Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Cullen, Adjunct Professor in Law, The University of Western Australia

Today Julian Assange walked out of the Federal Court Building in Saipan, North Marianas Islands, a free man. He pleaded guilty to one count of breaching the US Espionage Act.

With the court accepting his 62 months already spent in Belmarsh Prison as a sufficient sentence, he has no more case to answer, and no more sentence to serve.

However, this case leaves behind it a trail of unanswered legal questions and unresolved controversies. In particular, there are questions of fundamental human rights that can only now be addressed in future cases, if ever.

Can freedom of speech concerns stop extradition?

Once Assange had formally pleaded guilty, the US government’s lawyers announced they would immediately withdraw the request to extradite Assange from the UK.

That means the appeal that would have been heard later this year will not go ahead.

To recap, in May the UK High Court gave Assange the right to appeal the UK Home Secretary’s order for his extradition. This was granted on two grounds, both related to free speech.

Read more:
Julian Assange plea deal: what does it mean for the WikiLeaks founder, and what happens now?

The first ground of appeal accepted by the court was that extradition would be incompatible with Assange’s right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The second ground, related to the first, is that he would be discriminated against on the basis of his nationality because he could, as a non-citizen of the US, be unable to rely on First Amendment freedom of speech rights.

But as this appeal is no longer proceeding, the issue of whether a threat to the accused’s freedom of expression can stop extradition will therefore not be argued or decided. The European Court of Human Rights and other human rights bodies have never addressed this point. It’s unlikely to arise again soon.

An espionage precedent?

Also on freedom of expression, the relationship between the US Espionage Act and the First Amendment of the US Constitution remains an open question.

In today’s pleadings, Assange and the US government took different views on whether the exercise of freedom of expression should constitute an exception to the offences under the Espionage Act. Nonetheless, Assange accepted that no existing US case law established such an exception.

This leads to the question of whether today’s guilty plea establishes a precedent for prosecuting journalists for espionage.

In the strict legal meaning of precedent in common law, which refers to a binding judicial interpretation, it does not.

The judge made no determination on whether Assange or the US government was legally correct. However, the US government can now point to this case as an example of securing a conviction against a journalist under the Espionage Act.

The question of how much a non-national of the US can rely on the First Amendment likewise continues to be on the table. This issue would also have been addressed in the extradition appeal, as a question of whether Assange would be discriminated against on the basis of his nationality.

Detention or confinement?

Finally, today’s hearing revived the question of whether the time Assange spent in the Ecuadorian embassy between 2012 and 2019 counts as detention.

As the judge moved to determine whether the sentence of “time served” was a sufficient penalty for his offence, the US government insisted the judge could only consider the 62 months in Belmarsh.

Assange’s lawyers argued he had been detained for 14 years, including the period claiming asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. In 2016, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found Assange was arbitrarily detained in the embassy, largely because of the disproportionate length of time between his initial arrest and the date of the working group’s opinion, over five years.

The UK and Sweden both rejected the working group’s findings, which they do not regard as binding. Furthermore, the findings went beyond the established case law on arbitrary detention, which usually focus on issues of legality and fair process rather than duration. Only the dissenting member of the Working Group analysed the impact of Assange’s voluntary conduct on the length of his stay in the embassy.

Read more:
Julian Assange has been in the headlines for almost two decades. Here’s why he’s such a significant public figure

In today’s hearing, the judge referred to Assange’s “14-year ordeal” but accepted the time in Belmarsh alone was sufficient penalty. The judge considered this period, just over five years, comparable to the seven years served by Chelsea Manning, who had provided the documents to Assange.

It is also worth noting that Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, speaking on ABC Radio National, described Assange as “confined” in the Ecuadorian embassy, avoiding the legally significant term “detained”.

The legal status of Assange’s period in the embassy therefore remains ambiguous, despite the UN Working Group’s 2016 findings.

Today, the main story is that Assange no longer faces prosecution for espionage and is now free to return to his family. However, some of the legal issues emerging from this case remain tantalisingly unresolved.

Holly Cullen receives funding from a Deakin University HDR scholarship. She has been a volunteer for the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Julian Assange is free, but curly legal questions about his case remain – https://theconversation.com/julian-assange-is-free-but-curly-legal-questions-about-his-case-remain-233339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Williamson, Professor in Marine Fisheries Ecology, Macquarie University

Last summer, the Great Barrier Reef suffered its worst mass coral bleaching event. Our new data show the devastating damage the bleaching caused to a reef at Lizard Island – a finding that does not bode well for the rest of the natural wonder.

A colleague collected drone imagery from Lizard Island’s North Point Reef in March this year, and we replicated his image collection this month. The results show more than 97% of bleached corals on North Point Reef are now dead.

This is the first quantitative assessment of coral mortality from the last mass bleaching event. We don’t know how much coral died beyond this reef. But we do know that, according to other aerial surveys, almost one-third of the Great Barrier Reef experienced “very high” and “extreme” levels of coral bleaching last summer.

Clearly, if Australia wants to maintain the world-heritage status of the Great Barrier Reef – indeed, if it wants to preserve the reef at all – we must act now to prevent more coral deaths.

Measuring the damage

Bleaching occurs when corals expel algae from their tissues into surrounding waters, usually due to heat stress. It leaves the coral white, starved and more susceptible to disease. Some coral die immediately. Others may recover if conditions become more benign.

The Great Barrier Reef has experienced five mass bleaching events in the last decade – the most recent in March this year. It was the most severe and widespread mass bleaching event ever recorded there. The tragedy was part of the world’s fourth global coral bleaching event. That declaration was based on significant bleaching in both hemispheres of each ocean basin due to extensive ocean heat stress.

Not all bleached coral will die – it can bounce back. We wanted to find out how many corals affected by the March bleaching event were still alive three months later.

In March, George Roff at the CSIRO documented North Point Reef at Lizard Island using drone imagery. We replicated his imagery in June by also flying drones over the reef. We then snorkelled over the area to observe the situation first-hand.

The drones flew at an altitude of about 20 metres altitude and collected imagery at set times. We then joined the images into two large maps of the reef – one for March and one for June.

The first map showed corals were bleached or “fluorescing” – appearing brightly coloured as they released algae. The June map showed more than 97% of the same corals had died.

Four experts independently assessed the state of each coral in set areas on North Point Reef. This allows us to present our results at North Point with high certainty.

Looking ahead

The Australian Institute of Marine Science will reportedly release its annual report on coral reef conditions later this year. This week, UNESCO expressed “utmost concern” at mass coral bleaching and called on Australia to make public the extent of coral death “as soon as possible”.

Our data suggest an immediate action plan is needed to assess the extent of coral mortality on the Great Barrier Reef. It should include using remote sensing technologies, such as aerial drones and underwater remotely operated vehicles, to efficiently survey large areas. Both methods can provide standardised data and images of reefs, from shallow to deeper areas, which provide baseline data for future research.

Importantly, these data must be made accessible to those who wish to use it. Many scientists, tourists and commercial operators also collect data on the reef, and making all data freely available will help improve and update our understanding of reef health. This will ultimately lead to better decision-making.

We currently have more data than ever before about the Great Barrier Reef – and we need better systems to support open science. And if we are serious about maintaining reef health, Australians must take out international climate commitments seriously, and move quickly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Jane Williamson receives funding from The Great Barrier Reef Foundation for the Sea Cucumber Monitoring Project, as part of the Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Report Program (RIMReP).

Karen Joyce receives funding from the Great Barrier Reef Foundation as part of the Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Report Program (RIMReP). She is the co-founder of GeoNadir, where the drone mapping data have been processed, analyzed, and shared.

Vincent Raoult receives funding from the Great Barrier Reef Foundation as part of the Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Report Program (RIMReP).

– ref. New drone imagery reveals 97% of coral dead at a Lizard Island reef after last summer’s mass bleaching – https://theconversation.com/new-drone-imagery-reveals-97-of-coral-dead-at-a-lizard-island-reef-after-last-summers-mass-bleaching-233325

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassy Dittman, Senior Lecturer/Head of Course (Undergraduate Psychology), Research Fellow, Manna Institute, CQUniversity Australia

With around one in 50 adults diagnosed with cancer each year, many people are faced with the difficult task of sharing the news of their diagnosis with their loved ones. Parents with cancer may be most worried about telling their children.

It’s best to give children factual and age-appropriate information, so children don’t create their own explanations or blame themselves. Over time, supportive family relationships and open communication help children adjust to their parent’s diagnosis and treatment.

It’s natural to feel you don’t have the skills or knowledge to talk with your children about cancer. But preparing for the conversation can improve your confidence.

Preparing for the conversation

Choose a suitable time and location in a place where your children feel comfortable. Turn off distractions such as screens and phones.

For teenagers, who can find face-to-face conversations confronting, think about talking while you are going for a walk.

Consider if you will tell all children at once or separately. Will you be the only adult present, or will having another adult close to your child be helpful? Another adult might give your children a person they can talk to later, especially to answer questions they might be worried about asking you.

Finally, plan what to do after the conversation, like doing an activity with them that they enjoy. Older children and teenagers might want some time alone to digest the news, but you can suggest things you know they like to do to relax.

