"their purpose is to live, reproduce and die. If they are killed prematurely by humans all that does is leave a space for another shark to move in"

This is a very strange comment for an Ecologist.

Hi Chris, an important point to remember when looking at this is to realise shark fatality statistics are kept on a calendar year basis, as pointed out by Carlos Duarte here...

https://theconversation.edu.au/jaws-in-western-australia-8378

so in fact there were 3 fatalities last year and 2 so far this year if you want to use them for comparison to the trend. These statistics say that in Australia we have between 0 and 3 per year so these tragedies so close together dont represent any increase in the long term trend as your post suggests...yet

Your story about the whales is interesting and I would enjoy reading any published papers that you found in your research. Certainly sounds plausible but the research and stats I have seen say there isn't a correlation as you suggest. In fact the 1930's where you say the whale population was decimated happens to be the time of by far the most frequent shark attacks on humans at 10 per million per decade. Double what it is now in fact (West 2011). Also there has only been 1 attack ever recorded with whales in the vicinity. I think we all need to take a lesson from William of Ockham. The simplest explanation for all observations is most likely the correct one. With over 100 million vists to the sharks habitat conservatively estimated just in Australia in 2010 (SLSA 2011) and that amount growing at over 20% per year, if there is to be an increase in the background rate of shark bite fatalities I know what reason my money is on (also have a read of Burgess 2009) and it's nothing to do with whale or shark numbers.

Nick ... my search of archived newspapers suggests the following chronology of known fatal shark attacks in WA, with blue nurse and even hammerheads being mentioned more often in earlier 1800s reports and a likelihood that many attacks were unreported when there was hardly any communication or transport ...

two fatals 1895/96
fatal 1910
two fatals 1923
two fatals 1925
fatal 1948
fatal 1949
fatal 1967 white pointer
fatal Sep 1995 white
fatal Jan 1997 tiger
fatal Nov 2000 white
fatal July 2004 two sharks likely whites
fatal Mar 2005 white
fatal Dec 2008 white
fatal Aug 2010 white
three fatal Sep, Oct, Oct 2011 two known white
two fatal Mar, Jul 2012, both white

I need a lot more convincing that there hasn't been a significant and accelerating increase in fatal WA attacks since 1995.

However, the article you linked did reference increased numbers of seals and I agree that they're part of the growing menu available for sharks to bother cruising closer to the WA coastline. Seals are a shark favourite because of their size but the zippy little things are a lot more hard work than 50 tonnes of floating blubber.

Humans are also part of the growing menu, although that leaves a question mark over why there were quite a few fatalities before the 1950s and particularly the 1930s when WA had a far smaller population.

Why did so many decades pass without shark fatalities, despite a growing human population, and why did fatalities resume when the first large migrating pods spawned a whale watching industry in the 1990s - less than 20 years after whaling was banned?

Fairly uncommon compared to other shark species even before human exploitation, studies suggest global numbers of great whites have crashed by 60% to 95% in different oceans around the world since the 1800s.

I doubt there's been an explosion of Indian Ocean great white shark numbers within a generation since protected species status. No matter how many are out there, they'll be lured toward their favourite food, always taking delight when they find a dying humpie or an oily carcass that smells like a fish n chip shop from 50 kilometres away.

Great whites aren't a strictly coastal species and are know to swim between South Africa and WA through cold lower latitudes, their habitat including several thousand kilometres north along the WA coast. This happens to be the whales' migration path. What a coincidence.

An update on my earlier post re WA's estimated humpback population of 22,000 in 2008 - according to the WA Environment Minister, there are about 28,800 this year. That is very rapid growth.

Leah ... I doubt there's yet enough evidence to support it but yes, I suspect you can attach a red, amber or green light to different shark attack seasons tied to whale migration cycles.

Shark attacks in Australia historically clustered around the summer months, probably because of human beach populations, but since 1995 two of WA's great white fatalities have been in July, one in August, two in September, two in October, one in November, one in December and two in March.

A majority have been in the whale migration season even though far fewer people swim during winter and spring - although surfers are and always have been a bit of a winter species. A significant majority of non-fatal WA shark attacks in recent years have also occurred in the whale migration months and it seems the safest time to take a dip is January and February.

