Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamie Pittock, Professor, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

The condition of Australia’s environment continues to decline. Many Australians wonder if it’s possible to reverse this depressing trajectory – and our landmark assessment released today shows the answer is yes.

Our report, launched today by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, demonstrates how repairing Australia’s landscapes is not only achievable and affordable, it’s in the national interest.

Using the best available science and expert advice, we identified 24 actions worth
A$7.3 billion each year over 30 years, which could repair much of the past two centuries of degradation.

For context, the investment amounts to about 0.3% of Australia’s gross domestic product. It’s also far less than the estimated $33 billion a year Australians spend on their pets.

This report is the most comprehensive of its kind undertaken in this country. It is a tangible, practical pathway which challenges the notion that repairing our continent is a task too big and expensive to tackle.

The strong case for repair

Australia’s population is projected to grow to 37 million by 2052.
Earth’s population will reach ten billion in the same period. Global food demand will increase and competition for land will intensify.

Climate change makes the environmental repair task more pressing. The Australian continent has already warmed almost 1.5°C since records began. We have experienced shifts in rainfall patterns, droughts, bushfires, flooding and more. Extreme weather is predicted to become even more frequent and severe.

About half Australia’s land surface has been significantly modified
since European settlement, and at least 19 ecosystems are collapsing due to climate change and other pressures.

And the capacity of agricultural landscapes to maintain productivity has significantly declined, and they are becoming less able to support native species and ecosystems.

Our key findings

Our assessment focuses on five key landscape components identified as
degraded in successive State of the Environment reports: soils, inland
water, native vegetation, threatened species and coastal environments.

We defined objectives for each component, and actions to meet them, based on public policy ambitions and expert advice. We then sourced data to identify where in the landscape each action is required, and the spending it would entail. Independent experts reviewed our findings.

Our blueprint identifies 24 practical actions needed now to repair Australia’s degraded landscapes. See the below infographic for full details.

The list includes:

• applying lime and gypsum to agricultural soils to improve productivity

• remediating high-risk gullies

• encouraging landholders to restore vegetation along the banks of rivers, streams,
  lakes and wetlands

• restoring 13 million hectares of degraded native vegetation

• addressing key threats and restoring habitat for threatened species

• maintaining or improving the condition of degraded salt marsh ecosystems.

We estimate investment of $7.3 billion each year (in 2022 dollars) is needed from 2025 to 2054 to deliver these all actions. That includes:

• $580 million to repair the productive base of agricultural soils

• $2.9 billion to fix fragmented, degraded river systems

• $1.7 billion to restore ecosystems to at least 30% of their pre-1750 extent

• $1.2 billion to mitigate imminent extinction risk and ensure medium-term survival of Commonwealth-listed threatened species

• $35 million to maintain and improve estuary health

• $640 million in transaction costs (such as legal fees, data and compliance)

• $250 million a year to maintain the improvements (such as monitoring, and management of pests, weeds and fire).

How will Australia pay for this?

We cannot accurately measure the true cost of environmental degradation to the environment, people and the economy. But evidence suggests these costs far outweigh the cost of nature repair.

Our report proposes measures for Australia that are feasible and fiscally responsible.

And they also address multiple objectives. For example, restoring native vegetation across 13 million hectares would also abate almost one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent – equal to 18% of Australia’s net emissions over the next 30 years.

Through carbon markets, private landholders could be paid to regenerate native vegetation. Our analysis shows this could generate 7% to 15% of the investment needed.

The investment we propose would also support employment and jobs in the short- and
long-term. This would promote a strong circular flow of income, generating government revenue in the form of income tax, GST and associated revenues.

A broad range of financing mechanisms is needed to enact this plan. As a starting point, we suggest:

• significantly increased public investment for stewardship programs, Indigenous land managers and threatened species recovery

• revenue-neutral changes to the tax system to encourage conservation and remove subsidies that degrade the environment

• public investment in the federal government’s green bond program, which will enable investors to back public projects that contribute to environmental repair

• using markets and other emerging private sector solutions to encourage conservation on private land

• fundraising via philanthropy.

Indigenous Australians are key

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been stewards of Country for more than 60,000 years and have continuing cultural connections to land and waters.

We propose four key measures to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples leading roles in managing and repairing landscapes:

• increase Indigenous ownership and management of land and water

• recognise the value of traditional knowledge in areas such as managing species and using fire to maintain the health of Country

• establish and improve programs to employ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to repair and manage Country, such as expanding Indigenous ranger programs and providing resources and long-term funding

• ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are supported to generate meaningful, commercially sustainable employment and businesses on Country through land and water ownership.

A healthier, more resilient Australia

All Australians are stewards of this unique land and seascape. It is our responsibility to ensure nature is preserved for its own sake, and for current and future generations.

Our plan expands on successful efforts to conserve the environment. It won’t fix everything – for instance, it did not address air quality, urban settlements or marine environments.

But the actions we propose – if done together, at scale, and built into broader public policy reforms – will leave our landscapes healthier and more resilient.

Australians don’t have to choose between a healthy environment and a productive economy – we can have both.

The report underpinning this article was prepared by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists with input from more than 60 experts. See the report for the full list of contributors.

Jamie Pittock is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. He also chairs the ACT Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee, is on the board of NRM Regions Australia, and is a member of the Biodiversity Assessment Expert Reference Group advising the federal government. He holds other roles with environmental non-government organisations. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

Bradley J. Moggridge is affiliated with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, WWF Australia and the Biodiversity Council. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

Martine Maron is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and co-authored the report mentioned in this article. She has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, and the federal government’s National Environmental Science Program, and has advised both state and federal government on conservation policy. She is a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, a councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a governor of WWF-Australia, and leads the IUCN’s thematic group on Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation under the Commission on Ecosystem Management. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

– ref. Yes, Australia’s environment is on a depressing path – but $7 billion a year would transform it – https://theconversation.com/yes-australias-environment-is-on-a-depressing-path-but-7-billion-a-year-would-transform-it-235305

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Davis, General paediatrician and paediatric infectious diseases specialist, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

What’s the difference? is a new editorial product that explains the similarities and differences between commonly confused health and medical terms, and why they matter.

It’s the time of the year for coughs, colds and sore throats. So you might have heard people talk about having a “strep throat”.

But what is that? Is it just a bad sore throat that goes away by itself in a day or two? Should you be worried?

Here’s what we know about the similarities and differences between strep throat and a sore throat, and why they matter.

How are they similar?

It’s difficult to tell the difference between a sore throat and strep throat as they look and feel similar.

People usually have a fever, a bright red throat and sometimes painful lumps in the neck (swollen lymph nodes). A throat swab can help diagnose strep throat, but the results can take a few days.

Thankfully, both types of sore throat usually get better by themselves.

How are they different?

Most sore throats are caused by viruses such as common cold viruses, the flu (influenza virus), or the virus that causes glandular fever (Epstein-Barr virus).

These viral sore throats can occur at any age. Antibiotics don’t work against viruses so if you have a viral sore throat, you won’t get better faster if you take antibiotics. You might even have some unwanted antibiotic side-effects.

But strep throat is caused by Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria, also known as strep A. Strep throat is most common in school-aged children, but can affect other age groups. In some cases, you may need antibiotics to avoid some rare but serious complications.

In fact, the potential for complications is one key difference between a viral sore throat and strep throat.

Generally, a viral sore throat is very unlikely to cause complications (one exception is those caused by Epstein-Barr virus which has been associated with illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and certain cancers).

But strep A can cause invasive disease, a rare but serious complication. This is when bacteria living somewhere on the body (usually the skin or throat) get into another part of the body where there shouldn’t be bacteria, such as the bloodstream. This can make people extremely sick.

Invasive strep A infections and deaths have been rising in recent years around the world, especially in young children and older adults. This may be due to a number of factors such as increased social mixing at this stage of the COVID pandemic and an increase in circulating common cold viruses. But overall the reasons behind the increase in invasive strep A infections are not clear.

Another rare but serious side effect of strep A is autoimmune disease. This is when the body’s immune system makes antibodies that react against its own cells.

The most common example is rheumatic heart disease. This is when the body’s immune system damages the heart valves a few weeks or months after a strep throat or skin infection.

Around the world more than 40 million people live with rheumatic heart disease and more than 300,000 die from its complications every year, mostly in developing countries.

However, parts of Australia have some of the highest rates of rheumatic heart disease in the world. More than 5,300 Indigenous Australians live with it.

Why do some people get sicker than others?

We know strep A infections and rheumatic heart disease are more common in low socioeconomic communities where poverty and overcrowding lead to increased strep A transmission and disease.

However, we don’t fully understand why some people only get a mild infection with strep throat while others get very sick with invasive disease.

We also don’t understand why some people get rheumatic heart disease after strep A infections when most others don’t. Our research team is trying to find out.

How about a vaccine for strep A?

There is no strep A vaccine but many groups in Australia, New Zealand and worldwide are working towards one.

For instance, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Telethon Kids Institute have formed the Australian Strep A Vaccine Initiative to develop strep A vaccines. There’s also a global consortium working towards the same goal.

Companies such as Vaxcyte and GlaxoSmithKline have also been developing strep A vaccines.

What if I have a sore throat?

Most sore throats will get better by themselves. But if yours doesn’t get better in a few days or you have ongoing fever, see your GP.

Your GP can examine you, consider running some tests and help you decide if you need antibiotics.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What’s the difference between ‘strep throat’ and a sore throat? We’re developing a vaccine for one of them – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-strep-throat-and-a-sore-throat-were-developing-a-vaccine-for-one-of-them-230292

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bayu Anggorojati, Assistant Professor, Cyber Security, Monash University

The internet, a vast and indispensable resource for modern society, has a darker side where malicious activities thrive.

From identity theft to sophisticated malware attacks, cyber criminals keep coming up with new scam methods.

Widely available generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools have now added a new layer of complexity to the cyber security landscape. Staying on top of your online security is more important than ever.

The rise of dark LLMs

One of the most sinister adaptations of current AI is the creation of “dark LLMs” (large language models).

These uncensored versions of everyday AI systems like ChatGPT are re-engineered for criminal activities. They operate without ethical constraints and with alarming precision and speed.

Cyber criminals deploy dark LLMs to automate and enhance phishing campaigns, create sophisticated malware and generate scam content.

To achieve this, they engage in LLM “jailbreaking” – using prompts to get the model to bypass its built-in safeguards and filters.

For instance, FraudGPT writes malicious code, creates phishing pages and generates undetectable malware. It offers tools for orchestrating diverse cybercrimes, from credit card fraud to digital impersonation.

FraudGPT is advertised on the dark web and the encrypted messaging app Telegram. Its creator openly markets its capabilities, emphasising the model’s criminal focus.

Another version, WormGPT, produces persuasive phishing emails that can trick even vigilant users. Based on the GPT-J model, WormGPT is also used for creating malware and launching “business email compromise” attacks – targeted phishing of specific organisations.

What can we do to protect ourselves?

Despite the looming threats, there is a silver lining. As the challenges have advanced, so have the ways we can defend against them.

AI-based threat detection tools can monitor malware and respond to cyber attacks more effectively. However, humans need to stay in the mix to keep an eye on how these tools respond, what actions they take, and whether there are vulnerabilities to fix.

You may have heard keeping your software up to date is crucial for security. It might feel like a chore, but it really is a critical defence strategy. Updates patch up the vulnerabilities that cyber criminals try to exploit.

Are your files and data regularly backed up? It’s not just about preserving files in case of a system failure. Regular backups are a fundamental protection strategy. You can reclaim your digital life without caving to extortion if you are targeted by a ransomware attack – when criminals lock up your data and demand a ransom payment before they release it.

Cyber criminals who send phishing messages can leave clues like poor grammar, generic greetings, suspicious email addresses, overly urgent requests or suspicious links. Developing an eye for these signs is as essential as locking your door at night.

If you don’t already use strong, unique passwords and multi-factor authentication, it’s time to do so. This combination multiplies your security, making it dramatically more difficult for criminals to access your accounts.

Read more:
What is multi-factor authentication, and how should I be using it?

What can we expect in the future?

Our online existence will continue to intertwine with emerging technologies like AI. We can expect more sophisticated cyber crime tools to emerge, too.

Malicious AI will enhance phishing, create sophisticated malware and improve data mining for targeted attacks. AI-driven hacking tools will become widely available and customisable.

In response, cyber security will have to adapt, too. We can expect automated threat hunting, quantum-resistant encryption, AI tools that help to preserve privacy, stricter regulations and international cooperation.

The role of government regulations

Stricter government regulations on AI are one way to counter these advanced threats. This would involve mandating the ethical development and deployment of AI technologies, ensuring they are equipped with robust security features and adhere to stringent standards.

In addition to tighter regulations, we also need to improve how organisations respond to cyber incidents and what mechanisms there are for mandatory reporting and public disclosure.

By requiring companies to promptly report cyber incidents, authorities can act swiftly. They can mobilise resources to address breaches before they escalate into major crises.

This proactive approach can significantly mitigate the impact of cyber attacks, preserving both public trust and corporate integrity.

Furthermore, cyber crime knows no borders. In the era of AI-powered cyber crime, international collaboration is essential. Effective global cooperation can streamline how authorities track and prosecute cyber criminals, creating a unified front against cyber threats.

As AI-powered malware proliferates, we’re at a critical junction in the global tech journey: we need to balance innovation (new AI tools, new features, more data) with security and privacy.

Overall, it’s best to be proactive about your own online security. That way you can stay one step ahead in the ever-evolving cyber battleground.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. FraudGPT and other malicious AIs are the new frontier of online threats. What can we do? – https://theconversation.com/fraudgpt-and-other-malicious-ais-are-the-new-frontier-of-online-threats-what-can-we-do-234820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

The speed, skill and flair on display in rugby sevens makes it an ideal Olympic sport. The Paris games should be no exception, especially given France’s own great rugby tradition.

While the conventional 15-a-side game has only ever featured at four Olympics (1900, 1908, 1920 and 1924), sevens debuted at the Rio de Janeiro games in 2016, capturing fans with its festive atmosphere and fast-running athleticism.

And although the traditionally strong rugby-playing nations tend to dominate the sevens version, it also allows the “minnows” to compete and sometimes surprise the heavyweights.

So, which teams are favourites to win medals in Paris? To answer this we’ve used a suite of statistical models known as Rugby Vision. This modelling system has outperformed bookmakers when forecasting outcomes for Rugby World Cup games.

How the prediction model works

Rugby Vision has three components:

• an algorithm uses past game statistics to rate the strength of each sevens team, based on results from the 2023–24 SVNS international tournaments and other Olympic qualification rounds

• the ratings (and home advantage for France) are then used to simulate the expected outcome of each game

• the tournament is simulated 10,000 times to account for uncertainty around expected outcomes.

By examining the number of times in the 10,000 simulations that each team “wins” the tournament, we can calculate the probability of each team winning the gold medal. Both the men’s and women’s tournaments have been analysed this way.

