Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist; Clinical Researcher, University of Sydney

Australia is in its busiest month for short-term overseas travel. And there are so many things to consider when planning your trip. Unfortunately, it’s easy to overlook the importance of pre-travel vaccinations.

That’s particularly the case for those visiting friends and relatives, who are less likely to get vaccinated before leaving the country. Unfortunately, this is also the group at greater risk compared to other travellers.

That’s because they generally stay longer, are more likely to travel to rural areas, eat or drink local or untreated food and water, and have closer contact with the local population.

Why are travel vaccines important?

Although infectious diseases exist everywhere, in some destinations there is a higher risk of becoming sick.

This can be due to tropical climates, the quality of water and sanitation, and insects or animals that carry diseases. This is alongside declining vaccination rates in children and low vaccine uptake in adults (for instance, for the flu vaccine) globally.

Getting sick overseas can at best, interrupt your holiday plans, or at worst, lead to serious illness and having to navigate foreign health systems.

Which vaccines should I think about?

The first group of vaccines are routine ones, not specific to travel (for example, the measles or flu vaccine).

The next group are specific to the risk of infectious disease where you’re travelling (for example, typhoid vaccine) or related to a person’s health or planned activities.

Finally, some vaccines might be required by law (for example, a yellow fever vaccine, or vaccines for travellers to Mecca). These will require evidence you’ve had them for entry to some countries.

Measles

Measles is a highly infectious virus that can cause severe illness. It can transmit easily in public spaces such as shopping centres or on aeroplanes.

There are outbreaks globally. This includes in Australia, where cases are mainly linked to people returning from overseas, including from popular holiday destinations in Southeast Asia.

So ensure you’re vaccinated with two doses of the measles vaccine. You may not know if you had two doses as a child. So you should check your vaccine records or with your GP. If you’re still unsure, it’s safe to have another dose, particularly if you’re planning to travel overseas.

Measles vaccines are given to children in Australia at one year of age, but young infants are at highest risk of severe disease and death. That is why Australia currently provides an extra, free measles vaccine for infants from six months of age if they are going overseas.

The flu

Flu remains one of the most common causes of infection in travellers. Most people know they should get a flu vaccine during autumn or winter.

However, the vaccine best protects against disease for about three to four months. So another dose is recommended for people heading into the Northern Hemisphere winter.

Read more:
Flu shots: how scientists around the world cooperate to choose the strains to vaccinate against each year

Hepatitis A

Hepatitis A is a viral infection of the liver. It spreads through contaminated food or water, or through contact with an infected person. It’s common in many parts of the world.

A vaccine is available that can be given from one year of age. Two doses, given at least six months apart, provides lifetime protection against disease.

Typhoid

Typhoid is a bacterial disease that can cause high fevers and abdominal pain. Complications such as brain inflammation occur in 10-15% of people.

It is most commonly acquired in people travelling to Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Typhoid, like hepatitis A, is spread through contaminated food and water.

There are two types of typhoid vaccines: an injection (which can be given from two years of age and is safe in people who are immunocompromised) and an oral vaccine (for people over six years of age).

Rabies

Rabies is caused by a virus that spreads when an infected animal bites or scratches. Dogs are the main carrier of the virus, but any mammal can be infected, including bats, monkeys and cats. Rabies is almost always fatal.

People who are bitten or scratched by a land mammal overseas or bat anywhere need urgent treatment (called “post-exposure prophylaxis”) to prevent getting rabies.

This treatment needs to given as soon as possible after the bite or scratch. But access overseas can be difficult, particularly in remote areas.

Rabies vaccination before you travel can reduce the need for this post-exposure prophylaxis or can simplify your treatment if you’re bitten or scratched by an infected animal.

So a two- or three-visit vaccination course is recommended before travel.

Other vaccines

Other vaccines include those against:

• mosquito-borne diseases yellow fever and Japanese encephalitis.

• cholera, a cause of severe diarrhoea

• mpox, which is recommended for sexually active gay, bisexual or other men who have sex with men. It is also recommended for anyone (regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity) who is planning overseas travel with the intention of having sex with sex workers or in a country where a type of the virus known as clade I is circulating.

How do I find out more?

See your GP or a travel doctor to find out how to stay healthy on your trip, including which vaccines are recommended for you. This will be based on your travel destinations, planned activities, and baseline health. Many vaccines are also available at pharmacies.

