Rob Stewart’s Rebreather Ninja In The Dock

On a cold February night, in an unremarkable London pub an argument broke out. The argument was long, heated and at times rather abusive. One bloke, called Bob, even walked out saying he just couldn’t reason with the others. He hasn’t been seen since. So what was the argument about? Well it was about the sad death of Rob Stewart, he of Sharkwater fame. There were seemingly so many questions surrounding the events leading up to his death.

Why did Rob undertake a third deep dive of the day using a rebreather when he was relatively inexperienced with rebreathers and had never made such deep dives before? Why was the instructor the first out of the water rather than Rob (the student)? How did no one notice when Rob sunk below the surface again and “disappeared”? Why did it take so long to find his body considering it was eventually found 300 metres from his last known location? The questions just kept on coming and because no one had any answers everyone was forced to speculate and speculation leads to people called Bob making rude gestures and walking out.

Now it seems that those questions and many more might just get answered. The family of Rob Stewart have filed a lawsuit against Horizon Diving Adventures of Key Largo, Florida, Add Helium of Fort Lauderdale, Florida and a certain Peter Sotis who ran Add Helium. You may be familiar with the story of Rob Stewart’s final dive but in case you are not here’s a quick recap. Just before Christmas 2016 Rob Stewart posted on Facebook that he was “looking for a rebreather ninja mid-January in Florida for some 300ft dives to film for Sharkwater 2… Let me know if you’re interested and super-capable”

There is something troubling about the word “ninja” to us. Perhaps nowadays “ninja” means some technical wizard or superhuman that work wonders but to us a ninja is a shadowy Japanese assassin who didn’t like attacking people head on but instead preferred to attack when they were most vulnerable – when they were eating, asleep or on the toilet. 

Whatever Rob Stewart meant by the term, the ninja he got was Peter Sotis, owner and training director of Add Helium. Rob must already have known Peter, as he trained on Rebreathers at Add Helium back in August that year. Add Helium claims to have educated “more rebreather divers, instructors and instructor trainers than anyone else… Period” Peter Sotis allegedly regards himself as a leader in rebreather diving if not the leader and says his team “consistently pushes the limits as they explore deep walls in excess of 600ft” It could be argued that Peter was definitely pushing the limits on the day in question. Peter and Rob had already made two (hopefully planned) dives on the Queen Nassau, that lies in over 200ft of water off the Florida Keys. where Rob hoped to film the endangered Sawfish. The third dive however, seems to have been unplanned as it is alleged that the only reason that dive was undertaken was to re-cover a $15 grappling hook which had been placed on the wreck and was attached to a surface buoy that marked the location of the dive site. It was on this dive that Peter and Rob encountered difficulties. Accounts say that on surfacing Peter Sotis (the instructor remember) was first to board the boat, promptly collapsed and required urgent oxygen therapy. It was whilst everyone was attending to the instructor that the student, Rob Stewart, slipped back beneath the waves and sank to his untimely death. Three days later, following a search that encompassed miles upon miles of ocean, Rob’s body was finally located a mere 300 metres from where he had originally surfaced.

At the time, very few people knew much about Peter Sotis and it is possible that if Rob had known a little more about his “rebreather ninja” he wouldn’t have been that eager to push the limits with him. For Peter Sotis seems to have a rather murky past. He is, for one thing, a convicted armed robber and is under investigation by the U.S. Dept of Commerce for selling Chinese made Scuba Cylinders with faked CE certificates. Perhaps worse still, Peter Sotis is under investigation by the FBI and U.S. Dept for Homeland Security for allegedly selling military spec rebreathers to Libyan Militants despite being advised not to by U.S. Authorities. There is conflicting information regarding whether the equipment in question really was military grade or whether the Libyans were terrorists but Peter’s own business partner, Shawn Robotka, also filed a lawsuit against him alleging that the sale was illegal, contravened U.S. arms embargoes and that Peter Sotis went ahead with the sale despite knowing that it was in fact, unlawful and that the buyer was a known militant in the region. Reports also say that a disgruntled shareholder has pulled his money from the Add Helium bank account forcing the company's closure. Peter Sotis and several other directors of Add Helium have now filed for bankruptcy. Which suggests that there will be little left to pay the Stewart Family should the court find in their favour. But then that is beside the point. As the Stewart family have made clear, this is not about compensation, it’s about safety.

Rob Stewart's death was clearly preventable and by being so it is all the more tragic. But perhaps there is a silver lining in the cloud. Rob Stewart wasn’t just another tourist that nobody had ever heard of. He was an accomplished SCUBA diver, photographer and world famous documentary maker. And it is that fame that will bring the ensuing court case to attention of the world.

There are going to be a lot of people squirming uncomfortably in chairs soon and not all of those will be facing the lawyers in court. As the case unfolds a great many questions are going to be asked about the diving industry itself; about rebreathers, their use by sport divers and the whole training, licensing and regulation of those who claim to be diving instructors or even diving ninjas.  For years we have been saying that there are far too many idiots in the diving industry, far too many charlatans and far too many self-appointed experts who want to push the limits. And for years people like Peter Sotis keep proving our point and yet the idiots still prosper and the deaths continue to rack up. Rob Stewart, one of the worlds greatest advocates for sharks, has become one more name on the diving worlds long list of needless deaths. How much longer will it be before the diving industry realises it has a bloody big problem?

Links: 

Lawsuit story; watch the videos to see the Stewart family Lawyer outline the case

Stewart Lawsuit

Shawn Robotka Lawsuit

Please Show Your Tickets Before Entering The Ocean And Don't Forget To Visit The Gift Shop On Your Way Out

Not that long ago we wrote a little piece about the new underwater museum being constructed in Playa Blanca, Lanzarote. The Atlantic Museum is the work of British Artist, Jason deCaires Taylor. Jason is a former theatre set designer, sometime Paparazzi photographer and scuba diver, who hit on the idea of sinking statues in the ocean for other bubble blowers to look at. Now we had some problems with the whole idea and you can read about them in the original post here.

