Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rethinking the Wetsuit

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the two-words:-jet-pack dept.

Shark 153

symbolset writes "Apparently Australians have come up with the brilliant idea: if you don't want to be eaten by a shark, it's best to not go swimming in shark-infested waters in a seal costume. 'Scientists from the University of Western Australia, with designers Shark Attack Mitigation Systems (SAMS), have unveiled two new wetsuits that they say could save lives in the water. Based on a breakthrough discovery that sharks are colour-blind, one wetsuit, labelled the "Elude," is designed to camouflage a swimmer or diver in the sea. At the other extreme, the "Diverter" sports bold white and dark-blue stripes, and is intended to mirror nature's warning signs to ward off any potential shark attack.'"

cancel ×

153 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337375)

But when I dive (and I do, often), I want to be seen. That said, I don't dive in shark prone areas.

radical new technology (2)

Moblaster (521614) | about a year ago | (#44337411)

So this is a really safe wet suite. Your entire body becomes invisible, except for your head, which is only about the size of a fish. What could go wrong?

Re:radical new technology (2)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#44337421)

You could wear a wetsuit with a hood - problem solved....

Re:radical new technology (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337453)

Not in Florida.

Re: radical new technology (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337623)

Even the dumbest Hispanics know black guys can't swim.

Re:radical new technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337713)

Florida rule number 1:

If you attack a guy with a gun, he can shoot you. No matter how much he pisses you off before hand. (Stand Your Ground Law)

Florida rule number 2

Don't attack people. Especially people with guns.

----
Simple really. Even if you disagree with them there they are, codified in Florida law. An idiot should be able to understand these laws. And if you break them, Darwin's Law is applied.

Re: radical new technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337781)

And what about the case where the gun holder hunts down the unarmed (after being told to back off, cops are on the way) , and kills the unarmed person? That's murder, not "standing your ground". Darwin's law will be applied to Florida as a whole, when it discovers that visitors & tourists are no longer interested in visiting A state where any gun owner wanna be cop get to commit murder freely.

Re: radical new technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337831)

And what about the case where the gun holder hunts down the unarmed (after being told to back off, cops are on the way) , and kills the unarmed person? That's murder, not "standing your ground". Darwin's law will be applied to Florida as a whole, when it discovers that visitors & tourists are no longer interested in visiting A state where any gun owner wanna be cop get to commit murder freely.

Did you pay any attention to the trial at all? lol

Re: radical new technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338013)

I guess you have to watch institutional racism work to understand that it's acceptable. I got it now

Re: radical new technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338713)

I guess you have to watch institutional racism work to understand that it's acceptable. I got it now

So did you actually watch the trial or not?

Re: radical new technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338069)

Yep, TM's mistake was that his hoodie wasn't white.

Re:radical new technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338115)

Actually there is another rule, which we found out from the women who fired a warning shot at her abusive ex-husband who was beating her and threatening to kill her. If you are going to fire the gun make sure you kill your attacker, then you get to use stand your ground. if you just try to scare them off you get 20 years for attempted murder.

Re:radical new technology (3, Informative)

volmtech (769154) | about a year ago | (#44338391)

Said woman went outside to her car and retrieved the gun. Stand your ground no longer applied. That being said she was afraid for her children, I believe, and it was her home and she did not try to harm him, just send a message. Common sense is not common in the judicial system.

Re:radical new technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338419)

"Said woman went outside to her car and retrieved the gun."

As contrasted with getting out of one's car with one's gun to confront the person one finds threatening, I suppose?

Re:radical new technology (1)

bmimatt (1021295) | about a year ago | (#44337473)

The "solution" to the shark "threat" has been around for a while now, basically a metal armor - google 'shark suits san diego' to see it.

Re:radical new technology (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#44337503)

The "solution" to the shark "threat" has been around for a while now, basically a metal armor - google 'shark suits san diego' to see it.

It has two [amazonaws.com] attack weapons as well.

Re:radical new technology (4, Interesting)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44337559)

Actually patterns on wet suits to look unappetizing to sharks was done around 20 or 30 years ago. It was also done for surf boards as well.
They may not have been these exact designs, but the idea itself isn't new at all.

Re:radical new technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337691)

Yeah, the idea was to imitate the black and white strip pattern of sea snakes. Someone thought they would scare off the sharks. Problem is: with all the people in the water the actual incidence of shark attacks is so low, there was never enough data to confirm or deny the theory.
My thinking on this is it is simply a scam to sell wet suits.

