Why are they idiots?

Because the risk/reward ratio is off?

You're in favor of free range kids, right?

What's the risk of death per hour of a child walking more than two blocks from home?

What's the risk of death per hour of a child swimming with sharks while 24" from his parent?

I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but before I could say that one is smart and the other is stupid, I'd want to have some data.

I believe that NEITHER of us has data right now, so I'm not sure how either of us can have a meaningful opinion.

> it's putting a kid in harm's way with unpredictable creatures.

Letting a child walk a mile to the store is also putting a child in harm's way with unpredictable results.

Your argument seems to be that there is crisp delineation of behaviors: some are in the "safe" bin and some are in the "dangerous" bin.

This is false.

Every activity has some degree of risk.

I agree that children should not be put in very risk situations.

...but you haven't established that swimming with sharks in 24" deep water, 24" away from a parent is riskier than walking down the street.

It may be.

It may be five orders of magnitude riskier.

In which case, I think we'd both agree that the parents shouldn't do it.

...but right now neither you nor I have any DATA on if it's very risky or not.

...so any attempt to say that it's "too risky" is just drama and arm-waving.

As a rationalist, I try to analyze situations and not just respond to signifiers (e.g. "shark!") instinctually.

I saw this story a few days ago. The parents did their homework on these particular sharks and this activity. From what I saw of them, they were thoughtful and made an intelligent decision based on pretty solid information. My knickers remain untwisted on their decision.

I allowed #2 daughter to go into a shark cage when she was 8...in the middle of the ocean and I wasn't present when she did it. She had the adventure of a life time.

I can't believe they let that kid swim without a helmet.

If this is so risky, adults wouldn't do it either and it wouldn't be promoted.

They weren't great white sharks. There are over 360 species of sharks. Most of them avoid humans. But because of Jaws, everyone automatically assumes shark = 100% deadly.

I don't see a problem with this. I'm with TJIC - I don't think the risk was that much greater than letting your kid run and play while you two walk to the local store.

I've done the shark dive thing with Caribbean reef sharks. I'd be less worried about the kid getting eaten, and more worried about the kid having nightmares. My brother and I were both in our 20s when we did it, and we were afraid to go snorkling in a secluded cove the next day! Even though we knew, logically, that the sharks we swam with weren't man-eating. We still were freaked out. It was beautiful, though.

I don't know if I'd let her when she turns 5... I'd need to see the data and inform myself about it first. I'm not going to jump to conclusions. I mean, I let my kid be around dogs and cows and goats, all of which can be deadly and unpredictable.

Exactly Nicole. I've had Boxers for 24 years. As much fun as they have always had with my kids/grandkids, I still watch over the dog when my grandkids are in the house. The current Boxer resident is 95 pounds and loves to romp with the 4 year old. Tyson could do serious damage to my grandson if he wanted to, so I keep a close eye on the 2 of them and never leave then together unattended. These parents didn't just throw her out into the reef by herself. If they had, then I would question their judgment.

I wonder why all these people who are up in arms aren't worried about real dangers like kids who are being abused or starving. A video posted online for vacationers hits the news but where are these people when kids are in real danger?

Swimming with sharks and dolphins is a very common thing on island trips. I took my own kids swimming with dolphins. We skipped the shark swim only because of the cost involved. My kids preferred the dolphin and seal lion adventure over sharks.

I'd be more afraid of taking my kids in an ocean where shark attacks are prevalent, not on a paid shark swim in the Bahamas with reef sharks.

My Dad's working on a plan for a river park. So while he was visiting, we visited a lot of parks for inspiration.

One park was the Marzilibad in Bern. People jump into the Aare, float down a ways, grab onto an exit ramp and climb out.

You could NEVER do that in America. Americans would sue if someone got hurt. Swiss people know they are taking a risk, and that probably nothing will happen, and that of course you should swim in the water on a hot day.

I hope you can see the link between this and shark swims.

"If this is so risky, adults wouldn't do it either and it wouldn't be promoted."

Swimming with sharks is risky. We had a case recently just a few miles from us where a young man in his twenties was killed by a shark. And yes, these sharks are unpredictable wild animals.

