I just noticed that one G Greer (Germaine?) posted a message criticising OsC and his friends' trans-Heads swim, saying the chances of being eaten are greater over the depths of the channel and that a shark-induced fatality would set back the cause of ocean swimming.
He/she suggested this was a vainglorious and selfish stunt.
I'm not one to jump thoughtlessly to OsC's defence, particularly after being called a professional Pom by him (I'm an amateur Pom/Aussie), but I thought this a tad harsh, on the facts at least.
Given that the channel between the Heads is deep and that a lot of nasty snappy bitey things go in and out of the Heads, does this make it more likely that an attack will occur? I'm not so sure.
Admittedly, you don't see many swimmers between the heads but most shark sughtings, attacks, etc seem to happen in shallow waters. The only fatality in Sydney since the war was in the harbour in knee deep water. The attack on a diver last year was off Garden Island - in the close vicinity of two ocean swims this year.
And I seem to remember some guy having a small chunk taken out of him in the river at Parramatta about 10 years ago.
Certainly sharks breed at near the Spit, so they have to go past Balmoral to get there - scene of another ocean swim in March.
Let's face it, there are sharks out there. Your chances of being eaten are improved by going out at shark dinner time (dawn or dusk), looking like a seal in a wet suit (so they say, whoever they are) and swimming alone.
Does deeper water and a busy channel equate to greater risk for a group of people in budgies, swimming outside feeding time? I'm not so sure - and call me vainglorious but I'd love to do such a swim, if I had the stamina. And I'd gladly increase my shart attack risk a tad by weraing a wet suit if it kept the stingers away.