Re:radical new technology (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#44337583)

Wearing chainmail is fine when you are scuba diving, it wouldn't be so practical when trying to surf though.

chain mail and surfing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338243)

I know there have been fights in the lineup, and stealing someone's wave is a big no-no, but really, chain mail? Broadswords? A mace? Is that what StandUpPaddle boards are really about? Single combat on the waves?
What about kevlar and a automatic rifle?

Re:radical new technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338667)

Surfboards should be shark magnets. They basically look exactly the same as a leopard seal surfing in a wave, minus the electrical impulses and vibrations muscles produce in the water.

Re: radical new technology (4, Insightful)

budgenator (254554) | about a year ago | (#44337705)

Most predators use a chomp and shake technique, while avoiding puncture wounds is a good thing, having a 14 foot shark shake you like a rag toy is going to spoil your day

Re: radical new technology (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#44337745)

Especially if you give it a massive tooth ache in the process. Then it just might get really annoyed at you.

Re: radical new technology (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44338089)

Especially if you give it a massive tooth ache in the process. Then it just might get really annoyed at you.

Sharks are too hardcore to even notice a minor problem like that.

When you are a shark, teeth are basically belt-fed consumables [wikimedia.org] . Lose one? Multiple rows of failover teeth just waiting to replace it.

Unless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338475)

Unless you're into that sort of thing.

Re:radical new technology (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about a year ago | (#44337757)

Except, you don't invisible. No matter what color your wetsuit is, your body blocks light. From below you look like a dark silhouette against the sky.

This patent is about making money, not saving lives.

Re:radical new technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337881)

We've been painting the bottoms of combat aircraft sky blue all this time, and you are telling me it doesn't do any good?

Re:radical new technology (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about a year ago | (#44338039)

Take a look at this picture [octopusdiving.com] and tell me what you think.

Re:radical new technology (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44338071)

Air doesn't refract the light the way that water does. It also doesn't require a new paint job when you drop down a few meters like the water would.

Re:That's nice (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337551)

I don't always dive. But when I do, I eat the sharks.

Re:That's nice (5, Funny)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year ago | (#44338061)

Hey Chuck Norris!

I never knew that you post under AC here. I always assumed that your username would be root and your UID was -1.

Re:That's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338483)

Some geek you are, you should know the superuser UID is 0.

Re:That's nice (1)

maynard (3337) | about a year ago | (#44337917)

Can't avoid it in parts of AUS. For example, I'm in Perth, WA at the moment and there have been several shark attacks [perthnow.com.au] over the last few years that have resulted in killings. But somedays there are crazy waves here and just people come regardless of the history. On average, it's not that dangerous. Still.

I'm no surfer dude. I'll stick to the patrolled beaches.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337379)

Shark Week starts August 4th this year.

Won't fool... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337397)

laser armed sharks.

And they want to patent it (4, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#44337405)

it looks just like the ship camo the Navy used in WW2, but since it's applied to sharks instead of the Japanese, we deserve a patent!

Re:And they want to patent it (2)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#44337429)

it looks just like the ship camo the Navy used in WW2, but since it's applied to sharks instead of the Japanese, we deserve a patent!

Also, both the mixed blues and dazzle pattern were common camouflage patterns in WW2, so it is questionable what can be patented here.

Re:And they want to patent it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337785)

Hell, if "remembering stuff about a previous customer... ON THE INTERNET!!!" can be patented, I'm sure "WWII-era naval disruptive pattern... ON A WETSUIT!!!" is just as good.

Re:And they want to patent it (2)

godel_56 (1287256) | about a year ago | (#44338613)

it looks just like the ship camo the Navy used in WW2, but since it's applied to sharks instead of the Japanese, we deserve a patent!

Also, both the mixed blues and dazzle pattern were common camouflage patterns in WW2, so it is questionable what can be patented here.

The stripey pattern is not to prevent the wearer from being seen (and neither was the WWI version, come to that), it's to fool the shark into thinking it's something that tastes bad and is toxic.

Re:And they want to patent it (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year ago | (#44337857)

Drug companies do this, find a new use for a drug to extend a patent.

not shark food (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337415)

Surely it's an evolutionary advantage to any creature to be marked as 'not shark food'. Why aren't all fish stripey ?

