National Marine Stinger Advisor to the Australian government, then the product is crap. I thin I'll take her word for it!
Below is a series of emails (hers on top) with the thread. This was from last year. However the unscrupulous company is at it again! Guess it's time to inform people of the truth...again!
Dear all --
Sorry for my delayed response – I have been on location in the Whitsundays, conducting stinger safety seminars and workshops; I actually did reply to this on Saturday, but apparently the reply got lost in the ethereal world of email – sorry for any cross-posting if it did come through to some. For those of you who don't know me, please allow me to introduce myself: my PhD was on identification and classification of box jellyfish and Irukandjis and their stings, and I was the National Marine Stinger Advisor in Australia from 2004-2007. I say these facts so that you may appreciate that I am not just some wannabe do-gooder spruking off sideways, but I actually have thought about stinger safety a fair bit.
In 2006, in my capacity as the National Marine Stinger Advisor, I was asked by a representative of SafeSea to test their product for $40,000, for authorisation for use in Australia. I said no. They asked me again. I said no again. They challenged my refusal and asked why I did not want to test their product, and I said that based on the testing that had been done overseas, I was unsatisfied that it would be appropriate for the Australian market, because I had concerns that it would give people a false sense of security, and that a 25% sting rate was too high with deadly species. They said that they were not seeking an endorsement, just honest testing. So I explained all this to the CEO and Board of Directors of Surf Life Saving and left it to their judgement. Surf decided to take the contract, and that they would have me do the testing, with a clause written into the contract that no endorsement was implied or inferred. The whole thing eventually fizzled, with the representative never forthcoming on signing the contract after numerous delays and strange stories.
Regarding their points below, let me attempt to be as clear as possible on what the fine print should tell you about stinging cells (but doesn't):
Their points:
1) Too slippery: Safe Sea® has a waterproof, slippery texture that makes it difficult for the stinging tentacles to attach to the skin.
Tentacles attach to skin by means of hundreds (in the case of Irukandji) to millions (in the case of boxies) of microscopic 'harpoons' that literally penetrate the skin, each no more than a few microns in diameter and a mere few hundred microns long (a micron is 1/1000 of a millimetre), which are discharged with approximately 40,000 G's of force - it makes no scientific sense whatsoever that a slimy coating is going to deter 40,000 G's of force coming in perpendicularly. That would be like a nuclear missile being deflected by cling-wrap.
2) Taking a tip from our friend the Clown Fish: Safe Sea® absorbs secretions from the skin that would otherwise tell the jellyfish that it's in contact with prey or predator.
First, I am disinclined to believe that SafeSea actually 'absorbs' secretions, or anything for that matter. That would mean that the SafeSea molecules would actually 'suck in' or 'take up' the secretions. More likely, the word they are looking for would be 'covers up' or 'masks' or 'dilutes'. Generally, anhydrous non-oily substances are used to absorb water-based substances (e.g., 'silica gel' and various salts), and the only oil absorbers that I can think of offhand would be french bread, industrial mats and shop rags. Soap doesn't really 'absorb' oil, it acts as a surfactant reducing the surface tension and essentially dissolving the oil -- maybe that's what they mean? It makes no sense to me that a topical lotion would have the right properties to absorb body secretions, which would be partially hydrous and partially oily, unless it were soap, but then soap has been tested as a sting prevention and was a disaster (made it much worse).
Second, stinging cells are a mechanical process that work on a hair trigger mechanism, and if there is contact with something, the likelihood is very high that they will discharge. Yes, there are examples such as anemone fish where a coating is recognised as 'self' by the stinging species; however, this presupposes that the coating will be maintained in a sufficient layer to be effective, and that the contact will be such that the animal can choose to withhold discharge. Given that stings often occur from detached tentacles (i.e., the animal is definitely not in control), this is obviously not always effective. It has been demonstrated that box jellyfish **can** choose to withhold a sting in some instances -- but it has also been demonstrated that this does not always work -- Jack Barnes almost died because of this! Put it this way, if it were my skin or the skin of someone I love, I wouldn't rely on it, but I would pray for it in the event of an emergency.
3) Disrupt communication: Chemical stoppers in Safe Sea® block the chemical pathways where the stinging process is activated.
The stinging cell discharge process is activated by a number of factors, any ONE of which is sufficient to cause discharge. One is the animal being angry and using the retractor fibres to set the nematocysts in a more 'ready to fire' position within the tentacles, where the hair triggers are more exposed -- similar in principle to a cat's claws being retracted or in attack mode. Another is a chemical difference such as pH inside relative to outside the nematocyst. Another is a salinity difference causing osmotic rupture. Another is purely mechanical and has nothing to do with the animal's mood -- the animal can be dead or detached or just not paying attention -- this mechanical process might be thought of as similar to the means by which land mines detonate years after the war is over. I would be extremely interested to know how a chemical stopper can block the chemical pathways of a purely mechanical action... and I am quite certain so would the US Army.
