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!

Great White Sharks Making Comeback Off Atlantic Coast

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-go-back-in-the-water dept.

Shark 107

An anonymous reader writes "A report that scientists are calling one of the most comprehensive studies of great white sharks finds their numbers are surging in the ocean off the Eastern U.S. and Canada after decades of decline — bad news if you're a seal, but something experts say shouldn't instill fear. The scientists behind the study attribute the resurgence to conservation efforts, such as a federal 1997 act that prevented hunting of great whites, and greater availability of prey. The species is listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature."

cancel ×

107 comments

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

Good news! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296635)

Because those that get eaten alive by a Great White had it coming to them! God's Will!

Re:Good news! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296647)

Two words!!

GLOBAL WARMING!

Your a fool for believing that "GOD WILL"!

Re:Good news! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296731)

"God" and "laws of physics" are really interchangeable. The argument between those who call themselves atheists and those who don't is merely over what the laws are.

Re:Good news! (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47297233)

"God" and "laws of physics" are really interchangeable. The argument between those who call themselves atheists and those who don't is merely over what the laws are.

Which is why every night I pray to the laws of physics.

Re:Good news! (4, Funny)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about 3 months ago | (#47297909)

"God" and "laws of physics" are really interchangeable.

Someone should make a chrome plugin that changes the word "God" to "laws of physics" ... similar to "Coud to Butt"

Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of laws of physics is being revealed from heaven against all the laws of physicslessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about laws of physics is plain to them, because laws of physics has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world laws of physics' invisible qualities--laws of physics' eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of laws of physics is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of laws of physics is stronger than man's strength.

Peter 4:11-12
If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of laws of physics. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength laws of physics provides, so that in all things laws of physics may be praised through laws of physics. To laws of physics be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

Re:Good news! (1)

cmarkn (31706) | about 3 months ago | (#47298183)

Works for me!

Re:Good news! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296785)

Yea resun is climit change yea thats it.
2010 white shark dangered speshes cause climit change
2014 white shark much manier cause climit change

Look Maw... I'm a news reporter!

Upgrades (1, Redundant)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | about 3 months ago | (#47296673)

I'm happy to see that my laser upgrades have helped to greatly facilitate the mating process. Onwards to step 2!

Re:Upgrades (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296895)

Speaking of comebacks. Your Mom has difficulty wiping all the cum off her back. You know up between the shoulder blades is very hard to reach and she does take a lot of dick doggy-style. Lots and lots of dick in fact. Actually, your mom's a total slut!

Re:Upgrades (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296975)

Does she do dogg-vag or dogg-anal? I've always been curious.

Fantastic news! (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 3 months ago | (#47296675)

Pass the soup!

Re:Fantastic news! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296761)

I think you mean "Fintastic news!"

I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress.

Just... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296679)

We're gonna need a bigger laser.

Re:Just... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296913)

We're gonna need a bigger laser.

The ironfisted totalitarian police state does have one upside: it might decide to imprison people who still think this meme is funny. Or ever was funny. Gettin pounded in the ass with no lube by Bubba and his fifteen fellow gang-rapists while the guards pretend not to hear your screams. Now THAT'S justice! Oh if only I got my wish, every last one of you fat pasty doughboy meme-repeaters would have your assholes repeatedly fucked bloody right now. Don't even ask what should happen to the morons who keep modding memes up, encouraging more and more of you to suckle the low hanging testicle-fruit of slashdot groupthink... there is a special place in Hell for them and it makes American prison rape sound pleasant by comparison.

Re:Just... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 3 months ago | (#47300809)

Which one? There's two memes there cunningly juxtaposed.

Food chain (3, Funny)

penix1 (722987) | about 3 months ago | (#47296687)

This is one of the many reasons I don't go anywhere near the ocean. It is a food chain out there and I don't need to be the weakest link.... GOODBYE!

Re:Food chain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296923)

This is one of the many reasons I don't go anywhere near the ocean. It is a food chain out there and I don't need to be the weakest link.... GOODBYE!

Whomever modded this up is as "smart" as you are. The chances of being killed by an ocean animal (big or small) are so tiny that if you were rational about it you'd either not believe there's a risk at all, or you'd never leave your place because the risk of being killed by a car are much higher.

Care to ask Kelly Slater [wikipedia.org] if he has problems going anywhere near the sea? Or do you think it's the board keeping him safe?