Might the last Albany whaling skipper's prophesy be true? For decades his life depended on knowing the sea and watching the sharks as his harpoons dragged the whales from the water and his ship passed carcasses floating in the Southern and Indian oceans.

The humpbacks' southern migration from the Kimberley, where many become mums, happens mostly from August through to a few stragglers as late as December.

Have a look at http://sharkattackphotos.com/Shark_Attacks_Whale.htm and it might give a hint as to why the great white would be attracted to the tens of thousands of humpies swimming up and down WA's coast each year, the 13,000 kilometre journey taking its toll on the southern leg with newborn needing protection and hundreds dying. Not proved but there may even be a great white breeding link to the whale feast.

If future shark attack fatalities follow a seasonal trend, the safest swimming season will probably be when the whales are in the Antarctic and the great whites aren't attracted north along our shores.

That happens to be summer when most of us want to be at the beach. So if you swim during winter or spring, be aware there's a one in a million chance you'll get munched. If you swim in summer, there's a one in two million chance.

Surfers are more at risk because the winter surf's up when the whales are migrating. They should probably get serious about electronic shark repellents built into their boards.

I've not considered your idea about avoiding certain bits of coast. The Perth metropolitan coastline has a disproportionate number of attacks but that's obviously due to greater human population - although Rottnest Island is a resting area for humpbacks and may add to the appeal of Perth beaches for sharks. An argument might be put that known humpback resting bays all along the WA coast carry a commensurate added shark attack risk.

Of course, humpies aren't the only protected whales and pilot, southern right and sperm numbers are recovering at a slower rate, although these prefer more southerly waters and may add to the migrating humpback bait that favours shark attacks in WA's southern half. This is also where most West Australians live and swim.

There's no connection but it's interesting to note that one of the biggest great whites ever caught was a six metre specimen in 1987 at Ledge Point, just 20 kilometres south of the latest fatal attack.

I look at the known facts and the recovery of whales seems a much more plausible explanation for increasing WA shark fatalities than does the Jaws movie script. The whale connection should be properly researched.

G'day Chris thanks for the reply. Your original post said that the whale population was decimated in the twenties and thirties and in this post you mention figure that show there were four deaths in possibly as little as 13 months in the twenties. Combine that with a population ten times smaller and you will understand why what you propose is unlikey. Australias and indeed WA's shark attacks and deaths have been increasing at a rate in line with the rest of the world in recent decades and many areas have no whales to speak of. This also suggests no correlation to the whales. West, who I mentioned above uses research that considers "101 fields of information for each incident" and his work does not support any other conclusion other than that the amount of beach goers is increasing. Where your timeline starts the WA population was 150,000 (?) and it is now around 2,500,000 with I bet many people considering the great surf there in there choice to settle. Australian beach visitations are increasing by over 20 million per year conservatively. Neither of us will have any proof but you surely have to agree that this is the most likely reason for the increase, it seems to be confirmed throughout the world

Nick ... maybe better wording would be whale numbers decimated "from" rather than "in" the 20s and 30s, as demonstrated by the drop to around 600 WA adult humpbacks by 1963. i.e. they didn't suddenly drop to 600 in 1930 and stay that way for 40 years. WA's humpback population is now the largest in the world and with a growth rate around 10% pa, it'll be interesting to see what nature does in the coming decade.

In the 20s and 30s, WA's population was around 450,000. Following the four deaths in 1923 and 1925 (species unknown), the human population kept increasing and apart from two sharks attack fatalities in 1948 and 1949 (species unknown) and one in 1967 (white pointer), the waters were comparatively safe till 1995. Your rising population and more beach-goers theory doesn't make much sense for about 70 years.

WA has since become known as the shark attack capital of the world and there haven't been similar global increases over recent decades. There has been a global increase in reported shark attacks, partly enhanced by digital reporting of all incidents, but there's also been a global increase in whale numbers. One or more of the six great whale species migrate annually up and down almost all continental coastlines fronting all oceans. Most have been protected for decades and their increasing numbers will obviously influence the hunting territory of their predators or scavengers.

The number of shark attacks in Australia has risen from an average 6.5 per year in the decade 1990-2000 to 15 incidents per year in the past decade. The number of Australians swimming didn't increase by 230%.