Also consider what you might need to support yourself.

Preparing the words

Parents might be worried about the best words or language to use to make sure the explanations are at a level their child understands. Make a plan for what you will say and take notes to stay on track.

The toughest part is likely to be saying to your children that you have cancer. It can help to practise saying those words out aloud.

Ask family and friends for their feedback on what you want to say. Make use of guides by the Cancer Council, which provide age-appropriate wording for explaining medical terms like “cancer”, “chemotherapy” and “tumour”.

Having the conversation

Being open, honest and factual is important. Consider the balance between being too vague, and providing too much information. The amount and type of information you give will be based on their age and previous experiences with illness.

Remember, if things don’t go as planned, you can always try again later.

Start by telling your children the news in a few short sentences, describing what you know about the diagnosis in language suitable for their age. Generally, this information will include the name of the cancer, the area of the body affected and what will be involved in treatment.

Let them know what to expect in the coming weeks and months. Balance hope with reality. For example:

The doctors will do everything they can to help me get well. But, it is going to be a long road and the treatments will make me quite sick.

Check what your child knows about cancer. Young children may not know much about cancer, while primary school-aged children are starting to understand that it is a serious illness. Young children may worry about becoming unwell themselves, or other loved ones becoming sick.

Older children and teenagers may have experiences with cancer through other family members, friends at school or social media.

This process allows you to correct any misconceptions and provides opportunities for them to ask questions. Regardless of their level of knowledge, it is important to reassure them that the cancer is not their fault.

Ask them if there is anything they want to know or say. Talk to them about what will stay the same as well as what may change. For example:

You can still do gymnastics, but sometimes Kate’s mum will have to pick you up if I am having treatment.

If you can’t answer their questions, be OK with saying “I’m not sure”, or “I will try to find out”.

Finally, tell children you love them and offer them comfort.

How might they respond?

Be prepared for a range of different responses. Some might be distressed and cry, others might be angry, and some might not seem upset at all. This might be due to shock, or a sign they need time to process the news. It also might mean they are trying to be brave because they don’t want to upset you.

Children’s reactions will change over time as they come to terms with the news and process the information. They might seem like they are happy and coping well, then be teary and clingy, or angry and irritable.

Older children and teenagers may ask if they can tell their friends and family about what is happening. It may be useful to come together as a family to discuss how to inform friends and family.

What’s next?

Consider the conversation the first of many ongoing discussions. Let children know they can talk to you and ask questions.

Resources might also help; for example, The Cancer Council’s app for children and teenagers and Redkite’s library of free books for families affected by cancer.

If you or other adults involved in the children’s lives are concerned about how they are coping, speak to your GP or treating specialist about options for psychological support.

Cassy Dittman receives funding from the Commonwealth-funded Manna Institute, which aims to improve place-based mental health research for regional, rural and remote Australia. She holds an Honorary Senior Research Fellowship with the Parenting and Family Support Centre, which is partly funded by royalties stemming from published resources of the Triple P – Positive Parenting Program, which is developed and owned by The University of Queensland (UQ). Royalties are also distributed to the Faculty of Health and Behavioral Sciences at UQ and contributory authors of published Triple P resources. Triple P International (TPI) Pty Ltd is a private company licensed by UniQuest Pty Ltd on behalf of UQ, to publish and disseminate Triple P worldwide. Cassy Dittman has no share or ownership of TPI, however as an author on Triple P Programs, she receives royalties from TPI.

Govind Krishnamoorthy receives funding from the Manna Institute, funded by a Commonwealth grant under the Regional Research Collaboration program. He has also received funding from Rotary Health Australia for research on mental health interventions for children in schools. Govind is a member of the Australian Psychological Society (MAPS) and a fellow of the APS College of Clinical Psychologists.

Marg Rogers receives research funding from the Manna Institute, funded by a Commonwealth grant under the Regional Research Collaboration program.

– ref. I’ve been diagnosed with cancer. How do I tell my children? – https://theconversation.com/ive-been-diagnosed-with-cancer-how-do-i-tell-my-children-228012

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Banks, Professor of Geography, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University

Minister of Resources and of Regional Development Shane Jones has been busy boosting the prospects of an expanded mining and oil industry in Aotearoa New Zealand. A new mining policy is “long overdue”, he has said, and will counter the country’s “excessive levels of environmental protection”.

Alongside his more colourful statements – that blind, endangered frogs might be sacrificed for exploration or mining developments – Jones has proposed amendments to the Crown Minerals Act and developed a new draft minerals strategy that is currently out for consultation.

The new strategy aims for ten significant new mining operations by 2045 and a doubling of export value (to NZ$2 billion). The strategy also calls for prioritising economic gain and regional development over environmental protections.

A list of “critical minerals” for exploration is being drafted, positioned as part of the “energy transition” made possible by green technologies. Given these bold claims, we need to be looking at what the evidence tells us is happening, and likely to happen in future.

The green transition conundrum

New Zealand’s ability to contribute to the green energy transition faces serious obstacles. According to the petroleum and minerals online database, only 15 out of 51 applications for new permits for mining or exploration in 2024 (to June) are not for gold.

Aside from permitting for aggregates such as roads and concrete, the few remaining applications are broadly speculative exploration and prospecting applications. These involve a long list of minerals (including gold), most of which are not critical to any green transition.

In fact, the minerals required in the largest volumes for this green transition are still iron ore, copper, nickel and bauxite – none of which we have in Aotearoa in significant quantities.

Costs and benefits

Leaving aside arguments in favour of mining for the greater good, then, what of the claims about generating jobs, business and taxes? Here the evidence that mining contributes to significant community gains or the national coffers is weak.

Ten years ago, when a previous National government proposed expanding mining access to conservation lands, economist Geoff Bertram showed the benefits were likely to be limited.

He argued that

the very high depreciation share in gold and silver [mining] implies low company income tax [and] income tax and royalties combined were only 4.4% of total output and 8.3% of value added for gold and silver mining, about 25% of net operating surplus.

Bertram also noted the sector was, as a whole, not a strong employment or income generator. Gold mining was the weakest on this score.

Part of the problem lies in the known variability and volatility of mineral commodity prices. This can either mean economic projections for new mining are too optimistic, or that returns will increase anyway due to market trends.

The price of gold has gone up by 81% (in New Zealand dollar terms) over the past five years, for example. If that continues, even current levels of gold production will double in value by 2035.

Furthermore, a mine of any kind is not an automatic panacea for a community’s economic woes. Waihi – a centre for gold mining in Aotearoa New Zealand for more than a century – lies in the Hauraki district which has some of the highest measures of socioeconomic deprivation in the Waikato region.

In this context, doubling of the value of exports by 2030 means little in an industry where commodity values fluctuate dramatically, and where the returns to local and national economies are typically a small fraction of the value of any mineral extracted.

Midas in Aotearoa

In 2022, to address what we saw as a disconnect between the rhetoric of the mining industry and the practices of many companies, a colleague and I proposed seven key behaviours a mining sector committed to sustainable development needs to adopt.

These included:

• recognising limits to where they should operate

• admitting rather than concealing faults

• accepting and respecting external regulation

• promoting transparency and independent monitoring

• adopting cleaner production technologies and processes

• embrace recycling

• and paying its way as a sector.

The final point is directly relevant to the current debate. We noted that while there is no “consistent line on what constitutes a ‘fair’ level of taxation […] the global industry has acquired a bad reputation for its handling of tax, royalties and transfer pricing”.

There is no evidence of real corruption within New Zealand’s mining sector. But as Geoff Bertram’s work showed, the state capturing just 4.4% of the value of minerals extracted would not be regarded as “fair” by most people.

As we also made clear in our manifesto, society needs mining, and mining itself is not inherently or necessarily rapacious. There are responsible operators, including New Zealand’s largest gold producer, OceanaGold, which has generally operated to global standards of transparency and environmental management.

But globally, risk is inherent to the sector. And risk tends to attract “cowboys”.
Anyone seduced, Midas-like, by stories of huge resources and wealth under Aotearoa New Zealand’s soil risks ending up as unhappy as the allegorical king.

Glenn Banks was, for a period of time, on the short-lived OceanaGold Advisory Group.

– ref. NZ’s government wants to kick-start a mining boom – but they’re unlikely to hit paydirt – https://theconversation.com/nzs-government-wants-to-kick-start-a-mining-boom-but-theyre-unlikely-to-hit-paydirt-232482

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

“Fart walks” have become a cultural phenomenon, after a woman named Mairlyn Smith posted online a now-viral video about how she and her husband go on walks about 60 minutes after dinner and release their gas.

Smith, known on TikTok as @mairlynthequeenoffibre and @mairlynsmith on Instagram, has since appeared on myriad TV and press interviews extolling the benefits of a fart walk. Countless TikTok and Instagram users and have now shared their own experiences of feeling better after taking up the #fartwalk habit.

So what’s the evidence behind the fart walk? And what’s the best way to do it?

Exercise can help get the gas out

We know exercise can help relieve bloating by getting gas moving and out of our bodies.