You might have to pay for some pre-travel vaccines. But this is usually a relatively small cost on top of what you’ve already spent on flights, accommodation and activities, and will mean less chance of disrupting your trip.

Archana Koirala is the chair of the Vaccination Special Interest Group and a committee member of the Australia and New Zealand Paediatric Infectious Diseases Network within the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.

Phoebe Williams receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, and The Gates Foundation.

Anthea Katelaris 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. I’m heading overseas. Do I really need travel vaccines? – https://theconversation.com/im-heading-overseas-do-i-really-need-travel-vaccines-269495

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Maslow, Associate Professor, International Relations, Contemporary Japanese Politics & Society, University of Tokyo

Though China and Japan are experienced in dealing with diplomatic crises, relations between the two neighbours appear to have reached a new low. And this time, their conflict may not be easily resolved.

What’s behind the latest crisis and what’s driving the escalation?

The current round of tensions was triggered by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks in the Diet (Japanese parliament) on November 7, suggesting a move by Beijing to use military force against Taiwan would trigger a Japanese military intervention.

Presented as a “worst-case scenario”, such a Chinese attempt would constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, she said, justifying its right to collective self-defence to support its US security ally in restoring peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

Diplomatic crisis

Taiwan was a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945. Later, it harboured Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists after their defeat by Mao Zedong’s communist troops in 1949.

Today, Beijing considers Taiwan a province of China, though it has never been under the Communists’ rule. Statements to the contrary are considered an intervention in China’s domestic affairs, crossing a red line for Beijing’s elite.

Demanding a swift retraction of Takaichi’s remarks and an apology, Beijing’s brigade of “wolf warrior diplomats” launched a war of words against her. With the Japanese prime minister not backing down, Beijing then retaliated with a mix of political, economic and military pressure.

China’s Communist leadership warned its citizens against travelling to Japan, and students were told to reconsider their plans there, apparently because of safety concerns. Imports of Japanese seafood were reduced or put on hold, while concerts and movie screenings featuring Japanese artists were cancelled.

China’s Coast Guard and Navy vessels also passed through the waters of the Senkaku islands, a territory administered by Japan but claimed by China as the Diaoyu islands.

Amid all this, an international campaign to blame Japan for the current crisis was rolled out to isolate Tokyo. A formal protest was issued to the UN, and in talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, global leaders were pressured to align with his Communist government against Japan.

The diplomatic turmoil reached a climax in early December with Chinese military planes directing their radars at Japanese fighter jets.

Tension spills into trade

China and Japan are key trading partners. This year alone, a fifth of Japan’s inbound tourism came from China. Beijing’s tightening the screws on Japan will therefore have a measurable impact on the Japanese economy. Some estimate the economic fallout could reach ¥2.2 trillion (A$14.2 billion).

Nevertheless, Beijing’s measures still fall short of past episodes of conflict between the two.

In the early 2000s, Japanese prime ministers’ pilgrimages to the Yasukuni war shrine and revisions of Japanese history textbooks triggered massive anti-Japanese protests across China.

In 2010, Beijing stopped exporting rare earth minerals to Japan in retaliation for Japanese authorities arresting a Chinese captain and his crew after they rammed their ship into a Japanese Coast Guard vessel.

Japan’s “nationalisation” of the disputed Senkaku islands in 2012, buying the isles from their private owner, triggered a significant increase in China’s military presence in the East China Sea.

In light of Japan’s wartime past and China’s economic and military rise, diplomatic disputes have been a default in Sino-Japanese relations since both countries normalised their ties in 1972.

Beijing and Tokyo, however, established a path that has skilfully avoided this from spilling over into trade and business. Japanese investments and economic aid were instrumental in driving China’s industrial modernisation, and both countries have developed close trade relations.

So, when relations hit a low in the 2000s, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a point by choosing Beijing as his first visit abroad in 2006, declaring a “mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests”.

Ever since, this wording has served as the broader framework for manoeuvring tensions in Sino-Japanese relations.

No off-ramp in sight

This time, however, de-escalation and a return to the status quo may not be as easily achieved.

Takaichi has portrayed herself as an arch-conservative who has inherited her mentor Abe’s policy agenda. She has pledged to restore a “strong Japan” by beefing up Tokyo’s defence capabilities and further strengthening the alliance with the United States.