To summarise, we disagree with the idea of dumping statues into the sea. In fact we disagree with the whole notion of creating man-made diving sites by deliberately sinking ships, dumping cars or giant concrete blocks into the ocean altogether. Yes, we understand the argument around eco-tourism, marine conservation and creating sites to draw bubble blowers away from fragile reefs etc. But understanding the argument is one thing, agreeing with the solution that Jason deCaires Taylor and others have come up with is quite another.

For one thing, as we stated in the original post, the creation of these arty installations come at a cost and that cost must be recouped. This means there has to be a charge for anyone wishing to view them. Then of course, once the costs have been recouped, someone, possibly Jason, will want to make a profit. This means the charge will be indefinite and will probably rise year on year. But how do you charge someone for going in the ocean? The installation at Playa Blanca, is not that far from the shore and it would be quite easy for divers, freedivers and snorkellers to reach the location by swimming from the beach. The answer they have come up with at Lanzarote is to create an exclusion zone around the installation. An exclusion zone patrolled by a dedicated security boat. And before anyone comes up with the ludicrous idea that the boat is there to stop the statues being stolen... We'd like to point out that Jason's workshop on the island has an easily accessible yard where the statues are created and stored prior to being sunk into the sea. This yard has no security! So if they were worried about the statues being stolen, this would be the place that you'd think security would be needed. No. The security is there to stop people who haven't paid getting into the site. The ocean ladies and gentleman has effectively been privatised for profit. And as we pointed out before, it won't be long before someone, somewhere gets the idea that if they can charge for viewing one section of the ocean they might be able to charge for all of it. Want to dive from the beach? That'll be 10 Euros please. Going for a snorkel? That'll be 7 Euros. Just fancy a paddle in the sea? Sorry but there is a beach usage charge I am afraid – 5 Euros. And you won't be able to complain either as the charge will be wrapped up nicely with eco-tourism paper and tied with a nice conservation bow – various colours are available. And who can argue with that? Conservation costs you know?

The museum exclusion zone and security boat

Then there is the preposterous assertion that the statues might in some way highlight the plight of refugees, dolphins or society's attitude to global warming. Such assertions go beyond being pretentious and are quite simply absurd arty nonsense. No tourist, diver, snorkeller or even Easybreath Mask wearer is so dumb that they cannot understand the news and can only gain understanding by viewing grey concrete representations of the issues facing the world that have been sunk in the oceans... Alright, maybe Easybreath Mask wearers might be that dumb but the rest of us aren't.

The fact is that such installations are deeply distressing. If you are the type of diver, snorkeller or general tourist who thinks that glaring at concrete sculptures in twelve metres of bluish water is a wonderful experience that satisfies your combined need for conservation, artistic culture and current affairs then the Underwater Museum of Jason deCaires Taylor will be right up your alley. And you won't mind paying for the privilege either because as the saying goes, a fool and his money is easily parted. If on the other hand, you would rather spend your precious underwater time observing the brilliant, amazingly diverse, natural wonders of the ocean (and are capable of understanding news and TV reports about global issues without the assistance of a mime artist, painter or even sculptor giving you a representation) then we suggest that you give these underwater eyesores a miss. Just remember though, that it won't be too long before the money men start casting their gaze towards you. The idea of the ocean being a free and wondrous environment for all may just have had its day and how depressing is that?

One last thing. According to the International Council of Museums, a museum is defined as: A non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.

We don't think that Jason deCaires Taylor's Atlantic Museum in Playa Blanca, meets that definition. So probably shouldn't call itself a museum then. A better title would be underwater art exhibition. 

The bodies pile up in Jason's very accessible yard

 

We'd Like You To Support This Project..... No Pressure

Have you recently made a donation to a conservation project or charity? If so, you've probably noticed that your email is now chock-a-block with demands for money from every single conservation organisation on the planet. Sign up to the World Rescue Fund for the conservation of poodles and before you know it you are being asked to save the whales, save the donkeys, save the pandas, the rain forests, the badgers, the flatulent gibbons of Patagonia and Donald Trump's hair.

All of which of course are noble and valid causes, with exception of the flatulent gibbons. We just made that up.

Anyway. Farting monkeys aside. We all know that even the most committed of conservationists can become a bit jaded by the endless stream of charities , projects and societies, making ever more hysterical pitches for cash.

Which is why we are a little reluctant to bring to your attention another project that needs a little of your hard earned cash. The trouble is that this particular project is, we feel, one of the most important of its kind and it really does need your help.

Back in 2006, filmmaker Rob Stewart brought the horrific problem of shark finning to a global audience in his ground breaking documentary Sharkwater.

Teaming up with Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Organisation, Rob exposed the horror, greed and criminality at the heart of the trade in shark fins and in the process became involved in sea battles with shark poachers, gun boat chases, Mafia gangs. Espionage and attempted murder charges.

The documentary went on to win twenty three international film awards and brought the plight of sharks into the cinemas and living rooms of communities around the world. The resulting public outcry led directly to the banning of shark fining throughout much of the world and spawned a movement to protect sharks Now however Rob is trying to raise more funds via kickstarter to gain support for a new film due for release in 2017. Sharkwater Extinction is described as “a quest to find 80 million missing sharks, revealing a multi billion-dollar scandal that implicates us all in the greatest wildlife massacre ever known.”

It is a story of how our fear of sharks and complacency as consumers has let sharks be slaughtered and turned into lipstick, moisturiser, pet food, livestock feed, fertiliser and even fast food sandwiches. With a major focus of the film being the cosmetics industry — people will be shocked to learn they’ve been smearing sharks on their faces!

The film has the backing and support of Sea Shepherd and a great many others but sadly with just a few days left of Rob's Kickstarter campaign, he is still short of the required goal of $150,000

So if you can help, please visit the kickstarter page by clicking here and make a pledge. If you can't help and we understand that not all of us can, please spread the word so that others that "can" might be made aware of the opportunity.

If on the other hand you are more worried about the lack of pungent air in Patagonia or Donkeys and badgers etc. We apologise for taking up your precious time and wish you the best of luck in saving whatever it is you're saving.

Thanks.

Update July 20th 2016 - Thanks to all those who pledged your support, Rob has now surpassed the $150,000. As of 15:45 GMT the total pledged has reached over $173,000.... Excellent effort guys!

The World's Coral Reefs Are Dying And It's Your Factor 50 that's Responsible

In October 2015 a group of scientists from the U.S. and Israel published a paper in the journal, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology entitled: Toxicopathological effects of the sunscreen UV filter, Oxybenzone (Benophenone – 3), on coral planulae and cultured primary cells and its environmental contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Not exactly a catchy title is it? Yet this scientific paper with its exact and very dull title has sparked global headlines that put the blame for the destruction of the world's coral reefs firmly at the door of sunscreens and by implication the swimmers, snorkellers, divers and tourists who use it.

We were going to show you the full abstract from the paper but it is long, full of hard words and we really didn't have the time or inclination. So here's a quick summary. Certain sunscreens contain the active ingredient Oxybenzone which, the paper points out, has been found to have a destructive effect on coral DNA leading to coral bleaching and the ossification of coral planulae – juvenile coral literally become encased in their own skeleton and die. 

 

This isn't the first time that such a link has been made between coral destruction and sunscreens either. Back in 2008, another group of scientists, this time from Italy, published a paper in the journal of Environmental Health Perspectives entitled: Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections. Now, you have to admit, there is no ambiguity in that title. No wishy-washy use of the term “effects”. The Italians were adamant, sunscreens cause coral bleaching. The Italian experiments showed that sunscreens cause rapid and complete bleaching of hard coral. The effects of sunscreens is due to organic ultraviolet filters, which are able to induce the lytic viral cycle in symbiotic Zooxanthellae with latent infections. Nope, we don't now what that means either but the Italians concluded it wasn't very good. And that with increasing tourism to some of the worlds most precious marine environments and the associated use of sunscreen in those environments, things were going to get worse. However they did not single out Oxybenzone in particular, rather they found sunscreens containing parabens, cinnamates and camphor derivatives as well as Oxybenzone contributed to coral bleaching even at low concentrations. 

 

Things then, don't look good for the manufacturers of sunscreens or the doctors who demand that we smear the stuff all over ourselves even on cloudy days (see, Tell Doctor Doom To Get A Life). Nor do things look that rosy for all the global warming fanatics either. After all if it's sunscreen smothered tourists that are destroying the reefs and not global warming – sorry climate change- then a lot of scientists are going to end up stacking shelves down the local supermarket. Another conspiracy perhaps?

But before you you go out and buy some non-chemical, dolphin friendly, coral reef loving sun lotion made from papaya juice and hippy spit from your local organic shop, let's sit back and think about this for a minute. These are scientific papers and as such they conform to the scientific notion of “put up or shut up”. In other words, these scientists have done their experiments, examined the results, hypothesised, formed their conclusions and published their work to all and sundry. Then they have sat back and waited for their results to be examined and either confirmed or criticised. Granted the Italians could be accused of having been a bit unwise by being so adamant - which in scientific terms is a little like walking around a fireworks factory with a naked flame, sooner or later something will blow up in your face – but nevertheless they have published and waited for the response, not from journalists who are just after a good headline, but academics. And the response has been... Well.... not all that great really.

A number of scientists and experts have cast doubt on the studies. Responding to the 2015 study, Terry Hughes, Director of the Australian Research Council of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University (wow what a title) thought the paper's findings were inconclusive. 

 

“This particular study was done in a laboratory, so they actually used artificial sea water,” Hughes explained. “They put tiny bits of coral into aquaria and then added some chemicals. It's not surprising that corals don't like chemicals thrown at them.”

Hughes went on to say that the media's extrapolations that sunscreen is threatening the worlds coral “are a bit of a stretch”. “The conclusion from the media is sunscreen is killing the worlds coral, and that's laughable. The biggest stresses are climate change, overfishing and pollution, and pollution more generally than sunscreen.”

Hughes explained further that: “Sunscreen, because of its source is far less of a problem than run-off of pesticides from rivers.” The study claims that at least 10% of global reefs are at risk of exposure. “Many reefs are remote, without tourists and many of them are nonetheless showing impact from climate change... If you want to study global threats you have look on a global scale and they haven't done this.” Hughes said.

Mike Van Keulen, Director of Coral Bay Research Station at Murdoch University thought that laboratory studies were going to be limited in their scope but that the 2015 study did provide some concerning information about the toxicity of compounds contained in sunscreen. “If we start adding all these little things, sunscreen but also sewage, overfishing... They will altogether reduce the resilience of coral reefs.” 

 

Craig Downs, one of the lead authors of the 2015 study said: “Whatever island/reef system that is populated and sees intense visitation (by tourists) you have sunscreen usage and hence contamination.” Downs however, agreed that it is not just swimmers that are the problem but also sewage. “My professional opinion,” Downs said, “is that agricultural run-off and sewage... are probably responsible for the historical collapse of coral reefs for the past 40 years.” Err... Okay, so why study sunscreens then?

Writing on the Dermal Institute website Dr Diana Howard offered up some rather cutting criticism of the 2008 study. Citing the lead author of the Italian study Dr Howard wrote: Dr. Robert Danovaro at the Polytechnic University of the Marche in Anacona, Italy (Environmental Health Perspective vol 116, April 2008) published a study that stated, "4-6,000 metric tons of sunscreen wash off swimmers per year globally." He calculated that "10% of coral reefs are in danger" and stated "chemical sunscreens should be avoided in favor (sic) of physical sunscreens." He did however note that, "sunscreens are not the only factor behind declining reefs". As you might expect the media chose to overlook this latter point and instead scare the public into not wearing sunscreens. Likewise, some clever marketers decided to brand coral reef safe sunscreens which use zinc oxide and titanium dioxide instead of chemical sunscreens. Of course it would only be a matter of time before someone complained that these physical sunscreens were not biodegradable and also detrimental for the earth. 

 

Dr Howard then when on to cite a plethora of other experts who took umbrage with the study including the aforementioned Terry Hughes, he of the very impressive title. “Any contaminant can experimentally damage a coral under artificially high concentrations. The amount [in the wild] must be tiny due to dilution," Hughes said. "Imagine how much water a tourist wearing one teaspoon of sunscreen swims through in an hour-long snorkel. Compared to real threats like global warming, run-off and overfishing, any impact of sunscreen is unproven and undoubtedly trivial.”

