Jump to content

Box Jellyfish: Nets installed at Chaweng and Lamai on Samui in wake of tourist child death


Recommended Posts

2pm.jpg

Picture: Daily News

 

Daily News reported from Koh Samui after a nine year old child died on Koh Phangan as a result of stings from a deadly box jellyfish.

 

Nets have been installed by the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources on Lamai and Chaweng Beaches to add to signs about the danger and posts containing vinegar - a standard first response treatment for stings. 

 

At Koh Phangan itself the media said the net there at Had Rin beach had been upgraded. 

 

Various kinds of jellyfish including boy jellyfish that can kill are particularly prevalent in the area from July to October, said Krissana Phromkoh the owner of Lamai Wantha Hotel as the net was installed outside her property.

 

Stings should be washed continually with vinegar and never touched as this can spread the toxin. Medical help must be sought immediately after a serious attack.

 

She said that tentacles from jellyfish can stretch 5 meters from the main body of the jellyfish. 

 

It is always safest to swim in areas surrounded by nets especially at this time of the year.

 

Daily News also published figures from Koh Samui Hospital for the number of stings from all kinds of jellyfish that were treated there:

 

2016 42 cases

2017 47 cases

2018 17 vases

2019 and 2020 8 cases each

2021 9 cases so far. 

 

asean_now_BB.jpg
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow those deadly box jellyfish, the rainy season, empty streets, shops and beaches and rising Covid infection rate in them sandbox palaces will not show on any of the TAT brochures i'm sure...

Edited by ezzra
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If these Jellyfish are so dangerous how come there are not nets installed every year at this time ?  Another case of 'Why should we worry about Tourists health and safety matters'.  All they are ever interested in is extracting money; never spending any !

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2021 at 9:35 AM, LivinLOS said:

Because Box jellys are a rising issue with warming waters.. They were not sighted a couple of decades back, very very rare a decade back, and hence its a rising problem. 

Sea turtles eat jellyfish.
Jellyfish are a growing problem due to the decrease in the number of turtles.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2021 at 2:40 PM, Aussiepeter said:

In the rainy season in northern Australia, these creatures are so common that nobody goes into the sea between November and March, unless they are in a netted safe swimming area or wearing protective clothing. Warning signs everywhere. Only last year a very fit indigenous teenager died in north Queensland after being stung by a box jellyfish. Warning signs in multiple languages and safety nets should have been installed on Samui & other islands years ago after the first fatalities but of course, that might have put tourists off.

The box jellyfish seems to hang around relatively close to the mainland, where there is some fresh water coming in the mix. Between November-May they are common in Northern Australia near the mainland beaches, but not in the reef 15-20km+ from the mainland. At the top of the jellyfish season the snorkelling cruises from Cairns and other places are still operating in full swing.

Probably that's the reason Koh Tao is not in the stats, it is too far from the mainland and water is much clearer there. Same for Koh Lipe on the Andaman side.

 

https://www.barrierreefaustralia.com/info/reef-dangers/box-jellyfish/

 

 

Where and when are box jellyfish found in Australia?

They are found in the waters north of Bundaberg, Queensland, up around the coast of the Northern Territory and down to Exmouth in Western Australia. They tend to inhabit river mouths and shallow coastal waters and rarely inhabit the Great Barrier Reef islands such as Fitzroy Island, Green Island and Dunk Island . The jellyfish season runs from around November to May in Tropical North Queensland.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, gearbox said:

The box jellyfish seems to hang around relatively close to the mainland, where there is some fresh water coming in the mix. Between November-May they are common in Northern Australia near the mainland beaches, but not in the reef 15-20km+ from the mainland. At the top of the jellyfish season the snorkelling cruises from Cairns and other places are still operating in full swing.

Probably that's the reason Koh Tao is not in the stats, it is too far from the mainland and water is much clearer there. Same for Koh Lipe on the Andaman side.

 

https://www.barrierreefaustralia.com/info/reef-dangers/box-jellyfish/

 

 

Where and when are box jellyfish found in Australia?

They are found in the waters north of Bundaberg, Queensland, up around the coast of the Northern Territory and down to Exmouth in Western Australia. They tend to inhabit river mouths and shallow coastal waters and rarely inhabit the Great Barrier Reef islands such as Fitzroy Island, Green Island and Dunk Island . The jellyfish season runs from around November to May in Tropical North Queensland.

 

Irujandji are found as far south as Melbourne.

They spawn in fresh(ish?) water and presumably as very small medusa are flushed out into the sea by the flow. ...but they can swim, unlike other jellies.