Re:Food chain (1)

cmarkn (31706) | about 3 months ago | (#47298293)

Staying at home is probably the most dangerous thing you can do, since more accidents happen at home than anywhere else.

Re:Food chain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47298367)

Per an hour?

Re:Food chain (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 3 months ago | (#47296959)

You do know that statistically you're more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark, right? I'd have to check but I think it's even more likely you'll die from a lightning strike. So you'd better be safe and never leave your house again.

Seriously...that's a really silly attitude based in ignorance. Now, I don't care if you ever go in the ocean, but your reasoning so flawed it's almost funny.

Re:Food chain (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297017)

OTOH the statistics is only valid as long as I don't increase my exposure to the sea. If I was constantly swimming in shark waters I suspect that the risk of me being killed by bees decreases dramatically.

Re:Food chain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47300771)

Depends, most shark on human attacks are in shallow rivers (bull shards). You can have bee and shark encounters in the same place.

Re:Food chain (2)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 3 months ago | (#47297037)

Now, I don't care if you ever go in the ocean, but your reasoning so flawed it's almost funny.

Lighten up. It was clearly suppose to be funny

Re:Food chain (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#47297061)

...more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark

Sure. We'll even go with the bee metaphor even though the humble mosquito kills more humans than even humans do.

Here's the thing. People do panic and behave irrationally around bees... especially if they're predisposed to an allergic reaction.

An irrational fear of a dangerous animal is a survival tool. On the one hand, it makes it much easier to kill since there is no room for empathy in the fear-paralyzed mind. On the other hand, there's The Grizzly Man.

Re:Food chain (1)

tsa (15680) | about 3 months ago | (#47297587)

Irrational fear is not a survival tool. It's a way to get you killed more easily by the thing you fear. Irrational fear makes you panic, and panic makes you do the wrong things, like running away from predators or trying to swat bees with your hands, making them angry and much more likely to sting you.

Re:Food chain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297095)

I really, really wish I could find the darn article I read last week that did a breakdown on the numbers. The gist of it was pointing out that deaths-by-shark-attack are calculated with a denominator of everyone, including people who never get to the beach. So "An American man is more likely to get circumcised by a thrown spork than he is to die of shark attack" is sort of bogus, because of how the odds of shark attack are calculated.

Re:Food chain (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 3 months ago | (#47297279)

You do know that statistically you're more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark, right?

Wrong.

If you're allergic to bee stings, you're far more likely to die from a bee sting than statistics indicate. If you aren't allergic to be stings, you're far less likely to die from a bee sting than statistics indicate.

Statistics based on the population as a whole do not represent the actual chances for a specific individual to die in a specific way. Individual behavior and risk factors tend to average out over a large population and can be ignored, but they can't be ignored when speaking about a single person.

your reasoning so flawed it's almost funny

It's ironic that you should say that....

Re:Food chain (1)

swb (14022) | about 3 months ago | (#47297401)

I wonder if the "more likely to die" statistics between bees and sharks take into the respective populations place of residence.

People who live within NN miles of the ocean would be more likely to swim in the ocean, people like me thousands of miles would almost never have a chance to swim in the ocean.

Bees, however, are everywhere.

Re:Food chain (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47297545)

Bees, however, are everywhere.

Increasingly, less so [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Food chain (1)

swb (14022) | about 3 months ago | (#47297737)

I would imagine that "bee stings" is a generic term that also includes stings from wasps and hornets.

As for colony collapse, an economic analysis concludes that it's somewhat overblown.

http://perc.org/sites/default/... [perc.org]

Re:Food chain (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297815)

Like economists know anything.

Scientists and beekeepers disagree.

Economists are idiots, plying a fake science, which boils down to ideology. There is nothing real, objective, or scientific about economics.

Re:Food chain (1)

Copid (137416) | about 3 months ago | (#47298557)

Overblown as in, "not really happening to the extent we thought," or overblown as in, "Well, fuck the bees. We don't need 'em anyway"?

Re:Food chain (1)

Lab Rat Jason (2495638) | about 3 months ago | (#47298067)

The bitch of it is... I'm totally allergic to great white attacks.

Re:Food chain (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47297489)

You do know that statistically you're more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark, right

Well, if he doesn't go near the ocean, that is pretty much guaranteed to be true.

I, for instance, have an exceedingly small chance of being eaten by a dingo.

but your reasoning so flawed it's almost funny.

