Read this, chum…

No-one can deny that the latest fatal shark attack in False Bay was a tragic event. David Lilienveld, a 20 year old body-boarder from Camps Bay who had represented South Africa in the sport, died after he was attacked at “Caves”, a popular surfing spot at Kogel Bay between Gordon’s Bay and Rooiels.

What’s also tragic is the sudden outpouring of pseudo-expert opinions, many blaming the Ocearch shark project which was taking place in False Bay at the time, for the attack. Of course, understandably, emotions were running high due to the incident yesterday and the controversial, if often over-exaggerated, reports of Ocearch “chumming” the water to attract sharks to tag offered a convenient scapegoat. These accusations were further supported by the director of Biodiversity and Coastal Research, Alan Boyd immediately cancelling Ocearch’s research permit when he heard about the attack.

Now, 24 hours on from the attack, the City of Cape Town has released a report and review of the events yesterday. It’s calm, detailed, factual and rational. Everyone should read it. Especially this bit:

The following critical point needs to be stated. During the attack the sharks dorsal fin broke the surface (as reported by the eye witness Mr Marais). If this shark had been one of the tagged sharks, the satellite transmitter would have given off a signal that would have been recorded on the system and located the shark at Kogel Bay. On assessing the data, no satellite records exist for that area. Two of the sharks tagged in False Bay have given off signals and were located in the Macassar/Strandfontein area shortly before the attack. The lack of satellite signal is clear information that the shark involved in the attack is not one of the sharks tagged by the Ocearch Research Programme.

Further, with regard to public speculation of the role of chum, the following should be noted. White sharks occur in False Bay in healthy numbers throughout the year. The small and limited chumming by Ocearch would not have attracted additional sharks to False Bay as the amount of chum used is insignificant in comparison to natural chum sources in the bay including the natural chum slick emanating from Seal Island, fishing activities in False Bay, by-products from Kalk Bay harbour as well as the small and immaterial chumming by permitted cage divers. Furthermore, the Ocearch Programme operated in False Bay at Seal Island on Sunday and Monday. The wind direction has been strong south east throughout the week. Any residual chum from their activities would have dissipated within hours and, due to the wind direction, moved from the island in an opposite direction to that of Kogel Bay.

As a result, there is no evidence or reason to suggest that the tagging of four White Sharks over a period of 24 hours from Sunday 15 April to Monday 16 April, in False Bay, by the Ocearch Programme had any role to play in the tragic events that occurred at Caves.

Although the City has, and continues to have, no role in the Ocearch Programme, as well as not feeling that it is appropriate, or required, to defend or support the programme, it holds the view that it is essential that the correct and factual information be provided to the public. Public and media speculation linking the two unrelated activities is uninformed and misleading. 

Highlighting is mine.

There’s more detail in the report as to why the City has (independently)  reached this conclusion, but I applaud them for actually taking the time and effort to put that last paragraph in.

The report also answers several of the questions asked by ZigZag’s Anton Louw in an obviously personal column “Ocearch and the Kogel Baai attack – Searching for answers, finding few” published overnight. There are a few questions still outstanding though, including this one (on the practice of chumming):

Why are almost all the scientists and researchers lined up on the one side of the fence, and the laymen on the other?

When tragic events like this occur, people look for any reason that can explain things. In this case, Chris Fischer’s methods and Alan Boyd’s go-ahead had already raised the ire of the layperson community well before yesterday’s incident. But that ire was based upon misinformation and exaggerated facts (see also: fracking). Do these people really think that the director of Biodiversity and Coastal Research just signed off that research request without some degree of forethought?
Sadly, his kneejerk reaction yesterday in cancelling, instead of simply postponing, Fischer’s permit will lead many to think he did.
And ironically, because of his actions, we will now know less about the behaviour of great white sharks in False Bay; information that could potentially assist in preventing further attacks of this nature.

All in all, it’s another lesson that sometimes bad things happen for no reason. And also that looking at factual information – especially independently reviewed factual information – is infinitely more sensible that leaping to emotional and incorrect conclusions.

