Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australia Working On High-Tech Shark-Detection Systems (itworld.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the get-one-for-your-bathtub dept.

jfruh writes: Even if you're a frequent ocean swimmer, you're much more likely to die in a car accident than from a shark attack — and yet sharks strike fear into people's hearts in ways that directly affect the economies of surf paradises like Australia. That's why the Australian government is working on a host of techologies to detect shark incursions on popular beaches, including drones and smart buoys (PDF) that can identify potential predators (PDF).

60 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. System not required by billybob2001 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You don't need a system to detect "High-Tech Sharks"...

    ...you can see their laser-beams easily.

    1. Re:System not required by mx_mx_mx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not if the lasers are infra-red

      --
      Linux forever
    2. Re:System not required by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      No, the system will *USE* lasers to detect the sharks.... You just don't get it, do you Scott?

    3. Re:System not required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't need a system to detect "High-Tech Sharks"...

      ...you can see their laser-beams easily.

      Do not look at laser with remaining eye.

    4. Re:System not required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Use your cell phone camera, although finding a pocket for it at the beach can be dicey at best.

    5. Re:System not required by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      That won't work for the stealth sharks which remove their lasers before assaulting a beach.

    6. Re:System not required by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You don't need a system to detect "High-Tech Sharks"...

      ...you can see their laser-beams easily.

      Yes, you should just look towards the las.... AAARGH, my eye.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:System not required by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The normal term for that storage space is NOT "pocket".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Re:Systemd not required by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Lasers don't kill people, sharks kill people.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Godzilla? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

    What about Godzilla? This is worth nothing if it can't detect Godzilla.

    I'm not obsessed, whatever makes you think I'm obsessed?

    --
    Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  4. Seems a bit silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What they really need is a box jellyfish detection system.

    1. Re:Seems a bit silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just stay out of the water and problem solved. What they really need is a drop bear detection system.

    2. Re:Seems a bit silly by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The box jellyfish is much smaller and harder to detect and also inhabits coastal areas with far fewer people than sharks and in these areas jellyfish nets are setup and wearing skin protection is the norm.

      There have been 3 reported fatalities from box jellyfish since 2000 in Australia, the last one 12 years ago.
      There have been 5 reported fatalities from shark attacks in 2014 alone in Australia.

  5. Swim Drive by EthanDemurs · · Score: 1

    So of course you're more likely to get into an accident. I imagine that if I swam the same distance that I drive everyday, off the coast of Australia, I would've died a long time ago from the jaws of a misled white shark.

  6. Seems unlikely to be effective by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason that shark attacks are rare isn't that sharks are rare, it's that they rarely attack people. So any properly-functioning shark detector is going to be sounding the alarm multiple times per day, at least. That's not going to make people feel safer about getting into the water.

    In an ideal world the solution would be education. If people understand statistics they'll realize that they should be far more afraid of the drive to the beach or of drowning while swimming or surfing than of being attacked by a shark. The risks are orders of magnitude higher... and it's not like many far more common forms of death aren't equally gruesome and painful. They just aren't as newsworthy and our cavemen brains are wired to judge probability by the frequency with which we hear a story, and how spectacular it is.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason that shark attacks are rare isn't that sharks are rare, it's that they rarely attack people. So any properly-functioning shark detector is going to be sounding the alarm multiple times per day, at least. That's not going to make people feel safer about getting into the water.

      In an ideal world the solution would be education. If people understand statistics they'll realize that they should be far more afraid of the drive to the beach or of drowning while swimming or surfing than of being attacked by a shark. The risks are orders of magnitude higher... and it's not like many far more common forms of death aren't equally gruesome and painful. They just aren't as newsworthy and our cavemen brains are wired to judge probability by the frequency with which we hear a story, and how spectacular it is.

      The reason those arguments don't work on actual people is based around what they can control. People generally believe they are better drivers or swimmers or are at least smarter than the next guy and won't allow themselves to get into a situation that they can see coming. In those cases, they think they can control the situation.

      They do not however feel the same way about a 15 foot white pointer capable of either biting them in half or swallowing them whole that may or may not be swimming unseen yards away from them. A human in the water is nearly as defenseless as an infant against a bull dog.

      The other reason the argument from statistics fails is the same reason it fails with playing the lottery. Statistically, you shouldn't be afraid of sharks in "non-sharky" waters (you know, away from seal colonies, etc), and statistically, you shouldn't play the lottery, but you are and you do.

      The shark defense field will serve the same purpose the TSA does today, giving people the false sense that humans have some modicum of control of the world around them.

    2. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Tell you what though.... When the fin comes up near you when you are in the surf it doesn't matter how much you academically know it probably isn't interested in you it's terrifying.

