Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

Dog bite statistics

The most recent official survey, conducted more than a decade ago, determined there were 4.7 million dog bite victims annually in the USA. A more recent study showed that 1,000 Americans per day are treated in emergency rooms as a result of dog bites. In 2010 there were 34 fatal dog attacks in the USA. Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, half of whom are bitten in the face. Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year, with over $300 million paid by homeowners insurance. http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/dog-bite-statistics.html 2010 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Statistics - DogsBite.org Fatal Dog Attack Statistics DogsBite.org recorded 33 fatal dog attacks in 2010.1 Citations of each victim's story are located on the Fatality Citations page. The last year the CDC recorded and studied dog bite fatalities by breed was 1998. Likely due to pressures from pro-pit bull, animal advocacy and dog fancying groups, the CDC stopped studying these deaths by breed. The only other known entity that tracks this information is Animal People.2 DogsBite.org has joined in this effort.

2010 Dog Bite Fatalities 33 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2010. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 650 U.S. cities, pit bulls led these attacks accounting for 67% (22). Pit bulls make up approximately 5% of the total U.S. dog population.3 In 2010, the combination of pit bulls (22) and rottweilers (4) accounted for 79% of all fatal attacks. In the 6-year period from 2005 to 2010, this same combination accounted for 71% (129) of the total recorded deaths (181). The combined breakdown between the two breeds is substantial. From 2005 to 2010, pit bulls killed 104 Americans, about one citizen every 21 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 25 Americans, about one citizen every 88 days. 2010 data shows that 61% (20) of the attacks occurred to children (11 years and younger) and 39% occurred to adults. Of the children, 75% (15) occurred to ages 4 and younger. Within this same age group, males represented 60% of the victims. 2010 data also shows that 33% (11) of the fatal incidents involved multiple dogs.4 Nearly a third, 30% (10), involved breeding on the dog owner's property either actively or in the recent past, and 9% (3) involved chained dogs.

Dog ownership information for 2010 shows that family dogs comprised 73% (24) of the attacks that resulted in death; 88% (29) of these incidents occurred on the dog owner's property and 12% (4) occurred off the owner's property. The state of California led fatalities in 2010 with 7 deaths; pit bulls contributed to 83% (6). Florida followed with 3 deaths and Georgia, Illinois, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas each had 2 deaths.

ISAF 2010 Worldwide Shark Attack Summary (REVISED: 1 February 2011)

The International Shark Attack File (ISAF) investigated 115 alleged incidents of shark-human interaction occurring worldwide in 2010. Upon review, 79 of these incidents represented confirmed cases of unprovoked shark attack on humans. "Unprovoked attacks" are defined as incidents where an attack on a live human by a shark occurs in its natural habitat without human provocation of the shark. Incidents involving sharks and divers in public aquaria or research holding-pens, shark-inflicted scavenge damage to already dead humans (most often drowning victims), attacks on boats, and provoked incidents occurring in or out of the water are not considered unprovoked attacks. "Provoked attacks" usually occur when a human initiates physical contact with a shark, e.g. a diver bit after grabbing a shark, a fisher bit while removing a shark from a net, and attacks on spearfishersand those feeding sharks. The 36 incidents not accorded unprovoked status in 2010 included 22 provoked attacks, 3 cases of sharks biting marine vessels, 4 incidents dismissed as non-shark attacks, 5 "scavenge" incidents involving postmortem bites, and 2 cases in which insufficient information was available to determine if an unprovoked shark attack had occurred. In time, as further evidence is gathered, some of the latter may be assigned to one of the alternate categories.

The 2010 yearly total of 79 unprovoked attacks was higher than the 63 unprovoked attacks 2009 and the highest since 2000 (80). The number of unprovoked shark attacks has grown at a steady pace over the past century with each decade having more attacks than the previous. The growth in shark attack numbers does not necessarily mean that there is an increase in the rate of shark attack, rather it most likely is reflective of the ever-increasing amount of time spent in the sea by humans, which increases the odds of interaction between the two affected parties.

The number of shark-human interactions occurring in a given year is directly correlated to the amount of time humans spent in the sea. As world population continues its upsurge and interest in aquatic recreation concurrently rises, we realistically should expect increases in the number of shark attacks and other aquatic recreation-related injuries. If shark populations remain the same or increase in size, one might predict that there should be more attacks each year than in the previous year because more people are in the water. Shark populations, by contrast, actually are declining at a serious rate or are holding at greatly reduced levels in many areas of the world as a result of over-fishing and habitat loss,

theoretically reducing the opportunity for these shark-human interactions. However, year-to-year variability in local economic, social, meteorological and oceanographic conditions also significantly influences the local abundance of sharks and humans in the water and, therefore, the odds of encountering one another. As a result, short-term trends in the number of shark attacks - up or down must be viewed with caution. Thus, the ISAF prefers to view trends over longer periods of time (e.g., by decade) rather than trying to assign too much significance to often high year-to-year variability.

