NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: Winter electricity prices are rising – how do we know we’re getting value for money?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Meade, Adjunct Associate Professor, Griffith University, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University

    Shutterstock

    Winter is coming to New Zealand and Australia, and with it come those inevitably higher power bills from heating our homes.

    But even without that seasonal spike, household power bills were already set to rise by NZ$10 to $25 a month in New Zealand and up to A$9 a month in parts of Australia.

    This is not, as some might assume, because electricity suppliers are acting uncompetitively. It’s because regulators are increasing charges for long-distance electricity transmission (pylons and substations) and short-distance distribution (poles and wires).

    Those charges together make up around 40% of power bills on average, so the price increases matter. In New Zealand, an average 15% of household budgets is spent on electricity. The proportion going towards those infrastructure costs is higher for low-income, regional and rural households.

    To put this another way, these fixed parts of our power bills can equal what a typical household spends on mobile phones, public transport or water services.

    Transmission and distribution services are regulated because they are provided by monopolies. Regulators such as the Commerce Commission in New Zealand and the Australian Energy Regulator in eastern Australia try to set reasonable prices while still allowing those firms enough money to provide reliable services.

    However, this old regulatory model is being challenged by changing consumer behaviour. Households are increasingly electrifying, switching to heat pumps for space and water heating, and electric vehicles (EVs) for personal transport.

    Regulators want to ensure the reliability of electricity supply doesn’t significantly decline. But households that rely on electricity want greater reliability – especially with growing demand for “smart” appliances that can be damaged by outages.

    Quality versus quantity

    Unfortunately, history is a poor guide to how regulation should ensure these future reliability needs are met. Furthermore, electricity is an unusual “product” – the quantity we consume is often an afterthought, while the affordability and quality of supply are more top of mind.

    Importantly, quality means much more to consumers than just reliability. It includes how well outages are planned and communicated, how easy it is to get help and updates when things go wrong, new connection times, and the voltage stability modern appliances require.

    What constitutes good service might also include customer charters or other guarantees of minimum acceptable expectations, as well as compensation schemes.

    Beyond these options, however, the very basis for regulation is being upturned as households invest in rooftop solar panels, home batteries and electric vehicles (EVs). The competition offered by these new technologies means distribution companies are no longer monopoly providers because households can get electricity in new ways.

    This also means households expect new services from those providers – such as being able to sell electricity to others (including to distribution companies themselves to help them maintain reliable supply).

    Smart appliances, solar power and EVs are all changing consumer expectations of the electricity market.
    Shutterstock

    What customers really want

    Historically, electricity regulation has responded to emerging challenges like these with “bolt-on” solutions. Each one tries to address a specific issue individually, but not in a coherent and joined-up way.

    Overall, how and why we regulate electricity transmission and distribution need rethinking from the ground up, not more rounds of regulatory whack-a-mole. Consumer preferences need to be more than a vague overriding objective. They need to be at the heart of regulation.

    New Zealand’s Commerce Commission already exempts many distribution firms from much regulation because they are owned and governed by customers. And regulators in other English-speaking countries, including Australia, increasingly rely on consumer forums and other channels to indirectly and only partially identify consumer preferences.

    But neither model obtains directly usable information about what consumers want – from those consumers themselves. Unsurprisingly, customer preferences are not widely or systematically reflected in regulation.

    Besides, asking customers about quality and reliability of service assumes they can clearly articulate what they care about and what value they attach to them in ways regulators can use.

    Value for money

    One solution is to use a direct measure of consumer satisfaction. We developed and applied a version of this in recent research involving a survey of Swedish electricity customers.

    We measured satisfaction by asking consumers to rate the “value for money” they perceived from their distribution firm, ranging from zero (lowest) to five (highest).

    Perceptions of quality can vary and are inherently subjective. But value for money can be interpreted as a ratio of quality to price: higher quality means higher value for money, higher price means lower value for money. From this, we obtained an objective measure of overall customer satisfaction levels.

    As might be expected, we found value for money tended to be higher for customers of distribution firms owned and controlled by those customers. But directly measuring customer satisfaction in this way could be a good basis for regulation reform in general.

    We still need to better understand how customer satisfaction is affected by regulatory decisions. This has always been the case, but it is especially true now that fundamental changes are happening in the sector.

    Electricity customers heading into winter might be happier with rising transmission and distribution prices if they were confident regulation genuinely improved their overall value for money.

    Business as usual, on the other hand, may offer them only cold comfort.

    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. Winter electricity prices are rising – how do we know we’re getting value for money? – https://theconversation.com/winter-electricity-prices-are-rising-how-do-we-know-were-getting-value-for-money-254198

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada is lagging in innovation, and that’s a problem for funding the programs we care about

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrew Maxwell, Bergeron Chair in Technology Entrepreneurship, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Canada

    As Canadians prepare to vote in another federal election, the country’s economy faces a sobering reality. As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) notes, productivity is stagnating, our innovation performance lags global peers and high-potential startups often fail to scale.

    Despite these warning signs, innovation policy remains largely absent from political discourse. Canadians hear a great deal about how political parties are going to spend money, but little about where the money is going to come from.

    This is a critical oversight. Canada’s enduring productivity gap is more than an economic statistic — it’s why the country is struggling to sustain the social programs, such as health care and education, that Canadians value.

    If Canadians want to maintain their standard of living, Canada must close that gap through a more deliberate, strategic approach to innovation.

    Innovation is economic strategy

    In today’s knowledge-based economy, as business executive and innovator Jim Balsillie observes, power flows to countries that own digital data and their “value-added applications” (like apps or platforms) and intellectual property.

    Countries like the United States, China and South Korea have embedded innovation into national strategy, investing in sectors like artificial intelligence (AI), clean technology and biotech to drive growth and resilience. Canada, by contrast, has taken a fragmented, reactive approach.

    Canada’s over-reliance on research and development (R&D) spending and patent counts has failed to translate into commercial success. According to the OECD, Canada ranks among the highest in public R&D investment but among the lowest in innovation outcomes such as productivity growth and technology adoption.

    Canada also often conflates research with innovation. While both are vital, innovation is about turning knowledge into use through deployment, adoption, commercialization and scaling. Much of today’s transformative innovation, particularly in AI and software, depends on the transfer of tacit knowledge (related to things like user insights, execution experience and expertise in a particular domain) not just codified knowledge (for example, patents, technical drawings and licenses).

    Why innovation policy fails

    Governments struggle with innovation because it defies conventional policymaking:

    • It requires failure tolerance. Innovation is iterative. But political systems fear failure.

    • It demands long-term vision. Results may take years, beyond typical electoral cycles.

    • It’s technically complex. Few policymakers have deep expertise in emerging technologies or understand the research and development process.

    • It’s often misunderstood. Funding research is not the same as building innovation capacity or developing innovation processes.

    • It’s hard to quantify. Quantifying innovation outcomes is complex and challenging to measure, making it also difficult to measure return.

    As economist and innovation policy expert Mariana Mazzucato argued in The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, innovation success depends on bold missions, cross-sector collaboration and a willingness to learn from failure. Canada’s current model lacks these ingredients.

    Breaking the cycle of failure

    To break this cycle, Canada needs a non-partisan national innovation institution — an agency empowered to advise on strategy, evaluate outcomes and embed technical expertise into policy at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

    Models like DARPA from the U.S., Vinnova from Sweden and the Israel Innovation Authority show how long-term, high-impact innovation can be achieved with the right institutional scaffolding and appropriate knowledge.

    Video about Vinnova, Sweden’s national innovation agency.

    Canadians have created a number of innovation organizations with national implications, such as the Council of Canadian Academies, the CD Howe Institute, Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity (ICP), which closed in 2019.

    Yet none have been national organizations that addressed the broad proposed mandate to explicitly advise governments on technology and policy strategy, evaluate innovation outcomes and embed technical expertise into recommendations.

    A non-partisan national innovation institution must:

    1. Track outcomes more than inputs. Innovation success can be measured by a number of project- or industry-specific outcomes, such as productivity, firm growth and export revenue. The ICP proposed measuring the “prosperity gap,” comparing innovation performance to peer jurisdictions.

    2. Support long-term strategic objectives, focusing on Canada’s strengths in critical areas like AI, clean technology, energy health-care technology, and leveraging expertise and experience in these and other areas.

    3. Embed technology experts alongside health-care and education experts in the decision-making process. Recruit scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to anticipate technology and market trends, guiding both implementation and policy development.

    4. Differentiate innovation from research. Support both, but recognize the differences and explicitly link innovation to adoption and new use cases.

    5. Promote value capture. Ensure Canadian firms and the country benefit from and retain control of key technologies that enable them to scale domestically.

    6. Recognize the inherent risks in innovation and the potential for failure. Evaluate and build on impact and learn from failure to enhance innovation processes and improve future outcomes.

    7. Align our educational institutions with innovation goals revising programs, creating more flexible learning options and enhancing entrepreneurship so that more research outcomes are commercialized.

    These steps aren’t hypothetical. They’re backed by evidence from countries that have succeeded in turning innovation into sustained economic performance.

    Why now?

    Canada’s economy is heavily dependent on resource exports and vulnerable to technological disruption. Meanwhile, the global AI and clean tech races are accelerating. Canada is at risk of falling further behind — not just economically, but geopolitically.

    But Canada also has strengths: world-class researchers, diverse entrepreneurial talent and global partnerships. What’s missing is a cohesive national strategy to harness this potential. Creating a non-partisan innovation institution would be a powerful first step.

    If Canadians want to provide revenue for governments decide how to fund education, health care and climate adaptation, they must grow their economy. And to do that, Canada needs smarter innovation policy.

    It’s time to stop celebrating activity and start rewarding outcomes. Let’s build the structures that allow Canadian ingenuity to thrive — not in theory, but in practice.

    Andrew Maxwell works for York University, but received no direct benefit from comments in this article. He receives funding from various research agencies for his work in the area, but none of which creates the potential for conflict. He is a member of the Academy of Management, the International Society for Professional Innovation Management and Professional Engineers Ontario..

    – ref. Canada is lagging in innovation, and that’s a problem for funding the programs we care about – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-lagging-in-innovation-and-thats-a-problem-for-funding-the-programs-we-care-about-254423

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with two secretive new temples planned for Australia

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced it will build 15 new temples in countries across the world, including one in Liverpool, New South Wales.

    This follows a similar announcement last year of plans to build a second temple for Queensland, in South Brisbane.

    The two new structures – together with existing temples in Sydney (1984), Adelaide (2000), Melbourne (2000), Perth (2001) and Brisbane (2003) – will bring the total number of Australian temples to seven.

    In a nation with fewer than 160,000 practising Mormons, these new buildings seek to increase the legitimacy and visibility of the church.

    The Melbourne temple was erected in 2000, as was the temple in Adelaide.
    Wikimedia

    The significance of temples

    There are currently at least 200 completed Mormon temples around the globe, with an additional 182 under construction or announced.

    Temples have a different purpose and scope to Mormon chapels, which are far more common: Australia has about 190 Mormon chapels.

    Chapels are used for weekly sacrament (or communion) and weekly sermons. They are open to visitors, and often hold cultural events, extra church activities and family history centres.

    Temples, on the other hand, represent the blending of the divine and temporal. According to the Mormon worldview and doctrines, they are the world’s most sacred structures.

    Each temple is emblazoned with the phrase “The House of the Lord, Holiness to the Lord”. This isn’t just symbolic. Mormons believe each temple is literally the house of God, in which his presence may be felt.

    Given the gravity of this belief, these spaces are reserved for those who have been deemed worthy to enter by Mormon leaders.

    Inside the House of the Lord

    The church itself maintains that temples are “sacred, not secret”. It has long worked to dispel speculation over what happens within temple bounds.

    One way it does this is through “open houses”, in which a newly-built temple may be toured by anyone for a brief period. Once the open house has ended and the temple has been “dedicated” by a church leader – a process that includes blessing the building and those who will use it – it becomes entirely closed to the public.

    Within the temples, the most sacred rituals and knowledge of “the gospel” are imparted upon faithful members. Rituals can be performed for both living people and deceased ancestors. They must never be conducted – or even discussed – outside the sacred temple space.

    One of these rituals is baptism and confirmation for the dead by proxy (baptisms for the living are conducted in chapels or other spaces). This provides the deceased individuals “ordinances” that are necessary for salvation, which they did not receive during life.

    These baptisms have been controversial at times, with ordinances performed on individuals who were not direct ancestors of Latter-day Saints, including Holocaust victims and historical figures such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Even prominent Australians such as Ned Kelly, Malcolm Fraser, Neville Bonner and Truganini have allegedly appeared as “baptised” in Mormon records.

    Other temple ceremonies, conducted for both the dead and living, include washing and anointing with oil, “endowment” and “sealing”.

    The rituals are accompanied by various stages of knowledge progression for attendees. As with the rituals, temple knowledge is not to be discussed outside.

    Local opposition

    The air of secrecy and exclusivity surrounding Mormon temples has resulted in a flood of negative attention from Australian media, other religious institutions and society at large. News reports from as far back as the early 20th century sought to expose “Mormon temple secrets”.

    The first temple, built in Sydney in 1984, was widely protested by community groups and organisations. The building had to be modified by the church before it was eventually approved. A similar situation transpired in Brisbane in the early 2000s.

    In other cities, such as Adelaide and Melbourne, temples were not directly protested, but were still critiqued for their lavishness, with the average Australian temple costing around A$8 million in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

    Given the cost of living crisis, and contention over the place of religion in contemporary Australia, the two proposed temples will likely also face criticism.

    Reputational management

    The church’s reputation in Australia has become ever more complicated over the past 20 years, not least due to several controversies.

    In 2022 and 2023, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reported the church was allegedly abusing tax laws, to the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. This was addressed, but not confirmed or denied, in the November 2022 Senate Estimates by Australian Tax Office Assistant Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn, after questioning by Greens Senator David Shoebridge. Accusations of tax evasion have also been made in New Zealand and the United States.

    Other controversies relate to LGBTQIA+ discrimination, the church’s influence in Australian and global politics, and allegations resulting from the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse.

    The new Australian temples will be completed under a pall of critiques and accusations around church finances and other controversies. And while they might be briefly open to the public, their doors will just as quickly shut – adding more fuel to the speculation.

    Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His current research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the nineteenth century to present.

    – ref. Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with two secretive new temples planned for Australia – https://theconversation.com/why-the-mormon-church-is-on-an-expansion-project-with-two-secretive-new-temples-planned-for-australia-254217

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why is it so hard for everyone to have a house in Australia?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

    Bilalnol/Shutterstock

    Home ownership in Australia was once regarded as proof of success in life. However, it remains elusive for many people today.

    Prices have soared beyond wage growth, rents keep rising, and even some well-intentioned government initiatives, including those announced by Labor and the Coalition at their election campaign launches on the weekend, risk driving up demand.

    What’s gone wrong?

    The Grattan Institute says increasing housing supply is essential to maintain price stability over time, but notes we are not making enough progress.

    Australia will miss its goal to build 1.2 million new homes within five years if we stick to the current housing policies and construction practices.

    Why it’s not working

    There is a wide range of reasons why Australia is failing to provide enough housing:

    Fragmented policy approach: A national approach involving all levels of government aligning their policies, rules and regulations is needed.

    Planning bottlenecks: Some projects face years of delay due to local council regulations and zoning requirements. The Productivity Commission has reported Australia’s planning system has excessive barriers to new projects, including medium-density developments.

    Land release delays: State governments are slow to release new land for housing. This is often because of community opposition, political considerations and market dynamics. This results in limited availability, which leads to higher costs for land that can be developed.

    Skills shortages: Recent immigration restrictions have worsened the shortage of skilled tradespeople in the residential construction sector.

    Demand-side subsidies: Government programs, such as first home buyer grants, help some people buy homes. However, they also make housing less affordable because they can result in increased prices.

    What could work without raising prices

    There are various changes that could be made without necessarily raising prices.

    Duplication and logjams could be removed if a national housing strategy was introduced. This should integrate policies and regulations across federal, state and local jurisdictions.

    Federal grants and incentives should be tied to states meeting targets for land release, re-zoning permits and streamlined approvals.

    Using innovative construction technologies can cut construction time by as much as 50%. These include prefabricated and modular building parts, which are made in factories and later assembled at the construction site.

    A government update of land use and zoning permits would make it easier and faster to build medium-density housing near transport and job hubs. This is a quick way to add dwellings without sprawl.

    Governments could also offer tax or planning concessions for developments that lock in affordable rents. This would help create stable, long-term rental options.

    Learning from other countries

    Australia can get ideas for increasing housing supply without raising prices from the experience of other countries.

    Through substantial investments in social housing, Finland has significantly reduced homelessness and created stable housing options for families with limited income.

