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!

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!

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!