Re:not shark food (3, Funny)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#44337519)

Surely it's an evolutionary advantage to any creature to be marked as 'not shark food'. Why aren't all fish stripey ?

I think it was not hip at the time. You know, some fish just want to live on the edge.

some animals fake poison via stripes (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44337571)

The "bees" common in my area where I grew up were not bees at all, but flies, with no stingers, which had bee stripes. I know they aren't the only animals who have fake "not food" markings.

also six species mimic coral snakes (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44337587)

Another example - six species of non-dangerous snakes mimic the bright stripe pattern of coral snakes.

Re:some animals fake poison via stripes (5, Funny)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#44337861)

I know they aren't the only animals who have fake "not food" markings.

Suburban human teenagers have been known to imitate the aggressive display and dress of alpha male gangsters from the city. This is done chiefly to avoid predation or being asked to take out the trash.

lol. I was thinking I've done that (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44338421)

I've kind of done that "avoid predation" thing in bad neighborhoods. With my "nobody's going to fuck with me" walk, apparently some people have thought I was a cop. That's okay, as long as they didn't think I was a victim.

Re:not shark food (1)

DirePickle (796986) | about a year ago | (#44337653)

The first story I saw on this subject talked to a scientist that said one of the most common prey animals for the sharks there is a large striped snake. This could end poorly.

When "I am shark food" is attractive (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44337749)

"I am shark food" is more attractive to females who prefer "I want a mate who has proven that he can outrun sharks". It's signaling [wikipedia.org] , just like what a peahen looks for.

Re:When "I am shark food" is attractive (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about a year ago | (#44339013)

I'm fairly certain that I can out run a shark, they damn animal doesn't even have legs!

Re:not shark food (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about a year ago | (#44338995)

Perhaps that particular mutation is very rare or requires too many steps for evolution to "kick in" (i.e the intermediate stages won't grant the new offspring any advantages so they won't breed in larger numbers and thus there is no evolutionary advantage).

White and Dark Stripes (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year ago | (#44337427)

Because they work so well for Zebras

Re:White and Dark Stripes (5, Funny)

Calydor (739835) | about a year ago | (#44337469)

Yeah, they do. How many zebras are eaten by sharks every year, huh?

Re:White and Dark Stripes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337545)

Wasn't there an article discussed here on Slashdot last year about Zebra patterns being unattractive to insects?

Re:White and Dark Stripes (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year ago | (#44337565)

the "Diverter" sports bold white and dark-blue stripes, and is intended to mirror nature's warning signs

Because only sharks and zebras exist in NATURE am I right?

Re:White and Dark Stripes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337577)

Yeah, they do. How many zebras are eaten by sharks every year, huh?

None survive to tell the tale.

Re:White and Dark Stripes (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44337741)

None, but that's because I sold them shark-repellent rocks.

Re: White and Dark Stripes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337481)

You insensitive clod, I'm dark with white stripes!

Re:White and Dark Stripes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337483)

Ever see a shark eat a zebra?

Re:White and Dark Stripes (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#44337531)

Ever see a shark eat a zebra?

How a shark catches a zebra - that would be a nice bedtime story!

Re:White and Dark Stripes (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | about a year ago | (#44337995)

A new SyFy original: Sharknado vs Giant Zebra.

Sharknado! (1)

ulatekh (775985) | about a year ago | (#44337767)

Ever see a shark eat a zebra?

I can't believe that Sharknado [imdb.com] missed that one! Something for the sequel...

Obligatory Monty Python: (1)

Scot Seese (137975) | about a year ago | (#44337443)

"Duke: Well, our chefs have been experimenting for many years to find a sauce most likely to tempt the crocodile. In the past, we've concentrated on a fish based sauce, but this year, we are reverting to a simple bernaise.

Loothesom: The British team are worried because Olympic regulations allow only the competitor's heads to be sauced. Gavin Morolowe...

Morolowe: Yes, well, I mean, (clears throat) you know, four years ago, everyone knew the Italians were coating the insides of their legs with bolinaise, the Russians have been marinating themselves, One of the Germans, Biolek, was caught actually putting, uh, remolarde down his shorts. And the Finns were using tomato flavoured running shoes. Uh, I think there should either be unrestricted garnishing, or a single, Olympic standard mayonnaise."

