Great White Sharks Making Comeback Off Atlantic Coast

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Great White Sharks Making Comeback Off Atlantic Coast

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday June 22, 2014 @09:06PM from the just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-go-back-in-the-water dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A report that scientists are calling one of the most comprehensive studies of great white sharks finds their numbers are surging in the ocean off the Eastern U.S. and Canada after decades of decline — bad news if you're a seal, but something experts say shouldn't instill fear. The scientists behind the study attribute the resurgence to conservation efforts, such as a federal 1997 act that prevented hunting of great whites, and greater availability of prey. The species is listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature."

107 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Upgrades by TitusC3v5 · 2014-06-22 21:25 · Score: 1, Redundant

I'm happy to see that my laser upgrades have helped to greatly facilitate the mating process. Onwards to step 2!

--
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
Fantastic news! by Vinegar+Joe · 2014-06-22 21:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Pass the soup!

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
1. Re:Fantastic news! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean "Fintastic news!"
  I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress.
2. Re:Fantastic news! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  Way to ruin the subtlety of the joke, jerky.
Just... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 21:26 · Score: 1

We're gonna need a bigger laser.
1. Re:Just... by Richy_T · 2014-06-23 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Which one? There's two memes there cunningly juxtaposed.
Food chain by penix1 · 2014-06-22 21:30 · Score: 3, Funny

This is one of the many reasons I don't go anywhere near the ocean. It is a food chain out there and I don't need to be the weakest link.... GOODBYE!

--
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
1. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is one of the many reasons I don't go anywhere near the ocean. It is a food chain out there and I don't need to be the weakest link.... GOODBYE!
  Whomever modded this up is as "smart" as you are. The chances of being killed by an ocean animal (big or small) are so tiny that if you were rational about it you'd either not believe there's a risk at all, or you'd never leave your place because the risk of being killed by a car are much higher.
  Care to ask Kelly Slater if he has problems going anywhere near the sea? Or do you think it's the board keeping him safe?
2. Re:Food chain by dreamchaser · 2014-06-22 23:37 · Score: 2
  
  You do know that statistically you're more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark, right? I'd have to check but I think it's even more likely you'll die from a lightning strike. So you'd better be safe and never leave your house again.
  Seriously...that's a really silly attitude based in ignorance. Now, I don't care if you ever go in the ocean, but your reasoning so flawed it's almost funny.
3. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH the statistics is only valid as long as I don't increase my exposure to the sea. If I was constantly swimming in shark waters I suspect that the risk of me being killed by bees decreases dramatically.
4. Re:Food chain by JackieBrown · 2014-06-23 00:13 · Score: 2
  
  Now, I don't care if you ever go in the ocean, but your reasoning so flawed it's almost funny.
  Lighten up. It was clearly suppose to be funny
5. Re:Food chain by rmdingler · 2014-06-23 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  ...more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark
  Sure. We'll even go with the bee metaphor even though the humble mosquito kills more humans than even humans do.
  Here's the thing. People do panic and behave irrationally around bees... especially if they're predisposed to an allergic reaction.
  An irrational fear of a dangerous animal is a survival tool. On the one hand, it makes it much easier to kill since there is no room for empathy in the fear-paralyzed mind. On the other hand, there's The Grizzly Man.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
6. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  I really, really wish I could find the darn article I read last week that did a breakdown on the numbers. The gist of it was pointing out that deaths-by-shark-attack are calculated with a denominator of everyone, including people who never get to the beach. So "An American man is more likely to get circumcised by a thrown spork than he is to die of shark attack" is sort of bogus, because of how the odds of shark attack are calculated.
7. Re:Food chain by necro81 · 2014-06-23 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the many reasons I don't go anywhere near the ocean
  The reason I don't go anywhere near the ocean is because I've got a chance of being killed in a car accident on my way there (and back). Actually being killed in the ocean? That's nuthin'.
8. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  This is why I take every oppretunity to eat sea predators. Shark, Whale, Swordfish, Sawfish, Rays, Jelly fish, lionfish. That way when I enter the water, they can smell the scent of death of their own kind on me. That and a little napalming of the water before entering does wonders for warding off sea life.
9. Re:Food chain by GrumpySteen · 2014-06-23 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that statistically you're more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark, right?
  Wrong.
  If you're allergic to bee stings, you're far more likely to die from a bee sting than statistics indicate. If you aren't allergic to be stings, you're far less likely to die from a bee sting than statistics indicate.
  Statistics based on the population as a whole do not represent the actual chances for a specific individual to die in a specific way. Individual behavior and risk factors tend to average out over a large population and can be ignored, but they can't be ignored when speaking about a single person.
  