WHOOSH!

Re:Food chain (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 3 months ago | (#47298277)

I don't go anywhere near the ocean.

You do know that statistically you're more likely to die of bee stings than from a shark, right?

That goes without saying, since sharks rarely leave the ocean.

Re:Food chain (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 months ago | (#47298339)

Practically speaking, almost all shark attacks on humans are accidental. We're just not that tasty to a Great White. More often than not, said shark saw you as a tasty sea lion or seal and wanted a snack.

Of course, it doesn't help that said animals generally are black, and people like to wear dark swim clothes (wetsuits, etc) making humans appear to be said food.

Of course, you could also try to befriend some dolphins, who do seem to be the shark's worst enemy. Or at least dolphins appear to repel sharks for whatever reason.

Re:Food chain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47300875)

my suspicion it's related to the Dolphins predatory sexual behaviour...

Re:Food chain (1)

butchersong (1222796) | about 3 months ago | (#47299325)

I would hazard a guess that people spend quite a bit more time on land (where the bees live) than swimming in the ocean. This is like saying I'm more likely to die in my home. Well... yes my home is where I spend most of my time that doesn't make my home more dangerous than other locations.

Re:Food chain (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 3 months ago | (#47297187)

This is one of the many reasons I don't go anywhere near the ocean

The reason I don't go anywhere near the ocean is because I've got a chance of being killed in a car accident on my way there (and back). Actually being killed in the ocean? That's nuthin'.

Re:Food chain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297221)

This is why I take every oppretunity to eat sea predators. Shark, Whale, Swordfish, Sawfish, Rays, Jelly fish, lionfish. That way when I enter the water, they can smell the scent of death of their own kind on me. That and a little napalming of the water before entering does wonders for warding off sea life.

Re:Food chain (1)

mfh (56) | about 3 months ago | (#47297477)

Shark attacks typically end in blood loss deaths far more often than someone being eaten. They simply don't like the way humans taste and most times when they attack a human it's because they think we're a seal.

Re:Food chain (1)

tsa (15680) | about 3 months ago | (#47297609)

I don't think that really matters to the people being killed by the sharks though.

Re:Food chain (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 3 months ago | (#47298285)

It makes a pretty big difference to the people who survive being mistaken for a seal, though.

Re:Food chain (1)

tsa (15680) | about 3 months ago | (#47298855)

Woosh :)

Re:Food chain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47298171)

Shark attacks typically end in blood loss deaths far more often than someone being eaten. They simply don't like the way humans taste and most times when they attack a human it's because they think we're a seal.

Sometimes though the human did something stupid. You poke the shark, the shark will poke back -- but the shark can poke only with lots of teeth.

Re:Food chain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47299089)

GOODBYE!

You just went near the ocean, didn't you?

good news for the sharks .... (3, Insightful)

thephydes (727739) | about 3 months ago | (#47296689)

but probably bad news for the morons who like their photo taken with a dead marine top predator.

Re:good news for the sharks .... (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 3 months ago | (#47296937)

but probably bad news for the morons who like their photo taken with a dead marine top predator.

I don't think necrophiliacs care much about sharks.

Re:good news for the sharks .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47297509)

Three words for you: Rule Thirty Four.

And, no, I have no intention of googling it. ;-)

Re:good news for the sharks .... (1)

tsa (15680) | about 3 months ago | (#47297619)

I did. It's not defined in the Urban Dictionary, so Rule 34 doesn't exist.

Re:good news for the sharks .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47297733)

That, or you've lost track of how to use google. Because for me, it's [urbandictionary.com] the first search result.

It's most certainly defined in the Urban Dictionary.

Danger??? (1)

stephendavion (2872091) | about 3 months ago | (#47296729)

hmmmm ...the swimmers need to be more careful then ,.....

Re:Danger??? (2)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#47296775)

Well not necessarily, if as the article says there's a greater abundance of food then they'll be less likely to come and hunt dangerous and relatively bony and low meat humans.

Generally they don't hunt us out of choice, but out of necessity.

It's possible that an increase in great whites will result in reduced attacks if the increase is the result of greater availability of food so now satisfy or more than satisfy the population. It'll only be an issue if there are years where their food sources suffer population declines or similar.

Re:Danger??? (4, Informative)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | about 3 months ago | (#47296795)

Actually, Great Whites don't even hunt us out of necessity: We are literally useless to them as food. All they ever do to us is take a bite, realize their mistake, and carry on looking for a worthwhile meal.

