Close
READER POLL 2017
We promise this won’t (really) hurt.

Wanna win a new surfboard? We have a custom Chilli ‘Black Vulture’ to gift (plus all the trim you’d expect from a premium dealer). To be in the running, just answer a few questions for us. It won’t take long.

Close
Close READER POLL 2017
We promise this won't (really) hurt.

Wanna win a new surfboard? We have a custom Chilli ‘Black Vulture’ to gift (plus all the trim you’d expect from a premium dealer). To be in the running, just answer a few questions for us. It won’t take long.

Are The Bans On Surfing Around The World Scientifically Unfounded, Unjust, And Stupid?

The bans on surfing at countless locations around the world have been met with mixed emotions. 

Given the deadly implications of the virus perpetuation, and the self-isolation measures being taken globally, the heated debate around what constitutes safe "essential" exercise has raged, and nowhere more passionately than within surfing's core. 

While restrictions had been in place in Europe and elsewhere, last week many coastal American cities like New York and California implemented surfing bans after an article in the San Diego Union Tribune cited "atmospheric scientist" Kim Prather as saying "coastal breezes can likely carry Coronavirus more than six feet away"

With the statement implicitly directed at surfers hoping to escape the financial upheaval and systemic chaos unfolding on land under self-isolation, Prather was quoted as saying "If you don’t care about your own life, that’s one thing. But this can be a matter of life or death to other people. I’m really worried because the coronavirus is so contagious."

The story was picked up globally by everyone from CBS to The Daily Beast, and its no coincidence the news directly influenced surfing bans up and down the California coast and elsewhere. 

Shortly after the story went live, and the global ramifications became clear, Prather reached out to the reporter incensed by how our of context her statements had been taken, and the fear-inducing message that had been cobbled together from unrelated quotes, with the major takeway being this: "where I said I would not go into the ocean if you paid me? That was totally taken out of context and when I first read it, I cringed. I made it very clear to (the Times reporter) that SARS-CoV-2 has not been detected in the ocean or atmosphere by anyone. Much research needs to be done to understand this virus and how/if it travels through the environment. It is also a virus that has a fragile 'envelope' that if disrupted by heat or water kills the virus — that is very good news."

So is going surfing (and ocean swimming, boating, sailing, etc.) more likely to perpetuate the spread than, say, riding a bike or going for a run, or... wait for it... golfing? As recently as last weeks, golf courses nationwide were reporting spikes in business. 

With no end in sight to the self-isolation and shuttering of non-essential business, there is a good chance the surfing bans will remain if nothing is done. Currently, most any other sports and outdoor activities continue to be allowed with the expectation that citizens will practice social distancing in public spaces, not congregate in groups, keep their time outside to a bare, necessary minimum, etc.

Meanwhile, countless golf courses around the country remain open, and have even seen spikes in business during the pandemic. 

Now, considering the new information, the same tolerance and clearly communicated expectation of citizen-enforced social distancing in the water should be put into policy. 

ScaleWidthWyIxMjAwIl0 Screen Shot 2017 08 22 at 5.35.34 PM

You can read the rest of Kim Prather's clarification below: 

Hope everyone is laying low and staying healthy. Warning: this is a long post that addresses many questions and conversations I have had over the past week on topics that are very important to many right now.

We are all experiencing and adapting to unprecedented times right now. My week was made even crazier by being re-taught the meaning of "out of context". For those who read it, the LA Times article with subsequent twists made by additional media outlets was a major disappointment -- and caused some people extra angst which is not needed right now.

For the record, the story was supposed to focus on the fact that aerosols can go further than 6 ft especially if you are on a crowded beach which was continuing to happen in our area. This realization of aerosol transport came out in several articles over a 2 day period (see bottom of post). The issue is WHO has been basing their 6 ft guidance on research done in the 1930's before instruments could detect tiny aerosol particles. It has since been shown in the published literature that people can exhale small aerosol particles that do not settle out within 6 ft--they can float around for hours. Note these are emitted into the air without coughing. With coughs, much bigger droplets are expelled that do settle out quickly.

Right now, there are people that are infected and do not have any symptoms. So, if they are surfing or running along the beach, they could be exhaling tiny infectious aerosol particles. Even indoors, when talking or singing, an infected person will be expelling out these tiny particles that float around. This week the National Academy sent a letter to the White House advising them that it is likely this virus is getting into the air in aerosols and thus one should factor this into social distancing considerations. This is the place where masks can help as they have been shown to filter out this and other viruses effectively. So wearing masks should have a large effect as we move forward. I was very relieved to see this added to the guidelines put in place that started last night. If you look at countries that have worn masks when they are sick traditionally (Taiwan, Japan..), their number of cases was much smaller—in other words, their curves were much flatter. Most of their residents wore masks almost immediately. They also instituted other helpful measures very quickly.

So how far a distance is enough when outdoors? The good news is outdoors the air gets diluted quickly. The best analogy is to think of a smoker walking in front of you--if you want to avoid the exhaled smoke plume (virus aerosols will follow the same path), you carve a pretty big path. The same applies here. No one knows the infectious dose for this virus--we will not know it for a while. So, it is best to err on the side of caution -- and much better to be safe than sorry. It is important to get out and exercise. I still take walks but I keep my distance as much as possible.

Now, what about the other part of the article where I said I would not go into the ocean if you paid me? That was totally taken out of context and when I first read the opening lines in the article, I cringed and contacted the writer right away. The way it is written it sounds like this is what I wanted to "yell" at people. No, my concern about cyclists, runners, surfers had to do with the air possibly traveling further than 6 ft. In another part of the conversation, we discussed all of the pollution run-off and sewage that get into the ocean especially after the rains we have had. It is well documented that our oceans become polluted at times--many here in SD are quite polluted now. The point I was trying to make was I would not go in the ocean (here in SD) where it is polluted right now nor would I go to the crowded beaches. As I suspected would happen that quote about not going in the ocean has now been used for many headlines around the world and interpreted to mean I would not go in any ocean right now.

We discussed the research my group is doing on how much human-made pollution that gets into the ocean gets launched into the atmosphere and the potential health effects. I made it clear this is a research project and it will be a long time before we know the answers. I made it very clear that SARS-CoV-2 has not been detected in the ocean or atmosphere by anyone. Much research needs to be done to understand this virus and how/if it travels through the environment. It is also a virus that has a fragile "envelope" that if disrupted by heat, salt, or water would likely kill the virus--that is very good news.

The ocean is loaded with many harmless natural viruses and bacteria that play a vital role in the health of our ecosystem. We are addressing how human pollution is changing this ecosystem. It is a research area we are extremely excited about but it is not one that should ever be used to invoke fear in people especially at this time. Sadly, I never saw this coming. As soon as I saw the article, I called the reporter and pointed out how slanted and out of context it was (especially the beginning which was out of context and alarming)--but it was too late. She said she was receiving many positive comments and could not change it.

In the end, a number of surfers took offense to this article suggesting they be cautious in polluted water. I received some really nasty notes. The positive side is that a number of top surfers reached out and asked me for clarification -- I explained what happened. They immediately realized that I was only trying to help people during this pandemic and were extremely supportive and apologized for the more negative surfers. I will be doing a webinar for some of the organizations soon to discuss our current understanding of the aerosol transport pathway of this virus.

This week, I went through a period where I wondered if I should continue to talk with reporters about this topic. I have done hundreds of interviews over my career and have never had anything like this happen before. I feel it is important for scientists to help the public understand what is going on-especially during this period of alternative facts. In the end, I decided it is important to continue to talk with a select subset of reporters to help the messages get out there that will save lives. I am doing interviews with known writers, requesting to see the article before it is published (to check for scientific accuracy), and getting agreement on topics in advance. These are things they teach you in any science communication course. I am kicking myself for letting my guard down and talking so openly about a wide range of topics from early research efforts to more well documented literature. It is always better to focus on a key message or two especially during a global pandemic! In the end, we all are human and make mistakes especially under this tremendous unprecedented period of stress.

I am keeping the conversation focused on the most useful messages right now which are: stay home, save lives. Keep your distance. Six feet might not be enough if you are near someone who is infected. Of course, keep exercising and enjoying the outdoors as mental and physical health are so critical especially right now--just do it where there are not a ton of people. And, in the end, if there is a breeze, do what you would do to avoid the directly exhaled smoke.

Stay safe everyone. We will get through this together.

https://www.cnn.com/…/aerosol-coronavirus-spread…/index.html

https://www.bostonherald.com/…/coronavirus-how-to-stay-saf…/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/…/six-foot-rule-protect-agains…/

Update:

I just heard that the reporter who wrote the article also feels bad now that she has learned that this story has alarmed so many people. She says this was not her intention and she was using language to humanize me and show how much I care about my community. In the end, many have commented that this made me look like a hysterical woman yelling out the window at people to not go in the ocean! This was not the case, I can assure you.

She feels that it was a good story with great public interest, and has received mostly positive feedback. Her goal was to make people think about the important ocean-atmosphere connections and that there are still so many unanswered questions; since there is so much not known, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Lesson here for all is that in the middle of a global pandemic, we are all doing the best we can trying to deliver important messages to help people. Now more than ever, we should all try and give people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible.

Also, one thing that was mentioned but not cited is the recent article published in Nature (the day before the news article was published) showing this virus does not appear to be infectious in stool. This is good news. I am sure many more studies will be done on this and other aspects of this virus.

ScaleWidthWyIxMjAwIl0 Screen Shot 2018 12 16 at 11.09.22 PM

Pat G gets isolation. Photo: WSL

That was a lotta words, but the gist is that surfing, in and of itself, might not be a direct threat to the spread of coronavirus. 

That is not to discount the inherent migratory effects of surfing, which are equally immense and difficult to quantify. 

But is surfing is unique due to its locational singularity. Surfing can only happen on the coast, which means that anyone who lives elsewhere (AKA most people) will have to travel via automobile to reach the beach. This inevitably increases the rate of spread through contact at gas stations, parking meters, etc.

Many surfers are asking, "why can people run/bike/etc., but I can't surf?" Americans' lust for personal freedoms has led to our country's globally-worst covid spread rates. So essentially, if you could establish and enforce a law that allowed only people within walking distance of the beach to surf, it would be fine.

Unfortunately, that's all but impossible to guarantee, making the cancellation of surfing en masse the safest route. Even if it's not the most logical. 

Yeah, it's a tricky subject. 

* Please enter your name
* Please enter a valid email address