Still, it's a risk/reward trade-off thing. Unlike walking a mile to the grocery store, swimming with sharks is loads of fun. I'd want to see 'proper statistics' to be rational about it, but it's probably more comparable to letting your children do things like skateboard or horse-riding. Horse-riding for example is very dangerous (approximately twice the risk of death per riding hour as riding a motorcycle) and yet we regularly allow children to ride horses. Horses are also very unpredictable animals.

If everyone did this with their 5-year olds, there would certainly be some attacks, and deaths of 5-year olds from shark attacks. But so what? There are deaths to young children from horse-riding other fun activities.

On average, about 260,000 children are kidnapped in the United States per year. 99% of these cases are committed by family or people otherwise known to the kid. That still leaves 2,600 cases of random stranger snatchings. But you're okay with people letting their kids take the subway and walk to the park on their own because you (rightly) believe the number to be so small

618 American citizens died in bicycle-and-car accidents in 2010. A significant drop from the 850 of the previous year. Nonetheless, learning to ride a bike is an important childhood milestone.

Something like 200 people die due to horses in your average year - in the United States alone. Surely there's no need to put a little girl in needless danger by allowing her to get on a pony.

Meanwhile, last year, in the banner year for shark attacks, 115 people were attacked by sharks worldwide. 75 of those attacks were unprovoked. 12 of those people were killed. The last shark fatality in the Bahamas was in 1972 and they've had a grand total of 67 shark attacks since 1580.

Anaia was in much more danger from the water itself (300 deaths of children 5 and under in 2010 in the US) than she was from the sharks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_attack

"Horses don't eat humans."

You are just as dead if you fall off a horse and crack your skull as if you get eaten by a shark.

We should make our judgements based on actual risk, rather than perceived risk.

Horses don't eat humans.

I'm a little surprised at you Amy. You usually do a risk ratio when you write about dangers. Horses don't eat humans, but they can throw them, trample them, or kick them causing serious injuries and death. These sharks are not great white man eating sharks. They are reef sharks. How many injuries do we hear of concerning these swims? How many tourists have we heard getting attacked or eaten at one of these swims? More surfers get attacked off the coast of Australia every year than get attacked at shark swims.

"I can't believe they let that kid swim without a helmet."

Possibly my favorite line EVER! I read it an hour ago and I'm still laughing.

Horses don't eat humans. -- Amy Alkon at July 8, 2012 9:32 AM

Amy,

I am truly disappointed in you right now. You staked out a position and are refusing to see the logical fallacy.

I just googled for "car accident statistics per hour" and this came to the top: www.txdot.gov/txdot_library/drivers_vehicles/publications/crash_statistics/default.htm

In the 2010 pdf was this paragraph"

There were 59,660 serious injury crashes in Texas in 2010. These crashes resulted in 82,685 people sustaining a serious injury.

Breaking that out there is (59,660 / 365) / 24 = 6.81050228 serious crashes in Texas every hour. Among a Texas population of 25,674,681. What are the odds of being in a serious crash?

Using the stats of 115 in a year worldwide it comes out to (115 / 365) / 24 = 0.0131278539 Then divide that by a world population of 5-6 Billion. The chances of being struck by lightning is higher. In your case, an earthquake is more probable.

California is paradise for great white sharks. They've been responsible for 9 confirmed fatal unprovoked attacks there since 1926 (the last fatal attacks were in 2010, 2008, and 2003):

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/GAttack/mapCA.htm

Asides from having as many hungry great whites as any place on earth, California also has lots of mako sharks, blue sharks, and other big species that have been responsible for 95 confirmed non-fatal attacks there since 1926.

In the Bahamas, on the other hand, there have been 27 confirmed shark attacks recorded since 1749, with no fatalities:

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/gattack/Caribbean.htm

Any parent in California who lets their kids swim in the ocean is letting them swim with the biggest, most dangerous predatory sharks on earth. Not asking Californians to keep their kids out of the water till they're 25 here, just want you to keep things in perspective.

only putting kids on horses you know are gentle, etc.