The current dispute should not come as a surprise. Takaichi has established herself as a China hawk. She has repeatedly visited Taiwan, and in April this year called for a “quasi-security alliance” with Taipei. This reflects concerns in Tokyo that have linked the security of Taiwan directly to that of Japan, and put security across the Taiwan Strait at the centre of the US-Japan alliance.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, then-Prime Minister Kishida Fumio declared “Ukraine may be the East Asia of tomorrow,” explicitly putting Taiwan at the core of international security.

Already, Takaichi has announced plans to increase Japan’s defence budget to 2% of its GDP by the end of March 2026, two years ahead of schedule. To secure the financial resources, tax hikes are part of the discussion. A nation on alert against foreign threats will help temper opposition.

Supported by Taiwan’s leadership and large portions of the island’s public, Takaichi has used the standoff with Beijing to present herself as a resolute leader. She has also redirected the public’s focus away from her party’s past scandals to the current security crisis. Two months into office, her cabinet enjoys high support.

A quick end to the crisis is not in sight. Xi’s China is more powerful than it was a decade ago, leaving it with plenty of options to escalate tensions. The weaponisation of trade and increased military exercises are the tools Beijing will likely employ.

Yet, Japan has learned from past crises. Its supply chains have become more resilient. De-risking its investments and production away from China is an established strategy.

Takaichi’s current governing coalition also does not include the Komeito party, which has strong ties to Beijing. Within her Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), members of the old guard, such as Toshihiro Nikai, who maintained channels to Beijing’s elite, have lost their influence. Figures sceptical of China’s rise, such as Taro Aso, remain at the centre of the party.

With diplomatic channels in short supply and domestic political agendas paramount, an off-ramp for the current dispute is not in sight.

Most importantly, however, geopolitical transitions have created a new context for Sino-Japanese tensions to play out. A confident China has backed Russia in its war in Ukraine and claims leadership of the Global South. The Trump administration has undermined confidence in established US alliances, accelerating polarisation in the international system. Deterring China will become an increasingly difficult task.

Sebastian Maslow 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. Why tensions between China and Japan are unlikely to be resolved soon – https://theconversation.com/why-tensions-between-china-and-japan-are-unlikely-to-be-resolved-soon-271527

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Thompson, Lecturer in History and Communications, University of Southern Queensland

In a world that can seem increasingly digitised and isolating, board games offer a unique chance to connect with others. And over the holiday period, the right game can make all the difference while spending time with friends and family.

But board games are part of a multi-billion dollar industry, so it can be hard to decide which games to try out – or which ones to gift. Luckily I have some recommendations.

4,000 years of arguing over a die

Board games have been part of societies for at least 4,000 years. The Royal Game of Ur, which scholars discovered in the tombs of ancient Sumer (now modern-day Iraq), can be dated back to around 2500 BCE.

This not only showed board games as an integral part of ancient homelife, but something people held dear. From what archaeologists can glean from the re-discovered rules, the game involved moving pieces around a board (and probably inspired later games such as backgammon).

Meanwhile, in Mediterranean cultures such as Athens and Rome, dice games were often played at taverns, with people gambling on the results. Indeed, according to historian Karl Galinsky, the Roman Emperor Augustus “loved gaming, literally rolling the dice for hours”.

Today, tabletop games are a massive industry. Some games, such as Kingdom Death: Monster and Frosthaven, were boosted by millions of dollars raised through online crowdfunding campaigns

Modern board games can range from party games that can take about half an hour, to epic war games that can take a whole day. Australia has contributed significantly; one of the most critically-acclaimed board games of the 21st century, Blood on the Clocktower, was designed by Sydney-based Steven Medway.

The gift of gaming

For those prone to decision paralysis, there are a number of resource devoted to covering the vast range of board games available. These include critic channels such as Shut Up and Sit Down, as well as YouTube channels such as No Rolls Barred, where you can see various board games being played.

There are even online digital libraries such as Board Game Arena, where you can try games (including some of the list below) before you buy them.

With that said, here are my seven recommendations for anyone wanting to try out a new board game these holidays.

1. Sushi Go Party

This colourful, fast-paced game] has great art, and a “menu” that can be changed depending on the number of players (up to eight) and their familiarity with the game. Players win the game by creating the best combination of cards, depending on what’s available, by rotating the cards from player to player like a sushi train. It’s easy to learn, and relatively cheap.

2. Wavelength

In this party game, teams have to try and guess the location of a hidden target on a spectrum, using a clue from one “psychic” team member. The ends of the spectrum reflect two binaries, such as hot–cold or optional–mandatory, and the target falls somewhere in between.

The closer the team gets to where the psychic thinks the target should go, the more points they score. Wavelength is one of those games where no matter if your team gets it right or wrong, you can expect people to give their two cents.

3. Mysterium and Mysterium Park

In these team games, players play mediums seeking the counsel of another player – a ghost – who gives them clues to important information about murders in the house, including the ghost’s own murder.

The ghost offers the other players tarot cards with abstract artwork with which they must attempt to discern the murder weapon, location and culprit.

4. The Quacks of Quedlinburg

This game sees players take the role of potion makers at the local fair, who must push their luck by drawing ingredients out of a bag to make the best potions without them blowing up in their face. It’s simple to teach and hilarious when someone else blows up their cauldron (although arguably less when it’s you).

5. Modern Art

This is is one of the most celebrated games from board game designer luminary Reiner Knizia. Players are art dealers auctioning off beautiful paintings done by five professional artists. Players might even forget to play as they get caught up in simply admiring the pieces they are auctioning off.

Modern Art remains a fiendishly clever game that is easy to learn but hard to master.

6. Heat: Pedal to the Metal

This strategic racing game is based on 1960s Formula 1 racing. The base game boasts four tracks on two gorgeous boards, and lovely little cars that pass each other and risk spinning out around corners.

7. Nemesis

By far the most expensive (and complicated) game on this list, Nemesis can best be described as Alien: the board game.

Players have to move through a spaceship, discovering rooms and items as they go, taking care not to alert the horrific extraterrestrials that have managed to get onto the ship – represented by amazingly designed pieces. It’s a truly tense and fun experience for a full afternoon.

Matthew Thompson 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. An expert’s pick of the best board games to play (and gift) this summer – https://theconversation.com/an-experts-pick-of-the-best-board-games-to-play-and-gift-this-summer-270884

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Drew Rooke, Deputy Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

Most of us trust scientists. We believe they are not just competent, but honest as well.

This belief is well-founded. However, scientists are also human – and sometimes they can make mistakes. These mistakes can be accidental. But they can also be intentional, as the rising number of academic papers retracted on the grounds of scientific misconduct demonstrates.

Scientific misconduct – which includes data fabrication, falsification and misrepresentation, and is being fuelled by artificial intelligence – isn’t merely an academic problem. Medical studies based on misleading or falsified data, for example, can harm human health. In extreme cases, scientific misconduct can also prove fatal.

Different countries have different approaches to tackling this problem. Sweden and Denmark are often lauded as “world-leaders” for establishing independent bodies that have the power to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct.

Australia has no such body. It instead relies on a self-regulation model, whereby universities assess and investigate scientific misconduct cases involving their staff internally.

Should Australia follow the approach of its international peers and establish an independent body that has the power to investigate scientific misconduct cases? We asked five experts. Three answered yes. Even the two who answered no said Australia could do more to protect research integrity.

Disclosure statements

Jason Chin is a board member of the Association for Interdisciplinary Metaresearch and Open Science (AIMOS), a charity that seeks to study and improve science.

Dane McCamey is involved in overseeing research ethics and compliance at UNSW.

Jennifer Byrne receives funding from the NHMRC. She is the current recipient of the Professor David Vaux Research Integrity Fellowship (2025–2026) offered by the Australian Academy of Science. She is also a Research Integrity Advisor at the University of Sydney.

Ben W. Mol receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF, as well as international competitive grants.

Nicholas Fisk served as Dean Medicine and Health at the University of Queensland (2010-16) and DVC Research and Enterprise at UNSW (2016–24). He is a board member of the peak body Research Australia.

– ref. Should Australia establish an independent body to investigate scientific misconduct? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/should-australia-establish-an-independent-body-to-investigate-scientific-misconduct-we-asked-5-experts-270460

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By R. Evan Ellis, Latin America Research Professor, US Army War College

➡️ Click here to view the interactive visual feature mapping the US military in the Caribbean

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. Tracking the US build-up in the Caribbean – https://theconversation.com/tracking-the-us-build-up-in-the-caribbean-270155

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Engineering and Design, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

When the coalition government this week unveiled reforms to finally replace New Zealand’s Resource Management Act (RMA), many of us would have been glad to see the back of it.

I have encountered the frustrating complexities of this tired and unwieldy law over decades in architectural practice, as well as in various hearings at the Environment Court.

At one such hearing, a stack of paperwork beside the local MP stood taller than he did.

