Powered By Blogger

Monday, May 7, 2012

Jaws Sidebar


In the wake of the tragic deaths of Amity, Massachusetts youths Chrissie Watson, 17, and Alex Kintner, 10, who were both killed in an unprecedented string of shark attacks, citizens of Portsmouth have become concerned with the safety of New Hampshire beaches.
            Statistics show, however, that shark attacks, especially fatal ones like these, are incredibly rare in this New England, and particularly so here in New Hampshire.
            “We have no documented history of shark attacks historically or otherwise [in New Hampshire],” said Renee Zobel, a marine biologist for the New Hampshire Marine Fisheries Division.
            According to Zobel, the species of sharks that commonly infest New Hampshire waters include several species that are historically non-aggressive such as the Blue Shark, the Mako Shark, the small Spiny Dogfish Shark, and the Basking Shark.
            Only occasionally, Zobel says, do we see the notoriously aggressive Great White Sharks, the species that has accounted for the most attacks and fatalities on humans, around New Hampshire.
            “The possibility of a Great White attack is unlikely,” said Jonathan Pennock, Director of the Marine Program at the University of New Hampshire.  “They tend to be warmer water fish,” he said.
            Prior to the fatal attacks on Watson and Kintner, Massachusetts had only recorded two shark attacks in the state’s history.  One of these attacks, which occurred in 1936, resulted in a fatality.
            Other than the now four attacks that have taken place in Massachusetts waters, New England has been home to very few shark attacks historically.  Only Maine, Connecticut, and Rhode Island have recorded attacks, each with one in their history.
            According to the International Shark Attack File (or ISAF), compiled by Ichthyology Department at the Florida Museum of Natural History, there have been 1,085 shark attacks in the history of the United States.  Only 44 of these attacks resulted in fatalities.
            However, the United States has accounted for more than double the amount of shark attacks recorded on any other continent.  The next closest is Australia, which has recorded 488 shark attacks.  Worldwide, there have been 2,463 shark attacks in history, for which the US accounts for nearly half.  Last year, there were 75 confirmed unprovoked attacks worldwide.
            Of the recorded US attacks, nearly 78% have occurred in Florida, which has accounted for 637 attacks, California, and Hawaii, which have both accounted for just over 100 attacks apiece. 
            To put the odds of being attacked in perspective: According to Oceana, an international oceanic protection agency, 200 million people visit US beaches each year.  Of these people, only 36 will be attacked by sharks, placing the odds at 1 in 11.5 million.  (See graph below).  One is more likely to be struck by lightning, or killed by a dog than to be killed by a shark.  So, the odds are in your favor, beach-goers.


            Risk of Beach Injuries and Fatalities: (Courtesy of Oceana)
Drowning and other beach-related fatalities:
1 in 2 million
Drowning fatalities:
1 in 3.5 million
Shark attacks:
1 in 11.5 million
Shark attack fatalities:
0 in 264.1 million

Friday, May 4, 2012

New York Times Reading Log - 20 (Thursday's Paper)

Well, this is almost an emotional moment.  This is my last New York Times Reading Log of the year (I think) and the Times celebrated in style, putting out one of the thickest, most news dense issues I have seen in my brief tenure as a New york Times reader.  With a massive 30-page A-section, this is by far the biggest issue of the Times I have ever seen.  Holding the whole paper is a workout.  It has to weigh a pound.

A couple stories caught my eye in this one.  The most interesting, I thought, was the article (written by not one, not two but three writers.  Plus two more contributors. So basically 5 writers, which I thought was cool.) about the exit of Romney's gay foreign policy aide Richard Grenell. Evidently, Romney received some degree of public outcry from the far right and social conservatives about having a gay member of his staff.  This has to be the surprise of the century, right?  I can't help feeling frustrated about this story.  Of course, the Romney camp is saying/will say that it wasn't because he was gay, but we all know the real story.  It's a shame that fiscal conservatives have to subject themselves to the morals of a Christian-infiltrated political party.  But that's the way it goes I guess.  The Republican party's biggest problem, and the reason more people don't join their ranks is because they are stuck in the social dark ages.  But I guess they'd lose a lot of people if they distanced themselves from that too, wouldn't they?  So I don't know the solution.

Also, it is crazy and hard to believe that the US ranks so poorly in the world in terms of premature baby births.  This is something I cannot understand.  It's good that the information is out there, though.  At least we can move toward fixing the problem.


New York Times Reading Log - 19 (Wednesday's Paper)

The article in today's New York Times about conservative news mogul Rupert Murdoch's sticky situation was a particular article of interest.  The fact that Murdoch has been found to be "not a fit person" to run a huge international news company is very justified.  If the allegations of the hacking scandal are true, then it stands to the most basic, fundamental level of logic and journalistic ethical understanding that he should be disallowed to run a news organization.  It would be interesting to see how other news publications placed this story.  The liberal New York Times is pleased to plaster Murdoch's sorry story above the fold on the front page.  I wonder where more conservative papers ran the story, or where Fox News ran the story on their broadcasts.

Additionally, in a related story the Times printed a scathing article about the editor of the Daily News, Colin Myler.  "Colin Myler has always shown a thirst for the eye-poppoing story and a willingness to take the heat to run something that will sell, sell, sell," write N.R Kleinfield and Jeremy W. Peters.  It's cool to see the Times flex their journalism muscles and crap all over the editor of a tabloid like this.  It just goes to show that the Times really is somewhat untouchable in the news world.