The trouble is, given their method of taking a bite involves slamming into their target at high speed and sinking hundreds of teeth in, you may well have been torn in half by the time they go "oops" and spit you back out...

Re:Danger??? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 3 months ago | (#47296829)

Actually, Great Whites don't even hunt us out of necessity: We are literally useless to them as food. All they ever do to us is take a bite, realize their mistake, and carry on looking for a worthwhile meal.

The trouble is, given their method of taking a bite involves slamming into their target at high speed and sinking hundreds of teeth in, you may well have been torn in half by the time they go "oops" and spit you back out...

And all that happens... 0,2 times per year?

Compared to deaths at sea for any other reason (ran over by water bike, ran over by surfer, ran over by motorboat, drowned by currents, ...) in which position are white sharks? Next to deaths by stepping on a rusty nail while running at the beach?

Re:Danger??? (1)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#47296899)

True.

Dying is one thing. Everyone does it.

But the concept of suddenly (and surprisingly) being "eaten" by something (even accidentally) you can't really fight or escape from is a fairly horrifying one for most people.

Re:Danger??? (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 3 months ago | (#47296927)

On one side, a vicious shark. On the other a retard with a motorbike, half a dozen beers and a large breasted bikini blonde to impress.

hmm. Based on my past experiences with both, I'll take my chances with the shark.

Oh, and I don't see how you can fight or escape a motorbike either.

Re:Danger??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297205)

I'll take my chances with the large breasted bikini blonde. I'm not sure what threat she represents but I'm certain it warrants further investigation!

Re:Danger??? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 3 months ago | (#47297611)

Statistically, she's the most dangerous of the threats.

You've just failed the "Are you a woman/gay man?" test. Congratulations on passing the "Are you a straight man?" test. You should receive your male card in the next five working days.

Re:Danger??? (1)

operagost (62405) | about 3 months ago | (#47297393)

Uh... take out the guy riding it?

Do you ever leave the basement?

Absurdly unlikely dangers (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#47297247)

But the concept of suddenly (and surprisingly) being "eaten" by something (even accidentally) you can't really fight or escape from is a fairly horrifying one for most people.

It's not hard to imagine all sorts of horrifyingly unpleasant ways to die. Doesn't make them any more likely. Sharks kill so few people it's barely even worth worrying about. If someone is worried about their personal safety around sharks there is a 100% foolproof way to avoid them - stay out of the water. People seriously lose their damn minds when it comes to absurdly unlikely dangers like shark attacks. I worry about a shark attack about as much as I worry about an alien invasion.

Personally I find the idea of dying slowly from some debilitating disease like ALS or cancer to be a far more horrifying and likely prospect.

Re:Danger??? (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 3 months ago | (#47296935)

And all that happens... 0,2 times per year?

Compared to deaths at sea for any other reason (ran over by water bike, ran over by surfer, ran over by motorboat, drowned by currents, ...) in which position are white sharks? Next to deaths by stepping on a rusty nail while running at the beach?

Inaccurate risk perception is way too pervasive in our society. Our schools need to get much better at teaching kids how to assess it.

Re:Danger??? (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 3 months ago | (#47297203)

in which position are white sharks? Next to deaths by stepping on a rusty nail while running at the beach?

Hey, man don't underestimate the dangers of tetanus. Rusty nails are a real killer, especially when they're attached to boards [google.com] .

Re:Danger??? (1)

cycler (31440) | about 3 months ago | (#47296887)

And I have no mod points.....

/C

Just when you thought it safe to go in the water (1)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#47296747)

Dun dun dun dun dun dun!

Re:Just when you thought it safe to go in the wate (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 3 months ago | (#47298909)

We need to close the beaches!

Awesome (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47296753)

Great White Sharks Making Comeback Off Atlantic Coast

Been a fan of GWS since the beginning. Where can I get tickets? Bit of a weird choice of venue, though.

Re:Awesome (1)

cmarkn (31706) | about 3 months ago | (#47298355)

Where can I get tickets?

Check with Nucky Thompson. He can get you a great spot on the boardwalk.

Excellent news! (5, Informative)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | about 3 months ago | (#47296783)

As has been shown time after time, the loss of apex predators is disastrous for all levels of an ecosystem.