Also until more research is done we can't  be sure of the natural history of local Thai box jellies....we can only assume that they havea similar life cycle to the Aussie ones... BTW the Qld season has been extended to July....citing climate change.

Edited by kwilco
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2021 at 6:52 AM, trainman34014 said:

If these Jellyfish are so dangerous how come there are not nets installed every year at this time ?  Another case of 'Why should we worry about Tourists health and safety matters'.  All they are ever interested in is extracting money; never spending any !

Every time there is an  incident  then some people but out vinegar and nets which are gradually discarded or forgotten.

As we dont know for sure where the box jellies are coming from I can't see how effective these nets would be, quite apart from the ecological damage they do

Edited by kwilco
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kwilco said:

Yes they were...they have always been around.

There were 3 recorded cases from 1995 to 2007.. Since then the pace of these has risen.. a further 12 in the same timeframe 2008 to 2015. All of the peak years have been in the 201X's as have all the deaths up to this one. 

While your technically right that 'they were not sighted' was too blanket a statement, they were not sighted with anything like the frequency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

There were 3 recorded cases from 1995 to 2007.. Since then the pace of these has risen.. a further 12 in the same timeframe 2008 to 2015. All of the peak years have been in the 201X's as have all the deaths up to this one. 

While your technically right that 'they were not sighted' was too blanket a statement, they were not sighted with anything like the frequency.

Not sure what you think I'm saying.....the Marine Dept has 1500 samples.

Fishermen have been encountering them for decades. They just weren't identified or reported. There were enough though to start official reports in the 1990s.

There also reports from Malaysia just South of the Thai border.

Any "rise", as said, could well be due to the increase in numbers of people in the sea.

Edited by kwilco
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2021 at 6:52 AM, trainman34014 said:

Another case of 'Why should we worry about Tourists health and safety matters'.

Because Thai people must be immune to the stings ... or very brave !..lol !

DF9FEA6E-DCF7-48BA-A6F8-EC4D5C1546E7.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2021 at 6:06 PM, kwilco said:

Irujandji are found as far south as Melbourne.

Really? Could you post some supporting evidence?

Edited by LosLobo
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Really? Could you post some supporting evidence?

 

4 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Really? Could you post some supporting evidence?

You know it always irks me when some says that.

What it really means is they dont believe you but they are not able to find out for themselves 

Well, if I get my info and so can you...either take it or leave it.

I shall  check my info and see if my memory serves me well.... but this is a chat forum and not a university paper.

If you disagree, put forward you own argument rather than snide requests for citations. 

I guess you're the kind of guy who googles in restaurants 

Edited by kwilco
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kwilco said:

 

You know it always irks me when some says that.

What it really means is they dont believe you but they are not able to find out for themselves 

Well, if I get my info and so can you...either take it or leave it.

I shall  check my info and see if my memory serves me well.... but this is a chat forum and not a university paper.

If you disagree, put forward you own argument rather than snide requests for citations. 

I guess you're the kind of guy who googles in restaurants 

This forum allows respectful discussion and debate which I think is one of its strengths.

 

Maybe I can remind you of the forum rule "you will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members."

 

Why do you think my request was "snide" as there was no intention to be derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.

 

In these days of misinformation in social media it is quite reasonable to challenge a post.

 

I neither believe or disbelieve you. 

 

I spent some time on the internet trying to find information about your statement but I could not find any.

 

I posted to give you the right of reply.

 

If you do not wish to continue in this discussion that is fine but I will.

 

I suggest you respond with some supporting evidence or otherwise you may lose standing in your reputation.

 

Edited by LosLobo
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kwilco said:

 

You know it always irks me when some says that.

What it really means is they dont believe you but they are not able to find out for themselves 

Well, if I get my info and so can you...either take it or leave it.

I shall  check my info and see if my memory serves me well.... but this is a chat forum and not a university paper.

If you disagree, put forward you own argument rather than snide requests for citations. 

I guess you're the kind of guy who googles in restaurants 

But when people make extraordinary claims the burden of proof is then on the claimant.. 

I have no idea if the claim is unusual but the more from the generally understood range it is the more its up to you to cite a reputable source to back up the claim.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2021 at 3:41 AM, LosLobo said:

This forum allows respectful discussion and debate which I think is one of its strengths.

 

Maybe I can remind you of the forum rule "you will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members."

 

Why do you think my request was "snide" as there was no intention to be derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.

 

In these days of misinformation in social media it is quite reasonable to challenge a post.

 

I neither believe or disbelieve you. 

 

I spent some time on the internet trying to find information about your statement but I could not find any.

 

I posted to give you the right of reply.

 

If you do not wish to continue in this discussion that is fine but I will.