I'd love to see your ABS stats on 20 million more Australian beach-goers each year. The Australian Sports Participation surveys show the number of respondents who went swimming/diving in the previous 12 months were:

2002/03 (18yo+) - 1,576,000
2005/06 (15yo+) - 1,448,000
2009/10 (15yo+) - 1,293,000

Less swimming, more beach-goers?

The more whales or more people argument deserves some fun ...

Next year I expect well over 30,000 humpbacks will make the WA coastal migration. If an average whale weighs more than 30 tonnes, that's 30,000 x 30 = almost a million tonnes of a primary white pointer food source that wasn't swimming close to the coastline 30 years ago.

As for the swimming data: 283,000 less swimmers x WA's population proportion of 10% = 28,300 less swimmers x an average weight of 70 kilograms = 1,981,000 kilograms = 1,918 tonnes less human flesh to eat since 2002.

There's nearly a million tonnes more whale meat and 2,000 tonnes less human flesh. Yes, I know the 2,000 tonnes has nothing to do with reality - except that the evidence suggests less swimming, particularly off WA beaches where the shark scare has been simmering for almost a decade.

There's no evidence that white pointers have a taste for human flesh but it's well known that they adore whale meat, particularly calves and the carcasses of adults that die on the final leg of their 13,000 kilometre Antarctic migration when they hug the WA shore for calmer waters.

Large sharks follow whales. Always have, always will. They don't follow humans and don't particularly care if there's 10,000 (700 tonnes) or 20,000 (1,400 tonnes) near the surf at any particular time during daylight hours. Blowfish have more chance of affecting their preferred hunting territory within the Indian Ocean.

Sorry Nick, but all the facts outweigh your guesswork and lead to the logical conclusion that a large increase in whales, a favoured food source for white pointers, is likely to attract more of them to the WA coast.

Hi Chris, I must say going back and looking at some figures I can see the trend you talk about. I should also quickly clarify that in my previous post I meant to use the words beach visitations, not goers as obviously there were not 20 million extra people. The link I pasted below explains the reasoning in SLSA's estimates.Sorry if that terminology confused but reading your Participation survey methodology gives me no confidence in those numbers at all. As well as drastic increase in refusals (equates to going from 50% response rate to under 20 in the last few years alone) it doesn't even begin to account for tourists who may come for a couple of weeks and use the beach every day. Actually the bulk of the reasoning in your comment I have varying levels of disagreement with but interestingly you have certainly opened up my eyes to your initial hypothesis.

The graph that struck me whilst considering your hypothesis is figure 3 here...

http://www.publish.csiro.au/view/journals/dsp_journal_fulltext.cfm?nid=126&f=MF10181#R28

This would appear to show a correlation in attacks to your hypothesis over the time period if excluding actual deaths, whilst the strong correlation with human population increase is only the last two decades, and is accentuated by the caveat of

"However, population increases before 1990 did not result in increases in the rate of attacks, indicating that other factors also need to be considered"

Whilst in either case correlation is not causation you have opened up a very interesting point of consideration for me. To actually advance your hypothesis though you would need information on sharks that rivals the whales statistics. This whale/shark relationship would then need to be confirmed around the world. Shark numbers increasing with whales seems to make sense but no one can find any evidence of this in fact many, many papers I would even hazard a guess at all of them, especially from the last three decades provide evidence of exactly the opposite! That is a massive decline in shark numbers whilst whale populations have recovered. There is also much information and evidence in West 2011 and references within (and other peer reviewed work concerning human activities and behaviour I could link you to if interested) which casts further doubt on your hypothesis. You have convinced me its worth considering, but you accuse me of guesswork while guessing and assuming yourself that the increase in attacks is the result of an increase in sharks. Unless of course you have proof of Great White numbers, which of course you don't. At least in my comment I accused us both of guessing.
Also interesting is Bernie Masters comment under Carlos Duartes article I linked to regarding seals. Commonplace in Busselton now where in the 70's they were rare according to Bernies anecdotal evidence. In reading the above linked peer reviewed paper you may notice that one figure jumps out regarding seals....89%, yes 89% of attacks that involve severe injury or death occur near seal colonies. Humans are a similar size and shape to an animal with limited visual senses, so makes sense. I mentioned before only one incident ever involving whales in the vicinity. Makes sense, much harder to confuse a human for a whale. Further questions possibly raised there and gives much credence to the theory that shark attacks are a case of mistaken identity and not an opportunistic meal while a shark waits for a whale to become ill enough to approach.