    Large-scale prefab public housing originated in Singapore decades ago as a method to accelerate construction timelines and reduce expenses. Prefabrication is only used in 8% of projects in Australia at the moment.

    Prefabrication is widely used in building sectors in other countries as a cheaper and faster way of responding to housing shortages.
    brizmaker/Shutterstock

    Sweden has adopted advanced modular construction techniques, which result in 80% of homes being built off-site.

    Germany employs municipal-led housing associations along with rent controls to maintain price stability and tenant protection.

    And in the UK, inclusionary zoning regulations mandate that new developments either contain affordable housing units or contribute to a fund that supports affordable housing in different locations. This helps create diverse housing options in most neighborhoods.

    Election promises versus real change

    Significant reforms are needed – not election sweeteners. To make genuine progress, we need to invest heavily in modern construction techniques, transform housing approval processes and ensure states promptly release essential land.

    The solution requires a coordinated response from federal, state and local governments. This would enable more Australians to obtain homeownership and secure rental options.

    Our politicians must avoid short-term promises during elections because these threaten to return us to the destructive pattern of escalating prices and dissatisfied homebuyers. Long-term policy reform is what we need.

    Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy (soon to be the Australian Public Policy Institute).

    – ref. Why is it so hard for everyone to have a house in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-hard-for-everyone-to-have-a-house-in-australia-254464

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Would looser lending rules help more people buy a house – or just put them at risk?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Grant, Associate Professor in Finance, University of Sydney

    doublelee/Shutterstock

    Big promises on housing were at the centre of both major parties’ announcements at the official federal election campaign launches on the weekend.

    Among the highlights, Labor pledged to build 100,000 new homes and extend a government-guaranteed 5% deposit scheme to all first home buyers. The Coalition promised to make interest payments on the first A$650,000 of a mortgage tax-deductible for up to five years, for eligible first home buyers purchasing new builds.

    Amid this flurry of policies, it’s important we don’t forget another Coalition promise from earlier this month – lowering the 3% mortgage serviceability “buffer”.

    Promising to help would-be homebuyers without access to the “bank of mum and dad”, the policy aims to make loans easier to get amid high interest rates and house prices. But it has also reignited debate over lending regulation.

    What exactly does this buffer do, and what might we lose by lowering it?

    Protecting banks and borrowers

    Mortgage buffers are a risk management tool, regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

    When banks assess a home loan, they don’t just check if you can repay it at today’s rate. They test whether you could still afford it if interest rates were higher.

    Suppose a borrower in Sydney takes out a mortgage of $780,000 (around the average loan size). At a 6% interest rate, the monthly repayments over 30 years would be about $4,672.

    Under the current serviceability buffer – three percentage points – banks assess whether this prospective borrower could still afford repayments if interest rates rose to 9%, which would increase their monthly repayments to around $6,270.

    This buffer doesn’t increase the price the borrower actually pays. It simply ensures they have the capacity to service higher repayments if conditions worsen.

    The last time mortgage rates were above 9% for an extended period (1996), Peter Dutton was in the Queensland Police Service, the Swans had lost the AFL Grand Final, and Oasis were about to cancel their Australian tour. Could history repeat itself?



    Read more:
    Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    Why lower it?

    APRA increased the serviceability buffer from 2.5% to 3% in late 2021. But at the time, Australia’s cash rate was very low, at just 0.1%. It’s now 4.1%.

    Critics argue the buffer has become too restrictive now that rates are higher, locking out first home buyers and those without parental financial help.

    The buffer can also act as a barrier to refinancing. Those who qualified for a loan when interest rates were low may no longer meet serviceability requirements under higher rates. Research suggests that removing refinancing barriers can reduce loan defaults and support household spending.

    The risks

    There are good reasons for the measures we have to protect borrowers from future shocks.

    Reducing the buffer allows more borrowers to qualify for the same loan. But it also means there’s less built-in protection against future rate rises.

    Research shows the risk of a borrower defaulting on their mortgage increases sharply when their loan-to-value ratio – the amount borrowed divided by the property’s purchase price – is above 75%, or where a borrower is spending two-thirds of their income on the mortgage.

    But buffers also need to be set carefully, ensuring they don’t unnecessarily lock out creditworthy borrowers.

    The mortgage serviceability buffer is designed to protect borrowers from sudden financial shocks.
    doublelee/Shutterstock

    Help for first home buyers?

    When considered together with the Coalition’s additional policies – to allow first home buyers to withdraw up to $50,000 from their superannuation for a home deposit and deduct mortgage payments from their taxable income – the implications become clearer.

    Economic theory suggests that combined, such measures would move more borrowers closer to the margin of affordability.

    Many would likely take on the maximum debt they could qualify for, leaving them highly exposed if economic or interest rate conditions deteriorate.

    And the very borrowers likely to rely on superannuation withdrawals to fund their deposits are also those with limited savings and potentially high loan-to-value ratios. The borrowers most affected by the barrier are therefore among the most vulnerable to repayment stress.

    What about house prices?

    There’s the obvious question of what reducing the barriers to borrowing would do to house prices, without a corresponding increase in supply.

    Research has shown stricter borrower-level constraints are effective in slowing house price growth, especially during periods of rapid credit expansion.

    These policies are most effective when targeted toward high-risk borrower groups such as first home buyers or those with high loan-to-valuation ratios.

    Some economists argue buffers need not be static. Instead, they could be tightened during booms to prevent the housing market overheating, and eased during tougher times to avoid cutting off credit unnecessarily.

    So, should we lower the buffer?

    Serviceability buffers aren’t just bureaucratic hurdles. They are an unseen brake on unsustainable borrowing and a cushion against future shocks.

    Borrower constraints don’t only reduce default risk – research shows they also redistribute credit more efficiently, shifting it away from overheated urban markets and toward lower-risk borrowers.

    The first cut to the cash rate in nearly five years has eased Australian mortgage stress risk in the short term. With renewed borrowing appetite, the role of buffers becomes even more critical.

    Removing them may help more people into homes in the short run, but it comes at the risk of greater pain later.

    Andrew Grant has previously received funding from the Australian Institute of Credit Management and illion (Experian).

    – ref. Would looser lending rules help more people buy a house – or just put them at risk? – https://theconversation.com/would-looser-lending-rules-help-more-people-buy-a-house-or-just-put-them-at-risk-253658

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian honeybees are under attack by mites and beetles. Here’s how to keep your backyard hive safe

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cornelia Sattler, Research Fellow in Ecology & Videographer, Macquarie University

    Varroa mites on a male bee larva. Theotime Colin

    Australia’s honeybees are facing an exceptional crisis. The tiny but devastating foreign pest Varroa destructor is steadily spreading across the country.

    The mite feeds on baby bees (larvae), weakening them. It can also spread viruses that eventually destroy entire bee colonies.

    Efforts to contain its spread have failed, so it looks like Australia must learn to live
    with this parasite.

    What’s worse, Varroa destructor isn’t acting alone. In many parts of New South Wales, the mite’s arrival appears to have triggered a surge in another destructive pest: the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida).

    A wet summer in the east has created ideal conditions for beetle outbreaks. This combination is putting enormous pressure on bees and beekeepers alike. Here’s how to help support the bee industry and, if you’re a backyard beekeeper, defend your hives against attack.

    The parasitic mite Varroa destructor can hitch a ride on the back of a honeybee.
    Cornelia Sattler

    Know your enemy

    Varroa was first detected in Australia at the NSW Port of Newcastle in June 2022.

    The mite is now widely established in NSW and in Queensland between Toowoomba and Brisbane.

    It was detected in Victoria, North-West of Melbourne in February and the ACT earlier this month.

    In September 2023, Australian authorities acknowledged eradication was no longer possible. The focus shifted to long-term management.

    A slimy accomplice

    The varroa invasion appears to be making hives more susceptible to the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida). This species arrived in 2002.

    The beetle thrives in warm, humid conditions and lays its eggs inside hives. The larvae feed on honey and wax, turning once-thriving hives into a foul, fermented mess. Beekeepers call this a “slime-out” — and it’s just as bad as it sounds.

    The deadly one-two punch

    A healthy bee colony can usually defend itself against beetles. But when bees are weakened by varroa mites, they’re far less capable of resisting a beetle invasion.

    This deadly one-two punch has already devastated many beekeepers in NSW. One commercial beekeeper reported:

    I had large infestations of mites. And then following the mite, I got the boom of the hive beetles. I probably lost 30 hives to beetles.

    As varroa mites weaken a bee colony, other parasites — like the small hive beetle seen here — can invade and cause further damage.
    Cornelia Sattler

    What to do if you suspect an infestation?

    The number of registered recreational beekeepers in Australia is growing. In 2019, there were around 27,800 registered hobbyists. By 2023, that number had jumped to over 47,000. Backyard beekeepers also contribute A$260 million to the economy.

    Varroa represents a major threat to every Australian honey producer, so here’s a few tips.

    Inspect your hives at least once a month. If larvae appear to be tunnelling through honeycomb, or the honey appears fermented, these are signs beetles may be present.

    It’s difficult to detect mites visually, especially when there are few mites present. That’s where monitoring techniques come in. Typically, 300 bees are placed in ethanol or icing sugar and shaken until mites fall off. This allows beekeepers to not only detect the mites but also to count them.

    Report mites to the relevant state authorities. Failure to do so can result in fines.

    Immediately treat the infested hive and move it at least ten metres away from any others.

    Chemicals called miticides can kill varroa mites and knock the population down. But some beekeepers report side effects, including queen loss, so be prepared to replace queens.

    Mites may develop resistance to these treatments over time, as one commercial beekeeper from NSW said:

    We’ve experienced a lot of queenless hives. I don’t know whether that’s from treatments […] it might be just coincidence, but I’m hearing a lot of other beekeepers having the same problem.

    Varroa mites feed on bee larvae, so caging the queen and taking a short break from brood production can reduce the mite population. Mites prefer male bee larvae, so removing these can help.

    These control methods are effective, though labour-intensive, and potentially suitable for backyard beekeepers. They can lessen the need for chemical treatments — slowing the evolution of resistance to miticides.

    Protection against mites and beetles

    To prevent your backyard hives being infested by mites or beetles:

    • keep colonies well fed, so they don’t rob other colonies and catch their parasites

    • help bees recognise hives, so they don’t enter the wrong colony with varroa mites on their back (paint hives, space them apart by a few meters, ideally 10m)

    • reduce the size of hive entrances to help bees block access to intruders

    • regularly check that your beetle traps are still working, as bees often block the holes that let the beetles into the traps with tree resin

    • fill the cracks where beetles hide.

    How consumers can help

    Australians can support the nation’s beekeepers in a few simple ways. Buy 100% Australian honey and hive products from trusted, local sources.

    Sugar can easily be swapped for honey in most recipes and honey is a great way to sweeten tea.

    When substituting sugar for honey, it’s worth noting honey tastes sweeter so you might want to use less. Honey also contains 18% water, so you may need to reduce the amounts of other liquids in cake recipes accordingly.

    Avoid imported honey and bee products to reduce the chance of bringing bee viruses into the country. Not all imported bee products are treated to kill bee viruses.

    Finally, planting pollinator-friendly gardens helps to feed local bees.

    Safeguarding an industry and a popular hobby

    As well as backyard hobbyists, Australia’s beekeeping community includes 1,872 large-scale commercial beekeepers.

    Many fear mites will push beekeepers out of business. Protecting the industry requires a shift in mindset, from emergency response to long-term pest management.

    With good science, community support and adaptive management, beekeepers — both commercial and backyard — can weather the storm.

    Cornelia Sattler receives funding from the Ian & Shirley Norman Foundation to develop non-chemical varroa control methods.

    Théotime Colin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, through an Early Career Industry Fellowship to develop non-chemical varroa control methods. He also receives funding from the Ian & Shirley Norman Foundation.

    – ref. Australian honeybees are under attack by mites and beetles. Here’s how to keep your backyard hive safe – https://theconversation.com/australian-honeybees-are-under-attack-by-mites-and-beetles-heres-how-to-keep-your-backyard-hive-safe-253947

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Focusing on a child’s strengths can transform assessments – and help them thrive after an ADHD or autism diagnosis

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Guastella, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health, University of Sydney

    Jota Buyinch Photo/Shutterstock

    When parents are concerned about their child’s development, they often seek an assessment to address concerns and identify any conditions, such as autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or learning disorders.

    Common worries include difficulties making friends, focusing on tasks, or meeting educational goals.

    It might seem counter-intuitive but assessments are starting to focus on a child’s strengths during this process. This can create powerful opportunities to improve child and family outcomes, particularly when too much of the focus is on challenges in the family home, school and play settings.

    There is, however, a lack of evidence about how to do such assessments and how certain strengths can be used in assessment.

    In a new research paper, we have developed a strengths checklist for parents, carers and clinicians to more easily identify children’s skills, talents and positive qualities – and understand the type of support they need at home, school or socially.

    The aim was to provide an easy way for parents and clinicians to identify strengths in children, and to provide a method for studying the role of strengths in development. This assessment can be used alongside more established assessments of challenges.

    Why highlight a child’s strengths?

    Focusing on a child’s strengths can have a powerful impact on children and parents. It can boost a child’s motivation, self-esteem, cognitive skills, language development, problem-solving abilities and build stronger relationships.

    For parents and caregivers, it can increase their own feelings of self-worth and improve the quality of their relationship with their own children.

    When parents and caregivers believe in their child’s abilities and encourage their strengths, children and families thrive.

    However, there are many gaps in research about how to apply a strengths-based approach in the context of a neurodevelopmental assessment.

    Currently, while the basic principle of incorporating strengths is clear, clinicians need to rely on intuition and creativity to guide their practices.

    We have long needed better evidence-based methods to guide this.

    This is where our research comes in

    Our new study used the Sydney Child Neurodevelopment Research Registry, which aims to improve the neurodevelopmental assessment processes and the evidence for what works for families and clinicians. We asked caregivers to identify their child’s strengths on their first assessment visit.

    Nearly 700 caregivers reported an average of 2.8 strengths about their children. Using these themes, we developed a child strengths checklist to use for clinical assessments.

    We showed caregivers identified six categories of child strengths: cognitive and intellectual, social and interpersonal, hobbies and passions, character and personality, physical, and resilient behaviours.

    Some caregivers might report that while their child had difficulty with peer interactions, they were also kind, affectionate, honest and caring.

    Other caregivers described concerns about cognitive delays, but they also described how children persevered and persisted with tasks.

    We asked parents and caregivers about their child’s strengths and found they fell into six categories.
    HopeNFPhotography/Shutterstock

    Analysing the data qualitatively – where we read caregiver transcripts and extracted themes – we captured the richness and detail of unique strengths. In total, we identified 61 unique strengths.

    With community representatives and clinicians, we used this to develop a strengths-based checklist we’re calling the Child Autism and Neurodevelopment Strengths Checklist, or the CANS checklist.

    This type of research will provide the evidence needed to be able to implement national guidelines and to develop better evidence about how strengths can be used to improve outcomes. We want to develop best practices for combining concerns and strengths into feedback, support plans and intervention strategies.

    What can caregivers and clinicians do now?

    Support schemes including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) often require families to highlight what children can’t do. Still, there are some practical ways caregivers and clinicians can ensure a child’s strengths are kept front and centre.

    For caregivers, along with discussing concerns, reflect on and talk with your clinicians about your child’s strengths. Make sure clinicians keep these in mind when devising supports.

    For both caregivers and clinicians, it can be helpful to think about characteristics often seen as challenges – such as a strong need for routine – as also potential strengths. It may lead to new ways of supporting children. With the right environment and support, these traits can be valuable assets in a child’s development.

    Parents we talked to highlighted their children’s hobbies and passions.
    Cloudy Design/Shutterstock

    For clinicians, consider how a child’s strengths can inform your assessment and intervention strategies. Make sure you don’t only focus on what children can’t do or need support with.

    Communicate clearly about the child’s strengths and consider how these strengths can:

    • support the child’s long-term development and goals. If the child thrives on routine and pays close attention to details, showing them how to embrace these strengths can teach them how to use them to reach their own goals and to be more independent

    • be the target of an intervention. Everyone needs to experience success. Designing activities around strengths can make intervention more enjoyable and engaging, and the effects are more likely to be long-lasting

    • be used to support the wellbeing of families. Helping families focus on each other’s strengths and improve the way family members talk about and support one another creates a positive environment where they can all feel valued, respected and cared for.

    By focusing on strengths, we want to create more effective and personalised support for children with neurodevelopmental conditions to reach their full potential.

    Building a strong, evidence-based approach will help ensure children’s strengths are consistently considered in assessments and intervention planning.



