MSilvia
Contributor
While I'll agree the odds of being attacked by a shark are remote,that's a textbook example of a useless statistic. It neglects to describe the 11.5 million sample group, and goes on to compare the odds of something nearly every person on earth does on a daily basis with something only a small minority will ever have a chance of encountering.Berdman:The Odds: 1 in 11.5 million
You're far more likely to sustain an injury from a toilet seat than a shark, according to the International Shark Attack File (ISAF).
If, for example, you're a farmer in Kansas who has never travelled more than 30 miles from home, obviously your odds of being attacked by a shark are next to nothing. You're likely to see a toilet seat at least twice a day though, so which do you think you should be more concerned about? We have no idea if that farmer is included in the 11.5 million sample. It would be a lot more meaningful if it said something like "Of x number people who spent any time in shark infested water last year, y% were actually attacked by sharks" or better yet, "Every man/hour of time spent in shark-infested waters yielded an average of x attacks."
If you're surfing at a beach patrolled by several tiger sharks, do you really believe you have a better chance of being injured by a toilet seat that isn't anywhere near you? The risk is situation dependant, the quoted statistic is not.
I've seen similar statistics citing your odds of shark attack vs. being hit by lightning. I believe those statistics are just as useless, unless the sample population is limited to people swimming in shark infested water during a lightning storm.