4) Disarm: A stinging cell is a dense "capsule" containing a long folded needle. Pressure builds in this capsule just prior to stinging. As the pressure builds, the capsule is forced open and the needle shoots out like a harpoon, injecting its target with toxin at a force equivalent to a bullet being fired from a gun. This all happens in a fraction of a second; jellyfish stings are among the most rapid mechanical events in all of cellular biology. Safe Sea® reduces the pressure in stinging cells so that they cannot fire - effectively disarming them.
First off, the force is far greater than that of a bullet fired from a gun. But never mind that. Given that a stinging cell is a closed organelle, and that any chemical, mechanical, or osmotic pressure inside or outside relative to the other causes it to fire, I would be extremely interested to know how they explain their pressure reducing mechanism. This simply makes no scientific sense whatsoever. Any and every substance is going to have either acid/base properties, OR osmotic properties, OR weight properties, OR some combination thereof. Any one of these will be sufficient to cause discharge.
As far as the testamonial that it worked while other people were stung, I just don't know what to say about this. I am not saying that it didn't happen -- quite the contrary, I am sure that it did -- it's just that that's not science (we use science to determine the difference between a one-off and a reliable result). There were no controls to determine **WHY** it happened -- maybe it was the SafeSea, and maybe it wasn't. In fact (well, from memory, hope I recall correctly), in SafeSea's own testing, the product **when used according to package directions** effectively prevented or reduced 75% of stings. To put this into an Australian and Thai context, if used properly, this would mean up to 25% fatality rate. Not acceptable in this country. When people think they are protected, they don't use other protection.
These claims, which came from SafeSea, make me even more dubious about the product, because quite simply, I think they are seriously wide of the mark in these claims and the safety that they assert by them. If the product were completely legitimate, they would not need to resort to such claims. As to why it works 75% on the species tested, the answer is that I don't know. Would I trust it with deadly species? Not on my skin. Would I trust it in California where dangerous species have never been reported? I don't know, probably not - I am comfortable in my lycra suit (which gives better protection and does not need to be reapplied, and does give off a greasy residue to the corals), and I instinctively feel uncomfortable about companies that use claims that don’t ring true scientifically.
Your call -- your skin, your profits and losses, your liability lawsuits when something goes wrong -- if it were me, I would be putting my customers in lycra suits like they do in the Whitsundays. It’s no different from wearing a condom when having sex with someone you barely know, or wearing a seatbelt on a road with unfamiliar drivers – you either care about your health, or you don’t. I had a conversation with a woman on Saturday afternoon, where she was arguing that she doesn't want to wear lycra or use vinegar -- I told her that it was simple: prevent the sting, and if that doesn't work, prevent more sting, and that the state-of-the-art way that we do that is with lycra suits and vinegar, in that order -- she insisted that she wanted her kids to be safe, but she didn't like those options -- in the end, I grew impatient with her refusal to “get it” and told her that it was up to her -- I had given her the best advice possible, and there was $61 standing between her and each of her children's lives ($60 for the lycra suit, and $1 for the vinegar). I told her that I hope it never comes to that, and I wished her peace in her decision, and I told her perhaps it would be better to swim in the pool if she were not ready to accept safety's basic principles. Some people are always looking for a magic answer, rather than just accepting reality and dealing with it productively. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why $61 is not magic enough!
You guys have a lot to lose every time a tourist dies or gets seriously injured from jellyfish, and it will only get worse (both the publicity and the probability). In Cairns, many operators and beaches have chosen to ignore the lycra option. They still get stings, and operations closures, and lawsuits, and have to give refunds. In the Whitsundays, almost 100% use lycra, and stings are down to almost zero. The Whitsundays operators originally balked at the idea of lycra suits, until they realised that it is allowing them to grow their industry. Tourists are now telling me that they feel more comfortable in the Whitsundays because they feel that their safety is being looked after. And by using the Whitsundays in my media, documentaries, and publications as an example of pro-active safety, I am implicitly giving them publicity as a safer tourism destination.
There are a variety of products on the market that will tell you what you want to hear when it comes to stinger safety. You can choose the easy way out by wasting your money on them, or you can do the right thing (for you and your customers – not for me – I get more publicity and more funding when you do the wrong thing!). Stinger safety is not mysterious. Stinger nets (for boxies), lycra or neoprene protective clothing (for boxies and irukandjis - and sunburn), and vinegar are what works. Everything else either doesn’t work as well, or actually makes the problem worse.
Sincerely, Lisa
..............................
Dr. Lisa-ann Gershwin
Curator of Natural Science
Queen Victoria Museum
Subject: RE: Need help with the box-jellyfish problem
This product has not been formally tested in Australia, although the makers tried to convince me to do a study but were not willing to fund it. It should NOT be promoted until it has a formal evaluation. Whilst it was used in the US on an invasion of chirodropids in Florida, published and reviewed results at present do not match up with their claims.
