NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Mitochondria can sense bacteria and trigger your immune system to trap them – revealing new ways to treat infections and autoimmunity 

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Monteith, Assistant Professor of Microbiology, University of Tennessee

    Neutrophils (yellow) eject a NET (green) to ensnare bacteria (purple). Other cells, such as red blood cells (orange), may also get trapped. CHDENK/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    Mitochondria have primarily been known as the energy-producing components of cells. But scientists are increasingly discovering that these small organelles do much more than just power cells. They are also involved in immune functions such as controlling inflammation, regulating cell death and responding to infections.

    Research from my colleagues and I revealed that mitochondria play another key role in your immune response: sensing bacterial activity and helping neutrophils, a type of white blood cell, trap and kill them.

    For the past 16 years, my research has focused on understanding the decisions immune cells make during infection and how the breakdown of these decision-making processes cause disease. My lab’s recent findings shed light on why people with autoimmune diseases such as lupus may struggle to fight infections, revealing a potential link between dysfunctional mitochondria and weakened immune defenses.

    Mitochondria do so much more than just produce energy.
    OpenStax, CC BY-SA

    The immune system’s secret weapons

    Neutrophils are the most abundant type of immune cell and serve as the immune system’s first responders. One of their key defense mechanisms is releasing neutrophil extracellular traps, or NETs – weblike structures composed of DNA and antimicrobial proteins. These sticky NETs trap and neutralize invading microbes, preventing their spread in the body.

    Until recently, scientists believed that NET formation was primarily triggered by cellular stress and damage. However, our study found that mitochondria can detect a specific bacterial byproduct – lactate – and use that signal to initiate NET formation.

    Lactate is commonly associated with muscle fatigue in people. But in the context of bacterial infections, it plays a different role. Many bacteria release lactate as part of their own energy production. My team found that once bacteria are engulfed by a compartment of the cell called the phagosome, neutrophils can sense the presence of this lactate.

    Inside the phagosome, this lactate communicates to the neutrophil that bacteria are present and that the antibacterial processes are not sufficient to kill these pathogens. When the mitochondria in neutrophil cells detect this lactate, they start signaling for the cell to get rid of the NETs that have entrapped bacteria. Once the bacteria are released outside the cell, other immune cells can kill them.

    Here, a neutrophil engulfs MRSA bacteria (green).

    When we blocked the mitochondria’s ability to sense lactate, neutrophils failed to produce NETs effectively. This meant bacteria were more likely to escape capture and proliferate, showing how crucial this mechanism is to immune defense. This process highlights an intricate dialogue between the bacteria’s metabolism and the host cell’s energy machinery.

    What makes this finding surprising is that the mitochondria within cells are able to detect bacteria trapped in phagosomes, even though the microbes are enclosed in a separate space. Somehow, mitochondrial sensors can pick up cues from within these compartments – an impressive feat of cellular coordination.

    Targeting mitochondria to fight infections

    Our study is part of a growing field called immunometabolism, which explores how metabolism and immune function are deeply intertwined. Rather than viewing cellular metabolism as strictly a means to generate energy, researchers are now recognizing it as a central driver of immune decisions.

    Mitochondria sit at the heart of this interaction. Their ability to sense, respond to and even shape the metabolic environment of a cell gives them a critical role in determining how and when immune responses are deployed.

    For example, our findings provide a key reason why patients with a chronic autoimmune disease called systemic lupus erythematosus often suffer from recurrent infections. Mitochondria in the neutrophils of lupus patients fail to sense bacterial lactate properly. As a result, NET production was significantly reduced. This mitochondrial dysfunction could explain why lupus patients are more vulnerable to bacterial infections – even though their immune systems are constantly activated due to the disease.

    This observation points to mitochondria’s central role in balancing immune responses. It connects two seemingly unrelated issues: immune overactivity, as seen in lupus, and immune weakness like increased susceptibility to infection. When mitochondria work correctly, they help neutrophils mount an effective, targeted attack on bacteria. But when mitochondria are impaired, this system breaks down.

    Neutrophils unable to effectively produce NETs may contribute to the development of lupus.
    Luz Blanco/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases via Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

    Our discovery that mitochondria can sense bacterial lactate to trigger NET formation opens up new possibilities for treating infections. For instance, drugs that enhance mitochondrial sensing could boost NET production in people with weakened immune systems. On the flip side, for conditions where NETs contribute to tissue damage – such as in severe COVID-19 or autoimmune diseases – it might be beneficial to limit this response.

    Additionally, our study raises the question of whether other immune cells use similar mechanisms to sense microbial metabolites, and whether other bacterial byproducts might serve as immune signals. Understanding these pathways in more detail could lead to new treatments that modulate immune responses more precisely, reducing collateral damage while preserving antimicrobial defenses.

    Mitochondria are not just the powerhouses of the cell – they are the immune system’s watchtowers, alert to even the faintest metabolic signals of bacterial invaders. As researchers’ understanding of their roles expands, so too does our appreciation for the complexity – and adaptability – of our cellular defenses.

    Andrew Monteith receives funding from the National Institute of Health.

    – ref. Mitochondria can sense bacteria and trigger your immune system to trap them – revealing new ways to treat infections and autoimmunity  – https://theconversation.com/mitochondria-can-sense-bacteria-and-trigger-your-immune-system-to-trap-them-revealing-new-ways-to-treat-infections-and-autoimmunity-255939

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How do scientists calculate the probability that an asteroid could hit Earth?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Toshi Hirabayashi, Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

    NASA’s Webb telescope captured a photo of the asteroid 2024 YR4 from afar. European Space Agency via AP

    I was preparing for my early morning class back in January 2025 when I received a notice regarding an asteroid called 2024 YR4. It said the probability it could hit Earth was unusually high.

    As defending Earth from unexpected intruders such as asteroids is part of my expertise, I immediately started receiving questions from my students and colleagues about what was happening.

    When scientists spot an asteroid whose trajectory might take it close to Earth, they monitor it frequently and calculate the probability that it might collide with our planet. As they receive more observational data, they get a better picture of what could happen.

    Just having more data points early doesn’t make scientists’ predictions better. They need to keep following the asteroid as it moves through space to better understand its trajectory.

    Reflecting on the incident a few months later, I wondered whether there might have been a better way for scientists to communicate about the risk with the public. We got accurate information, but as the questions I heard indicated, it wasn’t always enough to understand what it actually means.

    Numbers change every day

    The 2024 YR24 asteroid has a diameter of about 196 feet (60 meters) – equivalent to approximately a 15-story building in length.

    At the time of the announcement in January, the asteroid’s impact probability was reported to exceed 1%. The impact probability describes how likely a hazardous asteroid is to hit Earth. For example, if the impact probability is 1%, it means that in 1 of 100 cases, it hits Earth. One in 100 is kind of rare, but still too close for comfort if you’re talking about the odds of a collision that could devastate Earth.

    Over time, though, further observations and analyses revealed an almost-zero chance of this asteroid colliding with Earth.

    After the initial notice in January, the impact probability continuously increased up to 3.1% on Feb. 18, but dropped to 1.5% on Feb. 19. Then, the impact probability continuously went down, until it hit 0.004% on Feb. 24. As of June 15, it now has an impact probability of less than 0.0000081%.

    The orbit of 2024 YR4 will take it close to Earth, but scientists have found the chance of a collision to be exceedingly low.
    NASA/JPL

    But while the probability of hitting Earth went down, the probability of the asteroid hitting the Moon started increasing. It went up to 1.7% on Feb. 24. As of April 2, it is 3.8%.

    If it hits the Moon, some ejected materials from this collision could reach the Earth. However, these materials would burn away when they enter the Earth’s thick atmosphere.

    Impact probability

    To see whether an approaching object could hit Earth, researchers find out what an asteroid’s orbit looks like using a technique called astrometry. This technique can accurately determine an object’s orbit, down to only a few kilometers of uncertainty. But astrometry needs accurate observational data taken for a long time.

    If an asteroid might get close to Earth, astronomers take observational data to better track the object’s path and eliminate uncertainty.

    Any uncertainty in the calculation of the object’s orbit causes variations in the predicted solution. Instead of one precise orbit, the calculation usually gives scientists a cloud of its possible orbits. The ellipse enclosing these locations is called an error ellipse.

    The impact probability describes how many orbital predictions in this ellipse hit the Earth.

    Without enough observational data, the orbital uncertainty is high, so the ellipse tends to be large. In a large ellipse, there’s a higher chance that the ellipse “accidentally” includes Earth – even if the center is off the planet. So, even if an asteroid ultimately won’t hit Earth, its error ellipse might still include the planet before scientists collect enough data to narrow down the uncertainty.

    As the level of uncertainty goes down, the ellipse shrinks. So, when Earth is inside a small error ellipse, the impact probability may become higher than when it’s inside a large error ellipse. Once the error ellipse shrinks enough that it no longer includes Earth, the impact probability goes down significantly. That’s what happened to 2024 YR4.

    As the error ellipse shrinks, the chance of the asteroid hitting Earth either goes down or goes way up, if it ends up overlapping with the Earth.
    Toshi Hirabayashi

    The impact probability is a single, practical value offering meaningful insight into an impact threat. However, just using the impact probability without any context may not provide meaningful guidelines to the public, as we saw with 2024 YR4.

    Holding on and waiting for more data to refine a collision prediction, or introducing new metrics for assessing impacts on Earth, are alternative courses of action to provide people with better guidelines for future threats before adding confusion and fear.

    I have been studying planetary defense, particularly being part of past, ongoing, and future small body missions. I was part of the NASA/DART mission. I am currently part of the NASA/Lucy mission and the ESA/Hera mission. I am also on the Hayabusa2# team, led by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), as part of an international collaboration. I have no affiliation with JAXA.

    – ref. How do scientists calculate the probability that an asteroid could hit Earth? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-scientists-calculate-the-probability-that-an-asteroid-could-hit-earth-249834

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How high-latitude peat and forest fires could shape the future of Earth’s climate

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Apostolos Voulgarakis, AXA Chair in Wildfires and Climate Director, Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment & Climate Change, Technical University of Crete

    Understanding how wildfires influence our planet’s climate is a daunting challenge. Although fire occurs nearly everywhere on Earth and has always been present, it is still one of the least understood components of the Earth system. Recently, unprecedented fire activity has been observed in boreal (northern) and Arctic regions, which has drawn the scientific community’s attention to areas whose role in the future of our planet remains a mystery. Climate change likely has a major role in this alarming trend. However, high-latitude wildfires are not just a symptom of climate change; they are an accelerating force that could shape the future of our climate in ways that we are currently incapable of predicting.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    The rising threat of northern fires

    As global temperatures rise, wildfires are advancing further north and reaching into the Arctic. Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Scandinavia and even Greenland, all in northern high-latitude regions, have recently experienced some of the most intense and prolonged wildfire seasons on record. With climate change occurring more rapidly in these areas, the future of northern fires appears even grimmer.

    Apart from typical forest fires that consume surface vegetation, many high-latitude fires burn through peat, the dense, carbon-rich layers of partially decayed organic material. Despite covering only 3% of the terrestrial surface, peatlands are one of the world’s most important carbon storage environments, containing around 25% of the carbon existing in the Earth’s soils.

    Climate warming, which is even faster at high northern latitudes due to polar amplification – the phenomenon of greater climate change near the poles compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe – is increasing the vulnerability of these ecosystems to fire, with potentially severe implications for the global climate. When peatlands ignite, they release massive amounts of “fossil carbon” that have been locked away for centuries or even millennia. The largest and most persistent fires on Earth, peat fires can smoulder for extended periods, are difficult to extinguish and can continue burning underground throughout the winter, only to reignite on the surface in spring. They have recently been described as “zombie” fires.

    Warmer and drier conditions driven by climate change, apart from making boreal forests more flammable, are expected to intensify and increase the frequency of peat fires, potentially transforming peatlands from carbon sinks into net sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Such a shift could trigger a feedback loop, meaning that a warming climate will cause more carbon emissions, which in turn will accelerate climate change.

    Air pollution and weather patterns

    Wildfires release large quantities of smoke particles (aerosols) into the atmosphere, contributing significantly to both local and widespread air quality degradation. These particles are harmful to human health and can cause serious respiratory and cardiovascular problems, while prolonged exposure may lead to smoke-induced stress, hospitalizations and increased mortality. Wildfires can also cause mental health strains associated with evacuations, loss of homes, livelihoods and lives.



    À lire aussi :
    Wildfire smoke can harm your brain, not just your lungs

    Beyond their long-term effects on climate, wildfire emissions can also influence weather patterns in more short-term ways via their impacts on atmospheric pollution levels. Smoke particles interact with sunlight and cloud formation processes, subsequently affecting temperatures, wind patterns and rainfall.

    For example, our recent study on the large-scale atmospheric impacts of the 2023 Canadian wildfires, which we presented at the European Geosciences Union general assembly this spring, demonstrated that wildfire aerosols led to a surface air temperature decrease that expanded to the entire northern hemisphere. The cooling was particularly pronounced over Canada (up to -5.5°C in August), where the emissions were located, but was also significant over remote areas such as Eastern Europe and even Siberia (up to around -2.5°C in July). The average hemispheric temperature anomaly we calculated (close to -1°C) highlights the potential for large regional emissions from wildfires to perturb weather conditions for weeks across a whole hemisphere, with profound implications for forecasting. Unreliable weather forecasts can disrupt daily activities and pose risks to public safety, especially during extreme events such as heatwaves or storms. They also have serious consequences for industries such as farming, fishing and transport, where planning depends heavily on accurate, timely predictions.

    Peat fires and the climate puzzle

    While incorporating peatland fire feedbacks into Earth System Models (ESMs) is essential for accurate climate projections, most existing models lack a representation of peat fires. Understanding the smouldering behaviour of organic soils when they burn, their ignition probability, and how these processes can be represented at a global scale is of utmost importance. Recent research efforts are focusing on bridging this knowledge gap. For example, at the Technical University of Crete, we are collaborating with the Hazelab research group at Imperial College London and the Leverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society to perform field research and cutting-edge experiments) on peat smouldering, with the aim of shedding light on the complex mechanisms of peat fires.

    Integrating these lab results into ESMs will enable game-changing fire emission modelling, which holds potential for groundbreaking outcomes when it comes to our skill level for predicting the future of the Earth’s climate. By quantifying how the present-day atmosphere is influenced by fire emissions from boreal forests and peatlands, we can enhance the quality of projections of global temperature rise. This integration will also sharpen forecasts of regional climate impacts driven by fire-related aerosols, such as changes in rainfall patterns or accelerated Arctic ice melt.

    Tackling the challenge of northern fires

    Undoubtedly, we have entered an era of more frequent megafires – wildfires of extreme size, intensity, duration or impacts – with catastrophic consequences. Recent megafire events at boreal and Arctic regions unveil the dramatic change in wildfire patterns in northern high latitudes, which is a matter that demands urgent attention and action.

