Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott Goddard, Postdoctoral research fellow, Southern Cross University

The 2024 Paris Olympics are fast approaching and we can imagine the elite athletes maintaining a strict and gruelling training regimen in order to give themselves every chance of standing on the podium with a gold medal.

Unrelenting discipline and structure. Blood, sweat, and tears. That’s what it takes to excel, right?

But what if that’s not the only way?

Thinking outside the box

Earlier this year, world champion Australian swimmer Cameron McEvoy spoke about the benefits of a new training schedule, which included a reduced training load:

I can do the Olympics, worlds, then have 12 months exploring other stuff and come back. And I’ve got tonnes of side quests I want to do […] train for 100m track sprinting and see how low I can go, the world street lifting competition.

McEvoy also suggested that exploring other interests has “extended the longevity of this career” and alleviated the “bad relationship” he has had with the sport – all while improving his performance.

McEvoy is not the only athlete sharing experiences of exploration. A 2021 study that interviewed runners soon after an exceptional performance found exploration played a key role in their highly positive experiences.

One interviewee stated:

By going somewhere different to run, [the route] was something different to look at; it was different when you turn the corner, and you go up a different path. I was less [thinking about] running and more about exploring.

And it’s not just elite athletes who are interested in exploration. Complementing their high-performance sports strategy – “win well” – the Australian Sports Commission recently published an inaugural national sport participation strategy – “play well”.

“Play well” is designed to ensure everyone has a place in sport, with a core focus being “to break down barriers and empower individuals to explore, create and connect through sport”.

So, what does it actually mean to explore in sport? And why might exploration be beneficial for all of us?

What is exploration?

Exploration is defined as “the activity of searching and finding out about something”.

Or, as astrophysist Neil deGrasse Tyson says:

exploration is what you do when you don’t know what you’re doing […] if a scientist already knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t be discovering anything.

At first glance, we might assume exploration is only for those who are embarking on epic journeys to unknown parts of the world or climbing mountains for the first time. In fact, it’s something we can all do on a daily basis.

For example, when we go to a new city and walk down the street to see what shops and cafes they’ve got, that’s exploring. And it’s good for us.

What are the benefits of exploration?

Psychologists believe we’re born with an innate desire to explore the world around us. And opportunities to do so lead to positive outcomes in sport.

For instance, similar to McEvoy’s exploration of other interests, researchers have noted the importance of participating in a variety of different sports rather than focusing on just one sport.

While this recommendation is typically directed toward young athletes, this flexible approach to sport was adopted by Norway – known as “joy of sport for all” – and has been credited with a huge increase in winter Olympic medals.

Researchers also suggest children should engage in less structured versions of sports, which can promote flexibility. As well, sports with informal rules – think backyard cricket – can maximise enjoyment and can lead to long-term participation.

Much of our own research indicates that exploratory experiences are at the heart of our most positive and memorable experiences in sport.

We’ve previously reported that exploration appears to be fundamental to the experience of “flow state”, where you become completely absorbed in what you are doing and you perform the task effortlessly.

Indeed, the founder of flow, Hungarian-American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, said the types of activities that promote flow “give participants a sense of discovery and exploration – in other words, a feeling of novelty and challenge”.

Lessons from athletes on how to explore

Exploration is certainly not limited to elite athletes but there are useful lessons we can take from them about how to incorporate exploration into our own sport participation.

Like McEvoy, you might consider varying your training routine or trying a new sport. Or like the Norwegians, you might play a modified version of your sport with fewer rules, less emphasis on competition and more focus on fun.

It could be as simple as taking a different route on a run or setting an open-ended goal (like “how far I can run in 25 minutes”?), which can help facilitate exploration and reduce pressure. Or if you’re playing football, you might try out a new position or tactic.

Sometimes, it’s okay to not have a plan. Without a specific plan (like which restaurant to eat in), we need to go exploring to find out the best option (like stumbling across a place you’ve never heard of that has a great menu).

So, as we anticipate the upcoming Olympics and marvel at the athletes’ achievements, let’s remember their success might not only be the result of relentless discipline but also the joy and benefits of exploration.

Whether we are elite athletes or weekend warriors, heading out with the intention to “search and find out about something” can enhance our engagement, performance, and enjoyment in sport.

Scott Goddard is currently employed as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Southern Cross University, funded by Movember. He has previously received funding from the Australian Institute of Sport.

Christian Swann currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Movember, QBE, and LeapForward, and has previously received funding from the Australian Institute of Sport. He is affiliated with the Manna Institute, which is funded by the Australian Government Department of Education through the Regional Research Collaboration Program.

Stewart Vella has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, Movember, and the Australian Institute of Sport.

– ref. Olympic swimmers improving by … running? How exploration can help elite athletes and weekend warriors alike – https://theconversation.com/olympic-swimmers-improving-by-running-how-exploration-can-help-elite-athletes-and-weekend-warriors-alike-231278

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin A. Jancovich, PhD Candidate in Behavioural Ecology and Bioacoustics, Casual Academic, UNSW Sydney

Over the past few decades, animal sounds have seen a huge surge in research. Advances in recording equipment and analysis techniques have driven new insights into animal behaviour, population distribution, taxonomy and anatomy.

In a new study published in Ecology and Evolution, we show the limitations of one of the most common methods used to analyse animal sounds. These limitations may have caused disagreements about a whale song in the Indian Ocean, and about animal calls on land, too.

We demonstrate a new method that can overcome this problem. It reveals previously hidden details of animal calls, providing a basis for future advances in animal sound research.

The importance of whale song

More than a quarter of whale species are listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered. Understanding whale behaviour, population distribution and the impact of human-made noise is key to successful conservation efforts.

For creatures that spend nearly all their time hidden in the vast open ocean, these are difficult things to study, but analysis of whale songs can give us vital clues.

However, we can’t just analyse whale songs by listening to them – we need ways to measure them in more detail than the human ear can provide.

For this reason, often a first step in studying an animal sound is to generate a visualisation called a spectrogram. It can give us a better idea of a sound’s character. Specifically, it shows when the energy in the sound occurs (temporal details), and at what frequency (spectral details).

We can learn about the sound’s structure in terms of time, frequency and intensity by carefully inspecting these spectrograms and measuring them with other algorithms, allowing for a deeper analysis. They are also key tools in communicating findings when we publish our work.

Why spectrograms have limitations

The most common method for generating spectrograms is known as the STFT. It’s used in many fields, including mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering and experimental physics.

However, it’s acknowledged to have a fundamental limitation – it can’t accurately visualise all the sound’s temporal and spectral details at the same time. This means every STFT spectrogram sacrifices either some temporal or spectral information.

This problem is more pronounced at lower frequencies. So it’s especially problematic when analysing sounds made by animals like the pygmy blue whale, whose song is so low, it approaches the lower limit of human hearing.

Before my PhD, I worked in acoustics and audio signal processing, where I became all too familiar with the STFT spectrogram and its shortcomings.

But there are different methods for generating spectrograms. It occurred to me the STFTs used in whale song studies might be hiding some details, and there could be other methods more suited to the task.

In our study, my co-author Tracey Rogers and I compared the STFT to newer visualisation methods. We used made-up (synthetic) test signals, as well as recordings of pygmy blue whales, Asian elephants and other animals, such as cassowaries and American crocodiles.

The methods we tested included a new algorithm called the Superlet transform, which we adapted from its original use in brain wave analysis. We found this method produced visualisations of our synthetic test signal with up to 28% fewer errors than the others we tested.

A better way to visualise animal sounds

This result was promising, but the Superlet revealed its full potential when we applied it to animal sounds.

Recently, there’s been some disagreement around the Chagos pygmy blue whale song: whether its first sound is “pulsed” or “tonal”. These two terms refer to having extra frequencies in the sound, but produced in two distinct ways.

STFT spectrograms can’t resolve this debate, because they can show this sound as either pulsed or tonal, depending on how they’re configured. Our Superlet visualisation shows the sound as pulsed and agrees with most studies that describe this song.

When visualising Asian elephant rumbles, the Superlet showed pulsing that was mentioned in the original description of this sound, but has been absent from all later descriptions. It’s also never been shown in a spectrogram.

Our Superlet visualisations of the southern cassowary call and the American crocodile roar both showed previously unreported temporal details that were not shown by the spectrograms in previous studies.

These are only preliminary findings, each based on a single recording. To confirm these observations, more sounds will need to be analysed. Even so, this is fertile ground for future work.

Ease of use may be Superlet’s greatest strength, even beyond improved accuracy. Many researchers using sound to study animals have backgrounds in ecology, biology and veterinary science. They learn audio signal analysis only as a means to an end.

To improve accessibility of the Superlet transform to these researchers, we implemented it in a free, easy to use, open-source software app. We look forward to seeing what new discoveries they might make using this exciting new method.

Benjamin A. Jancovich’s work is funded by the Australian government’s Research Training Program.

– ref. Our new tech helps find hidden details in whale, cassowary and other barely audible animal calls – https://theconversation.com/our-new-tech-helps-find-hidden-details-in-whale-cassowary-and-other-barely-audible-animal-calls-234565

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted July 10–13 from a sample of 1,603, had Labor and the Coalition tied at 50–50 by 2022 election preference flows, a one-point gain for the Coalition since June by my calculations.

Resolve does not usually give a two-party estimate, but this is the first time Labor would not have led during this term by 2022 preference flows. Until this year, Resolve was easily the most pro-Labor pollster.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up two), 28% Labor (steady), 13% Greens (down one), 6% One Nation (steady), 1% UAP (steady), 11% independents (steady) and 2% others (down two).

Just 33% gave Anthony Albanese a good rating, while 54% rated him poorly, for a net approval of -21, down seven points since June. Albanese’s net approval has slumped 19 points since April. Peter Dutton’s net approval was down two points since June to net zero.

After surging to his first preferred PM lead in any poll in June by 36–35, Dutton held a 35–34 lead.

The Coalition continued to hold a seven-point lead over Labor on keeping the cost of living low, and a 16-point lead on economic management. Asked what was the most important issue, 53% said cost of living, with issues not related to cost of living in the single figures.

Two weeks ago, Labor gained in Newspoll, probably owing to Dutton’s nuclear policy. Since then, this announcement appears to have faded in importance to voters, although it’s likely to be revived at an election campaign.

Cost of living is by far the most important issue to voters. Until and unless cost of living pressures are meaningfully reduced, Labor will struggle.

Fatima Payman and Glenn Druery

In the wake of Western Australian Senator Fatima Payman’s defection from Labor, there was much media attention on Payman’s association with Glenn Druery, the “preference whisperer”.