Argentina lead the men’s pack

Medal probabilities for each of the 12 qualified teams in the men’s tournament, which begins on July 24, are displayed below.

Argentina, which dominated the 2023-24 SVNS, is favourite to win (28.1%) and has a 60.4% chance of earning any medal. France, which has home advantage and won the 2023-24 SVNS grand final, is second favourite (22.3%), followed by Ireland (12.5.%), which was a consistent performer in the 2023–24 SVNS.

Traditional sevens powerhouses Fiji (which won gold at the two previous Olympics) and New Zealand are fourth and fifth favourites respectively. This reflects mixed performances by both teams at the 2023–24 SVNS.

NZ versus Australia for the women’s gold

The women’s tournament kicks off on July 28, with New Zealand (34.8%) and Australia (31.1%) most likely to win gold. Between them, these two teams won seven of the eight 2023–24 SVNS tournaments.

France is third favourite (25.9%), with the USA (4.0%) and Canada (2.2%) rounding out the five most likely winners.

Although New Zealand has a higher chance than Australia of winning gold, Australia has a higher chance of winning any medal. This is because the algorithm rates Australia a (slightly) stronger team than New Zealand – but New Zealand is expected to have an easier semi-final opponent.

Of course, the algorithm’s favourite does not always win. At the 2023 Rugby World Cup, for example, Rugby Vision ranked New Zealand likeliest to win, with South Africa second. South Africa beat New Zealand in the final.

The same uncertainty applies at the Olympic sevens. While Argentina is favourite to win the men’s tournament, there is still a 72% chance another team will take home the gold. Upsets should be expected – that is why watching sport is so enthralling.

The author acknowledges the assistance of Jensen Fiskin, whose data collection contributed to the forecasts included in this article.

Niven Winchester does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Who will win Olympic rugby sevens gold? Our algorithm uses 10,000 simulations to rank the teams – https://theconversation.com/who-will-win-olympic-rugby-sevens-gold-our-algorithm-uses-10-000-simulations-to-rank-the-teams-235095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karley Beckman, Senior Lecturer in Digital Technologies for Learning, University of Wollongong

If you search most primary or high school websites, you will likely find a images of happy, smiling children.

Students images are also used publicly for school newsletters, social media accounts and other school publications like annual reports.

Parents could reasonably expect schools and educations departments have conducted thorough checks and evaluations to do this. To some degree this is true, but a recent AI scare where children’s images were used in a massive training data set included some photos from school websites.

Research also shows schools can do more to promote children’s rights to privacy.

Parents and governments are already concerned about children’s safety online. As part of this, we need to look more closely at how students’ information and images are being used by their schools.

Why is online information an issue?

Publication of children’s images and personal information on social media platforms generates a trail of information or profile of that child. This information is permanent and may have implications for children now and in the future, including on their self-esteem.

This data also contributes to a “digital shadow”. This is the digital data associated with individuals we cannot see. It can can be sold and used to profile and target individuals for advertising or dictate what information and content we see online through recommender systems.

What are schools required to do?

In Australia, the publication of a child’s personal data, which includes images and video, is protected by the Australian Privacy Principles. This is underpinned by the Privacy Act or state and territory privacy laws.

This means all schools need to have the consent of the child and/or their parent/caregiver to publish images, videos and personal information on learning platforms, school websites, advertising and social media accounts and in school newsletters and news media.

This is why parents are asked to sign a “consent to publish” form, usually at the start of each school year.

Privacy laws outline how consent needs to be voluntary, current and provide sufficient and specific information about the different uses of personal data.

But publicly available policies show schools differ in the way they inform parents about the uses of children’s data. This is because Australia has a state-based education system with a variety of school types that are all governed differently.

While current policies may align with federal and state laws, they do not necessarily promote children’s right to privacy or consider their best interests considered. There are three issues that need more attention.

1. More specific consent

At the moment we don’t have enough detail about the different ways children’s data is handled across different platforms.

For example, publishing a photo of a child will have different privacy risks, if it’s published on a school’s Facebook page, on a class learning platform or in a hard-copy school newsletter.

Parents should be able to refuse consent in one context but provide it for another.

2. What happens if you say no?

We also don’t have a clear understanding about how schools deal with children of families who do not consent

We know there is some increased work for teachers to identify children who do not consent and without clearly communicated procedures there is uncertainty about how to engage with and manage online publication processes. For example, how does a teacher treat a non-consenting child when taking a whole class photo?

There are also reports children can be excluded from some school experiences, such as large music and dance performances.

3. Do students have a say?

The eSafety Commissioner says adults should seek consent from children of all ages when taking their photo or video and explain the purpose.

This is something we also teach children as part of consent education as they get older.

But many current policies do not require children to give their consent. Nor do they require schools to talk to students about what consent means if an image is used online. This is because it is assumed many students are too young to understand.

This suggests current approaches around gaining consent are more about legal compliance, rather than truly promoting children’s rights to privacy.

What should schools do differently?

This is not a question for individual schools to solve on their own. This issue needs to be tackled by governments, education departments and independent school associations (who represent private schools). Education departments and associations can review existing policies to:

• improve schools’ understanding of the way images/videos are used by platforms

• improve communication with families about this information

• provide clearer procedures for non-consenting children, developed in partnership with families

• improve children’s capacity to understand consent around the way their image is used as a part of digital literacy education.

What can parents do?

Parents and teachers can model safe and healthy digital habits. If you are taking an image of a child, ask for verbal consent and explain your purpose. For example, “is it OK if I talk this photo of you, I want to show Grandma how you look in your soccer uniform.”

For parents and caregivers who sign consent to publish forms, it is perfectly reasonable to have questions or concerns. If you have any doubts about how your child’s images or data will be used, talk to your school.

Karley Beckman is an Associate Investigator with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

Tiffani Apps is an Associate Investigator with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

– ref. Is your child’s photo on their school Facebook page? What does this mean for their privacy? – https://theconversation.com/is-your-childs-photo-on-their-school-facebook-page-what-does-this-mean-for-their-privacy-234153

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Clifton, Associate Professor of Practice, School of Health Sciences and the Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney

Our bodies are delightfully ridiculous.

When God created humanity, they knew our short lives would be full of pain, hardship and horror. So they created our bodies absurdly – clumsy, squidgy and bouncy, messy and noisy, with weird dangling protuberances – so we could laugh our way through challenges and crises and find the moments of joy and beauty that make it all worthwhile.

Rowan Atkinson’s face is their comedic masterpiece, but we all have bodies designed for comedy.

This is especially true for those of us with disability.

I have quadriplegia, and my body – which has a life of its own – is a jester. It makes fart noises during serious meetings; it spasms and kicks at unwary helpers; it leaks so disturbingly you can but laugh; its capacity to fall asleep in strange places provides my family with a stream of photos they share with glee.

The genius TikTok account for the Paralympics melds memes and trending audio to draw on the comedic beauty of physically disabled bodies.

The comedic genius of @Paralympics

My descriptions can’t do it justice, but by way of example, in a reel of comedic gold, blind American triathlete Brad Snyder waves his hands in the air like a pianist, fruitlessly “looking” for his helmet while Beethoven plays in the background.

In another, we have a clip of German wheelchair basketball Mareike Miller shooting a three-point hoop, followed by a clip of her clumsily rolling over the basketball and falling on her arse.

In one clip, one-legged Australian cyclist Darren Hicks races to the finish line, while a voiceover sensually repeats the phrase, “excuse me, I’m going to make a left, left, left”.

It’s hilarious.

But you can’t laugh at disability, can you?

Who tells the joke makes a difference

In a previous article for The Conversation, Jemma Clifton and I took Dave Chappelle to task for that very thing.

In his latest Netflix special, Chappelle told jokes about disabled people’s walking and sexual function.

You might ask: what’s the difference between Chappelle’s jokes and those of the Paralympics TikTok account? Both draw comedy from disabled bodies.

Indeed, the line between appropriate and inappropriate comedy is subtle. But while the difference may be subtle, it is not unimportant.

Chappelle mocks and demeans disabled people, “punching down”, while the Paralympics TikTok account humanises them.

Who it is who tells the joke makes a difference. Disabled people lead the Paralympics movement, and a former Paralympian is in charge of the TikTok account.

The mantra of the disability rights movement is “nothing about us without us”. This recognises it is not well-meaning charities, professionals and politicians who know best, but people with disability know best what services and support they need.

This applies to comedy, too.

People with disability know disability can be funny and are the first to laugh at the weirdness of their daily lives. They use laughter to cope with difficulty, pain, lack of privacy, ableism and social exclusion.

They also know best which jokes are dehumanising, which mock and belittle them, and which reflect ableist stereotypes and assumptions.

Not a hint of inspiration from pity

While well-informed non-disabled people can distinguish dehumanising from life-promoting jokes about disability, it also makes a difference when people joke about themselves.

It’s appropriate for me to yarn about my disability and the strangeness of my body. When I do so, I give permission for outsiders to laugh.

I hope the Paralympics TikTok account has sought consent from the athletes they use in their promotions. Several featured athletes have confirmed their support, saying they don’t feel mocked and believe humour can help normalise the disabled difference.

It is a relief to see a promotion of the Paralympics that avoids the usual stereotypes.

Inspiration porn is a too-common disability trope, and it inevitably shapes mainstream media coverage of the Paralympic games.

Australian comedian and journalist Stella Young spoke of inspiration porn as objectifying people with disability for the benefit of non-disabled people.

Inspiration porn relies on pity and assumptions about the horror and impossibility of disabled life to motivate non-disabled people. It uses images of disabled athletes for inspirational quotes, such as “the only disability in life is a bad attitude”, or “your excuse is invalid”.

Mainstream media too often falls into this trap, not realising labelling disabled athletes as inspiring “because they run with disability” is a backhanded declaration of the disabled difference.

When the Paralympics account shows Tunisian athlete Reja Jebali slapping her face and screaming to motivate herself before throwing the shot put (with an overlaid soundtrack: “Now somebody, anybody, everybody scream … there’s squirrels in my pants!”), there is not a hint of inspiration from pity.

Instead, we laugh with joy as we admire the determination and strength of an athlete who just happens to be disabled.

Shane Clifton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. People with disability know bodies can be funny – so it’s OK that you’re laughing at the Paralympics TikTok account – https://theconversation.com/people-with-disability-know-bodies-can-be-funny-so-its-ok-that-youre-laughing-at-the-paralympics-tiktok-account-234926

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, The University of Melbourne

The first recorded victor at the Olympics was Coroebus of Elis. A cook by profession, Coroebus won the event called the “stadion” – a footrace of just under 200 metres, run in a straight line.

Coroebus was victorious in the year 776 BC, but this was probably not the year of the first Olympic games.

A few ancient writers, such as the historian Aristodemus of Elis (who lived in the 2nd century AD or earlier), believed there had been as many as 27 Olympic contests prior to 776 BC, but the results had never been recorded because people before that time did not care about recording the names of the winners.

The games were held every four years at Olympia, a site in Western Greece that had a famous temple to the god Zeus.

The games started in mid-August and were part of a religious festival dedicated to Zeus.

Competing for glory

In the early days of the Olympics, there was only one event (the “stadion”) and one victor.

Over the centuries, other events were added, like chariot races, wrestling, long-distance running and boxing. The Roman emperor Nero (37-68 AD) even “introduced a musical competition at Olympia”, as the biographer Suetonius (1st/2nd century AD) informs us.

Victors at Olympia won a wreath of wild olive. Unlike today, there were no prizes for second or third.

The athlete Iccus of Tarentum, who lived in the 5th century BC and won victory in the pentathlon at the Olympics of 476 BC, apparently said that for him “the prizes meant glory, admiration in his lifetime, and after death an honoured name”.

Mostly men competed for the prizes but some women took part.

Cynisca, daughter of King Archidamus II of Sparta, was the first woman to achieve an Olympic victory. She got the prize because the horses she trained won the chariot racing event in the year 396 BC, as the traveller Pausanias (2nd century AD) writes:

Cynisca was exceedingly ambitious to succeed at the Olympic games and was the first woman to breed horses and the first to win an Olympic victory. After Cynisca, other women have won Olympic victories but none of them was more distinguished for their victories than her.

But competing in the games could be dangerous.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 50 BC-c. 40 AD) describes how a father lost both sons in the “pancration”, a type of combat sport that was a violent mixture of boxing and wrestling:

A man trained his two sons as pancratists, and presented them to compete at the Olympic games. They were paired off to fight each other. The youths were both killed together and had divine honours decreed to them.

Going to the games

People travelled far to see the athletes competing in the famous games.

The rhetorician Menander (3rd/4th century AD) said of the Olympic games: “the journey there is very difficult but nevertheless people take the risk”.

In 44 BC, the Roman statesman Cicero (106-43 BC) wrote a letter to his friend Atticus about planning a trip to Greece to see the games:

I should like to know the date of the Olympic games […] of course, as you say, the plan of my trip will depend on chance.

Cicero never made it to the Olympics – he was interrupted by other business. If he had gone, the trip would have involved a voyage by sea from Italy to Greece, then a carriage ride to Olympia.

Once at Olympia, travellers stayed at lodging houses with other travellers. There they mixed with strangers and made new friends.

There is a famous story about what happened when the philosopher Plato (428/427-348/347 BC) stayed at Olympia for the games.

Plato lived there with others who did not realise he was the celebrated philosopher and he made a good impression on them, as the Roman writer Claudius Aelian (2nd/3rd century AD) recalled:

The strangers were delighted by their chance encounter […] he had behaved towards them with modesty and simplicity and had proved himself able to win the confidence of anyone in his company.

Later on, Plato invited his new friends to Athens and they were amazed to find out he was in fact the famous philosopher who was the student of Socrates.

It’s unclear how many people actually visited the ancient games each time they were held, although some modern scholars think the number could have been as high as 50,000 in some years.

Watching the games

The Greek writer Chariton (1st century AD) in his novel Callirhoe wrote how athletes – who had often also made a long journey to get to the games – arrived at Olympia “with an escort of their supporters”.

Athletes competed naked, and women were usually not permitted to watch.

But there were some exceptions. For example a woman called Pherenice, who lived in the 4th century BC, was permitted to attend the Olympics as a spectator. As Claudius Aelian explains:

Pherenice brought her son to the Olympic festival to compete. The presiding officials refused to admit her as a spectator but she spoke in public and justified her request by pointing out that her father and three brothers were Olympic victors, and she was bringing a son who was a competitor. She won over the assembly and she attended the Olympic festival.

As the contest was held in the middle of summer, it was usually extremely hot. According to Claudius Aelian, some people thought watching the Olympics under “the baking heat of the sun” was a “much more severe penalty” than having to do manual labour such as grinding grain.

The site at Olympia also had problems with freshwater supply. According to the writer Lucian of Samosata (2nd century AD), visitors to the games sometimes died of thirst. This problem was fixed when Herodes Atticus built an aqueduct to the site in the middle of the 2nd century AD.