    As the planet continues to warm, high-latitude fires are expected to help shape the future of our planet. Massive wildfire events, such as those in Canada in 2023, not only burned millions of hectares but also forced hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate their homes. Unprecedented amounts of smoke blanketed parts of North America in hazardous air, prompting school closures and health warnings, and obliging citizens to remain indoors for days. Events like this reflect a growing trend. They underscore why advancing research to better understand and predict the dynamics of northern peat and forest fires, and to mitigate their climate impacts, is not only a scientific imperative but also a moral responsibility.

    Created in 2007 to help accelerate and share scientific knowledge on key societal issues, the Axa Research Fund has supported nearly 700 projects around the world conducted by researchers in 38 countries. To learn more, visit the website of the Axa Research Fund or follow @AXAResearchFund on X.

    Dimitra Tarasi has received funding from the AXA Chair in Wildfires and Climate, the Leverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society and the A.G. Leventis Foundation Educational Grants.

    Apostolos Voulgarakis ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    – ref. How high-latitude peat and forest fires could shape the future of Earth’s climate – https://theconversation.com/how-high-latitude-peat-and-forest-fires-could-shape-the-future-of-earths-climate-258721

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How high-latitude peat and forest fires could shape the future of Earth’s climate

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Apostolos Voulgarakis, AXA Chair in Wildfires and Climate Director, Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment & Climate Change, Technical University of Crete

    Understanding how wildfires influence our planet’s climate is a daunting challenge. Although fire occurs nearly everywhere on Earth and has always been present, it is still one of the least understood components of the Earth system. Recently, unprecedented fire activity has been observed in boreal (northern) and Arctic regions, which has drawn the scientific community’s attention to areas whose role in the future of our planet remains a mystery. Climate change likely has a major role in this alarming trend. However, high-latitude wildfires are not just a symptom of climate change; they are an accelerating force that could shape the future of our climate in ways that we are currently incapable of predicting.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    The rising threat of northern fires

    As global temperatures rise, wildfires are advancing further north and reaching into the Arctic. Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Scandinavia and even Greenland, all in northern high-latitude regions, have recently experienced some of the most intense and prolonged wildfire seasons on record. With climate change occurring more rapidly in these areas, the future of northern fires appears even grimmer.

    Apart from typical forest fires that consume surface vegetation, many high-latitude fires burn through peat, the dense, carbon-rich layers of partially decayed organic material. Despite covering only 3% of the terrestrial surface, peatlands are one of the world’s most important carbon storage environments, containing around 25% of the carbon existing in the Earth’s soils.

    Climate warming, which is even faster at high northern latitudes due to polar amplification – the phenomenon of greater climate change near the poles compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe – is increasing the vulnerability of these ecosystems to fire, with potentially severe implications for the global climate. When peatlands ignite, they release massive amounts of “fossil carbon” that have been locked away for centuries or even millennia. The largest and most persistent fires on Earth, peat fires can smoulder for extended periods, are difficult to extinguish and can continue burning underground throughout the winter, only to reignite on the surface in spring. They have recently been described as “zombie” fires.

    Warmer and drier conditions driven by climate change, apart from making boreal forests more flammable, are expected to intensify and increase the frequency of peat fires, potentially transforming peatlands from carbon sinks into net sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Such a shift could trigger a feedback loop, meaning that a warming climate will cause more carbon emissions, which in turn will accelerate climate change.

    Air pollution and weather patterns

    Wildfires release large quantities of smoke particles (aerosols) into the atmosphere, contributing significantly to both local and widespread air quality degradation. These particles are harmful to human health and can cause serious respiratory and cardiovascular problems, while prolonged exposure may lead to smoke-induced stress, hospitalizations and increased mortality. Wildfires can also cause mental health strains associated with evacuations, loss of homes, livelihoods and lives.



    À lire aussi :
    Wildfire smoke can harm your brain, not just your lungs

    Beyond their long-term effects on climate, wildfire emissions can also influence weather patterns in more short-term ways via their impacts on atmospheric pollution levels. Smoke particles interact with sunlight and cloud formation processes, subsequently affecting temperatures, wind patterns and rainfall.

    For example, our recent study on the large-scale atmospheric impacts of the 2023 Canadian wildfires, which we presented at the European Geosciences Union general assembly this spring, demonstrated that wildfire aerosols led to a surface air temperature decrease that expanded to the entire northern hemisphere. The cooling was particularly pronounced over Canada (up to -5.5°C in August), where the emissions were located, but was also significant over remote areas such as Eastern Europe and even Siberia (up to around -2.5°C in July). The average hemispheric temperature anomaly we calculated (close to -1°C) highlights the potential for large regional emissions from wildfires to perturb weather conditions for weeks across a whole hemisphere, with profound implications for forecasting. Unreliable weather forecasts can disrupt daily activities and pose risks to public safety, especially during extreme events such as heatwaves or storms. They also have serious consequences for industries such as farming, fishing and transport, where planning depends heavily on accurate, timely predictions.

    Peat fires and the climate puzzle

    While incorporating peatland fire feedbacks into Earth System Models (ESMs) is essential for accurate climate projections, most existing models lack a representation of peat fires. Understanding the smouldering behaviour of organic soils when they burn, their ignition probability, and how these processes can be represented at a global scale is of utmost importance. Recent research efforts are focusing on bridging this knowledge gap. For example, at the Technical University of Crete, we are collaborating with the Hazelab research group at Imperial College London and the Leverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society to perform field research and cutting-edge experiments) on peat smouldering, with the aim of shedding light on the complex mechanisms of peat fires.

    Integrating these lab results into ESMs will enable game-changing fire emission modelling, which holds potential for groundbreaking outcomes when it comes to our skill level for predicting the future of the Earth’s climate. By quantifying how the present-day atmosphere is influenced by fire emissions from boreal forests and peatlands, we can enhance the quality of projections of global temperature rise. This integration will also sharpen forecasts of regional climate impacts driven by fire-related aerosols, such as changes in rainfall patterns or accelerated Arctic ice melt.

    Tackling the challenge of northern fires

    Undoubtedly, we have entered an era of more frequent megafires – wildfires of extreme size, intensity, duration or impacts – with catastrophic consequences. Recent megafire events at boreal and Arctic regions unveil the dramatic change in wildfire patterns in northern high latitudes, which is a matter that demands urgent attention and action.

    As the planet continues to warm, high-latitude fires are expected to help shape the future of our planet. Massive wildfire events, such as those in Canada in 2023, not only burned millions of hectares but also forced hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate their homes. Unprecedented amounts of smoke blanketed parts of North America in hazardous air, prompting school closures and health warnings, and obliging citizens to remain indoors for days. Events like this reflect a growing trend. They underscore why advancing research to better understand and predict the dynamics of northern peat and forest fires, and to mitigate their climate impacts, is not only a scientific imperative but also a moral responsibility.

    Created in 2007 to help accelerate and share scientific knowledge on key societal issues, the Axa Research Fund has supported nearly 700 projects around the world conducted by researchers in 38 countries. To learn more, visit the website of the Axa Research Fund or follow @AXAResearchFund on X.

    Dimitra Tarasi has received funding from the AXA Chair in Wildfires and Climate, the Leverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society and the A.G. Leventis Foundation Educational Grants.

    Apostolos Voulgarakis ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    – ref. How high-latitude peat and forest fires could shape the future of Earth’s climate – https://theconversation.com/how-high-latitude-peat-and-forest-fires-could-shape-the-future-of-earths-climate-258721

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The mystery of Mercury’s missing meteorites – and how we may have finally found some

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben Rider-Stokes, Post Doctoral Researcher in Achondrite Meteorites, The Open University

    Mercury seen by Nasa’s Messenger spacecraft on the left. On the right, there’s an approximation of Mercury’s true colour as might be seen by the human eye. NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

    Most meteorites that have reached Earth come from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. But we have 1,000 or so meteorites that come from the Moon and Mars. This is probably a result of asteroids hitting their surfaces and ejecting material towards our planet.

    It should also be physically possible for such debris to reach the Earth from Mercury, another nearby rocky body. But so far, none have been confirmed to come from there – presenting a longstanding mystery.

    A new study my colleagues and I conducted has discovered two meteorites that could have a Mercurian origin. If confirmed, they would offer a rare window into Mercury’s formation and evolution, potentially reshaping our understanding of the planet nearest the Sun.

    Because Mercury is so close to the Sun, any space mission to retrieve a sample from there would be complex and costly. A naturally delivered fragment, therefore, may be the only practical way to study its surface directly – making such a discovery scientifically invaluable.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Observations from Nasa’s Messenger mission have inferred the surface composition of Mercury. This suggests the presence of minerals known as such as sodium-rich plagioclase (such as albite), iron-poor pyroxene (for example enstatite), iron-poor olivine (such as forsterite) and sulfide minerals such as oldhamite.

    The meteorite Northwest Africa (NWA) 7325 was initially proposed as a possible fragment of Mercury. However, its mineralogy includes chromium-rich pyroxene containing approximately 1% iron. This poorly matches Mercury’s estimated surface composition. As a result of this, and other factors, this link has been challenged.

    Aubrite meteorites have also been proposed as potential Mercurian fragments. Recent modelling of their formation suggests an origin from a large planetary body approximately 5,000km in diameter (similar to Mercury), potentially supporting this hypothesis.

    Although aubrites do not exhibit chemical or spectral (the study of how light is broken up by wavelength) similarities with Mercury’s surface, it has been hypothesised that they may derive from the planet’s shallow mantle (the layer beneath the surface). Despite ongoing research, the existence of a definitive meteorite from Mercury remains unproven.

    Our latest study investigated the properties of two unusual meteorites, Ksar Ghilane 022 and Northwest Africa 15915. We found that the two samples appear to be related, probably originating from the same parent body. Their mineralogy and surface composition also exhibit intriguing similarities to Mercury’s crust. So this has prompted us to speculate about a possible Mercurian origin.

    Both meteorites contain olivine and pyroxene, minor albitic plagioclase and oldhamite. Such features are consistent with predictions for Mercury’s surface composition. Additionally, their oxygen compositions match those of aubrites.
    These shared characteristics make the samples compelling candidates for being Mercurian material.

    However, notable differences exist. Both meteorites contain only trace amounts of plagioclase, in contrast to Mercury’s surface, which is estimated to contain over 37%. Furthermore, our study suggests that the age of the samples is about 4,528 million years old. This is significantly older than Mercury’s oldest recognised surface units, which are predicted (based on crater counting) to be approximately 4,000 million years.

    If these meteorites do originate from Mercury, they may represent early material that is no longer preserved in the planet’s current surface geology.

    Will we ever know?

    To link any meteorite to a specific asteroid type, moon or planet is extremely challenging. For example, laboratory analysis of Apollo samples allowed meteorites found in desert collection expeditions to be matched with the lunar materials. Martian meteorites have been identified through similarities between the composition of gases trapped in the meteorites with measurements of the martian atmosphere by spacecraft.

    Until we visit Mercury and bring back material, it will be extremely difficult to assess a meteorite-planet link.

    The BepiColombo space mission, by the European and Japanese space agencies, is now in orbit around Mercury and is about to send back high-resolution data. This may help us determine the ultimate origin body for Ksar Ghilane 022 and Northwest Africa 15915.

    If meteorites from Mercury were discovered, they could help resolve a variety of long-standing scientific questions. For example, they could reveal the age and evolution of Mercury’s crust, its mineralogical and geochemical composition and the nature of its gases.

    The origin of these samples is likely to remain a subject of continuing debate within the scientific community. Several presentations have already been scheduled for the upcoming Meteoritical Society Meeting 2025 in Australia. We look forward to future discussions that will further explore and refine our understanding of their potential origin.

    For now, all we can do is make educated guesses. What do you think?

    Ben Rider-Stokes receives funding from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).

    – ref. The mystery of Mercury’s missing meteorites – and how we may have finally found some – https://theconversation.com/the-mystery-of-mercurys-missing-meteorites-and-how-we-may-have-finally-found-some-259596

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie 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. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie 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. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Ballad of Wallis Island is a masterpiece of the extraordinary made ordinary

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicola Bishop, Academic Enhancement Lead, De Montfort University

    With The Ballad of Wallis Island, Tom Basden and Tim Key have written a poignant and comical exploration of music, loss, nostalgia and hope.

    The film has been compared to Once (2007) and Local Hero (1983), similarly low-key films that put music at the heart of quiet personal transformations. It also shares common ground with movingly situated, deliberately gently paced and panoramically shot films like The Dig (2021).

    It was made in just 18 days on a tight budget in a typical Welsh summer. A doctor was on hand to stop the actors getting hypothermia when they filmed shots in the sea. Filmed in an eclectic mausoleum of an old manor house, with a charmingly decorated coat of arms in the hallway, leaky taps and socially awkward characters, it is easy to see why romcom giant Richard Curtis called it “one of the great British films of all time”.

    The film takes place on the fictional Wallis Island, home to millionaire Charles (Tim Key), an eccentric and almost obsessive fan of former folk-rock duo McGwyer Mortimer (Herb and Nell, played by Basden and Carey Mulligan). Invited to the island to play a private gig, Herb and Nell face their musical and romantic past, all under the gaze of an ecstatic Charles.

    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.

    Pared back and slow paced, the film downplays the complex emotions at its core and leaves the audience to connect their own dots. Instead of verbose dialogue or emotional clashes it uses everyday details to encourage the audience to be observant – a two-second shot that picks out a framed picture on a sideboard, the shadow that passes over a face, a simple gesture.

    Sitting comfortably alongside these big feelings – love, loss, grief, change, nostalgia – are all of the hallmarks of a British comedy classic. Victoria Wood-esque puns (watch out for Dame Judi “Drenched”), slapstick physical gags and pop culture references keep the audience laughing without unbalancing the pathos. It is reminiscent of Wood’s sitcom Dinnerladies (1998-2000), in the breadcrumb trail of slipped in details that provide laughter in the moment but which return to make the audience think twice.

    Basden’s brilliance

    Writer and star Tom Basden has form in the sitcom world. As well as his sitcom Plebs (2013), his most recent television project, Here We Go (2022), shares many of the subtle emotional touches and casually observed titbits of everyday life.

    Here We Go is a wonderful blend of quirky British antics and emotional depth, equally aided by a stellar script and cast. Purportedly filmed as part of a media project by the youngest member of the Jessop family, and sequenced into flashbacks and forwards across several days or weeks, the episodes drip-feed humdrum details that later gain significance. And like Dinnerladies, the funniest observations are those that the audience earn, not those that are given away, by rewatching again and again.

    The trailer for The Ballad of Wallis Island.

    While Here We Go uses disordered sequencing to reveal the meaning behind tiny details, The Ballad of Wallis Island uses objects that give hints about the past. Pictures of Charles and Marie at gigs, fridge magnets of the places they visited, the ticket stumps and magazine interviews of a super-fan collector. The extraordinariness of now is rooted in the everyday of Charles’s past. Even the source of his wealth rests on a single ordinary moment that has the potential to change all of their lives.

    Key and Basden turn the complex emotions of minutia into a powerful narrative. A bar of well-used soap on the side of the bathtub, a plastic bag of 20-pence pieces, and a bowl of homemade soup become symbols of emotional connection to the story, while their everydayness stops them from feeling saccharine or soppy.

