Rethinking the Wetsuit 153
symbolset writes "Apparently Australians have come up with the brilliant idea: if you don't want to be eaten by a shark, it's best to not go swimming in shark-infested waters in a seal costume. 'Scientists from the University of Western Australia, with designers Shark Attack Mitigation Systems (SAMS), have unveiled two new wetsuits that they say could save lives in the water. Based on a breakthrough discovery that sharks are colour-blind, one wetsuit, labelled the "Elude," is designed to camouflage a swimmer or diver in the sea. At the other extreme, the "Diverter" sports bold white and dark-blue stripes, and is intended to mirror nature's warning signs to ward off any potential shark attack.'"
And they want to patent it (Score:5, Interesting)
it looks just like the ship camo the Navy used in WW2, but since it's applied to sharks instead of the Japanese, we deserve a patent!
Re: (Score:2)
it looks just like the ship camo the Navy used in WW2, but since it's applied to sharks instead of the Japanese, we deserve a patent!
Also, both the mixed blues and dazzle pattern were common camouflage patterns in WW2, so it is questionable what can be patented here.
Re: (Score:3)
it looks just like the ship camo the Navy used in WW2, but since it's applied to sharks instead of the Japanese, we deserve a patent!
Also, both the mixed blues and dazzle pattern were common camouflage patterns in WW2, so it is questionable what can be patented here.
The stripey pattern is not to prevent the wearer from being seen (and neither was the WWI version, come to that), it's to fool the shark into thinking it's something that tastes bad and is toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
The naval camouflage patterns were not meant to make a ship invisible. They were meant to reduce the frequency and effectiveness of attacks upon the ships by making them either less tempting targets by the known challenges of tracking and targeting such a ship or to make the attack itself more difficult by creating a situation where the size, shape, direction, and even orientation of the ship difficult to ascertain. Imagine attempting to track a zig-zagging ship where you couldn't even be certain which en
and used in WW1 (Score:2)
And the WW2 dazzle patterns were used by European navies in WW1 before that....
Re: (Score:2)
Drug companies do this, find a new use for a drug to extend a patent.
White and Dark Stripes (Score:2)
Because they work so well for Zebras
Re:White and Dark Stripes (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they do. How many zebras are eaten by sharks every year, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
the "Diverter" sports bold white and dark-blue stripes, and is intended to mirror nature's warning signs
Because only sharks and zebras exist in NATURE am I right?
Re: (Score:3)
None, but that's because I sold them shark-repellent rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
That number has TRIPLED in the last year alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever see a shark eat a zebra?
How a shark catches a zebra - that would be a nice bedtime story!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zebrasaur.
Sharknado! (Score:2)
Ever see a shark eat a zebra?
I can't believe that Sharknado [imdb.com] missed that one! Something for the sequel...
Obligatory Monty Python: (Score:2)
"Duke: Well, our chefs have been experimenting for many years to find a sauce most likely to tempt the crocodile. In the past, we've concentrated on a fish based sauce, but this year, we are reverting to a simple bernaise.
Loothesom: The British team are worried because Olympic regulations allow only the competitor's heads to be sauced. Gavin Morolowe...
Morolowe: Yes, well, I mean, (clears throat) you know, four years ago, everyone knew the Italians were coating the insides of their legs with bolinaise, the
Have they tested it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how did they calculate their failure rate? ie "8 out of 10 divers managed to swim unharmed through a pack of sharks..."
So you take the two that do get attacked, and dress one in the special suit, then send them both out. The suit that comes back is the winner.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
When I was learning to SCUBA dive, we jokingly been told the following procedure when we spot a large shark:
"Stab your buddy and swim away".
Patents (Score:1)
You can see where their mindset is: "We have converted that into patents"...
Lets save lives, but be damn sure that we get paid for every single one.
Why is taxpayer-funded scientific research being patented in the first place? I've heard the argument before: Australian taxpayers paid for it, and deserve to profit from it. But what about American taxpayers, British taxpayers, Canadian taxpayers, etc? Is there no taxpayer-funded research done in any of those countries that could be considered a fair trade
Re: (Score:2)
Not one problem at all. Initiate a global standard for a particular pattern wet suit, both colour and banding. Have governments around the world place dummies of those suits, that smell like people but are electrified and tainted with a painful but not lethal toxin.
Place these baits in target zones to be protected. Sharks swim up 'see the suit' bite into it, get a nasty electric shock and a left with a horrid taste. Sharks soon learn to avoid suits of that colour and pattern.
No patents to be paid and f
Another advantage (Score:5, Interesting)
I can point to another advantage of the striped suit.
As a recreational diver, one occasionally drops a piece of equipment in the water. Bold, striped colors would make it much easier to find something (a fin, say) laying on the bottom.