  your reasoning so flawed it's almost funny
  It's ironic that you should say that....
10. Re:Food chain by swb · 2014-06-23 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if the "more likely to die" statistics between bees and sharks take into the respective populations place of residence.
  People who live within NN miles of the ocean would be more likely to swim in the ocean, people like me thousands of miles would almost never have a chance to swim in the ocean.
  Bees, however, are everywhere.
11. Re:Food chain by mfh · 2014-06-23 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Shark attacks typically end in blood loss deaths far more often than someone being eaten. They simply don't like the way humans taste and most times when they attack a human it's because they think we're a seal.
  
  --
  The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
12. Re:Food chain by gstoddart · 2014-06-23 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that statistically you're more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark, right
  Well, if he doesn't go near the ocean, that is pretty much guaranteed to be true.
  I, for instance, have an exceedingly small chance of being eaten by a dingo.
  
  but your reasoning so flawed it's almost funny.
  WHOOSH!
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
13. Re:Food chain by gstoddart · 2014-06-23 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Bees, however, are everywhere.
  Increasingly, less so.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
14. Re:Food chain by tsa · 2014-06-23 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Irrational fear is not a survival tool. It's a way to get you killed more easily by the thing you fear. Irrational fear makes you panic, and panic makes you do the wrong things, like running away from predators or trying to swat bees with your hands, making them angry and much more likely to sting you.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
15. Re:Food chain by tsa · 2014-06-23 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that really matters to the people being killed by the sharks though.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
16. Re:Food chain by swb · 2014-06-23 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I would imagine that "bee stings" is a generic term that also includes stings from wasps and hornets.
  As for colony collapse, an economic analysis concludes that it's somewhat overblown.
  http://perc.org/sites/default/...
17. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Like economists know anything.
  Scientists and beekeepers disagree.
  Economists are idiots, plying a fake science, which boils down to ideology. There is nothing real, objective, or scientific about economics.
18. Re:Food chain by Lab+Rat+Jason · 2014-06-23 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  The bitch of it is... I'm totally allergic to great white attacks.
  
  --
  Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
19. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Shark attacks typically end in blood loss deaths far more often than someone being eaten. They simply don't like the way humans taste and most times when they attack a human it's because they think we're a seal.
  Sometimes though the human did something stupid. You poke the shark, the shark will poke back -- but the shark can poke only with lots of teeth.
20. Re:Food chain by Minwee · 2014-06-23 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't go anywhere near the ocean.
  You do know that statistically you're more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark, right?
  That goes without saying, since sharks rarely leave the ocean.
21. Re:Food chain by Minwee · 2014-06-23 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  It makes a pretty big difference to the people who survive being mistaken for a seal, though.
22. Re:Food chain by cmarkn · 2014-06-23 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Staying at home is probably the most dangerous thing you can do, since more accidents happen at home than anywhere else.
  
  --
  People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
23. Re:Food chain by tlhIngan · 2014-06-23 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  Practically speaking, almost all shark attacks on humans are accidental. We're just not that tasty to a Great White. More often than not, said shark saw you as a tasty sea lion or seal and wanted a snack.
  Of course, it doesn't help that said animals generally are black, and people like to wear dark swim clothes (wetsuits, etc) making humans appear to be said food.
  Of course, you could also try to befriend some dolphins, who do seem to be the shark's worst enemy. Or at least dolphins appear to repel sharks for whatever reason.
24. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  Per an hour?
25. Re:Food chain by Copid · 2014-06-23 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Overblown as in, "not really happening to the extent we thought," or overblown as in, "Well, fuck the bees. We don't need 'em anyway"?
  
