Skip to main content

More people killed by bees than by sharks: A true but misused statistic



Whenever a discussion about sharks crops up, it almost always revolves around their relationship with humans, specifically the danger that they may pose to humans.  Only a handful of species of shark, however, will consider attacking human beings. Statistically, great white sharks, bull sharks, tiger sharks and oceanic whitetips are the ones that have attacked humans most often.
                One does not hear of the oceanic whitetip as much as the other three in that it is far harder to have an exact statistic for their attacks because they are mostly involved with shipwrecked sailors and air crash victims instead of isolated incidents. They would be the most dangerous shark by far if the true number of their attacks were in the indices.
           

      When one mentions the statistic of deaths by bee stings as proof that bees are more dangerous than sharks, this is gravely misleading as the number of people who come in contact with bees (billions) vastly outnumber those who fall bleeding and burnt into the ocean with few life rafts.
                The most prominent example of this would be the USS Indianapolis, an American heavy cruiser class battleship in World War two which was sank on July 30 1945 by a Japanese submarine.  After the initial torpedo blast and sinking, around 300 of the 1196 crew men died, while the remaining 900 jumped into the water many without lifejackets, with only a few life rafts between all the men. The life rafts that were used were wholly inadequate, as they were a simple affair of a floating tube with a lattice floor suspended on ropes. With these the men could stand (or float around it) while their legs would be exposed to any shark.  Many who jumped ship were badly burned by the blast and some even lost limbs.  Those who were seriously injured died on the same night as the sinking or early the day after.  Sharks were drawn to the smell of blood in the water and devoured the bodies of seamen.  Survivors soon realised that there was safety in numbers and formed tight groups. This had the advantage of staving off hypothermia and the sharks.  They would learn to keep clear of badly wounded and burned as this made them more susceptible to being dragged down by sharks themselves. Survivors accounts also told of how the men who had drunk saltwater attacked their shipmates became delusional and subsequently swam off in search of a non-existent island.  These men according to accounts did not get far before a shark would get them.  These men would often see the same delusions and would swim off by the dozen.
               


      It is obvious that the statistics for those in close proximity to these sharks in the open ocean are not the same as the statistic inclusive for the general populace.  If dozens of people were killed by bees out of only a few hundred then we would be far more cautious around bees.

The same people claim that one should not be afraid of sharks on the basis of that statistic.  I firmly disagree.  We are not gods in nature that will never be hunted by a hungry animal.  There is nothing wrong with a healthy fear.
http://www.medicinenet.com/bee_sting_treatment/views.htm
(number killed annually by bee stings in the United States.)
 http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/statsus.htm
(numbers of those killed by sharks in the United States)
               
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whatever happened to slingers?

Andean sling - Img source Wikimedia commons This is a question that crops up in forums and discussions about ancient combat.  Slingers were described by the ancients in very positive terms.  Suddenly they were no longer present.  There are scanty records of sling combat post-antiquity and many explanations have been postulated for their demise. The first is that slings were replaced by bows.   Bows became predominant simply because they were better, more precise, farther reaching etc. The problem with this theory is that while both slings and bows are biodegradable, the oldest discovered bows (Holmegaarde, 6000 BC) predate the oldest sling discovered (2500 BC, Lovelock cave) by thousands of years.   The theory also discounts all written evidence concerning the sling.   Slings were crude but powerful weapons which could project missiles much further than an archer could shoot an arrow.   Long range throwing also depended on the type of ammun...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why did the Romans use swords instead of spears? (A reply to Metatron)

Relief depicting Persian spearmen Metatron, for those who don’t know of him, has made many excellent videos on YouTube regarding historical events and peoples.  He specialises in Japanese and Ancient Roman history, but regularly answers questions on other historical periods. In one of his videos, he gives his view of why the Romans used swords instead of spears, as most warriors and soldiers did in antiquity. He proposed that the Romans chose swords instead of spears because of the equipment of the opponents that they fought.  Most of them, he said were barbarians rather than the armoured men of later eras.  He rightly stated that the Romans would have quickly adapted their army to an armoured threat if they had to face one.  He gave an example of the Roman legions quickly employing the manica (arm guard) in response to the Dacian falx. While he makes a good point about Roman adaptation to the threats they faced, the hypothesis that the Roman soldiers fa...
Post a Comment
Read more

The decline of the use of shields in warfare

For the majority of the history of warfare, the shield has featured prominently.  It was mostly used by infantry and then by archers and cavalry.  It had great utility in deflecting blows and protecting the user from missiles.             With such great utility, how did it decline in usage? Some might say that gunpowder small arms had something to do with it.  The fact is that shields were increasingly discarded by close combat troops prior to the widespread adoption of firearms. A shield was typically made from wooden slats (or wicker in some Middle Eastern constructions) and covered with rawhide for extra reinforcement and protection. Some early depictions of the shield in massed combat were Assyrian reliefs showing spearmen with large tower shields protecting archers and slingers.   Assyrian soldiers The Persian Sparabara functioned in the same way.  The use of the shield was never ...
Post a Comment
Read more