Rethinking the Wetsuit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday July 20, 2013 @05:49AM from the two-words:-jet-pack dept.

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.'"

28 of 153 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And they want to patent it by Spy+Handler · 2013-07-20 05:57 · Score: 4, 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!
1. Re:And they want to patent it by maroberts · 2013-07-20 06:02 · 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.
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
2. Re:And they want to patent it by godel_56 · 2013-07-20 10:13 · 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.
  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.
3. Re:And they want to patent it by intermodal · 2013-07-22 03:05 · 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 end was the bow.
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
radical new technology by Moblaster · 2013-07-20 05:58 · Score: 2

So this is a really safe wet suite. Your entire body becomes invisible, except for your head, which is only about the size of a fish. What could go wrong?
1. Re:radical new technology by maroberts · 2013-07-20 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  You could wear a wetsuit with a hood - problem solved....
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
2. Re:radical new technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-20 06:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Not in Florida.
3. Re:radical new technology by meerling · 2013-07-20 06:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually patterns on wet suits to look unappetizing to sharks was done around 20 or 30 years ago. It was also done for surf boards as well.
  They may not have been these exact designs, but the idea itself isn't new at all.
4. Re:radical new technology by nedlohs · 2013-07-20 06:35 · Score: 2
  
  Wearing chainmail is fine when you are scuba diving, it wouldn't be so practical when trying to surf though.
5. Re: radical new technology by budgenator · 2013-07-20 07:14 · Score: 4, 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
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
6. Re: radical new technology by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-20 08:41 · Score: 4, 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. Lose one? Multiple rows of failover teeth just waiting to replace it.
7. Re:radical new technology by volmtech · 2013-07-20 09:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Said woman went outside to her car and retrieved the gun. Stand your ground no longer applied. That being said she was afraid for her children, I believe, and it was her home and she did not try to harm him, just send a message. Common sense is not common in the judicial system.
Re:White and Dark Stripes by Calydor · 2013-07-20 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, they do. How many zebras are eaten by sharks every year, huh?

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re:not shark food by rvw · 2013-07-20 06:20 · Score: 3, 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.
Re:That's nice by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-20 06:27 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't always dive. But when I do, I eat the sharks.
Another advantage by Okian+Warrior · 2013-07-20 06:27 · Score: 4, 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.
Minimal danger by EdZ · 2013-07-20 06:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
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!
1. Re:Minimal danger by Solandri · 2013-07-20 09:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
  
  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
  
  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. .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.
2. Re:Minimal danger by quantaman · 2013-07-20 12:10 · Score: 2
  
  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
  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 to bring some bear spray, similarly if I'm spending a lot of time surfing in shark infested waters I might not want to look like a seal.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
Re:White and Dark Stripes by ArcadeMan · 2013-07-20 07:23 · Score: 2

None, but that's because I sold them shark-repellent rocks.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:some animals fake poison via stripes by cervesaebraciator · 2013-07-20 07:49 · Score: 5, Funny

I know they aren't the only animals who have fake "not food" markings.
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.
i will not... by wbr1 · 2013-07-20 07:53 · Score: 2

..be signing up for beta testing. No thankee, even with a free ocean cruise and diving thrown in.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
All colors are black with back lit by erice · 2013-07-20 08:17 · Score: 4, 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:That's nice by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2013-07-20 08:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Hey Chuck Norris!

I never knew that you post under AC here. I always assumed that your username would be root and your UID was -1.

--
rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
Re:Idiocy by stjobe · 2013-07-20 08:40 · 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).

--
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Silhouette by goodmanj · 2013-07-20 10:27 · Score: 4, 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:Have they tested it? by Lotana · 2013-07-20 10:46 · Score: 2

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".
Knock knock Knock by martinQblank · 2013-07-20 12:59 · Score: 4, Funny

[Scene: Interior. A New York apartment. There is a knock at the door.]
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