    3. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by swillden · · Score: 1

      The reason those arguments don't work on actual people is based around what they can control.

      Actually, I think that's just part of what makes the shark attack narrative compelling and "spectacular", to use the word I used before.

      The other reason the argument from statistics fails is the same reason it fails with playing the lottery. Statistically, you shouldn't be afraid of sharks in "non-sharky" waters (you know, away from seal colonies, etc), and statistically, you shouldn't play the lottery, but you are and you do.

      You do? I don't. Not unless the expected value exceeds the ticket price (which does occasionally happen in the big cumulative lotteries).

      The shark defense field will serve the same purpose the TSA does today, giving people the false sense that humans have some modicum of control of the world around them.

      But it won't, because in this case it will just reveal that there are more sharks out there than they realized.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by swillden · · Score: 1

      Tell you what though.... When the fin comes up near you when you are in the surf it doesn't matter how much you academically know it probably isn't interested in you it's terrifying.

      I suppose. I've been swimming with sharks lots of times and didn't find it frightening, but I've always been under the water, not on the surface.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I've never found then scary when under the water. But when you are in the surf and all you can see is a fin I have found it down right terrifying. I think it is because you can't see the whole animal. So your mind turns it into something bigger than Jaws. On top of that when you are underwater you can follow their movements, where as on the surface all you see is the fin when it breaks the surface and with any kind of waves it's when they are close. So your mind gets to run amok creating the worst possible scenario.

    6. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Also, shark attacks on humans are usually a mistake by the shark. They are either bull sharks, which just bite anything they run into, or they are tiger sharks that are munching through a school of bait fish and a human is in the way.

    7. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Kinda like an asteroid detector system that doesn't plot trajectories... what they really need is mood rings for sharks, tag 'em all and when one is in a human biting mood, sound the alarm.

    8. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I've never found then scary when under the water. But when you are in the surf and all you can see is a fin I have found it down right terrifying. I think it is because you can't see the whole animal. So your mind turns it into something bigger than Jaws.

      I'm a confident swimmer so when I'm out there I duck under and have a look at the sandbars so I can pick the where the best waves are for a body bash, which is usually an advantage over the board riders who can't tell what is under them - which is what I think you mean.

      You can't help looking for that dark shadow.

      Once when I was out there I saw a seal, in a hurry, he swam right at me and I knew when I saw the paniced look in its eyes it was trying to escape. I got the fuck out of there immediately - swam at right angles to the seal. I was still panting from swimming hard and as I got out the 'shit!, shark' warnings started. That was a bit too close - lesson earned.

      My mate told me his experience while he was on a board, they don't always attack first, sometimes they bump up against you to see how tough you are - what you might taste like. It did, he crapped his dacs and got the fuck out of there because he was not that tough. He said the shark skin was like coarse sandpaper and would easily graze skin - he had a wet suit on.

      It's pretty clear when they are hunting so avoid the times when the sun is coming up or down to be in the water because that is when the shadows are longest and the sharks are hungriest.

      It leaves me wondering though, if all those factory ships are out there getting all the fish, why wouldn't the sharks are coming closer to shore to find food?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So sharks with superb senses designed to hunt in cubic miles of ocean are also some how completely incapable of telling the difference between a fish and a human. Sharks attack people because they are hungry and because the senses detect people as potentially edible, nothing more and nothing less. There first try at eating humans are cautious, take a chunk see if it poisonous or dangerous and then come back to finish it off if it is safe. Humans are generally gone by then and for centuries, said shark and any sharks in the vicinity where killed following an attack, hence no chance to further exploit that taste test. No such thing as an accidental shark attack, they are all trial runs and failed attack. You know how many successful shark attacks you here about, none, which is exactly how a successful shark attack appears, missing presumed drowned (successful attack, shark gets it's meal and no one is the wiser except the shark).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I usually body board and where I am unless you were wearing goggles you can't see that far under water due to the sand and stuff being thrown up by the waves. Max 5 meters.

      The closest I have ever come is sitting with a group when a decent sized fin has passed right through the middle of us. Don't know how big it was, but it wasn't a little one. We were out of there straight away.

      As for them coming in to shore I have only ever seen the big ones come in chasing schools of fish. It looked very similar to this - https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

      I live near the Sunshine Coast in Australia.

    11. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Sorry this is just plain wrong. Have a look at the bull shark for example, one of the 3 most likely sharks to bite a human. They are basically blind bottom feeders that use the bump and bite method of attack. They are common as hell in the Brisbane River and there are plenty of reports of people being bitten then released.

      You seem to have thrown all sharks into the apex predator open water category of the great white and that simply isn't right.

      As for successful shark attacks leaving no evidence this is also patently wrong. Humans are big even relative to large sharks and unless you get a pack there will be parts of the body left to be found later.