The atmosphere of the crowd was electric.

The Athenian general and politician Themistocles (6th/5th century BC) apparently said the most enjoyable moment of his life was “to see the public at Olympia turning to look at me as I entered the stadium”.

They praised him when he visited the games at Olympia because of his recent victory against the Persians at the battle of Salamis (480 BC).

When the games were over, winning athletes returned home to a hero’s welcome.

According to Claudius Aelian, when the athlete Dioxippus (4th century BC) returned to Athens after being victorious in the pancration at Olympia, “a crowd collected from all directions” in the city to celebrate him.

The end of the ancient games

The Roman historian Velleius Paterculus (born 20/19 BC) called the Olympic games “the most celebrated of all contests in sports”.

Current research suggests the ancient games probably ended in the reign of the Roman emperor Theodosius II (reigned 408-450 AD).

There may have been a number of reasons for the demise but some ancient sources specifically say it was caused by a fire that destroyed the temple of Zeus at Olympia during Theodosius II’s reign:

After the temple of Olympian Zeus had been burnt down, the festival of the Eleans and the Olympic contest were abandoned.

The Olympics were not revived again until 1896, the year of the first modern Olympics.

Konstantine Panegyres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Nude athletes and fights to the death: what really happened at the ancient Olympics – https://theconversation.com/nude-athletes-and-fights-to-the-death-what-really-happened-at-the-ancient-olympics-234912

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University

Australia’s clean energy transition is already underway, driven by solar, wind, batteries and new transmission lines.

But what about nuclear? Opposition leader Peter Dutton last month committed to building nuclear reactors on the site of retired coal plants – triggering intense debate over whether this older low-carbon power source is viable in Australia due to cost and long timeframes. Dutton proposed building a mix of traditional large nuclear plants alongside small modular reactors (SMRs).

Over the last decade, there’s been growing interest in SMRs. These reactor designs are meant to tackle known problems with traditional large reactor designs, namely cost, perceived safety and lengthy build times.

Are SMRs ready? Experts from the the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering have done a deep dive on the state of the technology and market considerations in a new report, summing up the state of the technology.

What’s the answer? SMRs are not ready for deployment yet. The earliest they could be built in Australia would be in the 2040s. That’s too late to help with the push to net zero by 2050.

As our report notes, the “least risky option” would be to buy them after the technology has been commercialised and successfully operated overseas. But once the technology is proven, they could be used for specific circumstances, such as powering energy-intensive manufacturing and refining.

What is a small modular reactor?

Small modular reactors are a range of new nuclear reactors currently being designed.

SMRs involve standardised components produced in factories and assembled on-site. As the name suggests, they are smaller than traditional large nuclear reactors, which have to be custom built. They are also, in theory, cheaper and safer.

Traditional nuclear plants can generate between 1 and 8 gigawatts of power. By contrast, each SMR would generate 50-300 megawatts.

Between three to 20 SMRs would be needed to provide the amount of power produced by a traditional nuclear power station. Many designs incorporate in-built passive cooling in case of power failure to avoid the risk of meltdown. They could be daisy-chained – or connected up – with multiple reactors cores inside a single power plant.

They are currently at the design stage in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Korea, with no models yet operating in OECD countries. Publicly available information about SMRs being developed elsewhere is limited.

What’s behind this interest? Key factors include:

• very low carbon emissions
• ability to support intermittent power sources such as renewables
• potential for easier and faster construction than conventional nuclear
• ability to provide heat as a key input to industrial processes.

At present, we know of 14 different designs at a comparatively advanced stage of development globally. That means the designs are undergoing detailed simulations, evaluation of components and creation of small-scale replicas for testing and evaluation. None have yet been licensed for construction in any OECD countries.

How would SMRs stack up against other power sources?

Given the fact SMRs are still a while away from prime time, we estimate the earliest Australia could have one built would be during the 2040s.

At this time, Australia’s grid is projected to have 6 gigawatts of renewables added every year, along with a large amount of dispatchable energy in the form of battery storage, and a small amount of new gas generation.

Given renewables and battery technologies get cheaper every year, expensive new sources of power may well struggle to break in.

Because SMRs are still at the design stage, we have no operating data to assess the cost of their electricity.

Even so, CSIRO’s latest GenCost study illustrates the scale of the challenge. In 2030, the agency forecasts the cost of power from solar and wind, firmed by storage to firm capacity, to be A$89-125 per megawatt hour. By contrast, GenCost estimates large-scale nuclear would cost $141-233 a megawatt hour – and $230-382 for SMRs.

SMRs could conceivably contribute to the energy grid in the future, providing some steady power to energy-intensive industries. As the technology matures and proves itself in testing, these reactors may represent a lower-cost, shorter build-time,
smaller terrestrial footprint alternative to traditional, large-scale nuclear power plants.

But they won’t replace our need for a major expansion of renewable energy, and not in the next 20 years.

A market for SMRs?

This new report on SMRs in Australia makes clear that a mature SMR market will not emerge in time for Australia to meet its international commitment of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

The barriers to adoption in Australia are substantial. Significantly, there are bans on nuclear power federally and in many states. These would need to be overturned before any work could commence.

A regulator would need to be created to oversee all aspects of the delivery, safety, workforce needs and environmental impact of any SMR installation. We’d need to train an appropriately skilled workforce.

Most importantly, nuclear energy (large or small) is a divisive issue. Australia would need to secure the social licence to operate nuclear.

It would also be financially and technically risky for Australia to pursue SMRs before a mature global market for the technology emerges.

Proponents expect SMRs will gradually drop in price as the technology matures, expertise develops and economies of scale take root.

This will take time – there’s no shortcut.

First, developers would have to progress designs and acquire licenses, funding and sites for construction. In Australia, this would require building a nuclear energy regulator and selecting locations with community support.

Second, developers would build a full-scale working prototype. SMR developers worldwide have indicated this is around ten years away.

Third, developers would have to convert the knowledge gained from full-scale prototypes into an accepted commercial package. This could take three to five years after prototyping.

Finally, developers would become vendors and compete for contracts to build SMRs, creating a global market. We expect the first commercial releases of SMRs between the late 2030s and mid 2040s.

There are many questions still to be answered for SMRs to be seriously considered as part of the power mix of the future: cost, construction time, waste disposal, water use, integration with the grid, First Nations sovereignty, skills and workforce and more. But companies around the world are making progress.

The next ten years will bring a much stronger evidence base on whether SMRs could be useful in powering Australia in the future.

Ian Lowe received funding from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council in 1983 for a project on Australia’s energy needs to 2030. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.

As CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Kylie Walker receives funding from the federal Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and the Department of Education.

– ref. Small modular reactors have promise. But we found they’re unlikely to help Australia hit net zero by 2050 – https://theconversation.com/small-modular-reactors-have-promise-but-we-found-theyre-unlikely-to-help-australia-hit-net-zero-by-2050-235198

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brigitte Viljoen, Psychotherapist and Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

Humans are interacting more than ever with artificial intelligence (AI) – from the development of the first “social robots” (a robot with a physical body programmed to interact and engage with humans) like Kismet in the 1990s to smart speakers such as Amazon’s Alexa.

But this technology is changing how humans relate with it – and with each other.

Our new research looked at how humans experience interacting with AI social robots or digital avatars – AI virtual chatbots designed to look and interact like a human on a device. These are designed to increase human interaction with them.

Social robots such as ElliQ and Pepper are popular in Europe, Japan and the United States, particularly as aids for the elderly. New Zealand has been slower to adopt these technologies.

Since the pandemic, social robots and digital avatars have been used to address issues such loneliness and mental health issues. In one Scottish experiment during the pandemic, people were introduced to social robot “Pepper” over regular video chats. The researchers found the interactions lifted the mood of the participants.

Given the uncertainties around the long-term usage of these types of technologies, researchers and policymakers have a responsibility to question how these will affect humans, individually and in wider society.

Human responses to AI

Research has already established these types of technology are playing a greater role in human social relations, leading to changes in how people form connections and relationships.

Our research involved detailed interviews with 15 participants from New Zealand, Australia and Europe, coupled with broader data analysis. We found when people interact with AI social robots or digital avatars, two things happened at the same time.

Firstly, users had physical reactions and feelings towards the AI technology. These responses were largely unconscious.

One user, for example, said they “unconsciously reached out, wanting to touch the [AI avatar’s] hair” on the screen. This was an instinctive response – the participant wanted to use their senses (such as touch) to engage with the digital avatar. Another participant unconsciously smiled in response to a smile from a social robot.

Secondly, users also derived meaning from their interaction with the AI technology through the use of shared language, concepts and non-verbal communication. For example, when one participant frowned, the digital avatar responded by getting “glassy eyes” as if it was upset by the participant’s expression.

These shared non-verbal forms of communication allowed the participants to have meaningful interactions with the technology.

Participants also developed a level of trust in the AI social robot or digital avatar. When the conversation flowed, users would forget they were relating to a machine.

The more human the AI social robots and digital avatars looked, the more alive and believable they seemed. This resulted in participants forgetting they were engaging with technology because the technology felt “real”.

As one participant said:

Even cynical people forget where they are and what they are doing. Somewhere between suspending disbelief that a system could have such a sophisticated conversation and enjoying the feeling of being in relationship with an “other”.

AI social robots and digital avatars are increasingly sharing the same spaces online and “in-person” with humans. And people are trying to physically interact with the technology as if it were human.

Another participant said:

I’ve got a bit of a spiritual connection (with the AI digital avatar) because I spent a lot of time with her.

In this way, the function of the technology has changed from being an aid in connecting humans to being the subject of affection itself.

Navigating the future of AI

While acknowledging the benefits of AI social technologies such as addressing loneliness and health issues, it is important to understand the broader implications of their use.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed how easily people were able to shift from in-person interactions to online communications. It is easy to imagine how this might change further, for example where humans become more comfortable developing relationships with AI social technology. There are already cases of people seeking romantic relationships with digital avatars.

The tendency of people to forget they are engaging with AI social technologies, and feeling as if they are “real”, raises concerns around unsustainable or unhealthy attachments.

As AI becomes more entrenched in daily life, international organisations are acknowledging the need for guardrails to guide the development and uses of AI. It is clear governmental and regulatory bodies need to understand and respond to the implications of AI social technologies for society.

The European Commission’s recently passed AI Act offers a way forward for other governments. The AI act provides clear regulations and obligations regarding specific uses of AI.

It is important to recognise the unique characteristics of human relationships as something that should be protected. At the same time, we need to examine the probable impact of AI on how we engage and interact with others. By asking these questions we can better navigate the unknown.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Social robot or digital avatar, users interact with this AI technology as if it’s real – https://theconversation.com/social-robot-or-digital-avatar-users-interact-with-this-ai-technology-as-if-its-real-229798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Social media is a problem for economists. They don’t know how to value it.

It has long been argued that it ought to be in the national accounts as part of gross domestic product. One 2019 study estimated Facebook alone is worth US$40 to US$50 per month for consumers in the United States.

But that’s not what we pay. Social media isn’t charged for, and the national accounts measure only the things we pay for, no matter how significant they are in our lives and how many hours per day we spend using them.

As the Australian Senate prepares to hold an inquiry into the impact of social media, economists meeting in Adelaide at the annual conference of the Economic Society of Australia have been presented with new findings about the value of social media that point in a shocking direction. They suggest it is negative.

That’s right: the findings suggest social media is worth less to us than the zero we pay for it. That suggests we would be better off without it.

Better off without social media?

Leonardo Bursztyn of the University of Chicago presented the findings in the keynote address to the conference.

The findings are shocking because they upend one of the tenets of modern economics – that we value the things we do. Put differently, it’s that our behaviour is the best indication of our preferences. The man who developed this theory of revealed preference went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Here’s what Bursztyn and his colleagues did.

They surveyed more than 1,000 US university students, asking a series of questions about TikTok, Instagram and Google Maps (more about maps later).

The first set of questions was designed to ascertain how much they would need to be paid (or would be prepared to pay) to be off TikTok and Instagram for a month.

What’s it worth to disconnect for a month?

The questions get at the answer by repeatedly offering different prices until one is accepted. The students are told one of them will be chosen at random to actually get (or pay) the money and be monitored to ensure they stick to the deal.

The answers suggest users value these platforms a lot, on average by US$59 per month for TikTok and $47 for Instagram. An overwhelming 93% of TikTok users and 86% of Instagram users would be prepared to pay something to stay on them.

Encouragingly, these figures are in the ballpark of those found by other studies.

Then Bursztyn and colleagues asked a second set of questions:

If two-thirds of the students on your campus sign up to deactivate, how much would you need to be paid (or be prepared to pay) to sign up too?

Here the answers – obtained by the same sort of repeated offers and an assurance that that previous studies had found nearly all of those who signed up would comply – were in the opposite direction.

Most of the TikTok users (64%) and almost half of the Instagram users (48%) were prepared to pay to be off them, so long as others were off them, resulting in average valuations across all users of minus US$28 for TikTok and minus $10 for Instagram.

Many users would prefer TikTok didn’t exist

The finding is a measure of the extent to which many, many users hate TikTok and Instagram, even though they feel compelled to use them.

To make clear the bizarre nature of his finding, Bursztyn drew the the conference’s attention to another product, a refrigerator.

Could you imagine, he asked, 60% of refrigerator owners saying they wished fridges didn’t exist?

The relationship he has uncovered is more like the co-dependence seen in a destructive relationship, or the way we relate to addictive products such as tobacco that we know are doing us harm.

Bursztyn and his colleagues wanted to make sure it wasn’t repugnance towards technology and big tech that was driving their findings. So they asked questions about digital maps.

Whereas 57% of Instagram users would prefer a world without Instagram, only 4% of maps users would prefer a world without digital maps.

Fear of missing out drives staying in

Asked why those users who would prefer a world without their platform continued to use it, three-quarters of Instagram users and one-third of TikTok users gave an answer that was coded as fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The phrases used included “if I stop using it, I will be completely out of the loop”.

Other important reasons were classified as “entertainment” (37% for TikTok, 21% for Instagram) and “addiction” (34% and 10%).

To test for these product market traps outside of social media, Bursztyn and colleagues surveyed owners of luxury brands such as Gucci, Versace, Rolex and found 44% would prefer to live in a world without them.

That non-users would like to wipe these brands from the face of the earth isn’t new. What seems to be new is the finding that actual users feel the same way.

iPhone users want fewer new models

In the case of iPhones, users would simply like fewer new models. Bursztyn and colleagues found an astonishing 91% of iPhone owners would prefer Apple to release a new model only every second year, instead of every year.

It’s advice Apple doesn’t need to heed. Many of these customers will keep buying the new models because they don’t want to miss out, even though they would rather not be placed in that situation.

For economists, the findings suggest there’s an unusual class of products that are worth less than people are prepared to pay for them, even when that price is zero.