Crustal evolution assistance

Ooh – incoming email:

Dear 6000,
I am a geology student from the UK and I am looking for some assistance with a project on the geology of Table Mountain. Since you mentioned this subject in a post recently
[I did? Oh yes. I did. – Ed.] and you are based in Cape Town, I wondered if you might be able to help me out.
Specifically, I am looking for a photograph showing the effect of cross-cutting faults separating multiple peaks of Table Mountain Group sandstone on an eroded granite basement together with some indication of the proximity of this phenomenon to the Western Seaboard of the Cape Peninsula.
I really hope you can help.
Best regards,
Steve Green.

Woo. Toughie. You’re asking for a lot of detail in one photo there, Steve.

Fortunately, I have scoured the 6000 miles… photo archives and found the perfect image for your project, detailing everything you require.


There you are Steve, I hope it meets your needs.

Off

I shared this elsewhere yesterday, but that doesn’t stop me sharing it here today.

Firstly, the bad news. It’s a door handle. I want to tell you about a door handle.

How exciting can that be? Well, I think it’s pretty cool, actually:

So, you and the family is going on this big vacation and just as you finish locking up everything and shut the main door, your wife calls out – hon, did you check the gas and switch-off all the lights? Sounds familiar? How about if you had the ‘Off’ installed! It is a door handle with connections to your mains like gas supply and electricity. Simply switch off both or either one of the services by rotating the dial and flip it back to activate it all. Super cool and innovative I tell ya!

Look, we don’t have gas here, but we do have a two water heaters and a pool pump which would CHOW electricity (despite this) if we left them on while we headed down to Agulhas (or wherever).

What a brilliant idea: saves electricity and gas, reduces nagging, saves time, prevents stress.

iLike.

Secrets of the fixture computer

After a question from @chickenruby yesterday evening, I found myself wandering back onto Paul Fletcher’s 2009 blog post, detailing the immense amount of thought that has to go into organising the fixtures for the English football leagues. Thankfully, Paul did the work so we don’t have to:

I wanted to find out exactly how the fixture list is put together and just how difficult a job it is. Needless to say, I spent a large chunk of last weekend in a dark and cool room as my brain tried to come to terms with its most serious case of information overload since I asked my wife to point out my most obvious flaws.

There’s a bit more to it than simply ensuring that The Mighty Blades and the snort-beasts from S6 don’t end up playing at home on the same day:

Putting the fixture list together is incredibly complex – with a whole series of factors ensuring it is an increasingly difficult task.

Just to give you one example; every club is paired with another in regard to when they play their home and away fixtures. This is done for a number of reasons, one being so that clubs like Everton and Liverpool do not play at home on the same weekend.

West Ham, it turns out, are paired with Dagenham and Redbridge. But for reasons of revenue Southend request they do not play at home on the same day as the Hammers as they believe it impacts upon their attendance.

Southend, though, are in Essex, as are Colchester, so they cannot play together on the same weekend. Colchester share stewards with Ipswich so those two clubs also request they do not play home games on the same weekend. Transport links dictate Ipswich and Norwich do not play together on the same weekend either. In other words, when West Ham play at home can have an impact on when a club as far away as Norwich (108.8 miles) play their home fixtures.

And there are 12 other professional clubs in London…

But if you think that that describes the full complexity of the system, think again. Because then you have to avoid fixtures clashing with European games, International friendlies, World Cup qualifiers, English cup competitions, big local events and the like. Then you want to limit the amount of distance fans have to travel on public holidays when public transport options may be limited.

And then there’s the individual requests of each club.

As Fletcher notes:

…it must be an agonising, head-scratching process that slowly strips you of the will to live.

For instance, every time a fixture is changed it affects at least seven other fixtures and can easily impact on as many as 48.

The whole article carefully details the entire process and is well worth a read, even if you’re not a big footy fan.

Death By Life

Late nights, disturbed sleep, early mornings. It all adds up and suddenly I realise again that I’m not getting any younger.

image

We spent the afternoon at a wedding overlooking Simonstown, a few miles down the coast from Kalk Bay where we partied until late last night.
False Bay is beautiful, but I don’t want to go back there until I’ve properly recovered.