As pointed out several times I intentionally avoided discussing my views on an acceptable level of risk here except to provide several data points for people's consideration. On extreme is where the risk of a fatal attack is almost inevitable. The other is where the risk is almost zero. I've noted that five fatal attacks in a 12 month period seems to be the upper limit that is typically tolerated by communities.
Can you cite these cases, please? I was only able to Google 4 fatal attacks against scuba divers in your area in the last 25 years, one which may have been postmortem scavenging and one of which involved abalone fishing, which is not a normal diving activity.
In that sense, one unprovoked attack (on average) every 12 years makes diving in Perth a LOT safer than most other sporting activities.
Would you not agree?
Your explanation of 'I don't care' is an equivocation of the actual intended meaning in this context. I discussed this at length in a past post soon after the option was added. The context is set by the previous posts and by the poll itself.
I understand that you crafted the post in order to give the result you wanted. I think that's pretty clear. However, the result you wanted is not the result that would be supported by the majority of divers. Does this not make you question the validity of your poll?
R..