So, do the increased whale numbers attract the sharks to the area in the first place? It hasn't seemed to attract killer whales. Despite your assertion in your first post the GWS is the humpbacks "only predator" this is certainly not true. In fact you your later characterisation as them as scavengers is more accurate. Killer whales are their one true predator. More questions still. So before you accuse others of guessing Chris, you would have to first prove there are more sharks. Till then you are guessing, yes as am I but the stats and research we currently have supports my view when considered as a whole and what we have evidence for.

In previous posts on related articles on this site I have mentioned my bias as a diver who regularly (weekly) goes in search of sharks to dive with and maybe should have mentioned that sooner here. I do try and form my opinions from reading reliable sources but my belief that these animals have an intrinsic right to life and there is nothing humans should do to either increase or decrease their numbers and natural selection should run its course will obviously have an effect on my views.
I think we need to frame going to the beach in a different way. The rarity of shark attacks has probably lulled us in to a false sense that the ocean is a really safe day out. It is a wild environment we have no control over. People get swept away or drown in very shallow water. It contains some of the most perfectly designed predators ever invented. By rights it should be equated with doing a walking safari at night, every animal is looking for a feed, they know you are there long before you know they are and some of them are more than capable of killing a human. When considered like this it is staggering how few attacks there are, I am really amazed. This is part of the reason I think that any response at all to shark attacks is misguided. Up till now they kill an average of 1 person per year. If someone feels uneasy about whale numbers, shark numbers increasing etc I think they should stick to the swimming pool. Going in the ocean should be viewed as an extreme sport with associated risks and great rewards.

So, study should include your hypothesis Chris. I don't believe you are right, there is too much seemingly reliable evidence that doesn't support you, but you could prove to be. However research for your hypothesis and maybe even proving it should be for the pursuit of human knowledge only, not for information to support culls of either whales or sharks as you suggest. As Jim Rohn once said........

" If you are not willing to risk the unusual, you will have to settle for the ordinary."

I firmly believe this is the way we need to look at the ocean not "If you are not willing to risk the unusual...kill enough animals until you are". Look forward to hearing back.
Cheers, Nick

Nick ... sorry to have had a potshot about guesswork but your 20 million per year figure threw me. I wondered if you meant beach visits by the same people but it still suggests that each year they decide to hit the surf about a dozen times more frequently than the year before. Doubtful. Australia hasn't become the fattest country in the world by swimming a lot.

Your tourist swimming argument needs a bit more evidence. Asian tourists in particular aren't renowned as beach lovers. I'm also a bit dubious about WA getting an international reputation as the deadliest place in the world for shark attacks and this attracting tourists who want to go to the beach. In WA, international visitors are up about 65,000 per year since 2008 and interstate visitors are down about 100,000. i.e. there are less WA tourists now than before the GFC, since when there have been seven fatal shark attacks.

Killer whales ... yes, I know they're the main humpback predator but decided to ignore them earlier to keep my post length down. Killer whales have also been increasing in number and reports are popping up everywhere of pods near Jervis Bay, Rottnest Island, etc (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_asboL8nsU). Packs of killer whales can target small or weak adult humpbacks, plus calves. While gorging for the next day or two, there is plenty of smell permeating the surrounding ocean and plenty of leftovers for white pointers waiting till the killers have full stomachs.

White pointers can take out newborn whale calves although it's difficult if there's a pod of healthy protective adults. But yes, whale scavenger is probably a better description than whale predator. The effect is the same in terms of luring white pointers to rewarding feeding grounds. Note that I'm ignoring smaller whale species such as right and pilot, which have also been more slowly recovering in numbers. They usually don't travel so far north up the WA coast to breed. However, they are also white pointer prey.

I've acknowledged earlier that seals are an increasing part of the great white menu off WA's coast. Seals have been protected for almost a hundred years and their numbers didn't explode within decades as we've seen with humpbacks in particular. The CSIRO figure 3 is indeed a useful way to demonstrate my point, but if it was a reflection of shark prey trends it signals whales rather than seals.