(If you want examples, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org] - loss of wolves lead to over-grazing by elk; reintroducing them not only sorted the elk problem but boosted the numbers of beaver colonies, resulting in less erosion; pushed the cougars back to their traditional grounds; reduced the numbers of coyotes, which increased the number of foxes and thereby decreased the numbers of rodents, which altered the survival rates of various seeds and fungi... a whole cascade of improvements triggered by the return of a single predator.)

Re:Excellent news! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296947)

There's a great video [youtube.com] detailing some of these things you mentioned about the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone.

Re:Excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296991)

it also reduces the number of delicious children roaming around if there are no cougars in the area. cougars keep the kid population down also though

Re:Excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297005)

At least it keeps down the ones who won't look up from mommy's Ipad.

Now, if we could train the cougars to chase, not necessarily devour, idiots who can't put down their phone while they cross streets in traffic.

Re:Excellent news! (4, Funny)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 3 months ago | (#47297065)

Yay wolf!
I'm all for beavers and cougars.

I blame ... (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 3 months ago | (#47296827)

... Global Warming.

Re:I blame ... (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 3 months ago | (#47296943)

I blame Evolution.

Re: I blame ... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297537)

Thanks Obama!

Unbelievable (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 3 months ago | (#47296833)

Can you still call anything "great white"? I thought it would have been "dimensionally advantaged caucasian".

It's great to be white. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47296983)

http://www.3tshirt.com/media/images/ca3e338af2bf70862600bd8ab14da2d8fc5dcd0a.jpg

Not pimping any particular site that has the design intentionally, its just an awesome shirt.

Hazaa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297031)

Another great victory for the voluntary Human extinction movement!

Check the news (3, Informative)

kaizendojo (956951) | about 3 months ago | (#47297113)

One was just sighted this weekend off the coast of New Jersey.

Re:Check the news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297445)

Good. Hopefully it'll attack those reality show dimwits.

That's nice for the Atlantic (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47297155)

"A report that scientists are calling one of the most comprehensive studies of great white sharks finds their numbers are surging in the ocean off the Eastern U.S. and Canada

Okay, so what about, you know, the rest of the world? The Pacific is the ocean of Fukushima. The Gulf is the ocean (well, gulf) of Corexit. Garbage gyres, offshore dumping... from what I can tell, the Atlantic is pretty much the cleanest ocean left.

Re:That's nice for the Atlantic (1)

gregmark (750089) | about 3 months ago | (#47297227)

... from what I can tell, the Atlantic is pretty much the cleanest ocean left.

I think they're all pretty dirty and polluted with plastic. The Atlantic has the Sargasso Sea, AKA the Great Atlantic Garbage Dump. Whereas the recently expanded USA marine reserve in the Pacific is considered one of the most pristine regions of all the oceans... for now.

You can't win. Hey, but good news is good news, I'll take it.

Re:That's nice for the Atlantic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47297451)

"A report that scientists are calling one of the most comprehensive studies of great white sharks finds their numbers are surging in the ocean off the Eastern U.S. and Canada

Okay, so what about, you know, the rest of the world? The Pacific is the ocean of Fukushima. The Gulf is the ocean (well, gulf) of Corexit. Garbage gyres, offshore dumping... from what I can tell, the Atlantic is pretty much the cleanest ocean left.

The oceans have never been a clean place, My people used to build ships, farms and entire villages out of driftwood and recycled all manner of other of stuff that drifted ashore but that was recyclable waste you could make useful again. The shitload of plastic we are dumping into the oceans can't be economically collected and re-purposed and they won't degrade quickly. Even in the North Atlantic the problem with plastic is a big one, especially plastic bags, bottles and those nasty nylon fishing nets. I'm starting to feel really disgusted every time I buy something wrapped in plastic. I don't remember Mars bars or Cookies tasting any worse when they came wrapped in paper. I have even taken to going to a butcher's shop and bakeries where I get the product wrapped in paper rather than buying stuff shrink wrapped in plastic at the Supermarket just to cut down on my plastic consumption. I even stopped shopping at a couple of supermarket chains when they switched from paper wrapping to shrink wrapping stuff in copious amounts of plastic at the butchers counter. Whoever discovers a 100% economically recyclable (not downcyclable, REcyclable) plastic or preferably a bio degradable plastic alternative will IMHO be among the most deserving recipients of the Nobel prize ever.

Re:That's nice for the Atlantic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47299419)

You are under some serious misconceptions about the nature of recycling. Thermodynamics does not permit 100% efficient recycling. You may now open your mouth and insert your foot.