Horses are huge, strong animals. And unpredictable.

You can only "know" such things to some level of certainty.

Amy, I think you're showing your city roots here.

Dogs do a lot of damage to kids. Even "good dogs". Sometimes things happen that's outside our ken.

Horses rear, get stung by wasps, scared by other things - these things happen.

Go in the water in the surf? You're swimming with sharks. (Seriously. If you're sharkaphobic, don't ever take a sightseeing flight down a coastline.)

A child's risk of death is also far greater in a car than at the hands of a mohel (the one who performs circumcisions) and I'm also not for circumcisions. -- Amy Alkon at July 8, 2012 11:39 AM

My odds of dying increase visiting a tattooist for the first time.

You are arguing apples to oranges in this case. A tattooist and a mohel are both making obvious physiological changes to a human body.

Would you say no to a tattoo to a one year old? I would too.

Would you have condemned the parents for preventing her to learn how to swim, from a public school, at 5 on an island?

A little girl swimming in the same water with reef sharks along with numerous other adults is dangerous?

I will continue to state that you are wrong on this one.

Just a quick note here in case someone thinks there's a conflict between the Bahamas shark attack stats (grand total of 67 attacks, last fatality in 1972) that Elle posted at 9:12 and the stats (27 attacks in recorded history, none fatal) that I posted @ 10:55. If you follow the links, you'll see that the 67 attacks refers to the Bahamas and the Antilles (all the islands in the Caribbean from Cuba to Curacao) combined, and that the fatal attack in 1972 happened elsewhere.

Anyhoo..."Your kid doesn't need to swim with sharks"

Well, true, but would you go so far as saying "your kid doesn't need to swim in the ocean"? If they're swimming in the ocean, they're swimming with sharks, even if they can't see them. You're letting these parents have it for deliberately exposing their child to what you believe is a completely needless risk. OK, but parents who let their kids swim in the sea off California are exposing them to the biggest, most dangerous sharks anywhere.

If a kid is into nature, they'll never forget seeing their first shark in the wild. I had the thrill of a lifetime when I saw some up close & personal when I was a teenager snorkeling in Florida. I hope Anaia had a memorable experience out of all this.

Amy:

There's risks to everything. And the risks for a "known" set of sharks - who are wild animals, but who usually don't attack people - are low. Not zero, but low.

It's about the same as "Swimming with dolphins". Wait, no, it's worse. Cause I can't think of much dumber than climbing into the water with large mammals who we don't really understand, and not expecting bad things to occur. At least people understand sharks are predators.

Most think dolphins are "Flipper".

Sorry, Amy, but some of us grew up outside the city. :)

I get that you don't think it's smart. I don't think it's brilliant, but it's a better damn idea than taking them to Krispy Kreme every weekend.

You're not really comparing a touristy gimmick such as a shark swim with the running of the bulls. You'd have to be an idiot to run with the bulls.

Nah, next year I'm going to Sun-n-Fun as usual.

With all the loud noises, spinny choppy things on the front of airplanes and such.

On my boys 18th birthday we are going to do the running of the bulls. It's been a lifelong dream of mine since City Slickers. Then again, I'll be 58 then, but then again I don't really want to get old...

What would Tyler Durdan do? (besides never get to 58...)

PS- I'm with Amy on this one, though the posters do make really good points. It only takes a moment to lose a child's hand...

On my boys 18th birthday we are going to do the running of the bulls.

Is he going to wear a helmet?

> I can't believe they let that kid swim without
> a helmet.

Boom! Leader in early laps!

> just want you to keep things in perspective.

Riiight, so....

> Martin is correct.

That's cheese whiz—

California is paradise for great white sharks. They've been responsible for 9 confirmed fatal unprovoked attacks there since 1926

Besides, "paradise" is a clumsy overstatement. Given what we've done to the ocean in the last 200 years, I don't think this coast is paradise for any pelagic.

> Amy, I think you're showing your city
> roots here.

That and a few other kinds of naivete, most of them statistical.

This is nuts... Was there anything sincere to all those "free range parenting" posts? Do you really think the natural world is to be avoided by anyone just because of risks of that magnitude?

