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

Vikings vs Romans: A hypothetical battle

Roman army vs the Vikings If one were to take the Roman army at its height, it would decimate any early medieval army that would cross its path, according to a claim by Dan Carlin. To test his theory, let’s take a look at a hypothetical battle fought between the Vikings and the Romans.   It is easy to see how Carlin would come to such a conclusion.  At the height of the Roman empire in 117 AD, the army boasted hundreds of thousands of soldiers, all professional, all equipped and supplied well at the expense of the state. No such force existed in western European countries in the Viking age.  Armies were mostly levies with core body of professionals such as the Germanic huskarls or household guard. One could argue that this lack of professionalism was mitigated by a warrior culture.  This is erroneous, however.  Classical Greek and early Roman societies had a warrior culture that prized courage in battle.  Every citizen was also considered a so...
Post a Comment
Read more

Does Gandhi's civil resistance always work?

Gandhi's salt march Non-violent civil resistance is a wonderful idea whose utility cannot be underestimated.  In theory and practice, the authority which does not lead by consent will naturally lose its foundation.  If the non-violent civil resisters are brutalised , then the authority loses all vestiges of legitimacy since legitimacy stems from honorable action and popular consent. However, it is not a principle that can work universally.  Non-violent civil resistance worked well in India for a number of reasons. The first is the population in India outnumbered the British expatriate class and administration by over a thousand to one.  Secondly, the vast geographical expanse between India and England was a further deterrent to keeping India.  Keeping India could only be justified (from an economic perspective) if the risks and losses from such a distance could be mitigated or exceeded by the resources gained from ruling.  Furthermore, the adminis...
Post a Comment
Read more