Researchers from Barcelona, Spain in 2006 asked eight patients complaining of bloating, seven of whom had irritable bowel syndrome, to avoid “gassy” foods such as beans for two days and to fast for eight hours before their study.

Each patient was asked to sit in an armchair, in order to avoid any effects of body position on the movement of gas. Gas was pumped directly into their small bowel via a thin plastic tube that went down their mouth, and the gas expelled from the body was collected into a bag via a tube placed in the rectum. This way, the researchers could determine how much gas was retained in the gut.

The patients were then asked to pedal on a modified exercise bike while remaining seated in their armchairs.

The researchers found that much less gas was retained in the patients’ gut when they exercised. They determined exercise probably helped the movement and release of intestinal gas.

Walking may have another bonus; it may trigger a nerve reflex that helps propel foods and gas contents through the gut.

Walking can also increase internal abdominal pressure as you use your abdominal muscles to stay upright and balance as you walk. This pressure on the colon helps to push intestinal gas out.

Proper fart walk technique

One study from Iran studied the effects of walking in 94 individuals with bloating.

They asked participants to carry out ten to 15 minutes of slow walking (about 1,000 steps) after eating lunch and dinner. They filled out gut symptom questionnaires before starting the program and again at the end of the four week program.

The researchers found walking after meals resulted in improvements to gut symptoms such as belching, farting, bloating and abdominal discomfort.

Now for the crucial part: in the Iranian study, there was a particular way in which participants were advised to walk. They were asked to clasp hands together behind their back and to flex their neck forward.

The clasped hands posture leads to more internal abdominal pressure and therefore more gentle squeezing out of gas from the colon. The flexed neck posture decreases the swallowing of air during walking.

This therefore is the proper fart walk technique, based on science.

What about constipation?

A fart walk can help with constipation.

One study involved middle aged inactive patients with chronic constipation, who did a 12 week program of brisk walking at least 30 minutes a day – combined with 11 minutes of strength and flexibility exercises.

This program, the researchers found, improved constipation symptoms through reduced straining, less hard stools and more complete evacuation.

It also appears that the more you walk the better the benefits for gut symptoms.

In patients with irritable bowel syndrome, one study increasing the daily step count to 9,500 steps from 4,000 steps led to a 50% reduction in the severity of their symptoms.

And just 30 minutes of a fart walk has been shown to improve blood sugar levels after eating.

What if I can’t get outside the house?

If getting outside the house after dinner is impossible, could you try walking slowly on a treadmill or around the house for 1,000 steps?

If not, perhaps you could borrow an idea from the Barcelona research: sit back in an armchair and pedal using a modified exercise bike. Any type of exercise is better than none.

Whatever you do, don’t be a couch potato! Research has found more leisure screen time is linked to a greater risk of developing gut diseases.

We also know physical inactivity during leisure time and eating irregular meals are linked to a higher risk of abdominal pain, bloating and altered bowel motions.

Try the fart walk today

It may not be for everyone but this simple physical activity does have good evidence behind it. A fart walk can improve common symptoms such as bloating, abdominal discomfort and constipation.

It can even help lower blood sugar levels after eating.

Will you be trying a fart walk today?

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. Why are people on TikTok talking about going for a ‘fart walk’? A gastroenterologist weighs in – https://theconversation.com/why-are-people-on-tiktok-talking-about-going-for-a-fart-walk-a-gastroenterologist-weighs-in-232152

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hamish Wilson, Associate Professor in General Practice, University of Otago

The emergence of Long COVID as a mysterious new illness has refocused attention on the incapacitating nature of persistent fatigue.

Around the world, this unexpected outcome of the pandemic is now a significant health issue causing considerable personal suffering, absences from work and high projected societal costs.

An added burden for Long COVID patients arises from medical scepticism and social stigma, which leads to self-doubt and shame.

So far, the focus has been on the lack of available treatments, implying there is no cure. But persistent fatigue also often accompanies chronic pain. Emerging understandings of the neurophysiology of pain and sensation now provide more optimism for people with Long COVID.

Similarities between Long COVID and chronic fatigue

The virus that causes COVID has infected 750 million people, many of whom died prior to mass vaccination. Most people fully recover from mild infections, but about 10% develop persistent and exhausting fatigue, including brain fog, as well as anxiety or breathlessness and a cluster of other symptoms.

Long COVID’s wide range of symptoms is similar to those in chronic fatigue syndrome, or myalgic encephalitis. Known as CFS/ME, this illness gained prominence in the 1970s as a relapsing condition after glandular fever, though we now know it can be triggered by other infections.

Recent insights from the burgeoning field of neuroscience now guide clinical management of chronic pain and may offer hope for people living with persistent fatigue.

The neuroscience of pain and sensation

Neuroscience is the study of the central and peripheral nervous system, a complex whole-body network that monitors and regulates all our internal functions, well below our conscious thought and control.

The fight-flight response in stressful situations is a useful example. Our attention becomes more focused, our heart beats faster and blood pressure increases to pump more blood to our muscles. We don’t need to think; it just happens.

The sensation of pain is now understood as a warning signal created by the nervous system in response to an actual or potential threat to our safety. The intensity of the pain signal depends not only on the physical injury but on our previous experiences and expectations.

Persistent pain often arises from a hyper-vigilant nervous system which perpetuates the warning signal. The underlying neurophysiology in persistent pain is known as “central sensitisation”. This term describes an overly sensitive warning system causing exaggerated pain signals even after damaged tissue has healed.

Central sensitisation depends on the phenomenon of neuroplasticity. Neurological pathways we use frequently become more established, efficient and dominant. In persisting pain and fatigue, the associated neural pathways become highly developed, even if this is counterproductive to normal functioning.

While neuroplasticity contributes to the development of unhelpful neurological pathways, the converse applies, too. Unhelpful pathways can be down regulated, improving symptoms.

Applying neuroscience to CFS/ME and Long COVID

These insights underpin the concept of pain neuroscience education. Pain clinics worldwide use it to teach patients about the nature of pain and its contributing factors, many of which are not under conscious control.

These explanations provide an essential framework for understanding how specific activities – including group education, physical retraining and identifying hidden beliefs – can facilitate recovery.

Research has shown how appropriately trained general practitioners can provide explanations that aid recovery for a wide variety of persistent symptoms, including fatigue and pain.

At normal levels, pain and fatigue are best viewed as adaptive responses. Just like pain, fatigue is a warning signal, implying the body needs to rest. The degree of fatigue is influenced by many factors, also at a subconscious level.

As in persistent pain, inflammation and dysfunction of the nervous system underpin the cluster of widespread problems in CFS/ME and in Long COVID. It follows that current approaches to chronic pain might also be applied to persistent fatigue syndromes.

Encouraging early results

Research shows promising early results. One study addressed subconsciously held beliefs about the nature of the illness, which reduced the fatigue of Long COVID, with sustained effects at six months.

A Scandinavian research group has also questioned current narratives describing persistent fatigue syndrome as an “incomprehensible and incurable disease without any available treatment”. Instead, they called for a more constructive narrative based on emerging insights about the nervous system and its role in creating, and at times inadvertently perpetuating, the debilitating sensation of fatigue.

These insights may allay current fears about Long COVID as a mysterious illness. While there is no magic bullet, supportive care supplemented with “fatigue neuroscience education” may provide patients with a better understanding of the mechanisms behind their symptoms and useful advice for recovery.

These concepts have yet to be integrated into medical training and clinical care for persisting fatigue syndromes. But ongoing neuroscience research and reports of encouraging clinical results now create some optimism for understanding and treating Long COVID.

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. Success in treating persistent pain now offers hope for those with Long COVID – https://theconversation.com/success-in-treating-persistent-pain-now-offers-hope-for-those-with-long-covid-232897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamie Thwin, PhD Student (Tax Law), Griffith University

This article is part of The Conversation’s “Business Basics” series where we ask experts to discuss key concepts in business, economics and finance.

Many of us associate trust funds with their depictions in popular culture – tools used by the mega-rich to distribute enormous family incomes among “trust-fund babies”.

Recently, they even went viral as the centrepiece of a TikTok audio by user @girl_on_couch, who was famously “looking for a man in finance. With a trust fund. 6’5. Blue eyes.”

But trusts – which allow assets to be managed by one party for the benefit of others – are more widespread than many people realise.

And they’re not just for the super wealthy. In 2020-21, more than a tenth of all Australians who lodged a tax return reported trust income.

Among the most common types of trust in Australia are family trusts, which are often designed to hold family assets or manage a family business. But their popularity has seen them regularly in the sights of government and the tax office.

So what exactly are family trusts, and why are they so controversial?

First, what’s a trust?

A trust is a legal arrangement where a person nominated as a “trustee” manages assets for the benefit of another person or particular group of people. It isn’t a separate legal entity, but rather a kind of legal relationship.

A trust imposes what’s called an “equitable obligation” on its trustee to hold and manage trust assets according to specific conditions. These are set out in a “trust deed” for the explicit benefit of others, known as the trust’s “beneficiaries”.

The trustee acts as the legally appointed administrator of trust assets. But the beneficiaries still have what’s called “equitable interest” under the arrangement – certain rights to benefit from those assets.