You've heard about this, right?

You're worried about sharks?

Does anyone remember the (early) summer of 2001?

All in favor of next year's family vacation being spent running with the bulls? -- Amy Alkon at July 8, 2012 2:11 PM

I wouldn't take a 5 year old to the running of the bulls. I would take them to a farm that had cows and bulls on it in a fenced environment though.

But even the bull run has only had 15 deaths deaths since 1924. The injuries generally come from being trampled by others in the crowd.

This comes back to the odds of your child being killed in the souk by the crowd running away from the active shooter, versus actively being shot by the terrorist.

Oh, you never go to the souk? What about a Tuscon Safeway on a Saturday in January 2011?

The odds for an attack from a shark on the 5 year old are improbably small. Yes it may happen, but the same person may be struck by lightning. Or get lifted off to Oz in a tornado.

Get real.

Even Disney World will let you swim with sharks and stingrays.

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/parks/typhoon-lagoon/attractions/shark-reef/

"Besides, "paradise" is a clumsy overstatement"

It's all relative. The great white population off California is healthy and growing. This is definitely not the case for any big sharks in most of the world:

http://kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/04/great-white-sharks-thriving-southern-california-co/

The 9 fatal attacks in that time frame reflect the fact that great whites much prefer to chow down on sea lions, rather than people.

> It's all relative.

Yes, and the worst-case probability on injury befalling a child from this behavior are pretty freakin' tiny, right? In relative terms, blog posts like this undermine Amy's usual postures regarding over-protected children.

> The 9 fatal attacks in that time frame reflect
> the fact that great whites much prefer to chow
> down on sea lions, rather than people.

Point being? Aren't you arguing my perspective? Or are you trying to say it's all about the Cali GWs? —

The Bahamas, with its huge amount of coastline and larger tourist and resident populations, has recorded more attacks than any other Caribbean destination - still only 35 since 1896 - while the rest of the region averages less than one attack each year. Florida averages 20 to 30 shark attacks each year.

[…]

"The International Shark Attack File isn't overly concerned about shark attacks in the Caribbean," says Burgess. "On a per capita basis, [the Caribbean] isn't where you'd expect to find attacks."

SEEING IS BELIEVING

To learn the truth about sharks - and to dispel the "mindless killing machine" myth firsthand - simply strap on a tank and join the thousands who safely enjoy shark diving in the Bahamas.

Children should (must) be taught not to fuck with animals, both for their own safety and (perhaps more importantly) out of respect for other beings... And the event in this video (which, no, I haven't watched yet) was probably not a golden exposure to these animals. Being offered the chance to see an entirely staged "shark feeding![!!]" got to be really boring after a few years of diving.

But to fear attacks on children in a borderline-tamed (resort) setting? Fooey.

Inculcating fear in children because "These are unpredictable creatures" is the antithesis of responsible appreciation for the natural world.

The densest, wildest populations of sharks and rays I ever saw was here. Zoom out and note the submarine geography: Unique currents make it some of the busiest, most nutritious water in the Pacific for big animals. It's like Manhattan lunch for pelagics instead of bond traders. And the place is so pristine that Bing fucks up the name on their map.

I had some of the most powerful experiences of my life down there, genuine Roy Batty/Tannhauser Gate moments. The vigor can't be described.

Children deserve to swim with animals which aren't Disney.

All creatures are unpredictable, wild or not, including bloggers and their commenters.

TJIC, there are over 50,000,000 children under the age of 18 in the United States.

There are on average under 140 stranger kidnappings of children each year.

The "risk" of sending your child alone down the road a few blocks is so small it is laughable.

As far as sharks, you can do all the homework in the world, but at the end of the day it is a predatory animal whose behavior cannot be adequately predicted.

I'm perfectly comfortable sending my daughter down the street to ballet school alone at the age of 9. I'd be much less comfortable if she were going to ride a bear there...then I would say no.

-----

The sharks in this particular area are probably so accustomed to humans that they consider them to be a non prey part of the environment, but they're still unpredictable animals.