    This is, as others have called it, a nostalgic film, about loss and moving on. But it also records a present that is made up of tiny glimpses of everyday life, captured like Here We Go, against a backdrop of the familiar and the ordinary. The quietly hopeful takeaway from the film is that small gestures are as memorable as any stadium finale.

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

    – ref. The Ballad of Wallis Island is a masterpiece of the extraordinary made ordinary – https://theconversation.com/the-ballad-of-wallis-island-is-a-masterpiece-of-the-extraordinary-made-ordinary-259635

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Ballad of Wallis Island is a masterpiece of the extraordinary made ordinary

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicola Bishop, Academic Enhancement Lead, De Montfort University

    With The Ballad of Wallis Island, Tom Basden and Tim Key have written a poignant and comical exploration of music, loss, nostalgia and hope.

    The film has been compared to Once (2007) and Local Hero (1983), similarly low-key films that put music at the heart of quiet personal transformations. It also shares common ground with movingly situated, deliberately gently paced and panoramically shot films like The Dig (2021).

    It was made in just 18 days on a tight budget in a typical Welsh summer. A doctor was on hand to stop the actors getting hypothermia when they filmed shots in the sea. Filmed in an eclectic mausoleum of an old manor house, with a charmingly decorated coat of arms in the hallway, leaky taps and socially awkward characters, it is easy to see why romcom giant Richard Curtis called it “one of the great British films of all time”.

    The film takes place on the fictional Wallis Island, home to millionaire Charles (Tim Key), an eccentric and almost obsessive fan of former folk-rock duo McGwyer Mortimer (Herb and Nell, played by Basden and Carey Mulligan). Invited to the island to play a private gig, Herb and Nell face their musical and romantic past, all under the gaze of an ecstatic Charles.

    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.

    Pared back and slow paced, the film downplays the complex emotions at its core and leaves the audience to connect their own dots. Instead of verbose dialogue or emotional clashes it uses everyday details to encourage the audience to be observant – a two-second shot that picks out a framed picture on a sideboard, the shadow that passes over a face, a simple gesture.

    Sitting comfortably alongside these big feelings – love, loss, grief, change, nostalgia – are all of the hallmarks of a British comedy classic. Victoria Wood-esque puns (watch out for Dame Judi “Drenched”), slapstick physical gags and pop culture references keep the audience laughing without unbalancing the pathos. It is reminiscent of Wood’s sitcom Dinnerladies (1998-2000), in the breadcrumb trail of slipped in details that provide laughter in the moment but which return to make the audience think twice.

    Basden’s brilliance

    Writer and star Tom Basden has form in the sitcom world. As well as his sitcom Plebs (2013), his most recent television project, Here We Go (2022), shares many of the subtle emotional touches and casually observed titbits of everyday life.

    Here We Go is a wonderful blend of quirky British antics and emotional depth, equally aided by a stellar script and cast. Purportedly filmed as part of a media project by the youngest member of the Jessop family, and sequenced into flashbacks and forwards across several days or weeks, the episodes drip-feed humdrum details that later gain significance. And like Dinnerladies, the funniest observations are those that the audience earn, not those that are given away, by rewatching again and again.

    The trailer for The Ballad of Wallis Island.

    While Here We Go uses disordered sequencing to reveal the meaning behind tiny details, The Ballad of Wallis Island uses objects that give hints about the past. Pictures of Charles and Marie at gigs, fridge magnets of the places they visited, the ticket stumps and magazine interviews of a super-fan collector. The extraordinariness of now is rooted in the everyday of Charles’s past. Even the source of his wealth rests on a single ordinary moment that has the potential to change all of their lives.

    Key and Basden turn the complex emotions of minutia into a powerful narrative. A bar of well-used soap on the side of the bathtub, a plastic bag of 20-pence pieces, and a bowl of homemade soup become symbols of emotional connection to the story, while their everydayness stops them from feeling saccharine or soppy.

    This is, as others have called it, a nostalgic film, about loss and moving on. But it also records a present that is made up of tiny glimpses of everyday life, captured like Here We Go, against a backdrop of the familiar and the ordinary. The quietly hopeful takeaway from the film is that small gestures are as memorable as any stadium finale.

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

    – ref. The Ballad of Wallis Island is a masterpiece of the extraordinary made ordinary – https://theconversation.com/the-ballad-of-wallis-island-is-a-masterpiece-of-the-extraordinary-made-ordinary-259635

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How your gut bacteria could help detect pancreatic cancer early

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Falk Hildebrand, Researcher in Bioinformatician, Quadram Institute

    SewCreamStudio/Shutterstock

    Whether you had breakfast this morning or not, your pancreas is working quietly behind the scenes. This vital organ produces the enzymes that help digest your food and the hormones that regulate your metabolism. But when something goes wrong with your pancreas, the consequences can be devastating.

    Pancreatic cancer has earned the grim nickname “the silent killer” for good reason. By the time most patients experience symptoms, the disease has often progressed to an advanced stage where treatment options become severely limited. In the UK alone, over 10,700 new cases and 9,500 deaths from pancreatic cancer were recorded between 2017 and 2019, with incidence rates continuing to rise.

    The most common form, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), develops in the pancreatic duct – a tube connecting the pancreas to the small intestine. When tumours form here, they can block the flow of digestive enzymes, causing energy metabolism problems that leave patients feeling chronically tired and unwell. Yet these symptoms are often so subtle that they’re easily dismissed or attributed to other causes.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Now researchers are turning to an unexpected source for early PDAC detection: faecal samples. While analysing poo might seem an unlikely approach to cancer diagnosis, scientists are discovering that our waste contains a treasure trove of information about our health.

    This is because your gut is home to trillions of bacteria – in fact, bacterial cells in your body outnumber human cells by roughly 40 trillion to 30 trillion. These microscopic residents form complex communities that can reflect the state of your health, including the presence of disease.

    Since PDAC typically develops in the part of the pancreas that connects to the gut, and most people have regular bowel movements, stool samples provide a practical, non-invasive window into what is happening inside the body.

    Pancreatic cancer explained,

    Global evidence builds

    This innovative approach has been validated in studies across several countries, including Japan, China and Spain. The latest breakthrough comes from a 2025 international study involving researchers in Finland and Iran, which set out to examine the relationship between gut bacteria and pancreatic cancer onset across different populations.

    The researchers collected stool samples and analysed bacterial DNA using a technique called 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Despite the complex name, the principle is straightforward: scientists sequence and compare a genetic region found in every bacterium’s genome, allowing them to both identify and count different bacterial species simultaneously.

    The findings from the Finnish-Iranian study were striking. Patients with PDAC exhibited reduced bacterial diversity in their gut, with certain species either enriched or depleted compared with healthy people. More importantly, the team developed an artificial intelligence model that could accurately distinguish between cancer patients and healthy people based solely on their gut bacterial profiles.

    The field of microbiome research is evolving rapidly. While this study used amplicon sequencing, newer methods like “shotgun metagenomic sequencing” are providing even more detailed insights. This advanced technique captures the entire bacterial genome content rather than focusing on a single gene, offering an unprecedented resolution that can even detect whether bacteria have recently transferred between individuals.

    These technological advances are driving a fundamental shift in how we think about health and disease. We’re moving from a purely human-centred view to understanding ourselves as “human plus microbiome” – complex ecosystems where our bacterial partners play crucial roles in our wellbeing.

    Beyond pancreatic cancer

    The possibilities go well beyond pancreatic cancer. At Quadram, we’re applying similar methods to study colorectal cancer. We’ve already analysed over a thousand stool samples using advanced computational tools that piece together bacterial genomes and their functions from fragmented DNA. This ongoing work aims to reveal how gut microbes behave in colorectal cancer, much like other scientists have done for PDAC.

    The bidirectional interactions between cancer and bacteria are particularly fascinating – not only can certain bacterial profiles indicate disease presence, but the disease itself can alter the gut microbiome, as we previously showed in Parkinson’s disease, creating a complex web of cause and effect that researchers are still unravelling.

    Nonetheless, by understanding how our microbial partners respond to and influence disease, we’re gaining insights that could revolutionise both diagnosis and treatment. Our past research has shown this to be incredibly complex and sometimes difficult to understand, but developments in biotechnology and artificial intelligence are increasingly helping us to make sense of this microscopic world.

    For cancer patients and their families, this and other advancements in microbiome research offer hope for earlier detection. While we’re still in the early stages of translating these findings into clinical practice, the potential to catch this silent killer before it becomes deadly could transform outcomes for thousands of patients, but will require more careful and fundamental research.

    The microbial perspective on health is no longer a distant scientific curiosity – it’s rapidly becoming a practical reality that could save lives. As researchers continue to explore this inner frontier, we’re learning that the answer to some of our most challenging medical questions might be hiding in plain sight – in the waste we flush away each day.

    Falk Hildebrand receives funding from the UKRI, BBSRC, NERC and ERC.

    Daisuke Suzuki receives funding from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

    – ref. How your gut bacteria could help detect pancreatic cancer early – https://theconversation.com/how-your-gut-bacteria-could-help-detect-pancreatic-cancer-early-259220

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Some people are turning to nicotine gum and patches to treat long COVID brain fog

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

    Andrey Popov/Shutterstock.com

    Some people with long COVID are turning to an unlikely remedy: nicotine gum and patches. Though typically used to quit smoking, nicotine is now being explored as a possible way to ease symptoms such as brain fog and fatigue.

    One such case, detailed in a recent article in Slate, describes a woman who found significant relief from debilitating brain fog after trying low-dose nicotine gum. Her experience, while anecdotal, aligns with findings from a small but interesting study from Germany.

    The study involved four participants suffering from symptoms related to long COVID. The researcher administered low-dose nicotine patches once daily and noticed marked improvements in the participants’ symptoms. Tiredness, weakness, shortness of breath and trouble with exercise rapidly improved – by day six at the latest.

    For those who had lost their sense of taste or smell, it took longer, but these senses came back fully within 16 days. Although it’s not possible to draw definitive conclusions on cause and effect from such a small study, the results could pave the way for larger studies.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    While some people slowly recover from COVID, others remain unwell for years, especially those who became sick before vaccines were available. Between 3% and 5% of people continue to experience symptoms months, and sometimes even years, after the initial infection. In the UK, long COVID affects around 2.8% of the population.

    Brain fog and other neurological symptoms of long COVID are thought to result from a combination of factors – including inflammation, reduced oxygen to the brain, vascular damage and disruption to the blood-brain barrier. Research continues as there is still a lot we don’t know about this condition.

    The researcher in the German study thinks that long COVID symptoms, such as fatigue, brain fog and mood changes, might partly be due to problems with a brain chemical called acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter. This chemical is important for many functions in the body, including memory, attention and regulating mood.

    Normally, acetylcholine works by attaching to special “docking sites” on cells called nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which help send signals in the brain and nervous system. But the COVID virus may interfere with these receptors, either by blocking them or disrupting how they work. When this happens, the brain may not be able to send signals properly, which could contribute to the mental and physical symptoms seen in long COVID.

    So why would nicotine potentially be useful? Nicotine binds to the same receptors and might help restore normal signalling, but the idea that it displaces the virus directly is still speculative.

    Nicotine is available in different forms, such as patches, gum, lozenges and sprays. Using nicotine through the skin, for example, with a patch, keeps the amount in the blood steady without big spikes. Because of this, people in the study didn’t seem to develop a dependence on it.

    Chewing nicotine gum or using a lozenge can cause spikes in nicotine levels, since the nicotine is absorbed gradually through the lining of the mouth. But unlike a patch, which delivers a steady dose, the user has more control over how much nicotine they take in when using gum or lozenges.

    There are mixed results on the effectiveness of nicotine on cognitive functions such as memory and concentration. But most studies agree that it can enhance attention. Larger studies are needed to gauge the effectiveness of nicotine specifically for long COVID symptoms.

    An estimated 2.8% of people in the UK have long COVID.
    Chaz Bharj/Shutterstock.com

    Not without risks

    Despite its benefits, nicotine is not without risks. Even in gum or patch form, it can cause side-effects like nausea, dizziness, increased heart rate and higher blood pressure.

    Some of these stimulant effects on heart rate may be useful for people with long COVID symptoms such as exercise intolerance. But this needs to be closely monitored. Long-term use may also affect heart health. For non-smokers, the risk of developing a nicotine dependency is a serious concern.

    So are there any options to treat long COVID symptoms?

    There are some studies looking at guanfacine in combination with N-acetylcysteine, which have shown improvement in brain fog in small groups of people. There has been at least one clinical trial exploring nicotine for mild cognitive impairment in older adults, though not in the context of long COVID. Given that anecdotal reports and small studies continue to draw attention, it is likely that targeted trials are in development.

    The main recommendations by experts are to implement lifestyle measures. Slowly increasing exercise, having a healthy diet, avoiding alcohol, drugs and smoking, sleeping enough, practising mindfulness and doing things that stimulate the brain are all thought to help brain fog.

    For those grappling with long COVID or persistent brain fog, the idea of using nicotine patches or gum might be tempting. But experts caution against self-medicating with nicotine. The lack of standardised dosing and the potential for addiction and unknown long-term effects make it a risky experiment.

    While nicotine isn’t a cure and may carry real risks, its potential to ease long COVID symptoms warrants careful study. For now, those battling brain fog should approach it with caution – and always under medical supervision. What’s clear, though, is the urgent need for more research into safe, effective treatments for the lingering effects of COVID.

    Dipa Kamdar 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. Some people are turning to nicotine gum and patches to treat long COVID brain fog – https://theconversation.com/some-people-are-turning-to-nicotine-gum-and-patches-to-treat-long-covid-brain-fog-259093

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran’s history has been blighted by interference from foreign powers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simin Fadaee, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Manchester

    Iranians commemorate the 1979 revolution in Qom, central Iran. Mostafameraji via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

    Israel’s recent surprise attack on Iran was ostensibly aimed at neutralising Iran’s nuclear programme, but it didn’t just damage nuclear installations. It killed scientists, engineers and senior military personnel.

    Meanwhile, citizens with no ties to the government or military, became “collateral damage”. For 11 days, Israel’s attacks intensified across Tehran and other major cities.

    When the US joined the attack, dropping its bunker-buster bombs on sites in central Iran on June 21, it threatened to push the region closer to large-scale conflict. Israel’s calls for regime change in Iran were joined by the US president, Donald Trump, who took to social media on June 22 with the message: “if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

    Trump’s remarks are reminders of past US interventions. The threat of regime change by the most powerful state in the world carries particular weight in Iran, where memories of foreign-imposed coups and covert operations remain vivid and painful.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    In the early 1890s, Iran was rocked by a popular uprising after the shah granted a British company exclusive rights to the country’s tobacco industry. The decision was greeted with anger and in 1891 the country’s senior cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mirza Shirazi, issued a fatwa against tobacco use.

    A mass boycott ensued – even the shah’s wives reportedly gave up the habit. When it became clear that the boycott was going to hold, the shah cancelled the concession in January 1892. It was a clear demonstration of people power.

    This event is thought to have played a significant role in the development of the revolutionary movement that led to the Constitutional Revolution that took place between 1905 and 1911 and the establishment of a constitution and parliament in Iran.