    Read more:
    Wondering about ADHD, autism and your child’s development? What to know about getting a neurodevelopmental assessment

    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. Focusing on a child’s strengths can transform assessments – and help them thrive after an ADHD or autism diagnosis – https://theconversation.com/focusing-on-a-childs-strengths-can-transform-assessments-and-help-them-thrive-after-an-adhd-or-autism-diagnosis-250640

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cutting migrant numbers won’t help housing – the real immigration problems not being tackled this election

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McDonald, Honorary Professor of Demography, Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne

    Immigration is shaping as one of the most potent policy issues of the election campaign.

    Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government would cut the two major migration programs – permanent and net overseas. He has directly linked the number of people coming into the country to high house prices, which feeds into the election’s hot button issue of cost of living:

    the first and foremost interest in mind is to get young Australians into housing.

    But will cutting immigration help fix the housing crisis? Or is this a smokescreen for other problems with the migration system that are not being addressed by the major parties?

    Fewer permanent migrants

    The Coalition is campaigning on its plans to reduce the Permanent Migration Program, from 185,000 a year to 140,000.

    This is the wrong time to make such a large cut. Permanent migration, more than temporary, is critical for Australia’s economic growth. It also helps offset the ageing of the population.

    For its part, Labor failed to include the permanent migration number in last month’s budget, so we have no idea about its plans if it is re-elected.

    It is best for our economy when the annual migration intake is between 160,000 and 220,000. From the Gillard government until today, the Permanent Migration Program has been set by governments of both shades within that range.

    Th Coalition’s proposed cut is problematic because extreme pressure is building in two visa categories that have close to 100% grant rates: Partners and Children in the Family stream and Employer Sponsored workers in the Skill stream.

    If recent experience is anything to go by, the number of applications lodged by family members of Australian citizens or permanent residents will skyrocket to 110,000 by June 30. It is important to note this category is largely demand-driven. These family members have a right to permanent residence under Section 87 of The Migration Act.

    Demand is also exploding in the visa category that allows employers to address labour shortages, which has a grant rate of over 98%. Almost 100,000 applications are expected in 2024–25. However, only 44,000 places have been allocated. Employers are going to be very unhappy whichever side is elected.

    Given the pent-up demand, the Coalition is avoiding the tricky questions about which parts of the Permanent Program it would cut and by how much. Labor is shirking the issue altogether by not providing any target.

    Dutton’s planned reduction to permanent migration numbers would have only a small impact on housing. In a normal year, 60% of grantees are already living in Australia. They won’t be adding to housing demand, because they are already here.

    The numbers don’t add up

    The other major category, Net Overseas Migration, includes temporary arrivals – mainly skilled workers, working holiday makers and international students. Treasury estimates 260,000 migrants in this category in 2025–26

    Dutton says the Coalition would cut this number by 100,000 people and would do it “straight away, once we get into government”.

    But this number is not achievable, at least not “straight away”. Arrivals can be lowered. But the number of departures will be way too low to reach the target.

    The category has already fallen by 100,000 in each of the past two years. It will continue to decline gradually over the next couple of years, but not nearly as fast as the Coalition target requires.

    The number of departures has been low due to the surge in temporary migrants that followed the COVID border closures. The majority of these people have valid visas until at least 2027–28. Only then, is there likely to be a flow of migrants leaving Australia.

    Dutton should have said a Coalition government would reach this target in its third year, not its first. But this would not have suited the false argument that net overseas migration has a big impact on housing affordability. It’s spurious because net overseas migration largely consists of temporary residents who rarely buy houses. And both major parties have policies banning temporary residents from purchasing established properties.

    New temporary migrants do have an impact on rental demand, but it’s highly localised near universities and along public transport routes. Even this demand is somewhat muted. According to 2021 Census data, a large minority (30–40%) of students and working holiday makers live in specialist accommodation or in very large households.

    Problems beyond the election

    Australia is facing an estimated shortfall of 130,000 housing construction workers. Both sides of politics are taking worthwhile steps to expand the number of apprentices. But the apprenticeship route is slow and likely to fall short of requirements.

    We need more skilled tradies from overseas, but it’s not happening due to obstacles in the migration system. Neither side of politics seems to be looking for creative solutions. Certainly, cutting the Permanent Program is not the answer.

    Another major issue is the difficulty successive governments have had in getting people to leave Australia once all their options to remain have been exhausted.

    As of January 2025, there were 92,000 individuals who had been refused a final Protection Visa, but had not yet departed. This number accumulated under the previous Morrison government and has continued to expand under Labor.

    Policy not politics

    Undue panic over the level of net overseas migration in an election context has made a mess of Australian migration policy.

    This is evidenced by the policy shambles over international education. The major parties both have plans to limit the number of foreign students, but the cap in both cases is not much below pre-COVID enrolments.

    On a more positive note, both sides of politics should be commended for not allowing racism and the “otherness” of migrants to enter the debate.

    But it’s time to drop the fantasy that cutting migration will help young Australians enter the housing market. This a blatant distraction from the real and tangible problems with the migration system that must be dealt with by whoever wins on May 3.

    This is the seventh article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here

    Peter McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and from the Department of Home Affairs (including its predecessors) for studies of migration issues, but not in the past decade.

    – ref. Cutting migrant numbers won’t help housing – the real immigration problems not being tackled this election – https://theconversation.com/cutting-migrant-numbers-wont-help-housing-the-real-immigration-problems-not-being-tackled-this-election-250646

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here are 5 ideas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

    Shutterstock

    As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

    Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

    The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

    While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

    But first, the extent of the problem

    It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

    Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

    Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID.

    The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

    Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?



    Read more:
    Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

    When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

    Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

    Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

    Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

    2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

    Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

    During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

    All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

    It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

    However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

    3. Think beyond new supply

    The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

    We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

    4. Aim before shooting

    Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

    Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

    Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home.

    Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

    The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

    5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

    As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

    For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.



    Read more:
    25 years into a new century and housing is less affordable than ever

    Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

    But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

    The elephant in the housing policy room

    At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

    Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

    By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

    Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

    Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.

    Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

    – ref. Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here are 5 ideas – https://theconversation.com/amid-the-election-promises-what-would-actually-help-fix-the-housing-crisis-here-are-5-ideas-253332

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New study finds no evidence technology causes ‘digital dementia’ in older people

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney

    RDNE Stock project/Pexels

    In the 21st century, digital technology has changed many aspects of our lives. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest newcomer, with chatbots and other AI tools changing how we learn and creating considerable philosophical and legal challenges regarding what it means to “outsource thinking”.

    But the emergence of technology that changes the way we live is not a new issue. The change from analogue to digital technology began around the 1960s and this “digital revolution” is what brought us the internet. An entire generation of people who lived and worked through this evolution are now entering their early 80s.

    So what can we learn from them about the impact of technology on the ageing brain? A comprehensive new study from researchers at the University of Texas and Baylor University in the United States provides important answers.

    Manfred Spitzer first introduced the ‘digital dementia’ hypothesis in 2012.
    Marc Reichwein/Wikipedia

    Published today in Nature Human Behaviour, it found no supporting evidence for the “digital dementia” hypothesis. In fact, it found the use of computers, smartphones and the internet among people over 50 might actually be associated with lower rates of cognitive decline.

    What is ‘digital dementia’?

    Much has been written about the potential negative impact from technology on the human brain.

    According to the “digital dementia” hypothesis introduced by German neuroscientist and psychiatrist Manfred Spitzer in 2012, increased use of digital devices has resulted in an over-reliance on technology. In turn, this has weakened our overall cognitive ability.

    Three areas of concern regarding the use of technology have previously been noted:

    1. An increase in passive screen time. This refers to technology use which does not require significant thought or participation, such as watching TV or scrolling social media.

    2. Offloading cognitive abilities to technology, such as no longer memorising phone numbers because they are kept in our contact list.

    3. Increased susceptibility to distraction.

    Why is this new study important?

    We know technology can impact how our brain develops. But the effect of technology on how our brain ages is less understood.

    This new study by neuropsychologists Jared Benge and Michael Scullin is important because it examines the impact of technology on older people who have experienced significant changes in the way they use technology across their life.

    The new study performed what is known as a meta-analysis where the results of many previous studies are combined. The authors searched for studies examining technology use in people aged over 50 and examined the association with cognitive decline or dementia. They found 57 studies which included data from more than 411,000 adults. The included studies measured cognitive decline based on lower performance on cognitive tests or a diagnosis of dementia.

    The study found that technology use had a similarly positive effect on brain function as physical activity.
    l i g h t p o e t/shutterstock

    A reduced risk of cognitive decline

    Overall, the study found greater use of technology was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline. Statistical tests were used to determine the “odds” of having cognitive decline based on exposure to technology. An odds ratio under 1 indicates a reduced risk from exposure and the combined odds ratio in this study was 0.42. This means higher use of technology was associated with a 58% risk reduction for cognitive decline.

    This benefit was found even when the effect of other things known to contribute to cognitive decline, such as socioeconomic status and other health factors, were accounted for.

    Interestingly, the magnitude of the effect of technology use on brain function found in this study was similar or stronger than other known protective factors, such as physical activity (approximately a 35% risk reduction), or maintaining a healthy blood pressure (approximately a 13% risk reduction).

    However, it is important to understand that there are far more studies conducted over many years examining the benefits of managing blood pressure and increasing physical activty, and the mechanisms through which they help protect our brains are far more understood.

    It is also a lot easier to measure blood pressure than it is use of technology. A strength of this study is that it considered these difficulties by focusing on certain aspects of technology use but excluded others such as brain training games.

    These findings are encouraging. But we still can’t say technology use causes better cognitive function. More research is needed to see if these findings are replicated in different groups of people (especially those from low and middle income countries) who were underrepresented in this study, and to understand why this relationship might occur.

    A question of ‘how’ we use technology

    In reality, it’s simply not feasible to live in the world today without using some form of technology. Everything from paying bills to booking our next holiday is now almost completely done online. Maybe we should instead be thinking about how we use technology.

    Cognitively stimulating activities such as reading, learning a new language and playing music – particularly in early adulthood – can help protect our brains as we age.

    Greater engagement with technology across our lifespan may be a form of stimulating our memory and thinking, as we adapt to new software updates or learn how to use a new smartphone. It has been suggested this “technological reserve” may be good for our brains.

    Technology may also help us to stay socially connected, and help us stay independent for longer.

    Depending on how it’s used, technology can be highly stimulating for our brain.
    Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

    A rapidly changing digital world

    While findings from this study show it’s unlikely all digital technology is bad for us, the way we interact and rely on it is rapidly changing

    The impact of AI on the ageing brain will only become evident in future decades. However, our ability to adapt to historical technological innovations, and the potential for this to support cognitive function, suggests the future may not be all bad.

    For example, advances in brain-computer interfaces offer new hope for those experiencing the impact of neurological disease or disability.

    However, the potential downsides of technology are real, particularly for younger people, including poor mental health. Future research will help determine how we can capture the benefits of technology while limiting the potential for harm.

    Nikki-Anne Wilson has previously received funding from the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute and the Australian Association of Gerontology.

    – ref. New study finds no evidence technology causes ‘digital dementia’ in older people – https://theconversation.com/new-study-finds-no-evidence-technology-causes-digital-dementia-in-older-people-254392

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here’s 5 ideas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

    Shutterstock

    As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

    Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

    The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

    While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

    But first, the extent of the problem

    It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

    Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

    Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID.

    The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

    Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?



    Read more:
    Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

    When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

    Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

    Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

    Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

    2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

    Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

    During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

    All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

    It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

    However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

    3. Think beyond new supply

    The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

    We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

    4. Aim before shooting

    Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

    Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

    Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home.

    Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

    The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

    5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

    As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

    For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.



    Read more:
    25 years into a new century and housing is less affordable than ever

    Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

    But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

    The elephant in the housing policy room

    At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

    Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

    By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

    Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

    Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.

    Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

    – ref. Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here’s 5 ideas – https://theconversation.com/amid-the-election-promises-what-would-actually-help-fix-the-housing-crisis-heres-5-ideas-253332

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Owners are officially no longer responsible for tourism accidents on their land – but they never really were

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Peace, Lecturer in Occupational Health and Safety, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    EyesWideOpen/Getty Images

    Newly announced reforms to the Health and Safety at Work Act mean landowners will no longer be responsible for tourism-related injuries on their properties. But it’s not clear this has ever really been a problem.

    Workplace Safety Minister Brooke van Velden says there was an “inadvertent climate of fear” affecting councils, farmers and landowners who allowed access to their land for hunting, fishing, mountain biking and horse trekking. The fear was that they would be held responsible if someone was hurt or killed on their land.

    The reforms targeting landowners are part of wider changes to the Health and Safety at Work Act, which was passed in 2015. Under section 37 of the act, a person who controls a workplace is responsible for ensuring that

    the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace, and anything arising from the workplace are without risks to the health and safety of any person.

    But we found just one instance of landowners being taken to court for adventure activities going wrong on their properties. This was the case against Whakaari Management Ltd, the owners of Whakaari/White Island after the 2019 eruption that claimed 22 lives and injured 25 others.

    In 2024, Whakaari Management was found guilty of failing to protect visitors to the island, but that decision was overturned in February this year.

    Adventure activities in New Zealand have been relatively safe, with just over 50 deaths in 35 years.
    Judith Lienert/Shutterstock

    Responsibilities under the law

    Under the current rules, responsibility for something going wrong rests with the “person conducting a business or undertaking”.

    A farmer, for example, is conducting business because they own or have control of their land. This does not apply if they are renting out the land but not involved in the activity’s management or control.

    In the Whakaari Management Ltd appeal the judge wrote:

    To be caught by [section] 37, a [a person conducting a business or undertaking] must in fact be exercising active control or management of the workplace in a practical sense. Owning it is not enough. Making money from it is not enough. Merely being able to manage or control a workplace, but not doing so, is not enough.

    Active control might include an agreement between the landowner and the activity operator to monitor conditions.

    While the Whakaari case is the only one we found where a landowner has been prosecuted under the current rules, there have been a number of court cases involving adventure activity companies.

    The key difference between successful and unsuccessful cases seems to be whether the business owners had the ability to influence or change what went wrong.

    For example, in cases where customers of diving businesses drowned, the courts have decided the businesses did not have control of the workplace, including the sea, a lake or river.

    In one case the judge wrote the business

    does not and cannot control flow or conditions nor can it control who uses or goes through the rapid […] It cannot give directions in relation to it, nor exercise any authority over it.

    A business owner operating a kayaking business did have control of the operational conditions and should have had a safe system of work, including checking the weather forecast.

    Similar failings were found after a school trip resulted in drownings and after the poor condition of tour buses and uncontrolled driving during a sand-surfing trip resulted in deaths.

    Making adventure activities relatively safe

    Even under the Adventure Activities Regulations – industry specific rule passed in 2010 and updated since – the responsibility for safety in the tourism industry fell on tourism operators, not landowners.

    And, from a safety perspective, the rules have been relatively successful. In the past 35 years, there have been about 52 deaths in adventure activities due to natural hazards (including the Whakaari/White Island tragedy). During the same period more than 30,000 workers died at or because of work.

    But this relative safety in adventure activities has come at a cost for small businesses. Under the 2010 regulations, the average cost of mandatory audits has been around NZ$5,000 – a cost borne by the small adventure activity businesses.

    If the government wants to further improve the safety of the outdoor tourism industry, then it needs to focus on making it easier and cheaper for businesses to comply with the regulations, rather than focusing on protecting landowners from a risk they never really faced.

    Danaë Anderson receives funding from the New Zealand Industrial Relations Trust

    Joanne Crawford receives funding from the Health Research Council and the New Zealand Industrial Relations Trust

    Chris Peace 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. Owners are officially no longer responsible for tourism accidents on their land – but they never really were – https://theconversation.com/owners-are-officially-no-longer-responsible-for-tourism-accidents-on-their-land-but-they-never-really-were-253622

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Breaking copyright law can help EDM DJs get more gigs, but there’s a catch

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Amandine Ody-Brasier, Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior, McGill University

    DJs who release illegal remixes improve their chances of getting hired for live gigs, but only when their actions are seen as selfless. (Shutterstock)

    In most industries, breaking the law can end a career. But in the electronic dance music (EDM) scene, certain forms of lawbreaking can have the opposite effect.

    Our recent study found that DJs who release illegal remixes — also called bootlegs — can improve their chances of getting hired for live gigs, but only when their actions are seen as serving the broader community rather than as a self-serving tactic.

    Most EDM artists support and respect copyright law and know that sharing a remix online without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. They also recognize the importance of respecting others’ work, as illustrated by the public apology issued by Dutch DJ Hardwell in a recent feud with Swedish House Mafia over a trio of bootlegs.

    Yet in practice, bootlegs are not necessarily condemned, and in some cases, can even be supported by the community.

    Not all bootlegs are the same

    We studied the careers of nearly 39,000 DJs across 97 countries from 2007 to 2016, tracking their music production activity and live performances. Given the legal and reputational risks involved, illegal remixing is relatively uncommon. Our data suggest that fewer than 10 per cent of EDM DJs post bootlegs online.