For the Australian Senate, about to begin an inquiry, the findings suggest that it’s okay to crack down hard on social media, even though a lot of people use it. Many of them would be grateful.

Peter Martin is Economics Editor of The Conversation and serves on the central council of the Economic Society of Australia.

– ref. Would you pay to quit TikTok and Instagram? You’d be surprised how many would – https://theconversation.com/would-you-pay-to-quit-tiktok-and-instagram-youd-be-surprised-how-many-would-235180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The 2024 US election took another dramatic turn when President Joe Biden withdrew his re-election bid, endorsing his Vice President, Kamala Harris, to take his place.

The quick switch from Biden to Harris has reinvigorated the Democratic Party and their donors behind a younger candidate. It has thrown up a new challenge for Donald Trump who, however, is still election favorite. It’ll be up to Harris to define her campaign before Trump is able to define her.

To discuss the fast-changing play, we’re joined by Lester Munson, a fellow with the United States Studies Centre.

Munson is a long-time Washington insider, having worked with George W. Bush’s administration, been chief of staff for a Republican senator, and serving as Staff Director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He now works at BGR Group, a leading government relations firm in Washington, DC, and he joined from there on the podcast.

On Kamala Harris having locked in the nomination, set to be ratified at the Democratic convention next month:

There’s no real opposition to her candidacy at this point. She has earned the endorsement of scores of senior Democratic officials if not hundreds. She has raised a significant amount of money and appears to be really dominating the political landscape for Democrats right now. It seems like she’s going to become the nominee by acclamation and with almost unanimous support behind her.

On what kind of candidate Harris might be:

She’s certainly younger than the previous Democratic candidate. She’s substantially younger than Donald Trump. She’s a fresher face. She has a different way of conducting herself in public. That is a radical departure from both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

And as a Republican, I will just tell you, I think she’s a relatively attractive persona in that she’s got some charisma, she’s got some magnetism, she can light up a room, there’s no doubt about it. And I think people are going to give her a chance to earn their vote. Whether she’s able to do that is a separate question.

Some people have said the failed assassination attempt has changed Trump and Munson agrees:

I think he is changed. […] If you just watch the acceptance speech at the [Republican] convention, you can see like kind of a different look on his face. He seems more at peace with the universe, he seems grateful to be alive. I think that seems genuine to me.

In the event of a second Trump term, Munson gives his advice on what Anthony Albanese should do,

My advice to the Prime Minister would be, work on the relationship part, work on your personal face-to-face time with President Trump. Find the things that he cares about and find a way to deliver some sort of win for him, if that’s useful to you.

If he comes back into office, he’s not going to rely on international law or written agreements or treaties or trade deals. He is going to make decisions based on looking someone in the eye, their body language, the way they shake hands, how attractive they are on TV, how tall they are – very superficial things, but you know that going in, so use that to your advantage and be in the right place at the right time to try to get the the result you want out of the relationship.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Lester Munson on Kamala Harris’s style and a changed Trump – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-lester-munson-on-kamala-harriss-style-and-a-changed-trump-235320

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Headlines are again warning of a new COVID variant in Australia. This time it’s LB.1, or as some experts have dubbed it, “D-FLiRT”.

Emerging evidence suggests LB.1 could be more transmissible than earlier Omicron subvariants, though there’s nothing to suggest it will cause more severe disease.

But before we look more closely at LB.1, how did we get here in the first place? The COVID virus is a crafty thing, continuing to evolve so it can keep infecting us.

From XBB to JN.1 to FLiRT to FLuQE

Our current COVID vaccines are based on XBB.1.5, a subvariant of Omicron. Along with other XBB subvariants, XBB.1.5 caused a wave of COVID cases around the world in 2023.

In August 2023, a new subvariant called JN.1 was discovered in Luxembourg. Until that point, new Omicron subvariants only had small genetic changes from their predecessors (called genetic drift).

However, JN.1 was unusual in that it was 41 mutations away from XBB.1.5 (big changes like this are called genetic shifts). Because of these changes, it was expected that JN.1 would take off, and indeed, JN.1 caused another wave of infections in Australia and around the world at the end of 2023 and the beginning of this year.

JN.1 then mutated further, giving us the “FLiRT” subvariants such as KP.1.1, JN.1.7 and KP.2.

Proteins including the spike protein (a protein on the surface of the virus which allows it to attach to our cells) are made up of amino acids, essentially molecular building blocks. When scientists “sequence” new variants, they work out the exact order of amino acids in the spike protein, as this can change the behaviour of the virus.

Each amino acid has its own letter abbreviation. The FLiRT variants were named for two genetic mutations to the spike protein. The sequence changed from phenylalanine (F) to leucine (L) at position 456 (genetic mutation F456L), and from arginine (R) to threonine (T) at position 346 (R346T).

Research yet to be peer-reviewed suggests these genetic changes gave the FLiRT subvariants better capacity to evade our immune responses, but slightly poorer ability to establish an infection once they get into our cells (sometimes called binding efficiency).

The FLiRT subvariants have themselves now mutated. Some of these new subvariants are called FLuQE, and include KP.3, which along with KP.2 is currently dominating around the world.

These are similar to the FLiRT subvariants with additional genetic mutations. One is called Q493E – hence the name FLuQE. Along with another mutation, F456L, these changes appear to have helped the virus regain some of its reduced ability to infect cells compared to FLiRT by increasing binding efficiency.

From FLiRT to LB.1

Reports suggest LB.1 was first detected in March 2024. LB.1 is similar to the FLiRT subvariants but with an additional mutation in the spike protein called S:S31del. The “del” refers to a deletion – a genetic change where a part of the virus’ genetic sequence is removed or lost during replication. In this case, the 31st amino acid (serine) in the spike protein is removed.

For this reason, it’s been given the nickname “D-FLiRT” or “DeFLiRT”. This also covers other variants carrying the same mutations as FLiRT but with this deletion, such as KP.2.3.

Preliminary results from a research group at the University of Tokyo, who conducted modelling and lab experiments with these emerging subvariants, indicate the transmissibility of LB.1 and KP.2.3 may be higher than both KP.2 and KP.3.

Should we be worried about LB.1?

LB.1 has been detected in multiple countries, including Australia, and is being monitored closely by bodies like the World Health Organization and the CDC.

In the United States, as of July 15, KP.3 accounted for about 37% of cases, KP.2 for 24% and LB.1 for another 15%, having been steadily rising over recent weeks.

KP.3 and its descendants such as KP.3.2 and KP.3.2.1 (FLuQE subvariants) are similarly dominating in Australia, accounting for at least 50% of cases. We don’t know what proportion of cases LB.1 is making up in Australia at present. It’s possible LB.1 infections are still negligible, but they may well grow over time.

While COVID cases appear to be declining after a recent wave in Australia, LB.1 may eventually out-compete KP.3, and between them, cause another wave of cases.

We are already seeing a bad season for respiratory viruses with both RSV and influenza cases higher than last year. So a variant with increased transmissibility could add to our winter woes.

The good news is there’s no evidence to suggest LB.1 causes any different symptoms or more severe illness than previous Omicron subvariants.

The current vaccines based on XBB.1.5 should still give some cross immunity against LB.1, and oral antivirals such as Paxlovid and Lagevrio should still work. We will likely be getting an updated vaccine based on KP.2, probably towards the end of the year. That should provide better protection against these new subvariants since genetically, they’re very similar to KP.2.

Adrian Esterman receives funding from the MRFF, NHMRC and ARC.

– ref. LB.1, or D-FLiRT, is the newest COVID subvariant. What do we know about it? Where has it come from? – https://theconversation.com/lb-1-or-d-flirt-is-the-newest-covid-subvariant-what-do-we-know-about-it-where-has-it-come-from-235217

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Flowers, Senior Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University

Vice President Kamala Harris had only just been endorsed by Joe Biden to take his spot as the Democratic nominee for president when she forcefully reminded Americans “what’s at stake in November” in a post on X:

Let’s be clear: Donald Trump would sign a national abortion ban and restrict access to contraception if given the chance.

Abortion has long been a hot-button election issue in the United States, but in the first presidential election since Roe v Wade was overturned, it could be the defining issue.

With Harris now the presumptive Democratic nominee, former President Donald Trump could be more vulnerable on the issue, particularly given his selection of J.D. Vance as his Republican running mate.

What Americans think about abortion

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, finding there was no constitutional right to abortion and returning regulation to the states.

Since then, public anger has resulted in Democratic successes in multiple state elections. Every time reproductive rights have been on the ballot, abortion opponents have lost, even in conservative states like Kansas and Kentucky.

Although some of the initial fury has diminished, polls this year show a majority of voters still support reproductive rights.

According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 63% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, which is up four percentage points from 2021. Notably, two-thirds of moderate Republicans also say they support abortion rights.

In another poll by Gallup, nearly a third of registered voters said they would “only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion”. This is the highest percentage since Gallup began tracking voter sentiment on abortion in 1992. Back then, only 13% of voters agreed with the statement.

And in key battleground states for this year’s presidential election, 64% of residents agreed abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Harris’s stance on abortion

Democrats are keenly aware abortion matters. In the presidential debate last month, however, Biden floundered on the issue. Trump set the terms of the discussion, and Biden failed to convincingly defend reproductive rights or rebut falsehoods about later abortion care that Trump has been recycling since 2016.

Harris, by contrast, is far more assertive and confident when talking about abortion.

After she was elected to the US Senate in 2017 – the same year Trump entered the White House – she was the only senator who had a reproductive rights lawyer on staff, according to one activist.

She voted regularly against anti-abortion bills and cosponsored abortion rights legislation. A leading right-to-life group gives her Senate record an “F” grade.

During Supreme Court nomination hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, Harris displayed the rhetorical talents she honed as a prosecutor and California’s attorney general. She repeatedly challenged him to name “any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body”. Trump later complained that Harris was “the meanest, the most horrible, most disrespectful” senator.

Harris was central to the Biden administration’s response after the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v Wade – both as the public face speaking to Americans, and as the leader in policy discussions about how to claw back protections.

And she was the point person on abortion in Biden’s re-election campaign. On January 22, the anniversary of the 1973 Roe decision, Harris embarked on a “fight for reproductive freedom” tour, giving stump speeches on abortion in multiple battleground states.

Then, in March, she toured a Minnesota abortion clinic, the first US president or vice president to do so.

Republicans’ shifting tone

Republicans, meanwhile, have radically revamped their usual electoral strategies.

At the 2020 Republican National Convention, abortion was a prominent theme in Trump’s speech and right-to-life leaders were given coveted speaking slots.

But at this year’s convention, almost no one mentioned the topic. That included Trump and Vance, who has been outspoken in his opposition to abortion.

The Republican Party platform has also significantly trimmed back its language on the issue, abandoning a more than 40-year-old promise to support national restrictions on abortion. (The platform instead contains language about the 14th Amendment, which is a veiled nod to the argument that fetuses have personhood rights).

Trump is manoeuvring awkwardly on the issue, as well. He has claimed to be the “MOST pro-life President in history,” taking sole credit for the end of Roe.

Yet, simultaneously, he has eschewed responsibility for the abortion bans now in place in almost half the country.

Trump has spent the last year casting himself as an abortion “moderate”, arguing that regulation should be left to the states. But he has angered some anti-abortion groups by refusing to endorse a national ban and by describing Florida’s six-week ban as “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

Contrasting views on the Trump-Vance ticket

Trump’s selection of Vance as his running mate has made things more complicated. Vance’s stances on reproductive health care are extreme even for a Republican.

Vance voted against a law protecting in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) rights. He also called on the attorney general’s office to enforce a 151-year-old “zombie law” that would criminalise the delivery of medication abortion through the mail.

Trump, meanwhile, has said he “strongly supports” IVF, and has promised he would “not block” medication abortion.

Vance said in 2022 he would like “abortion to be illegal nationally”, and has argued against rape and incest exceptions in abortion law.

Trump compares himself to former President Ronald Reagan in his support for abortion exceptions.

Vance now claims to share Trump’s approach to abortion but given both of them have such shifting views, it’s impossible to gauge what this means in practice. As Trump has repeatedly told his right-to-life supporters, “you got to win elections”.

If he does win, however, it seems almost certain he will attempt to advance the anti-abortion agenda outlined in Project 2025. Central to this is a multi-pronged attack on medication abortion.

Harris has the capacity to bring the abortion fight to Trump and wage it with a prosecutor’s zeal. It will likely be a crucial part of her arsenal if she becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

Prudence Flowers has received funding from the South Australian Department of Human Services. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.

– ref. 6 in 10 Americans support abortion rights. This could be the advantage Kamala Harris needs against Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/6-in-10-americans-support-abortion-rights-this-could-be-the-advantage-kamala-harris-needs-against-donald-trump-235208

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

The modern Olympic Games offer a window into almost 130 years of social and cultural change.

They reflect the fall of nations, war, the shifting winds of culture and the way people engage with sports, fitness and competition.

We’ve taken data from every modern summer Olympics to see which sports have stood the test of time, the changing age of athletes, and whether hosting really gives your team an advantage.

Sports come and go

The Olympics have evolved dramatically over the years, gaining new sports and dropping others.

The 2020 Tokyo Olympics had the largest number of sports of any games, with 33 sports (and 339 medal events), while the first modern games in Athens in 1896 only had nine.

Some sports that are no longer in the Olympics include ballooning, fishing, firefighting, alpinism (mountain climbing, judged by the mountains climbed in the four years between games), kaatsen (a type of handball) and bicycle polo.

New sports that entered recently are surfing, sports climbing and, in the 2024 Paris games, breaking (known by some as breakdancing).

Olympics are a young person’s game

On average, since the start of the modern Olympics in 1896, about two-thirds of athletes who competed were 20–30 years old. Most athletes compete in their first games between the ages of 20–25. Very few athletes compete over the age of 40: fewer than 4% of all athletes.

Age, and death, didn’t stop John Quincy Ward, however. Though he died in 1910 at the age of 79, his artwork competed at the 1928 Olympics in the (now defunct) sculpture event – he didn’t win. Ward is one of only 24 other athletes who have competed posthumously, mostly in the arts though a few were part of the alpinism event and died while climbing mountains.

While the vast majority of athletes only compete in one or two Olympics, almost 900 people attended five or more games. Incredibly, three athletes have competed in nine games and one athlete, equestrian athlete Ian Millar, has competed in 10 Olympics.

The most competitive events

Athletics events attract the most competitors through the history of the modern Olympics.

However, digging deeper into the data reveals some countries have cumulatively sent more athletes in different sports:

• Argentina, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Malaysia and New Zealand sent more hockey players than any other sport
• Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Mongolia, Syria and Türkiye mostly send wrestling athletes
• around 9,385 footballers from around the world have competed at the games – but almost 20% (1,632) of those came from just 18 nations, including Brazil (341), Korea (209) and Egypt (195).