    Rise of the Pahlavis

    Reza Shah, who founded the Pahlavi dynasty – which would be overthrown in the 1979 revolution and replaced by the Islamic Republic – rose to power following a British-supported coup in 1921.

    Autocrat: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

    During the first world war, foreign interference weakened Iran and the ruling Qajar dynasty. In 1921, with British support, army officer Reza Khan and politician Seyyed Ziaeddin Tabatabaee led a coup in Tehran. Claiming to be acting to save the monarchy, they arrested key opponents. By 1923, Reza Khan had become prime minister.

    In 1925, Reza Khan unseated the Qajars and founded the Pahlavi dynasty, becoming Reza Shah Pahlavi. This was a turning point in Iran’s history, marking the start of British dominance. The shah’s authoritarian rule focused on centralisation, modernisation and secularisation. It set the stage for the factors that would that eventually lead to the 1979 Revolution.

    In 1941, concerned at the close relationship Pahlavi had developed with Nazi Germany, Britain and its allies once again intervened in Iranian politics, forcing Pahlavi to abdicate. He was exiled to South Africa and his 22-year-old son, Mohammad Reza, was named shah in his place.

    The 1953 coup

    Mohammad Mosaddegh became Iran’s first democratically elected prime minister in 1951. He quickly began to introduce reforms and challenge the authority of the shah. Despite a sustained campaign of destabilisation, Mossadegh retained a high level of popular support, which he used to push through his radical programme. This included the nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry, which was effectively controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company – later British Petroleum (BP).

    Mohammad Mosaddegh in court martial by Ebrahim Golestan.
    Ebrahim Golestan via Wikimedia Commons

    In 1953, he was ousted in a CIA and MI6-backed coup and placed under house arrest. The shah, who had fled to Italy during the unrest, returned to power with western support.

    Within a short time, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi established an authoritarian regime that governed through repression and intimidation. He outlawed all opposition parties, and numerous activists involved in the oil nationalisation movement were either imprisoned or forced into exile.



    Read more:
    Iran’s long history of revolution, defiance and outside interference – and why its future is so uncertain

    The 1979 revolution: the oppression continues

    The shah’s rule became increasingly authoritarian and was also marked by the lavish lifestyles of the ruling elite and increasing poverty of the mass of the Iranian people. Pahlavi increasingly relied on his secret police, the Bureau for Intelligence and Security of the State.

    Meanwhile, a scholar and Islamic cleric named Ruhollah Khomeini, had been rising in prominence especially after 1963, when Pahlavi’s unpopular land reforms mobilised a large section of society against his rule. His growing prominence brought him into confrontation with the government and in 1964 he was sent into exile. He remained abroad, living in Turkey, Iraq and France.

    By 1964 cleric Ruhollah Khomeini had become the focus for some anti-government protests in Iran.
    emam.com via Wikimedia Commons

    By 1978 a diverse alliance primarily made up of urban working and middle-class citizens had paralysed the country. While united in their resistance to the monarchy, participants were driven by a variety of ideological beliefs, including socialism, communism, liberalism, secularism, Islamism and nationalism. The shah fled into exile on January 16 1979 and Khomeini returned to Iran, which in March became an Islamic Republic with Khomeini at its head.

    But the US was not finished in its attempts to destabilise Iran. In 1980, Washington backed Saddam Hussein in initiating a brutal eight-year war, which claimed hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives and severely disrupted the country’s efforts at political and economic reconstruction.

    Iran and the US have remained bitter foes. Over the years ordinary Iranians have suffered tremendously under rounds of US-imposed sanctions, which have all but destroyed the economy in recent years.

    This new wave of foreign aggression has arrived at a time of significant domestic unrest within Iran. Since the Woman, Life, Freedom protests, which began in September 2022 after the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the morality police, there has been a general groundswell of demand for social justice and democracy.

    But the convergence of external aggression and internal demands has brought national sovereignty and self-determination to the forefront, as it did during previous major struggles. While world powers gamble with Iran’s future, it is the Iranian people through their struggles and unwavering push for justice and democracy who must determine the country’s future.

    Simin Fadaee 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. Iran’s history has been blighted by interference from foreign powers – https://theconversation.com/irans-history-has-been-blighted-by-interference-from-foreign-powers-259700

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why there’s a growing backlash against plant-based diets

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Beacham, Research Fellow, University of Bristol Business School, University of Bristol

    Geinz Angelina/Shutterstock

    People in the UK are eating too much meat – especially processed meat – according to a recent report from the Food Foundation, a UK charity.

    The report recommends revisiting school food standards, which advises schools to serve meat three times a week. The consequence? Children often eat a higher proportion of processed meat than adults.

    The effects of meat-heavy diets are well documented. Some analyses estimate that overconsumption of meat, especially processed red meat, costs the global economy around £219 billion annually, in terms of harms to human health and the environment. At the same time, a growing body of evidence shows that a transition toward more plant-based diets is not just beneficial, but essential.

    And yet efforts to reduce meat consumption haven’t always been well received. In Paris, for instance, the mayor’s initiative to remove meat from municipal canteen menus twice a week triggered an angry backlash from unions and workers who called for the return of steak frites.

    A few years ago, meat consumption in the UK was falling, and interest in initiatives like Veganuary was surging. Venture capital flooded into plant-based startups, from cricket burgers to hemp milk.

    But enthusiasm, and investment, has since declined. Meanwhile, populism and “culture war” narratives have fuelled social media misinformation about food, diet and sustainability, hampering progress. So what has changed? And why is meat once again a flashpoint in the food debate?

    Working with the H3 Consortium, which explores pathways to food system transformation in the UK, our research has focused on why the backlash against plant-based diets is growing and what it means for people, animals and the planet.

    Part of the answer lies in coordinated messaging campaigns that frame meat and dairy not just as “normal” but as “natural” and essential to a balanced diet. One example is the Let’s Eat Balanced campaign, run by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board since 2021. It promotes meat and dairy as key sources of micronutrients such as Vitamin B12 and implicitly positions plant-based diets as nutritionally inadequate.

    But here’s the irony: many intensively farmed animals don’t get B12 from their diet naturally. Their feed is supplemented with vitamins and minerals, just as vegan diets are supplemented. So is meat really a more “natural” source of B12 than a pill?

    That raises a broader question: what could a fair and sustainable transition to plant-based protein look like – not just for consumers, but for farmers and rural communities? Some analyses warn that rapid shifts in land use toward arable farming could have serious unintended consequences, such as disrupting rural economies and threatening livelihoods.

    There are also legitimate questions about the healthiness of meat and dairy alternatives. Despite the early hype around alternative proteins, many products fall under the category of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) – a red flag for consumers wary of additives and artificial ingredients.

    The popularity of books like Chris van Tulleken’s Ultra-Processed People has stoked concerns about emulsifiers, ingredients used to bind veggie burgers or prevent vegan milk from curdling, and some headlines have asked whether they “destroy” our gut health.

    Still, it’s a leap to suggest that conventional red meat is the healthier alternative. The health risks of processed meat are well established, especially the carcinogenic effects of nitrites used to keep meat looking fresh in packaging.

    Some people suggest eating chicken instead of read meat because it produces less greenhouse gas. But raising chickens also causes problems, like pollution from chicken manure that harms rivers, and it depends a lot on soy feed, which can be affected by political and trade issues.

    There’s a strong case for reducing meat consumption, and the scientific evidence to support it is robust. But understanding the backlash against plant-based eating is essential if we want to make meaningful progress. For now, meat is not disappearing from our diets. In fact, the food fight may be just getting started.

    Jonathan Beacham receives funding from the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (grant ref: BB/V004719/1).

    David M. Evans receives funding from the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (grant ref: BB/V004719/1). He is affiliated with Defra (the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) as a member of their Social Science Expert Group.

    – ref. Why there’s a growing backlash against plant-based diets – https://theconversation.com/why-theres-a-growing-backlash-against-plant-based-diets-259455

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Semen allergies may be surprisingly common – here’s what you need to know

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Carroll, Reader / Associate Professor in Reproductive Science, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Yuriy Maksymiv/Shutterstock

    Imagine itching, burning, swelling, or even struggling to breathe just moments after sex. For a small but growing number of women, that’s not an awkward anecdote – it’s a medical condition. It’s called seminal plasma hypersensitivity (SPH) – an allergy to semen.

    This rare but underdiagnosed allergy isn’t triggered by sperm cells, but by proteins in the seminal plasma — the fluid that carries sperm. First documented in 1967, when a woman was hospitalised after a “violent allergic reaction” to sex, SPH is now recognised as a type 1 hypersensitivity, the same category as hay fever, peanut allergy and cat dander.

    Symptoms range from mild to severe. Some women experience local reactions: burning, itching, redness and swelling of the vulva or vagina. Others develop full-body symptoms: hives, wheezing, dizziness, runny nose and even anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening immune response.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Until 1997, SPH was thought to affect fewer than 100 women globally. But a study led by allergist Jonathan Bernstein found that among women reporting postcoital symptoms, nearly 12% could be classified as having probable SPH.

    I conducted a small, unpublished survey in 2013 and found a similar 12% rate. The true figure may be higher still. Many cases go unreported, misdiagnosed, or dismissed as STIs, yeast infections, or general “sensitivity”. One revealing clue: symptoms disappear when condoms are used.

    A 2024 study reinforced this finding, suggesting that SPH is both more common and more commonly misdiagnosed than previously believed.

    The problem isn’t the sperm

    The main allergen appears to be prostate-specific antigen (PSA): a protein found in all seminal plasma, not just that of a particular partner. In other words, women can develop a reaction to any man’s semen, not just their regular partner’s.

    There’s also evidence of cross-reactivity. For example, Can f 5, a protein found in dog dander, is structurally similar to human PSA. So women allergic to dogs may find themselves reacting to semen too. In one unusual case, a woman with a Brazil nut allergy broke out in hives after sex, probably due to trace nut proteins in her partner’s semen.

    Diagnosis begins with a detailed sexual and medical history, often followed by skin prick testing with the partner’s semen or blood tests for PSA-specific antibodies (IgE).

    In my own research involving symptomatic women, we demonstrated that testing with washed spermatozoa, free from seminal plasma, can help confirm that the allergic trigger is not the sperm cells themselves, but proteins in the seminal fluid.

    And it’s not just women. It’s possible some men may be allergic to their own semen.

    This condition, known as post-orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS), causes flu-like symptoms, such as fatigue, brain fog and muscle aches, immediately after ejaculation. It’s believed to be an autoimmune or allergic reaction. Diagnosis is tricky, but skin testing with a man’s own semen can yield a positive reaction.

    What about fertility?

    Seminal plasma hypersensitivity doesn’t cause infertility directly, but it can complicate conception. Avoiding the allergen – usually the most effective treatment for allergies – isn’t feasible for couples trying to conceive.

    Treatments include prophylactic antihistamines (antihistamine medications taken in advance of anticipated exposure to an allergen, or before allergy symptoms are expected to appear to prevent or reduce the severity of allergic reactions), anti-inflammatories and desensitisation using diluted seminal plasma. In more severe cases, couples may choose IVF with washed sperm, bypassing the allergic trigger altogether.

    It’s important to note: SPH is not a form of infertility. Many women with SPH have conceived successfully – some naturally, others with medical support.

    So why don’t more people know about this?

    Because sex-related symptoms often go unspoken. Embarrassment, stigma and a lack of awareness among doctors mean that many women suffer in silence. In Bernstein’s 1997 study, almost half of the women who had symptoms after sex had never been checked for SPH, and many had spent years being misdiagnosed and getting the wrong treatment.

    If sex routinely leaves you itchy, sore or unwell – and condoms help – you might be allergic to semen.

    It’s time to bring this hidden condition out of the shadows and into the consultation room.

    Michael Carroll 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. Semen allergies may be surprisingly common – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/semen-allergies-may-be-surprisingly-common-heres-what-you-need-to-know-259308

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Opposition starts on challenge of crafting (yet another) energy policy

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

    The opposition is commencing the challenging task of framing a new energy policy, including deciding whether to stick by its commitment to net zero emissions by 2050.

    Liberal leader Sussan Ley, appearing at the National Press Club, announced a Coalition working group on energy and emissions reduction policy. It will report to her and Nationals leader David Littleproud.

    Led by energy spokesman Dan Tehan, the group will include shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien, resources spokeswoman Susan McDonald, industry spokesman Alex Hawke, environment spokeswoman Angie Bell and shadow assistant ministers Dean Smith and Andrew Willcox.

    The work comes against the background of a significant number of the Nationals and some Liberals wanting to drop the commitment to 2050 net zero. The Coalition signed up to net zero under then Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

    Ley said over the course of the term the Coaltion’s task would be to develop a plan with two goals

    • a stable energy grid producing affordable and reliable power for households and businesses, and

    • reducing emissions so Australia was playing its part in the global effort.

    “Our approach must be practical and principled as we address both these goals,” she said.

    Ley said every member of both Coalition parties would have the opportunity to engage with the work.

    She said crippling power price increases had been taking small businesses and factories to the brink.

    The opposition this week is having meetings of its frontbenchers and party room, as it ponders on the election disaster. Ley declared bluntly in her speech that the Liberals didn’t just lose – they were “totally smashed”.

    The Liberal party has already set up a review of the election defeat but Ley said more was needed.

    “This is why our federal executive will soon discuss a more broad-ranging and wider review process of the fundamentals of the Liberal party.

    “I believe there is a need for the party as a whole to have a deeper look at the existential issues we face, how our divisional constitutions operate and how we can better serve, support and most importantly grow our membership.

    “This will not be an academic exercise. My parliamentary team and I will stay in close touch with out state and territory divisions to ensure success in this important area.”

    Queensland Liberal senator James McGrath “will play an integral role in bringing this longer term body of work together”.

    “It will be a crucial part of our efforts to better respect, reflect and represent modern Australia.”

    Ley stressed she was highly committed to getting more women into the Liberal ranks, without being wedded to a particular way of doing it.

    “I’m agnostic on specific methods to make it happen, but I am a zealot that it does actually happen.

    “Current approaches have clearly not worked, so I am open to any approach that will.

    “The Liberal Party operates as a federated model, meaning each state division determines its own preselection rules.

    “If some state divisions choose to implement quotas, that is fine. If others don’t, that is also fine.

    “But what is not fine is not having enough women.

    “As the first woman leader of our federal party, let me send the clearest possible message: we need to do better, recruit better, retain better and support better.

    “That is why I will work with every division, as will my parliamentary team, to ensure we preselect more women for the 2028 election.”

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

    – ref. Opposition starts on challenge of crafting (yet another) energy policy – https://theconversation.com/opposition-starts-on-challenge-of-crafting-yet-another-energy-policy-259683

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election flows reveal nearly 90% of Greens preferenced Labor ahead of Coalition

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

    Minor party preference flows for the federal election have been released, with Labor winning Greens preferences by 88.2–11.8, while the Coalition won One Nation preferences by 74.5–24.5. I also cover a SA state poll that gave Labor a massive 67–33 lead.