Trustees can be individuals or companies. And many trusts include an “appointor” who has ultimate control. This appointor can appoint or remove the trustee at any time, and in many cases must consent to any changes in the trust deed.

What’s a family trust, and why do people use them?

In Australia, a family trust is a type of “discretionary trust”. Unlike a “fixed trust”, this means the trustee can make decisions about how assets and income are allocated among beneficiaries.

Family trusts are typically set up by a family member for the benefit of the family as a whole. A family trust deed can nominate multiple beneficiaries. These could include not only parents, children, grandchildren and other family members, but also other trusts and even companies.

Family trusts are often used to take advantage of their tax implications. This is because between years, trustees can vary the distribution of income among beneficiaries.

Any undistributed income left in the trust is taxed at the top marginal tax rate of 45%. But if distributed to beneficiaries with lower personal marginal tax rates, it is instead taxed at those rates, which can lower the total tax paid.

This explanation oversimplifies the picture, and there are a range of important caveats.

For example, if a beneficiary is non-resident of Australia for tax purposes, the trustee will be liable to pay tax on their behalf. And distributing trust income to beneficiaries aged under 18 can attract penalty taxes at the top marginal rate.

Read more:
What are we teaching our children when we use them as taxpayers of convenience?

Why are they controversial?

Family trusts have attracted scrutiny from regulators and the public for a range of reasons – perhaps chief among them, this broad ability to lower taxation by splitting income.

The private nature of many trusts means there is often minimal public reporting, so it can be difficult to determine who in society is benefiting from trust income, and how. There are also concerns that they can be structured inappropriately to hide income.

Trusts can also help safeguard a family’s wealth by shielding a family’s assets from the liabilities of individual members. The beneficiaries of a discretionary trust generally have no legal entitlement to its assets.

This means that if the beneficiary goes bankrupt or gets divorced, the trust’s assets may often be protected from any claims.

In 2019, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released the findings of an independent review into trusts and the tax system. Some key areas of concern include:

• income tax shuffles (individuals exploiting differences in income definitions between trust law and tax law to dodge higher marginal tax rates)
• using convoluted structures like circular trusts (two trusts that are beneficiaries of each other) to obscure trust income and who the ultimate beneficiaries are, and
• trusts failing to lodge tax returns.

The use of trusts as a business structure in Australia may yet require further review.

This should not only seek to examine the legislation underpinning trusts, but also improve education for accountants to better understand trust and tax law.

Jamie Thwin is currently employed as tax consultant and business advisor at Poole Group

Brett David Freudenberg and Melissa Belle Isle 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 are family trusts? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-family-trusts-232601

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura A. Reese, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning, Michigan State University

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. households have at least one pet. More than ever before, companion animals are a part of life – particularly in cities, where the majority of Americans live.

Cities offer access to many resources, but often it’s not distributed evenly. Some scholars describe parts of U.S. cities with few or no grocery stores as food deserts. Others have identified zones they call transit deserts, where reliable and convenient public transit is scarce or nonexistent.

While the “desert” framing is controversial, there is little disagreement that access to goods and services in many U.S. cities is unequal. I have studied urban animal welfare issues for the past 15 years, and I have found that the inequities and economic stress humans face affect animals as well.

Recently, University of Nebraska geographer Xiaomeng Li and I explored access to animal welfare services in Detroit. We found that pet resources were significantly more likely to be located in ZIP codes with more highly educated residents, higher incomes, fewer children under 18 and higher median rents.

If households with pets were located mainly in these areas, it would make sense for pet resources to be similarly concentrated. However, while many Detroit households own animals, some parts of the city offer much more access to basic pet supplies and care than others.

Pets come with costs and benefits

Detroit had 639,111 residents as of 2020. Assuming that pet ownership in Detroit resembles the national average, nearly two-thirds of its 249,518 households would have at least one pet, which would total just over 157,000 companion animals in the city.

Detroit is more economically distressed than the U.S. overall, with a median household income of $36,140, compared with the U.S. median of $67,521. Nearly one-third (30%) of Detroit residents are in poverty, compared with 11.4% nationwide. Racial segregation and income inequality are also high.

Detroit’s well-publicized economic and fiscal struggles undermine the city’s ability to provide services, including animal care and control. Other factors, including housing vacancy and abandonment and a high number of stray and feral dogs, add to the animal welfare challenge.

Still, there is good reason for Detroit and other cities to support pet ownership. Studies show that having companion animals in the home boosts human mental and physical well-being. Dog owners report getting more exercise than non-dog owners. And surveys conducted during the pandemic suggested that animals reduced the stress and anxiety of lockdowns.

Mapping pet care resources

For our analysis, we compiled data on locations of pet stores and veterinarians from the ReferenceUSA Business Historical Data Files and Google Maps. We combined it with census data to see how pet resources correlated with the demographic characteristics of Detroit ZIP codes. We also mapped demand for animal support services, which we defined as dog bites and animal cruelty cases, in each ZIP code.

Our main finding was that Detroit has few dedicated pet stores and veterinary clinics, and these resources are not evenly distributed. Eleven of the city’s 26 ZIP codes, clustered in contiguous areas, have no pet stores or vet clinics. They form two large areas: a band stretching across the mid-city, and a zone in southwest Detroit.

We identified 11 specialty pet supply stores that serve Detroit’s 243,000 households. Four of these stores are in the downtown/midtown area – which, due to gentrification, has an increasing number of younger, white and higher-income residents.

The other seven stores are scattered around the periphery of the city. This distribution leaves a large underserved area in between, with many residents living a mile or more away from a pet store.

Veterinary practices are not clustered in the same way. While there are very few vet offices relative to our estimated number of pets, these offices are spread relatively evenly across the city and are more likely than pet stores to be located in middle- or lower-income ZIP codes.

Overall, we found that Detroit ZIP codes with more young, single and highly educated residents and higher median rents have significantly more pet resources per capita. More densely populated areas – such as Mexican Town, with high numbers of Hispanic residents, and the city’s far east side, with a high proportion of African Americans – have significantly fewer.

Overtasked animal shelters

Lack of access to pet food and supplies is a problem in low-income areas, even in the age of online providers such as Amazon and Chewy. Shopping online requires internet access and credit card payment. People who can’t mail-order pet supplies need physical access to stores.

There’s no official data source on Detroit’s pet abandonment rates, but the city has a long-standing and significant stray dog problem.

In 2022, the four largest animal shelters in Detroit took in 7,095 dogs. For comparison, Animal Rescue League shelters in Boston, which has a similar population size, took in 1,049 dogs in 2019.

The collective 2022 dog euthanasia rate for the four Detroit shelters was about 22%, although it varied widely among the shelters. Animal shelters that are designated “no-kill” generally aim to euthanize no more than 10% of the animals they take in, and to do so only when irreparable health or behavioral issues prevent the animals from finding new homes. Detroit Animal Care and Control, a city agency, regularly operates beyond capacity and has to euthanize animals due to lack of space.

Having ready access to pet resources could encourage Detroit residents of all income levels to adopt pets and help prevent relinquishment to shelters.

Getting more help to pet owners

Encouraging more pet-related businesses to open in distressed and underserved areas is an economic development challenge. Small-business incubators could support prospective pet store owners and vets who are open to locating in lower-income areas. These organizations typically provide locations for new businesses, offering below-market rents, startup capital and small revolving loan programs.

Incubators are generally run by local governments or public-private partnerships. These organizations could use incentives funded by local taxes to attract businesses in the pet care sector.

Community programs also have a role to play. In high-poverty areas, simply educating people about what kinds of resources are available is a useful starting point.

Many national organizations have programs to help pet owners who are struggling financially. For example, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals provides services in underserved communities, including low-cost veterinary care, supplies and information. Other nonprofit organizations operate mobile veterinary clinics that provide services in areas of need.

In Detroit, organizations such as Dog Aide and C.H.A.I.N.E.D., Inc. provide resources for pet owners, including pet food, outdoor housing, fencing, medications such as heart worm pills and flea preventatives, and low-cost spay and neuter services.

Many food banks and pantries provide free food for pets – an especially effective way to help both animals and humans. Some home delivery programs, such as Meals on Wheels, partner with pet suppliers to bring pet food and medications to elderly and disabled clients.

Supporting humans and their four-legged companions can promote human and animal health and reduce pressure on animal shelters. Our research shows that cities like Detroit, where many people are financially distressed and don’t have easy access to transportation or online shopping, can meaningfully improve residents’ lives by helping them meet their pets’ basic needs.

Laura A. Reese is president of Professional Animal Welfare Services, a consulting firm focusing on animal welfare issues and management best practices. She is a co-founder and board member of the Un-Shelter, a nonprofit that works with other animal rescue groups to foster and find homes for strays in metro Detroit and Washtenaw County, Michigan, and has volunteered with other Detroit animal welfare organizations.

– ref. When people are under economic stress, their pets suffer too – we found parts of Detroit that are animal welfare deserts – https://theconversation.com/when-people-are-under-economic-stress-their-pets-suffer-too-we-found-parts-of-detroit-that-are-animal-welfare-deserts-226079

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Adjunct Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne based), Curtin University

This week Victorian premier Jacinta Allan announced the state will trial a drug checking service beginning this summer festival season, describing it as a “simple and commonsense way to save lives”.

