I love this statistics ( lies) .
Let looks from scientific point lies is created.
Every smart F**t author must bend the truth in order to prove his statement.
Author compare road death toll to thous from sharks teeth.
For methodology much more logical will be comparing % of those people that swim in the surf -risk area - say 100 ? 1000 people - risk to be eaten to those walking on the roads or driving - almost 100% population.
If we have 1000 people swimming in the surf and from this 1000 26 are eaten every- interpolated per million give us true value of
26,000 per million
So in such case your chance while swimming / surfing versus driving looks more likely
26,000 ( shark kill) to 64 ( road kill)
( to clarify for those that still have difficulty to follow my reasoning. Author incorporate in his statistics all this people that never have a chance to be eaten by shark - while living in apartment in Sydney or village in Alice Springs. Is it more clear now? )
Yeah not a bad read though the same old stats on chances of attack get rolled out in it comparing attack numbers to total population NOT water user numbers. Pointless but its the one the shark huggers always turn to.
This bit where they compare actual water users was more pertinant -
"surfing or diving offshore in the south-west during winter and spring carries a fatal shark bite risk up to 10 times that of a serious or fatal recreational cycling crash."
Yeah but it gets worse (the lies)
How many hours do these people spend in cars, against hours in the ocean.
Quick Maths states.
64 deaths X (1m road users, 5 hours driving a week X 52 weeks a year.= 2.46154E-07
That percentage is the same as saying there will be 0.12 deaths a year with 100,000 water users in Perth that swim on average 5 hours a year in the ocean.
(64 deaths a lot of drivers- driving lots)
(2 deaths, not as many swimmers using the ocean- irregularly)
I'd say chance of getting eaten by a shark is about 1625% more likely. Way more safer on the roads than in the ocean.
But don't get me stated on drowning, thats WAYYYYYYYYY more common.
As the best educational tool I propose to develop following project.
Imagine the newest Nintendo, Xbox game, where kids play on big TV screens.
You do surf with your virtual googles on, and jumping sharks with jaws wide open try to catch and eat you.
It will be instant hit ! Best seller ! Game of the Year
More bloody and exciting that DOOM.
Better even that Grand Thief Auto
Parts of body ripped off,
red blood spilling into blue ocean ,
stereo surround sound warning you ( too late ( of incoming attack .
Surf Jaw Perth is coming soon to your nearest shop ! or buy online !
For those real scientific researches that want truly compare risk of different activities I propose
following methodology.
Borrowed from medical sciences and pharmacology.
They use something we could call Letha dosisss for different poisons.
This will be exact weight in grams of the poison that will kill 50 % ( half) of your test subjects.
By analogy we could use time in hour till you have 50 % chance to:
-be eaten by shark while surfing,
-break a leg when cycling
- break a spine when parachuting or paragliding-drown when diving
Let call if politely TTK ( time till kill) .
Lets try to gues what could be actual probable value for TTK for Perth Surfing ?
1500 hours ? 250 hour ? I have no idea
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
To those real scientific researches that want truly compare risk of different activities I propose
following methodology.
Borrowed from medical sciences and pharmacology.
They use something we could call Letha dosisss for different poisons. This will be exact weight in grams of the poison that will kill 50 % ( half) of your test subjects.By analogy we could use time in hour till you have 50 % to be eaten by shark while surfing, break a leg when cyclingbreak a spine when parachuting or paragladingLet call if politely TTK ( time till kill) .
Lets try to gues what could be actual probable value for TTK for Perth Surifing ?
1500 hours ? 250 hour ? I have no idea
Yes you have no idea at all 
Select to expand quoteUnderoath said..
I'd say chance of getting eaten by a shark is about 1625% more likely. Way more safer on the roads than in the ocean.
Indeed. Almost everyone takes regularly to the roads, but if you don't go in the water you have as much chance of being eaten by a shark as being mauled by a Komodo Dragon.
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..
Yes you have no idea at all
Yeep, we could calculate TTK for writing and posting on SB too 
There is serious risk that your/ my opponent in dispute will catch you on the beach next time and show who is more right here .
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..DARTH said..
Yes you have no idea at all
Yeep, we could calculate TTK for writing and posting on SB too
There is serious risk that your/ my opponent in dispute will catch you on the beach next time and show who is more right here .
As a windsurfer you will have very little chance of an attack unless you are a crap sailor, so Im not sure why you even bother!
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..
As a windsurfer you will have very little chance of an attack unless you are a crap sailor, so Im not sure why you even bother!
You absolutely right. On our QLD shores the risk of been damaged by fellow kiters seems to be much higher then by shark.
Hopefully it will stay this way .... 
To be fair even TTK ( time till kill) by jetski or boats make this sharks score negligible.
Select to expand quote
AUS1111 said..Underoath said..
I'd say chance of getting eaten by a shark is about 1625% more likely. Way more safer on the roads than in the ocean.
Indeed. Almost everyone takes regularly to the roads, but if you don't go in the water you have as much chance of being eaten by a shark as being mauled by a Komodo Dragon.
How do we know they did NOT take into account more people drive than go in the ocean?
That is irrelevant anyway as either way the number of shark attacks has gone up a lot.
It has gone up a lot since we protected sharks from fishing.
Really, do we need to do any more research. It is pretty derrrrrrr obvious to me.
Good point raising the statistical ''universe'' data is applied to.
WA has a miniscule number of water users comparing to the places I mentioned in the other post, places that have a large population base.
In WA we are aprox 2.2 million in the state and 1.6 million in the metro area.
A wild guess considering the people I deal with at work, clients, friends, relatives etc, maybe one in 15 or 1 in 20 can be considered a regular water user. If not less.
I have friends born and bred here that haven't been in the beach and in the water specially in YEARS !
So the TTK (which is a good analogy to MTF Mean Time to Failure) in Preditive Maintenance/Engineering methodologies using statistical models to achieve is plan.
Even the greatest GW could not get to safe water by this crowd in China.
Will suffocate or overeat in seconds to death.
I doubt that Commode Dragon or Crock do any better either.
TTK is measured every time someone is lost at sea. "Oh, the dive boat can't find the divers on the Great Barrier Reef who drifted away from the boat"- TTK. Were they eaten day 1, day 2 or day 3?
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..DARTH said..
As a windsurfer you will have very little chance of an attack unless you are a crap sailor, so Im not sure why you even bother!
You absolutely right. On our QLD shores the risk of been damaged by fellow kiters seems to be much higher then by shark.
Hopefully it will stay this way ....
To be fair even TTK ( time till kill) by jetski or boats make this sharks score negligible.
Channel 9 sports reporter got taken from a windsurfer in Marion Bay South Australia about 10 years ago. They only found bits of his board.
GWS Sharks around SA and WA waters have been around for ages.
Common raz only the man eaters mate ;-) Were trying to eliminate and manage a public threat. That dosent include the finning process in asia. A lot of them sharks are harmless.
Just chacing the whites and mabe a few big tigers.
Bet yahd bang the hoe in the black bikini 