    The Australian Electoral Commission’s results for the May 3 federal election now show how minor parties’ preferences flowed between Labor and the Coalition. The Greens won 12.2% of the national primary vote, and their preferences favoured Labor over the Coalition by 88.2–11.8. That’s a 2.5% preference flow gain for Labor since the 2022 election.

    One Nation had 6.4% of primary votes. Their preferences favoured the Coalition over Labor by 74.5–25.5, a 10.2% preference flow gain for the Coalition. Independents made up 7.3% of primary votes, and their preferences favoured Labor by 67.2–32.8, a 3.4% gain for Labor.

    Including Trumpet of Patriots (1.9% of primary votes) with others, others made up 7.7% of primary votes and their preferences favoured the Coalition by 57.3–42.7, a 0.6% gain for the Coalition since 2022 if United Australia Party (4.1% in 2022) is included with others then.

    The AEC formally declared the poll by returning the writs on June 12. Results can be legally challenged within 40 days of this declaration, so by July 22.

    In Bradfield, Teal Nicolette Boele only won by 26 votes against the Liberals, and this result could be challenged.

    As the AEC does not want to disturb the ballot papers until any challenge is resolved by the courts, it is for now using an estimated two-party result in Bradfield (55.0–45.0 to the Liberals against Labor). Analyst Ben Raue believes this estimate is understating Labor in Bradfield by 4.4%.

    If Raue is right, the current national two-party vote (55.22–44.78 to Labor) is very slightly understating Labor.

    While One Nation’s preference shift helped the Coalition, there were compensatory shifts to Labor from Greens and independent voters. The combined primary vote for One Nation and Trumpet of Patriots was down 0.8% from 2022 to 8.3%, while independents were up 2.0%.

    Applying 2022 election flows to primary votes at this election only overstates Labor by 0.1% compared to their actual two-party vote.

    In my poll review article on June 5, I said respondent allocated preferences in final polls did not show a large gap in the Coalition’s favour from using 2022 election flows that had occurred in polls earlier in the year.

    It’s likely that Labor’s share of preferences from Greens and Teal-type independents rose close to the election. People who voted for these candidates may have been disappointed with Labor’s environmental record, but both Peter Dutton and Donald Trump helped Labor with these people.

    In the last term, the Greens were economically left-wing as well as pro-environment. Voters who supported the Greens because of their economic agenda are probably less likely to prefer the Coalition to Labor than environmental voters.

    The Poll Bludger has a graph that shows that, in federal elections since 2004, Labor’s share of Greens preferences was at a record high this election, but their share of One Nation preferences was at a record low.

    Weak Labor flows to Boele

    In Bradfield, Labor preferences favoured Boele by 68.6–31.4 against the Liberals.
    There were 16 other seats where Labor preferences were distributed between the Coalition and a non-Coalition candidate. The Labor flow to Boele was the second weakest in such seats. This weak flow almost cost Boele Bradfield.

    The only seat that had a weaker Labor preference flow to a non-Coalition candidate was Maranoa, where the non-Coalition candidate was One Nation. Labor preferences in Maranoa split 57.9–42.1 to the Liberal National Party against One Nation. In 13 of the 17 seats, Labor preferences flowed at over 75% rates to the non-Coalition candidate.

    In early April, the ABC reported Boele had made a crude sexual remark to a 19-year-old employee at a hair salon after receiving a haircut and was banned from that salon. This may explain the weaker preference flow from Labor voters.

    Weak Greens flows to Teals in Teal vs Labor contests

    There were three seats where the final two were Labor and a Teal independent: Bean, Franklin and Fremantle. In Bean and Fremantle, the Liberals recommended preferences to the Teal on their how to vote material, but not in Franklin.

    Labor held all three seats, but only by 50.3–49.7 in Bean and 50.7–49.3 in Fremantle. Labor won much more easily in Franklin, by 57.8–42.2, where they benefited from Liberal how to vote cards.

    In Bean, Greens preferences only favoured Teal Jessie Price by 50.6–49.4 over Labor, while Liberal preferences favoured her by 80.0–20.0. In Fremantle, Greens preferences favoured Teal Kate Hulett by 52.9–47.1, while Liberal preferences favoured her by 76.5–23.5. In Franklin, Greens preferences favoured Teal Peter George by 53.8–46.2.

    In Bean and Fremantle, had Greens preferences been stronger for the Teal, Labor would have lost to a more pro-environment candidate. Perhaps Labor benefited on Greens preferences owing to the Greens’ more economic left-wing agenda.

    And a national Morgan poll, conducted June 2–22 from a sample of 3,957, gave Labor a 58–42 lead, unchanged from the previous Morgan poll in May. Primary votes were 37.5% Labor (up 0.5), 31% Coalition (steady), 12% Greens (up 0.5), 6% One Nation (steady) and 13.5% for all Others (down one).

    By 43–41.5, voters thought the country was headed in the right direction, the first time right direction has led since February 2023. The overall net +1.5 rating is +48 with Labor voters, +11.5 with Greens, -43 with Coalition voters, -80.5 with One Nation voters and -17.5 with all Others.

    Labor holds massive lead in SA

    The next South Australian state election will be held in March 2026. A YouGov poll for The Adelaide Advertiser, conducted May 15–28 from a sample of 903, gave Labor a massive 67–33 lead over the Liberals (54.6–45.4 to Labor at the March 2022 election). Primary votes were 48% Labor, 21% Liberals, 14% Greens, 7% One Nation, 8% independents and 2% others.

    If the results at next March’s election reflect this poll, the Liberals would hold just two of the 47 lower house seats on a uniform swing. It would be easily their worst result in SA state history.

    In Australian electoral history, there has only been one bigger landslide: when Western Australian Labor defeated the Liberals and Nationals by 69.7–30.3 at the March 2021 state election.

    Socialist likely to be next New York City mayor

    I covered today’s AEST New York City Democratic mayoral primary election for The Poll Bludger. While preferences won’t be tabulated until next Tuesday, the socialist Zohran Mamdani leads former New York governor Andrew Cuomo by 43.5–36.4 on primary votes, and is virtually certain to win. As the Democratic nominee, Mamdani is likely to win the November general election.

    The article also covers Donald Trump’s ratings and polls in Israel.

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

    – ref. Election flows reveal nearly 90% of Greens preferenced Labor ahead of Coalition – https://theconversation.com/election-flows-reveal-nearly-90-of-greens-preferenced-labor-ahead-of-coalition-259438

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What’s the difference between an eating disorder and disordered eating?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gemma Sharp, Researcher in Body Image, Eating and Weight Disorders, Monash University

    PIKSEL/Getty

    Following a particular diet or exercising a great deal are common and even encouraged in our health and image-conscious culture. With increased awareness of food allergies and other dietary requirements, it’s also not uncommon for someone to restrict or eliminate certain foods.

    But these behaviours may also be the sign of an unhealthy relationship with food. You can have a problematic pattern of eating without being diagnosed with an eating disorder.

    So, where’s the line? What is disordered eating, and what is an eating disorder?

    What is disordered eating?

    Disordered eating describes negative attitudes and behaviours towards food and eating that can lead to a disturbed eating pattern.

    It can involve:

    • dieting

    • skipping meals

    • avoiding certain food groups

    • binge eating

    • misusing laxatives and weight-loss medications

    • inducing vomiting (sometimes known as purging)

    • exercising compulsively.

    Disordered eating is the term used when these behaviours are not frequent and/or severe enough to meet an eating disorder diagnosis.

    Not everyone who engages in these behaviours will develop an eating disorder. But disordered eating – particularly dieting – usually precedes an eating disorder.

    What is an eating disorder?

    Eating disorders are complex psychiatric illnesses that can negatively affect a person’s body, mind and social life. They’re characterised by persistent disturbances in how someone thinks, feels and behaves around eating and their bodies.

    To make a diagnosis, a qualified health professional will use a combination of standardised questionnaires, as well as more general questioning. These will determine how frequent and severe the behaviours are, and how they affect day-to-day functioning.

    Examples of clinical diagnoses include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder.

    How common are eating disorders and disordered eating?

    The answer can vary quite radically depending on the study and how it defines disordered behaviours and attitudes.

    An estimated 8.4% of women and 2.2% of men will develop an eating disorder at some point in their lives. This is most common during adolescence.

    Disordered eating is also particularly common in young people with 30% of girls and 17% of boys aged 6–18 years reporting engaging in these behaviours.

    Although the research is still emerging, it appears disordered eating and eating disorders are even more common in gender diverse people.

    Can we prevent eating disorders?

    There is some evidence eating disorder prevention programs that target risk factors – such as dieting and concerns about shape and weight – can be effective to some extent in the short term.

    The issue is most of these studies last only a few months. So we can’t determine whether the people involved went on to develop an eating disorder in the longer term.

    In addition, most studies have involved girls or women in late high school and university. By this age, eating disorders have usually already emerged. So, this research cannot tell us as much about eating disorder prevention and it also neglects the wide range of people at risk of eating disorders.

    Is orthorexia an eating disorder?

    In defining the line between eating disorders and disordered eating, orthorexia nervosa is a contentious issue.

    The name literally means “proper appetite” and involves a pathological obsession with proper nutrition, characterised by a restrictive diet and rigidly avoiding foods believed to be “unhealthy” or “impure”.

    These disordered eating behaviours need to be taken seriously as they can lead to malnourishment, loss of relationships, and overall poor quality of life.

    However, orthorexia nervosa is not an official eating disorder in any diagnostic manual.

    Additionally, with the popularity of special diets (such as keto or paleo), time-restricted eating, and dietary requirements (for example, gluten-free) it can sometimes be hard to decipher when concerns about diet have become disordered, or may even be an eating disorder.

    For example, around 6% of people have a food allergy. Emerging evidence suggests they are also more likely to have restrictive types of eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder.

    However, following a special diet such as veganism, or having a food allergy, does not automatically lead to disordered eating or an eating disorder.

    It is important to recognise people’s different motivations for eating or avoiding certain foods. For example, a vegan may restrict certain food groups due to animal rights concerns, rather than disordered eating symptoms.

    What to look out for

    If you’re concerned about your own relationship with food or that of a loved one, here are some signs to look out for:

    • preoccupation with food and food preparation

    • cutting out food groups or skipping meals entirely

    • obsession with body weight or shape

    • large fluctuations in weight

    • compulsive exercise

    • mood changes and social withdrawal.

    It’s always best to seek help early. But it is never too late to seek help.

    In Australia, if you are experiencing difficulties in your relationships with food and your body, you can contact the Butterfly Foundation’s national helpline on 1800 33 4673 (or via their online chat).

    For parents concerned their child might be developing concerning relationships with food, weight and body image, Feed Your Instinct highlights common warning signs, provides useful information about help seeking and can generate a personalised report to take to a health professional.

    Gemma Sharp receives funding from an NHMRC Investigator Grant. She is a Professor and the Founding Director and Member of the Consortium for Research in Eating Disorders, a registered charity.

    – ref. What’s the difference between an eating disorder and disordered eating? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-an-eating-disorder-and-disordered-eating-256787

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Britain’s new political divide delivers voters to Reform and the Greens

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde and Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Social Research

    The outcome of last year’s general election left an important question hanging in the air. Could the UK’s traditional system of two-party politics continue to survive?

    True, power did change hands in a familiar fashion. A majority Conservative government was replaced by a majority Labour one. Indeed, the new administration won an overall majority of no less than 174.

    However, the new government was elected with a lower share of the vote than that secured by any previous majority government. At the same time, the Conservatives won by far their lowest share of the vote ever. For the first time since 1922, when Labour replaced the then Liberal party as the Conservatives’ principal competitor, Labour and the Conservatives together won fewer than three in five of all votes cast.

    Over the past 12 months, the foundations of Britain’s two-party system have come to look even shakier. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party tops the polls. Only just over two in five of those who express a party preference say they would vote Labour or Conservative – a record low.

    New analysis of last year’s election published by the National Centre for Social Research as part of the British Social Attitudes report confirms that Britain’s two-party system is in poor health.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    The traditional anchor of Conservative and Labour support – social class – has been cast adrift. The ideological underpinning of the battle between them, the division between left and right, has been replaced by a division between social conservatives and social liberals. This second division draws people towards Reform and the Greens. At the same time, low levels of trust and confidence in how they are being governed is also encouraging voters to back these two challenger parties.

    From class divide to identity politics

    Historically, middle-class voters voted Conservative, while their working-class counterparts were more likely to support Labour. In decline ever since the advent of New Labour, that pattern disappeared entirely in 2019 in the wake of a Brexit debate that drew pro-Leave working-class voters towards the Conservatives and pro-Remain middle-class supporters towards Labour.



    Read more:
    Know your place: what happened to class in British politics – a podcast series from The Conversation Documentaries

    Although Brexit was no longer in the news, the traditional link between social class and voting Conservative or Labour did not reappear in 2024. Labour won the support of just 30% of those in routine and semi-routine occupations, compared with 42% of those in professional and managerial jobs. At 17% and 21% respectively, the equivalent figures for Conservative support are also little different from each other.

    As in the EU referendum, what now shapes how people vote is their age and education, not the job they do. Younger voters and graduates are more likely to vote Labour, while older people and those with less in the way of educational qualifications are more inclined to vote Conservative.

    The problem is that the two parties now face competition for these demographic groups from the Greens and Reform. Last year the Greens won as much as 21% of the vote among under-25s. Reform secured 25% among those who do not have an A-level or its equivalent, nearly matching the Tories.

    Green party co-leader Carla Denyer speaks in the House of Commons.
    Flickr/UK Parliament, CC BY-NC-ND

    Equally, Brexit was not a divide between “left” and “right” – that is, between those who think the government should do more to reduce inequality and those who are more concerned about growing the whole economic pie. It was a battle between social liberals and social conservatives – between those who value living in a diverse society and those who believe that too much diversity undermines social cohesion.

    That second divide has now come to matter as much as the left-right divide in shaping how people vote – and thereby helps draw support away from the Conservatives and Labour.

    While the Conservatives are more popular among social conservatives, so also are Reform. Indeed, the competition between the two parties for these voters has intensified since the election. By this spring, Reform, on 37%, was winning the battle for their support, with the Conservatives supported by only 26%. Equally, although Labour are relatively popular among social liberals, both the Greens and the Liberal Democrats find them relatively fertile territory too. Three in ten (31%) social liberals backed the Liberal Democrats or the Greens last year, a figure that now stands at 37%.

    Meanwhile, trust and confidence in government remain at a low ebb. For example, nearly half (46%) say they “almost never” trust governments of any party to put the interests of the country above those of their own parties. This perception is seemingly accompanied by a reluctance to vote for the parties of government too. Nearly one in four (24%) of those who almost never trust governments backed Reform last year, while one in ten (10%) supported the Greens.

    This, of course, is not the first time that Britain’s two-party system has been under challenge. In the early 1980s the Liberal/SDP Alliance threatened to “break the mould of British politics”. In spring 2019, at the height of the Brexit impasse, the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats appeared poised to upset the traditional order. This time, however, the challenge to the Conservative/Labour duopoly seems more profound.