Prof. Hoegh-Goldberg, Biological & Chemical Sciences at University Queensland stated: "This study is stretching the findings and conclusions to ridiculous extremes." In addition, Durwood Dugger, University of Florida, and founder of Biocepts Aquaculture commented that, "the authors conclusions are neither valid nor supported scientifically; you must consider the dilution factor in the ocean. There is no sampling of ocean waters around reefs to determine if sunscreens are even present and no one has ever detected sunscreens in the ocean. Furthermore, they have not excluded other environmental contributing factors. It is an accepted fact that during the past 20 years, coral bleaching has increased dramatically. Some possible causes include temperature change, excess UV radiation, pollution, bacterial pathogens, pesticides, hydrocarbons, other contaminants." 

 

Professor Hoegh-Goldberg went on to point out that the study is interesting, but notes that many factors are likely to be responsible. "Bleaching is like a runny nose: there are lots of things that could cause it. Climate related bleaching is a direct consequence of heat stress and does not involve viruses or bacteria." 

 

Dr Howard concluded her piece by writing: As you can see the claim that sunscreens are destroying our coral reefs is not well supported by many authorities in the scientific world and it would be premature and quite frankly dangerous for individuals to STOP wearing sunscreen while at the beach or swimming until such time that this claim can be fully supported with scientific facts. Unfortunately, many journals and papers have reignited interest in this story as we enter into summer season and we are already getting questions from consumers about the safety of sunscreens and the coral reefs. It is my expert opinion, as well as that of many other scientists around the world, that until additional studies are done to confirm or substantiate the 2008 study there should be no concern that sunscreens are harming the environment. So go to the beach, have a great time and wear your sunscreen! 

 

So as far as we can see the jury is out on the subject, not that you'd notice from all the media coverage that seems more adamant than the Italians. A quick scan of the web and you'll be confronted with news stories and opinions that all use dramatic and unambiguous language. Sunscreens “are” destroying coral reefs. Sunscreens “damage” coral reefs or that we are all (meaning tourists) “directly contributing” to coral reef destruction. Yet the evidence doesn't actually support these unequivocal headlines.Then there are the “safe-sunscreen” manufacturers who've spotted a an opportunity and, luckily, have a ready supply of coral safe sunscreens ready to deliver to you door in exchange for a hand full of bucks. And there are the environmental bloggers/activists demanding the banning of everything from Oxybenzone to tourism, even the diving organisation PADI has a web-page offering advice on “safe sunscreens” for divers. Most of you will know that we don't think much of PADI in the first place and the fact that they offer advice on sunscreen doesn't help them in our minds, in fact they've gone down even further in our estimations. The fact is that we have read the studies and although we are not scientists, we can still find some glaring flaws. For one thing there are only two studies in total on the subject. Yep that's right only two. We'll say that again, just to be adamant about it, There are only two studies! And neither actually agree on the effect of sunscreens on coral. The Italians believe that sunscreens effect coral by promoting viral infections. 

The 2015 study, on the other hand says it is down to sunscreens causing DNA damage. So that's two research papers using similar methodologies that have come up with two very different conclusions and both have come in for some heavy criticism in regard to their methodology, extrapolation of results, failure to take into consideration other environmental factors and their conclusions. In short, they've put up and been told to shut up.

You could always argue that those who pour scorn on the research would say that wouldn't they? After all, as we pointed out earlier, they don't want to end up packing bags in a supermarket when their own research gets lampooned. Yet even Mulder and Scully would have difficulty coming up with a scientific conspiracy based on these two, very small studies. Both studies took coral, placed them into aquaria or in the case of the Italians, put them into bags and added chemicals... Following that sort of methodology, we reckon that if you took some coral, put it into bag with seawater, urinated in it and then waited a few weeks, you'd end up with a bag of dead coral floating in some very smelly fluid. We could then conclude that human urine kills coral and demand that everyone is prevented from peeing in the ocean. In fact let's stop everyone, everywhere from peeing at all – you can't be too careful with environmental contaminants can you?

Anyway, what to do. Well we'd never tell anyone what to do, we only tell you what we will do which is this; when we go snorkelling in the summer we will be going out in the sun because we don't want to die from vitamin D deficiency and we will be wearing sunscreen because we don't want our heads to turn into giant mutant freckles. What you do is up to you but we would point out one thing, the science regarding sunscreens destroying coral is, as many experts point out, interesting but very limited and inconclusive. The science around skin cancer however, is rather more convincing and there is helluva lot more of it.

Oh by the way, despite what a great many people seem to think, the American Institute of Dermatology points out that there is no evidence to suggest that Oxybenzone is harmful to humans in anyway and is one of the only compounds that effectively protects against UVA and UVB. Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide on the other hand, despite been lauded by many as safer alternatives to chemicals such as Oxybenzone, are non-biodegradable and are damaging to a variety of marine life – so we won't be believing all that marketing garbage either.

Further reading

2015 study press release

2015 research abstract

2008 research full paper (good luck with that)

Dr Diana Howard's response on the Dermal Institute website

Mashable Australia/UK breaks the media consensus

National Geographic gets it wrong

PADI tells you about sunscreen – sigh

Jean-Michel Cousteau offers a measured perspective

The Guardian story

And if you interested here's a science paper on the possible hormonal effects of sunscreens on humans – Mulder get Scully there's a conspiracy to look at!

Underwater Museums: Art Installation, Environmental Project, Indictment Of Diving Tourism Or Something More Taxing?

Jason deCaires Taylor, a former theatre set designer, paparazzi photographer and diving instructor, has been very busy in the last few years sinking statues in various oceans and writing a book about it. Jason's underwater installations can be seen in Grenada, Cancun in Mexico, Nassau in the Bahamas and now a new installation has opened in Playa Blanca, Lanzarote and a lot of people have become very excited about this. Blogs, the diving press and the mainstream media have all dedicated a great many column inches to Jason's work. Artistic types with slicked grey hair, thin glasses and effeminate mannerisms have waxed lyrical about how Jason's works express everything from slavery and the plight of refugees to mankind's apathy towards global warming. Ecology minded types, on the other hand, have upped the lyrical waxing by pointing out that Jason's installations use marine friendly concrete and promote coral growth – in short Jason is creating artificial coral reefs and increasing marine biomass. Others, those with a more financially tuned mind, have seen the opportunity to boost tourism to their part of the world with the unique selling point of an underwater art exhibition. The new installation in Lanzarote is being hailed as Europe's first underwater Museum, which is a bit odd because Turkey apparently opened up Europe's first underwater museum last year. 