  --
  An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
26. Re:Food chain by tsa · 2014-06-23 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Woosh :)
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
27. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  GOODBYE!
  You just went near the ocean, didn't you?
28. Re:Food chain by butchersong · 2014-06-23 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I would hazard a guess that people spend quite a bit more time on land (where the bees live) than swimming in the ocean. This is like saying I'm more likely to die in my home. Well... yes my home is where I spend most of my time that doesn't make my home more dangerous than other locations.
29. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Depends, most shark on human attacks are in shallow rivers (bull shards). You can have bee and shark encounters in the same place.
30. Re:Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  my suspicion it's related to the Dolphins predatory sexual behaviour...
31. Re:Food chain by rmdingler · 2014-06-24 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Mmmmm...perhaps. The instinctive fear that is our fight or flight response is ingrained in humanity's DNA on some primal level, plausibly because it contributes to an individual's survival to breeding age.
  Like a kitten who's never seen a dog, we seem to have a predisposed aversion to certain dangerous animals: shark, grizzly, bee, snake. Is instinctive fear irrational? It is often not well considered or based on any documented evidence. Conquering your animal fear is a noble goal, but the same could be said for other destructive frames of mind like anger, hatred, and frustration.
  I'll leave you with the words of a Bene Gesserit Litany:
  
  I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
32. Re:Food chain by tsa · 2014-06-24 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with all you say. So much so even that I'm beginning to wonder if you meant to reply to me or the person I replied to.
  Instinctive fear is of course not in itself irrational, but some people have their instinctive fear tuned up so high, so to speak, that they can't be in the same room with a harmless spider. That is irrational even when it's not yet a fobia.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
33. Re:Food chain by Richy_T · 2014-06-24 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Overblown as in "We can always eat Soylent Green in our concrete wasteland" I think.
good news for the sharks .... by thephydes · 2014-06-22 21:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

but probably bad news for the morons who like their photo taken with a dead marine top predator.
1. Re:good news for the sharks .... by Thanshin · 2014-06-22 23:27 · Score: 2
  
  but probably bad news for the morons who like their photo taken with a dead marine top predator.
  I don't think necrophiliacs care much about sharks.
2. Re:good news for the sharks .... by gstoddart · 2014-06-23 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Three words for you: Rule Thirty Four.
  And, no, I have no intention of googling it. ;-)
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:good news for the sharks .... by tsa · 2014-06-23 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  I did. It's not defined in the Urban Dictionary, so Rule 34 doesn't exist.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
4. Re:good news for the sharks .... by gstoddart · 2014-06-23 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  That, or you've lost track of how to use google. Because for me, it's the first search result.
  It's most certainly defined in the Urban Dictionary.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Danger??? by stephendavion · 2014-06-22 21:51 · Score: 1

hmmmm ...the swimmers need to be more careful then ,.....
1. Re:Danger??? by Xest · 2014-06-22 22:10 · Score: 2
  
  Well not necessarily, if as the article says there's a greater abundance of food then they'll be less likely to come and hunt dangerous and relatively bony and low meat humans.
  Generally they don't hunt us out of choice, but out of necessity.
  It's possible that an increase in great whites will result in reduced attacks if the increase is the result of greater availability of food so now satisfy or more than satisfy the population. It'll only be an issue if there are years where their food sources suffer population declines or similar.
2. Re:Danger??? by oneandoneis2 · 2014-06-22 22:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, Great Whites don't even hunt us out of necessity: We are literally useless to them as food. All they ever do to us is take a bite, realize their mistake, and carry on looking for a worthwhile meal.
  The trouble is, given their method of taking a bite involves slamming into their target at high speed and sinking hundreds of teeth in, you may well have been torn in half by the time they go "oops" and spit you back out...
  
  --
  So.. it has come to this
3. Re:Danger??? by Thanshin · 2014-06-22 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Great Whites don't even hunt us out of necessity: We are literally useless to them as food. All they ever do to us is take a bite, realize their mistake, and carry on looking for a worthwhile meal.
  The trouble is, given their method of taking a bite involves slamming into their target at high speed and sinking hundreds of teeth in, you may well have been torn in half by the time they go "oops" and spit you back out...
  And all that happens... 0,2 times per year?
  Compared to deaths at sea for any other reason (ran over by water bike, ran over by surfer, ran over by motorboat, drowned by currents, ...) in which position are white sharks? Next to deaths by stepping on a rusty nail while running at the beach?
4. Re:Danger??? by cycler · 2014-06-22 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  And I have no mod points.....
  /C
5. Re:Danger??? by Chas · 2014-06-22 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  True.
  Dying is one thing. Everyone does it.
  But the concept of suddenly (and surprisingly) being "eaten" by something (even accidentally) you can't really fight or escape from is a fairly horrifying one for most people.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
6. Re:Danger??? by Thanshin · 2014-06-22 23:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  On one side, a vicious shark. On the other a retard with a motorbike, half a dozen beers and a large breasted bikini blonde to impress.
  hmm. Based on my past experiences with both, I'll take my chances with the shark.
  Oh, and I don't see how you can fight or escape a motorbike either.
7. Re:Danger??? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2014-06-22 23:26 · Score: 2
  
  And all that happens... 0,2 times per year?
  Compared to deaths at sea for any other reason (ran over by water bike, ran over by surfer, ran over by motorboat, drowned by currents, ...) in which position are white sharks? Next to deaths by stepping on a rusty nail while running at the beach?
  Inaccurate risk perception is way too pervasive in our society. Our schools need to get much better at teaching kids how to assess it.
8. Re:Danger??? by necro81 · 2014-06-23 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  in which position are white sharks? Next to deaths by stepping on a rusty nail while running at the beach?
  Hey, man don't underestimate the dangers of tetanus. Rusty nails are a real killer, especially when they're attached to boards.
9. Re:Danger??? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  I'll take my chances with the large breasted bikini blonde. I'm not sure what threat she represents but I'm certain it warrants further investigation!
10. Re:Danger??? by operagost · 2014-06-23 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Uh... take out the guy riding it?
  Do you ever leave the basement?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
11. Re:Danger??? by Thanshin · 2014-06-23 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Statistically, she's the most dangerous of the threats.
  You've just failed the "Are you a woman/gay man?" test. Congratulations on passing the "Are you a straight man?" test. You should receive your male card in the next five working days.
Just when you thought it safe to go in the water by Chas · 2014-06-22 21:56 · Score: 1

Dun dun dun dun dun dun!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Awesome by wonkey_monkey · 2014-06-22 21:58 · Score: 1

Great White Sharks Making Comeback Off Atlantic Coast
Been a fan of GWS since the beginning. Where can I get tickets? Bit of a weird choice of venue, though.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Awesome by cmarkn · 2014-06-23 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Where can I get tickets?
  Check with Nucky Thompson. He can get you a great spot on the boardwalk.
  
  --
  People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
Excellent news! by oneandoneis2 · 2014-06-22 22:13 · Score: 5, Informative

As has been shown time after time, the loss of apex predators is disastrous for all levels of an ecosystem.
(If you want examples, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... - loss of wolves lead to over-grazing by elk; reintroducing them not only sorted the elk problem but boosted the numbers of beaver colonies, resulting in less erosion; pushed the cougars back to their traditional grounds; reduced the numbers of coyotes, which increased the number of foxes and thereby decreased the numbers of rodents, which altered the survival rates of various seeds and fungi... a whole cascade of improvements triggered by the return of a single predator.)

--
So.. it has come to this
1. Re:Excellent news! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 23:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There's a great video detailing some of these things you mentioned about the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone.
2. Re:Excellent news! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  it also reduces the number of delicious children roaming around if there are no cougars in the area. cougars keep the kid population down also though
3. Re:Excellent news! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  At least it keeps down the ones who won't look up from mommy's Ipad.
  Now, if we could train the cougars to chase, not necessarily devour, idiots who can't put down their phone while they cross streets in traffic.
4. Re:Excellent news! by BlackPignouf · 2014-06-23 00:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yay wolf!
  I'm all for beavers and cougars.
Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 22:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Yea resun is climit change yea thats it.
2010 white shark dangered speshes cause climit change
2014 white shark much manier cause climit change
Look Maw... I'm a news reporter!
I blame ... by jamesl · 2014-06-22 22:33 · Score: 1

... Global Warming.
1. Re:I blame ... by Thanshin · 2014-06-22 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  I blame Evolution.
2. Re: I blame ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 02:04 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Thanks Obama!
It's great to be white. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-22 23:54 · Score: 0

http://www.3tshirt.com/media/images/ca3e338af2bf70862600bd8ab14da2d8fc5dcd0a.jpg
Not pimping any particular site that has the design intentionally, its just an awesome shirt.
Hazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 00:12 · Score: 0

Another great victory for the voluntary Human extinction movement!
Check the news by kaizendojo · 2014-06-23 00:30 · Score: 3, Informative

One was just sighted this weekend off the coast of New Jersey.
1. Re:Check the news by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Good. Hopefully it'll attack those reality show dimwits.
That's nice for the Atlantic by drinkypoo · 2014-06-23 00:38 · Score: 1

