# Shark Shield information and questions.



## L3GACY (Sep 2, 2007)

OK so Paul got back to me. He has said that he is happy to be sent any questions that are raised on the forum so If you have any questions on the SS now would be a good time to raise them either here or via a PM. Once there are a few I'll ship them off and see what I can find out for you. The attachment that was of most interest to me was actually an email notifying paul of the coroners inquests findings or something, whatever.



> _It is difficult for this Court to impose its own views on a private organisation such as the Adelaide University in respect of its operational requirements. Their views in relation to the mandatory wearing of shark repellent devices obviously differ from mine and those of SAPOL and SARDI. That to my mind is a matter for them. So be it. The University needs to be reminded, however, that divers within their employ, as a matter of law, have to be protected. The University is now on notice. While in all of the circumstances I have decided not to make a recommendation that the University should make the wearing of shark repellent devices mandatory, I do recommend that no person in authority at the University discourage their use. Indeed, I would recommend that provided effective shark repellent devices remain available, the use of such devices among the University diving community should be actively encouraged. I direct this recommendation to the Manager of Health Safety and Well Being of the University and to the Head of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences. _


http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/courts/coroner/findings/findings_2008/stebhens.finding.htm
Section 4 onwards is ALL about the SS. It looks like all sorts of claims were raised at the time, including concerns that a SS would have long term health effects on a man's pride and joy. :shock:

Here is a copy of an email that was sent to someone interested in the unit that he sent to me, this will hopefully help clear things up for anyone wondering whether they attract sharks:



> _Hi John,
> 
> Paul passed your email on to me and the answer is fairly clear. Sharks generally only use their Ampullae of Lorenzini when very close to prey in fact within a metre, this is purely an electrical sense. The things that attract them from a distance are their lateral lines which sense vibration, their sense of smell which is enormously developed and sight. A surfer paddling around on the surface is sending out pretty strong signals particularly to the vibration and smell sensors a shark would not need to use its Ampullae as there are plenty of other attractants. Also the electrical field diminishes exponentially over distance. At 17 metres even the most sensitive instruments owned by the Armed Services could not detect any field at all. The simple fact is that a surfer splashing around like an untrained seal is sending out gross signals which a shark can easily follow without bothering to use Ampullae. Given also the fact that the field put out by the Shark Shield is not much stronger at 17 metres than the electrical signals given off by a person not wearing a shark shield the argument is pretty lame that it is attracting sharks from a distance.
> 
> ...


I also have various FAQ's, information sheets and testimonials. I've also got the media statement that SS released after the coroners report which basically states that they are pleased with the result and talks about who is using them yada yada yada. If you would like a copy of some of the stuff that he has sent me then drop me a PM with your email and I'll happily send it on. I wont put it all on the forum because there is just too much and also because there are only so many free plugs a product can get out of me before the bank transfer clears. :twisted:

As I said, feel free to put any questions up or send them via PM and I will forward them on to Paul who will be more than happy to answer them. Don't ask me why he doesn't just come on the forum, I tried, he wont. One last plug for the coroners inquest while I'm here, whether you're interested in the SS or not the whole thing was really interesting.


----------



## Baldy (Oct 1, 2007)

" At 17 metres even the most sensitive instruments owned by the Armed Services could not detect any field at all."

In the next breath...

"Given also the fact that the field put out by the Shark Shield is not much stronger at 17 metres than the electrical signals given off by a person not wearing a shark shield"

Obvious question: How do they know?


----------



## Revo (Aug 3, 2008)

Hi L3GACY. Thanks for the info. A while back I read the full coroner's report about the SA incident. That report helped me to decide that it was a good investment to get a SS, but I appreciated most the myth-busting of the reasons many skeptics have put forward as to why they don't wear one when diving, etc.


----------



## petanquedon (May 27, 2008)

Logic would suggest that if you assume that the electrical field never disappears it only gets so weak that it can't be detected.

If the shark shield signal is stronger at 1 m then it should be stronger at 1 Km as well.

Just because humans don't have the technology to detect it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Really the relevant question is at what distance does a shark shield start to deter sharks?