Group ticket voting, which allowed parties to direct the preferences of all those who voted for them above the line in the Senate, was abolished before the 2016 federal election. This system had given Druery his reputation, as parties with very low levels of support could coalesce to elect someone, often on a minuscule vote share.

With the abolishment of group ticket voting, voters now direct their own preferences, and these preferences don’t help parties with minuscule vote shares. Druery no longer has any power federally. However, Victoria unfortunately still uses group ticket voting for its state upper house elections.

Morgan poll: 50.5–49.5 to Coalition

A national Morgan poll, conducted June 24–30 from a sample of 1,706, gave Labor a 51–49 lead, unchanged from the June 17–23 poll. In the July 1–7 Morgan poll with a sample of 1,723, the Coalition seized a 52–48 lead.

In the July 8–14 Morgan poll with a sample of 1,758, the Coalition’s lead was reduced to 50.5–49.5. Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (down two since July 1–7), 31% Labor (up 2.5), 12.5% Greens (down one), 5% One Nation (steady), 9% independents (steady) and 5% others (up 0.5).

The headline two-party estimate used respondent preferences, but this poll article said Labor led by 51.5–48.5 using 2022 preference flows, a two-point gain for Labor since the July 1–7 poll.

Essential poll: Coalition regains lead

A national Essential poll, conducted June 26–30 from a sample of 1,141, gave the Coalition a 47–46 lead including undecided, a reversal of Labor’s 48–46 lead in mid-June that was its first lead in this poll since April.

Primary votes were 33% Coalition (up one), 30% Labor (down one), 12% Greens (down one), 7% One Nation (down one), 1% UAP (steady), 10% for all Others (up one) and 7% undecided (up one).

Albanese’s net approval fell five points since early June to -9, a low for him in Essential since he became PM. Dutton’s net approval was steady at -1.

By 43–28, voters were worried about the impact of climate change on the next generation. By 52–48, they opposed Dutton’s nuclear plan.

Asked about desirability of energy sources, 59% said renewable energies were most desirable, 21% nuclear energy and 19% fossil fuels. On costs of energy sources, 38% (up two since April) thought nuclear energy most expensive, 35% (down five) renewable energies and 27% (up three) fossil fuels.

Newspoll aggregate data from April to June

Newspoll’s aggregate data for all its four surveys conducted from April to June from a combined sample of 4,957 was published by The Australian on July 7. The Poll Bludger’s poll tables say voters with no tertiary education were unchanged at a 50–50 tie compared to the March quarter aggregate data.

Labor held a 51–49 lead with TAFE-educated voters, a one-point gain for Labor. Labor also held a 52–48 lead with university-educated voters, but this was a three-point gain for the Coalition.

The Coalition had a one-point gain in four of the five mainland states, and now leads by 51–49 in New South Wales and 54–46 in Queensland. Labor leads by 54–46 in Victoria and 53–47 in South Australia. In WA, Labor gained three points to take a 52–48 lead.

Macnamara seat poll suggests Labor will win owing to Greens drop

A Redbridge poll
of the federal Victorian seat of Macnamara, conducted June 13–20 from a sample of 401, gave Labor a 55–45 two-candidate lead over the Liberals, from primary votes of Liberals 36%, Labor 30%, the Greens 21% and all Others 13%.

The Poll Bludger said that at the 2022 federal election, Labor defeated the Liberals by 62.2–37.8 adjusted for the recent Victorian redistribution. Primary votes were 31.7% Labor, 29.7% Greens and 29.0% Liberals. The Greens just missed out on making the final two in 2022 at Labor’s expense and winning on Labor preferences.

WA seat poll suggests state Labor will win easily

The WA election will be held in March 2025. The Poll Bludger reported Friday that a privately conducted seat poll of Hillarys, first reported in The West Australian, gave Labor a 61–39 lead. This poll was conducted by Utting Research June 3–14 from a sample of just 350 for the Home Builders Action Group.

This poll had a swing of 8% to the Liberals in Hillarys since the 2021 WA election, but at that election Labor won the WA statewide two-party vote by 70–30. If Labor is still ahead by over 60–40, they will win the next WA election easily.

While the state Labor government led by Roger Cook had a 52–37 approval rating, the Albanese federal government had a 53–36 disapproval rating.

Far-right National Rally underperforms to finish third at French election

I covered the July 7 French parliamentary election runoffs for The Poll Bludger. The left-wing alliance of four parties (NFP) won 182 of the 577 total seats, President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Ensemble 168, the far-right National Rally 143 and the conservative Republicans 45. With 289 seats needed for a majority, no party is able to form a majority government. Pre-election polls had given National Rally the most seats.

The July 4 UK election was the most disproportionate in modern history, with Labour winning 63% of seats on 34% of votes, while the far-right Reform won just 0.8% of seats on 14% of votes. Electoral developments in the Netherlands, Iran and the Solomon Islands were also covered.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor and Albanese’s slide continues in Resolve poll, as major parties tied – https://theconversation.com/labor-and-albaneses-slide-continues-in-resolve-poll-as-major-parties-tied-233638

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Thorpe, Professor in Sociology of Sport and Gender, University of Waikato

Think of the Olympic Games and for many of us it conjures images of the traditional marquee events: track and field, swimming, weightlifting, gymnastics. But the games are changing – and the Paris Olympics will take it to a new level.

As well as bringing back youth-oriented sports such as surfing, skateboarding, sport-climbing and BMX freestyle, these games will see breaking (or breakdancing) and kiteboarding introduced.

These programme changes have been on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) agenda for many years, part of an effort to reverse a decades-long decline in younger audience numbers, particularly in the key US consumer market.

But the new look is also part of a larger strategy designed to improve inclusivity and gender balance. In fact, Paris claims to be the first gender-balanced Olympics, with the new sports key to reaching that milestone.

None of this has been smooth, with the inclusion of new events a highly political process. On the one hand, traditionalists have resisted change. On the other, the countercultural origins of some of the new sports have seen them wary of being incorporated into the world’s largest and most powerful sporting establishment.

New events, new venues

Of the two newest entrants, breaking will probably surprise the most spectators. What began as an urban dance style within US hip hop culture in the 1970s has gone mainstream, successfully trialled at the 2018 Youth Olympic Games in Buenos Aires.

Breakdancing was always competitive, of course. In its Olympic format, teams of 16 (called B-boys and B-girls) will have one-on-one contests involving a range of spectacular acrobatic movements.

Athletes must improvise, adapting their style and routines to fit the beat of the DJ’s chosen tracks. The role of the DJ and MC during these “battles” will give the new sport a very different feel to other Olympic events.

Read more:
Alt goes mainstream: how surfing, skateboarding, BMX and sport climbing became Olympic events

Kiteboarding almost made it into the Olympic sailing programme at the 2016 Games in Rio Di Janeiro, in place of windsurfing. The International Sailing Federation eventually overturned that decision, but the dynamic event finally makes its debut. In Paris, kiteboarders will be using the latest foiling technologies, making it a showcase attraction.

These games will also see the IOC’s “urban park” concept finally realised. Originally planned for the Tokyo Olympics, COVID disrupted the vision of an X Games-style atmosphere of music, fun and athlete-fan interaction.

Rather than building expensive new venues, the host nation will use existing infrastructure combined with temporary facilities. Skateboarding, sport climbing, breaking, 3×3 basketball and BMX freestyle will all be hosted in a temporary park built in the iconic Place de la Concorde.

All these innovations are an expression of the IOC’s Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2020+5. These major policy reforms are focused on urban cultures, youth and sustainability.

Going mainstream

Olympic climbing will also evolve in Paris. Introduced at the Tokyo Games, it initially combined three quite different climbing styles – speed, bouldering and leading (where climbers use ropes to ascend).

Many climbers were unhappy with this merger within a single medal event, and Paris will see it broken into two: a combined bouldering and leading event, and a speed event.

At Tokyo, skateboarding had the greatest media visibility of the new sports. In particular, global audiences and media were captivated by the joy and camaraderie of the women’s competition.

The average age on the women’s skateboarding medal podium was 14, and the young competitors were hailed as evidence of a truly inclusive Olympic spirit. This success might have also shifted perceptions of skateboarding being fringe or even antisocial, to being a legitimate and highly-skilled sport.

It has also opened new opportunities for women skaters in a previously male-dominated culture. There have been anecdotal reports of an increased willingness by parents to let their children learn skateboarding, with local councils building more facilities and reviewing rules around skating being a “nuisance” in public spaces.

Waves of change

Perhaps the most radical aspect of the Paris Olympics is the location of its surfing competition in Tahiti, 16,000 kilometres from the host city.

Using the legendary reef break at Teahupo’o will almost certainly overcome the wave quality problems at the Tokyo games. But the decision has also proved controversial, with local residents concerned about the event’s potential impact on the fragile ocean ecosystem and surrounding areas.

In particular, a new aluminium judging tower, involving drilling into the delicate coral reef, has prompted months of local and international protest.

In a sense, the surfing controversy is emblematic of the IOC’s overall struggle to modernise the games, and respond to a rapidly evolving sporting landscape, while not alienating traditional audiences.

The IOC has invested heavily in these new sports and events, and we will likely see more on the programme in Los Angeles in 2028 and Brisbane in 2032. There is also a push for their inclusion in the Paralympics.

Whether those elusive younger viewers are lured back, however, remains to be seen. Our research suggests the full impact of inclusion – on both the Olympics and the sports themselves – can take years to become evident. In the meantime, settle in and enjoy the show.

Holly Thorpe has received funding from the IOC Advanced Olympic Research Grant Programme.

Belinda Wheaton has received funding from the IOC Advanced Olympic Research Grant Programme.

– ref. Breakdancing, DJs and Tahitian surf: Paris 2024 is going for gold in Olympic innovation – https://theconversation.com/breakdancing-djs-and-tahitian-surf-paris-2024-is-going-for-gold-in-olympic-innovation-233200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Too many older Australians are missing out on recommended vaccinations for COVID, flu, shingles and pneumococcal that can protect them from serious illness, hospitalisation and even death.

A new Grattan Institute report shows vaccination rates vary widely from GP to GP, highlighting an important place to look for opportunities to boost vaccination.

Many people get vaccinated at pharmacies, and those vaccinations are counted in our analysis. But we looked at GPs because they have a unique role overseeing someone’s health care, and an important role promoting vaccination.

We found that for some GPs, nine in ten of their older patients were vaccinated for flu. For others, the rate was only four in ten. The differences for shingles and COVID were even bigger. For pneumococcal disease, there was a 13-fold difference in GPs’ patient vaccination rates.

While some variation is inevitable, these differences are large, and they result in too many people missing out on recommended vaccines.