Much of the coast south of Bunbury is a resting place for humpies and there's no doubt that Busselton's growing seal colonies have also turned those areas into shark smorgasbords over the last few decades. It's probably true that white pointers might confuse a human body for a seal if they happen to find one swimming near them. That may be bad luck for the swimmer. Sharks have an acute sense of smell and whale odour is very attractive. As far as I know, there is no instinctive attraction to the smell of humans and we're certainly not worth swimming a few thousand kilometres to hang out in the meal zone. My point is that without the increasing density of whales for a proper meal, there wouldn't be so many white pointers swimming along the WA coastline and there'd be less chance that a shark would make the mistake.

Re shark numbers ... there are various estimates that great white numbers were down 60% to 90%, dependent upon ocean, until they got protected species status in Australia 13 years ago. Great whites live for as long as 100 years and can survive for up to two months from a single large meal (aka a whale). The great white takes 10 to 13 years to reach sexual maturity plus gestation. They give birth to five to 10 pups, each about 1.5 metres long, and the females only reproduce twice in their life. This last point about litter numbers may be the curly one upon which hangs both the fate of this debate and the fate of the species.

We may be seeing a surge in mature white pointer numbers. Not all five or 10 young will survive because of disease and natural predation, although man's activities may have reduced the toll from natural predators (i.e. other shark species). My point about whale bait remains because whether there are 10,000 or 100,000 great whites cruising the Indian Ocean, there will still be a lure toward the WA coast if a million tonnes of whale blubber has suddenly appeared (suddenly as in growing quickly over the past 30 years) to create a more plentiful hunting/scavenging ground. Keep in mind that man has wiped out a lot of ocean fish stocks so there may be less reason to hunt elsewhere.

Put white pointer recovery numbers since 1999 together with humpback recovery numbers since 1978 and you have a) an explanation for why humpbacks recovered so successfully (~10%pa) with far less shark and killer whale predators until recently, and b) why shark attack numbers started rising from the year 2000. The human fatality trend is in synch. It may be that recovering killer whales and great white sharks begin to control, or cull, whale numbers as the years roll on and a natural balance is reached.

I'm hesitant to give it too much credibility, but my earlier link to http://sharkattackphotos.com/Shark_Attacks_Whale.htm hints at a possible great white hormonal change when they've gorged on a whale carcass, leading to what they call an "orgy" of mating. I can see breeding sense if a bloated stomach signals a plentiful food supply. If further research shows a reproductive as well as a feeding instinct for great whites to follow whales, I'll declare victory in this debate (you can't argue with sex :-)

In case there's any misinterpretation of my beliefs ... I think whales and sharks should both be protected and humans should just recognise the risk when we enter their domain. e.g. if you're worried, swim in summer when the whales are in the Antarctic. Having said that, I know we're allowing both animals unrestrained growth in an environment changed by man which has reduced their natural predators (except recovering sharks and killer whales vs other whales) and prey (fish mostly). It could be argued that with a growing whale/seal food supply and less competition (except killer whales which may in turn be leaving whale carcasses), the odds favour white pointers and their numbers might skyrocket in coming years.

I think research is required on all these points, particularly great white numbers and probable future trends before a decision is made on a partial cull or outright slaughter as some people seem to want. Mention of the word cull may seem blasphemous but if great white numbers reach unnaturally high levels, other marine species will suffer a lot more than humans.

Mind you, when I say "suffer" I mean the ingrained and media driven fear about a threat that is tiny compared to getting in your car and driving to the beach in the first place.

I'd far prefer that whales and sharks are left alone with a caveat that numbers of all species are evaluated in a decade to determine whether they've all reached or are close to a "natural" balance. I think ongoing human fatalities are part of that balance.

If I may follow up my own comments ... while I was writing the above a 34yo surfer was attacked at Red Bluff, north of Carnarvon. He'll survive some serious injuries and the shark species is unknown. He's lucky and I'm glad he's not fatality #6 within a year.

Check the humpback migration locations and timetable at http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/Humpback_activity_col.pdf.

The first of the southbound humpies heading back to the Antarctic would be just north of Carnarvon about ... now. This is a migration resting area for mothers with calves.

To quote Fisheries from the SMH story about yesterday's Red Bluff attack:

"It is not known what type of shark was involved in yesterday's attack but the Department of Fisheries said waters that far north were mainly inhabited by tropical species - although great whites have also been known to migrate through the area."

"Migrate" through the area. Why?