Even small things have become needlessly complex under the RMA. At my Auckland home, for instance, I found that building a small pergola, extending unobtrusively into my front yard, would trigger a resource consent process costing more than the pergola itself.

Now, we learn the 30-year-old RMA will make way for two new laws, due to be passed at the end of 2026 and operational by 2029. The Natural Environment Act and Planning Act will standardise zoning and national rules and make many more activities, such as my humble pergola, “permitted” and without needing resource consent.

It is clear the changes are pushing the planning system in a more permissive direction. But whether it will leave everyone equally satisfied – or, better put, equally unhappy – remains to be seen.

Why these ‘new’ reforms look familiar

As has widely been noted, aspects of the “once in a generation” reforms resemble the previous Labour government’s proposals, which also sought to break up the RMA into focused laws.

Both reforms have leaned heavily on spatial planning – guiding where development should and should not occur – and have aimed to be strategically better for cities and districts, while giving landowners, neighbours and developers more certainty.

Both governments have rightly also acknowledged that having more than 70 localised plans is excessive.

Dramatically cutting these down might prompt questions about local democracy and perhaps be seen as a form of “amalgamation by stealth”. But a reduction to 17 is broadly sensible for a nation of 5.3 million people and can also be responsive to geographical, climate and community differences.

The biggest shift from Labour’s model is its stronger emphasis on property rights, and permissive zoning and rules.

That said, the RMA was never as prohibitive as it has often been framed. It has enabled us to do almost anything, so long as we do not cause significant adverse effects and that we mitigate them if we do. But at a cost in time and money.

What is changing now is the threshold for scrutiny. Far more activities will become permitted outright, and fewer effects will be assessed. And with councils now required to compensate landowners if their rules significantly restrict development, the incentives appear obvious.

With new spending limits and a cap on rates increases, councils will not want to trigger compensation, turning the regime into a stick that nudges them towards more liberal zoning from the start.

Beware the double-edged sword

Like Labour before it, the government is selling its reforms as easier, faster and cheaper. House alterations will cost less, building work will speed up, and starting a small business will require jumping through fewer hoops.

It is true that everyday activities, such as a home extension or opening a new café, will face fewer hurdles. But the new regime can appear like a double-edged sword, depending which side of the fence you are on. We don’t like restrictions on what we can do, but we are quite keen on restricting the neighbouring development that may affect us.

The current system weighs strongly on written approvals from neighbours and, depending on the scale of development, broader consultation. If a proposal doesn’t progress past council level, it can be appealed at the Environment Court, by anyone.

This makes for a time-consuming and expensive process, and the party with the deepest pockets and most consultants usually wins. On the other hand, a more permissive system means fewer affected parties can have a say.

Then there are the broader patterns that an emphasis on property rights may encourage, such as enabling more urban sprawl. If farmers or horticultural operators on the rural fringe sell to developers, the result could be large new suburbs on land that currently feeds our cities and earns export dollars.

Is this strategically good for a town or city?

The real test: speed versus quality

With the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill both now out in the public domain, the devil is likely to lie within their hundreds of pages of detail. The latter bill will surely lean heavily on resource use and economic growth.

Looking at the government’s wider RMA reform programme, it appears those “faster, cheaper and easier” processes will benefit many smaller projects.

But for larger developments, the trade-offs become sharper. Speed may help the economy and government coffers, but how do we ensure quality in the built environment? In design, we often say everyone wants it good, cheap and fast – but you can only ever have two. Cheap and fast rarely equate to good.

It is also worth asking who stands to gain from this shift. The likely winners are infrastructure developers and large businesses.

The likely losers: iwi, local communities and councils, which will have less influence under stronger central direction, as well as the environment and climate action, which risk being sidelined as rules are liberalised.

Ultimately, the question remains whether these reforms tip the scales toward a small number of winners, or make – as any balanced system tends to do – everyone equally unhappy.

Bill McKay 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. Faster, cheaper … but better? The devil in the resource management reform detail – https://theconversation.com/faster-cheaper-but-better-the-devil-in-the-resource-management-reform-detail-271839

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

Poo anxiety, bashful bowels, shy bowel syndrome: they’re all terms for what’s medically known as parcopresis or difficulty pooping when you’re not at home. The Germans have given a name to this condition: Heimscheißer (pronounced “heimscheisser”), which means “home shitter”.

Sufferers experience distress and anxiety at the mere thought of having to use a toilet at school, work or any public place. Some may even find it hard to poop while on holidays.