And to respond to a previous poster, they covered pots of chum (chopped fish) in the proposed experimental suit to see how sharks would react. The video clearly shows sharks attacking a square-dotted suit while veering away from the striped suit.
Seems like an innovation discovered by research and experimental method. I have no problem with them having a patent on this.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard humans taste bad (c.f. animals that take a bite of humans spit us out / don't take another one) and we're probably not very efficient meals compared to fatty seals or muscley fish, so I doubt there is any evolutionary advantage to sharks becoming better human predators.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard that the reason for that is that there isn't enough fat in our body tissues. That implies that if you put an obese person into the water, the shark might even come back for a second bite.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all predators.
Listened to an interview with a "wildlife management officer" in India. He talked about how once a big cat gets a taste of human, nothing else will suffice. The salt content in the blood is what causes the problems. This leads to big cats that prey on humans exclusively - a problem for some. The tell-tale sign is when you have a small village where every month or so, someone goes missing.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe tigers are just fond of curry.
Minimal danger (Score:4, Insightful)
We're here on the West Australian coast, which is now the deadliest coast in the world
Yes, the deadliest coast in the world. 16 attacks (not all fatal) in... a decade. And how many millions swim off the coast every year? Even if you take Australia as a whole, on average the number of people killed by sharks per year is: one [taronga.org.au]
If you want to avoid being attacked by a shark, I'd like to sell you this tiger^h^h^h^h^h shark repelling rock. It's much cheaper than a brand new wetsuit, and statistically equally as effective!
Re: (Score:2)
"I was worried it was as dangerous as a shark or a lion."
"But sharks and lions only kill a few people. Mosquitoes kill 2 million people each year."
"One of us needs our threat level assessment recalibrated, and I don’t know if it’s her or me."
Re: (Score:2)
Yay! Another Freefall fan!
Re: (Score:2)
Mosquitoes don't kill people, mosquito transmitted pathogens kill people.
Re:Minimal danger (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a conditional probability - you need to account for the degree of exposure to see how that overall fatality rate relates to a specific individual. Since shark attacks are exceedingly rare on land, the overall fatality rate is skewed down by the overwhelming number of hours spent on land (which contributes 0 probability of shark attack). This is different from things like mosquitos, where (nearly) everyone is at risk of a mosquito bite all the time. The overall probability of being killed by a shark is
.999*(low risk) + .001*(very high risk) = average low risk. But since their overall fatality rate is slightly below construction workers, that means that 0.1% of the time they're facing a risk of death hundreds of times higher than what construction workers face. That's what they're complaining about.
p = [ (hours on land)*(zero) + (hours on water)*(chance of fatal shark attack) ] / (hours total)
So say the entire population (including everyone who's landlocked) goes to the beach an average of 2 times a year and spends a total of 30 minutes in the water, and suffers 1 shark fatality per year. But the average surfer goes to the beach 3 times a week and spends 2 hours in the water each time. Then the average fatality rate for surfers is equivalent to 312 fatalities per year for the entire population. In other words, if the entire population spent as much time in the water as surfers do, you'd expect to see 312 shark fatalities per year. (The actual rate is lower since a disproportionate number of hours in the water is contributed by these surfers vs. casual beachgoing swimmers.)
Same thing happens for police officers, who are frequently criticized for complaining about the dangerous situations they encounter when their overall fatality rate is lower than for construction workers. But construction workers are exposed to their danger 40 hours a week. As best as I could determine, police officers spend only 10% of their time on patrol, and probably only 1% of that time is in what would be considered a dangerous situation (chasing and apprehending a resisting suspect). So whereas construction workers are exposed to a constant level of moderate risk, police officers face a low risk 99.9% of the time, then an incredibly high risk the other 0.1% of the time.
Re: (Score:1)
Mod parent up.
When used improperly, statistics are a dangerous tool.
Re: (Score:2)
When used improperly, statistics are a dangerous tool.
One could do statistics on that :-)
Knock knock Knock (Score:4, Funny)
Woman: [speaking through closed door] Yes?
Voice: (mumbling) Mrs. Arlsburgerhhh?
Woman: Who?
Voice: (mumbling) Mrs. Johannesburrrr?
Woman: Who is it?
Voice: [pause] Flowers.
Woman: Flowers for whom?
Voice: [long pause] Plumber, ma'am.
Woman: I don't need a plumber. You're that clever shark, aren't you?
Voice: [pause] Candygram.
Woman: Candygram, my foot! You get out of here before I call the police! You're the shark, and you know it!
Voice: Wait. I-I'm only a dolphin, ma'am.
Woman: A dolphin? Well... Okay. [opens door]
[Huge latex and foam-rubber shark head lunges through open door, chomps down on woman's head, and drags her out of the apartment, as Jaws attack music plays.]