    12. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by KGIII · · Score: 1

      We get the Great White up my way (off the New England coast) and they don't really even bite anyone. I'm not sure why the person above thinks sharks get killed if they bite humans. It's not like the movie Jaws where they hunt around for a specific shark or anything. There's no great throng of people with pitchforks and torches who go hunting mean sharks that bite people. They just stay the hell out of there for a few days. I also kind of doubt that sharks are telling each other, "Go for the fat ones, those are the best humans."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

      Which is not a lot of comfort to the guy who got both his arms bitten off, in Western Australia (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/shark-attack-sean-pollard-loses-arm-both-hands-in-feeding-frenzy/news-story/6e2eff891ce25ba13d25a1444f7a91d4). It doesn't really matter if the shark considers you a preferred meal or not, once it's taken a bite out of you.

    14. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The reason that shark attacks are rare isn't that sharks are rare, it's that they rarely attack people. So any properly-functioning shark detector is going to be sounding the alarm multiple times per day, at least. That's not going to make people feel safer about getting into the water.

      Sharks don't rarely attack people, they rarely interact with them. Claiming overall statistics is misleading as the time spent under threat is many orders of magnitude different for a person driving to the beach for the car accident and the shark attack case. There's a reason why most shark attacks happen to surfers, and there's also a reason why most shark attacks happen to go into water. Comparatively road fatalities can happen to almost anyone.

      When you consider that there's no reason not to have a shark detection system. As it is if a shark is spotted in a swimming area the life guards will typically attempt to close down the beach. It's just automating something we already do out of common sense. As someone who has scuba dived with sharks I am not afraid of them, underwater we respect them and they respect us. On the surface we could represent any number of things, food, threats, and look like any number of things (big people, little people, people with strange shapes, people with cuts bleeding etc.

    15. Re:Seems unlikely to be effective by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      So any properly-functioning shark detector is going to be sounding the alarm multiple times per day, at least. That's not going to make people feel safer about getting into the water.

      I don't think the shark detector is not going to be hard wired to a WW2-era klaxxon on the beach.
      This system will most likely try and reduce the need for expensive spotter planes or RIB patrols which currently do the job of the initial spotting. How that is dealt with will still be a matter for manned beach patrols

      In an ideal world the solution would be education

      That is happening too. The area I wakeboard on is a known Bull Shark nest, yet no-one runs out of the water screaming hysterically when a fish is sighted. Most people brought up around water here know how to deal with these situations. the Shark detector will simply make detection cheaper more reliable (hopefully).

  7. Lawyers ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, really, hear me out ... about a kilometer or so off shore, continuously chum the water with lawyers.

    This way the sharks are always well fed, and won't come in-shore.

    Of course, the animal rights groups might object that feeding the lawyers to the sharks might harm the sharks, but they'll come around.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  8. Won't work by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Funny

    You forget the old joke:

    Q: Why don't sharks bite lawyers?
    A: Professional courtesy.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. Finally a legitimate use for drones by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Seems like a good candidate for drone with pattern recognition software.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  10. I got this! by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

    You know what's worse than sharks? Box jellyfish.

    I figure that if a shark ever comes near me while I'm wading, I'll grab a few blueys and chuck 'em at the sharks until they go away.

    --
    "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  11. Australia. Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sharks aren't what they should be worried about. You have to go in the water to get eaten by sharks. But death adders... no, those assholes will slither up your leg while you're waiting in line at the Hungry Jack's. And then, when you run screaming into the water to get away from the death adders, BAM! the sharks got you.

    Fuck Australia. It's a shame, too, because the last time I was there I had a really good time. But the only reason I'm still alive is because having a blood alcohol level of over .25 acts as a death adder repellent. At least that's what the Qantas stewardess told me as we were landing. Thank god the airport bar was open.

    And let me tell you, it's not easy maintaining a blood alcohol level of over .25 for six weeks while you're a visiting professor on a university fellowship. Fortunately, the rest of the faculty seemed to be on the same anti-death adder regimen.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: Australia. Nope. by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Is your name not Bruce, then?

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  12. Re:Australia. Nope. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

    But you have to stay indoors if you are taking the alcohol repellent approach. For some reason that haze of alcohol you have sweated out makes drop bears go fucking crazy. Personally I would prefer death by red belly then drop bear.

  13. plot for Sharknado 4 by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Start the movie off with them rolling out this new system.

  14. Re:Australia. Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    But you have to stay indoors if you are taking the alcohol repellent approach.

    But indoors is where the ear wax spiders hang out.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Oh stop it already! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Swim there for free beer" and "All the Pop Celebrities swim here" still work for Darwin's laws, and with the massive nanny state it's one of the last remaining refuges.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  16. Re:Australia. Nope. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

    Don't forget the red-backs in the toilets. And the huntsmen that roam the bedrooms carrying necrotizing fasciitis.

    http://www.greenlivingtips.com...