Allan has since confirmed the service will become permanent in Victoria following an 18-month trial.

Last week, the Australian Capital Territory government announced an extension to its successful drug-checking pilot, CanTEST, for the next three years. And earlier this year the Queensland government funded fixed site and festival drug-checking services for two years.

It’s good to see drug checking gaining more traction in Australia. This reflects evidence from Australia and internationally showing these services reduce harm for people who use illicit drugs.

What is drug checking?

Drug checking (sometimes called pill testing in Australia) is based on the principles of harm reduction. The primary aim is to reduce the individual and community harms associated with the use of psychoactive drugs, without judgement about the drug use itself.

There are different testing techniques using different types of equipment, but all drug checking services in Australia check drugs by chemically analysing a small sample of the drug.

Part of a typical drug-checking service is a discussion directly with the person to give them feedback on the contents of the sample. The trained drug-checking staff, who are usually health professionals or peer educators, will discuss the risks of consuming the drugs identified and any other concerns or questions the person has.

Drug checking in Australia is conducted from either a fixed-site or a mobile service. A fixed-site service is permanently located in a health organisation. Mobile services, sometimes called festival services, are set up in places where we know people are more likely to be taking drugs.

Why is drug checking important?

Although no psychoactive drug, including alcohol, is completely safe, some drugs are made more dangerous because they are illegal, without controls over who can make them, how they are made and what they can contain.

This means people who use illicit drugs can’t be sure of what they are taking and are unable to moderate the dose to reduce risks. So there’s a higher risk of adverse reactions and overdose than if these drugs were manufactured as pharmaceuticals under controlled conditions.

Data from Australia has found up to 43% of drugs tested in drug-checking services were not what people believed they had purchased.

Most people who use illicit drugs only use them a handful of times a year and are not addicted to them.

Whether you believe people should be taking these drugs or not, the reality is that they do. Some 47% of adults in Australia have tried an illicit drug some time in their lifetime. Thousands of years of history has taught us this is unlikely to change.

Acknowledging this, drug-checking services now operate in more than 20 countries including well-established services in New Zealand, the United States, Canada, the UK and The Netherlands.

Does drug checking reduce harms?

Some opponents of drug checking are worried it will increase drug use. But the evidence is clear that it does not.

Several studies have shown drug checking doesn’t encourage those who do not already use drugs to start doing so. A study of a long-running service in The Netherlands found less than 1% of people who had their drugs tested had never used them before, so these services almost exclusively cater for people who already use drugs.

What’s more, research has shown people often reduce their drug use after receiving the results of their drug checking and discussing the results with staff. Multiple studies have shown a sizeable proportion of people discard or intend to discard their drugs or use less if they contain unexpected substances.

Data from ACT and Queensland services found 18% and 7% of people respectively decided they would not use the drug following testing.

Drug checking can also play a role in preventing drug-related hospitalisations and deaths. Research from The Loop drug checking service in the UK found a 95% reduction in drug-related transfers to hospital when drug checking was introduced at a festival, compared to the previous year where the festival operated without drug checking.

Additionally, these services provide important harm reduction information to people who may not otherwise get that information. In an evaluation of CanTEST, 70% of people who used the service had never previously spoken to a healthcare worker for information or advice about drug use.

Drug checking also impacts the quality of drugs on the market. Drug manufacturers and dealers are less likely to distribute highly dangerous substances when clients are able to check their drugs.

What do Australians think about drug checking?

There is significant support in the Australian community for harm reduction measures, including drug checking. Surveys of the Australian community have consistently shown drug checking is supported by the majority of Australians.

In a recent government survey of households across Australia, nearly 65% of people supported drug checking, a significant increase on the previous year. Younger people, women and those with higher education levels were more likely to support drug checking.

So this is a great move by Victoria to keep people safe.

Nicole Lee works as a paid consultant in the alcohol and other drug sector. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is a Board member of Drug Checking Service, The Loop Australia.

– ref. Victoria will begin pill testing this summer. Evidence shows it reduces harm (and won’t increase drug use) – https://theconversation.com/victoria-will-begin-pill-testing-this-summer-evidence-shows-it-reduces-harm-and-wont-increase-drug-use-233211

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

The Julian Assange affair stands at the awkward intersection of a country’s right to keep secret national security information and the public’s right to know what is being done by a supposedly accountable government.

The actions of Assange and WikiLeaks in publishing a massive trove of classified United States defence documents and other intelligence information sharply divided opinion.

His critics have insisted this was not just a breach of the law but irresponsible and potentially put lives at risk. For this school of thought, Assange was and remains a villain.

Donald Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, posted on social media after Assange’s plea deal: “Julian Assange endangered the lives of our troops in a time of war and should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law”.

Assange supporters, on the other hand, have said the WikiLeaks action was in the public interest – that people should be able to be informed, especially when disclosures, as in this case, reveal incidents of bad behaviour by the military.

For this camp, Assange is a beacon for the free flow of information that shines needed light on dark places.

The Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance said in a Tuesday statement: “The stories published by WikiLeaks and other outlets more than a decade ago were clearly in the public interest. The charges by the US sought to curtail free speech, criminalise journalism and send a clear message to future whistleblowers and publishers that they too will be punished”.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will be given a good deal of credit for Assange’s eventual release. His government’s representations have been at a high level and sustained. The work by Australian diplomats has been intense.

Moreover, Assange’s freedom – which still requires some legal formalities – comes less than a year after the government secured the release of another Australian, Cheng Lei, who had been jailed in China.

But huge efforts to advocate on Assange’s behalf were also made by many others across the Australian parliament and community.

His cause has created unlikely allies. We saw this most obviously last year when a delegation of federal parliamentarians, including Liberal, Labor, National, Greens and independent members, collectively lobbied on his behalf in Washington.

Read more:
With pressure mounting on the Biden administration, its pursuit of Assange was becoming both damaging and untenable

Assange’s supporters differ in their views about what he did (and how he has behaved in the years since). But there had come to be a general belief, as the PM repeatedly said, that “enough is enough”.

It’s a version of what’s a “fair go”, and relates, in part, to how long he’s been incarcerated and what’s happened to other players in this saga.

WikiLeaks was the publisher of the documents, not the source of the leak. The leaker, former army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, had her sentence commuted in 2017 by then-President Barack Obama after a number of years in jail.

The media outlets which published the documents did not suffer penalties.

Assange ended up in a stand-off with the American authorities as he fought extradition from the United Kingdom.

The US Justice Department remained inflexible. President Joe Biden, it was said, would not interfere with that department.

But, according to the Americans, a potential plea deal has apparently been on the table for a long time.

In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald last August, United States ambassador Caroline Kennedy pointed the way. She said: “it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think that there absolutely could be a resolution”.

Asked whether US authorities and Assange could strike a deal to reduce the charges against him in exchange for his pleading guilty, Kennedy said: “That’s up to the Justice Department.”

On the Assange side, there was reluctance to attempt a plea deal. Assange did not want to risk going to the US, fearing what might happen if he did.

In April, however, Biden gave a further hint the representations might be being favourably considered.

A compromise was eventually reached that Assange go to a US federal court in Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a US commonwealth in the Pacific, where the deal is set to be consummated.

For Assange, with a US presidential election fast approaching that could see a possible second Trump presidency, it was time to make a deal. There was a real danger of things getting worse for him.

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. View from The Hill: Hero or villain, Julian Assange’s cause crossed the political divide – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-hero-or-villain-julian-assanges-cause-crossed-the-political-divide-233221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andy Baker, Professor, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney

You would have learned about the “water cycle” in primary school – water’s journey, from evaporation to rainfall to flowing in a stream or sinking into the ground to become groundwater.

Despite how simple it sounds, there are actually some large unknowns in the cycle – especially concerning groundwater.

We don’t know, for example, how fast aquifers – porous rock layers saturated with water – recharge. Or how much water actually makes it underground. And how much rain do you need to refill these underground reservoirs?

These questions are crucial because we rely very heavily on groundwater. It’s far and away the world’s largest source of fresh water we can access. There’s more water in the polar ice, but we can’t use it.

Our research team has been exploring a new approach to groundwater: going down to where the water is, using caves, tunnels and mines. We have installed a new network of groundwater sensors in 14 sites across Australia’s southeast – some more than 100 metres below the surface.

This is already giving us valuable data. For instance, in old mines in the Victorian gold mining town of Walhalla, we found it took more rain than we expected to start the recharge.

Why does groundwater recharge matter?

Worldwide, we are using groundwater much faster than it can naturally replenish. Researchers have found rapid declines in the water table of over 0.5 metres a year across many regions globally.

This is a real concern for Australia, the world’s driest inhabited continent. While the tropical north gets plenty of rain, it’s harder to come by elsewhere.

Across the continent, groundwater accounts for 17% of our accessible water resources. But it accounts for more than 30% of our total water use.

Groundwater is an essential resource, estimated to contribute A$6.8 billion to GDP.