Is it far enough to give a significant reduction in the chance of shark attack?

Statistically it is possible if nobody using a shark shield has been attacked could just reflect the small number of shark attacks every year.

If there a 2 shark attacks every year and 1in10,000 people use a shark shield it could still take several thousand years before an attack would be expected.

Perhaps the real question is the shark shield a risk management device or a piece of mind device?

Until more like 10% of people are using them it is statistically impossible to tell.

Cheers

Don



Baldy said:


> " At 17 metres even the most sensitive instruments owned by the Armed Services could not detect any field at all."
> 
> In the next breath...
> 
> ...


----------



## wapstar (Jan 4, 2008)

How effective is the SS for a paddling kayaker? 
The following disclaimer says that a surfer is vulnerable when paddling or surfing, and is only proven effective when stationary.

http://www.sharkshield.com/Content/Arti ... t.asp?id=3

again mentioned in this article.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 17,00.html

W*


----------



## L3GACY (Sep 2, 2007)

My apologies for not checking in on this thread, Wapstar just alerted me to it this morning. I've had a break in communications with Paul because I've had a lot going on organising TAFE for next year, christening, creating SAKFA board etc.

Petanquedon:
I've been told that it is sold as a piece of mind device.

My physics is a bit rusty but wouldn't the wave get to a distance where it's energy is infinitely small?

The field of protection is around 8m in diameter, I imagine that it would begin deterring sharks at not much more than the stated distance because the signal decays so rapidly.


----------



## L3GACY (Sep 2, 2007)

Wapstar:



Paul said:


> If the trailing antenna is skipping along the surface in choppy conditions then a possibility arises where one or both of the electrodes in the antenna may not be submerged and thus not manufacturing a protective field. Our trials have found that this can happen when a surfer is riding a wave. Our trials on a surfer paddling out however show that the slightly negatively buoyant antenna is always hanging down in the water and submerged. In kayak use I have never witnessed this happening where the antenna is on the surface particularly if deployed through a scupper hole (this would be impossible) and even if deployed over the side on a tether then I doubt very much if the speed is such to allow the antenna not to be submerged and thus not manufacturing the waveform in the water.
> 
> This disclaimer was printed only on the surfing unit box to bring attention to the possibility that this could happen during surfing a wave, we have never been questioned on this in regards to kayaking and I see absolutely no issue with kayaking.


From an email Paul sent me Petanquedon:



Paul said:


> Although this technology deters sharks extremely well, people are not purchasing lack of shark attack but rather increased enjoyment.


----------



## wapstar (Jan 4, 2008)

Thanks Jon and thanks to Paul, well answered.

Now just one small problem, where do I get the money. I guess it is only a couple of weeks of saving through not buying cockles.

W*


----------



## L3GACY (Sep 2, 2007)

wapstar said:


> Thanks Jon and thanks to Paul, well answered.
> 
> Now just one small problem, where do I get the money. I guess it is only a couple of weeks of saving through not buying cockles.
> 
> W*


No worries. I guess you need to weigh up your options... would you prefer 8 cockles or a SharkShield? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think I said in a previous email that if you ever do decide to buy one drop Kirk a line, he's still got some.


----------



## L3GACY (Sep 2, 2007)

Just thought I'd say I've finally put my money where my mouth is. I'll do a review of the unit once I've got to know it better but pretty happy so far. Biggest positive would be it is built nice and rugged. It looks and feels like it was built right here in aus (adelaide in fact). The optional carry case is expensive ($50) however it's absolutely top notch, not like trying to get a cheap sleeping bag into it's case, the stitching is good and strong, the neoprene is nice and thick and it uses a really large YKK zipper. Only problem I have with it is that there's no "click" when you plug the charger into the terminal on the unit. You just sort of slip it on. Doesn't affect charging or anything and it hasn't fallen out but given the ruggedness of the rest I'd feel better having to really forced the charger on to the terminal and have a good solid click when you know it's on all the way.

Time will tell whether it makes me feel safer on the water or not.


----------