In addition to increases in the number of hours spent in the water by humans, the ISAF's efficiency in discovering and investigating attacks has increased greatly over the past decade, leading to further increases in attack number. Transfer of the ISAF to the Florida Museum of Natural History in 1988 resulted in greatly expanded international coverage of attack incidents and a consequent jump in the number of documented attacks. In the early 1990's the ISAF was able to develop important cooperative relationships with many Florida beach safety organizations and medical facilities, leading to increased documentation of attacks from a region that is a world leader in aquatic recreation. Fundamental advances in electronic communication (the Internet and email), a greatly expanded network of global ISAF scientific observers, and a rise in interest in sharks throughout the world, spawned in part by increased media attention given to sharks, have promoted more complete documentation of attack incidents in recent years. The ISAF web pages which include electronic copies of the Attack Questionnaire in four languages as well as a plethora of statistics and educational material about sharks, comprises the most highly accessed shark site on the Internet. Our strong web presence regularly results in the receipt of unsolicited documentation of shark attacks. Many of these attacks likely would have been missed in the past because they occurred in communication-poor locales or areas lacking ISAF representatives.

Six fatalities resulting from an unprovoked attack occurred in 2010, only slightly above totals from recent years (the 2001-2010 yearly average was 4.3). These unprovoked fatalities were recorded from Egypt (1), Australia (1), South Africa (2), Florida (1), and California (1). The number of serious attacks in 2001-2010, as measured by fatality rate (7.0%), has been lower than that of the decade of the 1990's (13.0%), continuing a twentieth century reduction trend reflective of advances in beach safety practices and medical treatment, and increased public awareness of avoiding potentially dangerous situations.

As in recent years, North American waters had the most(42%: 32 attacks) unprovoked attacks in 2010. The total of 36 attacks in the United States (including four in Hawaii) wason par with the 20012010 decadal average of 38.6. Elsewhere, attacks occurred in Australia (14), South Africa (8), Vietnam (6) and Egypt (6), with a single incidents reported from the Bahamas, Brazil, Fiji, Madagascar, Mascarene Islands, Solomon Islands, Canary Islands, Tonga, United Arab Emirates. Surfers (50.8% of cases) and swimmers/waders (37.7%) and were the recreational groups most often involved in shark attacks in

2010. Less affected were snorkelers/divers (8.2%) and those using inflatable rafts and inner-tubes (3.3%).

Following recent trends, Florida again had most of the unprovoked attacks in the United States. The total of 13 attacks was the lowest total since a dozen incidents were documented in 2004 and fell well below the 2001-2010 average of 23.1. Additional U.S. attacks were recorded in North Carolina (5), California (4), South Carolina (4), and Hawaii (4), with single attacks occurring in Georgia, Maine, Washington, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. Within Florida, Volusia County had the most incidents (6). This area normally has higher numbers of shark-human interactions as a result of very high aquatic recreational utilization of its attractive waters by both Florida residents and tourists, especially surfers. Other Florida areas having attacks in 2010 were St.Johns (3), Duval (2), Brevard (1), and Martin (1).

Despite continued human population growth and increased interest in aquatic recreation, the number of shark attacks has generally leveled off, averaging 63.5 per year worldwide since reaching a high of 80 in 2000. Likely reasons include:

1. Less people in the water in traditional high shark-human contact areas. Post-9/11 slow-downs in local economies and the recent economic downturn have reduced the number of tourists entering the sea. Meteorological conditions also have played a role - the large number of tropical storms that battered Florida and other U.S. east coast states in 2004, 2005 and 2006 significantly reduced the amount of time spent in the water by humans in these areas. Since Florida annually has more attacks than any other region in the world, the large drops in number of attacks in this region during 2004-2006 is reflected in the worldwide totals in these years.

2. Less sharks in the water. Worldwide over-fishing of elasmobranchs (sharks and their relatives, the skates and rays) has left many populations at critically low levels. Nearshore sharks are the most affected because they are easily captured and are highly sought for their flesh and especially for their fins, which fetch a high sale price and are exported to eastern Asia, where they are used in shark fin soup, an expensive delicacy. The nearshore area is where humans most often enter the sea.

3. Humans may be getting smarter reducing their interactions with sharks. Media coverage of sharks has been high over the past decade with a plethora of television and print stories detailing the "do's and don't's" involved in reducing shark-human interactions. It is possible that those engaged in marine aquatic recreation (and beach safety personnel charged with their oversight in many areas of the world)

are doing a better job of avoiding high risk areas and times, thereby reducing chance meetings between sharks and humans.