In the Murray Darling Basin, groundwater extraction increased between 2003 and 2016, reaching 1,335 billion litres a year on average.

Native plants and animals in arid regions often rely entirely on groundwater bubbling up through springs.

Perth relied so heavily on groundwater that it’s depleting its aquifer, forcing the government to build desalination plants. Even now, Western Australia relies on groundwater for two-thirds of its water needs.

This is why recharge rates matter. If we’re using groundwater at the same rate it recharges or less, that’s sustainable use. But if we’re pumping out far more than it can refill, that’s unsustainable.

Groundwater recharges from rainfall which seeps through the soil into deeper layers where evaporation can’t get to it. It can also refill from surface waters. But recharge is difficult to measure accurately.

How can we better track groundwater recharging?

Researchers in Darwin recently undertook the largest analysis to date of long-term rainfall recharge across Australia. They used 98,000 estimates of recharge rates, using data from bores and machine learning algorithms.

The result was surprising. They estimated the average recharge rate for the Australian continent was just 44 millimetres per year. But it differs a great deal depending on where you are. In humid, wet climates such as across the Top End, the water table rose by 203mm a year. But in arid climates, it was just 6mm.

For comparison, the typical annual rainfall in Sydney and Brisbane is just over 1,000mm per year.

This study poses a challenge to our understanding of groundwater recharge. The estimates in this study are substantially lower than studies relying on contemporary water balance models, which report more than double the amount of recharge for Australia.

One issue is the Darwin research was not able to show where the groundwater came from or how old the water is. You might think groundwater recharges quickly, but a quick recharge means it takes years. A slow recharge can take thousands of years.

This gap is a concern. Our water authorities need the most accurate data possible on annual recharge rates – and the age of the water.

Our network of hydrological loggers are now gathering underground data in sites such as the gold mine in Stawell, in Victoria, and South Australia’s Naaracoorte Caves, famous for fossils, as well as mines and tunnels in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania.

Natural caves and groundwater are often fairly shallow. We wanted to get deeper data, which is why we chose mines. Our deep sites are over 100 metres underground.

Our sensors can detect each groundwater recharge event by doing something very simple: counting drips from the ceiling, and comparing them to what’s happening on the surface, so we can see where and when groundwater recharges.

Last month, we presented initial results, which show large variation.

Walhalla lies in the foothills of the Great Dividing Range outside Melbourne. It’s relatively rainy, with over 1,200mm per year.

Our sensors showed us the water table here had recharged 15 separate times over the 18 months to March 2024.

Despite the high annual rainfall, more than 40mm of rainfall over two days was needed to overcome dry summer conditions and cause recharge to start.

By contrast, Stawell’s gold mine is in an arid climate ~200 kilometres west of Melbourne, with under 500mm of rain annually. Even 100 metres underground, we could see water from rainfall moving through small pathways in the rock. But unlike Walhalla, we could not see the effects of individual rainstorms. By the time the water got that deep, any pulses were smoothed out.

We hope our data will be useful to groundwater researchers and water authorities, and expand how much we know about a resource we think little about – but which matters a great deal to how we live.

Read more:
Decades of less rainfall have cut replenishing of groundwater to 800-year low in WA

Andy Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Margaret Shanafield receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is also affiliated with the Environmental Defenders Office.

Marilu Melo Zurita receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Stacey Priestley is also affiliated with the University of Adelaide.

Wendy Timms receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the CO2CRC and the Victorian Government. She is also affiliated with UNSW Sydney.

– ref. How quickly does groundwater recharge? The answer is found deep underground – https://theconversation.com/how-quickly-does-groundwater-recharge-the-answer-is-found-deep-underground-230943

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Today, in a surprise development likely weeks in the planning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was able to leave the United Kingdom for the first time in more than a decade after reaching a plea deal with the US government.

In the past several months, momentum has been building towards this moment. There was increasing bipartisan support in both the Australian parliament and the US Congress for the Australian citizen’s release. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has made repeated statements on his behalf, and in April, US President Joe Biden said he was “considering” a request from Australia to drop its prosecution of Assange.

This all contributed to the sense the matter might be resolved before Assange’s final UK hearing date, previously scheduled for July 9 and 10. The timing of the deal is also a welcome prelude to Albanese’s visit to Washington next week.

Such a resolution, however, was not inevitable. And it is not over yet.

A relentless, years-long pursuit

The United States’ pursuit of Assange has seemingly been relentless since WikiLeaks posted hundreds of thousands of classified military documents in 2010. It wasn’t until 2019 under the then President Donald Trump, however, that he was finally indicted on 17 counts of violating the 1917 Espionage Act.

The charges against Assange were not just considered unprecedented, they raised significant First Amendment concerns.

The apparent desire to punish Assange for the embarrassment caused by the leaks – and to deter others from taking similar action – was apparently so strong the CIA allegedly discussed plans to kidnap and even assassinate Assange during the Trump administration, according to US media reports.

In the UK courts, the US Department of Justice had argued Assange should be subject to US law and extradited to face trial for his actions. However, as a non-citizen, there were questions over whether he could rely on the legal protections afforded by those same laws – particularly the constitutional right to free speech.

The successful extradition of Assange could have set a precedent by which the US could pursue journalists anywhere in the world for publishing information it did not like, while potentially denying them their fundamental First Amendment rights.

In a crucial election year in the US that President Joe Biden is framing as an existential fight for the soul of US democracy, the continued pursuit of Assange was as inconsistent as it was ultimately untenable. Viewed from the outside, it appeared the case was causing the Biden administration international embarrassment.

Biden has been careful to maintain an appropriate distance between the presidency and the Department of Justice. He came into office promising to restore faith in the rule of law following the Trump years, and has meticulously avoided any appearance of interference in the department’s work as it has investigated and indicted his predecessor.

Assange’s case, however, is wholly different to the charges on which Trump has been indicted. It is certainly possible to interpret Biden’s comment that he was “considering” dropping the charges as a gentle public rebuke of the Department of Justice’s pursuit of the case, given its global implications for a free press.

Broader implications for the alliance

The continued pursuit of Assange was also becoming problematic in the context of Australia’s alliance with the US. That relationship is always described as one based on shared democratic values, in contrast to what Biden has repeatedly framed as the coercive and repressive instincts of “authoritarian” powers.

The decision by the US to pursue a citizen of one of its closest allies for the publication of information, while simultaneously condemning authoritarian states for doing much the same, was both hypocritical and damaging to American standing in the world.

In the context of growing concern in Australia about the terms of the AUKUS submarine deal and the Australian government’s willingness to go “all-in” with the US militarily, the continued pursuit of Assange gave the impression that Australia’s most important security ally did not take its concerns seriously. Australia appeared simply to be snapping at America’s heels.

It also added to the sense that the “capital-A Alliance” between the two countries was increasingly dominated by security concerns, often at the expense of democratic accountability.

Because of the international campaign to free Assange and the support it received in both Australian and American democratic institutions, there appears to be have been a reconsideration of this focus on security interests over democratic values.

It should be noted, though, that the US didn’t drop its prosecution in the end; Assange has agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge of violating the Espionage Act, which in itself may set a concerning precedent for press freedom.

And the fact this saga happened at all – and that it has taken more than a decade to get close to resolution – should prompt deep reflection on the values that underpin both Australia’s relationship with its most important security ally and the United States’ role in the world.

Emma Shortis is Senior Researcher in International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. With pressure mounting on the Biden administration, its pursuit of Assange was becoming both damaging and untenable – https://theconversation.com/with-pressure-mounting-on-the-biden-administration-its-pursuit-of-assange-was-becoming-both-damaging-and-untenable-233216

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

Julian Assange has entered a plea deal with US government and is expected to be freed following a hearing in the US Federal Court in Saipan, in the Northern Mariana Islands.

Assange’s convoluted legal woes have been ongoing since 2010 and involve numerous appeals, charges and litigation from UK, Swedish and US authorities. We have created a timeline to track the major events that have led to his plea deal.

You may have noticed that 2010 has a number of events bunched together. In 2010 WikiLeaks published two large troves of US military documents and a video of a helicopter attack on journalists. With nearly half a million files detailing the troubling actions of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, the leaks prompted a swift response from the US.

Chelsea Manning was arrested within months of the leak after a hacker friend reported her. Shortly after Manning’s arrest, Sweden brought charges of rape and molestation against Assange. After initially surrendering to UK authorities, Assange broke bail and claimed asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He remained there until 2019 when his asylum was suddenly revoked.

– ref. A timeline of Julian Assange’s legal journey – https://theconversation.com/a-timeline-of-julian-assanges-legal-journey-233222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Phillips, Senior Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Marketing, Auckland University of Technology

Imagine walking down the aisle of your local grocery store. The scent of mixed herbs catches your attention, mentally transporting you to a kitchen filled with the aroma of your favourite home-cooked meal.

Suddenly, you’re craving hearty minestrone soup or yearning for homemade beef lasagne. In an instant, your plans for dinner – and your shopping list – change.

This sensory experience is not a new phenomenon. Using scent to sell in retail stores is a well-established strategy. But our new research has found introducing a herbal scent (such as thyme, rosemary, oregano and basil) in supermarkets can encourage shoppers to select and purchase more wholesome foods.

Beyond general smells that come from the products, supermarkets often use artificial scent strategies, such as diffusing grapefruit in the produce section, chocolate in the confectionery aisle, rosemary focaccia by the bakery, and baked cheesecake in the aisles to boost sales.

Previous research has found diffusing a chocolate scent in a bookstore increased interest in romance books and cookbooks. And natural scents in a store boosted spending on products with fewer artificial or synthetic characteristics.

Scents such as rose maroc (considered “masculine”) and vanilla (deemed “feminine”) have been shown to influence shopping behaviours toward gender-specific clothing.

Understanding the influence of certain smells isn’t just about boosting sales. Supermarkets play a pivotal role in shaping food choices. Using scent strategies to nudge consumers toward more wholesome food options is an under-explored opportunity to improve public health outcomes.

So, can the right smell increase choice and sales of nutritious wholesome foods?

Understanding the effect of herbs

Our research was broken into three parts – experiments in the laboratory, field study and online surveys.

We invited participants into our sensory laboratory at Auckland University of Technology. Each person was exposed to the smell of mixed herbs while shopping in a virtual supermarket. Shoppers purchased more wholesome baskets of goods when exposed to the herbal smell compared to the non-herbal smell (baked goods).

For every $155 spent, shoppers exposed to herbal smells bought three more wholefood items compared to those who were given non-herbal scents.

To test if those effects also occurred in-store, we collaborated with a New Zealand supermarket retailer to run a field study. We diffused a herbal scent in two stores and found shoppers exposed to the scent purchased more wholesome fresh food items than those not exposed to any scent.

We also wanted to understand the extent to which scent can influence wholesome food choices. Is the effect of smell strong even if consumers simply imagine the scent? The answer is yes.

In an online survey, we asked participants to imagine walking into their local supermarket and noticing the smell of mixed herbs. Those who imagined the herbal scent showed a stronger desire to buy ingredients for a homemade herb-rich pasta sauce and fresh ingredients for beef stew compared to those imagining no scent.

The research shows smells have the power to help us make better choices at the supermarket – even when they are only imagined.

Why does smell influence choices?

Scent marketing influences human emotions, memories and motivations. This is largely due to the direct link between the olfactory system from our noses and the limbic system – the part of the brain responsible for memory and behavioural responses.

When odours are processed and retrieved, they can activate associations with sensory knowledge, leading to important changes in our behaviour. This is fascinating to think about. Past research shows that when participants were exposed to a citrus scent, it triggered cleaning behaviour.

That led to more people in the study smelling citrus, and then doing more of the cleaning up after an eating task – compared to participants who didn’t smell citrus.

When it comes to food, participants primed with a fruity scent (like melon and pear) had thoughts about fruit and vegetables, and were more likely to pick starters and desserts with vegetables and fruit.

The smell of herbs is a scent many consumers are familiar with — used for centuries in global cuisines and everyday home cooking to enhance the flavour of food. Repeated exposure to a scent and the accompanying experiences can form strong associations in memory.

Our research shows these associations (herbs and Sunday roast, for instance) can drive food choices in supermarkets.

The mere act of smelling or imagining a herbal scent stimulates memories of cooking and eating home-cooked meals prepared from fresh ingredients. We found the association with home-cooking then stimulates a desire to choose and purchase related wholefoods rather than more processed foods.

Whether New Zealand retailers adopt artificial scents to nudge consumers toward more wholesome foods remains to be seen. But the potential for improving food choices, and by extension public health, is significant.

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. Dollars and scents: how the right smells can encourage shoppers to buy healthier foods – https://theconversation.com/dollars-and-scents-how-the-right-smells-can-encourage-shoppers-to-buy-healthier-foods-232973

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Humphries, Senior Lecturer, School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide

You may have seen headlines that link social media to sadness and depression. Social media use goes up, happiness goes down. But recent studies suggest those findings might not be so straightforward.

Although it is true that people’s feelings of envy and depression are linked to high social media use, there is evidence to suggest social media use may not be causing that relationship. Instead, your mindset may be the biggest thing affecting how social media connects to your wellbeing.

People who feel they are able to use social media, rather than social media “using them”, tend to gain more benefits from their online interactions.

Why do people use social media?

Social media covers a broad range of platforms: social networking, discussion forums, bookmarking and sharing content, disseminating news, exchanging media like photos and videos, and microblogging. These appeal to a wide range of users, from individuals of all ages through to massive businesses.

For some, social media is a way to connect with people we may not otherwise see. In the United States, 39% of people say they are friends with people they only interact with online.

For older people, this is especially important for increasing feelings of connectedness and wellbeing. Interestingly though, for older people, social media contact with family does not increase happiness. Meanwhile, younger adults report increased happiness when they have more social media contact with family members.

Teens, in particular, find social media most useful for deepening connections and building their social networks.

With social media clearly playing such an important role in society, many researchers have tried to figure out: does it make us happier or not?

Does social media make us happier?

Studies have taken a variety of approaches, including asking people directly through surveys or looking at the content people post and seeing how positive or negative it is.

One survey study from 2023 showed that as individuals’ social media use increased, life satisfaction and happiness decreased. Another found that less time on social media was related to increases in work satisfaction, work engagement and positive mental health – so improved mental health and motivation at work.

Comparing yourself to others on social media is connected to feelings of envy and depression. However, there is evidence to suggest depression is the predictor, rather than the outcome, of both social comparison and envy.

All this shows the way you feel about social media matters. People who see themselves using social media rather than “being used” by it, tend to gain benefits from social media and not experience the harms.

Interviews with young people (15–24 years) using social media suggest that positive mental health among that age group was influenced by three features:

• connection with friends and their global community
• engagement with social media content
• the value of social media as an outlet for expression.

There are also studies that look at the emotions expressed by more frequent social media users.

The so-called “happiness paradox” shows that most people think their friends on social media appear happier than themselves. This is a seeming impossibility that arises because of the mathematical properties of how friendship networks work on social media.

In one of our studies, Twitter content with recorded locations showed residents of cities in the United States that tweeted more tended to express less happiness.

On the other hand, in Instagram direct messages, happiness has been found to be four times more prevalent than sadness.

How does internet use in general affect our wellbeing?

Some of the factors associated with decreased mental health are not aligned with social media use alone.

One recent study shows that the path to decreased wellbeing is, at least partially, connected to digital media use overall (rather than social media use specifically). This can be due to sleep disruption, reduced face-to-face social interaction or physical activity, social comparison, and cyberbullying. None of these exist for social media alone.

However, social media platforms are known to be driven by recommendation algorithms that may send us down “rabbit holes” of the same type of (increasingly extreme) content. This can lead to a distorted view of the world and our place in it. The important point here is to maintain a diverse and balanced information diet online.

Interestingly, interacting on social media is not the only thing affecting our mental state. Rainfall influnces the emotional content of social media posts of both the user experiencing rain, and parts of their extended network (even if they don’t experience rain!).

This suggests that how we feel is influenced by the emotions in the posts we see. The good news is that happy posts are the most influential, with each happy post encouraging close to two additional happy updates from a user’s friends.

The secret to online happiness therefore may not be to “delete your account” entirely (which, as we have found, may not even be effective), but to be mindful about what you consume online. And if you feel like social media is starting to use you, it might be time to change it up a bit.

Melissa Humphries receives funding from the NIH and the Department of Defence.

Lewis Mitchell receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NHMRC, and Department of Defence.

– ref. Is social media making you unhappy? The answer is not so simple – https://theconversation.com/is-social-media-making-you-unhappy-the-answer-is-not-so-simple-232490

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Cullen, Adjunct Professor in Law, The University of Western Australia

After years of appeals and litigation, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has entered into a plea deal with the US government, according to court documents.

He was facing one count of computer misuse and multiple counts of espionage stemming from his work with WikiLeaks, publishing sensitive US government documents provided by Chelsea Manning. The US government had repeatedly claimed that Assange’s actions risked its national security.

Documents filed in the US Federal Court in Saipan, in the Northern Mariana Islands, show Assange will plead guilty to one count under the US Espionage Act. The rest of the charges would be dropped and the request for his extradition to the US would be withdrawn. The US is yet to publicly confirm the deal.

The deal is subject to a hearing and sentencing in Saipan on Wednesday morning, where outlets are reporting Assange will appear in person. He’s been released from London’s Belmarsh prison, with WikiLeaks sharing vision of him en route to London’s Stanstead Airport.

What’s in the deal?

Assange has been granted bail by the UK High Court.

Upon his guilty plea, Assange will be sentenced to 62 months in prison: time he’s already served in Belmarsh. It puts an end to all the ongoing legal action, including the proceedings in the UK High Court and the extradition order from the UK Home Secretary.

The plea deal seems largely consistent with rumours circulating earlier this year. It was widely assumed Assange would plead guilty to one charge, which was expected to be a misdemeanour charge of mishandling documents rather than under the US Espionage Act. The initial rumours also indicated that he would be able to complete the process remotely, whereas he will appear in person before the court.

This is significant as it’s a national security offence for which he’s served more than five years behind bars. This will place limitations on his future travel, including to the US, which is unlikely to grant him a visa.