Source: wikipedia
Re: (Score:3)
From TFA:
We're here on the West Australian coast, which is now the deadliest coast in the world
Yes, the deadliest coast in the world. 16 attacks (not all fatal) in... a decade. And how many millions swim off the coast every year? Even if you take Australia as a whole, on average the number of people killed by sharks per year is: one [taronga.org.au]
If you want to avoid being attacked by a shark, I'd like to sell you this tiger^h^h^h^h^h shark repelling rock. It's much cheaper than a brand new wetsuit, and statistically equally as effective!
Also from TFA
The five fatal attacks in WA waters in just under 12 months, which earned the state the unwelcome tag of shark attack capital of the world, prompted the research into the suits more than two years ago.
You seem to be working from different figures.
That being said I'd agree that most people overestimate the risk from shark, but they also overestimate the risk of being mauled by a bear. But if I go to an area with a lot of aggressive bears that risk can get a lot higher so it's a really good idea
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the deadliest coast in the world. 16 attacks (not all fatal) in... a decade. And how many millions swim off the coast every year?
Not to mention illegal immigrants boats that sink with all their passengers.
Wetsuits (Score:2)
And yes, sharks.... but they are less annoying/dangerous than the local Christians who writes letters to the editor in the local newspaper, explaining why sharks should be exterminated because they're not part of God's plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question. Why use wetsuits in WA at all? I've lived in Perth, WA, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to put on something extra since it's so damn hot all the time.
And I was going to answer; are you nuts it's bloody cold.
WA is the abbreviation for Washington State (U.S.), only going to Google Earth (I really did) to see where in Washington Perth was did I find resolution.
To a recent post of mine on /. were replies of "only in the U.S. was it true", not the rest of the world as I had implied...sigh...
And yes, sharks.... but they are less annoying/dangerous than the local Christians who writes letters to the editor in the local newspaper, explaining why sharks should be exterminated because they're not part of God's plan.
And to think they waste good fish scraps for chum.
i will not... (Score:3)
All colors are black with back lit (Score:5, Interesting)
A surfer paddling on the surface is back lit by the sun. A shadow against the sun is going to appear black no matter what color the suit.
This isn't a problem for scuba diving. However, shark attacks on scuba divers are quite rare even without special wet suits. Sharks' MO is to watch for seals near the surface and lunge upward to catch them. Scuba divers don't linger on the surface and under water they don't look anything like seals.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple - LED strips built into the bottom of the board.
typo ?!?! (Score:2)
They won't feed the sharks but it seems feeding the patent trolls is just as bad....
They must be good (Score:1)
even seals are ordering them
Re: (Score:2)
You'd actually have thought that if it worked seals would have evolved stripes by now
1980s flashback (Score:2)
Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!! BEETLEJUICE! (Score:1)
Silhouette (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever came up with this doesn't know much about sharks.
Most sharks and other carnivorous fish hunt from below, looking upward for their prey's silhouette against the bright and shiny sea surface. Doesn't matter what color your wetsuit is, it's not going to break up your silhouette.
In fact, the reason prey fish have silvery sides and bellies is to blend in with the shiny sea surface. You could try a reflective websuit, I suppose, but then you'd look even more like a fish.
Re: (Score:1)
Whoever came up with this doesn't know much about sharks.
But they seem to understand marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Wetsuit makers have been diddling around and experimenting with this for a long time, though. I know nothing about the specifics of why and wherefore, but I've been seeing suits with color schemes clearly intended to break the pattern for a long time. Sadly, I've never been atop a surfboard, but I come from Santa Cruz where surfing is something of an obsession for many. As a poor child with nothing to do and no money to do it with, I used to just ride around and go into stores and see what they were up to.
Re: (Score:2)
I was told of this idea over 30 years ago (Score:2)
My diving instructor told me about it.
I don't know if it works, or not, but it's not a radical new idea.
What ?!? No obligatory xkcd quotes ?!? (Score:2)
It seems that Randall Munroe is obsessed not only with velociraptors, but also with sharks.
radical new technology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could wear a wetsuit with a hood - problem solved....
Re:radical new technology (Score:5, Funny)
Not in Florida.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Said woman went outside to her car and had the perfect opportunity to escape and alert the autorities...." That being said, it is easy to be critical of the past from a safe distance and time to think.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to "getting out of one's car with a gun to confront a person that he later found threatening, despite being told by 911 to stop doing that shit"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The "solution" to the shark "threat" has been around for a while now, basically a metal armor - google 'shark suits san diego' to see it.
It has two [amazonaws.com] attack weapons as well.
Re:radical new technology (Score:5, Interesting)
They may not have been these exact designs, but the idea itself isn't new at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember watching a documentary about about B&W striped wet suits where the guy got a whole lot of reef sharks into a feeding frenzy and then just jumped in with them, sure enough the sharks scattered out of sight. However they were common reef sharks that are pretty much harmless, I've yet to see it tested with great whites.