It may have been a tiger shark but they also enjoy scavenging whale meat (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDRmy0--Rxw). Tigers are more a northern species, although they can range as far south as Cape Leeuwin, and I doubt that humpbacks influence their feeding habitats as they do great whites.

While writing my reply yesterday, I was looking at the map linked above and wondering if there'd be an attack in WA's lightly populated north where the whale bait is currently most concentrated as a lure for the whites (although a teenager was bitten on the heel trying to feed a one metre reef shark near Red Bluff in April 2011).

Almost 30,000 humpbacks are heading south and they'll start to migrate past WA's heavily populated areas in about a month. If my points are correct, the great whites will hang around their favourite food, which on the southern coastal migration will swim a bit closer to shore for calmer waters that better protect the calves and allow some rest after 10,000 kilometres of swimming.

If correct, there's an above average chance of more WA attacks and possible fatalities between now and summer. I hope I'm wrong.

The whites may mistake their victims for seals, but that's a bit irrelevant if there are larger numbers of these sharks in the coastal vicinity because of the whales.

So if you also can see a connection between migrating whales and shark attacks and if you want to reduce your (tiny) risk, wait till summer before you hit the beach.

Hi Chris, sorry work has kept me away from replying.

Many more interesting things you bring up mate I am very glad of this exchange. Not much of your reasoning is counter intuitive and all deserves a deal of consideration. I still stand by my first response to you when I said "certainly sounds plausible" but could no longer say "but the research and stats I have seen say there isn't a correlation as you suggest". I must admit that the Australian graph I linked to earlier is the only one that shows a correlation with whale population but you have provided other evidence that is also very convincing. All the other graphs I have seen show no pattern (places such as Japan and NZ) or a very strong correlation over the entire time period to population growth (places such as USA and South Africa). Maybe this could be a unique situation in WA? I certainly think you have provided enough lines of thought for whale migration times to be upgraded to being a minuscule risk from whatever is less than that ;). I do stand by the fact that historically Australia has between 0 and 3 deaths from shark attacks every year so recent deaths do not lie outside the average.......yet (as I first said also). That they all happened so close together geographically certainly lends more weight to your hypothesis. Maybe I have caught up to Leahs' initial response to you of using your information to alert people that the risk is most likely higher as the Humpies pass.
Interestingly though, the Australian Shark Attack File has only one attack on record involving whales in the vicinity. It seems very thorough but I guess eyewitnesses could be unaware of a whales presence, or simply the whales are not there at that particular moment but could be responsible for the shark being there. I have emailed with John West who runs ASAF and he believes, if I interpret correctly, that the Great White has not been protected for long enough for it's numbers to increase but he certainly agrees with you that they could be concentrated to an area by a food source. The example he used was Cape Cod with the seals. I do agree in WA's case it may be the whale being the initial attraction and the seals a side order and the human attack next in the sequence.
So in my (slightly altered) opinion, if the few whites that are left have been concentrated to the WA coastline we need to be extra careful how we handle it. The fate of several ecosystems could be at stake if they have traveled far and wide to be here (I know of one shark that made it from South Africa to WA and back in under nine months). I do hope we can find a sensible approach to this. I think the simplest is as you say, if you are worried stay out of the water till summer, we don't need a government response for that! However with 72% of recorded attacks happening in summer maybe not lol. And there lies the start of things that worry me about your hypothesis. Most attacks occur historically when more people are in the water. That is summer and during mid morning to mid afternoon. Secondly is the lack of increase per million people in attacks. It has stayed between 3 and 5 through most of time period 1900-2009 with the 20's and 30's the only outlier at 8 and 10. And thirdly the lack of correlation with other graphs from other parts of the world.
It is probable we will not find out for a while yet. It may take a while for the numbers to reflect the change that could be happening. The end of this decade looking back may tell a different story and we should make people aware of any hunches we have to maybe keep the incidences low. Nothing will be keeping me out of the water though :) Have enjoyed many dives this year and others listening to the Humpies singing to each other quite close by, even fleetingly seeing a calf at about 18 metres depth a month or so ago at Julian Rocks, Byron Bay (always minus any GWS but always dozens of Grey Nurse) :) Those sort of experiences to me are just so worth it.

Thanks for the Youtube links also. Here's one I like. Absolutely no information but just something I love watching....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWBshMbxPU