Kathy -
I've been to Marco Island twice and both times the water was very clear, so there is good visibility. I wouldn't worry about a thing. We stayed way out in the ocean for hours there and never had a problem. Have fun!

I can say with certainty that if you are standing in waist high water on a Fl beach on a clear day that the probability of getting attacked by a shark is significantly higher than the probability of getting hit by a car or lightning.

...yes, I suppose it would be rather unlikely to be hit by a car while standing waist high in water in FL.

Got no argument with that one, nosiree.

Yes, Kirk, Great Whites do like cooler waters, and NC has seen some very large Tiger Sharks caught off its coasts. The most notorious shark attacks in U.S. history were the result of a Great White in the waters of New Jersey. The fact of the matter is, however, that Florida leads the nation in shark attacks and is one of the worst in the world for them. I have no knowledge of which state leads in attacks per bather (afterall Florida does get more beach goers than most states). Maybe its a matter of a large coastline and lots of swimmers, but I would think it also relates to a large population of feeding sharks near shore.

Hey, the way I have seen some people drive, I wouldn't rule out getting hit by a car while standing in waist-deep water.

All right....let's just set the statistical record straight, OK?
(Data from researchers at the University of Florida's biology department):

Average number of Shark Attacks on humans in the 1990's (Florida, per year)=18

Number of Alligator Attacks on humans in Florida was nearly identical to that of sharks-humans.

Number of fatal lightning strikes on humans is almost 1000 times higher than sharks-humans, and likelihood of being injured by an animal bite is 10000 times higher.

Sooooo.....if your chances of dying from an unseen bolt of lightning are 1000 times higher than your chances of dying from a shark attack, isn't that telling you something?
Maybe we should all entirely avoid travelling since this lightning thing seems pretty common, eh?

And whoever stated that the population of Florida divided by the number of shark attacks gives you the risk of a shark attack needs a basic lesson in statistics. Think a tourist who puts a toe in the ocean for 2 minutes has the same risk as an oceanography diver who spends hours a time in the water? Then should they each be counted as a unit of one? Of course not.
If you count the number of people at risk (in the water) and total amount of time you'll get risk per person per hour. The total hours per year in the water for all tourists and residents will add up to many million. Divided by 18 attacks will give you a very, very tiny overall risk.

BTW the most common time of day for great white shark attacks is 10AM-4PM.
In fact, the risk per hour follows a nice bell curve pattern, very low in mornings and evenings (dusk, dawn).
Reason? Many fewer swimmers at those hours.
If you ask on a PER HOUR PER PERSON basis, it might be relatively higher at dusk or dawn, but the raw numbers from the U of F are as noted.

Do a search using International Shark Attack File plus George Burgess. Dr. Burgess is an international authority on shark attacks. It is his job to maintain records of all attacks worldwide. Documentation dates back to the 1500s.

Some more interesting statistics for Jersey and all:
According to the Florida Museum of Natural History(University of Florida): In 1999(last year recorded) there were 79 "confirmed unprovoked shark attacks" worldwide. Of these 34 occured in Florida.
According to the National Weather Service between 1959 and 1994 there was an average of 90 fatalities per year due to lighting in all US states. This includes on land, on water and in airplanes that crashed due to lightning strikes.
You are at risk of lightning strike 24 hours a day on land, on water and in the air. Even when sitting in your own house. You are only at risk of shark attack when immersed in water in the ocean.
Interestingly Florida has twice as many lightning casualties as any other state.
(Michigan being the second for lightning strike injuries.)
Hawaii and Alaska have never had a recorded case of a person being killed by lightning as least since 1959. But, Hawaii has had 98 confirmed shark attacks with 20 fatalities. Florida by comparison has had 439 confirmed shark attacks.
Jersey: You might have to re-figure.

I think I'd rather take my chances with the lightning. Getting eaten by a shark is a bit too gruesom for me.

For me, it's the drama. Not knowing it's coming, the stealth of the shark, the suddeness of the attack, the brutality, the horrible aftermath...

I'm not a big fan of ocean swimming the shark issue aside -- sand and salt in my "nether regions" does not appeal to me in the least.