In order to create a truly shark repellent suit, designers need to mimic the colors of the shark's most fearsome predator - the mottled reddish-brown paint scheme on the hulls of commercial fishing fleets harvesting the sea for Fillet-O-Fish sandwiches.

Have they tested it? (1)

mvar (1386987) | about a year ago | (#44337449)

And how did they calculate their failure rate? ie "8 out of 10 divers managed to swim unharmed through a pack of sharks..."

Re:Have they tested it? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44337751)

And how did they calculate their failure rate? ie "8 out of 10 divers managed to swim unharmed through a pack of sharks..."

So you take the two that do get attacked, and dress one in the special suit, then send them both out. The suit that comes back is the winner.

Re:Have they tested it? (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#44338457)

In the Secret Agent Diving School, they're not dive buddies, they're dive CHUMS! Remember, you don't have to out-swim the shark, you just have to out-swim the other guy being chased by the shark!

Re:Have they tested it? (2)

Lotana (842533) | about a year ago | (#44338763)

When I was learning to SCUBA dive, we jokingly been told the following procedure when we spot a large shark:

"Stab your buddy and swim away".

alcala de henares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337479)

ace buen tiempo

Patents (1)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about a year ago | (#44337499)

You can see where their mindset is: "We have converted that into patents"...

Lets save lives, but be damn sure that we get paid for every single one.

Why is taxpayer-funded scientific research being patented in the first place? I've heard the argument before: Australian taxpayers paid for it, and deserve to profit from it. But what about American taxpayers, British taxpayers, Canadian taxpayers, etc? Is there no taxpayer-funded research done in any of those countries that could be considered a fair trade for Australian discoveries?

Another advantage (4, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#44337557)

I can point to another advantage of the striped suit.

As a recreational diver, one occasionally drops a piece of equipment in the water. Bold, striped colors would make it much easier to find something (a fin, say) laying on the bottom.

And to respond to a previous poster, they covered pots of chum (chopped fish) in the proposed experimental suit to see how sharks would react. The video clearly shows sharks attacking a square-dotted suit while veering away from the striped suit.

Seems like an innovation discovered by research and experimental method. I have no problem with them having a patent on this.

Re:Another advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337667)

they covered pots of chum (chopped fish) in the proposed experimental suit to see how sharks would react. The video clearly shows sharks attacking a square-dotted suit while veering away from the striped suit.

Sounds great. That is, until the smartest sharks become conditioned to associate striped wetsuits with nice chum-filled snacks.

Re:Another advantage (1)

MasterPatricko (1414887) | about a year ago | (#44337851)

I've heard humans taste bad (c.f. animals that take a bite of humans spit us out / don't take another one) and we're probably not very efficient meals compared to fatty seals or muscley fish, so I doubt there is any evolutionary advantage to sharks becoming better human predators.

Re:Another advantage (1)

Lotana (842533) | about a year ago | (#44338797)

I have heard that the reason for that is that there isn't enough fat in our body tissues. That implies that if you put an obese person into the water, the shark might even come back for a second bite.

Re:Another advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337673)

One, it's funded by taxpayers. Two, it appears that it already existed more or less decades ago. Three, it's just copying a natural process, and is a very obvious choice.

Minimal danger (3, Insightful)

EdZ (755139) | about a year ago | (#44337575)

From TFA:

We're here on the West Australian coast, which is now the deadliest coast in the world

Yes, the deadliest coast in the world. 16 attacks (not all fatal) in... a decade. And how many millions swim off the coast every year? Even if you take Australia as a whole, on average the number of people killed by sharks per year is: one [taronga.org.au]
If you want to avoid being attacked by a shark, I'd like to sell you this tiger^h^h^h^h^h shark repelling rock. It's much cheaper than a brand new wetsuit, and statistically equally as effective!

Re:Minimal danger (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | about a year ago | (#44338049)

"This thing is as dangerous as a mosquito."
"I was worried it was as dangerous as a shark or a lion."
"But sharks and lions only kill a few people. Mosquitoes kill 2 million people each year."
"One of us needs our threat level assessment recalibrated, and I don’t know if it’s her or me."

Re:Minimal danger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338151)

Well, I don't know, *I've* never died from either.