But the fact that we are NOT their natural prey should figure into our calculations of risk. Most shark attacks on humans occur as a result of mistaken identity, a human looking like a wounded prey while swimming, a surfer on a surfboard that is shaped like their favored food source, that kind of thing. They don't naturally go after people, and when they do, they almost never kill, probably getting one taste they think...shit...this tastes aweful, and then they go away.

-------

Does the kid "need" to swim with sharks? No. This was indeed an easily avoidable risk that would have had no impact on the child's development for having missed it.

But what was the actual statistical probability of an attack? Obviously no fatal attacks have occured there. And given that children are in the ocean all the time, well in reach of sharks there, obviously their pressence has become a natural and expected part of the world for marine life.

I understand Miss Alkon's reticence here, her reservations are perfectly understandable. But they are not backed by the real world risk posed by the situation.

Her reaction here is based on emotion, instinct, and a gross misatribution of the degree of risk. An understandable misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

I felt the same way when I first read about this...but the more I looked at the numbers and the risks, the less crazy it all seemed.

I'm perfectly comfortable sending my daughter down the street to ballet school alone at the age of 9. I'd be much less comfortable if she were going to ride a bear there...then I would say no.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/polar_bear

Sharks are scary!

If you look on Netflix there are lots of scary movies about shark attacks. Last week I watched an incredibly bad movie called "Two-headed Shark Attack." in it a group of teenagers are picked off one by one by a two-headed shark.

There are hardly any movies about groups of teenagers getting killed one by one in bicycling or horseback riding accidents.

We are viscerally afraid of sharks. That is why the danger of swimming with sharks probably seems much greater than it is.

I would bet that there are many things, that are considered standard vacation activities, even for 5-year-olds, that are statistically, scientifically determined to be much more dangerous than tour-group shark swimming in the Bahamas.

But I'm going to go back to TJIC's original point in this thread, which is the whole point of the free-range kids philosophy: What is the actual risk, based on data, of this activity? If you can point to statistics, to a bunch of articles about people getting killed by sharks during guided dives, then yes, call them idiots. But if you've got a fear of sharks because you saw Jaws when you were 8, then we should also call anyone who vacations in Hawaii an idiot because they might come across a cursed tiki idol.

> but at the end of the day...

That's rapidly becoming my least favorite popular phrase. The Formula One racing announcers use it all the time... Their excuse is that they're motorheads, not talkers. At the end of the day, Fernando should have known the prime-compound tires were going to wear out...

> it is a predatory animal whose behavior cannot
> be adequately predicted.

And yet a vanishingly small number of children (or others) are lost to this end-of-the-day predator, especially in the resort settings under discussion here. So, golly... I'd say it's behavior can be pretty adequately predicted. Again, that doesn't make these encounters worthwhile, but there are better reasons to skip them than fear.

I mean, fear is what you and Amy want to talk about here. You want so badly to be afraid—

> I assure you, my logic is powered on.

Any statisticians in the room? Yeah? Do sharks and horses for us, OK? Normalize for the number of encounters with semi-tamed animals and tell us which is more dangerous... I know this will be a no-fun calculation, but let's do it for the children.

> Does the kid "need" to swim with sharks? No.

Quick reader poll: Which is smarmier and more condescending?

☐ Putting the word "need" in quotes

☑ Asking yourself questions as if admiring your own expertise

> There are hardly any movies about groups
> of teenagers getting killed one by one in
> bicycling or horseback riding accidents.

Exactly! And most of those teenagers don't (ahem) "need" to be riding those bicycles.

Crid you ever swim with lemon sharks? My cousin was a shark expert who worked for the Navy. I love sharks but you're right they hate humans. And the hate the bubbles/sound we make. That's why if you really wanna study them be prepared to hold your breath and do some deep diving without any fancy schamncy breathing equipment.

I wouldn't leave my 5 year old kid with a shark, a horse, or a chihuahua.

(Chihuahuas are very delicate and snappy).

> I wouldn't leave my 5 year old kid with a shark,
> a horse, or a chihuahua.