Australia’s medal tally is on the rise

Australia has hosted two Olympic Games – Melbourne in 1956 and Sydney in 2000 – and its medal numbers shot up in the games before and after. However, Australia had its best gold medal run in the 2020 Tokyo and 2004 Athens games.

Medals can bring big money to the athletes who win them. Since 2019, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) pays A$20,000, $15,000 and $10,000 for gold, silver and bronze medals, respectively. This is likely to go up as Australia prepares to host the 2032 games.

Home team advantage

Hosting the Olympics seems to deliver a hometown advantage an edge.

The chart below shows the top 12 countries by medal tally and how they stacked up when they hosted the Olympics. Almost all of them have a meaningful boost, either making or breaking their top tallies during a home games.

There is one unique standout, though. Hungary has become a powerhouse in picking up medals – astounding considering it hasn’t hosted an Olympics.

France is about to embark on its third Olympic games, sharing the silver medal for number of games hosted with the UK – gold goes to the US, which has hosted four times. It remains to be seen if France can live up to their incredible medal success in the 1900 Paris games but the data shows that 2024 is their best hope.

– ref. Do hosts win more medals? Are athletes getting older? 128 years of Olympic history in 5 charts – https://theconversation.com/do-hosts-win-more-medals-are-athletes-getting-older-128-years-of-olympic-history-in-5-charts-233979

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley Boxall, Research Fellow, Australian National University

Recent survey results show 25% of Australians agree that women who do not leave abusive relationships are partly responsible for the abuse continuing. This stubbornly common attitude demonstrates that victim-survivors are still being held responsible for the abuse they experience and for keeping themselves safe.

However, this is starting to change. Against the backdrop of what has been a horror year for violence against women and children, conversations have pivoted sharply to focus on making men accountable for their use of violence.

This is reflected in a new campaign by the Daily Telegraph. The masthead recently published the photos and names of 18 men charged with or accused of domestic or family violence offences in New South Wales. The media outlet has also started using the term “coward’s attack” in lieu of domestic violence.

On the face of it, this campaign appears to be an innovative approach to holding men accountable. But will it make women and children safer?

Public shaming doesn’t work

Publicly naming and shaming perpetrators and calling them “cowards” will not reduce domestic and family violence.

We have learned this after numerous reviews of public sex offenders registries, which similarly make people convicted of terrible crimes visible to the public. Instead, these strategies can make future abuse more likely.

This is because name-and-shame campaigns stigmatise, ostracise and demonise their targets, effectively “othering” them within the community. However, community reintegration – where someone becomes an active member of and is accepted back into the community – is an important part of preventing reoffending.

Being part of a community can help address structural factors that may contribute to some men’s use of violence, such as unemployment and social isolation.

Also, men who use violence need to be surrounded by people who believe they’re capable of change. Investment in the community and relationships can increase men’s motivation to stop using violence because they don’t want to disappoint their community. How people see us is also important for how we see ourselves: if our community says we are capable of change, then maybe we are.

But are these men likely to see community reintegration as possible when they have been shamed in such a public way? Probably not.

Who can I be?

Believing in the potential for change is not enough on its own. Men who use violence also need an alternative self that they can aim for: a clear vision of the version of themselves they’d like to be.

Name-and-shame campaigns do a great job of condemning behaviours, but they don’t provide an alternative self to work towards. It is this piece of the puzzle – who can I be if I don’t use violence anymore? – that is needed for behaviour change to occur.

This is the point made by some commentators who have said that, rather than condemnation, we need to provide men who use violence with alternative models of positive masculinity that provide them with an alternative to which to aspire.

The power of language

The move towards the term “coward attacks” has been justified on the basis that “domestic” minimises the abuse and makes it everyday.

However, the term “coward” is also problematic as it perpetuates traditional gender norms. Men who use violence are “lesser” because they are not strong or brave.

Men who feel like they are not living up to their own ideal version of manhood, for example if they feel like they are a coward, may use violence to deal with the emotional distress they feel because of this disconnect, which we call “gender role strain”. As one man who participated in a men’s behaviour change program reflected:

I think that my violence […] sustained an inflated version of myself. Otherwise I would feel worthless […] where I’m rotten to the core.

By calling men cowards, we reinforce their own views of themselves as weak, pathetic and lesser, making it more likely they will continue to use violence.

When shaming can help

Pivoting to focusing on perpetrators reflects our increasing frustration that victim-survivors are being held responsible for reducing their risk of domestic and family violence. It also recognises that perpetrator accountability could be a crucial piece of the puzzle for keeping women and children safe. By increasing the negative consequences, we can deter people from using violence.

We need to hold men who use violence accountable for their behaviours, but there are ways we can do this that aren’t stigmatising. This would provide them with a pathway back into the community and to a non-violent future. Reintegrative shaming, which underpins most models of restorative justice in Australia and internationally, encourages us to condemn the behaviour, not the person.

Shame can be a powerful tool in our arsenal for responding to domestic and family violence in Australia, but only if we provide men who use violence with alternative visions of masculinity and believe they are capable of change. Shame for shame’s sake is counterproductive.

Hayley Boxall has received funding to undertake domestic and family violence research from the Australian National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety and the Queensland and ACT Governments.

– ref. Naming and shaming domestic violence perpetrators doesn’t work to keep women safe. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/naming-and-shaming-domestic-violence-perpetrators-doesnt-work-to-keep-women-safe-heres-why-234911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy-Lee Bowler, Lecturer, School of Health, Nutrition & Dietetics, University of the Sunshine Coast

Many people living with diabetes use continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) to track their blood sugar levels. These small devices, often attached to the back of your upper arm or abdomen, send data to an app on your phone. This allows you to see, in near real-time, how your blood sugar levels spike or drop depending on what you eat or how active you have been.

The benefits for people living with diabetes are obvious, as failing to keep abreast of blood sugar levels can be dangerous. But these devices are increasingly being advertised as health aids to the broader community, including health-conscious non-diabetics and elite athletes.

But our own research has found using these pricey devices provides little benefit for healthy athletes without diabetes. And there’s very little research to support their use in healthy active people with normal glucose control.

That said, there are several areas which warrant further research.

Do these devices benefit athletes without diabetes?

If your blood sugar levels drop below normal range (known as hypoglycaemia) during endurance exercise, your athletic performance suffers.

So it’s easy to see why it might seem logical to track blood glucose in real time during endurance exercise. Many assume this data could signal when it’s time to consume more carbohydrates during or after exercise. Carbs help maintain your blood sugar levels, fuelling your body to ensure it has enough energy to complete the session.

However, glucose regulation during exercise is incredibly complex. It is influenced by a range of factors such as how much and what you eat or drink, recovery and stress. Even exercise can sometimes make your blood sugar readings go up. Results from current studies have reported mixed findings when exploring fuelling practices (meaning what or how they eat and drink).

Despite enthusiastic marketing and athlete testimonials about the use of continuous glucose monitors, our research concluded there’s not enough clear evidence to support the use of continuous glucose monitors as a tool to improve an athlete’s fuelling practices

We need more research before we can promote these devices as a useful addition to the athlete toolbox.

What are the possible downsides of using continuous glucose monitors?

Using continuous glucose monitors presents several practical limitations.

First, they’re expensive. These monitors may cost around A$90-$100 per fortnight (as monitors last a maximum of 14 days) and may require costly subscriptions to certain mobile apps.

They can also be knocked out of place if you’re training, in competition, sweating, or even doing everyday tasks such as showering.

It’s also easy to misinterpret the data, which can cause unnecessary anxiety. Our initial studies stress the importance of working with a sports nutrition professional when wearing a continuous glucose monitor to ensure you’re not misinterpreting the data.

Elite athletes may also find their sport’s governing body has restrictions around these devices. For instance, the world governing body for sports cycling, Union Cycliste International, has banned the use of continuous glucose monitors during sanctioned races.

Healthy people obsessing over blood sugar readings

As these devices make glucose readings available 24 hours a day, it’s also easy to end up obsessing over the data.

This can cause people to make unnecessary and overly strict changes to eating behaviours, leading to what some doctors have termed “glucorexia”.

It’s quite natural for your blood glucose to go up in response to eating carbohydrate-rich foods and fluids.

Alarmingly, there are influencers suggesting glucose should never “spike” and should always remain within a very tight range, even during the window immediately after meals.

In fact, it is prolonged increases in glucose levels outside of normal range that are the concern to health and wellbeing.

This underscores the danger of people without robust nutrition and physiology knowledge misinterpreting data from continuous glucose monitors.

If you’re active and plan to trial a continuous glucose monitoring device, you should consider consulting an accredited sports dietition so you’re properly informed about what’s a normal response.

More research is needed

Given the utility of continuous glucose monitors and the fact they can be worn by athletes while training and resting, we have started to explore whether data from these monitors can help elite athletes adjust their diet in response to exercise.

In our studies, we have been particularly interested in tracking how data from continuous glucose monitors changes in response to a day of training and eating. They may also be useful for exercise scientists trying to understand whether an athlete has been overtraining.

But the fact is, most people are not elite athletes.

Ordinary people who have the cash to splash on these devices should understand there’s not much research showing a benefit to healthy individuals using continuous glucose monitors.

If you are particularly concerned about your own blood sugar levels, we recommend seeing a GP and/or a dietitian. That’s better than stressing about and scrutinising yet another data set that isn’t yet particularly useful.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Non-diabetics are buying continuous glucose monitors – but are there actually any health benefits? – https://theconversation.com/non-diabetics-are-buying-continuous-glucose-monitors-but-are-there-actually-any-health-benefits-232171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tiggy Grillo, COO, Wildlife Health Australia; Adjunct Lecturer, Charles Sturt University

Avian influenza viruses have infected the world’s birds for millennia. We first became aware of them in the 19th century, when mass deaths of poultry triggered interest in what was then called “fowl plague”.

But in 2021, something fundamental changed. As the world grappled with COVID lockdowns and economic chaos, the birds of the world were encountering a new strain, known formally as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 2.3.3.4.b. It spread easily and was capable of causing disease and death in a far wider number of bird species than previously seen before.

So far, it has triggered the culling of half a billion farmed birds and killed millions of wild birds. (This is a different strain to the HPAI H7 strains which have infected poultry farms in Australia).

If this new strain gets to Australia, carried on a migratory wild bird, it could pose similar risks to our unique wildlife. But we haven’t been sitting still. Australian researchers, governments, veterinarians and wildlife rehabilitators have been urgently preparing for its arrival.

Why is this strain so bad?

This strain has now made it to every part of the world bar Australia, New Zealand and Pacific nations. The virus killed many birds in the northern hemisphere before crossing to the Americas. In South America it proved particularly lethal, infecting and killing massive numbers of birds and marine mammals such as sea lions.

Many strains of bird flu are “low pathogenicity”, meaning they tend not to cause severe disease. But these strains can evolve into highly pathogenic strains if they spill over from wild birds into poultry, as we’re seeing with the current outbreaks in poultry farms in Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT.

Prior to 2024, Australia had experienced eight previous outbreaks of H7 HPAI in poultry, all of which were eradicated by culling poultry and isolating farms.

This new H5N1 2.3.3.4.b strain is much more worrying for our wildlife, because it transmits very easily between wild birds. It has proven it can kill mammals, including marine mammals, predators and scavenger species that eat birds.

It also poses a real threat to our poultry industries. If H5N1 2.3.4.4b were to enter Australia, we could see more outbreaks in domestic poultry, which in turn could affect the supply of chicken and eggs – both very popular sources of animal protein in Australia.

Given the virus is present worldwide, including in Antarctica, you might wonder why it hasn’t made it to Australia yet.

Avian influenza travels most easily in waterfowl such as ducks. Australia’s waterfowl are not migratory and only travel short distances between Australia and countries to the north.

But Australia is on the path of several flyways from Asia, along which millions of shorebirds migrate every year in spring. Some seabirds also migrate from the Atlantic.

How are we preparing?

The devastation the virus has caused overseas has given Australia time to prepare.

We can’t stop wild birds from migrating here. But we can slow the spread and protect at-risk wildlife from other threats such as invasive predators, giving them the best chance to survive the virus if it arrives.

Around Australia and on our sub-Antarctic islands, a network of veterinarians, researchers, government officials, rangers and wildlife rehabilitators is on alert looking for sick birds with signs, such as respiratory illness.

If a bird showing these signs is spotted, they will call the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline (1800 675 888). Members of the public are also encouraged to report sightings.

Other plans for the virus include:

• restricting human movements in and out of virus-affected areas, where appropriate
• surveillance to see how the virus is moving with wildlife
• triage and clinical responses to the virus, including euthanasia for dying birds.

We have created information toolboxes to help wildlife managers and carers to manage risk and reduce transmission if the virus is confirmed here. These include improving baseline biosecurity, clearing away carcasses, restricting human movement to reduce spread, and euthanasing dying birds.

For threatened species, we can explore the merits of vaccination trials for captive birds. New Zealand authorities are trialling this method.

But such vaccination must ultimately serve the welfare interests of wildlife. There are many complexities to consider.

Globally, vaccination of free-ranging wild birds has occurred for just one species – the endangered Californian condor, considered particularly at risk because of its low numbers.

Black swan event?

Overseas, waterfowl, shorebirds and seabirds have proven especially susceptible to the virus. Avian predators are also at risk if they eat sick birds or their carcasses.

Specific data on Australian species are limited, but at least one local species, the black swan, has been found to be highly vulnerable to the virus because they lack some protective genes.

The sheer variation of our ecosystems might offer some protection. We have many transient bodies of water, such as Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre. If the virus arrived during a period of drought, it could have a different impact than if it arrived during flooding rains, which fill lakes and encourage movement of wild waterfowl.

Because this strain is very new, we don’t know yet what the long term outcome will be.

It’s possible birds which survive an infection will become immune and survive to breed. But some species and populations may not be able to survive this first assault.

This threat is new territory for Australia. Many of the other animal diseases we worry about and prepare for only attack one species, such as African swine fever, or only affect non-native wildlife (such as foot and mouth disease). But this strain of bird flu has attacked over 500 bird species and is infecting a growing number of mammal species.

What can you do? Keep an eye out for any sick or dead birds – and call the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline if you do.

Read more:
Chickens, ducks, seals and cows: a dangerous bird flu strain is knocking on Australia’s door

Tiggy Grillo receives funding from the Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as well as all Australian state and territory governments.

Simone Vitali receives funding from the Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as well as all Australian state and territory governments.

– ref. Lethal bird flu could decimate Oceania’s birds. From vigilance to vaccines, here’s what we’re doing to prepare – https://theconversation.com/lethal-bird-flu-could-decimate-oceanias-birds-from-vigilance-to-vaccines-heres-what-were-doing-to-prepare-235016

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Associate Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

On Friday, the world suffered what many have described as the largest IT outage in history, when 8.5 million Windows computers crashed and wouldn’t restart.

The cause was a bug triggered by an automatic update for a piece of software that until Friday nobody beyond cyber security nerds had heard of: CrowdStrike’s Falcon.