Anyway that argument aside the whole idea of underwater museums sounds very laudable doesn't it? After all, what's there to dislike? Jason deCaires Taylor gets to show off his works and presumably gets some cash or at least increases his book sales. Environmentalists get to showcase both the plight of coral reefs and the possible solution, locals get to benefit from another tourist attraction and divers get to fin about in a new and interesting environment. Everyone is a winner then. Well, we're not sure on that. In fact we're a little worried about the whole thing. 

 

So let's drill down a bit. Firstly we're not interested in whether Jason's works have artistic merit. Art, like beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder, if you think it's art then it is. Nor are we remotely bothered about Jason using his works to highlight world issues. Although we would point out that Jason would have to have an ego the size of Mount Everest if he thought that sinking a concrete raft full of concrete statutes, in 12 metres of sea water, in the middle of the Atlantic ocean would bring the plight of refugees to the attention of the masses more than say; the entire worlds media that's been collectively filming it, writing about it and photographing it on a daily basis. Jason is British by the way, so he can't possibly have that big an ego could he? 

What we are a little unsure about is this: the original reason for the creation of these museums was not really to create a new coral reef. Sink a ship, a car or even a pile of concrete blocks and eventually they will be colonised by marine life. No the real reason for these creations is to distract divers away from the natural coral reefs that were being destroyed. 

 

Take Cancun for instance, the divers and snorkellers visiting the reef near Isla Mujere were having an unfortunate impact on the ecosystem. Coral was being damaged, leaching sunscreen was apparently poisoning the wildlife (and we'll be dealing with that in another post) and the sheer volume of bubble blowers visiting the reef was stressing the whole environment. Divers and snorkellers, often the most ecologically aware of tourists, were quite literally wrecking the place by their presence. Something had to be done to give the natural reefs some relief. So locals, conservationists and some arty folk got together and created an artificial site by dropping some concrete balls into the water in the hope that divers would want to see these rather than the natural reef. It didn't work. A concrete ball is after all a concrete ball until it is colonised and local dive operators and visiting divers were not impressed. As Robert Diaz, President of the Cancun Nautical Association put it: ““We have to bring tourists here. There was nothing to see. There were no fish. Just big balls that are empty—just horrible.”

The Director of the Isla Mujeres National Park in Cancun, Jaime Gonzalez became frustrated and considered closing the reef all together but this wasn't feasible. The answer came when Gonzalez discovered some art installations in Grenada. What if you could have something that wasn't an underwater eyesore before it became colonised by algae and coral – how about some statues. Enter Jason deCaires Taylor and the Cancun underwater museum was born. In fact so successful was the project that some dive operators complained that marine colonisation of the ghostly statues was ruining the show. This lead to Gonzalez cleaning the algae off half the statues by hand using steel wool and leaving the other half to continue being colonised. On Grenada, where Jason's statues were installed for the same reason as in Cancun, tourism has boomed with roughly half of all divers having been diverted away from the natural reef. Early indications seem to show that the same is happening in Cancun. Other artists are now getting involved and there are talks of having ten-thousand statues on the site in Cancun within the next ten years. 

 

Worrying don't you think? No? Okay let's explain. Firstly, let's ignore the fact that some environmental purists are appalled and argue that dumping statues, cars or concrete blocks into the sea is exactly that, dumping. With all the potential issues of changing the diversity of marine life and behaviour.

We'll also ignore the fact that some scientists dispute that divers and snorkellers are the reason the reefs are being damaged. Instead they cite pollution from the resorts and rising sea temperatures as the real culprits. The resorts are now booming so pollution levels are likely to get worse not better. 

But as we said, we'll ignore all that. The problem we have is that these underwater museums are not cheap. In Cancun, it cost $12000 to create and install each statue and that cost needs to be recouped. Which means you are going to be charged to visit them. And how long will it be before someone hits on the idea of charging for visiting the natural reefs? And we're not talking about the tour operator costs of taking a boat out to see them. We're talking about an extra charge. A tax. And how long will it be before someone gets the bright idea that viewing the underwater world as a whole, not just the reefs and sunken statues is a chargeable activity? In which case Snorkellers and divers entering the water from the beach, rather than taking an operators boat, are likely to be seen as tax dodgers and thus someone will want to bring in a charge for just going in the water! And don't think we are being absurd here. When environmentalism, economics and Art come to together, rationality goes out the window or the porthole for that matter. 

After all what diver would rather view a set of concrete statues rather than a natural reef? What snorkeller would rather look down on a series of fuzzy grey heads than on a vibrant natural landscape? And what kind of tourist is so oblivious to world crises that they can only get their consciences pricked by viewing a sunken depiction of refugees from a glass bottom boat? In fact when we think about it, underwater museums are not worrying, they are depressing. Have we really got to the stage when divers, snorkellers and freedivers would rather visit a man-made underwater structure in Cancun that looks exactly the same as the man-made installation in Grenada or the Bahamas or even Lanzarote than the amazingly diverse, stunningly beautiful and for the moment, absolutely free structures of the natural underwater world? Because if we have, that really would be absurd. 

 

By the way, according to Jason's own website, freediving on the Cancun installations is not allowed without a life jacket! Now we're not sure how you can freedive with a flotation device around your neck but we'll leave you, the reader, to work out the reason behind that little rule. We have already organised a trip to Lanzarote later this year, so we'll probably be re-visiting the idea of underwater museums then.

More reading

Jason deCaires Taylor's website

Scientific American website

BBC News website

New York Times website

Huffington Post website

Smithsonian Magazine

PBS website

Last Word On Nothing blog

 

Support Sea Shepherd’s Cove Guardians: Operation Henkaku

Sea Shepherd Cove Guardian volunteers are now on the ground in Taiji, Japan for Operation Henkaku (Operation Metamorphosis). The 2015-2016 season marks the sixth consecutive year of Sea Shepherd’s Dolphin Defense campaign and their promise to the dolphins remains the same – they will not stop until the slaughter ends!