Or a twitchy blogger! (Har har! It's a snarky 'one liner' joke!)

Do you actually have a 5-year-old?


So, anyway, our takeaway resolution from this discussion is as follows:

Children must never be permitted to take any risk in the natural world* unless they "must".†

* Including hazardous natural forces such
as gravity, strangers, and the dark.

† Also includes smelly, overcooked vegetables
at Granny's house.

Eh, I might have allowed this. I enjoy diving, DH and I both enjoy snorkeling. My kids will be taking the bubbleblowers scuba course as soon as they're old enough. Shark attacks are far more rare than dog attacks or lightning strikes. I'd say they judged risk fairly well, and I don't blame them for the decision they made. They will be second guessing themselves for life now.

Plus, most attacks take palce in less than 3 ft of water. Do we not allow kids at th4 beach at all?

But, I was just blasting some mom who let her kid in a tiger-touching experience with forseeable results, so I may be off here.

Ever seen a shark on a bridle, being led around the kiddie pool?

Ever seen a shark kick somebody in the head?

C'mon, Amy, you know you're getting caught on your down dichotomy here.

http://www.anapsid.org/pdv-boid.html

(Quick google)

Human Deaths Caused By Animals

Animal Per Year

Horses 219
Dogs 14

Human Deaths by Accidents
Type of Accident Per Year (avg. 1986-88)

Motor vehicles 48,411
Firearms 1464
Drowning during sports/recreation 1030
Domestic wiring and appliances 131

Estimated human injuries by Horses in US in 1991: 71,490

Ok, in 1991, 71k people were injured by horses enough to go to the ER.

How many people were bitten by sharks?

I've "swum with sharks" a lot - going lobstering in the Keys, there are a *lot* of sharks around. Many share the same holes as the lobster. When I was 15, had a huge fight with my father about that. I was in the water, over a hole. "Any left?" "Well, one, but he's safe" "Why?" "Cause he's backed up to a nurse shark" "Oh, the shark won't bother you if you don't bother it, go down and get it." "I'm *pretty* sure that sticking a fiberglass pole up the nose would count as 'bothering!!!'" (You use a fiberglass "tickle stick" to tap them out of their holes and then net them.)

Dad jumped in, drove off the shark, and was mad at me. I was willing to work *around* the shark, just not *that* close.

But of all that that we did in the Keys, that wasn't the dumbest thing - one day we went out and the weather was not good, and we had 3-5' chop. My uncle tossed me a Triptone for sea-sickness "in case". I don't know if the chemical had changed in the Florida heat, or I'm just allergic to what was in it, but I was laid out within minutes with a massive migraine.

And Dad and my Uncle would wake me up, jump in the water, and leave me to run the boat.

*THAT* was *STUPID*. Sheer damn luck I didn't pass out while they were in the water.

Whole numbers aren't as telling as ratios. How many people go horseback riding compared to how many are hurt doing it? How many go swimming with sharks compared to how many are hurt in attacks?

I'd probably say no, but that's entirely an "AACK! SHARKS!" emotional call. My hypothetical kid can go swimming with sharks when I don't have to be there to watch it. Like when sh'se 20 and on spring break.

> that's entirely an "AACK! SHARKS!" emotional call.

Yes:

> Could a shark that hadn't been fed the fish have
> swum into the area? Absolutely. This is the ocean.

This is the ocean!

Also, is a habit of posing meekly rhetorical questions to oneself fuckin' goofy? Yes, it is.

Have I read a news story today about a shark attack? Yes.

(Spoiler: Survival.)

I've been pitched off horses, kicked by horses, stepped on by horses, and bite by a horse. I used to show then in my teens. I've never had the slightest problem with a shark.

No, they aren't put in bridles and led aronud a kiddie pool, but you can swim with sharks in pools, kids included, and most decent aquariums have a "touch and feed the sharks" pool.

Crid, you haven't answered whether kids should be allowed in the ocean at all since they are in far more danger right at the beach.

No! Keep them indoors! KEEP THEM AWAY FROM THE NATURAL WORLD AT ALL TIMES!!!!

This is the ocean, and my logic is powered on.