Re:Minimal danger (5, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#44338269)

Yes, the deadliest coast in the world. 16 attacks (not all fatal) in... a decade. And how many millions swim off the coast every year? Even if you take Australia as a whole, on average the number of people killed by sharks per year is: one

This is a conditional probability - you need to account for the degree of exposure to see how that overall fatality rate relates to a specific individual. Since shark attacks are exceedingly rare on land, the overall fatality rate is skewed down by the overwhelming number of hours spent on land (which contributes 0 probability of shark attack). This is different from things like mosquitos, where (nearly) everyone is at risk of a mosquito bite all the time. The overall probability of being killed by a shark is

p = [ (hours on land)*(zero) + (hours on water)*(chance of fatal shark attack) ] / (hours total)

So say the entire population (including everyone who's landlocked) goes to the beach an average of 2 times a year and spends a total of 30 minutes in the water, and suffers 1 shark fatality per year. But the average surfer goes to the beach 3 times a week and spends 2 hours in the water each time. Then the average fatality rate for surfers is equivalent to 312 fatalities per year for the entire population. In other words, if the entire population spent as much time in the water as surfers do, you'd expect to see 312 shark fatalities per year. (The actual rate is lower since a disproportionate number of hours in the water is contributed by these surfers vs. casual beachgoing swimmers.)

Same thing happens for police officers, who are frequently criticized for complaining about the dangerous situations they encounter when their overall fatality rate is lower than for construction workers. But construction workers are exposed to their danger 40 hours a week. As best as I could determine, police officers spend only 10% of their time on patrol, and probably only 1% of that time is in what would be considered a dangerous situation (chasing and apprehending a resisting suspect). So whereas construction workers are exposed to a constant level of moderate risk, police officers face a low risk 99.9% of the time, then an incredibly high risk the other 0.1% of the time. .999*(low risk) + .001*(very high risk) = average low risk. But since their overall fatality rate is slightly below construction workers, that means that 0.1% of the time they're facing a risk of death hundreds of times higher than what construction workers face. That's what they're complaining about.

Re:Minimal danger (2)

quantaman (517394) | about a year ago | (#44339315)

From TFA:

We're here on the West Australian coast, which is now the deadliest coast in the world

Yes, the deadliest coast in the world. 16 attacks (not all fatal) in... a decade. And how many millions swim off the coast every year? Even if you take Australia as a whole, on average the number of people killed by sharks per year is: one [taronga.org.au]

If you want to avoid being attacked by a shark, I'd like to sell you this tiger^h^h^h^h^h shark repelling rock. It's much cheaper than a brand new wetsuit, and statistically equally as effective!

Also from TFA
The five fatal attacks in WA waters in just under 12 months, which earned the state the unwelcome tag of shark attack capital of the world, prompted the research into the suits more than two years ago.

You seem to be working from different figures.

That being said I'd agree that most people overestimate the risk from shark, but they also overestimate the risk of being mauled by a bear. But if I go to an area with a lot of aggressive bears that risk can get a lot higher so it's a really good idea to bring some bear spray, similarly if I'm spending a lot of time surfing in shark infested waters I might not want to look like a seal.

Electrolocation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337633)

When sharks use electromagnetic field changes to detect their prey at close range, I don't know how much they'll care about your stripes anymore.

Re:Electrolocation (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#44337903)

Well combine one of these suits with something with metal strips in to output a high voltage when a shark is nearby and you have a winner - if you can avoid shocking the wearer of the suit, that is.

Wetsuits (1)

Zedrick (764028) | about a year ago | (#44337635)

Honest question. Why use wetsuits in WA at all? I've lived in Perth, WA, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to put on something extra since it's so damn hot all the time.

And yes, sharks.... but they are less annoying/dangerous than the local Christians who writes letters to the editor in the local newspaper, explaining why sharks should be exterminated because they're not part of God's plan.

Re:Wetsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337807)

Dunno. How cold is the ocean? We vacation in Tampa, Florida every year, where it's "damn hot" most of the year, but by the time we get there the ocean temp is probably 20 - 22 degrees C. Off the coast of Northern California it gets down to 10 - 12 degrees C. The former is far more comfortable in a wetsuit, the latter is a little less uncomfortable in a wetsuit.

Re:Wetsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337815)

the local Christians who writes letters to the editor in the local newspaper, explaining why sharks should be exterminated because they're not part of God's plan.

...!?