    Still, we found that those who do post bootlegs tend to get more gigs than those who produce legal remixes or original tracks.

    Bootlegging refers to the unauthorized remixing, editing or distribution of a track without the official permission of the original artist or copyright holder.
    (Shutterstock)

    To better understand this surprising result, we complemented our secondary data analyses with an expert survey, an online experiment with almost 900 EDM fans and interviews with 34 industry professionals including DJs, promoters and label managers.

    Interestingly, we found that bootlegs weren’t generally seen as more creative, higher quality or attention-grabbing than legal remixes or original tracks. So why then did some DJs benefit from them?

    The answer lies in how the broader EDM community perceived the bootlegger’s intentions.

    Valuing disinterestedness

    We found that artists who were seen as disinterested — breaking the law to give back to the community — tended to be rewarded, despite violating copyright law.

    When bootlegs were perceived as homages to a peer, a gift to fans or a way to revive a beloved song, it triggered community support for the artist. Specifically, other community members would step in and provide that artist with more opportunities to perform and open for peers.

    Sharing a bootleg online increased the number of monthly opening acts a DJ played by 4.4 per cent — twice the impact of releasing official remixes or original music.

    This could explain seemingly surprising responses to bootlegs, like in 2019, when a young DJ named Imanbek Zeikenov remixed “Roses” by Saint Jhn and shared it online without obtaining the proper rights.

    The EDM community reacted positively to the remix, which helped propel Zeikenov’s career forward. He has since become an established artist and has opened for high-profile artists, including Saint Jhn himself.

    It’s clear the EDM community places a lot of value on disinterestedness. But the inverse is also true: when bootlegs were believed to be self-serving attempts to ride someone else’s success, the support quickly waned.

    In fact, bootleggers perceived as self-serving experienced a decrease of up to 10 per cent in the number of monthly bookings.

    Norms take precedence over formal regulations

    Many occupational communities rely on informal norms. Usually, the degree to which formal regulations align with an industry’s core values determines whether a community promotes, discourages or only superficially supports compliance with the law.

    However, in more ambiguous situations, compliance becomes discretionary, meaning community members must interpret unlawful actions themselves and decide whether to enforce or overlook them.

    While formal rules exist in EDM — like copyright law — they’re not always strictly enforced. When this happens, a community’s norms fill in the gap in a process known as “occupational self-regulation.” In the EDM scene, these informal norms include unspoken rules about remixing, collaboration and credit.

    As our study shows, this ambiguity has resulted in a system where EDM artists who break copyright laws can still gain informal support, provided their actions are seen as disinterested and beneficial to the broader community.

    Breaking the rules for the right reasons

    It’s important to note that EDM artists do not encourage lawbreaking per se, and that the DJs we interviewed described bootlegging as a practice born out of necessity — something artists resort to when they lack the resources to clear tracks.

    Community support in EDM hinges less on strict legal compliance and more on how an artist’s intent is perceived. For emerging DJs, this creates a delicate balancing act: breaking the law carries real risks, but under certain circumstances, it can paradoxically open a path to a legitimate career.

    EDM isn’t the only field where this kind of phenomenon occurs. It’s likely that other creative occupations that value disinterestedness will see similar dynamics play out. This is also true in academia or tech. For example, patent infringement in bioscience research may be treated differently, at least in part, because of perceived differences in scientists’ intentions.

    Ultimately, how these transgressions are judged comes down to their perceived motives and how the broader community makes sense of them. Sometimes, breaking the law isn’t just tolerated, but can even be a stepping stone to professional success.

    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. Breaking copyright law can help EDM DJs get more gigs, but there’s a catch – https://theconversation.com/breaking-copyright-law-can-help-edm-djs-get-more-gigs-but-theres-a-catch-252593

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why weakening U.S. bank regulators could repeat the mistakes of the 2008 financial crisis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By William D. O’Connell, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Center for Political Economy, Columbia University

    As United States President Donald Trump’s tariff announcements wreak havoc on stock markets, concerns are mounting over the possibility of a global financial crisis.

    These concerns have intensified amid reports that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Tesla founder Elon Musk, has set its sights on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) — the U.S. agency responsible for protecting deposits and administering bank insolvencies.

    The targeting of the FDIC appears to mark an escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to rein in regulatory agencies. In February, an executive order issued issued by Trump expanded his control over independent regulators, including the FDIC.

    What sets the FDIC apart from other agencies targeted by DOGE is that it’s not under direct executive authority and it isn’t funded by the U.S. government. Instead, the FDIC is funded through levies on the banks it monitors — a structure designed to insulate it from political pressure.

    An escalating campaign over regulation

    In February, the FDIC cut 1,000 new and temporary staff as part of DOGE’s broader cuts to the federal bureaucracy. According to a regulatory official, DOGE has reportedly been reviewing the agency’s contracts and staffing.

    In December, Trump administration officials reportedly floated abolishing the FDIC with prospective nominees for various bank regulatory appointments.

    More recently, in February, DOGE and U.S. administration officials attempted to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a separate regulator that was established after the 2008 financial crisis. A judge moved to block this process in late March after finding the administration had acted “completely in violation of law.”

    There are also reports suggesting the FDIC’s regulatory and intervention functions could be transferred to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Unlike the FDIC, the OCC is under the authority of the Treasury Department, therefore lacking the same degree of operational independence. This risks further politicizing decisions on bank regulation or intervention.

    Any of these reforms would be a disaster for the stability of the global financial system.

    What the FDIC does and why it matters

    Deposit insurers like the FDIC cover losses for deposits in the event of a bank failure. In theory, this coverage is capped at $250,000 in the U.S. and $100,000 in Canada. In practice, as the failure of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 made clear, there is no upper limit to this insurance.

    This insurance serves two main purposes. First, it protects everyday people and small businesses from risks taken by their banks. Two, it prevents panic, as it means depositors have no reason to rush to withdraw their money before a bank collapses.

    The FDIC and its Canadian equivalent, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, have the authority to intervene when banks fail, ensuring they are wound down in an orderly fashion without a bailout or broader economic disruption.

    During the 2008 financial crisis, few mechanisms other than taxpayer-funded bailouts existed to rescue the financial system. Post-crisis reforms, like the Dodd–Frank Act, granted the FDIC more power help address systemically important bank failures with a broader set of tools. Many of these reforms were negotiated at the international level.

    Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation plan that has supported many of DOGE’s interventions, has called to repeal these reforms. Dismantling or undermining the FDIC would strip the U.S. of one of its most effective ways to respond to a financial crisis.

    The FDIC also plays a role in monitoring large banks, alongside the Federal Reserve and the OCC. At the international level, the FDIC works with foreign regulators to plan for the possibility of a crisis, and to implement solutions if one occurs.

    Global financial system at risk

    In 2023, the FDIC failed to prevent the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank largely due to two key reasons: deregulation enacted during the first Trump administration and staffing shortages that existed even before the February cuts.

    However, once the FDIC did intervene, it was able to contain the crisis and prevent wider fallout. Weakening the FDIC, as has occurred with other U.S. federal agencies, would greatly reduce its ability to perform this function in the future. Fewer regulators means less oversight and more risk-taking behaviour by financial institutions.



    Read more:
    What Canada can learn from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank

    Limiting the FDIC’s capacity to intervene would effectively return the U.S. to a pre-2008 world in which large banks operated with the expectation of public bailouts. This is a hazard made more dangerous by the fact that many of those banks are much larger and more interconnected than they were back then.

    Foreign regulators also rely heavily on the FDIC for information on the health of U.S. banks and U.S.-based subsidiaries of foreign banks. This co-operation was crucial to ensuring a smooth resolution when global bank Credit Suisse failed in 2023. Without a reliable, independent FDIC, these relationships may fall apart, leaving the world with few options to avoid another financial meltdown.

    Global financial stability depends, in large part, on U.S. leadership. But recent developments indicate the current administration no longer believes this responsibility is in its best interests. If this view extends to the FDIC’s role in regulating and resolving too-big-to-fail banks, the world faces risks far greater than just volatility in the stock market.

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

    – ref. Why weakening U.S. bank regulators could repeat the mistakes of the 2008 financial crisis – https://theconversation.com/why-weakening-u-s-bank-regulators-could-repeat-the-mistakes-of-the-2008-financial-crisis-254365

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Playing and exploring outdoors brings risk – and that’s good for children

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adele Doran, Principal Lecturer/Research & Innovation Lead, Sheffield Hallam University

    sirtravelalot/Shutterstock

    We are currently in the midst of a youth mental health crisis. In 2023 in England, a fifth of children aged eight to 16 had a probable mental disorder.

    One way to address children’s wellbeing is through letting them take part in outdoor risky play.

    When climbing trees, building dens, riding a bike fast, constructing rafts to float on water, or exploring a woodland, children make their own decisions on which risks to take and which to avoid. This empowers children to be decisive and independent in other situations, such as in their transition to secondary school, rather than relying on adult prompting or direction.

    Progressive incremental exposure to uncertainty and risk builds resilience and enhances overall wellbeing in young people. In our own research with 622 teenagers, we used questionnaires to measure their resilience and wellbeing before and after taking part in an outdoor adventure education residential trip. We found that their scores for wellbeing increased by 23%, their resilience by 36%.

    Outdoor risky play supports experimentation and exploration. It helps children develop social skills such as turn-taking and cooperation, and so gives them tools to overcome future challenges. It nurtures their curiosity. Children can be revitalised by being in nature, and by the adventurous uncertainty of playing without rules and restrictions.

    Forest school and residential trips

    One way children can play in this risky way with the support to build a healthy relationship with nature and risk is through regular attendance at a forest school.

    The forest school is a form of outdoor education where hands-on learning takes place in a woodland environment. It offers the chance for children to connect with nature, experience risk, build social skills and be active in their learning. This may include activities such as cooking on a campfire, doing nature-based arts and crafts, or building a den. It can be a weekly activity that children take part in for a few hours.

    Longer residential trips offer an extended opportunity to experience aspects of learning outdoors. These might be organised by a school or club, and include a variety of activities, such as orienteering, rock climbing, abseiling, and land and sea expeditions. These are aimed at developing leadership skills, resilience, autonomy and confidence. Children are challenged by exploring unfamiliar environments.

    Children make their own decisions about which risks to take.
    Sergey Novikov/Shutterstock

    However, in order to be beneficial, risky outdoor play needs to be frequent, progressive and to take place throughout a child’s education. The benefits it provides cannot be achieved with a one-time forest school or residential experience.

    One option would be to make forest school and outdoor play a regular part of children’s school education.

    But the current schooling system in the UK and – in England – the school qualities valued by Ofsted do not support the holistic development of children. A school’s worth is primarily measured by attendance and attainment in a limited number of core subjects. Few opportunities exist for schools to implement a range of activities that purposefully boost and sustain learners’ wellbeing and encourage risky play.

    A shift in thinking is required for schools to recognise the worth of outdoor risky play, and for teachers to be empowered to embed the culture of educated risk-taking within and beyond their school gates.

    There have been calls in the Welsh and Scottish governments for a universal entitlement to a weeklong residential trip. Campaigns in England have called for all children to be guaranteed time in nature. But actual progress towards a goal of broadening opportunities for accessing outdoor activities and experiencing risky play is glacial.

    At a point in time when children have faced unprecedented upheaval and threats to their wellbeing, it has never been more important to create daily opportunities for them to build their ability to deal with uncertainties. Experiencing the outdoors and positive risk-taking are fundamental to the everyday lives of all young people.

    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. Playing and exploring outdoors brings risk – and that’s good for children – https://theconversation.com/playing-and-exploring-outdoors-brings-risk-and-thats-good-for-children-249538

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From trauma to anxiety and depression, how online sexual harassment can seriously harm victims’ mental health

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Freya O’Brien, Senior Lecturer in Policing, Liverpool John Moores University

    dean bertoncelj/Shutterstock

    In today’s hyperconnected world, where much of our social and professional lives plays out online, the digital realm should feel safe and respectful. But for many, particularly women, young boys and marginalised groups, that’s far from reality. Cyber-sexual harassment is a growing and deeply harmful issue that demands greater awareness and action.

    Cyber-sexual harassment describes a wide range of unwanted or abusive sexual behaviour online. Gender harassment includes offensive messages, images, or memes targeting someone’s gender, often without direct sexual content – but still deeply degrading. Unwanted sexual attention online can take the form of unsolicited sexting or cyberflashing – sending sexually explicit images to another person without their consent.



    Read more:
    Cyberflashing is a form of gendered sexual violence that must be taken seriously

    Sexual coercion is using threats, blackmail or emotional manipulation to force someone into sharing intimate content or engaging in sexual behaviour online. A growing concern is sextortion – where victims are blackmailed with private images, often under, sometimes unbearable, pressure.

    According to UK police data, an average of 117 sextortion cases involving children were reported monthly between January and May 2024. The Internet Watch Foundation even found children as young as 11 being targeted.

    Terrible toll

    Cyber-sexual harassment isn’t just invasive – it’s damaging. Our study builds on clinical psychologist Marvin Iroegbu’s doctoral research on the relationship between cyber-sexual harassment and psychological difficulties in women. We found that women who experienced online sexual harassment reported significantly poorer mental health than those who hadn’t. Anxiety, depression, trauma and poor body image were all more likely. Our research suggests that this may stem from increased self-objectification and a heightened focus on physical appearance due to being targeted.

    Government research shows that women experience online abuse more frequently – and more severely – than men. Unwanted images, comments and messages are just the beginning. And the impact starts young. Studies highlight the psychological toll on both children and adults, noting that unexpected, anonymous and rapid abuse can leave victims feeling fearful, powerless, deeply ashamed and with low self-esteem.

    Our research also found that younger women and those with large social media followings are more frequently targeted for cyber-sexual harassment. This may be due to greater online visibility or time spent on platforms. Our study also found that women in newer or no romantic relationships reported higher levels of harassment.

    There’s also a clear link between online and offline abuse. Victims of cyber-sexual harassment were more likely to report in-person harassment too. According to the European Institute for Gender Equality, online abuse often mirrors and extends to real-world gender-based violence.

    Unequal burden

    Cyber-sexual harassment disproportionately affects LGBT+ people and ethnic minorities. LGBT+ people often face sexualised threats, non-consensual outing and image-based abuse. People from ethnic minorities, meanwhile, are often subjected to racially charged sexual abuse, combining racism and misogyny.

    Research into how cyber-sexual harassment affects these groups is still lacking, however. Many national cybercrime studies fail to include data on race, gender identity, or sexual orientation – making it harder to advocate for targeted support.

    While the Online Safety Bill now allows for prosecution of offences such as cyberflashing – with recent convictions in some cases leading to prison sentences for the offender – many victims still don’t report abuse. Barriers include frustrating reporting systems, victim-blaming, and the perception among victims that their complaints won’t be taken seriously.

    New legislation should be assessed to see whether it sufficiently supports victims, encourages reporting, leads to convictions and deters perpetrators.

    Many charities and organisations now provide support for online abuse victims – but more needs to be done. Mental health professionals are encouraged to consider online experiences as part of their patient assessments. Meanwhile, research like ours explores how different types of cyber-sexual harassment – such as the frequency or content of explicit messages – affect people differently.

    One thing is clear: cyber-sexual harassment is intrusive, traumatic and rooted in a lack of respect for consent. Cyberflashing and other forms of online sexual abuse are not harmless jokes. They’re violations. And no one should have to deal with them in silence.

    Freya O’Brien 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. From trauma to anxiety and depression, how online sexual harassment can seriously harm victims’ mental health – https://theconversation.com/from-trauma-to-anxiety-and-depression-how-online-sexual-harassment-can-seriously-harm-victims-mental-health-226531

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How paranormal beliefs help people cope in uncertain times

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Denovan, Senior lecturer in Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University

    goffkein.pro/Shutterstock

    Paranormal beliefs create a sense of control, predictability and comfort in uncertain times, according to academic studies. That doesn’t explain why some people find them more appealing than others, though recent studies are starting to offer explanations about why some people feel so drawn to the paranormal.

    Paranormal beliefs are convictions in notions beyond what mainstream science can explain, like ghosts or psychic abilities. Surveys show that a large number of people in the US and UK – between about one-third and 50% – hold these beliefs.

    Our recent study found that people who feel powerless or uncertain are more likely to believe in the supernatural. This is probably because of the way our brains process uncertainty. When faced with events we cannot control, our minds look for patterns and explanations.

    Paranormal beliefs create structured stories that make random events seem intentional. For example, astrology connects planetary movements to personal experiences, giving believers a way to understand their lives. People put their faith in conspiracy theories for similar reasons.

    One major reason people turn to paranormal beliefs is to deal with anxiety about life. Realising that life is unpredictable and has an end can be unsettling. Supernatural beliefs provide comfort by suggesting that a higher power controls human destiny.