 

I suggest you respond with some supporting evidence or otherwise you may lose standing in your reputation.

 

You didnt challenge my post, you haven't challenged my post....you haven't presented a counter-argument you just have never heard it before so you dont believe it.

 

So please respect my comments as a fellow member.

 

PS Irukandji syndrome has even been noted off North Wales.

Edited by kwilco
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2021 at 7:43 AM, LivinLOS said:

But when people make extraordinary claims the burden of proof is then on the claimant.. 

I have no idea if the claim is unusual but the more from the generally understood range it is the more its up to you to cite a reputable source to back up the claim.. 

Not an extraordinary claim..

What is extraordinary is people dont understand that there are 50 or more species of box jelly    many species are not just in the tropics.

 

Trying to assert there is a definite "season" is not based on the evidence so that is an extraordinary claim.

 

There is a huge amount of people putting g forward this idea without any scientific evidence...so why not challenge them for citations.... because that myth has been repeated so often people think its fact.

 

So,  if you see something about box jellies.... educated yourself before putting false info up.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2021 at 4:28 AM, LivinLOS said:

There were 3 recorded cases from 1995 to 2007.. Since then the pace of these has risen.. a further 12 in the same timeframe 2008 to 2015. All of the peak years have been in the 201X's as have all the deaths up to this one. 

While your technically right that 'they were not sighted' was too blanket a statement, they were not sighted with anything like the frequency.

You're  looking at the evidence incorrectly.

Box Jellies have been around for millions of years.

The habitat around Thailand and the region to the South is good for Box Jelliy species we know of.

For example, the first scientific ID of a box jelly in Oz was 1955, but because of this they can now confidently say the first definite BJ incident was in the 1890s.

This is similar in Thailand. No records were compiled until 1997, but researching back has shown they were known to fishermen long, long before this.

 

Attributing an increase in incidents to an invasion or even just a population rise is not necessarily supported by the evidence of just recorded deaths.

It is far more likely that the increase of swimmers due to tourism has increased the likelihood of encounters. Especially as both box jellies and swimmers like similar waters.

Until recently swimming in the sea has gone against every grain in Thai culture and those who did venture into the sea were usually fully clothed.

As a pair of heavy denier tights are sufficient to protect against BJ stings  they were far less likely to be seriously injured.

It is also suspected that many diagnoses for BJ incidents were improperly diagnosed and some even covered up..

 

"In Thailand, there have been 15 serious cases recorded between 1997 and 2015 (the majority attributed to (Chironex fleckeri), though many cases of smaller sting incidents have gone unreported (officially), and indeed many stings are wrongly not attributed to the box jellyfish."  Here's a secondary source ...   https://www.thethailandlife.com/box-jellyfish-thailand

Edited by kwilco
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2021 at 4:28 AM, LivinLOS said:

There were 3 recorded cases from 1995 to 2007.. Since then the pace of these has risen.. a further 12 in the same timeframe 2008 to 2015. All of the peak years have been in the 201X's as have all the deaths up to this one. 

While your technically right that 'they were not sighted' was too blanket a statement, they were not sighted with anything like the frequency.

You're  looking at the evidence incorrectly.

Box Jellies have been around for millions of years.

The habitat around Thailand and the region to the South is good for Box Jelliy species we know of.

The first scientific ID of a box jelly in Oz was 1955, but because of this they can now confidently say the firstfmdefinite BJ incident was in the 1890s.

This is similar in Thailand. No records were royal until 1997, but researching back gas shown they were know to fishermen long, long before this.

 

Attributing an I crease in I cidents to an I evasion or even population rise is not necessarily supported by the evidence of deaths.

It is far more likely that the increase if swimmers due to tourism has increased the likelihood of encounters. Especially as both box jellies and swimmers like similar waters.

Until recently swimming in the sea has gone against every grain in Thai culture and those who did venture into the sea were usually fully clothed.

As a pair of heavy denier tights are sufficient to protect against BJ stings  they were far less likely to be seriously injured.

It is also suspected that many diagnoses for BJ incidents were improperly diagnosed and some even covered up..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2021 at 4:13 PM, LivinLOS said:

But when people make extraordinary claims the burden of proof is then on the claimant.. 

I have no idea if the claim is unusual but the more from the generally understood range it is the more its up to you to cite a reputable source to back up the claim.. 

Brilliant! You verbalised my very thoughts on this matter and furthermore :

 

Burden of Proof as a Philosophical Concept.

 

Holder of the burden

 

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."

 

This is also stated in Hitchens's razor "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence" and Sagan's standard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

 

Shifting the burden of proof

 

"One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. 

 

It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false...."

 

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...