If forced to use a toilet away from home, sufferers might experience a racing heartbeat, excess sweating, nausea, tremors and difficulty passing a bowel movement.

Poo anxiety sufferers will sometimes eat less food or even avoid certain social activities that might expose them to needing to use a public toilet.

How common is it?

Poo anxiety seems to be quite common. One study of 714 Australian university students found just over 14% avoided a public toilet because of anxiety-related concerns. Another 3% avoided a public toilet because of a fear of contamination.

Poo anxiety is often triggered by an overwhelming fear of perceived scrutiny. A study involving 316 Australian university students found the most common reason leading to poo anxiety was the fear of being negatively perceived for their bowel motions. For instance, people feared others would think they took too long to pass a bowel motion or worried about the sounds and smells produced along the way.

Psychologists consider poo anxiety to be a type of social anxiety disorder. Research has found sufferers tend to have negative thoughts about themselves, such as “If I fail at my work, then I am a failure as a person”.

At the end of the day, people with poo anxiety fear being judged by others.

What are the dangers of poo anxiety?

Holding in a poo can lead to it becoming harder and drier in the colon, as more water is absorbed from it. This can lead to problems with chronic constipation.

Chronic constipation increases the risk of problems such as:

• bleeding from haemorrhoids

• pain from anal fissure (tears in the lining of the anus) and

• rectal prolapse (where a bit of the colon slips out through the anus).

This, over time, can lead to faecal incontinence.

One striking case in the United Kingdom described a teenage girl who reportedly had such a phobia of using the toilet, she would frequently withhold her poo for up to two months.

This led to a massive colon full of poo, which eventually compressed her chest cavity. That led to a heart attack and her unfortunate death at the age of 16.

Education around proper toileting

Proper education around toileting behaviour is part of the treatment for poo anxiety.

For example, the time that you spend on the toilet is important. One Turkish study found spending more than five minutes on the toilet was associated with haemorrhoids and anal fissures. People with poo anxiety are more prone to suffering from these complications of constipation, which may make the poo anxiety even worse.

Getting enough dietary fibre is important because it makes your poo softer and easier to pass. This can reduce the stress around passing a bowel motion.

In Australia, the minimum daily dietary fibre requirements for adult men is 30 grams per day and 25 grams per day for adult women.

One useful practice for healthy and regular bowel movements that I advocate for patients is the “SEN” technique:

• six-minute toilet sitting maximum

• enough fibre (eating more fruit and vegetables, and eating wholegrains)

• no straining while pooping (it should slip out fairly effortlessly).

It also helps to stay hydrated and to be conscious of medications such as opiates that can worsen constipation.

Awareness of proper toileting behaviour is important for those suffering from poo anxiety as they may become unduly fixated on their bowel motions. They may end up not adopting basic lifestyle measures that could really help make bowel motions easier all round.

Psychological treatment

Cognitive behavioural therapy is recommended as first line of treatment for poo anxiety sufferers. It can help identify and address negative thinking patterns.

Often, people take a graded exposure approach. This involves a structured step-by-step process where the sufferer confronts increasingly difficult public toilet situations to reduce anxiety and build confidence.

The most important thing to do in overcoming poo anxiety is to seek the help of a trained health professional.

Start by speaking to your doctor, who can assess whether your symptoms are likely to be from poo anxiety or potentially from another serious digestive problem. They can help prescribe medications that can help with constipation.

Your GP can also refer you to a psychologist who can arrange for cognitive behavioural therapy to help change negative thought patterns.

Routinely holding in poo is not good for you. If you’re feeling stressed about pooing at work, school or while travelling, it is worth taking the time to understand why and tackle the problem.

Vincent Ho 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. Can you only poo at home? A gastroenterologist explains what the Germans call ‘heimscheisser’ – https://theconversation.com/can-you-only-poo-at-home-a-gastroenterologist-explains-what-the-germans-call-heimscheisser-269405

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

It’s common for Australians to use social media to find their next hike or swimming spot. And there’s a huge array of travel influencers willing to supply the #inspo for their next trip.

Many of these influencers create their content in a way that respects the environment and their followers. But unfortunately, not all #travelspo is made with such consideration.

My new research reveals how Australian travel and adventure influencers think about risk, responsibility and their role in shaping how their followers behave in natural environments.

Collectively, their accounts reach tens of thousands of people and prompt them to visit these parks in real life. Yet most influencers in my study saw themselves as entertainers, not educators.