Some GPs treat more complex patients

A lot of these differences reflect the fact that GPs see different types of patients.

Our research shows older people who aren’t proficient in English are up to 15% less likely to be vaccinated, even after other factors are taken into account. And the problem seems to be getting worse.

COVID vaccination rates for people 75 years and older fell to just 36% in May 2024. But rates were even lower – a mere 11% – for people who don’t speak English proficiently, and 15% for those who speak a language other than English at home.

Given these results, it’s no surprise that GPs with fewer patients who are vaccinated also have more patients who struggle with English. For GPs with the lowest vaccination rates, one-quarter of their patients aren’t proficient in English. For GPs with the highest vaccination rates, it is only 1%.

GPs with fewer vaccinated patients also saw more people who live in rural areas, are poorer, didn’t go to university, and don’t have regular access to a GP, all of which reduce the likelihood of getting vaccinated.

Many of these barriers to vaccination are difficult for GPs to overcome. They point to structural problems in our health system, and indeed our society, that go well beyond vaccination.

But GPs are also a key part of the puzzle. A strong recommendation from a GP can make a big difference to whether a patient gets vaccinated. Nearly all older Australians visit a GP every year. And some GPs have room for improvement.

But GPs seeing similar patients can have very different vaccination rates

We compared GPs whose patients had a similar likelihood of being vaccinated, based on a range of factors including their health, wealth and cultural background.

Among the GPs whose patients were least likely to get a flu vaccination, some saw less than 40% of their patients vaccinated, while for others in that group, the rate was over 70%.

Among GPs with patients who face few barriers to vaccination, the share of their patients who were vaccinated also varied widely.

Even within neighbourhoods, GP patient vaccination rates vary a lot. For example, in Bankstown in Sydney, there was a seven-fold difference in COVID vaccination rates and an 18-fold difference for pneumococcal vaccination.

Not everything about clinics and patients can be measured in data, and there will be good reasons for some of these differences.

But the results do suggest that some GPs are beating the odds to overcome patient barriers to getting vaccinated, while other GPs could be doing more. That should trigger focused efforts to raise vaccination rates where they are low.

So what should governments do?

A comprehensive national reform agenda is needed to increase adult vaccination. That includes clearer guidance, national advertising campaigns, SMS reminders, and tailored local programs that reach out to communities with very low levels of vaccination.

But based on the big differences in GPs’ patient vaccination rates, Australia also needs a three-pronged plan to help GPs lift older Australians’ vaccination rates.

First, the way general practice is funded needs to be overhauled, providing more money for the GPs whose patients face higher barriers to vaccination. Today, clinics with patients who are poorer, sicker and who struggle with English tend to get less funding. They should get more, so they can spend more time with patients to explain and promote vaccination.

Second, GPs need to be given data, so that they can easily see how their vaccination rates compare to GPs with similar patients.

And third, Primary Health Networks – which are responsible for improving primary care in their area – should give clinics with low vaccination rates the help they need. That might include running vaccination sessions, sharing information about best practices that work in similar clinics with higher vaccination rates, or offering translation support.

And because pharmacies also play an important role in promoting and providing vaccines, governments should give them data too, showing how their rates compare to other pharmacies in their area, and support to boost vaccination uptake.

These measures would go a long way to better protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. Governments have better data than ever before on who is missing out on vaccinations – and other types of health care.

They shouldn’t miss the opportunity to target support so that no matter where you live, what your background is, or which GP or pharmacy you go to, you will have the best chance of being protected against disease.

Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by governments, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

Anika Stobart 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. Are you up to date with your COVID, flu and other shots? It might depend on who your GP is – https://theconversation.com/are-you-up-to-date-with-your-covid-flu-and-other-shots-it-might-depend-on-who-your-gp-is-234175

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arman Pili, Research affiliate, Monash University

Australia is renowned for its native flora and fauna, but did you know the continent is also home to about 3,000 “alien” species of animals, plants, fungi and microbes?

Alien species are those brought by humans to areas they do not naturally occur in. These intruders are Australia’s leading cause of biodiversity loss and species extinction. They also cost the Australian economy some A$24.5 billion a year.

Invasive alien species become much harder and more expensive to manage as they establish and spread through the landscape. So preventing their arrival is vital.

But which species will arrive next? Our study published today helps identify the animals Australia should be looking out for.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

To help manage the invasive species threat, national authorities compile official warning lists that identify species not yet within a country’s borders, but which may become a big problem if they do arrive.

The most important criteria for adding a species to the list is whether they have already invaded other parts of the world.

Authorities also consider if a species could feasibly be brought into the country by humans either deliberately, such as on the case of exotic pets, or accidentally, for example if they hitchhike on fresh produce, luggage or vehicles.

Authorities also consider if a species can survive and reproduce in the country (which precludes, say, a polar bear being added to the warning list in a tropical area).

These warning lists can be effective. For example, the United Kingdom’s list was published in 2013; within two years, seven of their top-listed alien species had arrived in the country, including the notoriously invasive quagga mussel.

However, the lists are not foolproof. Most crucially, the emphasis on whether a species has invaded other parts of the world will not identify species that have not yet become invasive anywhere, but might in future.

In fact, a study in 2020 predicted the number of new alien species globally will increase by 36% by 2050.

Our research set out to address this blind spot in warning list systems.

Who’s arriving next?

The tool we developed assesses a species’ invasion risk based on whether humans are likely to accidentally bring the species to a certain country, and if the species will become invasive beyond their natural range.

First, we collected data on attributes of species worldwide, such as their size, number of offspring, lifestyle, diet, preferred habitats, natural range, how often they are encountered, and their tolerance to humans.

Second, we programmed our tool to analyse patterns in the attributes of species that have become invasive in different parts of the world. This means the tool identifies species that haven’t yet invaded new areas globally, but share attributes with species that have become invasive.

Those attributes include:

• a tendency to climb as opposed to staying on the ground, which means they are more likely to hitchhike into a country on produce and in luggage and vehicles

• being commonly encountered in a wide range of habitats, especially where humans live.

We then tested our tool on about 16,000 (or 76%) of all known amphibians and reptiles worldwide, with no invasion history. Of these, we identified 160 species that might pose an invasion risk to Australia and other countries.

What Australia should watch out for

The species our tool identified as a possible invasion concern to Australia, and which border officials should be monitoring for, included:

• Common European viper (Vivipera berus), a venomous snake widespread in Europe and northern Asia. It grows to a maximum length of about 85 centimetres. Other venomous snake species are native to Australia, but no viper species are currently known to exist here. Viper venom affects blood clotting and destroys tissues.

• Graceful chameleon (Chamaeleo gracilis), a lizard common in sub-Saharan Africa. While the species is commonly exploited by the pet trade, our tool indicates it can also be accidentally brought to Australia by humans. Chameleons can change their colour to either camouflage themselves and evade predators, or to intimidate them.

• American toad (Anaxyrus americanus), from eastern North America. They have a wart-like gland behind each eye. The toad is poisonous like the cane toad, which is already a problem in northern Australia. However, the American toad can live in temperate climates and could threaten southern Australia’s wildlife.

Next steps

Around the time we finished developing our tool last year, one of the predicted invaders – the Caspian Bent-toed Gecko (Tenuidactylus caspius) – began invading the Eastern European nation of Georgia.

This demonstrates our tool’s potential to identify future invaders and improve current warning systems.

But further work is needed before including the species we identified on national warning lists. For example, research is needed to determine where each species can survive and reproduce.

And so far, we have applied our tool only to amphibians and reptiles, particularly those that can be accidentally transported by humans. In future, we hope our tool will be applied to other animal groups and plants to identify invaders looming on our horizons.

Arman Pili received scholarships and funding from the Monash University Faculty of Science.

David Chapple receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and the NESP Resilient Landscapes Hub.

– ref. ‘Alien invasion’: researchers identify which exotic animals may soon hitchhike into Australia – https://theconversation.com/alien-invasion-researchers-identify-which-exotic-animals-may-soon-hitchhike-into-australia-232317

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renee Desmarchelier, Associate Professor (Critical Pedagogies), University of Southern Queensland

It is increasingly common for Australian children to live in a different house from one of their parents. About 28% of children under 14 have separated parents.

While most children are born into a two-parent family, the proportion of children living in a one-parent or step-family increases each year with a child’s age.

This means information about children’s schooling often needs to go to more than one household. However, this information is not always communicated clearly or reliably between schools and parents, and between separated parents themselves.

What is it like for separated parents who share responsibility for their child’s education?

Our survey shows separated parents struggle to get clear information, as well as the support and understanding they need.

Our research

In 2020, we surveyed 140 separated parents about their experiences dealing with their child’s school.

The majority of parents identified as mothers, while just over 20% of participants were fathers. Parents had either sole or equal care of their children, primary care (that is, more than 50% of the time) or minority care (less than 50%).

Participants were recruited from across Australia and from a wide range of schools, including public and private schools at both the primary and secondary level.

Our findings

Overall results regarding separated parents’ experiences with their children’s schools revealed most parents were unhappy with their school interactions:

• 57% rated their experiences with teachers as negative

• 60% rated their experiences with school leadership (such as principals or deputy principals) as negative

• 63% rated their experiences with school administrative or office staff as negative and 14% rated them as “very poor”.

Why are separated parents struggling?

Unless there is a court order that says otherwise, both parents are entitled to access information about their child at school, regardless of who the child is living with.

But parents in our survey reported frustrations with getting both routine information and important messages and updates from the school.

This included newsletters, permission notes and homework information, as well as medical updates (for example, if the child was injured at school or sent home sick). One father reflected that it is “extremely difficult” to access report cards and parent–teacher interviews because

all of these processes are designed for traditional families and [the school] can’t handle two separate emails for report cards and two separate days for interviews.

For those parents with equal care, a child’s movement between houses on a regular basis made communication between schools and parents particularly problematic. As one mother explained, the school showed a lack of empathy for her situation and

a lack of understanding about how to deal with separated parents. Communicating or sending out information to one parent only, and ignoring the other parent.

When there is not equal care, parents told us that school staff “tend to favour the person the child lives with regardless of any situation”. One mother who had minority care of her children — a group that felt particularly alienated and judged in their school interactions — said the schools “don’t want to talk to me about much.”

Separated families can be complex

Parents stressed schools often fail to acknowledge or accommodate the complexities of family life after a separation. This can include scenarios where one partner is being financially or emotionally abused, or where parents simply do not get along.

As one mother with shared care said “the expectation that both parents be in the same space isn’t realistic”.

In fact, some parents believed interactions with the school amplified family conflict and even made them feel unsafe. One parent said schools are “unequipped for dealing with high conflict parents”.