Falcon is a type of software known as “endpoint detection and response”, or EDR for short. It’s somewhat like an anti-virus on steroids. When installed, Falcon monitors a computer for signs of cyber attacks.

It can collect data about what files you open, what programs you run, what websites you visit, and so on. This makes it highly privileged software. When an employee accidentally opens a malicious email attachment, Falcon is watching – eternally vigilant.

EDR programs are considered best practice, recommended by the Australian government’s chief cyber defence agency.

Which means that in 2024, the best strategy that cyber security experts recommend involves software that spies on everything that happens on our computers.

How did we get here, and is there a better way forward?

The case for EDR

CrowdStrike is a market leader in EDR, hence why so many systems went down late last week. And there are good reasons for recommending EDR technologies like Falcon. For individual organisations, they are invaluable for alerting IT security teams to signs of cyber intrusion.

This helps IT teams to thwart an attacker before they can cause significant damage. In the case of more stealthy attacks, it helps flag suspicious behaviour that could point to a long-standing intrusion. The Medibank hack of 2022 is a good example. After initially gaining access, the hacker spent weeks inside Medibank’s networks undetected.

Technologies like CrowdStrike’s Falcon also provide valuable intelligence about emerging cyber threats globally. Because its software is deployed in so many organisations around the world, CrowdStrike has a bird’s eye view that – at least in theory – allows it to identify patterns of malicious behaviour beyond what any individual organisation can see.

For this reason, it’s also a leader in cyber threat intelligence, providing information to IT teams about what to look out for. If an organisation detects a cyber attack, data collected by EDR tools like Falcon can also help figure out exactly how the intrusion occurred.

Again, the Medibank hack serves as a good example. Federal Court filings contain detailed information about the timeline of events that led to the hack, including how the initial intrusion occurred and what the attacker did once they gained access to Medibank’s networks.

Without the omniscient view provided by surveillance tools like EDR, assembling this kind of information would be incredibly challenging.

What are the downsides?

In the wake of Friday’s outage, it’s worth questioning the downsides of EDR technologies. Many have already raised the obvious questions about our society’s dependence on too few global tech giants, and the risks of tech monocoltures.

But we’ve known of these risks for over two decades. We likely can’t expect this incident to undo the monopolies that pervade technology markets.

Another downside is the sheer technical risk. EDR software like Falcon gains its omniscience by being tightly integrated into the core of Microsoft Windows: the fundamental software that controls most of our computers. This is why it could cause the crashes we saw in the first place.

As a maker of highly privileged software, CrowdStrike had a responsibility to ensure its updates were safe. It demonstrably failed and we should all demand much higher standards of accountability from the makers of critical software.

Privacy tradeoffs

All of these issues have been widely canvassed in the days following the incident. Less discussed have been the privacy tradeoffs.

If you ask a cyber security professional to name what type of software spies on everything you do on your computer, chances are they’ll name spyware before mentioning EDR.

Spyware is malicious software hackers install on victims’ computers to capture sensitive information, such as passwords, banking information, or nude photos, among other things.

Indeed, some privacy-conscious computer scientists equate EDR with spyware.

As with other forms of corporate surveillance, there is a clear tension between the individual right to privacy and the organisational imperative to protect itself from cyber intrusions.

EDR technologies have been rolled out across major organisations with little debate about their impact on user privacy and trust. This outage may provide an opportunity to finally have those debates.

Is there a better way?

In the wake of this incident it’s worth considering whether the tradeoffs made by current EDR technology are the right ones.

Abandoning EDR would be a gift to cyber criminals. But cyber security technology can – and should – be done much better.

From a technical standpoint, Microsoft and CrowdStrike should work together to ensure tools like Falcon operate at arm’s length from the core of Microsoft Windows. That would greatly reduce the risk posed by future faulty updates. Some mechanisms already exist that may allow this. Competing technology to CrowdStrike’s Falcon already works this way.

To protect user privacy, EDR solutions should adopt privacy-preserving methods for data collection and analysis. Apple has shown how data can be collected at scale from iPhones without invading user privacy. To apply such methods to EDR, though, we’ll likely need new research.

More fundamentally, this incident raises questions about why society continues to rely on computer software that is so demonstrably unreliable. Especially in Australia where we are internationally recognised world leaders in engineering highly secure computer systems, such as those that protect highly classified information.

In the long term, we should reduce our dependence on invasive technologies like EDR by focusing our efforts on building software that’s reliable and secure in the first place.

Toby Murray receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence to support research on how to build software that is provably reliable and secure.

– ref. CrowdStrike crash showed us how invasive cyber security software is. Is there a better way? – https://theconversation.com/crowdstrike-crash-showed-us-how-invasive-cyber-security-software-is-is-there-a-better-way-235207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Winter, Associate Professor in Political Theory, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care – to be tabled in parliament tomorrow – is a monumental achievement. It is a repository of immense tragedy and grief – and a storehouse of hope.

The product of nearly six years’ work, the report’s 16 volumes cover accounts of survivors’ suffering in state and faith-based care between 1950 and 1999. The volumes also detail the avoidance, obfuscation and delays by those responsible for enabling, concealing and minimising that abuse.

The report will indict successive governments for the prejudice, callousness and political calculation that rendered people in care largely invisible, and their lives dispensable.

It will also put it beyond doubt that New Zealand’s laws, public policies and state institutions enabled that abuse.

Reform cannot be delayed

Out of the resulting pain, the commission’s report will be an insistent demand for change.

While its focus is historical, the report also has a transformational purpose. Systemic abuse in out-of-home care continues, and we can see from its interim reporting that the commission is clear the responsibility for putting an end to it lies with the government.

The commission’s terms of reference asked it to analyse New Zealand’s histories of abuse to inform its recommendations. These will aim to ensure abuse that happened in the past, and which continues in the present, will cease in the future.

It will take years to implement all the commission’s recommendations. But some things should and can happen immediately, including monetary compensation. Transforming the country’s out-of-home care model, however, will require new institutions, new funding models, new accountability practices, and new staff recruitment and training methods.

There is no reason to delay starting these necessary reforms. Since 2019, the government has had 13 interim and auxiliary reports from the commission. It received draft versions of the final recommendations on November 30 last year, and the final full report nearly a month ago.

All this material has been analysed by the Crown Response Unit, which the government set up to coordinate its work with the royal commission.

Survivors deserve to see their struggles result in urgently needed reforms. For example, the government could (and should) commit to setting up the independent redress entity the commission prescribed in its December 2021 report.

That report also recommended a nationwide investigation into potential unmarked graves and urupā at residential care sites. And it asked the government to remove the statute of limitations on claims for abuse against children, as has happened in Australia.

The receipt of the final report would be an opportune moment to announce progress on those measures.

Ending the care-to-crime pipeline

Appropriate out-of-home care is a matter of fundamental human rights and an obligation under te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is also a crucial area for social investment.

At present, there are thousands of young New Zealanders in out-of-home care. Like all citizens, these human beings are of immense value to the country. But the trauma they have experienced can also make some of them a risk.

One of the most profound failures in Aotearoa New Zealand’s chequered history of social policy is the ongoing “care-to-crime” pipeline. New Zealand’s gang culture, for example, flowed in part from the horrors of residential care.

In short, as the commission argues, the state put children in care, and then the circumstances of care put those children on a path that led through prison into Black Power and the Mongrel Mob.

The final report is a singular opportunity for brave and transformative public policy that will block that pipeline at its source. Yes, it will cost money. But spending today may mean future generations reap the benefits tomorrow.

The cost of doing nothing is easy to see. Presently, the government is spending billions on the penal system, including a major expansion of Waikeria Prison. Continued failures in out-of-home care will add billions more to the future costs of healthcare, housing and social support.

Those monetary costs merely compound the human suffering caused by abuse in care. The government must accept the cost-benefit analysis and make the required investment in financial and human capital.

Audacious hope

On November 12, when Prime Minister Christopher Luxon finally offers the public apology for this “shameful part of our history”, survivors and the wider public will be hoping to hear how this government will lead change.

We will not want to hear more announcements about future announcements, or ongoing consultations and committees. That only condemns survivors to further delays and uncertainties.

New Zealand’s credit with survivors is in short supply. They have become familiar with obstruction and delay, with pledges for change followed by more of the same.

To hope for real leadership – inclusive, transformative and far-sighted – is perhaps audacious. But audacity is necessary. Survivors and future generations deserve no less.

Stephen Winter is affiliated with the Royal Commission Forum, which served as an advisory body for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. The views in this article are his own.

– ref. Tragedy and hope: what the abuse-in-care report will say and what has to happen now – https://theconversation.com/tragedy-and-hope-what-the-abuse-in-care-report-will-say-and-what-has-to-happen-now-235098

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil Durrant, Adjunct fellow, Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University

In a world of alternative therapies and new-age spiritual practices, Tantra holds a special place. This concept is largely associated with techniques for improving your sex life – but there’s a lot more to Tantra than sex.

Modern Tantric sex practices, or so-called neotantra (which began at the turn of 20th century), sit alongside the ancient philosophical tradition of classical Tantra, for which written traditions go back to the 8th century and oral traditions even further. Practitioners from both sides, or Tantrikas, have tended to view each other with suspicion.

But they have much to learn from one another if only they tried to understand each other more deeply.

The standoff

The neotantrikas stand accused of neglecting the deep spiritual truths of the original Tantric movement. They have, it is supposed, replaced the three-course meal of Tantric philosophy with a bubblegum sex obsession that reflects Western culture.

The paradigm case for this is the Rajneeshee movement. Described by the popular 2018 Netflix documentary Wild Wild Country, this movement was known for blending Eastern philosophy with American counterculture.

While its devotees followed a supposedly Tantric spiritual practice, it ultimately devolved, somewhat ironically, into a consumer culture that devoured its guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (also known as Osho).

Scholars of classical Tantra draw on examples like this to question the authenticity of neotantra. One such scholar is Hugh Urban, who has traced the complicated development of Tantric ideas in Western countries and their association with capitalism and sex.

One leading light in classical Tantra (at least in the English-speaking world) is US scholar-practitioner Christopher Wallis. In his most recent book, Near Enemies of the Truth (2023), Wallis analyses many of the trendiest terms used by alternative spiritualities. He convincingly shows these terms can be misleading if separated from their roots in Indian philosophy.

In his book Tantra Illuminated (2013), Wallis is more pointed. He specifically distances classical Tantric philosophy from neotantric sexual practices, saying:

the public perception of Tantra as primarily concerned with sex […] is manifestly untrue. Next to none of the scriptural sources of (Classical) Tantra teach a sexual ritual or sexual techniques of any kind.

This criticism goes both ways. The neotantrikas tend to avoid classical Tantric philosophy for being heady, abstract and obscure. When it comes to sex, the neotantrikas tend to view the classicists as downright squeamish.

Not so different after all

While both sides have valid points to make, it strikes me there is a lot to gain from ending this standoff.

The neotantrikas rightly point out that classical Tantra is a difficult philosophy. Its writings are mostly untranslated from the original Sanskrit, and what has been translated into English is hard to understand unless you’re trained in philosophy and theology.

The classical Tantrikas are also right to point out that sexual rites are only obscurely and occasionally referred to in classical Tantra.

What really matters, however, is the underlying philosophy. And it’s clear to me the core of classical Tantric philosophy actually does provide a strong basis for neotantric practice.

For instance, the Kashmiri philosopher Abhinavagupta, who lived around the turn of the first millenium, is widely regarded as the greatest teacher in a long classical Tantric lineage.
He taught a philosophical theology that sanctifies human experience. In this theology, every human experience, at every place and at every time, is also an experience of the divine.

As Wallis explains in his book:

Quite simply, since reality is One, and everything is equally an expression of that one divine Light of Consciousness, every experience is by definition an experience of God.

Importantly, this is as true of sex as it is of washing the dishes, or of an ant crawling in your garden. Every experience of every thing is God experiencing herself.

At the heart of this teaching is a proposed underlying structure to the universe. In this structure there are two divine principles. One is masculine and the other is feminine. The ecstatic union of these principles creates everything that exists.

You don’t have to be neotantric to see this as a reference to divine sexuality. Abhinavagupta may not have invented metaphysical erotica, but he certainly wrote it. This is how the opening lines of his Tantrasara are interpreted for us by his translators:

the highest equilibrium (is a union) of both masculine and feminine […] this union is known as coitus. In the creative process, expanding from this union, all the principles of reality emerge […] the ‘emission of drops’ emerging from perfect sexual union. The drops reflect the colours of masculine and feminine: one is white and the other is red.

Reconnection and rediscovery

We can end the standoff between classical Tantra and neotantra by recognising that one can – and does – give rise to the other. In fact, I would go even further to say they would both benefit from rediscovering each other.

By drawing on this profound philosophical theology, the neotantrikas could enrich their experiments in sacred sexuality. Doing so might even help them avoid the trap of using Tantra to misguidedly chase peak sexual experiences.

It really should be the other way around. Sacred sexuality is one of many possibilities classical Tantra offers – not for the sake of your sex life, but to help you become more spiritual.

The classical Tantra scholars could also enrich themselves by learning from these brave souls who take the metaphysical logic of classical Tantra to its conclusion, not just in theory, but in an embodied practice.

Tantra goes far beyond the sexual. By refocusing our attention on what really matters – Tantric spirituality – we might discover any number of helpful practices. Who knows what awaits the devotee who pursues them to the end?

Neil Durrant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is Tantra about sex or divine liberation? Why followers are split over the ancient yogic tradition – https://theconversation.com/is-tantra-about-sex-or-divine-liberation-why-followers-are-split-over-the-ancient-yogic-tradition-233876

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Bowen, Associate Professor in Physical Oceanography, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

If you ask someone where plastic ends up, they will usually say the ocean. It’s not a surprising answer because we have known since the 1970s that plastic is accumulating in the subtropical oceans, far from land.

Most people have heard of the “great garbage patch”, a region of the North Pacific between Hawaii and California, where plastic is accumulating. Images of remote plastic-covered beaches often appear in the media.

However, the numbers don’t add up. Estimates of all the plastic drifting in the ocean show less than 10% of what enters rivers and coastlines reaches the subtropical accumulation zones.

Most must be ending up elsewhere, and the most likely places are along coastlines – either in estuaries, where rivers meet the sea, or along the open coast, where waves can push floating debris ashore.

We set out to investigate just how much plastic is retained in an estuary. The results of our research astonished us.

Using the main harbour of Auckland, the Waitematā estuary, as our study site, we made floating plastic packets using GPS receivers inside mobile phone pouches and tracked where they went over several tidal cycles.

Most ended up on the shoreline and none were able to move the relatively short distance needed to exit the estuary.

The speed of the drifters varied between tides, as shown in the animations above (spring tide) and below (neap tide).