    This perception gives life a sense of purpose and meaning. Stories about ghosts and communication with the dead help people feel connected to lost loved ones. In this way, supernatural thinking helps people cope with fears about the unknown.

    Believing in the paranormal can provide comfort for some, but it can be unhelpful in some situations. For instance, a deep belief in supernatural forces might cause someone to blame their problems on supernatural forces instead of looking for practical ways to address them. Indeed, our recent research identified that belief in external supernatural forces that exert control, such as gods or fate, is associated with distress. This type of belief reflects a lack of personal control.

    Conversely, our recent study showed that belief in paranormal phenomena centred on personal spirituality, such as astrology or manifesting, is not associated with stress. This seems to be because these kinds of belief emphasise personal control and meaning.

    Paranormal beliefs are also influenced by mental shortcuts that shape perception of the world. Pattern recognition is a good example, where people see connections in random events. This explains why people see faces in clouds or someone thinks a series of bad events means they are cursed.

    Paranormal beliefs can help people cope with uncertainty.
    Natalie magic/Shutterstock

    Another common bias is when people believe they can influence things that are beyond their control. Often referred to as the illusion of control, a 2024 study showed that this bias also applies to health, like believing in false medical treatments or cures. The researchers found that illusory health beliefs correlated positively with a belief in pseudoscience and negatively with scepticism.

    Cultural and social influences

    Culture and society can strengthen paranormal beliefs. The way the media depicts supernatural events affects how people see them. Horror films and TV shows frequently portray supernatural beings interacting with the real world. Social media further amplifies these ideas, with people sharing personal stories, videos and experiences online. These shared posts can reinforce beliefs in the paranormal.

    When people are surrounded by others who believe in the supernatural, they are more likely to see these ideas as true. Social norms shape these beliefs by setting expectations about what is considered acceptable or real within a culture. If a society widely accepts paranormal ideas, people are more likely to adopt and reinforce them.

    Understanding the role of paranormal beliefs can help researchers create a balanced view of the people who subscribe to them. Instead of dismissing such beliefs, it is important to recognise their emotional and personal significance. Particularly, how beliefs shape people’s perspectives and coping mechanisms. While they may not align with logic or evidence, the comfort they afford is deeply meaningful to those who hold them. A 2024 study found that paranormal beliefs were not necessarily associated with negative wellbeing and were connected to a sense of meaning in life.

    Research has shown that teaching critical thinking and scientific literacy can help people tell the difference between helpful spiritual practices and harmful misunderstandings. Encouraging scepticism and rational thinking allows people to engage with the world in a way that balances hope with reason.

    Paranormal beliefs persist because they meet deep psychological needs. Understanding why people believe in the supernatural can lead to more compassionate discussions and help them find better ways to handle uncertainty. Whether or not someone believes in ghosts, the need for stability and comfort is something all humans share.

    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. How paranormal beliefs help people cope in uncertain times – https://theconversation.com/how-paranormal-beliefs-help-people-cope-in-uncertain-times-251648

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Fat in common cooking oils is linked to aggressive breast cancer – but here’s why you shouldn’t panic

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

    BearFotos/Shutterstock

    There’s now lots of evidence which shows that our own diets and the foods we eat can influence the outcome if we are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer.

    Scientists are especially interested in how this happens, in particular the cellular and molecular mechanisms behind these associations. This would better inform nutritional recommendations and help us understand how cancer forms so we can prevent it.

    Now, a study has identified a molecular link between linoleic acid, a common fat contained in cooking oils, and aggressive breast cancer, renewing the discussion about dietary choices and cancer risk. The findings, while significant, require careful interpretation to avoid unnecessary alarm and give useful guidance to the public.

    Common fatty acid

    Linoleic acid is an omega-6 fatty acid which is found in abundant quantities in soybean, sunflower and corn oils. Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York showed it can directly activate a growth pathway in triple-negative breast cancer cells – a type of breast cancer especially known for its aggressiveness and limited treatment options.

    Triple negative breast cancer makes up about 15% of all breast cancer cases, but because breast cancer is so common, this affects a lot of people. The researchers found that linoleic acid binds to a protein called FABP5 (fatty acid-binding protein 5), which is at high levels in these cancer cells.

    This binding triggers the mTORC1 pathway – a critical regulator of cell growth and metabolism – fuelling tumour progression in preclinical research, including animal studies. My current research focuses on this pathway in a variety of normal and cancer cells.

    In the new study, mice fed a high linoleic-acid diet developed larger tumours, suggesting dietary intake may exacerbate this cancer’s growth. There was a link to people too: elevated FABP5 and linoleic acid levels were detected in blood samples from triple-negative breast cancer patients, strengthening the biological plausibility of this link. Dr John Blenis, the senior author of the paper, said:

    This discovery helps clarify the relationship between dietary fats and cancer, and sheds light on how to define which patients might benefit the most from specific nutritional recommendations in a personalised manner.

    It’s also possible that the implications extend beyond triple negative breast cancer to other tumours such as prostate cancer.

    Linoleic acid is an essential fatty acid so it must be obtained from food. It plays a role in skin health, cell membrane structure and inflammation regulation. However, modern diets, which are rich in processed foods, ultraprocesed foods and seed oils, often provide excessive omega-6 fats, including linoleic acid, while lacking omega-3s, which are found in fish, flaxseeds and walnuts.

    This imbalance could promote chronic inflammation, which is a well known contributor to cancer and other diseases.

    The study therefore suggests that linoleic acid may directly drive cancer growth in specific contexts. This challenges earlier observational studies that found no clear association between dietary linoleic acid and overall breast cancer risk. For example, a 2023 meta-analysis of 14 studies in over 350,000 women concluded that linoleic acid intake had no significant effect on breast cancer risk in the general population.

    The discrepancy highlights the importance of researchers looking specifically at cancer subtypes and also individual factors, such as FABP5 levels in cancers themselves. Another study showed that linoleic acid was protective against breast cancer, which demonstrates why it’s important to consider everything in context.

    Don’t panic

    Media headlines can often oversimplify complex research. While this new study highlights a plausible mechanism linking linoleic acid to cancer growth, it does not prove that cooking oils cause breast cancer – far from it. Other factors, such as genetics, overall diet and environmental exposures, play significant roles.

    The findings do not warrant blanket avoidance of seed oils but suggest moderation and selectivity, especially for high-risk individuals. Many oils such as olive oil contain less linoleic acid and higher monounsaturated or saturated fats, which are more stable at high heat.

    Do also consider eating more fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy, balanced diet.

    A recent study that comprehensively analysed eating habits over 30 years showed that diets that are rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and low-fat dairy products were linked to healthy ageing. In that study, the Harvard team followed more than 100,000 people between 1986 and 2016. Fewer than 10% of respondents achieved healthy ageing, defined by a lack of 11 major chronic diseases and no impairment in cognitive, physical or mental function by the age of 70.

    Organisations like the World Cancer Research Fund emphasise that moderate use of vegetable oils is safe and that obesity, not specific fats, is the primary dietary driver of cancer risk.

    This study, then, underscores the importance of contextualising dietary fats in cancer research. While linoleic acid’s role in triple-negative breast cancer is a critical discovery, it’s one piece of a vast puzzle. A balanced, wholefood diet remains an important cornerstone of cancer prevention, and a strategy everyone can adopt.

    Justin Stebbing 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. Fat in common cooking oils is linked to aggressive breast cancer – but here’s why you shouldn’t panic – https://theconversation.com/fat-in-common-cooking-oils-is-linked-to-aggressive-breast-cancer-but-heres-why-you-shouldnt-panic-254255

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ecuador: can freshly re-elected Daniel Noboa govern a country in crisis?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicolas Forsans, Professor of Management and Co-director of the Centre for Latin American & Caribbean Studies, University of Essex

    Daniel Noboa has been re-elected as president of Ecuador with a margin that has surprised most observers. Just weeks before the April 13 runoff, polls had him neck and neck with his left-wing rival, Luisa González. In the end, Noboa secured about 56% of the vote against González’s 44%, a difference of more than 1 million votes.

    The victory gives Noboa, a 37-year-old businessman and political outsider, a full four-year mandate. Noboa won a shortened presidential term in November 2023 in a snap election called when his predecessor, Guillermo Lasso, dissolved congress in an attempt to escape impeachment.

    It also marks the third consecutive presidential defeat for the movement led by former president, Rafael Correa, whose influence remains polarising in Ecuadorian politics.

    González is, at the time of writing, refusing to concede, claiming “grotesque” electoral fraud. “I refuse to believe that the people prefer lies over the truth”, she has said. But she has presented no evidence to support the allegation.

    International observers, including the EU and the Organisation of American States, have confirmed the elections were free and fair. In the absence of proof, the fraud claims appear to be more political theatre than a real challenge to the integrity of the vote.

    Political scion to dominant incumbent

    Noboa’s campaign leaned heavily on security – a theme that has come to dominate Ecuadorian public life as the country grapples with record levels of violence. Since assuming the presidency in 2023, Noboa has governed under a permanent state of emergency.

    He declared an “internal armed conflict” in early 2024, deployed the military in prisons and on the streets, and launched a wide-ranging security plan called Plan Fénix. This plan includes building a new maximum-security prison in the coastal province of Santa Elena modelled on El Salvador’s much-criticised approach to curbing violence.

    Initially, these measures won Noboa widespread support. But the picture soon darkened. January 2025 was Ecuador’s most violent month on record, with 781 homicides. Criminal groups remain entrenched in the country’s port cities and prisons. And human rights organisations have raised serious concerns about arbitrary arrests, the excessive use of force, and the militarisation of civilian life.

    Despite these setbacks, Noboa’s message of strength and order clearly resonated with voters. Ecuadorians, exhausted by spiralling violence, appear willing to accept more authoritarian governance in exchange for safety. This is a trend seen across the region, from President Nayib Bukele’s 2024 re-election in El Salvador to rising approval for militarised policing in Brazil, Honduras and Mexico.

    The challenges Noboa now faces are daunting. The most pressing is Ecuador’s descent into organised crime and narco-violence. Situated between Colombia and Peru, the country has become a major transit hub for cocaine bound for the US and Europe. Powerful international cartels have partnered with local gangs, and the state has lost control over large swaths of territory.

    In response, Noboa has not only empowered the armed forces but has also sought international assistance. In 2024, he met with Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, a controversial US private military contractor. This raised concerns about the outsourcing of Ecuador’s security and its implications for human rights. He has also floated the idea of hosting foreign troops in Ecuador, a proposal that would require a constitutional amendment.

    But militarised solutions alone did not bring an end to violence during Noboa’s first term, nor are they likely to succeed in his second.

    Ecuador’s security crisis is not just a matter of policing – it is a crisis of state capacity. The judiciary is riddled with corruption, prisons have become centres of criminal coordination, and police officers are often outgunned and underpaid. Without reforming these institutions, Noboa’s war on crime risks becoming a war without end.

    At the same time, Ecuador’s economy is faltering. In 2024, the country fell into recession, with GDP contracting and inflation rising. Ecuador is reliant on hydropower for its electricity generation, and a historic drought that year caused blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day. This revealed years of under-investment in infrastructure.

    In response, Noboa raised VAT, cut fuel subsidies, and secured a US$4 billion (roughly £3 billion) loan from the International Monetary Fund. These unpopular measures provoked grumbling but not mass protests, a fact some analysts attribute to exhaustion rather than approval.

    Inequality remains high, especially for young people and those living in rural and coastal regions. Unemployment and underemployment affect nearly half of the working-age population, and around one-third of Ecuadorians live in poverty. Noboa has announced new cash transfers and youth employment programmes, but these are palliative, not structural.

    To make matters worse, Noboa governs with limited support in the National Assembly. His party, Acción Democrática Nacional, holds 66 of the chamber’s 151 seats – one less than González’s Citizen Revolution.

    The Indigenous Pachakutik party controls a crucial bloc of nine seats, but is itself internally divided. Passing legislation will require building coalitions and compromising. These are skills that Noboa has yet to demonstrate at scale.

    Noboa’s credibility has also been challenged. His family’s banana export company, Noboa Trading, has been linked to multiple drug seizures in Europe. While there is no evidence implicating Noboa directly, the revelations raise uncomfortable questions about the president’s anti-drug narrative and potential conflicts of interest.

    Towards democratic reform

    Noboa’s victory gives him an opportunity, but not a blank cheque. His success will now depend on whether he can pivot from ruling by decree to governing by consensus. The public expects results: less violence, more jobs and greater political stability.

    To meet these expectations, he will need to restore the rule of law, protect human rights and build inclusive institutions capable of resisting criminal capture. This means professionalising the police, strengthening the judiciary and tackling the deep inequalities that fuel violence and despair.

    It also means stepping back from theatrical gestures, such as alliances with foreign mercenaries, and focusing on the slow, often frustrating work of state-building.

    In the coming months, Noboa will face a simple but profound test: can he translate his electoral mandate into real, lasting progress for a country on the edge? Ecuador’s future may depend on the answer.

    Nicolas Forsans 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. Ecuador: can freshly re-elected Daniel Noboa govern a country in crisis? – https://theconversation.com/ecuador-can-freshly-re-elected-daniel-noboa-govern-a-country-in-crisis-254420

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: New UK system to protect satellites against attack shows how global conflict has spilled into outer space

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jessie Hamill-Stewart, PhD Researcher, University of Bath

    Lockheed Martin and US Space Force

    The UK government has announced £65 million in funding for a new system called Borealis which is intended to help the UK military defend its satellites against threats. Borealis is a software system that collates and processes data to strengthen the UK military’s ability to monitor what’s going on in space.

    The government’s investment, announced on March 7, underlines the increasingly critical role played by space systems in the modern world. Space services play a key role in managing critical infrastructure such as the energy grid, transport systems and communications networks.

    For example, SpaceX’s Starlink system has been vitally important for communication on the battlefield during Ukraine’s war with Russia. It is just one example of the game changing potential of satellite based services.

    The investment in Borealis also shows that the UK government is taking the threat to space systems increasingly seriously. From as long ago as 2019, senior US officials have warned that space is no longer considered a “benign environment”.

    In 2021, a US general claimed that states were constantly conducting attacks on satellites, including jamming and cyber-attacks. Announcing the Borealis system in 2025, Major General Paul Tedman, the commander of UK Space Command, characterised space as “increasingly contested”.

    As the international order is coming under increasing pressure, nations are engaging in more combative behaviour, not just in space, but in cyberspace, and under the seas.

    A space system is composed of four parts – traditionally called segments. These include the space segment (satellites and other spacecraft), the ground segment (ground stations, control rooms), and the user segment (a signal receiver, for example). Communications between these parts of the system form what’s called the link segment.

    In addition to intentional attacks, satellites can also experience problems because of physical collisions with orbiting debris, from cosmic radiation, and activity on the Sun, which can interfere with onboard systems. For satellites, security against attacks has often been a secondary consideration. It was hard enough to build a system which could survive in space without introducing the additional costs and challenges of securing it against attacks from adversaries.

    Addressing threats to assets in space will require an all-encompassing approach, as I have argued in a recent report. First, security needs to cover all four segments of space infrastructure. The easiest way to interrupt a space system might be to target the ground or the user segment, rather than trying to interfere directly with a satellite.

    Starlink has been vitally important in Ukraine during the war with Russia.
    LanKS / Shutterstock

    Second, security needs to be considered across the life cycle of the system, from design and construction, through launch, to operations and application. Consider, for example, if the detailed specifications of a satellite have already been leaked to a malicious party. That might provide them with an in-depth understanding of how to attack the spacecraft – and in such a way that may be difficult to defend against without going back to redesign it.

    This type of issue was less of a problem when satellites were developed almost entirely by government agencies and large aerospace companies. ongoing expansion of the commercial space sector, start-ups and new entrants to the sector may not have the same approach to security as more seasoned organisations.

    Third, security needs to include the whole range of threats facing space infrastructure, of which a satellite is just one part. We must therefore consider the physical security of hardware, information security, cybersecurity, the personnel working on the project, and supply chain security.

    Vulnerable to sabotage

    The range of threats facing space systems parallels those facing other critical systems, such as underwater telecommunications cables. There have been several recent incidents of subsea cables being cut in the Baltic Sea, for example. There is also at least one reported instance of hackers burrowing deep inside core telecommunications networks.

    It is becoming painfully clear that much of the infrastructure underpinning the economy and our daily lives is fundamentally insecure. Determined attackers are increasingly operating across both the physical world and cyberspace.

    Retrofitting security onto space systems is technically challenging and hugely expensive. There are also tough policy questions here. Governments simply do not have the resources or the legal powers to act alone on this issue. Neither is it clear that the private sector will voluntarily commit to higher security standards and a vast programme of investment in existing infrastructure.

    Another issue is the global nature of space systems: differing security regulations make it challenging to ensure a coordinated approach to infrastructure across states.