The school just didn’t have systems in place nor training of staff to […] make sure both parents are informed of things […]

Gender plays a role

Stereotypical ideas about gender and parental roles was a frequent theme in our findings.

For example, mothers with majority care reported more positive experiences with their children’s school than mothers with shared or minority care.

Fathers were more likely to report they felt the school favoured the other parent. One father told us the school preferred to defer to the mother’s authority, regardless of his status as the primary caregiver.

When I have called with a query, the teacher returned the call to my ex-partner instead. Deliberately seeking out my ex instead of me to discuss matters.

Another father with sole custody explained he was unable to nominate himself as the “main parent” because the school decided “this had to be a mother”.

Even mothers who were generally satisfied with their school interactions reported difficulties with gendered expectations, such as the idea mothers had more time and greater responsibility to help with their child’s learning.

There is a judgement that I am not interested in my children’s schooling if I don’t volunteer in the classroom. This expectation is not the same for my ex-husband as he ‘has to work’.

What should happen next?

The needs of separated parents, as a significant percentage of the school community, are not well understood or well accommodated.

Our research shows schools should set up clear and consistent communication protocols that are not based on entrenched assumptions of the nuclear family.

The onus to ensure effective and equitable communication should not sit squarely with parents.

All school staff should be involved in targeted training to improve their understanding of family complexities and the needs and challenges of separated parents. This is especially important when parental conflict is exacerbated by the sharing (or withholding) of school-related information.

These findings are of significant concern for Australian educators and policymakers given the very real impact on parents and the unknown impact on the education of so many Australian children.

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. ‘The teacher returned the call to my ex’: how separated parents struggle to get information from their child’s school – https://theconversation.com/the-teacher-returned-the-call-to-my-ex-how-separated-parents-struggle-to-get-information-from-their-childs-school-234366

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francisco Jose Testa, Lecturer in Earth Sciences (Mineralogy, Petrology & Geochemistry), University of Tasmania

Apart from the Sun, its planets and their moons, our Solar System has vast amounts of space rocks – fragments left over from the formation of the inner planets.

A large concentration of asteroids forms a vast ring around our Sun, orbiting it between Mars and Jupiter. Fittingly, it’s called the main asteroid belt. Comets are icy bodies of dust and rocks that originated even farther away – in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune and the Oort Cloud of debris surrounding the Solar System.

Extraterrestrial rocks come in many sizes. Generally speaking, asteroids are space rocks larger than one metre, while the smaller pieces (from two millimetres up to one metre in size) are known as meteoroids.

Regardless of where they come from, once these foreign rocks make it to Earth’s surface, we call them meteorites. But they are much more than just simple rocks from far, far away.

They have allowed us to estimate the age of our planet, and changed the course of evolution more than once. Here are six major ways meteorites and comets have contributed to Earth’s history or our knowledge of it.

1. The age of our planet

About 4.5 billion years ago, a Mars-sized planet collided with the proto-Earth, changing the composition of our planet and forming our Moon.

During its first tens of millions of years, Earth was predominantly molten. It was too hot to form solid minerals and rocks, so the exact age of our planet remains unknown. But we do know it’s between the age measured from meteorites and the age of the oldest rocks we have been able to find and date.

The oldest minerals that have been reliably dated on Earth are tiny zircon grains found in Western Australia. The oldest one is 4.4 billion years old. However, scientists have also dated specks of calcium and aluminium found in meteorites, which yielded an older age of 4.56 billion years – the age of our Solar System.

So, thanks in part to the oldest age provided by a meteorite, our best estimate is that Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago.

2. The building blocks of life

The most plausible theory for the beginning of life on Earth is based on simple organic compounds that formed in space and were brought to Earth by meteorites and other celestial bodies.

During the Late Heavy Bombardment, a period between 4.1 and 3.8 billion years ago when more impact events hammered our planet, Earth’s surface was partially solid.

Amino acids, hydrocarbons and other carbon-based molecules arrived at our planet in carbonaceous chondrites (primitive meteorites, remnants from the early Solar System) and comets.

Once the early Earth was enriched with these organic molecules, chemical evolution followed. Eventually, life emerged on our planet. The earliest evidence is potential microbial life from 3.8 billion years ago, not long after the Late Heavy Bombardment.

Regardless of how life started, all theories agree on the need for a primitive ocean – or pools of water – that allowed early life on Earth to develop.

3. How we got our oceans

Meteorites and comets also played a major role in the formation of Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. Large quantities of water were delivered to our planet during the Late Heavy Bombardment.

In addition, water was released from Earth’s interior through volcanic activity during the Hadean Eon, the first eon in our planet’s history.

Water vapour, along with other gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, nitrogen and sulphur, formed the proto-atmosphere. Rain began to fall once the temperature dropped below the boiling point of water, forming our primordial ocean.

Yes – the water we drink today is at least partly of extraterrestrial origin.

4. Changing the course of evolution

The extinction of dinosaurs happened about 66 million years ago. It’s linked to the second-largest known meteorite impact on Earth, the deeply buried Chicxulub crater in Mexico.

In contrast, the Late Devonian extinction about 380 to 360 million years ago cannot be explained by a single impact. Several factors have been proposed as potential causes, including multiple impacts, climate change, depletion of oxygen (anoxia) in the oceans and volcanic activity.

Repeated times during Earth’s history, impact events have influenced the survival and evolution of life on our planet.

5. Sampling Earth’s deep mantle and core

Scientists use a combination of methods to understand Earth’s internal structure: crust, mantle, core and their subdivisions. Seismology is the most important of them, which studies the propagation of seismic waves generated by earthquakes or artificial sources through Earth’s interior.

We have access to rock samples from the crust and upper mantle, but we will never be able to sample the deep mantle or solid core. Even if we had the technology, it would be astronomically expensive, and going down to such depths involves extreme pressures and temperatures.

Since direct sampling is impossible, scientists rely on indirect methods.

Pallasites and metallic meteorites are rocks from differentiated asteroids – ones that also have a mantle and core. Such space rocks are the closest we will ever come to sampling the deepest portions of our own planet. They help us understand its composition.

Pallasites are rare, and contain a silicate mineral called olivine embedded in nickel-iron alloys. It’s thought pallasites form in the boundary between the core and mantle-like regions of differentiated asteroids.

Metallic or iron meteorites are mainly composed of the nickel-iron alloys kamacite and taenite. They are the core fragments of differentiated asteroids, giving us clues to our own planet’s core.

6. Meteorite impacts gave us huge gold and nickel deposits

The Witwatersrand rocks in South Africa host the world’s largest known gold reserves. This would not be the case without the Vredefort impact crater – the largest known impact structure on Earth – formed about 2.02 billon years ago.

The impact saved these gold deposits from erosion by covering the entire area with ejected material, concealing the ore-bearing layers beneath. If an ore deposit erodes, the material disperses and it wouldn’t make for profitable extraction.

Witwatersrand is the largest gold-producing district in the world. Which means the ancient meteorite impact has made an indirect, lasting impact on our society through the availability of this precious metal.

But that’s not the only such event. The third-largest known impact crater on Earth is the Sudbury Basin in Canada, formed 1.85 billion years ago. It hosts giant nickel deposits because the impact disrupted Earth’s crust, partially melting it and allowing magma from the mantle to rise.

This led to the accumulation of nickel, copper, palladium, platinum and other metals, producing one of the richest mining districts on the planet.

The author would like to acknowledge helpful feedback on this article from Prof Noel C. White, University of Tasmania.

Francisco Jose Testa 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. Not just space rocks: 6 things we’ve learned about Earth from meteorites and comets – https://theconversation.com/not-just-space-rocks-6-things-weve-learned-about-earth-from-meteorites-and-comets-229288

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

Listening to the politicians and union leaders, one could be forgiven for thinking Nine’s Nick McKenzie and his journalist colleagues were the only ones aware of the nefarious activities in the CFMEU.

Amid the revelations from Nine’s investigation, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke told the ABC on Sunday “all options” for action were on the table, and he had asked for departmental advice.

By Monday morning the union’s national secretary Zach Smith had put the Victorian branch into administration.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan whipped off a request for Labor’s national executive to suspend the CFMEU’s construction division from the Victorian Labor Party. She also asked Victorian Labor “to immediately pause political donations from the CFMEU”.

Anthony Albanese declared “zero tolerance” for the union’s bad behaviour. ACTU secretary Sally McManus said there was “no place whatsoever” for criminal activities in unions: the ACTU executive will meet on Wednesday to discuss matters.

The allegations made in the Nine reports include thuggery, standover tactics, the parachuting of senior bikie figures into lucrative union delegate roles on major Victorian construction projects, kickbacks, and much else.

The series is a remarkable expose. But it is hard to credit that senior players, including the minister, his department, the national office of the union, and federal authorities were not able to find out what was happening without the assistance of McKenzie and co.

Surely, some of them would have had their ears to the ground. If they didn’t, it can only be put down to incompetence or that they didn’t seriously seek to hear (despite all those visits to construction sites in hi-vis).

After he became opposition leader, Anthony Albanese drove the union’s strong man, John Setka, out of the Labor Party, following his disparaging the work of Rosie Batty, a campaigner against domestic violence. But the union movement could not dislodge him. McManus urged him to quit his union post for the good of the movement, to no effect.

In 2020 the union’s national secretary Michael O’Connor (one of the union’s good guys and brother of federal minister Brendan O’Connor) quit his post after prolonged pressure from Setka’s construction division. His apparent sin was not defending Setka following his conviction for harassing his wife.

It was only last Friday, facing the Nine expose, that Setka (who had been due to leave his position later this year) suddenly resigned as Victorian and Tasmanian secretary of the union.

Labor in government has twice bowed to what the CFMEU – and the wider union movement – wanted: the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the so-called cop-on-the-beat.

The Gillard government got rid of the ABCC. The Coalition restored it. Tony Burke scrapped it again. Burke was so anxious to act that he defanged the body ahead of having the legislation passed.

Burke said on Sunday the allegations reported in the Nine expose (to that point) related to when the ABCC was in operation.

“It completely failed, for the simple reason that the whole concept of it was wrong from the beginning, which was about pushing people into their corners,” Burke said.

“That’s what it was about, and that meant that you would always in those situations empower the most militant players. That’s what happens when you push people into their corners.”

This sounded like a stretch. But accepting the ABCC was ineffective, the latest revelations suggest it should have been beefed up, not scrapped.

The government recently rushed through parliament legislation to allow the manufacturing part of the CFMFU to split off.