    John Curtice currently receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. How Britain’s new political divide delivers voters to Reform and the Greens – https://theconversation.com/how-britains-new-political-divide-delivers-voters-to-reform-and-the-greens-259613

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Wild swings in the oil price make the Reserve Bank’s job harder

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

    It looks, at least for now, as though tensions in the Middle East are easing somewhat. It appears much less likely Iran will try to close the
    Strait of Hormuz, through which flows about a fifth of the world’s oil.

    In response, oil prices have dropped to a two-week low below US$70 a barrel.

    The economists at the Reserve Bank will be breathing a sigh of relief. A surge in oil prices would have injected more uncertainty into the global outlook. It would have made a decision on whether to cut interest rates in July harder.

    Financial markets are betting on a rate cut at the July 7–8 meeting, but three of the four major bank economists are tipping August as more likely.

    A tough global backdrop

    The global economic environment is particularly challenging. Even before the recent increased tensions in the Middle East, the Trump tariff announcements (and withdrawals and re-impositions) were the major cause of the uncertainty around the domestic economy.

    And there is a lot of “uncertainty”. Journalist Shane Wright noted the word “uncertain” appeared 134 times in the Reserve Bank’s latest Statement on Monetary Policy. Something similar has been noted in the United Kingdom.

    There have been wild swings in the oil price in recent days. There was a surge on market fears Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz. The price slid when a ceasefire was announced. It rose again when the ceasefire was broken within hours. As the fragile truce appeared to hold, the price of oil has now gone back down.

    Assumptions on the oil price

    Forecasting where it will be in a day or week, let alone in a month or a year, is difficult. But economic forecasts underlying monetary policy decisions need to incorporate some view. The Reserve Bank generally assumes the oil price stays at its current level in the short term. It then uses the price in forward contracts as a basis for its forecasts beyond that.

    A sustained jump in oil prices would have posed quite a dilemma for the Reserve Bank.

    Generally a shock that adds to inflation would lead to the bank raising interest rates. In contrast, a shock that weakens economic activity would lead to the Bank lowering rates.

    But a surge in oil prices would likely both increase inflation (by pushing up petrol prices) and weaken activity (by disrupting world trade and eroding consumers’ purchasing power).

    If the oil price surge was expected to be short-lived, it is unlikely to get baked into inflationary expectations. The bank would then probably disregard it. But assessing the longevity of disruptions to the global oil market is not easy.

    Monthly inflation drops to 2.1%

    On Wednesday, the monthly consumer price index (CPI) fell to 2.1% in May from 2.4% in April. This is the equal lowest level since March 2001.

    But the monthly reading will probably not impress RBA Governor Michele Bullock. In her most recent press conference, she commented that “we get four readings on inflation a year”, referring to the quarterly inflation reports. She was dismissive of what she termed “the monthly indicator which is very volatile”.

    In taking its decisions, the bank often relies on an underlying inflation measure called the “trimmed mean”. This excludes items with the largest price movements up or down, so it removes petrol prices when they move by large amounts. This measure was 2.4% in the monthly report.

    Petrol prices are also a significant contributor to the volatility of the monthly CPI.

    Further cuts are likely

    Both headline and underlying inflation are now within the central bank’s 2–3% target range. In its most recent outlook, the Reserve Bank forecast underlying inflation would remain in the target band, even if it made another two cuts in rates this year.

    So a further interest rate cut remains likely. If it doesn’t cut in July, the bank could wait for the next quarterly inflation report on July 30, and then cut at the August 12 meeting.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers described the global economy as being “in a pretty dangerous place right now”.

    “There’s a lot of volatility, unpredictability, uncertainty in the global economy,” he said. That is one thing that is not uncertain.

    John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist at the Reserve Bank.

    – ref. Wild swings in the oil price make the Reserve Bank’s job harder – https://theconversation.com/wild-swings-in-the-oil-price-make-the-reserve-banks-job-harder-259555

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia’s native bees struggled after the Black Summer fires – but a world-first solution brought them buzzing back

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kit Prendergast, Postdoctoral Researcher, Pollination Ecology, University of Southern Queensland

    Kit Prendergast (@bee.babette_performer)

    After a devastating bushfire, efforts to help nature recover typically focus on vertebrates and plants. Yet extreme fires can threaten insects, too.

    After the Black Summer fires of 2019–20, I embarked on world-first research into whether “bee hotels” – a type of artificial nesting structure – could help native bees recolonise an area.

    I installed 1,000 bee hotels in the Jarrah forests of Western Australia, parts of which burned during the Black Summer fires.

    After months of monitoring, I concluded – with great excitement and relief – that the project was a success. Native bees were using the structures to lay eggs and raise young. The work shows pollinators such as bees can be aided after fires, to help bring damaged landscapes back to life.

    WA’s Jarrah Forest was affected by the Black Summer fires.
    Kit Prendergast

    Vital wild pollinators

    Australia has more than 2,000 species of native bees. They help keep our ecosystems healthy, and play a crucial role in pollinating wildflowers.

    Native bees typically nest in holes in trees that occur naturally when beetles bore through wood. When fire destroys trees, bees can be left without a place to nest and reproduce. This prevents them from recolonising habitats after fire.

    Under climate change, bushfires in Australia are becoming more frequent and severe. Wood-nesting bees are especially vulnerable to bushfires. For example, fires are recognised as a major threat to the glittering green carpenter bee (Xylocopa aerata), which creates its own holes in wood to nest in.

    The worsening fires take place at a time when global populations of wild pollinators, such as bees, are in steady decline. This problem has been well-publicised, although the plight of Australia’s native bees has received less attention.

    My research tested whether bee hotels could help our native bees bounce back after fire.

    What the research found

    The Jarrah Forest of southwest Western Australia is a biodiversity hotspot. The 1,000 bee hotels were installed across five sites in the northern part of the forest, where bushfires burned during the summer of 2019–20.

    Bee hotels replicate the holes in wood that native bees nest in. In August 2021, I installed bee hotels of two types: wooden blocks with 15 holes drilled in them, and bunches of about 50 bamboo stems bundled together. I monitored them from September 2021 to March 2022.

    At the end of the period I concluded – with great excitement and relief – that the project was a success. Across all bee hotels at the five sites, 832 cavities were occupied by native bees.

    Assuming four cells per cavity for each offspring, this meant more than 3,300 native bees would likely emerge in the next generation.

    Uptake by bees was initially slow. This was to be expected, because the main group of species that used bee hotels – from the Megachile genus – tend to not be active in the region until late spring.

    I found the nests were also used by bees of the genus Hylaeus, as well as tiny Exoneura bees. Other inhabitants included wasps, spiders, ants and crickets.

    I also surveyed three burnt sites where bee hotels were not installed. There, I recorded the numbers of native bees foraging on flowers, and compared it to the sites with bee hotels. More native bees were present at the latter sites, which reinforced my findings.

    Importantly, the research allowed natural recolonisation. It did not involve installing bee hotels at unburnt sites, then moving them to burnt areas once they were occupied. This could have been disastrous.

    Aside from depleting one population, it may have meant native bees were moved to an area where there were not enough flowers, or were forced to compete with existing bee populations.

    The research also showed European honey bees could pose a problem for native bees in fire-damaged landscapes. At sites with a higher density of honey bees, fewer native bees were foraging and fewer nests were occupied in the bee hotels.

    This supports previous findings by myself and others that honey bees can negatively affect native bees. It adds further evidence that honey bees should not be permitted in sensitive habitats, such as bushland following fire or in national parks.

    Empowering bee-saving efforts

    My research provides proof that bee hotels can aid in the recovery of cavity-nesting native bees after fires.

    This work fills a major gap. While there has been much attention on the recovery of furry animals and plants after fires, there has been far less investment into the recovery of plant pollinators.

    Leaving insects to languish after fires isn’t just bad for those species. It also hampers the ability of ecosystems to recover from fire and other damage. This is especially true for pollinators such as native bees, which are vital for plant reproduction.

    This work empowers us to help native bees after fires, by providing nesting resources to promote populations.

    Kit Prendergast received funding from the federal government’s Bushfire Recovery Grant to undertake this research project, and from Flow Hive to write the research paper. She was previously a member of the Australian Native Bee Association.

    – ref. Australia’s native bees struggled after the Black Summer fires – but a world-first solution brought them buzzing back – https://theconversation.com/australias-native-bees-struggled-after-the-black-summer-fires-but-a-world-first-solution-brought-them-buzzing-back-258299

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Joh: The Last King of Queensland captures Bjelke-Petersen’s political persona – but omits key details of the story

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Mickel, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

    Stan

    The new documentary film Joh: The Last King of Queensland offers a dramatised account of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s premiership from 1968 to 1987.

    Directed by Kriv Stenders, using reenactments (Bjelke-Petersen is played by Richard Roxburgh), archival footage and contemporary interviews, the film portrays him as a complex and polarising figure.

    We are given a man who is socially conservative, economically ambitious and politically divisive. A man who profoundly shaped Queensland’s governance and development.

    But while the film effectively captures his popular appeal and role in the state’s economic transformation, it simplifies key aspects of his political ascent.

    In particular, it doesn’t capture the complexities of electoral mechanics, internal party maneuvering and the influence of the public service.

    National Party dominance

    We start with Bjelke-Petersen’s rural upbringing. Stenders emphasises the formative impact of his Lutheran faith, personal abstinence, strong work ethic and family values. These would be foundational to his leadership style.

    Roxburgh highlights Bjelke-Petersen’s rhetorical simplicity. He presented himself as an advocate for “ordinary” Queenslanders, especially in rural and conservative communities.

    A central critique of Bjelke-Petersen was his manipulation of Queensland’s electoral system.

    The film illustrates how electoral malapportionment advantaged rural constituencies, fuelling the National Party’s dominance. But this treatment lacks nuance.

    Richard Roxburgh plays Joh Bjelke-Petersen, highlighting his rhetorical simplicity.
    Stan

    Former MP David Byrne’s claim that Bjelke-Petersen remained premier solely due to the electoral system is presented uncritically.

    The National Party outpolled the Liberals from 1977 on. Labor failed to win a statewide majority until 1989, under boundaries drawn by Bjelke-Petersen’s administration in 1986.

    The narrative also omits the fact that electoral bias originated under earlier Labor governments.

    While Roxburgh’s character mentions this legacy, his claim that there was “not a peep” of dissent overlooks sustained criticism from opposition leader Frank Nicklin throughout the 1950s.

    The party apparatus

    The film omits several key figures whose contributions were instrumental to the success of the Bjelke-Petersen era.

    The organisational acumen of National Party president Robert Sparkes and state secretary Mike Evans played a critical role in constructing a highly efficient party apparatus.

    Through the coordination of financial resources and the strategic mobilisation of grassroots support, Sparkes and Evans substantially reinforced Bjelke-Petersen’s leadership and electoral resilience.

    Also excluded are prominent members of the premier’s personal staff, such as media advisor Allen Callaghan and policy researcher Wendy Armstrong. Both contributed significantly to shaping public messaging and policy development.

    Bjelke-Petersen was premier of Queensland from 1968 to 1987.
    Stan

    We do not hear about the contributions of senior public servants such as Sydney Schubert, coordinator-general, and Leo Hielscher, under-treasurer.

    Schubert was instrumental in expediting infrastructure development across the state. Hielscher ensured Queensland maintained its AAA credit rating and successfully attracted international investment.

    These administrative achievements were central to the state’s economic growth.

    Bjelke-Petersen was frequently detached from the formal processes of cabinet and Westminster governance. But his reliance on a capable and loyal bureaucracy underscores a distinct, if unconventional, mode of operation.

    This model, characterised by strong administrative delegation, contributed to the longevity and effectiveness of his premiership.

    Winning seats, suppressing rights

    The film addresses his opposition to the Whitlam government and his promotion of states’ rights. Both cemented his popularity. It highlights his decision to abolish death duties – a move that allowed him to present a low-tax, pro-development agenda.

    Bjelke-Petersen’s authoritarian style is explored through archival footage of the 1971 protests during South Africa’s rugby tour of Australia. But the film fails to contextualise electoral reaction.

    The government won seats, including central Brisbane and Maryborough, in by-elections held at the height of the protest activity.

    His later suppression of civil liberties, particularly against students, unions and Indigenous activists, is acknowledged.

    Corruption flourished under Bjelke-Petersen’s administration due to insufficient oversight and a permissive political culture.
    Stan

    The depiction of the “Joh for PM” campaign presents it as a significant strategic miscalculation. Stenders illustrates the limits of Bjelke-Petersen’s political judgement beyond the state level.

    Investigative journalist Chris Masters is interviewed about his role in creating the Four Corners exposé which served as a catalyst for the Fitzgerald Inquiry (1987–89).

    This inquiry uncovered extensive political and police corruption. It exposed entrenched institutional malpractice, and contributed decisively to the erosion of Bjelke-Petersen’s political legitimacy.

    Such corruption was longstanding and predated Bjelke-Petersen’s tenure. It flourished under his administration due to insufficient oversight and a permissive political culture.

    Emotional resonance, but not fully nuanced

    While the film suggests that Bjelke-Petersen was never personally corrupt (and he was never convicted of any criminal offence) it omits a pivotal episode in his political downfall.

    According to journalist Matthew Condon, Springwood MP Huan Fraser publicly accused the Premier of corruption during a 1987 National Party meeting.

    Fraser’s confrontation, reportedly triggered by Bjelke-Petersen’s push to approve what was then the world’s tallest building, marked a significant rupture within the party.

    The proposed project symbolised growing concerns about impropriety and unchecked executive power during his premiership.

    Joh: The Last King of Queensland succeeds in capturing the emotional resonance of Bjelke-Petersen’s political persona. But it stops short of delivering a fully nuanced account.

    His legacy continues to polarise. To supporters, he remains a visionary who championed economic growth and conservative values. To critics, he presided over an era of democratic erosion, civil rights suppression and entrenched corruption.

    His story reflects the enduring tension between executive authority and democratic accountability in modern Australian political history.

    Joh: The Last King of Queensland is on Stan now.

    John Mickel 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. Joh: The Last King of Queensland captures Bjelke-Petersen’s political persona – but omits key details of the story – https://theconversation.com/joh-the-last-king-of-queensland-captures-bjelke-petersens-political-persona-but-omits-key-details-of-the-story-257813

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What’s the difference between an eating disorder and disordered eating?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma Sharp, Researcher in Body Image, Eating and Weight Disorders, Monash University

    PIKSEL/Getty

    Following a particular diet or exercising a great deal are common and even encouraged in our health and image-conscious culture. With increased awareness of food allergies and other dietary requirements, it’s also not uncommon for someone to restrict or eliminate certain foods.

    But these behaviours may also be the sign of an unhealthy relationship with food. You can have a problematic pattern of eating without being diagnosed with an eating disorder.

    So, where’s the line? What is disordered eating, and what is an eating disorder?

    What is disordered eating?

    Disordered eating describes negative attitudes and behaviours towards food and eating that can lead to a disturbed eating pattern.

    It can involve:

    • dieting

    • skipping meals

    • avoiding certain food groups

    • binge eating

    • misusing laxatives and weight-loss medications

    • inducing vomiting (sometimes known as purging)

    • exercising compulsively.