Recycling takes energy if the material to be recycled needs to be cleaned, altered, broken down and reformed, etc.. Energy is not free. Recycling often (not always) takes less energy than mining and processing a brand new equivalent resource, but it is NOT, I repeat, NOT a free source of anything. The cost may be lower (than brand new), but by asking for 100%, you've automatically relegated your request to the land of faeries and unicorns.

Fucking dumbass.

Re:That's nice for the Atlantic (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47297847)

the Atlantic is pretty much the cleanest ocean left.

Has it recovered from Jersey Shore this fast?

Don't call it a comeback (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | about 3 months ago | (#47297259)

I've been here for years...

Actually it's good news since... (1)

cjjjer (530715) | about 3 months ago | (#47297419)

The seal population has been running unchecked for decades now. I just hope that people don't go all anti-shark when more people are mistaken for seals and get attacked. Sorry but you are swimming in their habitat, expect you might get confused for food.

Re:Actually it's good news since... (1)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | about 3 months ago | (#47297729)

Mod parent up! If the sharks can get the seals back under control, there's still an outside chance the cod will recover (everyone sing together: "It's the circle, the circle of life!"). Then if that happens, maybe we'll even see an end to this glut of lobster! Disgusting bottom feeders.... they remind me of lawyers.

Re:Actually it's good news since... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47298203)

I'm curious about your reasoning: Do seals eat lots of cod?

I truly don't know about the dietary habits of seals.

(And please don't compare lobsters to lawyers. It's not fair to the tropical lobsters.)

Re:Actually it's good news since... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47300331)

an adult grey seal eats approx. 40-50 lbs of fish / day (including but not limited to cod). Estimated population off the east coast of Canada is 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 seals. So that works out to at least 150,000,000 lbs of fish every day and that is using the low end of all the estimates for population and daily food consumption.

People are the reason the Cod fishery collapsed (massive over-fishing) but the seals and the large population increases in the seals over the past 20 years (estimates of seal populations 20 years ago were 300,000 - 500,000) are most likely a significant part of the reason the Cod population is not rebuilding as quickly as had been anticipated.

Re:Actually it's good news since... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about 3 months ago | (#47298237)

maybe we'll even see an end to this glut of lobster! Disgusting bottom feeders.... they remind me of lawyers.

Hmmm... Lawyers? To me, lobsters taste more like lobsters than lawyers. Young lawyers are a bit more "porkish" while salespeople and older lawyers (called "politicians" in the food columns) are just nasty - don't eat them.

Get eaten bytch (0)

noshellswill (598066) | about 3 months ago | (#47297861)

Go on GreenPeace  bytch go for a dip off Cape Hatteras.  Way cool in that mod bikini. . Get yo *zzwhole eaten off.  thumpthumpthumpthump CHOMP!

Time to remake Jaws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47298077)

Time to remake Jaws, this time CG shark will be the size of a small island and eat cruise ships for breakfast

Re:Time to remake Jaws (1)

captjc (453680) | about 3 months ago | (#47298275)

Well, if the time travel documentary, "Back To The Future 2" is correct, Jaws 19 will be coming out next year. So, we should be getting about a dozen sequels in the next few months.

Totally stoked for hoverboards, flying DeLoreans, and Home fusion reactors to be invented and appear on the market within the next couple of months as well!

ICD10 codes for shark related injuries (1)

SonnyDog09 (1500475) | about 3 months ago | (#47298177)

Since we are talking about sharks, let's talk about how one reports shark and other sea creature related injuries. Here are the ICD10 codes for ocean related injuries, mostly related to being bitten by stuff that lives in the sea. The shark ones are pretty funny. The primary code for shark bite is: W56.41XA - Bitten by shark, initial encounter http://www.findacode.com/icd-1... [findacode.com] Here are all the codes related to injuries from sea creatures: http://www.chirocode.com/medic... [chirocode.com]

Re:ICD10 codes for shark related injuries (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 months ago | (#47299997)

The sad part is with all of those codes they shat out, they're still missing venomous sea creatures.

Perfect (1)

invisibletank (2920371) | about 3 months ago | (#47298187)

Time for a JAWS reboot?

Great for the economy (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 months ago | (#47299967)

We're going to need more lasers.

Food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47300157)

Maybe they heard that the US has an excess of yummy South American children...

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>