"A report that scientists are calling one of the most comprehensive studies of great white sharks finds their numbers are surging in the ocean off the Eastern U.S. and Canada
Okay, so what about, you know, the rest of the world? The Pacific is the ocean of Fukushima. The Gulf is the ocean (well, gulf) of Corexit. Garbage gyres, offshore dumping... from what I can tell, the Atlantic is pretty much the cleanest ocean left.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re:That's nice for the Atlantic by gregmark · 2014-06-23 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  ... from what I can tell, the Atlantic is pretty much the cleanest ocean left.
  I think they're all pretty dirty and polluted with plastic. The Atlantic has the Sargasso Sea, AKA the Great Atlantic Garbage Dump. Whereas the recently expanded USA marine reserve in the Pacific is considered one of the most pristine regions of all the oceans... for now.
  You can't win. Hey, but good news is good news, I'll take it.
2. Re:That's nice for the Atlantic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  "A report that scientists are calling one of the most comprehensive studies of great white sharks finds their numbers are surging in the ocean off the Eastern U.S. and Canada
  Okay, so what about, you know, the rest of the world? The Pacific is the ocean of Fukushima. The Gulf is the ocean (well, gulf) of Corexit. Garbage gyres, offshore dumping... from what I can tell, the Atlantic is pretty much the cleanest ocean left.
  The oceans have never been a clean place, My people used to build ships, farms and entire villages out of driftwood and recycled all manner of other of stuff that drifted ashore but that was recyclable waste you could make useful again. The shitload of plastic we are dumping into the oceans can't be economically collected and re-purposed and they won't degrade quickly. Even in the North Atlantic the problem with plastic is a big one, especially plastic bags, bottles and those nasty nylon fishing nets. I'm starting to feel really disgusted every time I buy something wrapped in plastic. I don't remember Mars bars or Cookies tasting any worse when they came wrapped in paper. I have even taken to going to a butcher's shop and bakeries where I get the product wrapped in paper rather than buying stuff shrink wrapped in plastic at the Supermarket just to cut down on my plastic consumption. I even stopped shopping at a couple of supermarket chains when they switched from paper wrapping to shrink wrapping stuff in copious amounts of plastic at the butchers counter. Whoever discovers a 100% economically recyclable (not downcyclable, REcyclable) plastic or preferably a bio degradable plastic alternative will IMHO be among the most deserving recipients of the Nobel prize ever.
3. Re:That's nice for the Atlantic by PPH · 2014-06-23 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  the Atlantic is pretty much the cleanest ocean left.
  Has it recovered from Jersey Shore this fast?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:That's nice for the Atlantic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  You are under some serious misconceptions about the nature of recycling. Thermodynamics does not permit 100% efficient recycling. You may now open your mouth and insert your foot.
  Recycling takes energy if the material to be recycled needs to be cleaned, altered, broken down and reformed, etc.. Energy is not free. Recycling often (not always) takes less energy than mining and processing a brand new equivalent resource, but it is NOT, I repeat, NOT a free source of anything. The cost may be lower (than brand new), but by asking for 100%, you've automatically relegated your request to the land of faeries and unicorns.
  Fucking dumbass.
Re:Good news! by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-06-23 00:57 · Score: 2

"God" and "laws of physics" are really interchangeable. The argument between those who call themselves atheists and those who don't is merely over what the laws are.
Which is why every night I pray to the laws of physics.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Absurdly unlikely dangers by sjbe · 2014-06-23 01:01 · Score: 1

But the concept of suddenly (and surprisingly) being "eaten" by something (even accidentally) you can't really fight or escape from is a fairly horrifying one for most people.
It's not hard to imagine all sorts of horrifyingly unpleasant ways to die. Doesn't make them any more likely. Sharks kill so few people it's barely even worth worrying about. If someone is worried about their personal safety around sharks there is a 100% foolproof way to avoid them - stay out of the water. People seriously lose their damn minds when it comes to absurdly unlikely dangers like shark attacks. I worry about a shark attack about as much as I worry about an alien invasion.
Personally I find the idea of dying slowly from some debilitating disease like ALS or cancer to be a far more horrifying and likely prospect.
Don't call it a comeback by jennatalia · 2014-06-23 01:03 · Score: 0

I've been here for years...
Actually it's good news since... by cjjjer · 2014-06-23 01:37 · Score: 1

The seal population has been running unchecked for decades now. I just hope that people don't go all anti-shark when more people are mistaken for seals and get attacked. Sorry but you are swimming in their habitat, expect you might get confused for food.
1. Re:Actually it's good news since... by LeadSongDog · 2014-06-23 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up! If the sharks can get the seals back under control, there's still an outside chance the cod will recover (everyone sing together: "It's the circle, the circle of life!"). Then if that happens, maybe we'll even see an end to this glut of lobster! Disgusting bottom feeders.... they remind me of lawyers.
  