Sea Shepherd’s Cove Guardians will continue to document and live stream from Taiji, ensuring that no dolphin or pilot whale is captured or slaughtered unseen by the eyes of the world. This year’s campaign will also have an increased focus on raising crucial awareness of the inextricable link between the slaughter in Taiji and the global captive industry. It is the international demand for live cetaceans for captivity that is the economic fuel driving the hunting boats each day in search of pods to be taken forever from the sea. Just one trained captive dolphin can be sold by the Taiji hunters for $250,000 USD. The most effective way that you can help bring the slaughter to an end is to never patronise aquariums, marine parks or swim-with-dolphin operations that hold whales or dolphins captive.

Japan has already attempted to hide the brutal actions of a handful of individuals that turn Taiji’s waters red with blood, shaming the entire nation of Japan. In recent days, Cove Guardian Ground Leader, Karen Hagen of Norway and Linda Trapp of the USA were detained, interrogated and denied entry to Japan and deported from the country, just as other returning Sea Shepherd volunteers have been denied before. These obstacles will not stop Sea Shepherd in their mission for the dolphins and more Cove Guardians will arrive in Taiji.
Japan may be able to stop one volunteer but it cannot stop a movement based on compassion.

Join us! Sea Shepherd is the only group on the ground daily throughout the entire six-month hunt season, so it’s important that we have volunteers stationed at the cove from September 1 until March. If you are interested in joining us as a Cove Guardian in Taiji, please email groundcrew@seashepherd.org to express your interest. The dolphins need YOU!

For more information on Operation Henkaku and how you can lend your support, please click here

 

Jaws Should Be Terrified Of Us!

Forty years ago this week a dark fin broke the surface of the water around the fictional resort of Amity Island. To John Williams’ heart pounding theme, the 25-foot, three ton, Carcharodon Carcharius, promptly started chomping its way through naked bathers, fishermen and the odd water skier. Based on Peter Benchley’s best-selling novel, Jaws was an instant box office hit but controversy has always stalked the film much in the same way as Benchley’s shark stalked the residents of Amity. The project had been beset with problems during filming. The main stars disliked each other intensely, the mechanical shark that was used didn’t work properly and the director, Steven Spielberg, feared the whole thing would be a cinematic flop. The biggest controversy however, still remains forty years on. That controversy is the fact that many conservationists feel that Jaws propagates a myth, the myth of the “killer shark”. Peter Benchley, who would later become an advocator for shark conservation, even said he regretted writing the novel in the first place. “What I now know, which wasn’t known when I wrote Jaws, is that there is no such thing as a rogue shark which develops a taste for human flesh,” Benchley told the Animal Attack Files in 2000. “No one appreciates how vulnerable they are to destruction.” 

 

No one can deny that sharks do attack people and that these attacks are sometimes fatal. No one can deny either, the dreadful impact these attacks unquestionably have on the lives of survivors or the sense of horror and loss that families must feel when they are informed that their loved one has died as a result of a shark attack. Nor should we underestimate the psychological, drip, drip effect that news of these attacks has on the rest of the global population. 

In the movie Jaws, the towns Mayor, played by Murray Hamilton neatly sums this up when he tells Chief Brody (Roy Schneider): “Martin, it's all psychological. You yell barracuda, everybody says, "Huh? What?" You yell shark, we've got a panic on our hands...”

Then of course there is the notion that sharks serve little or no purpose in the ocean eco-system. Again this is neatly encapsulated in the film when the character Hooper, played by Richard Dreyfuss remarks that sharks are in essence machines. “…And all these machines do is swim and eat and make little sharks, and that’s all.” In short sharks only exist to swim around eating fish, surfers, swimmers etc and then pop off to propagate more sharks in order to continue the oceanic killing spree. But do sharks really deserve their reputation as voracious killers or is the idea of the “killer shark” really just a myth and if they serve no purpose as a species would it really matter if man looked upon them as a scourge of the oceans and simply wiped them out?

In 2014 there were 72 unprovoked shark attacks reported globally, seven of which ended in fatalities. Since 1900 the number of shark attacks reported has increased annually. The great majority of these attacks occur off the coasts of Australia, U.S. and South Africa. Florida is particularly prone to attacks with 54% of reported shark attacks in the U.S. occurring in that states waters. Troubling figures you might think, but let’s get some perspective. In the UK in 2014, road traffic accidents accounted for 1,713 fatalities. In the same year 42 people died in the U.S. as a result of dog bites and in Florida in 2014, firearms were used to kill 687 people.  Sharks don’t even make it onto the list of the top ten dangerous animals to mankind. Top of that list is the mosquito, which through transmission of malaria manages to bump off two million people every year, snakes kill on average 100,000, scorpions help 5000 people to shuffle off the mortal coil yearly and are followed in order by crocodiles, elephants, bees, lions, rhinoceroses, jellyfish and tigers. It is true that the number of shark attacks has increased yearly since 1900 but this is easily explained by the fact that the number of people entering the oceans has increased, More people swim, snorkel, dive, surf and play about on boats than ever before in history and thus there are more opportunities for interaction between man and sharks. Experts also cite the fact that reporting of shark attacks has improved greatly and so many more incidents are reported, logged and investigated. The great majority of attacks are often a simple case of mistaken identity, Surfers paddling on boards, divers and snorkellers floating near the surface, tend to resemble many a sharks favoured prey; seals. Swimmers splashing about in the shallows also attract sharks as they mimic the actions of fish in distress. Of course knowing that you have been mistaken for a seal is hardly going to enamour you to the toothy critter gnawing through your surfboard or heaven forbid your leg but it is worth remembering that your chances of being attacked is a staggering one in 11.5 million. 