Prevention? YES. Stinger-resistant clothing, nets, education: works in Australia…
Peter Fenner
Dr Peter Fenner AM
MD (London), DRCOG, FACTM, FRCGP
Industrial and Occupation Health information
Dear All,
Some communication among others regarding box-jellyfish problem I received.
Any comment or suggestion !.
Yours sincerely,
Somchai Bussarawit
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:02:33 -0700
Dear Justine,
The Safe Sea looks interesting! If it is a very good product, I think it will be known throughout the sea-goers sooner. I am not quite sure that how a person of Health Ministry can do with the Safe Sea. I guess it is inappropriate that such a person promote the product because it is a trading matter. What we can do is just to spread the news among the sea-goer community and through beach resorts/hotels.
May I spread this news among friends, perhaps they have some other comments.
Best regards,
Niphon Phongsuwan
P.S. thanks Steffen for a good news!
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Justine ********** wrote:
Dear Niphon,
Today I have recieved an email from ********* and have informed him I have forwarded the email below to yourself.
I would be very interested in your reply as looking at various products that are going into our oceans and alternative bio-degradeable / natural products avalable and in use.
With alternative methods of protection against sunburn and stings, covering up is a simple, cheap and enviromentally friendly way of protection without the need of any product use, production, transportation.
I will also contact the company as could not see anything on there site indicating there products would be suitable to be used in marine enviroments and if they have looked at efffects on the coral reefs.
Do you know if the occurence of box jellyfish in Thailand has increased in the last 6 months since I left.
Many Thanks
Justine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steffen <**************>
Date: 2009/6/4
Subject: Need help with the box-jellyfish problem
Dear Justine,
Hope that this email finds you doing well. Not sure if you remember me…I’m Steffen *************I apologize for this rather long email, but this is important.
Since my daughter and myself had a bit of an accident with jellyfish at Phuket’s Nai Harn beach some time ago (nothing serious, but redness and pain), I decided to do something about it – next time it could be an accident with a box-jellyfish…
I closely followed the work of the Marine Biology Center, Health Ministry and Tourism Authority of Thailand in research of the box-jellyfish, the most venomous creature in the world. I also noted the warnings given to beach side resorts and the advice of the health ministry to stock vinegar as a treatment.
Treatment with vinegar is an effective way when stung by most jellyfish, because it inhibits the firing mechanism of the stinging cells within the tentacles that remained attached to the skin.
BUT….isn’t prevention BETTER than treatment? Shouldn’t we focus on: not getting stung by those jellyfish in the first place?
Well, there is a solution:
I am in contact with a biotechnology company called Nidaria Technology
They have research centers in USA, Japan and Israel. The people there consist of a team of biotechnology and marine experts who are dedicated to making the ocean and Marine Environment a safer place for beach goers, swimmers, surfers, divers and fishermen.
They have developed a product called Safe Sea®, which is a sunscreen lotion with jellyfish sting protection. Safe Sea® was clinically tested and proven to be effective against jellyfish, including box-jellyfish. The product was issued with FDA licenses for most countries. It is already available in Europe, America, Australia, Japan, Singapore and other Asian countries.
I would like to make Safe Sea® available to Thai people and tourists in Thailand. To do so, I need your help:
I would like to get in contact with the right people of the health ministry. I will explain them that this product is the solution to the dangerous box-jellyfish problem. I will explain why it is important that the health ministry recommend that Safe Sea® is available in hotels at Thailand’s beaches.
All this will help me speeding up the process of FDA and import licensing as well having Safe Sea® available in Thailand very soon.
This is how Safe Sea® lotion works:
Safe Sea® prevents painful stings by chemically deactivating the stinging mechanisms of jellyfish, fire coral, sea lice, and other stingers. It was developed studying “NEMO”, clown fish.
1) Too slippery: Safe Sea® has a waterproof, slippery texture that makes it difficult for the stinging tentacles to attach to the skin.
2) Taking a tip from our friend the Clown Fish: Safe Sea® absorbs secretions from the skin that would otherwise tell the jellyfish that it's in contact with prey or predator.
3) Disrupt communication: Chemical stoppers in Safe Sea® block the chemical pathways where the stinging process is activated.
4) Disarm: A stinging cell is a dense "capsule" containing a long folded needle. Pressure builds in this capsule just prior to stinging. As the pressure builds, the capsule is forced open and the needle shoots out like a harpoon, injecting its target with toxin at a force equivalent to a bullet being fired from a gun. This all happens in a fraction of a second; jellyfish stings are among the most rapid mechanical events in all of cellular biology. Safe Sea® reduces the pressure in stinging cells so that they cannot fire - effectively disarming them.
I am all excited that I have found a product which protects against jellyfish stings. The company had already send me a few sample bottles and I tested it while swimming at Nai Harn beach and diving around Phi Phi Island. It is really amazing….my skin was in direct contact with tentacles of jellyfish and I got not stung! Other customers on this trip got stung nearly every dive.
I hope that you can help me with this.
Looking forward to your reply.
No comments:
Post a Comment