  17. Re:That's not why. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    "Even if you're a frequent ocean swimmer, you're much more likely to die in a car accident than from a shark attack" is meaningless. How "frequent"? How far do you drive?

    Like playing Russian Roulette is safer than going to bed. Far more people die in bed.

  18. low tech sometimes best . . . by swell · · Score: 1

    There's no need for high tech detectors. The best method is to throw in some bait to test the waters. I suggest lawyers, politicians or music industry executives.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  19. Forget the shark... by I'm+not+god+any+more · · Score: 1

    Either:
    a) You'll be killed on the way home by a vehicle
    or
    b) You'll be killed by the minefield

  20. Re:Australia. Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the red-backs in the toilets. And the huntsmen that roam the bedrooms carrying necrotizing fasciitis.

    Holy hell. Is Australia the result of some lab accident gone wrong, or what?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  21. Sharks? What sharks? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    What is really out there

  22. relevant video by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    relevant video:shark observers filming a great white shark from an inflatable pontoon boat. shark attacks and partially deflates boats. shark observers gtfo.

  23. Re:Australia. Nope. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the red-backs in the toilets. And the huntsmen that roam the bedrooms carrying necrotizing fasciitis.

    Holy hell. Is Australia the result of some lab accident gone wrong, or what?

    The Maralinga tests outback resulted in some strange interactions with the DNA of the animals that were out there. In the cities we just dismissed some of the stories as kooky country folk, but then strange things happened in the outer suburbs. When it finally got to the cities, we knew we were in trouble and we had to desperately find somewhere these strange toxic migrants would go willingly.

    Mel Gibson and Russel Crowe have been in the US for a while now and we are forever indebted to you for it.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  24. Re:Australia. Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Mel Gibson and Russel Crowe have been in the US for a while now and we are forever indebted to you for it.

    I guess that's OK, but you're also gonna owe us for the barbecue you stole.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  25. Re:Australia. Nope. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    At least our possums are way cuter than yours (assuming you're a yank of course). Possums are meant to be cute and fluffy. Not what ever the fuck happened to create an opossum!!!

  26. Re:Australia. Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    At least our possums are way cuter than yours (assuming you're a yank of course). Possums are meant to be cute and fluffy. Not what ever the fuck happened to create an opossum!!!

    True story: One summer back in high school was the first time I saw a US possum. We were out at the forest preserves and I was a little buzzed. I thought it was a mutant dog with radiation poisoning. Scared the hell out of me.

    Nature really is an awful thing. Sooner we wipe it out the better.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Re:Australia. Nope. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    If you want to hear awful have a listen to 2 koalas fighting...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Skip it to about half way through and you will get the demon possession noises...

    I live out on acreage and have a eucalyptus reserve running through my property. I hear this every night during spring (ie now)

  28. Re:Australia. Nope. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Death adders are very small and slow as snakes go which apparently makes them more prone to bite than flee as the larger poisonous snakes usually do. However they are uncommon. I've only seen one up close on a narrow rock ledge on a mountain - either asleep, dead or deciding to stay coiled up and not move. Either way it was a relief to get off that ledge after what seemed like forever but was probably two minutes.
    I know it was meant to be a silly post above, but we do have enough snakes that even those in politics have to deal with them:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-26/nt-politician-kezia-purick-removes-another-snake/6885284

  29. Re:Australia. Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Thank you. Now I won't sleep tonight.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  30. Re:Australia. Nope. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    However they are uncommon. I've only seen one up close on a narrow rock ledge on a mountain - either asleep, dead or deciding to stay coiled up and not move.

    When I was in Australia last, I saw death adders everywhere, but my effort to maintain a .25 blood alcohol level might have had something to do with that. I mean, I saw yowie and drop bears, too. In fact, I think I may have brought a drunk yowie back to my hotel room.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  31. Re:Australia. Nope. by mykro76 · · Score: 1

    You must have been visiting the detox university. 0.25 BAC is enough to ward off death adders but won't save you from the redbacks or the drop bears.

  32. Re:Australia. Nope. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Sadly the Yowie is now extinct in Australia but it has been sighted in Florida:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yowie_%28chocolate%29

    They were a good replacement for easter eggs and I've used many of the plastic animals inside as gaming figures.

  33. Re: Australia. Nope. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Where did this Bruce thing come from?
    I remember one of my American friends being absolutely astounded that we had a 1700km long highway called the "Bruce Highway". I don't understand.

  34. Re: Australia. Nope. by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    The Bruces sketch.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  35. Re: Australia. Nope. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    WTF how have I not seen this! :-)