And that distinction can have consequences, such as falls and drownings. People are risking their lives at cliff edges, mountain overhangs and around water. In fact, 379 people died taking selfies between 2008 and 2021.

‘Here to inspire, not teach’

I interviewed 19 Australian influencers aged 23–41 who specialise in travel and outdoor content.

Despite their large followings (up to 80,000), many rejected the idea they have a responsibility to overtly warn people about hazards.

As one put it:

“We’re not an education page. If you want [to know?] what you should and shouldn’t be doing, follow a National Parks page.”

Another explained that influencers are :

“just there to entertain.”

Influencers consistently distanced themselves from the expectation they should communicate safety information. Many argued it was up to followers to “do their own research” or take “personal responsibility” when attempting the difficult hikes, cliff-edge photos or waterhole jumps they had seen online.

A few admitted they would “feel guilty” if someone was injured imitating their content, but quickly neutralised that responsibility by noting there was no way to know whether their post had caused the behaviour.

Why downplay hazards?

Social media platforms reward spectacular content. Posts showing people on cliff edges, waterfalls, remote rock formations or narrow ledges outperform more banal imagery.

One influencer was blunt:

“People want to watch people do crazy things… not talk about risk.”

Others acknowledged they sometimes entered closed areas or assessed hazards themselves, dismissing signage unless they believed it related to environmental or cultural protection.

A national survey we conducted found that social norms – the sense that “everyone does this” or will admire it – strongly predicted risky behaviour outdoors. People were far more likely to climb out onto ledges or jump into waterfalls if they believed others would approve. How risky they thought the activity was barely seemed to matter.

Influencers also curate a platform-specific aesthetic: Instagram is “perfect”, TikTok more “raw”, but neither encourages long, careful explanations of risk. Detailed safety advice was described as “ruining the vibe” or diminishing the illusion that inspires engagement.

This creates a perverse incentive: the more dangerous the content looks, the better it performs, meaning influencers may unintentionally promote behaviours unsafe for many followers.

Online posts are trusted

Australians treat influencer content as a trusted source of outdoor inspiration.

Followers may assume a location is safe because an influencer went there and filmed it. This impression is strengthened by the influencers’ perceived authenticity — a form of experiential credibility that substitutes for formal expertise.

Influencers in my study acknowledged their posts can send large numbers of unprepared visitors to fragile or hazardous environments. Some refused to share exact locations for this reason. Others posted the image but omitted details to avoid encouraging inexperienced users to attempt risky spots.

But most still avoided overt safety messaging because it felt mismatched to their brand — or simply because posts that highlighted difficulty or danger “don’t perform well”.

As I’ve argued elsewhere, our increasingly curated experience of the outdoors – from manicured trails to social media-driven expectations – has weakened the sense of personal responsibility that once came with venturing into nature.

Influencer content amplifies this shift by presenting the outdoors as effortless, aesthetic and risk-free, even when the reality is very different.

Why this matters

This dynamic creates challenges for Australia’s national parks and land managers. My earlier research showed rangers are dealing with increased injuries, rescues and environmental strain linked to social media-driven visitation.

In my work with the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, I saw first-hand how social media funnels huge numbers of people into the same photogenic spots.

About a third of visitors said Instagram had influenced their decision to visit, and many described going “for the photo” rather than for the walk or the landscape itself. That behaviour often puts pressure on rangers and increases the likelihood of slips, falls and rescues.

Influencers hold enormous reach with audiences that official agencies often struggle to connect with. Many are open to collaborating – but only when safety messages can be delivered in ways that fit their storytelling style and personal brand.

As one influencer summed up:

“If it’s culturally sensitive or damaging to the environment, that’s where I draw the line. But safety – I’m happy to push the boundaries.”

Risk-taking gets rewarded

Influencers are not acting maliciously. They operate within a commercial and algorithmic system that rewards spectacle over nuance.

But understanding how they see their role helps explain why risky content thrives — and why followers may misjudge the real-world hazards behind the perfect shot.

If organisations want to reduce injuries and environmental pressures, engaging influencers through co-designed communication strategies may be essential. Because for many Australians, the journey outdoors now begins on a screen.

Samuel Cornell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship

– ref. Travel influencers ‘do crazy things’ to entertain us – and downplay the risks – https://theconversation.com/travel-influencers-do-crazy-things-to-entertain-us-and-downplay-the-risks-271400