Nine reported this followed a long campaign by CFMEU’s assistant national secretary Leo Skourdoumbis. For his trouble Skourdoumbis received what Nine described as “a menacing nighttime visit” by Setka to the family home”, where he dumped a suitcase with the words “LEO THE DOG” scrawled on it. The incident was captured by a neighbour’s CCTV.

A few years ago the Morrison government legislated to allow the mining and energy division to leave the union.

Its members were anxious to take the exit path. A resolution said: “The ruthless use of raw numbers against the smaller divisions; the disrespect and disregard shown to the views of mining and energy workers; and the public undermining of our former national secretary [Michael O’Connor] to settle a personal score, is simply intolerable.

“It is clear that there is no longer a place of equality and dignity for the mining and energy division within the amalgamated union.”

What the union and the government – that was expected to discuss the situation at Monday’s cabinet meeting – do now must be judged in terms of actions, not fighting or reassuring words.

Burke might be right in noting deregistration could be counterproductive, just reducing the regulation of the union rather than enhancing it.

The union, pledging to change its ways, will want to be left, to the greatest extent possible, to reform itself. Zach Smith is one of the up-and-comers of the union movement, with a lot to prove.

But after all that’s gone before, the union can’t be trusted to clean out its Augean stables. Burke must recognise this – he said on Monday the union’s response so far was “progress, but falls short”.

The government needs to use its powers to impose independent administrators or some other process.

Labor also should show its seriousness by putting a moratorium on political donations from the union (whose construction division donated $1 million to the federal party for the last election). When asked about this on Monday, the prime minister dodged the questions. He said such matters were for the party organisation.

Labor’s national executive will meet this week, to discuss the Allan request and, no doubt, the question of donations. We’ll see whether “everything” is really on the table, as the government says.

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: If it’s serious about CFMEU, Labor should decline its money – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-if-its-serious-about-cfmeu-labor-should-decline-its-money-234670

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosemary Gibson, Lecturer in Contract Law, The University of Queensland

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

In the Bluey episode “The Sign”, the Heeler family enters a contract to sell their family home to a pair of English Sheepdogs, or as Bluey calls them, “the dogs with no eyes”.

But towards the end of the episode, the Sheepdogs spy another house that they prefer. Unlike Bluey’s house, the new place has a pool.

They telephone Bandit and tell him that they have changed their mind. Happily for Bluey’s family – and let’s face it, most of Australia – Bandit decides not to press ahead with the sale and the Heelers end up staying put in their family home.

But aside from the fact that the contracting parties are all cartoon dogs – how realistic is this scenario? Is it possible to end a contract to purchase or sell a house simply because you’ve changed your mind?

The reality is that once a contract of sale is signed, there are only limited circumstances in which buyers and sellers can bring the contract to an end.

What do you sign when buying or selling a house?

In Australia, each state and territory has its own standard form contract for the sale of land that buyers and sellers must sign.

The terms of these contracts mirror relevant state or territory laws, meaning they differ throughout Australia. It is important for parties to obtain advice from a property lawyer with experience in a particular jurisdiction’s contract.

Can you change your mind after signing?

Once a contract has been signed, a buyer may only end it for a “change of mind” during the “cooling off period”. The cooling off period is a short period of time – usually between two and five business days – after the contract is signed.

During this time, the buyer can end the contract, “no questions asked”. But there are usually financial consequences for terminating during the cooling off period.

For example, in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT, a buyer who ends the contract during the cooling off period must pay the seller 0.25% of the purchase price. For a house purchase of A$1 million, this termination penalty would be $2,500.

But not all states and territories guarantee a cooling off period for buyers. And in such a hot property market, an individual seller may be unlikely to agree to include such a term in a contract.

What if something goes wrong down the track?

When negotiating the contract terms, the parties may agree that the sale is subject to certain conditions. Typically, these conditions are in the purchaser’s favour. If one of the conditions is not satisfied in time, then the contract can be brought to an end.

It is up to the parties to negotiate which conditions (if any) are included in the contract, and the time by which the conditions must be satisfied. The most common conditions of sale are:

• the buyer obtains finance by a certain date (a finance clause)
• the buyer obtains satisfactory building and pest inspection reports by a certain date (a building and pest clause).

The buyer may also want the sale to be subject to the buyer first selling an existing property.

Once all of the conditions of sale are satisfied, the contract is said to be “unconditional”. From this time, there are no express circumstances in which either party may bring the contract to an end.

When the Sheepdogs telephoned Bandit, the Heelers had already moved all their furniture out of the house. Clearly, the sale had already gone unconditional. There was no express basis on which the Sheepdogs could have terminated the contract.

Could the Heelers have sued for breach of contact?

A party who ends a contract without justification is liable to pay compensation to the other party.

A house purchaser who wrongly terminates a contract would almost certainly lose their deposit. They may also be liable for additional losses the seller suffers as a result of the breach, including any deficiency in price on a resale of the property.

But a buyer and seller may bring a contract to an end by “mutual agreement”, which seems to be what happened in Bluey. The Sheepdogs sought to end the contract and – to the relief of all Australians – the Heelers agreed.

This is, however, unlikely to occur “in real life”, especially in today’s highly competitive property market.

At the very least, the seller would be entitled to retain the purchaser’s deposit. There would also be the issue of who bears the costs incurred in advertising and agency fees.

It seems Bandit followed his heart rather than the strict terms of the contract — and Australia is the better for it.

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

– ref. Can you change your mind after you buy a house? – https://theconversation.com/can-you-change-your-mind-after-you-buy-a-house-234659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Daniel, Associate Lecturer in Communications, Western Sydney University

This year marks the 25th anniversary of The Blair Witch Project, a film that popularised the found-footage horror sub-genre and captivated a generation of horror fans.

Made on a shoestring budget of less than US$60,000 by writer/director team Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, the film went on to gross US$248 million internationally, becoming one of the most successful films of all time by return on investment.

It also inspired a generation of indie filmmakers to overcome the limitations of low-budget filmmaking by leaning into the explicit presence of a camera within the story, such as with the Paranormal Activity series (2007–15), Creep (2014) and Hell House LLC (2015). In more recent tributes to the genre, such as the 2023 film Missing, older-style cameras are replaced with phone and laptop cameras.

Between reality and fiction

The Blair Witch Project famously opens with the following title card:

In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland while shooting a documentary called ‘The Blair Witch Project’. A year later their footage was found.

This introduction – and the promotion of the film as a record of true events – was part of a successful viral marketing strategy that leveraged the burgeoning internet culture of the time.

This strategy included a website which presented further details about the disturbing legend of the Blair Witch and the police investigation into the disappearance of students Heather, Mike and Josh.

Combined with the buzz from a successful Sundance debut in January 1999, the mythology surrounding the film intrigued audiences. And some viewers considered the possibility what they were watching was a genuine set of recordings – and not just fiction.

This conceit of blurring the line between fiction and reality had already been established in cult horror movies such as Ruggero Deodato’s 1980 film Cannibal Holocaust. But it was The Blair Witch Project that catapulted found-footage horror into the broader public consciousness.

The rise of reality TV in the 2000s meant viewers were increasingly being presented with documentary-style images which were claimed to be authentic (despite their constructed nature). In my book on found-footage horror, I argue the growing presence of screens and cameras in everyday life also contributed to the sub-genre’s popularity.

Found-footage scholar Alexandra Heller-Nicholas describes the experience of watching found-footage horror as an invitation to “indulge in an active horror fantasy”. Part of the appeal, she says, emerges from “something we rationally know not to be true (the supernatural)” being temporarily accepted as true because of our trust in the documentary-style aesthetic.

But of course, this temporary acceptance is underpinned by the knowledge the events are not real.

The future of Blair Witch

Since the early 2000s, there has been a marked decrease in the power of such “active horror fantasy” at the cinema. This is no doubt related to the public’s increasing scepticism of the visual image.

Speaking to The New York Times, The Blair Witch Project creators Myrick and Sanchez acknowledge that part of the success of the film was that it was a product of a unique window of time (before the media identified it as fiction). In 2016, a sequel to the two original Blair Witch films was met with a middling critical and audience response, seemingly confirming their beliefs.

This year, film studios Lionsgate and Blumhouse touted plans for a new sequel to The Blair Witch Project, although the original filmmaking team and cast were reportedly not approached for input. Upon hearing the news, the cast shared an open letter calling for retroactive compensation and meaningful consultation on the new film.

On a recent podcast, Sanchez shared his hopes for both a prequel set in the 1700s and a potential TV series that picks up where the original film ended.

New generations of film makers

While the presence of found-footage horror at the cinema may have declined in recent decades, the internet and streaming have provided a location for those inspired by The Blair Witch Project to continue to draw on the film’s aesthetics and storytelling devices.

Running from 2009 to 2014, the web series Marble Hornets adapted the Slenderman mythology as a found-footage exploration of a mysterious entity haunting the lives and cameras of a group of college students.

More recently, YouTuber Kane Parsons created a viral sensation by adapting a creepypasta known as The Backrooms into a series of YouTube short films. The viral success of these led to Parson’s recruitment to adapt the story into a feature film for studio A24.

The inventive 2022 series Archive 81 also became a critical success on Netflix, but was unfortunately cancelled after one season.

Horror as a genre will always find a way to infiltrate the media we consume. While it may seem unlikely any modern found-footage horror could captivate an audience the way The Blair Witch Project did, it’s only a matter of time before the next generation of storytellers create a terrifying new monster to haunt us.

Adam Daniel 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. The Blair Witch Project at 25: how one film changed the horror genre as we know it – https://theconversation.com/the-blair-witch-project-at-25-how-one-film-changed-the-horror-genre-as-we-know-it-233104

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Crawford, Worksafe New Zealand Chair in Health and Safety, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The government’s recently announced review of New Zealand’s health and safety system puts the spotlight back on the 2015 Health and Safety at Work Act – and why it has failed to keep New Zealanders safe on the job.

According to Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, the current rules are not fit for purpose. She has argued legal requirements that make sense in some areas don’t always make sense in others.

But the fact remains, work-related deaths and injuries have not reduced significantly in the past five years, despite the 2015 rule changes. Approximately 70 people die from work-related accidents each year – higher per capita than in Australia and the United Kingdom.

The review will look at whether current health and safety requirements are too strict or ambiguous to comply with, the overlap of workplace safety legislation with other regulations, and workplace risk management.

Nearly ten years after the law came into force, then, it’s a good time to examine which parts of current heath and safety legislation work – and what doesn’t. This may mean a revision of all, or parts, of the existing law.

But it’s essential any review does not simply seek to justify the weakening of rules in a sector where deregulation often worsens outcomes.