If one is actually under attack by a shark, we advise a proactive response. Hitting a shark on the nose, ideally with an inanimate object, usually results in the shark temporarily curtailing its attack. One should try to get out of the water at this time. If this is not possible, repeat bangs to the snout may offer temporary restraint, but the result likely become increasingly less effective. If a shark actually bites, we suggest clawing at its eyes and gills, two sensitive areas. One should not act passively if under attack sharks respect size and power. For additional safety tips, see:

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/Attacks/relariskreduce.htm

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/diveradvice.htm

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/color.htm

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/mens.htm

The International Shark Attack File, internationally recognized as the definitive source of scientifically accurate information on shark attack, is a compilation of all known shark attacks. In existence since 1958, it is administered by the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida under the auspices of the American Elasmobranch Society, the world's foremost international organization of scientists studying sharks, skates and rays. Approximately 5,000 individual investigations are currently housed in the ISAF, covering the period from the mid-1500's to present. Many of the data in the ISAF originate from the voluntary submissions of numerous cooperating scientists who serve worldwide as regional observers. Data submitted to the ISAF is screened, coded and computerized. Hard copy documentation, including original interviews and notes, press clippings, photographs, audio/video tapes, and medical/autopsy reports, is permanently archived. Biological researchers and research physicians study investigations housed in the ISAF. Access to ISAF data is granted only after careful screening on a case-by-case basis. Direct access by the press and general public is prohibited since much data, including medical records, is sensitive in nature and is given in confidence. Requests for summary information and non-privileged data are made to the ISAF curator, George H. Burgess.

For additional information on sharks and shark attack, visit the Florida Museum of Natural History's shark research web site at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/sharks.htm

George H. Burgess Curator, International Shark Attack File Florida Program for Shark Research Florida Museum of Natural History University of Florida P O Box 117800 Gainesville, FL 32611 gburgess@flmnh.ufl.edu

(352) 392-1721 FAX 352-392-7158

DISTRIBUTIONS OF LIGHTNING-CAUSED CASUALTIES AND DAMAGES SINCE 1959 IN THE UNITED STATES

Ronald L. Holle (formerly National Severe Storms Laboratory, NOAA, Ral E. Lpez, retired from National Severe Storms Laboratory, NOAA E. Brian Curran, National Weather Service, NOAA, Fort Worth, Texas 11th Conference on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society January 1999

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper summarizes casualties and damages due to lightning in the U.S. based on the NOAA publication Storm Data. Curran et al. (1997) includes expanded versions of many of the figures and tables.

Annual summaries of weather impacts based on Storm Data have been published since 1990 by NOAA's National Weather Service. Table 1 shows the number of deaths, injuries, and costs of property damage from four types of convective weather during three recent typical years. Lightning caused 44% of the fatalities, 19% of the injuries, and 3% of the damages for all convective-weather reports, according to Storm Data. Absolute values of these numbers must be considered with caution, however, for reasons given in the next section. When all types of weather-related casualties are examined, Table 2 shows that lightning stays near the top of the list; only flash and river floods rank higher than lightning in terms of deaths.

Knowledge of medical issues concerning lightning victims has grown greatly during the 1990s (Andrews et al. 1992; Andrews 1995; Cherington 1995; Cooper 1995; Cooper and Andrews 1995; Primeau et al. 1995; Cherington et al. 1997). This improved understanding of the medical profiles and demographic distribution of lightning victims has resulted in a multidisciplinary effort concentrating on lightning

safety and education (Vavrek et al. 1999). A significant emphasis is being placed on sports and recreation (Bennett 1997; Walsh et al. 1997).

2. LIGHTNING CASUALTY AND DAMAGE REPORTS

Reports of damaging weather phenomena are compiled monthly at each National Weather Service office. The reports are sent to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C. where Storm Data is assembled. This publication has been compiled with substantially the same procedures since 1959. For this paper, an electronic version of Storm Data was obtained from NCDC of only lightning reports. From 1959 to 1994, Storm Data had 3,239 deaths, 9,818 injuries, and 19,814 property-damage reports due to lightning. Each report contains:

- Year, month, day. - Time in Local Standard Time (LST). - State and county. - Number, gender, and location of fatalities. - Number, gender, and location of injuries. Amount of damage.

Lightning-caused casualties and damages are often less spectacular and more widely dispersed in time and space than other phenomena such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Therefore, lightning deaths, injuries, and damages are underreported as follows:

* 33% more lightning deaths in Texas than Storm Data (Mogil et al. 1977). * 28% more fatalities and 42% more injuries requiring hospitalization in Colorado than Storm Data (Lpez et al. 1993). * The number of Storm Data events was under-reported by 367:1 in a review of insured personal property in 3 western states (Holle et al. 1996).