    Disordered eating is the term used when these behaviours are not frequent and/or severe enough to meet an eating disorder diagnosis.

    Not everyone who engages in these behaviours will develop an eating disorder. But disordered eating – particularly dieting – usually precedes an eating disorder.

    What is an eating disorder?

    Eating disorders are complex psychiatric illnesses that can negatively affect a person’s body, mind and social life. They’re characterised by persistent disturbances in how someone thinks, feels and behaves around eating and their bodies.

    To make a diagnosis, a qualified health professional will use a combination of standardised questionnaires, as well as more general questioning. These will determine how frequent and severe the behaviours are, and how they affect day-to-day functioning.

    Examples of clinical diagnoses include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder.

    How common are eating disorders and disordered eating?

    The answer can vary quite radically depending on the study and how it defines disordered behaviours and attitudes.

    An estimated 8.4% of women and 2.2% of men will develop an eating disorder at some point in their lives. This is most common during adolescence.

    Disordered eating is also particularly common in young people with 30% of girls and 17% of boys aged 6–18 years reporting engaging in these behaviours.

    Although the research is still emerging, it appears disordered eating and eating disorders are even more common in gender diverse people.

    Can we prevent eating disorders?

    There is some evidence eating disorder prevention programs that target risk factors – such as dieting and concerns about shape and weight – can be effective to some extent in the short term.

    The issue is most of these studies last only a few months. So we can’t determine whether the people involved went on to develop an eating disorder in the longer term.

    In addition, most studies have involved girls or women in late high school and university. By this age, eating disorders have usually already emerged. So, this research cannot tell us as much about eating disorder prevention and it also neglects the wide range of people at risk of eating disorders.

    Is orthorexia an eating disorder?

    In defining the line between eating disorders and disordered eating, orthorexia nervosa is a contentious issue.

    The name literally means “proper appetite” and involves a pathological obsession with proper nutrition, characterised by a restrictive diet and rigidly avoiding foods believed to be “unhealthy” or “impure”.

    These disordered eating behaviours need to be taken seriously as they can lead to malnourishment, loss of relationships, and overall poor quality of life.

    However, orthorexia nervosa is not an official eating disorder in any diagnostic manual.

    Additionally, with the popularity of special diets (such as keto or paleo), time-restricted eating, and dietary requirements (for example, gluten-free) it can sometimes be hard to decipher when concerns about diet have become disordered, or may even be an eating disorder.

    For example, around 6% of people have a food allergy. Emerging evidence suggests they are also more likely to have restrictive types of eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder.

    However, following a special diet such as veganism, or having a food allergy, does not automatically lead to disordered eating or an eating disorder.

    It is important to recognise people’s different motivations for eating or avoiding certain foods. For example, a vegan may restrict certain food groups due to animal rights concerns, rather than disordered eating symptoms.

    What to look out for

    If you’re concerned about your own relationship with food or that of a loved one, here are some signs to look out for:

    • preoccupation with food and food preparation

    • cutting out food groups or skipping meals entirely

    • obsession with body weight or shape

    • large fluctuations in weight

    • compulsive exercise

    • mood changes and social withdrawal.

    It’s always best to seek help early. But it is never too late to seek help.

    In Australia, if you are experiencing difficulties in your relationships with food and your body, you can contact the Butterfly Foundation’s national helpline on 1800 33 4673 (or via their online chat).

    For parents concerned their child might be developing concerning relationships with food, weight and body image, Feed Your Instinct highlights common warning signs, provides useful information about help seeking and can generate a personalised report to take to a health professional.

    Gemma Sharp receives funding from an NHMRC Investigator Grant. She is a Professor and the Founding Director and Member of the Consortium for Research in Eating Disorders, a registered charity.

    – ref. What’s the difference between an eating disorder and disordered eating? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-an-eating-disorder-and-disordered-eating-256787

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Antoinette Lattouf’s unfair dismissal win shows ABC must be more courageous in defending its journalists

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

    Broadcast journalist Antoinette Lattouf was sacked by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for her political opinions concerning the war in Gaza, the Federal Court has found.

    Lattouf has been awarded $70,000 in damages for non-economic loss, based on findings that her sacking caused her what the judge called “great distress”.

    Justice Darryl Rangiah said this was obvious from her demeanour in the witness box. She had given evidence of feeling shock and humiliation at being sacked, and that this had affected her sleep and put strain on her personal relationships.

    However, the court found Lattouf’s race or ethnicity had played no part in the ABC’s decision to sack her, as she had claimed.

    The decision to sack her had been made by Chris Oliver-Taylor, who at the time was chief content officer of the ABC. His decision had been fortified by the views of the then managing director and editor-in-chief of the ABC, David Anderson, that Lattouf had expressed antisemitic opinions.

    The court found Oliver-Taylor was under pressure from many sources: the external complaints, Anderson’s view of the matter, and the wishes of the then chair Ita Buttrose to put an end to it.

    There was also a desire to appease the pro-Israel lobby, to defend the ABC’s reputation for impartiality, and to mitigate the impact of a story that he knew The Australian newspaper was about the publish on the issue.

    Oliver-Taylor has since resigned from the ABC.

    The case arose from events that occurred in December 2023.

    The ABC hired Lattouf, a journalist of Lebanese heritage, as a relief presenter on the mornings program of Sydney ABC Radio for one week leading up to Christmas. The mornings program consisted of light entertainment interspersed with hourly news bulletins. It did not otherwise offer news or current affairs content.

    Lattouf had worked for the ABC previously and was well-regarded inside the organisation. Her appointment was uncontroversial among those involved in making it, and she started work on Monday December 18.

    Before this stint began, Lattouf had made a series of personal social media posts accusing Israeli soldiers of using rape as a weapon of war. Then, early in the week she was on air, she posted on her personal social media profile a report by Human Rights Watch alleging Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza. A few days earlier, the ABC had also posted this report on its own website.

    Like the ABC, Lattouf posted it without comment.

    However, an orchestrated campaign by the Jewish lobby to have her taken off air had already begun, on the basis of what she had previously published on her private social media account, and Justice Rangiah observed that this had caused consternation among senior ABC management.

    This consternation turned to panic after the posting of the Human Rights Watch report, and the campaign intensified. A coordinated email campaign by a pro-Israel lobbying group called “Lawyers for Israel”, and another group called “J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics”, demanded Lattouf be sacked, threatening legal action if she was not.

    Messages from a WhatsApp group leaked to The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age showed that in this way, the campaigners put intense pressure on the ABC’s most senior officers at the time, Anderson and Buttrose.

    On December 20, Lattouf was told when she came off air she would not be required for the final two days of her engagement. The Fair Work Commission subsequently found this amounted to sacking her. She then sued the ABC in the Federal Court for unlawful termination, alleging she had been dismissed because of her race and political views.

    When the matter came before the Federal Court in February 2025, the ABC argued she had been dismissed not because of her race or political views but because she had disobeyed a lawful instruction not to post anything “controversial” on social media while working for the ABC.

    The ABC alleged her act of disobedience was the posting of the Human Rights Watch report. In the course of the proceedings, emails between Anderson and Buttrose were admitted into evidence. They showed Buttrose telling Anderson she was “over” getting these complaints about Lattouf, and asking “can’t she come down with flu or COVID or a stomach upset? We owe her nothing.”

    Giving evidence during the court hearing, Buttrose said she had proposed this as a face-saving device for Lattouf’s benefit.

    In making a formal determination that Lattouf had been terminated, Justice Rangiah dismissed the ABC’s argument that she had simply been told there would be no work for her on the final two days of her contracted period of employment.

    He also found Lattouf had not been instructed not to post on her social media account but had merely been told she would be ill-advised to publish anything “controversial” while on air.

    In dismissing Lattouf for her political opinions, the ABC breached section 772 of the Fair Work Act, and by depriving her of an opportunity to defend herself before dismissing her it also breached the ABC’s enterprise bargaining agreement.

    The question of whether the ABC should suffer a financial penalty for these breaches will be decided at a later date.

    It was evident throughout the proceedings that the ABC had been concerned not just to put an end to the complaints about Lattouf but to protect the organisation’s reputation for impartiality.

    In the event, the way the case was handled has done substantial damage to the ABC’s reputation, not just for impartiality but for its capacity to stand up for its journalists and presenters when they come under external attack.



    Read more:
    Antoinette Lattouf sacking shows how the ABC has been damaged by successive Coalition governments

    Lattouf is one of several journalists whom the ABC has failed to defend from attacks by politicians, pressure groups and News Corporation. The latter’s flagship newspaper, The Australian, has conducted virulent campaigns against ABC journalists, most notably Stan Grant, as well as Lattouf and others.

    The managerial consternation and panic observed by Justice Rangiah in Lattouf’s case were discernible also in the Grant case and in the way the ABC handled the controversy over star journalist Laura Tingle’s observation at a writer’s festival that Australia was a racist country.

    This is a cultural weakness in the ABC. Its editorial leadership seems not to understand that the first duty of an editor is to create a safe space in which their staff can do good journalism.

    It is a malaise that goes back at least as far as the 2018 debacle in which a former chair, Justin Milne, and former managing director, Michelle Guthrie, showed themselves susceptible to pressure from the Turnbull government.

    Both resigned within a few days of each other after a stream of sensational allegations leaked to the press about Milne allegedly calling on Guthrie to fire the chief economics correspondent, Emma Alberici, and the political editor, Andrew Probyn.

    Perhaps the Lattouf case will at last stiffen their sinews and make standing up for their journalists a primary qualification for editorial leadership.

    The Lattouf case also leaves unresolved the question of the extent to which a media organisation is entitled to place restrictions on a staff journalist’s private activities to protect its interests and reputation.

    Denis Muller 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. Antoinette Lattouf’s unfair dismissal win shows ABC must be more courageous in defending its journalists – https://theconversation.com/antoinette-lattoufs-unfair-dismissal-win-shows-abc-must-be-more-courageous-in-defending-its-journalists-259445

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Drone footage captured orcas crafting tools out of kelp – and using them for grooming

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Vanessa Pirotta, Postdoctoral Researcher and Wildlife Scientist, Macquarie University

    Sara Jenkins/500px/Getty

    The more we learn about orcas, the more remarkable they are. These giant dolphins are the ocean’s true apex predator, preying on great white sharks and other lesser predators.

    They’re very intelligent and highly social. Their clans are matrilineal, centred around a older matriarch who teaches her clan her own vocalisations. Not only this, but the species is one of only six known to experience menopause, pointing to the social importance of older females after their reproductive years. Different orca groups have fashion trends, such as one pod who returned to wearing salmon as a hat, decades after it went out of vogue.

    But for all their intelligence, one thing has been less clear. Can orcas actually make tools, as humans, chimps and other primates do? In research out today by United States and British researchers, we have an answer: yes.

    Using drones, researchers watched as resident pods in the Salish Sea broke off the ends of bull kelp stalks and rolled them between their bodies. This, the researchers say, is likely to be a grooming practice – the first tool-assisted grooming seen in marine animals.

    This video shows whales using kelp tools in what appears to be social grooming behaviour. Credit: Center for Whale Research.

    Self kelp: why would orcas make tools?

    Tool use and tool making have been well documented in land-based species. But it’s less common among marine species. This could be partly due to the challenge of observing them.

    This field of research expands what we know these animals are capable of. Not only are orcas spending time making kelp into a grooming tool, but they’re doing it socially – two orcas have to work together to rub the kelp against their bodies.

    To make the tool, the orcas use their teeth to grab a stalk of kelp by its “stipe” – the long, narrow part near the seaweed’s holdfast, where it tethers to the rock. They use their teeth, motion of their body and the drag of the kelp to break off a piece of this narrow stipe.

    Next, they approach a social partner, flip the length of the kelp onto their rostrum (their snout-like projection) and press their head and the kelp against their partner’s flank. The two orcas use their fins and flukes to trap the kelp while rolling it between their bodies. During this contact, the orcas would roll and twist their bodies – often in an exaggerated S-shaped posture. A similar posture has been seen among orcas in other groups, who adopt it when rubbing themselves on sand or pebbles.

    Why do it? The researchers suggest this practise may be social skin-maintenance. Bottlenose dolphin mothers are known to remove dead skin from their calves using flippers, while tool-assisted grooming of a partner has been seen in primates, but infrequently and usually in captivity.

    Orcas across different social groups, ages and genders were seen doing this. But they were more likely to groom close relatives or those of similar age. There was some evidence suggesting whales with skin conditions were more likely to do the kelp-based grooming.

    Humpback whales are known to wear kelp in a practice known as “kelping”. But this study covers a different behaviour, which the authors dub “allokelping” (kelping others).

    A surprise from well-studied pods

    Interestingly, this new discovery comes from some of the most well-studied and famous orcas in the world – a group known as the southern resident killer whales. If you were a child of the 90s, you would have seen them in the opening scene of Free Willy, the movie which set me on my path to study cetaceans.

    These orcas consist of three pods known as J, K and L pods. Each live in the Salish Sea in the Pacific Northwest on the border of Canada and the US.

    Researchers fly drones over these resident pods most days and have access to almost 50 years of observations. But this is the first time the tool-making behaviour has been seen.

    Unfortunately, these pods are critically endangered. They’re threatened by sound pollution from shipping, polluted water, vessel strike and loss of their main food source – Chinook salmon.

    A pod of killer whales off Vancouver, Canada.
    Vanessa Pirotta, CC BY-NC-ND

    Orcas are smart

    In one sense, the findings are not a surprise, given the intelligence of these animals.

    In the Antarctic, orcas catch seals by making waves to wash them off ice floes. Before European colonisation, orcas and First Nations groups near Eden hunted whales together.

    They can mimic human speech, while different groups have their own dialects. These animals are awe-inspiring – and sometimes baffling, as when a pod began biting or attacking boats off the Iberian peninsula.

    While orcas are often called “killer whales”, they’re not whales. They’re the biggest species of dolphin, growing up to nine metres long. They’re found across all the world’s oceans.

    Within the species, there’s a surprising amount of diversity. Scientists group orcas into different ecotypes – populations adapted to local conditions. Different orca groups can differ substantially, from size to prey to habits. For instance, transient orcas cover huge distances seeking larger prey, while resident orcas stick close to areas with lots of fish.

    Not just a fluke

    Because orcas differ so much, we don’t know whether other pods have discovered or taught these behaviours.

    But what this research does point to is that tool making may be more common among marine mammals than we expected. No hands – no problem.

    Vanessa Pirotta 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. Drone footage captured orcas crafting tools out of kelp – and using them for grooming – https://theconversation.com/drone-footage-captured-orcas-crafting-tools-out-of-kelp-and-using-them-for-grooming-259372

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Sharks freeze when you turn them upside down – and there’s no good reason why

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jodie L. Rummer, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook University

    Rachel Moore

    Imagine watching your favourite nature documentary. The predator lunges rapidly from its hiding place, jaws wide open, and the prey … suddenly goes limp. It looks dead.

    For some animals, this freeze response – called “tonic immobility” – can be a lifesaver. Possums famously “play dead” to avoid predators. So do rabbits, lizards, snakes, and even some insects.