Worse than the UK and Australia

Despite an established safety framework in New Zealand, work can still be dangerous.

As well as the 70 people who die at work each year, an estimated 750 to 900 die from work-related diseases such as cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. According to a recent report from WorkSafe New Zealand, 20 people died from work-related suicides in 2020.

There are also approximately 5,000 to 6,000 hospitalisations each year from work-related health events. And between 2022 and 2023, 35,805 injuries resulted in a week or more away from work.

Data from earlier this year show an average of 2.3 deaths per 100,000 working people in New Zealand a year. Australia had 1.6 deaths per 100,000 people and the United Kingdom had 0.8. over the same period.

Too much guess work

Where other developed countries differ from New Zealand lies in their strong enforcement backed up by well-written guidance, access to professional advice and applied research.

New Zealand’s legislation outlines what is required of businesses to identify hazards and manage the risks. But the ten-year health and safety strategy released in 2018 by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment contains no quantifiable outcomes or milestones regulators and industries can use to measure improvement.

Regulators and businesses are simply left to guess whether the health and safety changes have been successful or not. This makes it difficult to anticipate or mitigate problems.

Indeed, a 2022 independent review of workplace regulator WorkSafe found the organisation was unclear about its role. According to the review, WorkSafe could not say if its activities were cost-effective or reducing workplace harm.

A new strategy

This year, WorkSafe announced a new strategy focusing on acute, chronic and catastrophic harm. In particular, the regulator will be monitoring and intervening in high-risk sectors such as forestry, transport, manufacturing and construction.

But this prioritisation of hazardous industries does not mean health and safety can stop in other areas. It is still required by the Health and Safety at Work Act.

To be effective, any new strategy needs to clearly set the standard and expectations for different industries – not just high-risk ones. This is particularly the case for small businesses, which need different support and access to training and advice.

The country also needs to develop a complete set of regulations and approved codes of practice with industry that guide employers about the health and safety of their workers and customers.

Profit-driven businesses cannot be expected to invest in training for staff to ensure on-site health and safety unless required to by law.

Creating accountability

If the government wants to tangibly improve health and safety in the workplace, the ten-year health and safety strategy needs updating to explicitly guide everyone about how to make measurable improvements.

WorkSafe must also be empowered to hold directors and businesses accountable, and businesses must ensure they are getting competent advice and putting it into practice. Workers’ concerns need to be taken seriously and they must have the ability (and protection) to stop work that is dangerous.

The International Labour Organisation’s declaration on the fundamental principles and rights at work includes the statement that “health and safety at work is a human right”. New Zealand is a signatory to this.

Ensuring that right requires more than orange cones and red tape. Clear legal requirements and monitoring, as well as listening to workers, are what will make the real difference to the safety of all New Zealanders.

Joanne Crawford receives funding from the Health Research Council. She is an honorary member of the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management and chairs the Tertiary Education Group within the Health and Safety Association of New Zealand.

Chris Peace was elected a Life Member of the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management in 2024 and received the Safeguard Lifetime Achievement award in 2023.

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

– ref. An overdose of orange cones? What the review of NZ’s workplace safety rules must get right – https://theconversation.com/an-overdose-of-orange-cones-what-the-review-of-nzs-workplace-safety-rules-must-get-right-234151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

It is tempting to draw grand conclusions from the assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump this weekend. The coarse rhetoric currently in vogue in American politics, not to mention the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, provide plenty of fodder for this kind of speculation.

In reality, the shooting, while horrible, does not come as a total surprise in the context of American history or even in the current presidential campaign.

Divisive and extreme political campaigns from both parties are now the norm. Criminal prosecutions of Trump and President Joe Biden’s son Hunter have become politicised. And American voters are more often driven to vote against the other party’s candidate than to vote for their own.

Yes, activists and officials in both parties will try to use the shooting for campaign advantage by tapping into voters’ emotions. Politicians will accentuate the horror of the attempted assassination and declare various phenomena as “existential threats” or use similar apocalyptic language.

But the overall political environment, while uncomfortable, embarrassing and occasionally deeply concerning, is not entirely unprecedented or even an extreme example of American political life.

To put it plainly: American politics has always been a bloody fight.

A history of political violence

In the latter half of the 20th century, one American president was assassinated (John F. Kennedy), another was wounded (Ronald Reagan) and another targeted (Gerald Ford). In addition, two major presidential candidates were assassinated (Robert F. Kennedy) or nearly so (George Wallace). Numerous other plots were disrupted.

American politics from the 1960s to the early 1980s were incredibly divisive and violent. During just the years 1971 and 1972, more than 2,500 politically motivated bombings occurred in the United States (nearly five per day), mostly from left-wing protesters against the war in Vietnam.

As the US has become increasingly polarised in recent years, the political environment today has become volatile again.

In 2011, Representative Gabby Giffords was shot and nearly killed at an event in Arizona by a man suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In 2017, a Bernie Sanders supporter shot at several Republican congressmen and staffers, nearly killing Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, now the House majority leader.

And of course, the Trump-instigated insurrection of the Capitol during the counting of electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election gives millions of Americans good reason to believe that Trump and his supporters remain a threat to democratic processes.

Democrats’ opportunity

Another immediate consequence of the assassination attempt will be to turn the national conversation temporarily away from Biden’s debate performance in late June. This political dilemma for Democrats, however, will not go away.

Given Biden’s age and obvious decline, White House efforts to prop up perceptions about his fitness for office will likely not be enough to persuade his fellow Democrats he can beat Trump in November.

Even before the shooting, polls indicated Biden was likely to lose the election. It will be even harder now, given the shooting will galvanise Trump’s supporters and likely widen his appeal to others.

Many Democrats believe a different candidate – Vice President Kamala Harris or another leading Democrat – would have a better chance.

The Trump shooting now presents a new opportunity for Democrats to reset their campaign and make a broader appeal to American voters for calm and national unity.

They will need to tone down their own rhetoric about Trump’s threat to democracy and instead make the case that their policy agenda is the preferred one for the American people.

The question is: can they quickly identify a new candidate to drive this new message? Even in the wake of Trump’s near-death experience, that remains the biggest question in American politics.

Republicans’ challenge

Trump’s near-death experience will give his campaign – already based on portraying him as a victim of Democrats and the establishment – renewed energy. The pictures of Trump, with blood on his face, raising his fist in defiance after he was shot, are more valuable than hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign ads.

However, Republicans and fervent Trump supporters will now face a different challenge. The urge to exploit the shooting – whether the shooter was politically motivated or not – will be very difficult to resist.

Some Trump supporters are already blaming Democrats for the event, such as Republican Senator JD Vance, considered a frontrunner to be Trump’s vice presidential running mate.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and others have also criticised Biden for saying before the assassination that he would “put a bullseye” on Trump.

Politicising the shooting in this way might have success in boosting turnout of Trump supporters in November, but it could also drive further acrimony and unhinged rhetoric from those on the right.

For instance, any attempt to turn this tragedy into an attack on Democrats or Biden and his character could prove counterproductive and only remind voters of Trump’s tendency to incite nasty divisiveness.

Instead, Trump has an opportunity to show real leadership and make a broader appeal to undecided and independent voters. With his base locked in more than ever, will he reach out to persuadable Republican moderates and disaffected Democrats? Can he show that he can tone down his antagonistic rhetoric and even reach across the aisle?

Reagan did so – at least in tone if not his policy agenda – after he nearly died from an assassin’s bullet in 1981.

So, can Republicans and Democrats use the tragic Trump shooting to pivot to a more positive message? American voters – as well as the US’s friends and allies around the world – are no doubt hoping so.

The day after the shooting, Biden called Trump to express his concerns about his health and discuss the tragic event. Perhaps this small gesture of bipartisanship and civility can be an example for all in the days ahead.

Lester Munson 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. The Trump assassination attempt has upended the US election race. How will both parties react now? – https://theconversation.com/the-trump-assassination-attempt-has-upended-the-us-election-race-how-will-both-parties-react-now-234658

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dr Claire Konkes, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communication, University of Tasmania

In recent weeks, the Menzies Research Centre, the Liberal party-aligned think tank, has criticised the rise in “environmental lawfare”. National media outlets duly took up the mantle.

With an introduction by BHP Chief Executive David Hughes and nearly all the case studies involving the fossil fuel industry, its report tries to paint a picture of a “cashed-up” environmental movement. By extension, the report says, the use of the court system by environmental groups threatens democracy.

It attacked private donations, government funding, and charity status of public interest advocacy groups (such as the Environmental Defenders Office, a body Peter Dutton has pledged to defund). But these attacks disguise the David and Goliath battles that occur when environmental groups challenge large industries such as mining and fossil fuels.

Accusations that environmentalists are abusing our legal system, blocking progress, and costing the economy are not new, but they are getting louder. In reality, legal cases have long featured in this space because changing law is an important goal of any social change movement.

But it’s not just green groups turning to the courts. Large corporations, too, use the law to further their cause. Far from threatening democracy, this is democracy in action.

What is ‘green lawfare’?

“Green lawfare” refers to the various ways individuals and organisations use legal action to achieve their goals, which might include stopping a new mine or changing government climate policy.

I’ve extensively researched the concept for my book. In it, I explore how activists, corporations and government have all turned to the courts to prosecute environmental cases. Notably, these strategies also involve communication strategies aimed at getting, or avoiding, media attention.

The battle to save Tasmania’s Franklin River blockade in the southern summer of 1982–83 is a great example. News and other media shared images of protest, arrests and jail time to the world as symbols of defiance. The battle was ultimately won in the High Court.

It is not a question of whether individuals and public interest groups should be able to use the courts. Instead, the current debate focuses our attention on the importance of access to the courts in any healthy democracy.

In contrast, the current attacks on justice systems, including personal attacks on judges, prosecutors, and lawyers and stopping participatory governance have become a hallmark of the swing to authoritarian and far-right governments.

Democracy in action

These legal cases provide a window into the relationship between democracy and powerful economic interests. They also bind the legal system to environmental politics, which has long been fought out in the media.

For decades, the global environmental movement has campaigned, protested, and appealed to governments to mend the divide between human activity and the natural world on which we all depend.

These are exercises in democracy. Public participation and protest, alongside scientific and economic expertise, has created a large body of environmental law. This then spurred on the creation of the institutions that manage these laws, such as environmental departments.

In Australia, our environmental laws continue to evolve because Australians overwhelmingly want them to be stronger. The government is at least trying to heed that call, albeit not as urgently as many would like. It currently has an environmental protection bill before parliament.

Legislation inevitably sometimes lands parties in court. All stakeholders have – and should have – access to our legal system to ensure these laws are not ignored, broken or bent.