    This underscores the importance of raising public awareness around the scale and scope of threats to space systems – and making clear what the impact would be on the public if this infrastructure ceased to operate. If governments are going to invest more in securing space systems, then people will need to understand why this is critical.

    However, the challenge of reverse engineering security into the complex and rapidly expanding network of space systems may ultimately be beyond the resources and appetites of governments and companies.

    If that is the case, then in addition to raising awareness around security risks, governments and other organisations should also consider efforts to increase the resilience of space systems to attacks. In addition to thinking about how to better secure our space infrastructure, it may be prudent to consider how we might live without it.

    Jessie Hamill-Stewart 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. Dr Neil Ashdown contributed to this article. He is the head of research at Tyburn St Raphael.

    – ref. New UK system to protect satellites against attack shows how global conflict has spilled into outer space – https://theconversation.com/new-uk-system-to-protect-satellites-against-attack-shows-how-global-conflict-has-spilled-into-outer-space-253963

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who’s thriving, who’s struggling and who’s stuck at the kitchen table: how working lives are changing in the UK

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alan Felstead, Emeritus Professor, Cardiff University

    shutterstock PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    For many people in the UK work is changing: how we work, what we do and where we do it. The change is faster for some than it is for others – and it’s not always changing for the better.

    A new national survey — organised and managed by my colleagues and I — paints a mixed picture of UK working life. What makes the Skills and Employment Survey 2024 unique is that it the eighth in of a series that stretches back to the mid-1980s .

    The survey focuses on people’s working lives: what skills they use, how and where they work, and what they think of their job. The data series consists of interviews with nearly 35,000 workers with around 5,500 taking part in 2024.

    Some people have good things to say about the way their working lives have changed. Other people’s work lives are not improving. For many of us, it’s a bit of both.

    Good news

    One piece of good news is that very few workers regard their jobs as having no value. Contrary to estimates by some scholars that around 40% of people “find themselves labouring at tasks which they consider pointless”, our survey suggests that only 5% of respondents think that their job is meaningless and has no value.

    So-called “bullshit jobs” are rare. Instead, nearly 70% reported their jobs gave them a sense of achievement either always or most of the time, while 76% said that their work was useful.

    Work is becoming more skilled too. In 2024, 46% of workers reported that they would need a graduate level qualification if they were to apply for their current job today. This is up from 20% in 1986.

    A further piece of good news is that the rate of over-qualification has declined. In 2024 35% of workers reported that they held qualifications that were higher than those currently required for their jobs compared to 39% in 2006.

    The job quality gender gap is narrowing. The pay gap has fallen steadily, but the gap in the physical environment of work – in working time quality, and in job skills – has also narrowed. For example, the proportion of men who reported that their health or safety was at risk from their work declined from 38% in 2001 to 21% in 2024, while among women it has remained stable at 22%.

    Bad news

    However, all not is well in the world of work. Workplace abuse is common – 14% of UK workers experienced bullying, violence or sexual harassment at work. The risk of abuse is much higher for women, LGBTQ+ workers, nurses, teachers and those who work at night.

    One of the most striking findings of our survey is the large fall in the ability of employees to take decisions about their immediate job tasks. In 2024, 34% of employees said they had “a great deal of influence” over which tasks they did, how they did them and how hard they worked. This is down from 44% in 2012 and 62% in 1992.

    The mechanisms for greater worker control have grown over time, but this has not translated into greater control at an individual level.

    Mixed news

    Another striking, if not unsurprising, finding is the growth in the number of people woking from home. But the long-running nature of the shift may come as a surprise. The survey shows that the growth of hybrid working started back in 2006, well before the term became fashionable.

    The survey also sheds light on where within the home people work. It shows that 45% can insulate themselves from others in the household by creating a home office. The rest must make do with the kitchen table, the sofa or the corner of a room.

    After years of declining trade union membership, the survey shows that the tide may eventually have turned. Membership levels have plateaued, and rates of union presence in the workplace and union influence over pay increased between 2017 and 2024.

    A rising proportion of trade union members also say their union has a great or fair amount of influence over how work is organised – up from 42% in 2001 to 51% in 2024.

    Technological change brings opportunities as well as benefits. The survey found that digital technology played a role in nearly all jobs, with 78% of workers considering computers “essential” or “very important” in their jobs, up from 45% in 1997.

    The share of AI users surged during the period of data collection, indicating its rapid adoption. But there are few signs that it is displacing workers, at least for the time being.

    Regular monitoring of all the issues raised here – and many besides – is only possible if regular and robust surveys such as the Skills and Employment Survey are carried out. These are invaluable components of our knowledge infrastructure which must be treasured, protected and supported if we are to accurately assess how the world of work is changing.

    Alan Felstead receives funding from a range of organisations. The Skills and Employment Survey 2024 is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Department for Education, and the Advisory and Conciliation and Arbitration Service with additional funding from the Department for the Economy to extend the survey to Northern Ireland (ES/X007987/1)

    – ref. Who’s thriving, who’s struggling and who’s stuck at the kitchen table: how working lives are changing in the UK – https://theconversation.com/whos-thriving-whos-struggling-and-whos-stuck-at-the-kitchen-table-how-working-lives-are-changing-in-the-uk-254235

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why ‘de-extinct’ dire wolves are a Trojan horse to hide humanity’s destruction of nature

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rich Grenyer, Associate Professor in Biogeography and Biodiversity, University of Oxford

    One of the biotech company’s ‘dire wolves’. Colossal

    With wildlife populations globally 73% smaller on average than in 1970 and large mammals missing from much of the world, surely there’s never been a better time to “de-extinct” species? US biotech company Colossal Biosciences Inc claimed to do just that recently by resurrecting the dire wolf from Game of Thrones (a species that also lived in our world, several thousand years ago).

    The potential seems huge. A species in trouble? Get a high-quality genome and you’ve made it a save game point, ready to replay when the environment improves. Didn’t get there in time? Never mind – you can use frozen remains in the permafrost, or shotgun-blasted specimens in a museum collection. And pretty soon, even if you don’t have those, a dose of generative AI and you can probably infer some of that genome anyway. A little genetic engineering and you have a species back from the dead, ready to go.

    What’s the problem? Well, pretty much everything. These aren’t species returned from extinction. They aren’t going to be very useful, and in fact may well not survive at all. Most worrying of all, like the Freys and Boltons hidden in the hall before the Red Wedding, it’s the ethos of de-extinction hidden in these “dire wolf” puppies that will likely do the most damage to biodiversity if it establishes itself.

    Extinction has not been reversed

    The dire wolf was a very large carnivore that lived in the Americas about 10,000 years ago. Anatomically, it resembled a big, muscular, extra-toothy grey wolf: the species alive today that everyone thinks of when they say “wolf”.

    The two pups revealed by Colossal Biosciences are not dire wolves. They are grey wolves, with 14 genes modified to produce an animal that resembles what we think a dire wolf looked like. Actually, only one of the 14 was a gene directly from a dire wolf specimen – the others were gene variants from existing grey wolf populations chosen to give physical features that made the engineered wolves bigger and whiter.

    Over time, gene editing technology could increase the possible number of genes that can be engineered into a host species, and increase the complexity of the traits being inserted. But it’s not species being revived, it’s a few of their characteristics being borrowed by a species from today. It’s like claiming to have brought Napoleon back from the dead by asking a short French man to wear his hat.

    The argument for this kind of genetic engineering revolves around the notion that the new hybrids might be useful for environmental restoration. As a top predator, the dire wolf could in theory bring the same revolutionary changes to ecosystems that reintroducing grey wolves to Yellowstone national park in the US famously caused in the 1990s. In other words, a more complete ecosystem, with wolves checking the voracious appetite of deer such that more complex and biodiverse habitats rebound.

    However, in ecosystems where the dire wolf would reign supreme the grey wolf can very clearly fill the same role (just as it did in Yellowstone) without any of the unnecessary technology – if only people stopped trying to shoot them and exempt them from endangered species legislation.

    There’s also the problem that captive breeding programmes seeking to release endangered species into the wild today regularly butt against: that the new animals have little or no idea what to do or how to live in their new habitat.

    Operation Migration, dramatised in the 1996 film Fly Away Home, saw a dedicated team of pilots teach endangered migratory birds how to traverse North America by having them chase microlight aircraft for thousands of miles. This is just one example of the intensive training necessary, and which is never guaranteed to be successful. It’s obviously more difficult to train apex predators by example – I will not be volunteering for the “intro to pack hunting” session.

    No quick fixes

    The word “de-extinction” is not just itself untrue, but it seeks to diminish the inconvenient truth of the biodiversity crisis: we know what causes extinction, and it’s us.

    Food systems have to destroy less habitat and use much less protein from animals, wild and farmed. Energy systems have to burn less carbon, so that there are fewer deaths among species (including ours) trying to adapt to higher temperatures and the changes they bring. To do both these things, our landscapes have to leave more space for nature and much of what remains must be used more efficiently to provide food, fuel and living space.

    There are definite signs that we can make good on these promises: conservation does work, for humans and for other species.

    But these changes require us to recognise that certain economic and political philosophies are no longer tenable. They require sacrifice by everyone and a willingness by rich people and countries to pay with money, trade policy, intellectual property rights and energy supply, so that many of the poorest people and countries can flourish while avoiding the environmental damage that those rich countries caused over their own histories.

    What motivates people to cope with these changes is a desire for justice, a need to nurture, a drive to make things better and a recognition that while habitats can sometimes be restored, species extinctions are irreversible dead-ends which can only be avoided. That recognition is under threat.

    The Trump administration is trying to defang the US Endangered Species Act. In the UK, a wholesale revision of legislation to prevent biodiversity loss has begun with the targeting of the habitat regulations, in preemptive defence of the government’s need to “build, build, build” in a desperate search for more economic growth. How useful would it be if the risk of extinction could be averted with a simple “don’t worry, we’ll pay to de-extinct it afterwards”?

    There won’t be a dire wolf, and even if there were to be one, we’d have no idea what it was for (and neither would it). We’ll all pay for the mistaken belief that extinction is a solved problem, and that the business-as-usual global economy that has caused the sixth mass extinction is no big deal, because its casualties aren’t actually dead – just temporarily inconvenienced by an extinction that is no longer forever.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

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

    – ref. Why ‘de-extinct’ dire wolves are a Trojan horse to hide humanity’s destruction of nature – https://theconversation.com/why-de-extinct-dire-wolves-are-a-trojan-horse-to-hide-humanitys-destruction-of-nature-254309

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Coal in Alberta: Neither public outrage nor waning global demand seem to matter to Danielle Smith

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ian Urquhart, Professor Emeritus, Political Science, University of Alberta

    “We heard you, Albertans.” With those words, Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean put coal mining in Alberta’s Rocky Mountains back on the table last December. Common sense might suggest Jean meant that Albertans are in favour of resuscitating metallurgical coal mining there, but that’s not the case.

    Instead, the public strongly opposes reviving metallurgical coal mining — also known as coking coal mining — to supply Asian steelmakers. December’s Coal Industry Modernization Initiative sadly exemplifies what has become too common in politics today — using misinformation to try to win the public’s willingness to accept the unacceptable.

    In this case, the government’s treatment of expert opinion compounds its misinformation. It’s blind to expert advice from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Australian government questioning the rosiness of metallurgical coal’s future.

    Bringing coal miners back to Alberta’s Rockies was extremely contentious between 2020 and 2022. Jason Kenney’s Conservatives removed the de facto exploration and exploitation restrictions in place there since the 1970s. At the same time, Benga Mining Limited proposed to resume coal mining in southwest Alberta. Together, these events ignited a public furore.

    Public opposition

    Andrew Nikiforuk, a journalist whose books and articles focus on epidemics and the energy industry, was one of the first to bring coal miner ambitions to the public’s attention. He told me the outrage was “probably the most important environmental protest I have ever witnessed in this province.”

    Benga’s Grassy Mountain project was summarily dismissed by government regulators in 2021. Eleven weeks before that decision, Alberta created the Coal Policy Committee. It consulted Albertans about the 2020 decision to invite coal miners to return to the Rockies.

    The committee gave anyone with a view on coal — positive or negative — the opportunity to contribute to its deliberations. The response was impressive. The committee received nearly 4,400 pieces of correspondence, 176 detailed written submissions and conducted 67 virtual and public meetings.

    The consultation confirmed what polling firms had already found: “A significant number of respondents are apprehensive about coal development in Alberta.”

    Albertans didn’t believe coal’s economic benefits justified its risks to landscapes and water quality. Only eight per cent of those who answered the committee’s survey question about the economic benefits of coal mining felt they were very important; 64 per cent regarded those benefits as “not important at all.”

    This unambiguous public opposition repeated what the federal-provincial review panel into Benga’s Grassy Mountain coal mine proposal revealed in 2020-2021. Ninety-eight per cent of the more than 4,400 public comments left on the review panel’s website opposed the proposal to bring coal mining back to the Crowsnest Pass.

    Second, the committee concluded that land-use planning, with public consultation, needed to take place before a decision could be made about permitting coal exploration in the Rockies.

    Premier Danielle Smith’s government hasn’t listened. It doesn’t intend to conduct the land-use planning called for by the committee.

    Jean has also said he will consult industry — and only industry — as he tries to get his new policy in place this year. He promised “targeted” engagement with coal industry stakeholders. The public and other interests will be mere spectators.

    Global coal demand is a myth

    Alberta’s coal initiative has an optimistic view of future metallurgical coal demand.

    Jean markets his proposal by saying Alberta coal is needed “given the current and anticipated future global demand for coal.” But the IAE doesn’t share that optimism. Nor do experts from the Australian government, the world’s largest exporter of metallurgical coal.

    The IEA’s annual coal report is a benchmark for understanding the medium-term global outlook for coal. Its most recent report projects metallurgical coal production will fall by 4.2 per cent from 2024 to 2027. The IEA’s 2024 World Energy Outlook predicted steelmaking coal production would fall over the next two decades as steelmakers reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    In 2050, it expects world coking coal production to drop 35.8 per cent from the 2024 level.

    Australia’s pre-eminence comes from producing 46 per cent of global metallurgical coal exports. The Australian government’s March 2025 Resources and Energy Quarterly confirms the general thrust of the IEA’s analyses. A slight increase in the amount of steel produced without metallurgical coal “will likely result in a slight fall in global metallurgical coal demand through to 2030.”



    Read more:
    Australia urgently needs to get serious about long-term climate policy – but there’s no sign of that in the election campaign

    Asian demand

    The IEA makes it clear that Australian producers don’t intend to relinquish market share willingly. Forty-seven Australian coal projects are in the pipeline, with most focused on metallurgical coal or metallurgical/thermal coal combined. Three-quarters of Australia’s metallurgical coal exports feed the Asian steel industry.

    Then there’s Mongolia. After its “recent extraordinary export growth” into China, Mongolia now supplies nearly one-half of China’s imports. The country is the world’s second largest metallurgical coal exporter. Mongolia’s high-quality coal, proximity to China and improved rail infrastructure will make its production difficult to displace.

    It’s unlikely, then, that new coal production from Alberta will gain easy access to Asian markets.

    Alberta’s Coal Industry Modernization Initiative illustrates two dangerous trends in politics today — the refusal to heed both the public and experts.

    The stakes here are large. Coal mining will undoubtedly have a substantial impact on the headwaters that serve people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Smith’s Conservatives should in fact embrace common sense and the spirit of party policy from the 1970s. Prohibit coal mining in Alberta’s Rockies.

    Ian Urquhart 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. Coal in Alberta: Neither public outrage nor waning global demand seem to matter to Danielle Smith – https://theconversation.com/coal-in-alberta-neither-public-outrage-nor-waning-global-demand-seem-to-matter-to-danielle-smith-252551

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why the meteorites that hit Earth have less water than the asteroid bits brought back by space probes – a planetary scientist explains new research

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Patrick M. Shober, Postdoctoral Fellow in Planetary Sciences, NASA

    This image overlays over 100 fireball images recorded between 2016 and 2020. The streaks are fireballs; the dots are star positions at different times. Desert Fireball Network

    Much of what scientists know about the early solar system comes from meteorites – ancient rocks that travel through space and survive a fiery plunge through Earth’s atmosphere. Among meteorites, one type – called carbonaceous chondrites – stands out as the most primitive and provides a unique glimpse into the solar system’s infancy.

    The carbonaceous chondrites are rich in water, carbon and organic compounds. They’re “hydrated,” which means they contain water bound within minerals in the rock. The components of the water are locked into crystal structures. Many researchers believe these ancient rocks played a crucial role in delivering water to early Earth.

    Before hitting the Earth, rocks traveling through space are generally referred to as asteroids, meteoroids or comets, depending on their size and composition. If a piece of one of these objects makes it all the way to Earth, it becomes a “meteorite.”