The latter paper leads to the conclusion that lightning-caused damages are actually similar to, or exceed costs of other phenomena in Table 1. When other unquantified losses are considered, lightning may be as large a cause of damages, and have as little change from year to year, as any weather type.

TABLE 1. Annual averages of casualties and property damage due to convective weather (thunderstorms) during 1992-1994 (from National Weather Service, Office of Meteorology). Order is by number of deaths per year.Convective weather type Fatalities Lightning Tornadoes 51 47 345 1114 18 345 Injuries Damage ($millions) 32 551 352 192

Thunderstorm wind Hail 0 21

Factors contributing to underreporting include:

-Most casualty events involve one person. -The National Weather Service relies on newspaper clipping services for many lightning events in Storm Data (Lpez et al. 1993). -Lightning is sometimes listed as a secondary rather than primary cause of a casualty by the medical system (Mogil et al. 1977; Lpez and Holle 1998).

Nevertheless, Storm Data is the only consistent data source for several decades. In this report, its information was used without modification.

TABLE 2. Summary of 1994 weather casualties, and 30-year normals (from National Weather Service, Office of Meteorology). Order is by 30-year death rate, then by 1994 deaths.Weather 1994 deaths 1994 injuries Deaths per year Flash flood River flood Lightning Tornado Hurricane 59 32 69 69 9 33 14 484 1067 45 87 82 27 298 139

Extreme temperatures 81 Winter weather 31 Thunderstorm wind Other high wind Fog 3 99 59 5165 2690 17 12

315 61

Other 6 Total 388

3. VARIATIONS BY STATE IN REPORTED NUMBERS

Section 3 shows the number of lightning reports by state, and the rank of each state, then Section 4 shows rates per population.

a.

Casualties

Figure 1 shows the rank of each state in lightning-caused casualties (both deaths and injuries). Florida has twice the number of casualties of any other state. The rest of the top ten states, in order, are Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and Colorado. Other high-ranking states are in southern and eastern regions of the country, and very populous states in the northeast. Fewest casualties are in Alaska (none), Hawaii, the District of Columbia, northwest states, Puerto Rico, and small eastern states.

b.

Fatalities

Florida has more than twice the number of lightning deaths of any other state (Curran et al. 1997). The other top-ten states are the same as for casualties except Louisiana, Maryland, and Arkansas replace Michigan, Georgia, and Colorado. Other state rankings usually do not change by more than 5 from casualties except:

* Michigan was in the top 10 casualty list, but not fatalities, because of two large injury cases (Ferrett and Ojala 1992). * Lightning caused an aircraft crash that killed 81 people in Maryland in 1963; that state became seventh in fatalities over the period.

Previous studies of lightning fatalities include Duclos and Sanderson (1990), who used data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Deaths from Storm Data have been plotted by state (Mogil et al. 1977) or at specific locations (Zegel 1967). Results were substantially similar to Figure 2. Single-state maps by county have been compiled for Florida (Duclos et al. 1990), North Carolina (Langley et al. 1991), Michigan (Ferrett and Ojala 1992), and Colorado (Lpez et al. 1995). A table of fatalities by Canadian province was developed by Hornstein (1962). Pakiam et al. (1981) plotted fatalities on a map of Singapore. Maps of deaths divided by political boundaries were shown by Coates et al. (1993) for Australia and by Gourbire et al. (1997) for France.

c. Injuries

The distribution of injuries by state is nearly identical to casualties in Figure 1, since 75% of the casualties are injuries (Curran et al. 1997). Florida had nearly twice as many injuries as Michigan.

d. Damage Reports

The distribution of damage reports by state (Figure 2) has a high concentration over the plains from South Dakota to Texas. The largest number of damage reports is from Pennsylvania, where less than half as many casualties were reported as in Florida. Florida is first on all casualty lists but is not high on the damage list. Six of the 10 states with the highest damage counts are on the first-ten lists for casualties, deaths, or injuries. But Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska on the plains, and South Carolina do not have as high a casualty rank.

4. VARIATIONS BY STATE WEIGHTED BY POPULATION

a. Casualty Rate per Population

When population is taken into account, the maxima shift from populous eastern states to Rocky Mountain and plains states (Figure 3). The top two rates are from Wyoming and New Mexico; these states were 35th and 21st in number of casualties. Wyoming had most of its casualties in the 1960s and 1970s, and almost none since then. Southeast states often have high rankings in both Figures 1 and 3. The only states in the first 10 of both casualties and casualty rate are Florida, Colorado, and North Carolina.

Potrebbero piacerti anche