It also sets a practical precedent, if not necessarily a legal one, that a publisher can be convicted under the Espionage Act in the US. While the devil will be in the details of the deal, this is what many journalists were afraid of.

It means somebody who did nothing more than receive and publish information has been convicted under major US national security laws. If the deal had been about the Computer Misuse Act, this scenario wouldn’t have arisen. The concern may be that now it’s been done once, it could happen again.

Why is there a deal after all this time?

We may never know the US’ full reasoning, but there are several possibilities as to why it decided to go to a plea deal and not continue with litigation.

The Australian government has been pushing hard for a couple of years now for this case to end. The case for stopping prosecution has had bipartisan support here.

Although not confirming or denying the existence of a plea deal just yet, a spokesperson for the government reiterated Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s position that there was “nothing to be gained from his [Assange’s] continued incarceration”.

The fact the government has been consistent on this for about two years has changed the political environment for this prosecution.

There’s a growing consensus in the US, even among some republicans, that it’s not in the public interest to continue.

The UK general election will be held next week, and given the anticipated change of government there, the extradition order may have been reconsidered anyway. All of this would likely have informed the US’ cost-benefit analysis to ultimately bring the Assange saga to an end.

What happens now?

Following the hearing in Saipan, Assange will be free to return to Australia. The court was chosen because of Assange’s opposition to travelling to the continental US as well as its proximity to Australia.

Assange will likely find it difficult to travel in the future, given his serious criminal conviction. This may also apply in the UK, where he has also been convicted of absconding from bail, for which he was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.

Looking further ahead, it’s entirely possible he will be pardoned by the US president, whomever it ends up being after the US election in November. The US allows much more discretion than most in the use of pardons.

For now, Assange will face court in Saipan and come home to Australia, albeit with a serious criminal record.

Holly Cullen receives funding from a Deakin University HDR scholarship. She has been a volunteer for the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Julian Assange plea deal: what does it mean for the WikiLeaks founder, and what happens now? – https://theconversation.com/julian-assange-plea-deal-what-does-it-mean-for-the-wikileaks-founder-and-what-happens-now-233207

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

Julian Assange has reached a deal with the United States Department of Justice to allow him to return to Australia after pleading guilty to violating American espionage law.

Assange, 52, was released from London’s Belmarsh Prison, where he has spent more than five years and later was seen at a London airport boarding a private plane. He left around 5pm on Monday London time. Australia’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Stephen Smith, is reportedly on the plane.

According to the deal, he will plead guilty to a charge of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified national defence information in a US federal court in Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a US commonwealth in the Pacific.

He is expected to return to Australia after the court appearance on Wednesday morning.

The dramatic breakthrough follows years of cross-party campaigning by Australian politicians, multiple representations by the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, ministers and backbenchers, and agitation by a wide group of supporters and especially his family.

A federal government spokesman said on Tuesday morning: “Prime Minister Albanese has been clear – Mr Assange’s case has dragged on for too long and there is nothing to be gained by his continued incarceration.”

In April, US President Joe Biden gave a hint that progress was being made on Assange’s case. Asked if he would consider a request from Australia to drop the prosecution, he answered, “We’re considering it”.

Assange, who previously spent years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while he fought extradition to the US, has suffered declining health recently.

Assange was indicted in the US for the WikiLeaks release of a trove of US classified material. This had come from a former American intelligence analyst, Chelsea Manning.

Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Birmingham said in a statement, “We have consistently said that the US and UK justice systems should be respected. We welcome the fact that Mr Assange’s decision to plead guilty will bring this long running saga to an end.”

Assange’s mother, Christine Ann Hawkins, in a statement provided to Sky News through an advocate, said: “I am grateful that my son’s ordeal is finally coming to an end. This shows the importance and power of quiet diplomacy.”

His wife Stella, who married Assange while he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, posted, “Words cannot express our immense gratitude to YOU- yes YOU, who have all mobilised for years and years to make this come true. THANK YOU. tHANK YOU. THANK YOU.”

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. Julian Assange will be freed after striking plea deal with US authorities – https://theconversation.com/julian-assange-will-be-freed-after-striking-plea-deal-with-us-authorities-233210

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Theresa Larkin, Associate professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

From “breathwork recipes” to breathing techniques, many social media and health websites are recommending breathwork to reduce stress.

But breathwork is not new. Rather it is the latest in a long history of breathing techniques such as Pranayama from India and qigong from China. Such practices have been used for thousands of years to promote a healthy mind and body.

The benefits can be immediate and obvious. Try taking a deep breath in through your nose and exhaling slowly. Do you feel a little calmer?

So, what’s the difference between the breathing we do to keep us alive and breathwork?

Breathwork is about control

Breathwork is not the same as other mindfulness practices. While the latter focus on observing the breath, breathwork is about controlling inhalation and exhalation.

Normally, breathing happens automatically via messages from the brain, outside our conscious control. But we can control our breath, by directing the movement of our diaphragm and mouth.

The diaphragm is a large muscle that separates our thoracic (chest) and abdominal (belly) cavities. When the diaphragm contracts, it expands the thoracic cavity and pulls air into the lungs.

Controlling how deep, how often, how fast and through what (nose or mouth) we inhale is the crux of breathwork, from fire breathing to the humming bee breath.

Breathwork can calm or excite

Even small bits of breathwork can have physical and mental health benefits and complete the stress cycle to avoid burnout.

Calming breathwork includes diaphragmatic (belly) breathing, slow breathing, pausing between breaths, and specifically slowing down the exhale.

In diaphragmatic breathing, you consciously contract your diaphragm down into your abdomen to inhale. This pushes your belly outwards and makes your breathing deeper and slower.

You can also slow the breath by doing:

• box breathing (count to four for each of four steps: breathe in, hold, breathe out, hold), or

• coherent breathing (controlled slow breathing of five or six breaths per minute), or

• alternate nostril breathing (close the left nostril and breathe in slowly through the right nostril, then close the right nostril and breathe out slowly through the left nostril, then repeat the opposite way).

You can slow down the exhalation specifically by counting, humming or pursing your lips as you breathe out.

In contrast to these calming breathing practices, energising fast-paced breathwork increases arousal. For example, fire breathing (breathe in and out quickly, but not deeply, through your nose in a consistent rhythm) and Lion’s breath (breathe out through your mouth, stick your tongue out and make a strong “haa” sound).

What is happening in the body?

Deep and slow breathing, especially with a long exhale, is the best way to stimulate the vagus nerves. The vagus nerves pass through the diaphragm and are the main nerves of the parasympathetic nervous system.

Simulating the vagus nerves calms our sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight) stress response. This improves mood, lowers the stress hormone cortisol and helps to regulate emotions and responses. It also promotes more coordinated brain activity, improves immune function and reduces inflammation.

Taking deep, diaphragmatic breaths also has physical benefits. This improves blood flow, lung function and exercise performance, increases oxygen in the body, and strengthens the diaphragm.

Slow breathing reduces heart rate and blood pressure and increases heart rate variability (normal variation in time between heart beats). These are linked to better heart health.

Taking shallow, quick, rhythmic breaths in and out through your nose stimulates the sympathetic nervous system. Short-term, controlled activation of the stress response is healthy and develops resilience to stress.

Breathing in through the nose

We are designed to inhale through our nose, not our mouth. Inside our nose are lots of blood vessels, mucous glands and tiny hairs called cilia. These warm and humidify the air we breathe and filter out germs and toxins.

We want the air that reaches our airways and lungs to be clean and moist. Cold and dry air is irritating to our nose and throat, and we don’t want germs to get into the body.

Nasal breathing increases parasympathetic activity and releases nitric oxide, which improves airway dilation and lowers blood pressure.

Consistently breathing through our mouth is not healthy. It can lead to pollutants and infections reaching the lungs, snoring, sleep apnoea, and dental issues including cavities and jaw joint problems.

A free workout

Slow breathing – even short sessions at home – can reduce stress, anxiety and depression in the general population and among those with clinical depression or anxiety. Research on breathwork in helping post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is also promising.

Diaphragmatic breathing to improve lung function and strengthen the diaphragm can improve breathing and exercise intolerance in chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. It can also improve exercise performance and reduce oxidative stress (an imbalance of more free radicals and/or less antioxidants, which can damage cells) after exercise.

A mind-body connection you can access any time

If you feel stressed or anxious, you might subconsciously take shallow, quick breaths, but this can make you feel more anxious. Deep diaphragmatic breaths through your nose and focusing on strong exhalations can help break this cycle and bring calm and mental clarity.

Just a few minutes a day of breathwork can improve your physical and mental health and wellbeing. Daily deep breathing exercises in the workplace reduce blood pressure and stress, which is important since burnout rates are high.

Bottom line: any conscious control of your breath throughout the day is positive.

So, next time you are waiting in a line, at traffic lights or for the kettle to boil, take a moment to focus on your breath. Breathe deeply into your belly through your nose, exhale slowly, and enjoy the benefits.

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 is ‘breathwork’? And do I need to do it? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-breathwork-and-do-i-need-to-do-it-231192