Prosecuting opposition

What often goes unmentioned is the full extent of green lawfare in Australia by industry, which includes the rise in strategic litigation against public participation. This means environmentalists can be subject to expensive lawsuits designed to intimidate or silence their opposition.

Climate activists are already being targeted this way. Ben Pennings is being sued for millions of dollars by Gautam Adani, chairman of multinational conglomerate Adani.

Adani has little chance of recovering the $17 million he wants. But the legal harassment may be more the point. Adani has hired private investigators to photograph Pennings and his family and asked the courts to force him to hand over his electronic devices.

It’s not just individuals being sued this way, but governments. The fossil fuel industry leads the world in investor-state arbitration claims, which allow offshore companies to sue governments for millions, and often billions, of dollars. These claims have become a major obstacle to global climate action.

Climate in the courtroom

Science has clearly told us that carbon emissions, pollution, and biodiversity loss caused by human activity are threatening global wellbeing. We only need to turn to the news to see the human suffering causes by a dangerous heatwaves, polluted waterways and spoiled habitats.

While science is diagnosing the cause of our troubles, addressing environmental problems is a social challenge for local communities and their governments. The courts are increasingly the chosen arena for all sides in the debate.

As a result, we are seeing increasingly novel approaches to what legal systems, especially the courts, are being asked to determine.

Landmark cases, including Sharma vs Minister for the Environment and Pabai Pabai vs Commonwealth of Australia have asked the courts to determine whether the Australian government has the duty to protect Australians from climate change.

Corporations, too, are using novel approaches. For instance, mining giant Santos is currently using the courts to uncover the financial backers behind a case that delayed their $5.4 billion Barossa gas project.

Green lawfare is on the rise because our knowledge and understanding of our environment, and what needs to be done to fix the mess we are in, tells us we need to change.

People are demanding our governments do more to address the problem. Public participation in our democratic processes includes access to our legal system.
The turn to the courts is a sign that our legal system is working exactly as it should.

Dr Claire Konkes 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. Climate in the courtroom: all sides are using ‘green lawfare’, and it’s good for democracy – https://theconversation.com/climate-in-the-courtroom-all-sides-are-using-green-lawfare-and-its-good-for-democracy-234269

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlin Fox-Harding, Lecturer/Researcher, Edith Cowan University

As the world’s best athletes head to Paris for the upcoming Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is trying to make it easier for new parents to compete at their best.

Led by an initiative from the IOC Athletes’ Commission, the IOC will enable, for the first time, a nursery for parent-athletes to spend time with their young children including private breastfeeding spaces.

Traditionally, children are banned from entering the athletes’ village where participants and coaches stay during the Olympics. But the IOC gesture represents a significant advancement in addressing the challenges faced by new mums as they return to sport.

The move follows FIFA’s recent introduction of new measures designed to support the wellbeing of players and coaches during pregnancy and after the birth of their children. This includes the addition of coaches receiving 14 weeks of paid maternity leave (whereas it was previously just for players) and additional considerations for parents seeking to adopt.

When it comes to supporting pregnant athletes and new mums returning to sport, what’s happening within Australia’s major sports?

The situation is complex and inconsistent

Three Australian Olympians – water polo player Keesja Gofers, marathoner Genevieve Gregson and kayaker Alyce Wood – recently detailed their experiences in returning to their respective sports ahead of the 2024 Olympics. But what’s sometimes missing from these narratives are official governing policies to protect and encourage similar athletes.

Some Australian sports are doing their part.

The AFLW, WNBL, Swimming Australia and Cricket Australia have guidelines explicitly for their players.

Further examples, such as the Victorian Pony Club, Football NSW, as well as the Gaelic Football and Hurling Association of Australia can be found after some digging.

And while the NRLW has policies in place, clarifications and additional negotiations were required to rectify additional considerations led by the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA).

And while netball was the first major team sport in Australia to establish a parental leave policy, job security was a significant impediment – the policy only protected athlete income until the end of their playing contract, which affected some players.

The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) also has guidelines on high performance sport and pregnancy.

It’s important all sporting organisations be proactive in supporting their athletes through this difficult juggling act of pregnancy, motherhood and sport.

How athletes are impacted

Without strong structures in place to support them, athletes can be disadvantaged in many ways.

Supportive postpartum return-to-play policies are important to minimise injury, enable athletes to maintain their income while expanding their families.

The barriers which need to be addressed include varying postpartum recovery times and the difficulty of managing motherhood and sporting demands. To make it work, athletes need more social support.

What does the research say?

Frustratingly, research in this space has historically been quite limited, with organisations often relying on lived or shared experiences of a few athletes.

With the growth of professional sporting opportunities for women, more elite athletes are being acknowledged as working mothers.

This growth has triggered broader discussions to identify best practices and address the difficulties women face returning to sport after pregnancy.

Fortunately, high-quality research is on the rise.

For athletes, comprehensive rehabilitation strategies have been recommended in the postpartum period.

In late 2022, researchers out of the AIS helped develop the “mum-alete” survey, which gathered perceptions and experiences of sport participation among high-performance pregnant or postpartum athletes.

The survey captured the experiences of athletes during pregnancy or returning to high-performance sport post-pregnancy and the resulting data, when released, should hopefully contribute to development of sport policies, structures, and processes to support the health and wellbeing of female athletes.

Key highlights from other recent research emphasises a variety of social factors impacting an athlete’s return to elite sport including childcare and access to maternity leave.

This growing body of evidence can then meaningfully aid sporting organisations in making informed decisions about their return-to-play policies.

Where do we go from here?

As of 2023, other international sporting bodies have launched maternity provisions.

The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) have a special ranking rule to provide players returning from maternity leave immediate opportunities to compete for higher prize money and ranking points instead of starting from scratch.

And the Rugby Football Union (RFU) have recognised the risks posed to pregnant players due to the physicality of the game and support their athletes into alternative employment within the rugby network until their leave begins.

Without these policies in place, dropping out of sport can sometimes feel like an athlete’s only option, which can have detrimental physical, social and emotional effects.

Adopting a biopsychosocial approach – combining biological, psychological and social factors – is a proactive example of perinatal athlete management.

Emphasis should also be placed on not just how the athlete was before their child but rather recognising what can be done to strengthen and re-conceptualise how the athlete adjusts and performs postpartum.

Hopefully progress continues to inspire a new generation of athletes that reflect on the excellence possible when we invest in mothers.

Caitlin Fox-Harding 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. The Olympics and FIFA are trying to better support ‘mum-aletes’ – what are Australian sports doing? – https://theconversation.com/the-olympics-and-fifa-are-trying-to-better-support-mum-aletes-what-are-australian-sports-doing-233218

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sonali Gnanenthiran, Cardiologist and Research Fellow, Cardiovascular Program, George Institute for Global Health

About one-third of adults have high blood pressure. Two-thirds of these have uncontrolled high blood pressure.

A key driver of poor blood pressure control is people not taking their tablets as prescribed. Tablets have been used to treat high blood pressure for decades. But about one in two people prescribed them stop taking them in the first year. Others don’t take their tablets reliably.

Tablets for high blood pressure, or hypertension, are short-acting. So they need to be taken at least once a day. But in recent clinical trials, injectable treatments have reduced blood pressure for up to six months.

If approved, these injectables would be the first new drug class for high blood pressure in decades.

By potentially making it easier for people to stick with their treatment, these injectables could help achieve a long-lasting reduction in blood pressure.

Lowering blood pressure by even just 5mmHg (millimetres of mercury, a measurement used to record blood pressure) can dramatically lower the chance of developing heart disease or stroke.

Are these injections like vaccines?

These injectables are not “vaccines” in the conventional sense. Instead, they are similar to already-approved injectables, such as the diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Trulicity. But unlike these medicines which are self-administered, the ones for high blood pressure would be delivered by a doctor or nurse under the skin.

Two drug candidates in recent clinical trials target a liver protein called angiotensinogen. This is a crucial part of your body’s hormone system that regulates blood pressure and fluid balance.

The injectables work by a process called “RNA interference”, which interferes with synthesis of the angiotensinogen protein. This disrupts the cascade of events that would otherwise lead to high blood pressure.

Blood pressure tablets also target the angiotensinogen system, but their effect only lasts a maximum 24 hours.

Do they work?

Two promising candidates in clinical trials are IONIS-AGT-LRx from Ionis Pharmaceuticals and zilebesiran from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

IONIS-AGT-LRx is injected under the skin weekly. It was found to be safe in very small trials of healthy volunteers or those with mild-to-moderate high blood pressure. But larger trials are needed to confirm blood pressure lowering benefits.

In comparison, zilebesiran is injected under the skin every six months. Studies in recent months show a significant blood pressure lowering effect and good safety profile in younger and middle-aged people, even when taken with traditional blood pressure tablets.

Zilebesiran’s blood pressure lowering effect appears to be equivalent to what you’d acheive if you took one type of blood pressure tablet (about a 10–15 mmHg reduction), but clearly with a much longer lasting action. Most people would need to use it with another blood pressure lowering pill.

Are they safe?

Early evidence is promising. Studies show good tolerance in younger and middle-aged people with limited other health problems. The most common side effects are minor reactions such as redness or swelling at the injection site in about one in six people.

A small proportion of people had mildly raised blood potassium levels and mild changes in kidney function, but this seemed to be short term. We also see these changes with other classes of high blood pressure treatments.

How can I access these new treatments?

These injectables are not available to the public. Clinical trials are under way around the world to provide more evidence about:

• their long-term safety, especially in high-risk people with multiple health conditions

• any interactions with other drugs

• their ability to reduce rates of heart disease and stroke.

One such trial, running in 2024, is of zilebesiran. This will be conducted at sites including Sydney’s Concord Repatriation General Hospital.

If large-scale trials are successful, the drug companies would then need to apply for regulatory approval. So it would likely be at least five years before these drugs were on the market.

Will they replace tablets?

Although such long-acting injections could make it easier for people to stick with their treatment, they’re unlikely to replace tablets any time soon.

Even if approved, initially at least these are likely to be prescribed for people at high risk or whose blood pressure is not adequately controlled by tablets.

Many people need more than one medicine to lower their blood pressure. So it is likely these medicines would be used in addition to current therapies.

In a nutshell

Injectables are potentially the first new drug class for high blood pressure in decades. They would be administered every few weeks or months via regular injections rather than taking tablets every day or even several times a day.

If these progress successfully through clinical trials and receive regulatory approval, these injectables could be a game-changer in how we treat high blood pressure.

More information on high blood pressure is available from Hypertension Australia.