Currents in estuaries trap plastic

When we repeated the experiment with computer simulations, trying a wide range of freshwater flows and tides, we found the same thing. Anywhere from 60% to 90% of buoyant material was retained in the estuary over ten tidal cycles.

Surprisingly, when we increased the river flow in the model, the percentage of plastic retained in the estuary was very similar. Although the buoyant material moved towards the ocean, it became trapped before it reached the mouth.

Currents within the estuary trapped the buoyant material by “pumping” it towards land when the tide was coming in and pushing it towards the sides when the tide was going out, leading to more plastic grounded along the shore.

This movement on the incoming tide leads to the long lines of foam and debris you often see along the channel of an estuary, sometimes extending over many kilometres. On the outgoing tides, floating debris is pushed towards the sides of the channel where it accumulates.

We know these types of flows are happening in many estuaries around the world. Studies measuring plastic waste in estuaries in France, Germany and Vietnam also suggest much of plastic entering estuaries is being retained.

These findings show that removing plastic waste from the shorelines of our estuaries and coasts (and the rivers and creeks that flow into them) is a very effective way to prevent it from entering the ocean.

The most recent international study found the numbers do agree if one takes into account that plastic waste is trapped and retained along coasts.

Changing perspectives about plastic

This shift in the way we think about where plastic ends up has many implications.

For most places in the world, much of the plastic waste emitted locally stays close by. Collecting this plastic waste will keep most of it out of the ocean, which means local community clean-ups can make a difference in controlling marine pollution.

It also means, given the long lifetime of plastic, that shorelines have been accumulating this waste for many decades and are acting as plastic “reservoirs”. Much of the plastic pollution may be hidden from view as it degrades to micro- and nanometre-sized particles.

Efforts are underway in communities and within nations to reduce the use of plastic and remove it from the environment. An international treaty to mitigate plastic pollution is expected to be in place by the end of 2024.

The aim of the treaty will be to curb the emission of 53 million metric tonnes per year of new plastics that would otherwise enter the aquatic environment by 2030. But we will need to continue cleaning up plastic for many decades to undo the legacy of our consumption.

Melissa Bowen receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment Endeavour project AIM2 (Aoteoroa Impacts and Mitigation of Microplastics).

Gaoyang Li receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment Endeavour project AIM2 (Aoteoroa Impacts and Mitigation of Microplastics).

Giovanni Coco receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.

Zheng Chen receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment Endeavour project AIM2 (Aoteoroa Impacts and Mitigation of Microplastics).

– ref. Estuaries and coastlines capture most plastic before it gets out to sea, giving us a chance to stop ocean pollution – https://theconversation.com/estuaries-and-coastlines-capture-most-plastic-before-it-gets-out-to-sea-giving-us-a-chance-to-stop-ocean-pollution-232896

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Warwick Smith, Honorary Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Reports in The Australian suggesting Treasurer Jim Chalmers has shelved his budget wellbeing framework, known as Measuring What Matters, are incorrect.

The framework is alive and well, and making steady (if slow) progress.

Also reported was the Coalition’s intention to scrap the framework if it wins the next election, with its treasury spokesman Angus Taylor quoted as saying the government should instead focus on “lower inflation and lower interest rates”.

The idea that we shouldn’t be thinking about broader measures of progress because we need to concentrate on what’s in front of us impoverishes our view of what’s possible.

It’s important to measure what matters

The cost of living is certainly paramount. But if all we ever do is address the issue immediately in front of us, we will forever stumble from one crisis to the next.

Actually, if we had had a wellbeing framework in place before the current cost of living crisis, it might have been less likely to develop.

Most of us would agree that the things in the government’s Measuring What Matters framework matter, such as security, prosperity and cohesiveness.

But some of the information in last year’s statement was dated, some dating back to the years before COVID.

The framework has two parts: a measurement dashboard and a statement.

The dashboard presents data on 50 “key indicators” the treasury believes should supplement (although not replace) the standard measures of economic progress.

The statement is a report of the outcomes presented in the dashboard and of government progress toward embedding the framework in decision-making.

Last month Treasurer Chalmers announced responsibility for the dashboard would move from the treasury to the Bureau of Statistics and that the Bureau would get extra funding to run an expanded general social survey every year to improve the quality and timeliness of the data.

The statement would remain the responsibility of the treasury but would be released only every three years instead of annually. The next would be published in 2026 incorporating the first results from the bureau’s new survey.

Framework already kicking goals

Discovering we don’t collect regular and timely data on these important measures and then funding the Bureau of Statistics to do so is a demonstration that the framework is already having an impact.

The critical test will be how it is used to improve decision-making.

It hasn’t yet resulted in any radical change, but the ambition is substantial.

Shifting the way governments make decisions and allocate resources is hard, and it was was never going to be accomplished in a single year.

By handing over the data side of things to the Bureau of Statistics, the treasury will now, hopefully, be able to focus more on embedding the framework into decisions, including budget decisions.

Prioritising prevention

One of the things the treasury team is working on is how to better prioritise early intervention and prevention programs for Australians at risk. Such measures are hard to justify under the old budget rules, but can they can improve outcomes and save the government money in the long run.

International and Australian studies have identified four key ways of ensuring the government is working to deliver the kinds of outcomes we expect from it:

1. holistic thinking and breaking down silos between types of wellbeing

2. a long-term focus that includes consideration of future generations

3. emphasis on prevention to tackle the root causes of problems

4. including the people most likely to be affected by decisions in their design.

They are directed towards delivering the kind of society we want to live in and to do it smartly and efficiently within a budget context.

According to the framework, that’s a society that is healthy, secure, sustainable, prosperous and cohesive. The government remains on the case.

Warwick Smith is a Program Director at the Centre for Policy Development and the Chair of the Castlemaine Institute.

– ref. Despite what you’ve read, Jim Chalmers’ wellbeing framework hasn’t been shelved – if anything, it’s been strengthened – https://theconversation.com/despite-what-youve-read-jim-chalmers-wellbeing-framework-hasnt-been-shelved-if-anything-its-been-strengthened-235194

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Courtney-Davies, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Colorado Boulder

Iron ore is the key ingredient in steel production. One of the fundamental resources for the Australian economy, it contributes A$124 billion in national income each year.

This is not surprising, considering Western Australia is home to some of Earth’s largest iron ore deposits, and 96% of Australia’s iron ore comes from this state. Yet despite the metal’s significance, we still don’t know exactly how and when iron deposits formed within the continent.

In new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we answer some of these questions by directly measuring radioactive elements in iron oxide minerals which form the basis of these resources.

We found that several of Western Australia’s richest iron deposits – such as Mt Tom Price and Mt Whaleback – are up to 1 billion years younger than previously understood. This redefines how we think about iron deposits at all scales: from the mining site to supercontinents. It also provides clues on how we might be able to find more iron.

Where does iron ore come from?

Billions of years ago, Earth’s oceans were rich in iron. Then early bacteria started photosynthesising and rapidly introduced huge amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere and oceans. This oxygen combined with iron in the oceans, causing it to settle on the sea floor.

Today, these 2.45-billion-year-old sedimentary rock deposits are called banded iron formations. They represent a unique archive of the interactions between Earth’s continents, oceans and atmosphere through time. And, of course, banded iron formations are what we mine for iron ore.

These sedimentary deposits have distinctive, rhythmic bands of reddish iron and paler silica. They were alternately laid down on the sea floor seasonally. Such remarkable rocks can be visited today in Karijini National Park, WA.

The iron content of these banded iron formations is generally less than 30%. For the rock to become economically viable to mine, it must be naturally converted by later processes to around 60% iron.

The nature of this rock conversion is still debated. In simplest terms, a fluid – such as water – will both remove silica and introduce more iron during an “upgrading” process which transforms the rock’s original makeup.

The geochronology (age dating) of this chemical transformation and upgrading is not well understood, largely because the tools required to directly date the iron minerals have only recently become available.

Previous age estimates for the Pilbara iron deposits were indirect but suggested they were at least 2.2 billion years old.

What did we find out?

You may think of iron ore as rusty, red-coloured dust. However, it’s typically a hard, heavy, steely-blue material. When crushed into a fine powder, iron ore turns red. So the red landscape we see across the Pilbara today is a result of the weathering of iron minerals from beneath our feet.

We extracted microscopic scale “fresh” iron minerals from drill core samples at several of the most significant Western Australian iron deposits.

Leveraging recent advancements in radiometric dating, we measured naturally occurring radioactive elements in the rocks. In particular, the ratio of uranium to lead isotopes in a sample can reveal how long ago individual mineral grains crystallised.

Using the newly generated iron mineral age data, we constructed the first-ever timeline of the formation of Western Australia’s major iron deposits.

We discovered that all major iron ore deposits in the region formed between 1.4 and 1.1 billion years ago, making them up to 1 billion years younger than previous estimates.

These deposits formed in conjunction with major tectonic events, especially the breakup and reemergence of supercontinents. It shows just how dynamic our planet’s history is, and how complex the processes are that led to the formation of the iron ore we use today.

Now that we know that giant ore deposits are linked to changes in the supercontinent cycle, we can use this knowledge to better predict the places where we are more likely to discover more iron ore.

Liam Courtney-Davies completed this research while at John de Laeter Centre, Curtin University.

Liam Courtney-Davies received funding for this research through the MRIWA 557 Project and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Australia’s largest iron ore deposits are 1 billion years younger than we thought – https://theconversation.com/australias-largest-iron-ore-deposits-are-1-billion-years-younger-than-we-thought-235089

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sanaa Hobeichi, Research Associate, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

A new system for forecasting weather and predicting future climate uses artificial intelligence (AI) to achieve results comparable with the best existing models while using much less computer power, according to its creators.

In a paper published in Nature today, a team of researchers from Google, MIT, Harvard and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts say their model offers enormous “computational savings” and can “enhance the large-scale physical simulations that are essential for understanding and predicting the Earth system”.

The NeuralGCM model is the latest in a steady stream of research models that use advances in machine learning to make weather and climate predictions faster and cheaper.

What is NeuralGCM?

The NeuralGCM model aims to combine the best features of traditional models with a machine-learning approach.

At its core, NeuralGCM is what is called a “general circulation model”. It contains a mathematical description of the physical state of Earth’s atmosphere, and it solves complicated equations to predict what will happen in the future.

However, NeuralGCM also uses machine learning – a process of searching out patterns and regularities in vast troves of data – for some less well-understood physical processes, such as cloud formation. The hybrid approach makes sure that the output of the machine learning modules will be consistent with the laws of physics.

The resulting model can then be used for making forecasts of weather days and weeks in advance, as well as looking months and years ahead for climate predictions.

The researchers compared NeuralGCM against other models using a standardised set of forecasting tests called WeatherBench 2. For three- and five-day forecasts, NeuralGCM did about as well as other machine-learning weather models such as Pangu and GraphCast. For longer-range forecasts, over ten and 15 days, NeuralGCM was about as accurate as the best existing traditional models.

NeuralGCM was also quite successful in forecasting less-common weather phenomena, such as tropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers.

Why machine learning?

Machine learning models are based on algorithms that learn patterns in the data they are fed with, then use this learning to make predictions. Because climate and weather systems are highly complex, machine learning models require vast amounts of historical observations and satellite data for training.

The training process is very expensive and requires a lot of computer power. However, after a model is trained, using it to make predictions is fast and cheap. This is a large part of their appeal for weather forecasting.

The high cost of training and low cost of use is similar to other kinds of machine learning models. GPT-4, for example, reportedly took several months to train at a cost of more than US$100 million, but can respond to a query in moments.

A weakness of machine learning models is that they often struggle in unfamiliar situations – or in this case, extreme or unprecedented weather conditions. To do this, a model needs to be able to generalise, or extrapolate beyond the data it was trained on.

NeuralGCM appears to be better at this than other machine learning models, because its physics-based core provides some grounding in reality. As Earth’s climate changes, unprecedented weather conditions will become more common, and we don’t know how well machine learning models will keep up.

Nobody is actually using machine learning-based weather models for day-to-day forecasting yet. However, it is a very active area of research – and one way or another, we can be confident that the forecasts of the future will involve machine learning.

Sanaa Hobeichi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. AI-powered weather and climate models are set to change the future of forecasting – https://theconversation.com/ai-powered-weather-and-climate-models-are-set-to-change-the-future-of-forecasting-235186

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Warwick Smith, Honorary Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Reports in The Australian suggesting Treasurer Jim Chalmers has shelved his budget wellbeing framework, known as Measuring What Matters, are incorrect.

The framework is alive and well, and making steady (if slow) progress.

Also reported was the Coalition’s intention to scrap the framework if it wins the next election, with its treasury spokesman Angus Taylor quoted as saying the government should instead focus on “lower inflation and lower interest rates”.

The idea that we shouldn’t be thinking about broader measures of progress because we need to concentrate on what’s in front of us impoverishes our view of what’s possible.

It’s important to measure what matters

The cost of living is certainly paramount. But if all we ever do is address the issue immediately in front of us, we will forever stumble from one crisis to the next.

Actually, if we had had a wellbeing framework in place before the current cost of living crisis, it might have been less likely to develop.

Most of us would agree that the things in the government’s Measuring What Matters framework matter, such as security, prosperity and cohesiveness.

But some of the information in last year’s statement was dated, some dating back to the years before COVID.

The framework has two parts: a measurement dashboard and a statement.

The dashboard presents data on 50 “key indicators” the treasury believes should supplement (although not replace) the standard measures of economic progress.

The statement is a report of the outcomes presented in the dashboard and of government progress toward embedding the framework in decision-making.

Last month Treasurer Chalmers announced responsibility for the dashboard would move from the treasury to the Bureau of Statistics and that the Bureau would get extra funding to run an expanded general social survey every year to improve the quality and timeliness of the data.

The statement would remain the responsibility of the treasury but would be released only every three years instead of annually. The next would be published in 2026 incorporating the first results from the bureau’s new survey.

Framework already kicking goals

Discovering we don’t collect regular and timely data on these important measures and then funding the Bureau of Statistics to do so is a demonstration that the framework is already having an impact.

The critical test will be how it is used to improve decision-making.

It hasn’t yet resulted in any radical change, but the ambition is substantial.

Shifting the way governments make decisions and allocate resources is hard, and it was was never going to be accomplished in a single year.

By handing over the data side of things to the Bureau of Statistics, the treasury will now, hopefully, be able to focus more on embedding the framework into decisions, including budget decisions.

Prioritising prevention

One of the things the treasury team is working on is how to better prioritise early intervention and prevention programs for Australians at risk. Such measures are hard to justify under the old budget rules, but can they can improve outcomes and save the government money in the long run.

International and Australian studies have identified four key ways of ensuring the government is working to deliver the kinds of outcomes we expect from it:

1. holistic thinking and breaking down silos between types of wellbeing

2. a long-term focus that includes consideration of future generations

3. emphasis on prevention to tackle the root causes of problems

4. including the people most likely to be affected by decisions in their design.