    From observing asteroids with telescopes, scientists know that most asteroids have water-rich, carbonaceous compositions. Models predict that most meteorites – over half – should also be carbonaceous. But less than 4% of all the meteorites found on Earth are carbonaceous. So why is there such a mismatch?

    In a study published in the journal Nature Astronomy on April 14, 2025, my planetary scientist colleagues and I tried to answer an age-old question: Where are all the carbonaceous chondrites?

    Sample-return missions

    Scientists’ desire to study these ancient rocks has driven recent sample-return space missions. NASA’s OSIRIS‑REx and JAXA’s Hayabusa2 missions have transformed what researchers know about primitive, carbon‑rich asteroids.

    Meteorites found sitting on the ground are exposed to rain, snow and plants, which can significantly change them and make analysis more difficult. So, the OSIRIS‑REx mission ventured to the asteroid Bennu to retrieve an unaltered sample. Retrieving this sample allowed scientists to examine the asteroid’s composition in detail.

    Similarly, Hayabusa2’s journey to the asteroid Ryugu provided pristine samples of another, similarly water-rich asteroid.

    Together these missions have let planetary scientists like me study pristine, fragile carbonaceous material from asteroids. These asteroids are a direct window into the building blocks of our solar system and the origins of life.

    The carbonaceous chondrite puzzle

    For a long time, scientists assumed that the Earth’s atmosphere filtered out carbonaceous debris.

    When an object hits Earth’s atmosphere, it has to survive significant pressures and high temperatures. Carbonaceous chondrites tend to be weaker and more crumbly than other meteorites, so these objects just don’t stand as much of a chance.

    Meteorites usually start their journey when two asteroids collide. These collisions create a bunch of centimeter- to meter-size rock fragments. These cosmic crumbs streak through the solar system and can, eventually, fall to Earth. When they’re smaller than a meter, scientists call them meteoroids.

    Meteoroids are far too small for researchers to see with a telescope, unless they’re about to hit the Earth, and astronomers get lucky.

    But there is another way scientists can study this population, and, in turn, understand why meteorites have such different compositions.

    Meteor and fireball observation networks

    Our research team used the Earth’s atmosphere as our detector.

    Most of the meteoroids that reach Earth are tiny, sand-sized particles, but occasionally, bodies up to a couple of meters in diameter hit. Researchers estimate that about 5,000 metric tons of micrometeorites land on Earth annually. And, each year, between 4,000 and 10,000 large meteorites – golf ball-sized or larger – land on Earth. That’s more than 20 each day.

    A fireball observed by the FRIPON network in Normandy, France, in 2019.

    Today, digital cameras have rendered round-the-clock observations of the night sky both practical and affordable. Low-cost, high-sensitivity sensors and automated detection software allow researchers to monitor large sections of the night sky for bright flashes, which signal a meteoroid hitting the atmosphere.

    Research teams can sift through these real-time observations using automated analysis techniques – or a very dedicated Ph.D. student – to find invaluable information.

    Our team manages two global systems: FRIPON, a French-led network with stations in 15 countries; and the Global Fireball Observatory, a collaboration started by the team behind the Desert Fireball Network in Australia. Together with other open-access datasets, my colleagues and I used the trajectories of nearly 8,000 impacts observed by 19 observation networks spread across 39 countries.

    By comparing all meteoroid impacts recorded in Earth’s atmosphere with those that successfully reach the surface as meteorites, we can pinpoint which asteroids produce fragments that are strong enough to survive the journey. Or, conversely, we can also pinpoint which asteroids produce weak material that do not show up as often on Earth as meteorites.

    The Sun is baking the rocks too much

    Surprisingly, we found that many asteroid pieces don’t even make it to Earth. Something starts removing the weak stuff while the fragment is still in space. The carbonaceous material, which isn’t very durable, likely gets broken down through heat stress when its orbit takes it close to the Sun.

    As carbonaceous chondrites orbit close, and then away from the Sun, the temperature swings form cracks in their material. This process effectively fragments and removes weak, hydrated boulders from the population of objects near the Earth. Anything left over after this thermal cracking then has to survive the atmosphere.

    Only 30%-50% of the remaining objects survive the atmospheric passage and become meteorites. The debris pieces whose orbits bring them closer to the Sun tend to be significantly more durable, making them far more likely to survive the difficult passage through Earth’s atmosphere. We call this a survival bias.

    For decades, scientists have presumed that Earth’s atmosphere alone explains the scarcity of carbonaceous meteorites, but our work indicates that much of the removal occurs beforehand in space.

    Going forward, new scientific advances can help confirm these findings and better identify meteoroid compositions. Scientists need to get better at using telescopes to detect objects right before they hit the Earth. More detailed modeling of how these objects break up in the atmosphere can also help researchers study them.

    Lastly, future studies can come up with better methods to identify what these fireballs are made of using the colors of the meteors.

    Patrick M. Shober received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 945298. Patrick M. Shober currently receives funding from the NASA Postdoctoral Program.

    – ref. Why the meteorites that hit Earth have less water than the asteroid bits brought back by space probes – a planetary scientist explains new research – https://theconversation.com/why-the-meteorites-that-hit-earth-have-less-water-than-the-asteroid-bits-brought-back-by-space-probes-a-planetary-scientist-explains-new-research-252456

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Africa’s healthcare funding crisis: 3 strategies to manage deadly diseases

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Francisca Mutapi, Professor in Global Health Infection and Immunity. and co-Director of the Global Health Academy, University of Edinburgh

    The increasing trend of reducing foreign aid to Africa is forcing the continent to reassess its approach to healthcare delivery.

    African countries face a major challenge of dealing with high rates of communicable diseases, such as malaria and HIV/Aids, and rising levels of non-communicable diseases. But the continent’s health systems don’t have the resources to provide accessible and affordable healthcare to address these challenges.

    Historically, aid has played a critical role in supporting African health systems. It has funded key areas, including medical research, treatment programmes, healthcare infrastructure and workforce salaries. In 2021, half of sub-Saharan Africa’s countries relied on external financing for more than one-third of their health expenditures.

    As aid dwindles, a stark reality emerges: many African governments are unable to achieve universal health coverage or address rising healthcare costs.

    The reduction in aid restricts healthcare services and threatens to reverse decades of health progress on the continent. A fundamental shift in healthcare strategy is necessary to address this crisis.

    The well-known maxim that “prevention is better than cure” holds not just for health outcomes but also for economic efficiency. It’s much more affordable to prevent diseases than it is to treat them.

    As an infectious diseases specialist, I have seen how preventable diseases can put a financial burden on health systems and households.

    For instance, each year, there are global economic losses of over US$33 billion due to neglected tropical diseases. Many conditions, such as lymphatic filariasis, often require lifelong care. This places a heavy burden on families and stretches national healthcare systems to their limits.

    African nations can cut healthcare costs through disease prevention. This often requires fewer specialist health workers and less expensive interventions.

    To navigate financial constraints, African nations must rethink and redesign their healthcare systems.

    Three key areas where cost-effective, preventive strategies can work are: improving water, sanitation, and hygiene; expanding vaccination programmes; and making non-communicable disease prevention part of community health services.

    A shift in healthcare delivery

    Improving water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure

    Many diseases prevalent in Africa are transmitted through contact with contaminated water and soil. Investing in safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure is an opportunity. This alone can prevent a host of illnesses such as parasitic worms and diarrhoeal diseases. It can also improve infection control and strengthen epidemic and pandemic disease control.

    Currently, WASH coverage in Africa remains inadequate. Millions are vulnerable to preventable illnesses. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2020 alone, about 510,000 deaths in Africa could have been prevented with improved water and sanitation. Of these, 377,000 deaths were caused by diarrhoeal diseases.

    Unsafe WASH conditions also contribute to secondary health issues, such as under-nutrition and parasitic infections. Around 14% of acute respiratory infections and 10% of the undernutrition disease burden – such as stunting – are linked to unsafe WASH conditions.

    By investing in functional WASH infrastructure, African governments can significantly reduce the incidence of these diseases. This will lead to lower healthcare costs and improved public health outcomes.

    Local production of relevant vaccines

    Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective health interventions available for preventing infection. Immunisation efforts save over four million lives every year across the continent.

    There is an urgent need for vaccines against diseases prevalent in Africa whose current control is heavily reliant on aid. Neglected tropical diseases are among them.

    Vaccines can also prevent some non-communicable diseases. A prime example is the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which can prevent up to 85% of cervical cancer cases in Africa.

    HPV vaccination is also more cost-effective than treating cervical cancer. In some African countries, the cost per vaccine dose averages just under US$20. Treatment costs can reach up to US$2,500 per patient, as seen in Tanzania.

    It is vital to invest in a comprehensive vaccine ecosystem. This includes strengthening local research and building innovation hubs. Regulatory bodies across the continent must also be harmonised and markets created to attract vaccine investment.

    Integrating disease prevention into community healthcare services

    Historically, African healthcare systems were designed to address communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis and HIV. This left them ill-equipped to handle the rising burden of non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. One cost-effective approach is to integrate the prevention and management of these diseases into existing community health programmes.

    Community health workers currently provide low-cost interventions for health issues such as pneumonia and malaria. They can be trained to address non-communicable diseases as well.

    In some countries, community health workers are already filling the service gap. Getting them more involved in prevention strategies will strengthen primary healthcare services in Africa. This investment will ultimately reduce the long-term financial burden of treating chronic diseases.

    A treatment-over-prevention approach will not be affordable

    Current estimates suggest that by 2030, an additional US$371 billion per year – roughly US$58 per person – will be required to provide basic primary healthcare services across Africa.

    Adding to the challenge is the rising global cost of healthcare, projected to increase by 10.4% this year alone. This marks the third consecutive year of escalating costs. For Africa, costs also come from population growth and the rising burden of non-communicable diseases.

    By shifting focus from treatment to prevention, African nations can make healthcare accessible, equitable and financially sustainable despite the decline in foreign aid.

    Francisca Mutapi is affiliated with Uniting to Combat NTDs

    – ref. Africa’s healthcare funding crisis: 3 strategies to manage deadly diseases – https://theconversation.com/africas-healthcare-funding-crisis-3-strategies-to-manage-deadly-diseases-253644

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Cross-border commuters’: the women who risk the dangerous crossing between Venezuela and Colombia each day

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Valentina Montoya Robledo, Senior Researcher in Gender and Mobility, University of Oxford

    Many people cross the border between Venezuela and Colombia each day – but they are not migrants. These people live on the Venezuelan side because they cannot afford rent or utilities in Colombia.

    The vast majority are women, many of whom are single mothers solely responsible for their children’s subsistence and care. They cross the border on foot, often with their children, because it is their only option for survival.

    High inflation in Venezuela has made many staples unaffordable, while many other essential items are either unavailable or poor quality. But rent is cheaper in their home country, so they are known as “cross-border commuters”.

    Because they are moving within the border zone, the law does not require them to have their passports stamped each time. On the Colombian side, they buy goods – products that are cheaper there — to sell in Venezuela. They find ingredients to make cakes and pastries, or hair dye for their clients. Others cross to attend the doctor or give birth.

    Some women take their children to school in Colombia. In Venezuela, public schools currently operate only two days a week, while across the border they run for the full five-day school week and welcome children from Venezuela. Some women used to take their little ones to nursery in Colombia – but not any more, since the recent USAID cuts removed funding for these nurseries.

    In the few hours without their children, the women find work in Colombia’s “gig economy”: recycling garbage, selling coffee, standing at traffic lights selling fried plantains, or even their bodies.

    When I asked a public official in the Colombian border city of Cúcuta about the women coming in from Venezuela each day, he told me: “The good ones cross over the bridge [legally], and the bad ones go underneath [bypassing border controls].”

    In fact, what brings these women into Colombia, and which route they use to arrive each day, is much more nuanced than that official suggests.

    Neither government understands

    Despite the Colombian government having set up education, health and employment programs for receiving and including Venezuelan migrants, these women are not traditional migrants. Neither government has much understanding of what it means for them to seek a livelihood in Colombia to survive and support their children.

    For the most part, neither government maintains updated statistics on how many women there are, the circumstances they face, why they cross over or under the bridge, the reasons or characteristics of their movements, and why they do not settle permanently in Colombia. These questions, among others, are what I have set out to research.

    Some women walk back and forth across one of the bridges over the Tachira river, which runs along the border between the two countries. Others, when returning to Venezuela carrying bundles of goods, cross on motorcycle taxis.

    But crossing the bridge is not always easy. Some women report that Venezuelan border guards search their bags and confiscate part of what they carry. Other times, they must pay – not just official taxes but bribes too.

    One woman told me how a guard asked for guava-paste sweets in exchange for letting her pass. Depending on the day and which guards are patrolling the crossing, often they have to present a legally required exit permit for their children, signed by the father. “What father? That man abandoned me when my child was born, and I haven’t heard from him since,” one woman told me.

    Without a permit, legally crossing the border into Colombia with their children becomes almost impossible. And there is no authority they can turn to for help.

    Under the bridge

    Then there are those who cross under the bridge every day, because they dare not risk being asked for a permit for their children.

    The Tachira river dries up and swells depending on the season, with multiple informal crossings known locally as “trochas”. When the river is low, people walk across on logs placed like makeshift bridges, or hop from stone to stone. When the water rises, they use small, self-built rafts.

    These crossings may be informal, but they can also be very dangerous. The women told me of clashes between armed groups on both sides of the river – some of them had been caught in the crossfire with their children in tow.

    Others described cases of sexual violence. They were particularly afraid for their daughters, because one of the men guarding the trocha may “set his sights on them” – meaning he might take a sexual interest.

    One woman told me cell phones are not allowed by the people who guard the trochas – who supposedly guarantee their safety. It adds to their sense of vulnerability. People generally pay to cross – if not with money then with their bodies. These are the unspoken rules of these pathways.

    As a result, every day the women fear for their safety and that of their children. But if something happens to them in the trochas, they mistrust the government and fear reporting these crimes.

    The women are vulnerable. They are neither “good” for crossing over the bridge, nor “bad” for crossing under it. Most make the decision on a day-to-day basis depending on their resources and time available, the papers they have, the goods they need to carry, and what they consider best for their children.

    As they say in Colombia, for these mothers “each day brings its own hustle”.

    Valentina Montoya Robledo receives funding from the John Fell Fund from the University of Oxford. She directs the transmedia project Invisible Commutes.

    – ref. ‘Cross-border commuters’: the women who risk the dangerous crossing between Venezuela and Colombia each day – https://theconversation.com/cross-border-commuters-the-women-who-risk-the-dangerous-crossing-between-venezuela-and-colombia-each-day-253552

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Are Britons really poorer than they were 20 years ago, or does it just feel that way?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcel Lukas, Senior Lecturer in Banking and Finance and Director of Executive Education, University of St Andrews

    pxl.store/Shutterstock

    Millions of UK households are facing what’s been dubbed “awful April” after rising council tax, water bills and broadband costs coincided with the new tax year. It could all start to hurt quite quickly. And it has led many people to ponder whether they’re genuinely worse off than previous generations – or simply experiencing a temporary pinch.

    Council tax has risen by an average of 5% across England (some rises in Scotland and Wales are even greater). Water bills are up by £10 per month on average, while many broadband and mobile providers have imposed rises several percentage points above the rate of inflation.

    This comes after years of economic volatility, from the 2008 financial crisis through Brexit, the COVID pandemic and the subsequent inflation surge.

    But beyond the immediate pain of these April increases, there’s a deeper question. Has there been a fundamental shift in British prosperity over the past two decades?

    Data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) reveals a complex picture around real household disposable income (RHDI). This is the amount of money from all income that households have available for spending or saving after taxes and benefits, adjusted for inflation. As such, it’s a reliable way to see how much money people have to spend right now, compared to previous years or decades.

    Between 2000 and 2008, RHDI grew steadily at approximately 3% per year. The financial crisis brought this growth to an abrupt halt, with the period between 2008 and 2023 characterised by unprecedented stagnation.

    While there have been periods of modest recovery in 2023 and 2024, the overall trajectory shows sustained minimal growth in disposable income ever since the 2008 financial crisis.

    When broken down by income groups, the data tell a more nuanced story. The bottom 20% of households have experienced virtually no growth in real disposable income since 2008, while the top 20% recovered more quickly after initial setbacks. Income inequality, which narrowed slightly during the early 2010s, has widened again in recent years.

    Underlying the income stagnation is Britain’s productivity problem. Labour productivity growth, which averaged around 2% annually in the five decades before 2008, has grown at less than 1% per year since. This has directly impacted wage growth.

    Several factors contribute to this productivity puzzle – under-investment in infrastructure and skills, a shift toward service-sector jobs with traditionally lower productivity growth, and economic uncertainty discouraging business investment.