  --
  Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
2. Re:Actually it's good news since... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  I'm curious about your reasoning: Do seals eat lots of cod?
  I truly don't know about the dietary habits of seals.
  (And please don't compare lobsters to lawyers. It's not fair to the tropical lobsters.)
3. Re:Actually it's good news since... by frank_adrian314159 · 2014-06-23 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  maybe we'll even see an end to this glut of lobster! Disgusting bottom feeders.... they remind me of lawyers.
  Hmmm... Lawyers? To me, lobsters taste more like lobsters than lawyers. Young lawyers are a bit more "porkish" while salespeople and older lawyers (called "politicians" in the food columns) are just nasty - don't eat them.
  
  --
  That is all.
4. Re:Actually it's good news since... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  an adult grey seal eats approx. 40-50 lbs of fish / day (including but not limited to cod). Estimated population off the east coast of Canada is 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 seals. So that works out to at least 150,000,000 lbs of fish every day and that is using the low end of all the estimates for population and daily food consumption.
  People are the reason the Cod fishery collapsed (massive over-fishing) but the seals and the large population increases in the seals over the past 20 years (estimates of seal populations 20 years ago were 300,000 - 500,000) are most likely a significant part of the reason the Cod population is not rebuilding as quickly as had been anticipated.
Re:Good news! by amoeba1911 · 2014-06-23 03:05 · Score: 4, Funny

"God" and "laws of physics" are really interchangeable.
Someone should make a chrome plugin that changes the word "God" to "laws of physics" ... similar to "Coud to Butt"
Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of laws of physics is being revealed from heaven against all the laws of physicslessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about laws of physics is plain to them, because laws of physics has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world laws of physics' invisible qualities--laws of physics' eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of laws of physics is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of laws of physics is stronger than man's strength.
Peter 4:11-12
If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of laws of physics. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength laws of physics provides, so that in all things laws of physics may be praised through laws of physics. To laws of physics be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
Time to remake Jaws by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 03:29 · Score: 0

Time to remake Jaws, this time CG shark will be the size of a small island and eat cruise ships for breakfast
1. Re:Time to remake Jaws by captjc · 2014-06-23 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if the time travel documentary, "Back To The Future 2" is correct, Jaws 19 will be coming out next year. So, we should be getting about a dozen sequels in the next few months.
  Totally stoked for hoverboards, flying DeLoreans, and Home fusion reactors to be invented and appear on the market within the next couple of months as well!
  
  --
  Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
ICD10 codes for shark related injuries by SonnyDog09 · 2014-06-23 03:41 · Score: 1

Since we are talking about sharks, let's talk about how one reports shark and other sea creature related injuries. Here are the ICD10 codes for ocean related injuries, mostly related to being bitten by stuff that lives in the sea. The shark ones are pretty funny. The primary code for shark bite is: W56.41XA - Bitten by shark, initial encounter http://www.findacode.com/icd-1... Here are all the codes related to injuries from sea creatures: http://www.chirocode.com/medic...

--
Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
1. Re:ICD10 codes for shark related injuries by sjames · 2014-06-23 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  The sad part is with all of those codes they shat out, they're still missing venomous sea creatures.
Re:Good news! by cmarkn · 2014-06-23 03:42 · Score: 1

Works for me!

--
People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
Perfect by invisibletank · 2014-06-23 03:42 · Score: 1

Time for a JAWS reboot?
Re:Just when you thought it safe to go in the wate by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2014-06-23 05:08 · Score: 1

We need to close the beaches!
Great for the economy by sjames · 2014-06-23 07:42 · Score: 1

We're going to need more lasers.
Food for thought by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 08:07 · Score: 0

Maybe they heard that the US has an excess of yummy South American children...
Food chain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-23 12:59 · Score: 0

Please. You have more chance to be struck by lightning whilst dying of the flu in the back of an ambulance involved in a car crash than being killed by a shark.
Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-24 04:26 · Score: 0

They're waiting for the next tornado to make their move.
10 YEARS BEFORE 97' CONSERVATION LAW by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-25 06:00 · Score: 0

Wow. This conservation law came about 10 years after the release of "JAWS REVENGE". I'll be damned .