They are directed towards delivering the kind of society we want to live in and to do it smartly and efficiently within a budget context.

According to the framework, that’s a society that is healthy, secure, sustainable, prosperous and cohesive. The government remains on the case.

Warwick Smith is a Program Director at the Centre for Policy Development and the Chair of the Castlemaine Institute.

– ref. Despite what you’ve read, Jim Chalmers’s wellbeing framework hasn’t been shelved – if anything, it’s been strengthened – https://theconversation.com/despite-what-youve-read-jim-chalmerss-wellbeing-framework-hasnt-been-shelved-if-anything-its-been-strengthened-235194

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula Lorgelly, Professor of Health Economics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Associate Health Minister David Seymour’s recent letter of expectations to drug buying agency Pharmac could fundamentally change the way the organisation makes decisions. Some of these changes could also make Pharmac’s job harder and its decisions more unpopular.

The letter has received considerable coverage due to the minister’s expectation that Pharmac pay less attention to embedding te Tiriti o Waitangi in the health sector. This has already seen the departure of one director.

But some of Seymour’s other expectations have received less scrutiny than they deserved.

Pharmac currently has one core job (its statutory objective): to secure the best health outcomes within the amount of funding provided.

Seymour’s letter calls for a reform of the funding model to account for “positive fiscal impacts”. This would require a change in Pharmac’s statutory objective and could end up hurting more than helping some New Zealanders.

Considering productivity

Pharmac evaluates new medicines by looking at their cost and any savings they might make to the rest of the health system. This is then compared with the additional health gains of the new medicine.

Currently, a medicine is funded when it delivers sufficient value and there is the budget for it. If the medicine doesn’t deliver enough value, or if Pharmac can’t currently afford it, it goes on their options for investment list.

In his letter, Seymour asked Pharmac to ensure it:

Updates its decision-making and evaluation models to include the wider fiscal impact of funding or not funding a medicine or medical device to the whole of government, and has tools to consider the wider societal impact.

Pharmac is being asked to consider a drug’s impact on economic productivity. This means assessments would consider whether a medicine helps people remain at work because they don’t get sick, or helps return them to work after an illness.

Globally, 60% of drug agencies consider the broader impacts of medicines to varying degrees, but there’s no clear agreement on the best approach. Some countries include the costs and health outcomes of caregivers or parents while others look at time away from work.

Time away from work – lost productivity – can be measured using a “friction cost” approach (which counts the hours not worked until another employee takes over a sick person’s work), or a “human capital” approach (where the indirect cost is the amount of time lost due to illness, valued at the market wage).

But there is a risk those who aren’t considered “productive” and those in low-wage jobs could be deemed less important to treat. This could include older people, those with disabilities and their carers, those with conditions that mean they might never work, and those facing discrimination in the workplace (women, Māori and Pasifika, for example).

If Pharmac is to consider productivity, then the government needs to acknowledge this could exacerbate existing inequities.

Greater patient involvement

An international study published in 2021 recognised Pharmac for it’s openly consultative practice in developing its “factors for consideration” model.

But in his letter of expectations, Seymour says he expects Pharmac to do more to involve patient groups and whānau participation in the decision-making process.

This sounds positive, but it could trigger more involvement from the pharmaceutical industry. Many patient advocacy groups receive funding from industry organisations. A recent Australian study found AU$34 million had been provided to patient organisations by pharmaceutical companies over a four-year period, often when the companies’ drugs were under review for public reimbursement.

These sorts of conflict of interest will need to be managed, particularly in a country with a very active lobbying sector and few safeguards, even at the highest levels of government.

Separation of roles

Pharmac is also asked to consider separating the roles of value assessment and procurement. According to the minister:

The organisation might […] benefit from a more functionally separate procurement process.

Having both roles allows Pharmac to negotiate more effectively with the pharmaceutical industry – something unique to New Zealand. Separating them potentially risks Pharmac’s ability to negotiate, by limiting how information about value can be used.

Currently, Pharmac actively manages the pharmaceutical schedule in their role as a purchaser. They use a range of pricing and negotiation strategies.

Many of the less cost-effective treatments go on the options for investment list in the hope that a deal can be worked out later. Pharmac negotiates deals to fund these slightly lower-value medicines by getting a better deal on other treatments.

This might involve bundling products from the same pharmaceutical company or negotiating a lower price for an upcoming tender for a more widely-used drug.

If assessment is separated from procurement, these sorts of deals are unlikely to happen. This means Pharmac will need to say “no” to funding a given item more often due to its limited budget, and each of these decisions risks causing more problems for the government.

The part of Pharmac (or another agency) doing the value assessment would no longer be able to ask if a treatment is affordable. Instead, it will have to decide how much each year of healthy life is worth, and use this in its decision making.

Companies will increase the price of new drugs to match this new figure, which makes even the better-value drugs more expensive, and increases pressure on the limited pharmaceutical budget.

Paula Lorgelly consults to Pharmac and has in the past consulted to the pharmaceutical industry. She receives funding from the Ministry of Health and the EuroQol Foundation. Paula is a member of the EuroQol Group which owns the EQ-5D instrument which is widely used in health technology assessments.

Richard Edlin consults to Pharmac and has in the past consulted to the pharmaceutical industry.

– ref. Dear Pharmac – do things differently: what David Seymour’s expectations could mean for the drug-buying agency – https://theconversation.com/dear-pharmac-do-things-differently-what-david-seymours-expectations-could-mean-for-the-drug-buying-agency-234897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Trigg, Researcher and Lecturer in Public Health, Flinders University

Vaping is in your news feed for its regulation, impact on public health and effects on young people.

So with growing awareness of the effects of vaping on health plus recent reforms to limit availability of vapes to pharmacies in Australia, many people will be thinking about quitting. They will also need support to do so.

That’s partly because so many vapes contain nicotine. Some 73% of Australians who currently vape said their last vape contained nicotine. This tends to be high-strength nicotine.

Mental health is another factor closely linked to vaping – whether people with mental health symptoms are likely to start vaping in the first place, how they fare when vaping, and whether they need additional support when trying to quit.

Here’s what we know about how mental health is connected to vaping and where to go for support to quit.

How are mental health and vaping linked?

An estimated 4.3 million Australians reported a mental health problem in the past 12 months. This includes anxiety and mood disorders (such as depression), which typically begin in adolescence to early adulthood.

We know vaping and mental health (including anxiety and depression) are linked. People who vape frequently are twice as likely to have a depression diagnosis compared with people who have never vaped.

Australia’s National Drug Strategy Household Survey also shows people with more mental distress related to anxiety and depression were four times as likely to have vaped than were those with low distress.

And for those already with a mental health problem, vaping is related to worse depression symptoms and physical health.

The relationship between nicotine-containing vapes and mental health is complicated. People in mental distress can be more likely to start vaping and people who vape are more likely to have mental health problems. What this doesn’t tell us is which comes first. So we need longer-term studies to find out more.

What about self-medicating with vapes?

Some people link using nicotine-containing vapes with managing mental health or stress. For instance, in an Australian survey including questions about the expected benefits of vaping:

• 61% of young adults who vaped feel it helps people calm down when tense or stressed

• 57% said it cheers people up when in a bad mood

• 50% said it helps people feel better if they’ve been feeling down.

In other studies, people who vape say it can be a way to address anxiety, depression or stress.

But rather than addressing these symptoms, vaping can increase them.

For instance, a study in the United States found vaping dependence was linked with increased symptoms of depression. We also know from smoking research that quitting can improve mental health.

Does mental health affect quitting?

The evidence related to mental health outcomes from vaping is in its early stages. And if people have a mental health condition, what this means for quitting is under-researched.

But we know stigma plays a role in both experiences of mental health and addiction, which may make asking for help to quit even more difficult.

We also know having a mental health condition can increase the odds of relapsing after trying to quit vaping.

So what works to quit?

We have little evidence and guidance for the best way to support people who vape to quit, generally. There’s even less evidence on how to support people with mental health conditions to quit.

There are quit vaping programs for people with mental health conditions. And as receiving mental health support does boost the odds of success in quitting tobacco smoking, this may also hold promise for quitting vaping.

Although the evidence is still growing, experts recommend quit plans consider someone’s severity of mental illness, the impact of nicotine use and withdrawal, and whether medications for their mental illness interact with ones used to help them quit vaping.

Cognitive behavioural therapy is a type of psychological therapy that looks at how thoughts, behaviours and emotions are connected. This is an effective approach to support people to quit smoking and its principles can be combined with quit medications to help people quit vaping. People with a mental health condition who vape can be offered cognitive behavioural therapy to help them quit, though specific evidence is still needed to show how well this works.

Psychologists and counsellors can also use motivational interviewing to highlight discrepancies between someone’s actions and values. For instance, this might be used to highlight the discrepancy between someone who wants to be healthy for their family (their value) but who vapes regularly (their action). This, combined with education, may motivate people to act and see a future without vaping.

Health providers and counsellors can offer brief advice on how to quit, extrapolating from what works for quitting smoking. Services such as Quitline can also help mental health providers deliver quit support.

How do I find out more?

If you or someone you know wants to quit vaping, whether or not there are mental health concerns, resources include:

• My QuitBuddy app
• Quitline or 13 7848
• Kids Helpline or 1800 55 1800
• 13YARN or 13 92 76
• Headspace or 1800 650 890
• ReachOut
• Beyond Blue or 1300 22 4636
• Head to Health or 1800 595 212.

More reading on the impact of vaping on adolescent mental health is also available.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Joshua Trigg is supported by funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, and the Flinders Foundation. He has previously received funding support from The Australian Prevention Partnership, SA Health, Cancer Council SA and Cancer Council NT. No other funding sources or consultancy are declared, including from tobacco, e-cigarette or pharmaceutical companies.

Lavender Otieno is supported by funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and partially from the National Health and Medical Research Council. No other funding sources or consultancy are declared, including from tobacco, e-cigarette or pharmaceutical companies.

Anthony Venning does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Vaping and mental health are closely linked. That can make quitting even harder – https://theconversation.com/vaping-and-mental-health-are-closely-linked-that-can-make-quitting-even-harder-233450

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oliver A.H. Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University

If not the root of all evil, chemical pollution is surely responsible for a good chunk of it. At least, that’s how it feels sometimes when reading the news and the latest research.

From hormone disruptors in our rivers and drugs in our drinking water, to PFAS and microplastics just about everywhere, it seems there’s plenty to worry about.

The list of potential health effects is also scary. Pollution is linked to infertility, cancer, reduced immune function, and more.

So it’s not surprising many people feel chemicals are intrinsically bad, though that’s not the case. But how worried should we really be, and can we reduce the risks?

In the air we breathe

Globally, pollution is a serious problem – particularly air pollution.

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health estimates pollution is responsible for about 9 million deaths a year and economic losses in the trillions of dollars.

The burden of disease falls heavily on developing countries, but even in Australia air pollution causes significant harm.

Fortunately, we can monitor air pollution, even at home. We know what levels are dangerous, and how to reduce exposure. But what about things we can’t monitor, or know less about?

The water we drink

In June, the Sydney Morning Herald implied tap water throughout Australia was contaminated with alarming levels of PFAS. But the levels detected fall within Australia’s drinking water guidelines. They just happen to exceed the United States’ new safety thresholds, which don’t come in for five years.

PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of highly persistent chemicals characterised by carbon-fluorine bonds.

Although PFAS in your water sounds awful, we don’t know if water is the main route of exposure or what the actual risks are.

PFAS is also in dust, cookware, waterproof clothing, cosmetics, and other consumer products.

The presence of PFAS is an emotive subject, thanks to films such as Dark Waters and documentaries like How to Poison a Planet.

Found everywhere from Mount Everest to the ocean depths, PFAS have been associated with negative health effects including cancer and reduced immune response.

What is generally missing from both research papers and news reports is context – details on the dose and duration of exposure needed to cause such effects.

The levels of PFAS needed to cause health effects tend to be orders of magnitude higher than those typically found in the environment. So while it’s not great that we’ve polluted the entire planet with these compounds, the health risks for most of us are likely to be low.

New technologies are being developed to reduce PFAS in water and soil.

But given their widespread distribution and extreme persistence, we should perhaps reevaluate PFAS risks and regulations (as the National Health and Medical Research Council is doing).

If you want to reduce your exposure, you can consider using water filters and avoid non-stick pans and other products that contain PFAS.

Many non-stick pans now boast they are PFAS-free. Sadly this is not always the case. Ceramic pans can be a good, PFAS-free option, but these are actually silica-based and may not last as long.

And the food we eat

Everyone knows pesticides give you cancer right? Well, actually no. This is another area where public perception has jumped ahead of the science.

The usual suspect, glyphosate, is usually claimed to cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But this is a catch-all term covering more than 60 different types of lymphoma, which can vary significantly.

Multiple independent regulatory agencies worldwide list glyphosate as non-carcinogenic. A study of more than 54,000 people who applied pesticides for a living found no link to cancer.

Small amounts of pesticide residue are permitted on our food, but concentrations are in the parts per trillion (for reference, a trillion seconds is 31,710 years).

The evidence suggests parts per trillion of pesticides do not increase the risk of cancer in people. But if you want to reduce your exposure anyway, washing and cooking vegetables and washing fruit is a good way to go.

Microplastics are everywhere

Microplastics (plastic particles less than 5mm in diameter) are now found everywhere from the top to the bottom of the planet.

They have been reported in food and drink, including salt, seafood, various meats and plant-based proteins, fruit and vegetables as well as bottled and tap water.

Again, it sounds scary – but several reports of microplastics in food and blood have been firmly criticised by other scientists. The widely (mis)reported claim that we eat a credit card’s worth of microplastic each week was debunked by YouTuber Hank Green.

The World Health Organization recently concluded evidence of the health effects of microplastics is insufficient. However, they also make the point that this is not the same as saying microplastics are safe. We need more data to understand the risks.

Avoiding plastic bottles and food packaging can reduce exposure, as can having hard floors rather than carpets, and regular vacuuming.

We need new recycling technology to reduce plastic waste. Ultimately, we may need to wean ourselves off plastic entirely.

Where to from here?

I am not suggesting we should not worry about pollution – we should. But just because something is present does not automatically mean it is causing harm. To my mind, air pollution is the biggest worry so far, with more proven health effects than microplastics or PFAS.

Scary headlines generate clicks, views and likes but they rarely reflect the science.

We must understand relative exposure and the nuances of risk assessment. We need sensible debate, evidence-based approaches and new techniques for monitoring and assessing the impacts of, low (parts per trillion) pollutant concentrations.

This should help prevent and mitigate potentially harmful exposures in future.

Oliver A.H. Jones receives funding from the Australian Research Council, various water utilities, EPA Victoria and the Defence Science Institute for research into environmental pollution, including PFAS.

– ref. Environmental pollution and human health – how worried should we be? – https://theconversation.com/environmental-pollution-and-human-health-how-worried-should-we-be-233819