in bright days with this testing only in its 6 month out of 24 set aside for a finalized conclusion makes me believe that SAMS is more interested at cashing in on the fears if the general public that spending time for proper ethical research to base their products on.

And to the Oceans Institute, this:

Sounds like your cashing in with the developers and using half truths to sell wetsuits that "Protect" and "Hide" you from all species of sharks. 

This is making your research look like as joke and is tied up with a bunch of snake oiler promising the world but delivering nothing

Bingo.

As I first mocked, and then stated: it's just total BS and shameless profiteering!

Meanwhile, in la-la land...

David has unearthed yet another priceless life saving  video by Eternal Youth Empire aka Israel-Light  - how to retard ageing by a whopping 30%!!!

And this time, it's all, gasp, for free!

Behold!

But beware!

You got to clean up the pineal gland, or it's all for naught!

Yes this is (caps lock) SCIENCE!

Exactly like her striped wetsuit - and incidentally, EXACTLY like the wetsuits by SAMS!

To be continued no doubt!