http://english.ahram...-behind-sh.aspx
There's more:
http://blogs.news.sk...ee-c72a5845f2a8
Edited by Timmoranuk, 07 December 2010 - 06:37 AM.
Posted 07 December 2010 - 01:58 AM
Edited by Timmoranuk, 07 December 2010 - 06:37 AM.
Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:19 AM
Posted 07 December 2010 - 05:29 AM
The shark will ask to see your logbook first......You'd be very surprised how many conspiracy theories come about when things happen in a "hot" zone. It's always someone, if not human then it's aliens or little gremlins. Seems to be a coping mechanism to handle the seemingly unfathomable, at least for those who buy into it. Trained mutant piranhas up next... in 3D... oh wait that's been done!
The good news is that diving is going to reopen, although I fail to see how the number of dives is a factor in jumping into the sea when it's the operators who should be controlling the group and whether to get out or not depending on the danger.
Posted 07 December 2010 - 11:40 AM
The 50+ rule is used in the Red Sea for dive sites that are deemed potentially challenging for less experienced divers - and which includes the ones that have been sanctioned by the latest CDWS bulletin.The good news is that diving is going to reopen, although I fail to see how the number of dives is a factor in jumping into the sea when it's the operators who should be controlling the group and whether to get out or not depending on the danger.
The shark will ask to see your logbook first......
Posted 07 December 2010 - 12:39 PM
The good news is that diving is going to reopen, although I fail to see how the number of dives is a factor in jumping into the sea when it's the operators who should be controlling the group and whether to get out or not depending on the danger.
Posted 07 December 2010 - 08:41 PM
I 'believe' some of it also comes down to how divers 'might' react underwater. A diver with a few logged dives might be more inclined to react calmly upon seeing a shark. The average newbee may well make a splash about it (pun intended) and any resulting thrashing could incite said shark.
That's only my opinion, and has about as much scientific basis behind it as the Mossad claims:)
Either way, the shark has to get through my camera before it gets to me:D
Edited by Christian K, 07 December 2010 - 08:41 PM.
Posted 07 December 2010 - 09:22 PM
You can only block whatever is coming at you if you can see it in your limited FOV through your mask. The rest of the time, the shark is looking at you from behind... unless you are a Jedi, kungfu master or Mossad trained of course.Either way, the shark has to get through my camera before it gets to me:D
Posted 08 December 2010 - 03:56 AM
Finally an admission that they are out of their depth....You can only block whatever is coming at you if you can see it in your limited FOV through your mask. The rest of the time, the shark is looking at you from behind... unless you are a Jedi, kungfu master or Mossad trained of course.
Posted 08 December 2010 - 06:24 AM
Posted 08 December 2010 - 07:19 AM
Indeed. Well found and thanks for posting.Here's an intelligent resume of the situation by James Lea. The media would do well to talk to him...
http://saveourseas.c..._in_perspective
Posted 08 December 2010 - 08:00 AM
Posted 08 December 2010 - 08:31 AM
Drew, whilst I agree with what you say about the media, if you work within a tourist industry you should have some idea of what to say and what not to say to the media.....Duncan, let's be fair to say that not many people have been through such a situation and it's inevitable that a government official, pressed to give an answer and also economic pressure to reopen beaches, will make a few goofs. It's not as if the press have NEVER misquoted, take something out of context or plain fabricated statements before. Many of them still have not corrected that only 3 tourists were injured by the shark and the 4th was injured by coral. This includes Fox News, LA Times and NY Times. The newswire isn't always reliable journalism.
As for why the shark bit,.it's also pretty much just going to be accepted theory as to what happened vs someone coming up with irrefutable facts. If the media wanted sane and measured comments, it would be a first time in modern sensationalistic journalism.
Posted 08 December 2010 - 11:25 AM
Drew, whilst I agree with what you say about the media, if you work within a tourist industry you should have some idea of what to say and what not to say to the media.....
Posted 08 December 2010 - 07:18 PM
Posted 08 December 2010 - 09:32 PM
It seems to me that if you take all the snorkellers on the coast at Sharm and take them well offshore to snorkel everyday, a number will get bitten by oceanic white tips.
Conversely, if instead you bring the OWT sharks in to shore by baiting with discarded sheep carcasses, you could probably achieve the same outcome.
Edited by Timmoranuk, 08 December 2010 - 09:39 PM.
Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:11 AM
Posted 09 December 2010 - 05:08 AM
Posted 09 December 2010 - 05:10 AM
No snorkling allowed anywhere...incl Ras and TiranCommercial snorkelling operations out of Sharm do frequent the offshore reefs at Tiran where Longimanus are habitually present. Parties of perhaps 20 or 30 holiday makers resplendent in day-glo buoyancy aids and fluorescent yum-yum fins are herded around in packs close to the south reef edges (in water considerably deeper than the inshore bays where the four recent incidents occured), splashing their white arms and legs and swimming erratically... I assume that the recent restrictions on snorkelling will have applied to these offshore sites as well as the bays around Sharm, though I havn't seen this specified in statements from CDWS.
Posted 09 December 2010 - 05:15 AM
Update, Snorkling is being allowed in sheltered bays in Ras and in the Nabq Protectorate....No snorkling allowed anywhere...incl Ras and Tiran
Posted 09 December 2010 - 05:22 AM
Some interesting info from Dr. Elke Bojanowski and HEPCA
http://www.hepca.com...rk_dec-2010.pdf