That poor child, and his poor family. I can't imagine how awful it must have been for his aunt and uncle. I would have been a screaming, shaking, hysterical mess. I have the utmost respect for those people who had the presence of mind and the courage to help that little boy.

All those statistics aren't wrong, and advice not to cancel vacation plans on the basis of low probabilities aren't, either. But I daresay all you stats-mongers have a fair amount of car, life, and health insurance, which says you aren't counting on low probabilities, either.

I still say that putting down people expressing genuine concern and doing that by throwing statistics at them is a stupid exercise, one I've noticed is far more likely to be used by males who think females are being "hysterical" about something.

What about those dumb stats that talk about the number of eligible males compared to eligible females in some region or age group? The upshot is that for someone looking for a mate, "it only takes one."

Philosophically, it's in effect always a zero-or-one proposition: either it happens to YOU or it doesn't. For the family of the 8-year-old boy, or the families of victimes of air crashes, car crashes, floods, or lightning strikes, or whatever, it happened to THEM. Telling them it was less or more likely to happen depending on the type of catastrophe is meaningless and, I'll say it again, definitionally stupid.

As to the impulse to be wary: it seems to me a mark of higher intelligence to be able to learn from what happens to others without having to experience something oneself. In the human being, the combined effect of that higher intelligence plus the ability to have compassion, sorrow, pity for the pain of others sometimes combines into what can be a hyper-reaction to a proximate catastrophe.

Thanks to the media, all catastrophes are proximate, and it is difficult for us to comprehend the differences in distance and orders of magnitude. But that hardly means that worrying about a shark if one is planning to swim in Florida is a sign of idiocy.

Regardless of how you look at the statistics, I think we have all come to one conclusion - don't go to Florida because the sharks and lightning are everywhere. Oh, and it's corrupt (for those who remember that controversial thread from last year). For that matter, don't come to my state of NC either. We are right near the top for lightning, had several shark attacks in the past year or so, have very deadly rip tides, and have a propensity to get hit by quite a few hurricanes.

Most, So worrying about your children swimming in shark infested waters is a sign of idiocy? Count me in then!

Why don't the resorts and communities of these areas build a fence a few hundred yards from the beach to prevent sharks and other fish from swimming and feeding in these areas? If I were a resort, that could be a huge marketing tool to say that your beach is 100% safe from sharks. I know I would choose to take my family to a place like that than one that didn't have a fence.

Fences wouldn't, and don't, work. They are a false sense of security. The ocean bottom off the Panhandle is sand and it wouldn't hold a fence. Fences are costly to maintain and are bad for the environment.

Het Dan,
Dont forget you also have Jesse Helms - another reason to be scared off from NC.

So, we put up a fence. That would mean my daughter would have missed the moment a dauphin swam ten feet away from her (in chest high water)in May. No shells or interesting stuff to wash up on the beach. No crabs. I know, let's take the salt water out, and call it a pool!

BeachBum.....how exciting, was he wearing a crown?? Sorry...couldn't resist, please don't be offended. My own house is made entirely of glass when it comes to spelling, so I'm not about to pick up any stones!! gt;

It seems this whole statistical thing started with the post about lightning and car crashes. But no matter how you cut it, the poster who made the comparison had the right answer to the original question -- the chances of a shark attack are extremely remote and not worth worrying about.
Of course, no sane person is going to send her kid out swimming in shark-infested waters (or playing in traffic, for that matter). That's not the point, or the question.
Sorry, for those of you who think there's no statistical relationship between shark attacks or lightning or car crashes, you're wrong: The original post wanted to know about the likelihood of her kids being attacked by a shark in Florida. The answer is: Miniscule, and they're more likely to be hit by lightning or be in a car crash.

Yes, xxx, Jesse is meaner than any ole hurricane or shark. However you are more likely to get eaten by Jaws or struck by lightning than see Jesse while on your visit, and those who vote for him, for the most part, will not bother you. Now if you still want to boycott my state, until he is gone, maybe you can get him moved to some less conpicuous place like they did with the flag down in SC. If this would work, I would encourage you to organize your boycott as soon as possible.