Sonali Gnanenthiran receives funding from NSW Health and the Medical Future Fund of Australia to conduct clinical trials to treat high blood pressure.

Alta Schutte receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund, and NSW Health. She is Company Secretary of the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance, Board Member of Hypertension Australia, and Co-Chair of the National Hypertension Taskforce of Australia.

Anthony Rodgers receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and is an employee of the he George Institute for Global Health (TGIGH). George Health Enterprises Pty Ltd, the social enterprise arm of TGIGH, has received investment to develop fixed-dose combination products containing aspirin, statin and blood pressure lowering drugs. TGIGH holds and have filed applications for combination products for the treatment of hypertension and diabetes, and Professor Rodgers is listed as one of the inventors (Granted: US 10,369,15; US 10,799,487; US 10,322,117; US 11,033,544; US 11,478,462; Pending: US 17/932,982; US 18/446,268; US 17/598,122; US 17/317,614). Professor Rodgers is seconded part-time to George Medicines Pty Ltd (GM), a subsidiary of George Health Enterprises.

None of The George Institute staff have a financial interest in these investments or patents.

– ref. Injectables for high blood pressure are in the works. Could they mean no more daily pills? – https://theconversation.com/injectables-for-high-blood-pressure-are-in-the-works-could-they-mean-no-more-daily-pills-224623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill Grace, Adjunct Professor, Australian Urban Design Research Centre, The University of Western Australia

Before renewables came along, coal-fired power stations pumped out electricity (and carbon emissions) 24 hours a day. But now, this type of “always on” baseload power is no longer necessary or commercially viable.

This is one of many reasons why the Coalition’s proposed nuclear strategy is flawed. Even if nuclear power was cheap, which it isn’t, it would have to be the least appropriate energy source going around.

Why? Because the world has changed. The greening of the electricity grid means we need far more flexibility. Solar and wind can do the heavy lifting, provided we have enough storage (batteries, pumped hydro and other technologies) and something we can quickly switch on and off to fill the gaps, such as gas or (eventually) hydrogen.

The only way to make nuclear power work in Australia is to switch off cheap renewable energy. Stop exporting electricity from your rooftop solar system. Forget feed-in tarrifs. The system has to call on baseload nuclear power first, or the plan makes no sense whatsoever. And to make space for nuclear in 10-15 years, you’d have to somehow make coal financially viable now.

Comparing the cost of electricity

The price we pay for electricity as customers is a function of the wholesale price retailers pay, to secure energy from generators, plus the cost of transporting it (transmission and distribution).

To compare the cost of nuclear power to other sources, we need to take a closer look at each generator’s capital and operating costs.

For capital costs, the market operator and most energy analysts turn to the CSIRO GenCost report. It finds conventional nuclear power stations cost 40% more to build than coal, 2.5 times more than onshore wind and 5 times more than large-scale solar.

Operating costs reflect both fixed costs (such as maintenance) and variable costs (such as fuel). The less time the plant operates, the higher the capital and operating costs per megawatt hour (MWh) of output.

Both coal and nuclear can operate around 90% of the time at full capacity, while both wind and solar only operate at full capacity some of the time. So it’s best to compare annual operating costs on the basis of the actual energy generated in a year. Even on this basis it costs less to operate onshore wind and solar than coal or gas, mainly because there is no fuel cost.

Nuclear plants are incredibly complex and cost about five times more to maintain and manage than onshore wind and large scale solar. And that’s not including the high cost of decommissioning the plant, or treating and disposing of used fuel and wastes during its use.

South Australia offers a glimpse of the future

So far this analysis assumes all of the power plants operate at their optimum capacity. But the real world is not like that.

The market operator is required to supply electricity according to customer demand, which they do by dispatching the cheapest form available at the time.

This is onshore wind and solar, when available. However, network demand for electricity is also heavily influenced by what customers are doing to meet their own demand with rooftop solar.

South Australia has lots of rooftop solar plus large-scale onshore wind and solar power plants. Just take a look at the hour-by-hour supply of electricity to SA customers on July 6 this year.

On this day in the middle of winter, private rooftop solar reduced demand by more than half in the middle of the day. Renewables (mainly wind) provided almost all the network electricity demand. A small amount of electricity was supplied by gas turbines (which are not baseload power generators) and batteries. No coal or gas generation was imported from other states.

About one third of SA homes have rooftop solar. As take-up inevitably grows, total network demand will continue to fall.

SA was the first state to see network demand fall below zero back in October 2021.

In the southwest of Western Australia the market operator is projecting network loads will become negative in coming years, something I predicted a decade ago.

As baseload generation is used less and less, it costs more and more per MWh and becomes less competitive and commercially viable. This is the main reason coal fired power stations are closing and baseload generation is becoming redundant.

SA is a predictor of the whole of Australia in coming years. If coal is not commercially viable into the future, then how can nuclear possibly be, when it is far more expensive?

Switching off solar and propping up coal

According to analysis by the Smart Energy Council the Coalition’s proposed seven nuclear reactors would only provide 3.7% of Australia’s electricity demand by 2050.

However, even if nuclear was to be a significant component of the mix by 2040 (under a very optimistic scenario), it wouldn’t be compatible with renewables already on rooftops and in the network.

That’s because nuclear power stations have very limited flexibility to power up, or power down. So if they are always on, something else has to be switched off. The only solution would be to “curtail” (switch off) cheap renewable energy, including exports from your rooftop solar.

For nuclear to be a significant energy source in future, Australia would have to start making more room for baseload power generation now.
Existing coal-fired generators would have to be made financially viable so they can continue to operate until they’re eventually replaced by nuclear.

Meanwhile renewable generators and rooftop solar exports would have to be either disallowed from supplying the network or financially undermined – by government subsidies for coal and gas plants. The result of either would of course be higher costs and higher emissions.

The market operator’s Integrated System Plan for the National Electricity Market aligns with my analysis of the WA network. That is, the optimum energy solution, from both a cost and emissions perspective, is a combination of:

• renewable generation (mainly wind and solar)
• storage in the form of pumped hydro and batteries
• small amounts of gas, eventually replaced by hydrogen, to fill in the gaps.

There is neither room, nor need, for nuclear energy in Australia.

Bill Grace is an independent sustainability adviser, researcher and consultant. He is a research committee member with the Centre for Policy Development.

– ref. No room for nuclear power, unless the Coalition switches off your solar – https://theconversation.com/no-room-for-nuclear-power-unless-the-coalition-switches-off-your-solar-234156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Whiting, Lecturer – Creative Industries, University of South Australia

The Western Australian government subsidised two exclusive 2023 concerts by Coldplay to the tune of A$8 million, Guardian Australia reported last week.

The November performances at Perth’s Optus Stadium were described by the government as a “major tourism coup” for WA.

The state’s “return on investment” will no doubt be reported by one of the big four accountancy firms, inevitably citing ticket purchases, overnight stays and hospitality spend.

Whether one believes these reports or not, these metrics do not measure the true cost-benefits of large scale cultural initiatives.

The return on government investments in arts and events should be measured over a decade, not a month, and include a range of non-quantifiable social and cultural benefits that require time and understanding to emerge.

Picking winners

The subsidy of concerts hosted by United States-based multinational promoter Live Nation Entertainment reflects a broader trend led by state governments of handing large sums of public money to very successful commercial firms.

South Australia has pursued a similar strategy, with the state tourism commission investing in Harvest Rock festival, which has been criticised for its lack of local artists in the lineup.

With Live Nation being pursued by the US Department of Justice for anti-competitive behaviour, questions regarding the propriety and value of rewarding such entities with considerable public funding are being raised.

Governments argue such events inject “visitor spend” into the local economy, and justify subsidies by way of increased tourism.

It is a quick win. But there is a strong argument this use of cultural events for short-term “sugar hit” economic stimulus erodes capacity in the local arts community.

Instead of audience revenue going towards local artists, venues and producers that nurture and develop grassroots talent, spending goes towards hospitality and accommodation.

Headline talent is almost always imported. While such events offer temporary employment to local industry workers, such as crew and events staff, the lack of longer term investment in the sector further contributes to the precarity of these workers.

Meanwhile, many small live music venues are shuttering and grassroots festivals and events are in crisis.

When funding for music is directed through tourism budgets rather than arts budgets there may be an increased spend on hospitality in the short-term – but this is often at the expense of the long-term health of the local sector. Such events are often funded as one-offs featuring largely imported talent produced by overseas firms, undermining the capacity of the local sector.

Bread and circuses

Festivals have long been a means to encourage cultural tourism, but they require investment in institutional capacity and the availability of local talent, creatives and support workers.

Arts and culture spending is often subject to considerable scrutiny. But tourism spending is relatively unrestricted and justified via opaque cost-benefit analyses.

While there is a compelling argument that strong public support for the events sector was necessary immediately post-pandemic to kick-start a sector on its knees, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify when international music tourism is now back with a vengeance – as Taylor Swift’s recent tour illustrates.

While the live music market trends towards more consolidation and monopolistic behaviour, there should be even greater scrutiny of the shape of government spending on major music events.

Public funding for cultural events needs to aim beyond generating money for hospitality and look to invest in the long-term capacity of the local sector.

Who misses out?

The rising trend of the “visitor economy” raises serious concerns about the purpose of arts and cultural policy.

Live music becomes about generating money, not for any expected return to a local industry, but from consumer spending on imported cultural goods.

Chief economist at The Australia Institute, Greg Jericho, estimated a $55 million spend on Swift’s recent Australian tour. However, he writes:

not much of this will remain in Australia. There’s a reason this world tour will possibly make Swift a billionaire.

While Swift’s tour was an entirely commercial affair, state governments seeking to replicate this effect by handing millions to multinational conglomerates is another matter.

Subsidy of international artists and festivals may generate short term relief for the tourism, hospitality and accommodation sector, producing increased “visitor spend”.

But it is not very public spirited, and not in the long-term interests of the Australian music sector.

Local music used to be the heart-blood of Australian popular culture, inseparable from the country’s sense of self-confidence and identity. It is now in dire straits.

The Australian music sector requires investment in small and medium venues, a completely new approach to regulating global tech platforms such as Spotify, and rethinking the role of public radio for a new era.

Importing mainstream British acts at the cost of millions while Australian music is atrophying is ultimately counterproductive.

Sam Whiting receives funding from Creative Australia and the Australasian Performing Right Association.

Justin O’Connor receives funding from the Australia Research Council.

– ref. The WA government spent $8 million on Coldplay – but this tourism sugar hit comes at the expense of local music – https://theconversation.com/the-wa-government-spent-8-million-on-coldplay-but-this-tourism-sugar-hit-comes-at-the-expense-of-local-music-234370