Sharks do kill people but they are definitely not the deliberate, stalking killers of Jaws fame. But what if you’re not convinced? What if you still think that the ocean would be a much more pleasant place to frolic in without worrying about sleek, dark shadows lurking in the depths ready to sink a thousand razor sharp teeth into your flesh. What would a world without sharks be like?  The law of unintended consequences comes into play here. An ocean without sharks will not be the tooth free wonderland one might imagine. Sharks are the oceans top predators and if you remove them, then the chances are that the creatures they prey on will proliferate. These creatures in turn, unimpeded by predation, will overwhelm the food chain below.  In the U.S. in 2007 it was reported that over fishing of sharks in the northwest Atlantic had led to a boom in other marine species and as a consequence commercial fishing for oysters and scallops had been devastated. Most experts believe that the removal of sharks from the ocean would lead to catastrophic effects on the lower parts of the food chain. The bottom end of the chain would be destroyed and as a result reefs would die and the water itself would become a cloudy morass of detritus, jellyfish and microbes. The oceans as we know them now would become little more than a memory. A trip to the beach doesn’t sound that inviting if your sunbed is situated just a few metres away from a smelly, slimy oceanic bog infested with jellyfish rather than a crystal clear, azure ocean does it? We have much more to fear from an ocean without sharks than we have of sharks being in the ocean.

It might already be too late however. Shark numbers are in sharp decline and as usual it is man that is driving this decline.  Between 70 and 100 million sharks are killed every year. Most are killed to supply the repulsive shark fin soup trade. Shark fins sell for hundreds of dollars each and although the soup produced is bland and nutritionally useless, it is highly regarded in China and South East Asia with single bowls of the stuff reputedly selling for $150. Although 85% of shark fins are moved through Hong Kong, don’t think that the problem is simply an Asian issue. Mexico, Argentina, U.S.A, New Zealand and Nigeria have significant shark fishing industries. The practice of shark fining is banned in the European Union but European fishermen still net an estimated 100,000 tons of shark each year. Spain, France and Portugal are the leading culprits; together they are responsible for 12% of the global shark catch. Deliberate fishing isn’t the only problem either; a great many sharks are killed accidentally in commercial fishing nets and are hooked on long lines.

The rogue killer of Jaws fame it seems is far more threatened by man than man is by it. 

The myth of the “killer shark” really is just that, a myth. Yet that myth still seems to have a strong, cold grip, on our imagination. But here’s a thing, Peter Benchley’s novel and Spielberg’s film aren’t the problem here. Sharks and the fear of their attacks have terrified us long before Robert Shaw delivered that hair-raising U.S.S. Indianapolis monologue in the movie. Sharks are supreme predators with mouths brimming with razor sharp teeth and being wary of them is just common sense. But there is a difference between having a healthy respect for sharks and hysterical fear. Jaws is just a movie, a very good movie mind, but nevertheless just a movie and its main character, that 25-foot shark, is a mechanical fake. Jaws is simply Hollywood entertainment just as The Terminator movie is, and like the Terminator you have to willingly suspend your disbelief or the whole thing becomes preposterous. We, man, are the real problem here. Our fear of sharks is often driven by ignorance, helped in no small part we’re sure, by media hysterics when an attack occurs. We need to grow up here, we need to educate ourselves and learn that sharks are not mindless, cold-hearted killers but the supreme pinnacle of marine evolution. We need sharks, the oceans need sharks and if we want to keep our coral reefs and marine eco-systems, if we want to swim in azure waters and enjoy the benefits of healthy seas we are going to have to stop thinking like children and start thinking like adults. We are going to have to accept that even in a perfect world a little danger must always lurk.

Debunking the myth, the Sharkwater Film. Please check this out if you haven't already seen this brilliant 2007 film.

Shark Tracking - global shark incidents tracked yearly

Boredom, Despair And Numb Buttocks. It Must Be World Oceans Day!

June 8^th was World Oceans Day. You didn’t notice? Well that’s not surprising considering the bright sparks who organised this global invent decided that it should be held, of all days, on a Monday. There were apparently lots of events held around the world, but you almost certainly didn’t notice those either as you were probably working. Even the media coverage of the event seemed lacklustre at best. Despite being a Monday and the general sense of apathy, we decided that since we are always going on about marine conservation, that a few of us should go along to the event held at The Royal Geographical Society in Kensington, London. “Realising the potential of our oceans and coasts” was billed as chance for the public to hear and discuss how governments, communities and the private sector can respond to the challenges of pollution, overfishing, climate change and habitat destruction and how many of the benefits and opportunities provided by oceans and coasts are being missed or lost. 

 

The event was jointly organised by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), The Prince’s Charities’ International Sustainability Unit, University College London (UCL) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). At 6:30 in the evening we were guided into the lecture theatre, complimentary reading matter in hand and took our seats. Some fifteen minutes later, backsides feeling a little numb from the ridiculously uncomfortable bench seating, our host introduced himself. Unfortunately we were so engrossed in discussing the disturbed mind that could have created such torturous seating that we missed his name, but he was a well-dressed gentleman with a perfect coiffure of grey hair and the slight air of a car salesmen. He gave us a quick run down of the evening’s timetable. There would be a few short presentations followed by a high level question and answer session with a select panel. He then introduced a video message from H.R.H the Prince of Wales no less. His Royal Highness apologised for not being able to attend in person – he probably had something better to do. H.R.H. mentioned the challenges the oceans face and the fact that he was launching a photography competition to celebrate the importance of our blue planet. The winning images would be featured in a special exhibition in Malta in November this year. Why the exhibition was being held in Malta wasn’t explained. Perhaps the staff of his International Sustainability Unit didn’t fancy the notorious cold of a November in London - a little tip to the sun anyone? H.R.H. then informed us that he had been assured that we were all in for an exciting evening, though he didn’t sound too convinced, and as the numbness began to travel down our legs, nor did we. 

The coiffure of grey hair then introduced His Excellency Kamalesh Sharma, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. Mr Sharma is an amiable man with extensive diplomatic experience and well-known interests in the empowerment of young people, women’s rights and the eradication of poverty.  Unfortunately what he didn’t seem to be interested in was making sure his microphone was working – it wasn’t. What followed was a twenty-minute mumble. Occasionally we picked up the odd word here and there such as “economic functionaries” (whatever they are) or global warming (climate change Kamalesh, climate change! We don’t say global warming anymore) but along with the rest of the audience we were too polite to demand that this heavyweight of global politics should speak up. Thus, none the wiser about what he had been saying, we joined in the courteous applause as he left the stage and the building. He probably had something better to do as well.

By the time the next speaker was introduced, the numbness in our lower extremities was becoming a serious concern, and a few audience members had made a bolt for the door. No one it seemed, wanted to hang around for the Q&A – did they know something we didn’t? 

John Tanzer, a rotund Australian and Marine Director of the WWF, bounded onto the stage with vigour and thankfully, a fully functional microphone. How do you get to be a Marine Director of WWF and how much does it pay? Are just some of the things we really we wanted to know. Mr Tanzer though didn’t want to tell us. Instead he talked about the WWF report called: Reviving The Ocean Economy. He talked about NGO’s and lamented that the WWF sometimes doesn’t get invited to the meetings where real decisions are made. Sometimes, he told us sadly, he feels irrelevant.  Later, he showed us a slide of a bemused looking girl from Mozambique; the same girl appears in the WWF report. Mr Tanzer didn’t explain too much about the girl other than to say she illustrated his point. What that point was we weren’t sure, but we did wonder why the poor girl looked so bemused. Was it because she had just had a camera shoved in her face? Then we wondered if she had received any money for having her image used in the WWF report or even if there were any legal requirements about such images. Can anyone use your image in publications without your agreement or do they have to pay? Perhaps she had agreed. Perhaps someone else had agreed for her?  Perhaps that was why she was bemused? Anyway we agreed we didn’t know and turned our attentions back to Mr Tanzer, who was talking about himself, though not about his earnings. Mr Tanzer informed us that he had dabbled in politics and it showed, he is a good performer and self-promotion appears not to be one of his weaknesses but did we get any real sense of what the Marine Director of the WWF actually does, or what the report is all about? Sadly no. 

The sound of a gentle snore emanated from the back seats, and a few more members of the audience made a dash for freedom as the next speaker was introduced, the one and only Ben Miller. Our ears pricked up, our stone-cold buttocks suddenly warmed a little. Ben Miller, the comedian? Sadly we had misheard, it wasn’t the amusing Ben Miller but the academic Ben Milligan. Mr Milligan is a Senior Research Associate at UCL (how much does that pay?) and despite not wearing a tie and having the sort of trendy classes you might associate with a socialist comedian he was not remotely interested in making us laugh. Ben thanked John Tanzer for his very personal view (did we detect a hint of condescension in his voice?) before turning his attention to the audience. He talked about marine protection, marine management and marine investment. He mentioned carbon credits and blue bonds though oddly, nothing was said about over population. Ben then showed us some slides, which like Mr Tanzer before, he too insisted clearly illustrated his points, but again we weren’t too sure. Clear explanation didn’t seem to be the point of these little presentations. Perhaps the speakers didn’t have enough time or perhaps they didn’t think we, the general public, would understand or perhaps they really didn’t care. Ben continued his talk. He showed some more slides and talked about natural flood barriers in Florida and told us all that he really was hopeful for the future – perhaps he’s secured some more funding or maybe he too had something better to do afterwards. Ben finished his time on stage by asking a question: What do we do now? At least that’s what we think he asked. The buttock inducing numbness of the seats might have finally reached our ears or perhaps the bleakness of the evening had fuddled our senses but we were sure that was the question. We didn’t know about the rest of the audience, but we knew exactly what we were going to do. Before the select panel had taken their seats for the question and answer session we were off. Enough really was enough. We needed to restore the circulation to our lower limbs and some spark to our minds. 

At a local hostelry, a cold beer in hand, we reflected on the evening. Perhaps the question and answer had turned into a whirlwind of intelligent debate. Perhaps the audience had thrown up some intriguing ideas or asked some searching questions. We didn’t know. What we did know was that this event was supposed to have been organised so that the academics, professional charities and conservation heavy hitters could engage with the public, to explain the challenges and the opportunities. And more importantly, tell us what they actually all do. In essence this was their chance to inspire. On that front unfortunately, it was a hapless failure. All we felt was abject despair. We felt disengaged, uninspired and we now knew how poor John Tanzer felt when he and the WWF don’t get invited to those really, really important meetings. We felt irrelevant.

Of course we should not have been surprised at this, In fact we really should have known better. The number of conservation organisations, charities, sustainability units, NGO’s, committees, projects and funds are increasing at a bewildering rate. Conservation has become big business and this event was the industry giving us the old sales pitch. Yesterday it was the rain forest, the day before polar bears, and the day before that it was global warming. Today however it is the oceans and the great conservation gravy train rolls on.

The coiffure of grey hair had stated that he wanted us, the audience, to spread the word via twitter and social media. And that message was that we should all support the WWF, IIED, NGO’s, professional academics, bureaucrats and the hordes of charity directors, managers and sustainability officers out there. They need our help, our social media sites and our donations. In fact, we were bit surprised that a collection plate wasn’t passed around between speakers – give generously please.

So what are we to finally make of this event? Well clearly there is a business opportunity for furniture manufacturers to supply more comfortable seats to the Royal Geographical Society and audio recordings of the presentation could be marketed as a cure for insomnia.  As for raising the awareness of marine conservation and discussing possible solutions to the challenges, we have to award the event and its organisers a gold plated zero! We must also sound a warning here. The field of conservation really is in danger of becoming a perverse piece of theatre. The players, all those NGO’s, academics and sustainability units will prance about the world stage holding discussions, lobbying governments, formulating policy documents, making decisions and raising revenue, whilst the rest of us will be reduced to the role of an audience. Silently watching on, possibly bored witless but nevertheless, totally irrelevant to the drama playing out. The great conservation show and its industry players appear more and more to be self-serving, self perpetuating and increasingly self-important. And that must stop.

Perhaps though there is a silver lining to the clouds of despair. Milligan, Sharma, Tanzer and the World Oceans Day industry might not have inspired us but they have done something else. Disengaged and uninspired we may be but more importantly we are disgruntled. So in the coming weeks, months and years we will be paying close attention to work of the WWF and it’s publications along with the IIED and all the rest, and we are rather certain that we will not be a very compliant audience

One last thing, if any of you out there think that if we had paid more attention to what was said and less time worrying about our numb backsides, we might have learnt something. Then we can only respond in the words of disgruntled Vietnam Veterans everywhere: “You don’t know man… You weren’t there!”

A PDF of the WWF “Reviving the ocean economy” can be found here.