    Housing – the great divider

    Perhaps the most significant factor in understanding why people might feel poorer is housing costs. The ratio of average house prices to average earnings has nearly doubled over the past 20 years. In 2002, a typical house cost around five times the average salary. But by 2023, this had risen to approximately nine times.

    For renters, the situation is also very challenging. Private rental costs increased faster than wages in the year to January 2025 in most regions, particularly in London. The proportion of income spent on rent increased from roughly 25% to more than 30%) for the average renter between 2022 and 2024.

    This housing cost burden creates a stark divide between generations. Those who bought property before the mid-2000s housing boom have generally seen their housing costs decline as a proportion of income as their mortgages were paid down. Meanwhile, younger generations face significantly higher barriers to home-ownership and higher ongoing costs.

    Housing costs are a big determiner of whether you feel wealthy in the UK.
    Alex Segre/Shutterstock

    Another important part of the overall picture is the consumer experience – and how the quality and variety of goods and services have changed. Technology has made many products more affordable and accessible. Smartphones, computers and TVs were significantly more expensive (or didn’t even exist in current forms) 20 years ago.

    But essential services such as childcare have seen costs rise faster than general inflation. The same is true for grocery costs, which have seen a substantial increase since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This has created a confusing dual experience where discretionary purchases may feel more affordable while essential costs consume a greater proportion of income.

    So are Britons actually poorer? The facts suggest that while the average Briton isn’t necessarily worse off in absolute terms than 20 years ago, many are certainly no better off. This in itself is a stark contrast to the expectation of continual improvement that characterised previous generations.

    When accounting for housing costs, younger generations are demonstrably worse off than their predecessors at the same life stage. For many, the combination of stagnant incomes and rising costs for essentials has created a genuine decline in living standards and financial security.

    “Awful April” isn’t just a seasonal discomfort. It is a manifestation of long-term economic trends that have fundamentally altered Britain’s prosperity trajectory. The coming local and mayoral elections in England will no doubt see these issues take centre stage. There will likely be a thorny debate around the expectation that each generation should be better off than the last.

    Marcel Lukas receives funding from The British Academy.

    – ref. Are Britons really poorer than they were 20 years ago, or does it just feel that way? – https://theconversation.com/are-britons-really-poorer-than-they-were-20-years-ago-or-does-it-just-feel-that-way-254097

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent – here’s how

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Guillaume Thierry, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, Bangor University

    Kundra/Shutterstock

    We are constantly fed a version of AI that looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us. It speaks in polished sentences, mimics emotions, expresses curiosity, claims to feel compassion, even dabbles in what it calls creativity.

    But here’s the truth: it possesses none of those qualities. It is not human. And presenting it as if it were? That’s dangerous. Because it’s convincing. And nothing is more dangerous than a convincing illusion.

    In particular, general artificial intelligence — the mythical kind of AI that supposedly mirrors human thought — is still science fiction, and it might well stay that way.

    What we call AI today is nothing more than a statistical machine: a digital parrot regurgitating patterns mined from oceans of human data (the situation hasn’t changed much since it was discussed here five years ago). When it writes an answer to a question, it literally just guesses which letter and word will come next in a sequence – based on the data it’s been trained on.

    This means AI has no understanding. No consciousness. No knowledge in any real, human sense. Just pure probability-driven, engineered brilliance — nothing more, and nothing less.

    So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure. It doesn’t hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition — not a shred — there’s a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.

    Philosopher David Chalmers calls the mysterious mechanism underlying the relationship between our physical body and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Eminent scientists have recently hypothesised that consciousness actually emerges from the integration of internal, mental states with sensory representations (such as changes in heart rate, sweating and much more).

    Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”, there is a profound and probably irreconcilable disconnect between general AI, the machine, and consciousness, a human phenomenon.

    The master

    Before you argue that AI programmers are human, let me stop you there. I know they’re human. That’s part of the problem. Would you entrust your deepest secrets, life decisions, emotional turmoil, to a computer programmer? Yet that’s exactly what people are doing — just ask Claude, GPT-4.5, Gemini … or, if you dare, Grok.

    Giving AI a human face, voice or tone is a dangerous act of digital cross-dressing. It triggers an automatic response in us, an anthropomorphic reflex, leading to aberrant claims whereby some AIs are said to have passed the famous Turing test (which tests a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent, human-like behaiour). But I believe that if AIs are passing the Turing test, we need to update the test.

    The AI machine has no idea what it means to be human. It cannot offer genuine compassion, it cannot foresee your suffering, cannot intuit hidden motives or lies. It has no taste, no instinct, no inner compass. It is bereft of all the messy, charming complexity that makes us who we are.

    More troubling still: AI has no goals of its own, no desires or ethics unless injected into its code. That means the true danger doesn’t lie in the machine, but in its master — the programmer, the corporation, the government. Still feel safe?

    And please, don’t come at me with: “You’re too harsh! You’re not open to the possibilities!” Or worse: “That’s such a bleak view. My AI buddy calms me down when I’m anxious.”

    Am I lacking enthusiasm? Hardly. I use AI every day. It’s the most powerful tool I’ve ever had. I can translate, summarise, visualise, code, debug, explore alternatives, analyse data — faster and better than I could ever dream to do it myself.

    I’m in awe. But it is still a tool — nothing more, nothing less. And like every tool humans have ever invented, from stone axes and slingshots to quantum computing and atomic bombs, it can be used as a weapon. It will be used as a weapon.

    Need a visual? Imagine falling in love with an intoxicating AI, like in the film Her. Now imagine it “decides” to leave you. What would you do to stop it? And to be clear: it won’t be the AI rejecting you. It’ll be the human or system behind it, wielding that tool become weapon to control your behaviour.

    Removing the mask

    So where am I going with this? We must stop giving AI human traits. My first interaction with GPT-3 rather seriously annoyed me. It pretended to be a person. It said it had feelings, ambitions, even consciousness.

    That’s no longer the default behaviour, thankfully. But the style of interaction — the eerily natural flow of conversation — remains intact. And that, too, is convincing. Too convincing.

    We need to de-anthropomorphise AI. Now. Strip it of its human mask. This should be easy. Companies could remove all reference to emotion, judgement or cognitive processing on the part of the AI. In particular, it should respond factually without ever saying “I”, or “I feel that”… or “I am curious”.

    Will it happen? I doubt it. It reminds me of another warning we’ve ignored for over 20 years: “We need to cut CO₂ emissions.” Look where that got us. But we must warn big tech companies of the dangers associated with the humanisation of AIs. They are unlikely to play ball, but they should, especially if they are serious about developing more ethical AIs.

    For now, this is what I do (because I too often get this eerie feeling that I am talking to a synthetic human when using ChatGPT or Claude): I instruct my AI not to address me by name. I ask it to call itself AI, to speak in the third person, and to avoid emotional or cognitive terms.

    If I am using voice chat, I ask the AI to use a flat prosody and speak a bit like a robot. It is actually quite fun and keeps us both in our comfort zone.

    Guillaume Thierry 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. We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent – here’s how – https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-stop-pretending-ai-is-intelligent-heres-how-254090

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who Believes in Angels? by Elton John and Brandi Carlile shows the power of true collaboration

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

    Having collaborated with the likes of (deep breath) John Lennon, Aretha Franklin, George Michael, Rod Stewart, Little Richard, Luciano Pavarotti, Eminem and Leonard Cohen, it’s fair to say that Elton John likes to work with other artists.

    The news, then, that he has embarked on another joint musical project, this time with Grammy-winning American superstar Brandi Carlile, won’t have raised many eyebrows. It may not even be too much of a shock that their album Who Believes in Angels?, released April 4, just reached the top spot on the UK album charts.

    What is surprising, perhaps, is that John lists its creation as “one of the greatest musical experiences” of his life, and has declared it the start of his “career mark two”. What is it about this particular collaboration that left the music legend feeling so “utterly revitalised”?

    Who Believes In Angels? by Elton John and Brandi Carlile.

    John’s penchant for collaborating isn’t unusual, of course. Solo artists frequently pool their resources with others. Producers bring in guest vocalists. Bands unite to create “supergroups”, and swarms of celebrities crowd into a studio for the latest charity or novelty song. Collaborations have been a staple of recorded music since (and probably before) Louis Armstrong and Bessie Smith committed St. Louis Blues to wax a century ago.

    Since then we’ve seen the legendary: Ella Fitzgerald and Duke Ellington, Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell and Aerosmith and Run DMC. We’ve seen the surprising: Kylie and Nick Cave, Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga and Lil Nas X and Billy Ray Cyrus. And we’ve seen ones we’d rather forget: the unholy union of Metallica and Lou Reed, the raspy-voiced overload of Sting, Bryan Adams and Rod Stewart, and the horror show of Will.i.am featuring Mick Jagger and Jennifer Lopez.

    Artists like David Bowie have used collaboration as an opportunity to challenge themselves across different genres. In his case, this has led to a catalogue of diverse – and sometimes baffling – linkups ranging from Bing Crosby (“I just knew my mother liked him,” said Bowie) to Trent Reznor.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    Other artists use collaboration to stay current in an ever-evolving musical landscape. Take Paul McCartney teaming up with Michael Jackson in the 1980s then Kayne West in the 2010s. Or The Beach Boys’ ill-advised foray into hip hop with The Fat Boys. Or Madonna recording with insert name of current flavour-of-the-month artist.

    Some even specialise in collaborations, such as rapper Nicki Minaj, who has been a featured artist on more singles than she’s been the lead (84 v 52 if you’re interested). Or DJ Khaled, whose 24 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 have all been collaborations.

    And collaborations are only becoming more common. According to the Official Charts company, since 2020 almost half of the 100 biggest tracks have been collaborations, which is more than double the amount we saw at the end of the noughties.

    Better off alone?

    There’s good reason why more and more artists are getting together to record.

    A 2023 research paper found that collaborations not only received more than twice the number of plays per week on average compared to solo efforts, but also significantly increased the number of plays an artist received in the future.

    Although such songs may increase commercial success, however, and a well-timed, well-placed collaboration can be enough to revive even the most waning of careers, they come with risks, too. They may sound artificial and inauthentic; feel like soulless and corporate attempts by record labels to cash in; or, in the case of Ed Sheeran (according to Guardian music critic Issy Sampson) give the impression of tricking the public into thinking you’re cool by getting some famous mates on your songs.

    To avoid such pitfalls, cultural sociologist Jo Haynes prescribes competency, creativity, financial recompense, passion, respect and sincerity as the main ingredients of successful musical collaboration.

    In the case of Elton John and Brandi Carlile, although we may only speculate on the financial recompense, evidence suggests the other elements were abundant during the album’s creation. And this may be what has so rejuvenated John.

    Who Believes in Angels? represents a collaboration of equals who were pushing each other and raising the other’s game.

    “It was a connection,” John says, emotionally and musically. Pop music collaborations may come along as frequently as trains on the Victoria Line at rush-hour, but true artistic connection is a rare and precious commodity indeed.

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

    – ref. Who Believes in Angels? by Elton John and Brandi Carlile shows the power of true collaboration – https://theconversation.com/who-believes-in-angels-by-elton-john-and-brandi-carlile-shows-the-power-of-true-collaboration-254234

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Utilities choosing coal, solar, nuclear or other power sources have a lot to consider, beyond just cost

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Erin Baker, Distinguished Professor of Industrial Engineering and Faculty Director of The Energy Transition Institute, UMass Amherst

    A turbine from the Roth Rock wind farm spins on the spine of Backbone Mountain behind the Mettiki Coal processing plant in Oakland, Md. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    The Trump administration is working to lift regulations on coal-fired power plants in the hopes of making its energy less expensive. But while cost is one important aspect, utilities have a lot more to consider when they choose their power sources.

    Different technologies play different roles in the power system. Some sources, like nuclear energy, are reliable but inflexible. Other sources, like oil, are flexible but expensive and polluting.

    How utilities choose which power source to invest in depends in large part on two key aspects: price and reliability.

    Power prices

    One way to compare power sources is by their levelized cost of electricity. This shows how much it costs to produce one unit of electricity on average over the life of the generator.

    The asset management firm Lazard has produced levelized cost of electricity calculations for the major U.S. electricity sources annually for years, and it has tracked a sharp decline in solar power costs in particular.

    Coal is one of the more expensive technologies for utilities today, making it less competitive compared with solar, wind and natural gas, by Lazard’s calculations. Only nuclear, offshore wind and “peaker” plants, which are used only during periods of high electricity demand, are more expensive.

    Land-based wind and solar power have the lowest estimated costs, far below what consumers are paying for electricity today. The National Renewable Energy Lab has found similar levelized costs for renewable energy, though its estimates for nuclear are lower than Lazard’s.

    Upfront costs are also important and can make the difference for whether new power projects can be built, as the East Coast has seen lately.

    Several offshore wind farms planned along the Northeast were canceled in recent years as costs rose due to inflation and supply chain problems during the pandemic. Construction costs for the two newest nuclear generators built in the U.S. also rose considerably as the projects, both in the Southeast, faced delays.

    Reliability and flexibility matter

    But cost is not the whole story. Utilities must balance a number of criteria when investing in power sources.

    Most important is matching supply and demand at every moment of the day. Due to the technical characteristics of electricity and how it flows, if the supply of electricity is even a little bit lower than the demand, that can trigger a blackout. This means power companies and consumers need generation that can ramp down when demand is low and ramp up when demand is high.

    Since wind and solar generation depend on the wind blowing and the sun shining, these sources must be combined with other types of generation or with storage, such as batteries, to ensure the power grid has exactly as much power as it needs at all times.

    Combining renewable energy and battery storage or both wind and solar can smooth out power supply dips and spikes. The Pine Tree Wind Farm and Solar Power Plant in the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles do both.
    Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Nuclear and coal are predictable and run reliably, but they are inflexible – they take time to ramp up and down, and doing so is expensive. Steam turbines are simply not built for flexibility. The multiple days it took to shut down Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after an earthquake and tsunami damaged its backup power sources in 2011 illustrated the challenges and safety issues related to ramping down nuclear plants.

    That means coal and nuclear aren’t as helpful on those hot summer days when utilities need a quick power increase to keep air conditioners running. These peaks may only happen a few days a year, but keeping the power on is crucial for human health and the economy.

    In today’s energy system, the most flexible generation sources are natural gas and hydro. They can quickly adjust to meet changing electricity demand without the safety and cost concerns of coal and nuclear. Hydro can ramp in minutes but can only be built where large dams are feasible. The most cost-effective natural gas technology can ramp up within hours.

    The big picture, by power source

    Over the past two decades, natural gas use has risen quickly to overtake coal as the most common fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. The boom was largely driven by the growing use of fracking technology, which allowed producers to extract gas from rock and lowered the price.

    Natural gas’s low price and high flexibility make it an attractive choice. Its rise is a large part of the reason coal use has plummeted.

    But natural gas has its challenges. Natural gas requires pipelines to carry it across the country, leading to disruptive construction. As Texas saw during its February 2021 blackouts, natural gas equipment can also fail in extreme cold. And like coal, natural gas is a fossil fuel that releases greenhouse gases during combustion, so it is also helping to cause climate change and contributes to air pollution that can harm human health.

    Nuclear power has been gaining interest recently since it does not contribute to climate change or local air pollution. It also provides a steady baseload of power, which is useful for computing centers as their demand does not fluctuate as much as households.

    Of course, nuclear has ongoing challenges around the storage of radioactive waste and security concerns, and construction of large nuclear plants takes many years.

    Coal is more flexible than nuclear, but far less so than natural gas or hydropower. Most concerning, coal is extremely dirty, emitting more climate-change-causing gases, and far more air pollution than natural gas.

    Solar and wind have grown rapidly in recent years due to their falling costs and environmental benefits. According to Lazard, the cost of solar combined with batteries, which would be as flexible as hydropower, is well below the cost of coal with its limited flexibility.

    However, wind and solar tend to take up a lot of space, which has led to challenges in local approvals for new sites and transmission lines. In addition, the sheer number of new projects is overwhelming power system operators’ ability to evaluate them, leading to increasing wait times for new generation to come online.

    What’s ahead?

    Utilities have another consideration: Federal, state and local governments can also influence and sometimes limit utilities’ choices. Tariffs, for example, can increase the cost of critical components for new construction. Permitting and regulations can slow down development. Subsidies can artificially lower costs.

    In our view, policies that are done right can help utilities move toward more reliable and cost-effective choices which are also cleaner. Done wrong, they can be costly to the economy and the environment.

    Erin Baker receives funding from NSF, DOE, and Sloan Foundation

    Paola Pimentel Furlanetto receives funding from NSF and Sloan Foundation

    – ref. Utilities choosing coal, solar, nuclear or other power sources have a lot to consider, beyond just cost – https://theconversation.com/utilities-choosing-coal-solar-nuclear-or-other-power-sources-have-a-lot-to-consider-beyond-just-cost-254337

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –