Thanks to movies like "Jaws" and "Open Water," many people believe that sharks will swim great distances to hunt humans. In reality, the chances of being killed by a shark are about one in 4 million, according to the Florida Museum. Despite this, old myths about sharks persist, including the idea that they can smell a single drop of blood from miles away. To put this myth to the test, content creator Mark Rober conducted an experiment with surprising results.
Representative Image Source: Pexels I Photo by Diego Sandoval
In a YouTube video, 44-year-old Mark Rober begins his experiment by traveling to a shark-infested area 20 miles off the coast of the Bahamas. Joining him is marine biologist and shark diving expert Luke Tipple. Rober explains to viewers, "I planned to test just how far they could smell a single drop of blood in the water, but first, I wanted proof that they actually preferred blood over any other scent."
Rober and Tipple explain their plan to conduct the experiment. In the first phase, they rig four surfboards to pump out two liters of different liquids: fish oil, seawater, cow's blood, and urine. These fluids are released into the ocean over an hour while the team observes shark movements using a drone from their boat.
Representative Image Source: Pexels I Photo by Adil Schindler
The first ten minutes of the experiment showed no signs of aggressive action from the sharks. Mark commented, "You'd think a little bit of blood and there'd just be a massive swarm, but that's not the case so far." However, by the end, 41 sharks had visited the blood board, compared to only four visiting the fish oil board and none visiting the seawater or urine boards.
Now that they had established that sharks had a stronger preference for blood over other fluids, the team wanted to check "just how much blood is interesting to them." Rober also wanted to move a step ahead and use human blood instead of a cow's for the second phase of the experiment.
Representative Image Source: Pexels I Photo by Vova Kras
Rober hired a local phlebotomist to extract blood from himself and other members of the crew. In the clip, we see four bulging blood bags attached to two boards in a similar setup as the first experiment, and seawater placed again in the middle of them to act as a control group. Rober explained, "The board on left would pump the human blood slowly at one drop a minute, the right would pump the blood fast, on average one drop every four seconds."
The result was astounding as no sharks visited the boards regardless of the pumping speed of the blood. This outrightly showed that even in shark-infested waters, a drop of blood is unlikely to attract the sea creatures. Rober admitted that his experiment was not perfect by any means but still justified that the results were enough to debunk this old myth. He said, "This was by no means a perfect experiment, but I think it's safe to qualitatively say that if no sharks came to check out 15 drops of human blood a minute, in the middle of shark-infested waters, you're probably going to be OK with a small scrape."
Rice grain and white rice.Image via 
Person eats rice.Image via 
Washing and rinsing rice. 
Mother and daughter eating rice meal.Image via 
Bees feeding on food source.Image via 
In the depths...Pexels | francesco ungaro
Hope the lights stay on. Pexels | parfait fongang
"That was beyond crazy..." YouTube | 
"This is the stuff of my nightmares..."YouTube | 
"Totally blown away..." YouTube | 
A representative Image of The Atlantic Ocean. Source: Pexels | Kellie Churchman
Representative Image Source: Painting from a series by Ernest Untermann in the museum at Dinosaur National Monument, Utah.
Representative Image Source: VARIOUS DINOSAURS IN GOBI DESERT. Photo by H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Getty Images
Great white shark pokes its head above water.Image pulled from YouTube video - Photo taken by Geraldine Fernandez
Great white shark swims in the ocean.Image via Canva - Photo by lindsay_imagery
President Donald J. Trump and photo of a forest.
Public united and adamantly opposes Trump’s plan to roll back the Roadless Rule
There doesn't seem to be much agreement happening in the U.S. right now. Differing moral belief systems, economic disparity, and political divide have made a country with so many positives sometimes feel a little lost. Everyone desperately seeks a niche, a connection, or a strong sense of community to which they can feel a "part of," rather than just "apart."
But there seems to be one thing that the country strongly unites over, and that's the "Roadless Rule." With the Trump Administration attempting to roll back conservation policies that protect U.S. National Forests, Americans are saying in harmony an emphatic "No." A nonpartisan conservation and advocacy organization, the Center for Western Priorities, reviewed a comment analysis on the subject. After receiving 223,862 submissions, a staggering 99 percent are opposed to the president's plan of repeal.
What is the 'Roadless Rule' policy implemented in 2001?
The Roadless Rule has a direct impact on nearly 60 million acres of national forests and grasslands. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the rule prohibits road construction and timber harvests. Enacted in 2001, it is a conservation rule that protects some of the least developed portions of our forests. It's considered to be one of the most important conservation wins in U.S. history.
America's national forests and grasslands are diverse ecosystems, timeless landscapes, and living treasures. They sustain the country with clean water and the wood products necessary to build our communities. The National Parks protected under their umbrella offer incredible recreational retreats and outdoor adventure.
Why does the administration want to roll it back?
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins told the Department of Agriculture in a 2025 press release, “We are one step closer to common sense management of our national forest lands. Today marks a critical step forward in President Trump’s commitment to restoring local decision-making to federal land managers to empower them to do what’s necessary to protect America’s forests and communities from devastating destruction from fires." Rollins continued, “This administration is dedicated to removing burdensome, outdated, one-size-fits-all regulations that not only put people and livelihoods at risk but also stifle economic growth in rural America. It is vital that we properly manage our federal lands to create healthy, resilient, and productive forests for generations to come. We look forward to hearing directly from the people and communities we serve as we work together to implement productive and commonsense policy for forest land management.”
Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz explained the Roadless Rule frustrated land management and acts as a challenging barrier to action. It prohibits road construction needed to navigate wildfire suppression and properly maintain the forest. Schultz said, “The forests we know today are not the same as the forests of 2001. They are dangerously overstocked and increasingly threatened by drought, mortality, insect-borne disease, and wildfire. It’s time to return land management decisions where they belong – with local Forest Service experts who best understand their forests and communities."
Why are people adamantly opposed to the proposed rollback?
A 2025 article in Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, expressed its concern over the protection of national forests covering 36 states and Puerto Rico. A rescinded rule allows increased logging, extractive development, and oil and gas drilling in previously undisturbed backcountry. Here is what some community leaders had to say about it:
President Gloria Burns, Ketchikan Indian Community, said, "You cannot separate us from the land. We depend on Congress to update the outdated and predatory, antiquated laws that allow other countries and outside sources to extract our resource wealth. This is an attack on Tribes and our people who depend on the land to eat. The federal government must act and provide us the safeguards we need or leave our home roadless. We are not willing to risk the destruction of our homelands when no effort has been made to ensure our future is the one our ancestors envisioned for us. Without our lungs (the Tongass) we cannot breathe life into our future generations.”
Linda Behnken, executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, stated, "Roadbuilding damaged salmon streams in the past — with 240 miles of salmon habitat still blocked by failed road culverts. The Roadless Rule protects our fishing economy and more than 10,000 jobs provided by commercial fishing in Southeast Alaska.”
The Sierra Club's Forest Campaign Manager Alex Craven seemed quite upset, saying, "The Forest Service followed sound science, economic common sense, and overwhelming public support when they adopted such an important and visionary policy more than 20 years ago. Donald Trump is making it crystal clear he is willing to pollute our clean air and drinking water, destroy prized habitat for species, and even increase the risk of devastating wildfires, if it means padding the bottom lines of timber and mining companies.”
The 2025 recession proposal would apply to nearly 45 million acres of the national forests. With so many people writing in opposition to the consensus, the public has determined they don't want it to happen.
Tongass National Forest is at the center of the Trump administration's intention to roll back the 2001 Roadless Rule. You can watch an Alaska Nature Documentary about the wild salmon of Tongass National Forrest here:
- YouTube www.youtube.com
The simple truth is we elect our public officials to make decisions. The hope is they do this for all of our well-being, although often it seems they do not. Even though we don't have much power to control what government officials do, voicing our opinions strongly enough often forces them to alter their present course of action. With a unanimous public voice saying, "No!" maybe this time they will course correct as the public wishes.