So... er.. they were unplanned? He got drunk one night, and when He woke up He found sharks swimming around? "How did they get there? Don't remember creating *them*. Oh well, best just leave them. I must have thought there was some reason for doing it."

Re: Wetsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337841)

While water at the surface may be a reasonably comfortably 20C, the water at 20-40m is significantly colder, and can be quite chilling.

Re:Wetsuits (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#44338143)

Honest question. Why use wetsuits in WA at all? I've lived in Perth, WA, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to put on something extra since it's so damn hot all the time.

And I was going to answer; are you nuts it's bloody cold.
WA is the abbreviation for Washington State (U.S.), only going to Google Earth (I really did) to see where in Washington Perth was did I find resolution.

To a recent post of mine on /. were replies of "only in the U.S. was it true", not the rest of the world as I had implied...sigh...

And yes, sharks.... but they are less annoying/dangerous than the local Christians who writes letters to the editor in the local newspaper, explaining why sharks should be exterminated because they're not part of God's plan.

And to think they waste good fish scraps for chum.

Eluding the sharks with a blue wetsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337739)

Works about as well as holding your breath to turn invisible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Electroreception [wikipedia.org]

i will not... (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44337873)

..be signing up for beta testing. No thankee, even with a free ocean cruise and diving thrown in.

Idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337933)

This is idiotic. Sharks don't hunt with their eyes, they have lateral lines.

Re:Idiocy (5, Informative)

stjobe (78285) | about a year ago | (#44338079)

Sharks actually hunt with all their senses:

Hearing: up to several kilometres.
Smell: 100+ metres
Pressure: Up to 100 metres
Sight: Up to 100 metres
Electric: Up to 50 centimetres.
Taste, touch: Direct contact

But yeah, sharks cover their eyes with the nictitating membrane (or roll their eyes back if they lack a nictitatinig membrane, like the Great White) when they actually bite, so they don't rely on their eyes for the final attack; but before that final attack they do rely on their eyes (as well as their other senses).

How about ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44337953)

not going in the water in the first place, problem solved.

All colors are black with back lit (4, Interesting)

erice (13380) | about a year ago | (#44337987)

A surfer paddling on the surface is back lit by the sun. A shadow against the sun is going to appear black no matter what color the suit.

This isn't a problem for scuba diving. However, shark attacks on scuba divers are quite rare even without special wet suits. Sharks' MO is to watch for seals near the surface and lunge upward to catch them. Scuba divers don't linger on the surface and under water they don't look anything like seals.

typo ?!?! (1)

Archfeld (6757) | about a year ago | (#44338107)

""We have converted that into patents that we know will hide [wearers] or present wearers as not shark food."
They won't feed the sharks but it seems feeding the patent trolls is just as bad....

They must be good (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44338409)

even seals are ordering them

1980s flashback (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about a year ago | (#44338433)

The camo suit looks remarkably like the costume that the late Neal Pozner designed for Aquaman [flickr.com] back in the 80s.

Good sharks do not rely on smell at all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338473)

... or that their ability to smell is very bad. That suit is going to be hide you very, very well from any shark near.

Oh, never mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Smell

They give you this but you pay for that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44338529)

Now one can become safe from sharks, now one has to worry about attacks from orcas thinking that the human in this Not-A-Seal-Costume® is a shark.

--
Another fine opinion from The Fucking Psychopath®.

Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!! BEETLEJUICE! (1)

munitor (1632747) | about a year ago | (#44338637)

...says the shark!

Silhouette (4, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | about a year ago | (#44338679)

Whoever came up with this doesn't know much about sharks.

Most sharks and other carnivorous fish hunt from below, looking upward for their prey's silhouette against the bright and shiny sea surface. Doesn't matter what color your wetsuit is, it's not going to break up your silhouette.

In fact, the reason prey fish have silvery sides and bellies is to blend in with the shiny sea surface. You could try a reflective websuit, I suppose, but then you'd look even more like a fish.

Re:Silhouette (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44339109)

Whoever came up with this doesn't know much about sharks.

But they seem to understand marketing.

Missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44339101)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought that sharks didn't need colour vision, due to their highly acute sense of smell, and the fact that they are so sensitive to electrical impulses that they can detect your heartbeat through your goddamn skin. This makes them the sea's highly evolved prey-seeking death machines. Visual spectrum camouflage doesn't mean a thing. Highly visible weird looking wetsuits seems to make more sense than that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>