Re: (Score:2)
there was never enough data to confirm or deny the theory
I remember watching a documentary about about B&W striped wet suits where the guy got a whole lot of reef sharks into a feeding frenzy and then just jumped in with them, sure enough the sharks scattered out of sight. However they were common reef sharks that are pretty much harmless, I've yet to see it tested with great whites.
Do I detect a new game show here? "Survivor: Great White".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless your board and suite emits light, a striped pattern isn't going to do didly.
You just gave away your patent!
Re: (Score:3)
Wearing chainmail is fine when you are scuba diving, it wouldn't be so practical when trying to surf though.
chain mail and surfing? (Score:1)
I know there have been fights in the lineup, and stealing someone's wave is a big no-no, but really, chain mail? Broadswords? A mace? Is that what StandUpPaddle boards are really about? Single combat on the waves?
What about kevlar and a automatic rifle?
Re: (Score:2)
but really, chain mail? What about kevlar?
Kevlar is an equivalent to cured leather, just made of a more modern fabric. If you go up to high-end ballistic armour, you often see regular scale mail^Warmour -- made of more modern materials, too.
Chainmail sucks against piercing (including small caliber firearm) damage, but is greatly superior when it comes to cut and tear.
Re: (Score:2)
... and it does nothing against the crush- and dislocate- injuries that are commonly part of (Great White) attack patterns.
Re: radical new technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Most predators use a chomp and shake technique, while avoiding puncture wounds is a good thing, having a 14 foot shark shake you like a rag toy is going to spoil your day
Re: (Score:2)
Re: radical new technology (Score:5, Informative)
Especially if you give it a massive tooth ache in the process. Then it just might get really annoyed at you.
Sharks are too hardcore to even notice a minor problem like that.
When you are a shark, teeth are basically belt-fed consumables [wikimedia.org]. Lose one? Multiple rows of failover teeth just waiting to replace it.
Re: (Score:2)
Like our finger and toe nails?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a fan of reactivating the baby tooth pathway. We already have the capability to regrow and replace teeth. It ay just take a little work to use it at will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, my dog once delivered to me a dead rodent. He had chewed it good, probably breaking every bone in its little body without breaking the skin.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, I dread to think what such a suit does for your energy efficiency while diving. You're going to have a significantly increased work load, and therefore go through your gas considerably faster. And the chain-mail suits that I've seen (on TV) are going to do didd
Re: (Score:1)
Except, you don't invisible. No matter what color your wetsuit is, your body blocks light. From below you look like a dark silhouette against the sky.
This patent is about making money, not saving lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Air doesn't refract the light the way that water does. It also doesn't require a new paint job when you drop down a few meters like the water would.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Funny)
I never knew that you post under AC here. I always assumed that your username would be root and your UID was -1.
Re: (Score:1)
Can't avoid it in parts of AUS. For example, I'm in Perth, WA at the moment and there have been several shark attacks [perthnow.com.au] over the last few years that have resulted in killings. But somedays there are crazy waves here and just people come regardless of the history. On average, it's not that dangerous. Still.
I'm no surfer dude. I'll stick to the patrolled beaches.
Re: (Score:2)
You are likely at more risk on the land is AUS from the flora and fauna than you are swimming in the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that of this list of the 10 most dangerous animals in Australia [hotelclub.com], five are marine.
Re:not shark food (Score:4, Funny)
Surely it's an evolutionary advantage to any creature to be marked as 'not shark food'. Why aren't all fish stripey ?
I think it was not hip at the time. You know, some fish just want to live on the edge.
some animals fake poison via stripes (Score:2)
also six species mimic coral snakes (Score:2)
Re:some animals fake poison via stripes (Score:5, Funny)
Suburban human teenagers have been known to imitate the aggressive display and dress of alpha male gangsters from the city. This is done chiefly to avoid predation or being asked to take out the trash.
lol. I was thinking I've done that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you meant: Subhuman urban teenagers?
Re: (Score:2)
When "I am shark food" is attractive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain that I can out run a shark, they damn animal doesn't even have legs!
this one did [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Running fast won't protect you from a sharknado
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well combine one of these suits with something with metal strips in to output a high voltage when a shark is nearby and you have a winner - if you can avoid shocking the wearer of the suit, that is.
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Informative)
Sharks actually hunt with all their senses:
Hearing: up to several kilometres.
Smell: 100+ metres
Pressure: Up to 100 metres
Sight: Up to 100 metres
Electric: Up to 50 centimetres.
Taste, touch: Direct contact
But yeah, sharks cover their eyes with the nictitating membrane (or roll their eyes back if they lack a nictitatinig membrane, like the Great White) when they actually bite, so they don't rely on their eyes for the final attack; but before that final attack they do rely on their eyes (as well as their other senses).