    But what happens when a shark does it?

    In our recent study, we explored this strange behaviour in sharks, rays and their relatives. In this group, tonic immobility is triggered when the animal is turned upside down – it stops moving, its muscles relax, and it enters a trance-like state. Some scientists even use tonic immobility as a technique to safely handle certain shark species.

    But why does it happen? And does it actually help these marine predators survive?

    The mystery of the ‘frozen shark’

    Despite being well documented across the animal kingdom, the reasons behind tonic immobility remain murky – especially in the ocean. It is generally thought of as an anti-predator defence. But there is no evidence to support this idea in sharks, and alternative hypotheses exist.

    We tested 13 species of sharks, rays, and a chimaera — a shark relative commonly referred to as a ghost shark — to see whether they entered tonic immobility when gently turned upside down underwater.

    Seven species did, but six did not. We then analysed these findings using evolutionary tools to map the behaviour across hundreds of million years of shark family history.

    So, why do some sharks freeze?

    Tonic immobility is triggered in sharks when they are turned upside down.
    Rachel Moore

    Three main hypotheses

    There are three main hypotheses to explain tonic immobility in sharks:

    1. Anti-predator strategy – “playing dead” to avoid being eaten
    2. Reproductive role – some male sharks invert females during mating, so perhaps tonic immobility helps reduce struggle
    3. Sensory overload response – a kind of shutdown during extreme stimulation.

    Our results don’t support any of these explanations.

    There’s no strong evidence sharks benefit from freezing when attacked. In fact, modern predators such as orcas can use this response against sharks by flipping them over to immobilise them and then remove their nutrient-rich livers – a deadly exploit.

    The reproductive hypothesis also falls short. Tonic immobility doesn’t differ between sexes, and remaining immobile could make females vulnerable to harmful or forced mating events.

    And the sensory overload idea? Untested and unverified. So, we offer a simpler explanation. Tonic immobility in sharks is likely an evolutionary relic.

    A case of evolutionary baggage

    Our evolutionary analysis suggests tonic immobility is “plesiomorphic” – an ancestral trait that was likely present in ancient sharks, rays and chimaeras. But as species evolved, many lost the behaviour.

    In fact, we found that tonic immobility was lost independently at least five times across different groups. Which raises the question: why?

    In some environments, freezing might actually be a bad idea. Small reef sharks and bottom-dwelling rays often squeeze through tight crevices in complex coral habitats when feeding or resting. Going limp in such settings could get them stuck – or worse. That means losing this behaviour might have actually been advantageous in these lineages.

    So, what does this all mean?

    Rather than a clever survival tactic, tonic immobility might just be “evolutionary baggage” – a behaviour that once served a purpose, but now persists in some species simply because it doesn’t do enough harm to be selected against.

    It’s a good reminder that not every trait in nature is adaptive. Some are just historical quirks.

    Our work helps challenge long-held assumptions about shark behaviour, and sheds light on the hidden evolutionary stories still unfolding in the ocean’s depths. Next time you hear about a shark “playing dead”, remember – it might just be muscle memory from a very, very long time ago.

    Jodie L. Rummer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Coral Reef Society, as President.

    Joel Gayford receives funding from the Northcote Trust.

    – ref. Sharks freeze when you turn them upside down – and there’s no good reason why – https://theconversation.com/sharks-freeze-when-you-turn-them-upside-down-and-theres-no-good-reason-why-259448

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mohiuddin Ahmed, Senior Lecturer of Computing and Security, Edith Cowan University

    Dylan Carr/Unsplash

    In recent days, Iranians experienced a near-complete internet blackout, with local service providers – including mobile services – repeatedly going offline. Iran’s government has cited cyber security concerns for ordering the shutdown.

    Shutting off the internet within an entire country is a serious action. It severely limits people’s ability to freely communicate and to find reliable information during times of conflict.

    In countries that have privatised mobile and internet providers, control is often exercised through legislation or through government directives – such as age restrictions on adult content. By contrast, Iran has spent years developing the capacity to directly control its telecommunications infrastructure.

    So how can a country have broad control over internet access, and could this happen anywhere in the world?

    How does ‘blocking the internet’ work?

    The “internet” is a broad term. It covers many types of applications, services and, of course, the websites we’re familiar with.

    There’s a range of ways to control access to internet services, but broadly speaking, there are two “simple” methods a nation could use to block citizens’ internet access.

    Hardware

    A nation may opt to physically disconnect the incoming internet connectivity at the point of entry to the country (imagine pulling the plug on a telephone exchange).

    This allows for easy recovery of service when the government is ready, but the impact will be far-reaching. Nobody in the country, including the government itself, will be able to connect to the internet – unless the government has its own additional, covert connectivity to the rest of the world.



    Read more:
    Undersea cables are the unseen backbone of the global internet

    Software and configuration

    This is where it gets more technical. Every internet-connected endpoint – laptop, computer, mobile phone – has an IP (internet protocol) address. They’re strings of numbers; for example, 77.237.87.95 is an address assigned to one of the internet service providers in Iran.

    IP addresses identify the device on the public internet. However, since strings of numbers are not easy to remember, humans use domain names to connect to services – theconversation.com is an example of a domain name.

    That connection between the IP address and the domain is controlled by the domain name system or DNS. It’s possible for a government to control access to key internet services by modifying the DNS – this manipulates the connection between domain names and their underlying numeric addresses.

    An additional way to control the internet involves manipulating the traffic flow. IP addresses allow devices to send and receive data across networks controlled by internet service providers. In turn, they rely on the border gateway protocol (BGP) – think of it like a series of traffic signs which direct internet traffic flow, allowing data to move around the world.

    Governments could force local internet service providers to remove their BGP routes from the internet. As a result, the devices they service wouldn’t be able to connect to the internet. In the same manner, the rest of the world would no longer be able to “see” into the country.



    Read more:
    Internet shutdowns: here’s how governments do it

    How common is this?

    In dozens of countries around the world, the internet is either routinely controlled or has been shut down in response to major incidents.

    A recent example is a wide-scale internet blackout in Bangladesh in July 2024 during student-led protests against government job quotas.

    In 2023, Senegal limited internet access to handle violent protests that erupted over the sentencing of a political leader. In 2020, India imposed a lengthy internet blackout on the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir. In 2011, the Egyptian government withdrew BGP routes to address civil unrest.

    These events clearly show that if a government anywhere in the world wants to turn off the internet, it really can. The democratic state of the country is the most significant influence on the willingness to undertake such action – not the technical capability.

    However, in today’s world, being disconnected from the internet will heavily impact people’s lives, jobs and the economy. It’s not an action to be taken lightly.

    How can people evade internet controls?

    Virtual private networks or VPNs have long been used to hide communications in countries with strict internet controls, and continue to be an effective internet access method for many people. (However, there are indications Iran has clamped down on VPN use in recent times.)

    However, VPNs won’t help when the internet is physically disconnected. Depending on configuration, if BGP routes are blocked, this may also prevent any VPN traffic from reaching the target.

    This is where independent satellite internet services open up the most reliable alternative. Satellite internet is great for remote and rural areas where traditional internet service providers have yet to establish their cabling infrastructure – or can’t do so.

    Even if traditional wired or wireless internet connections are unavailable, services such as Starlink, Viasat, Hughesnet and others can provide internet access through satellites orbiting Earth.

    To use satellite internet, users rely on antenna kits supplied by providers. In Iran, Elon Musk’s Starlink was activated during the blackout, and independent reports suggest there are thousands of Starlink receivers secretly operating in the country.

    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. Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet? – https://theconversation.com/irans-internet-blackout-left-people-in-the-dark-how-does-a-country-shut-down-the-internet-259546

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hauntingly familiar? Why comparing the US strikes on Iran to Iraq in 2003 is off target

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Benjamin Isakhan, Professor of International Politics, Deakin University

    On June 21, the United States launched airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities – Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan – pounding deeply buried centrifuge sites with bunker-busting bombs.

    Conducted jointly with Israel, the operation took place without formal congressional authorisation, drawing sharp criticism from lawmakers that it was unconstitutional and “unlawful”.



    Read more:
    Why the US strikes on Iran are illegal and can set a troubling precedent

    Much of the political debate has centred on whether the US is being pulled into “another Middle East war”.

    The New York Times’ Nick Kristof weighed in on the uncertainties following the US’ surprise bombing of Iran and Tehran’s retaliation.

    Even US Vice President JD Vance understood the unease, stating:

    People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.

    These reactions have revived comparisons with George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq: a Republican president launching military action on the basis of flimsy weapons of mass destruction (WMD) evidence.

    Hauntingly familiar?

    While the surface similarity is tempting, the comparison may in fact obscure more about President Donald Trump than it reveals.

    Comparisons to the Iraq War

    In 2003, Bush ordered a full-scale invasion of Iraq based on flawed intelligence, claiming Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. And while the war was extremely unpopular across the world, it did have bipartisan congressional support.

    The invasion toppled Iraq’s regime in just a few weeks.

    What followed was a brutal conflict and almost a decade of US occupation. The war triggered the rise of militant jihadism and a horrific sectarian conflict that reverberates today.

    So far, Trump’s one-off strikes on Iran bear little resemblance to the 2003 Iraq intervention.

    These were precision strikes within the context of a broader Iran-Israel war, designed to target Iran’s nuclear program.

    And, so far, there appears to be little appetite for a full-scale military invasion or “boots on the ground”, and regime change seems unlikely despite some rumblings from both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Yet the comparison to Iraq persists, especially among audiences suspicious of repeated US military interventions in the Middle East. But poorly considered analogies carry costs.

    For one, the Iraq comparison sheds little light on Trump’s foreign policy.



    Read more:
    The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next

    Trump’s foreign policy

    To better understand the recent strikes on Iran, we need to look at Trump’s broader foreign policy.

    Much has been made of his “America first” mantra, a complex mix of prioritising domestic interests, questioning international agreements, and challenging traditional alliances.

    Others, including Trump himself, have often touted his “no war” approach, pointing to large-scale military withdrawals from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq,and the fact he had not started a new war.

    But beyond this, Trump has increased US military spending and frequently used his office to conduct targeted strikes on adversaries – especially across the Middle East.

    For example, in 2017 and 2018, Trump ordered airstrikes on a Syrian airbase and chemical weapons facilities. In both instances, he bypassed Congress and used precision air power to target weapons infrastructure without pursuing regime change.

    Also, from 2017 to 2021, Trump authorised US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, enabling airstrikes that targeted militant cells but also led to mass civilian casualties.

    Trump’s policy was the subject of intense bipartisan opposition, culminating in the first successful congressional invocation of the War Powers Resolution – though it was ultimately vetoed by Trump.

    And in 2020, Trump launched a sequence of attacks on Iranian assets in Iraq. This included a drone strike that killed senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani.

    Again, these attacks were conducted without congressional support. The decision triggered intense bipartisan backlash and concerns about escalation without oversight.

    While such attacks are not without precedent – think back to former US President Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya or Joe Biden’s targeting of terrorist assets – the scale and veracity of Trump’s attacks on the Middle East are much more useful as a framework to understanding the recent attacks on Iran than any reference to the 2003 Iraq war.

    What this reveals about Trump

    It is crucial to scrutinise any use of force. But while comparing the 2025 Iran strikes to Iraq in 2003 may be rhetorically powerful, it is analytically weak.

    A better path is to situate these events within Trump’s broader political style.

    He acts unilaterally and with near-complete impunity, disregarding traditional constraints and operating outside established norms and oversight.

    This is just as true for attacks on foreign adversaries as it is for the domestic policy arena.

    For example, Trump recently empowered agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to operate with sweeping discretion in immigration enforcement, bypassing legal and judicial oversight.

    Trump also uses policy as spectacle, designed to send shockwaves through the domestic or foreign arenas and project dominance to both friend and foe.

    In this way, Trump’s dramatic attacks on Iran have some parallels to his unilateral imposition of tariffs on international trade. Both are abrupt, disruptive and framed as a demonstration of strength rather than a way to create a mutually beneficial solution.

    Finally, Trump is more than willing to use force as an instrument of power rather than as a last resort. This is just as true for Iran as it is for the US people.

    The recent deployment of US Marines to quell protests in Los Angeles reveals a similar impulse: military intervention as a first instinct in the absence of a broader strategy to foster peace.

    To truly understand and respond to Trump’s Iran strikes, we need to move beyond sensationalist analogies and recognise a more dangerous reality. This is not the start of another Iraq; it’s the continuation of a presidency defined by impulsive power, unchecked force and a growing disdain for democratic constraint.

    Benjamin Isakhan receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Defence. The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of Government policy.

    – ref. Hauntingly familiar? Why comparing the US strikes on Iran to Iraq in 2003 is off target – https://theconversation.com/hauntingly-familiar-why-comparing-the-us-strikes-on-iran-to-iraq-in-2003-is-off-target-259668

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    Amir Levy/Getty Images

    After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades.

    Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach.

    If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict.

    As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains.

    What did each side gain?

    The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself.

    This was made possible largely due to Israel’s success over the past two years in weakening Iran’s regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria.

    Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high.

    Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran’s primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact.

    Additionally, Israel has not fully eliminated Iran’s missile program. (Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire.) And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump’s pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment.

    Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel’s attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel.

    While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries.

    Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities.

    Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues.

    As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy’s will and capacity to resist.

    While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium.

    Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity.

    Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program

    Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability.

    That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.)

    Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%.

    Trump declared Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “totally obliterated”, whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran’s facilities was “very significant”.

    However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame.

    And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program appear slimmer than ever.

    What might future deterrence look like?

    The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward.

    For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran’s leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia.

    As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially.

    At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters.

    Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.

    In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary.

    Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning.

    Ali Mamouri 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. Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking – https://theconversation.com/will-the-fragile-ceasefire-between-iran-and-israel-hold-one-factor-could-be-crucial-to-it-sticking-259669

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The war won’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it will drive it underground, following North Korea’s model

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anthony Burke, Professor of Environmental Politics & International Relations, UNSW Sydney

    The United States’ and Israel’s strikes on Iran are concerning, and not just for the questionable legal justifications provided by both governments.

    Even if their attacks cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities, this will only harden Iran’s resolve to acquire a bomb.

    And if Iran follows through on its threat to pull out of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), this will gravely damage the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

    In a decade of international security crises, this could be the most serious. Is there still time to prevent this from happening?

    A successful but vulnerable treaty

    In May 2015, I attended the five-yearly review conference of the NPT. Delegates debated a draft outcome for weeks, and then, not for the first time, went home with nothing. Delegates from the US, United Kingdom and Canada blocked the final outcome to prevent words being added that would call for Israel to attend a disarmament conference.

    Russia did the same in 2022 in protest at language on its illegal occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine.

    Now, in the latest challenge to the NPT, Israel and the US have bombed Iran’s nuclear complexes to ostensibly enforce a treaty neither one respects.

    When the treaty was adopted in 1968, it allowed the five nuclear-armed states at the time – the US, Soviet Union, France, UK and China – to join if they committed not to pass weapons or material to other states, and to disarm themselves.

    All other members had to pledge never to acquire nuclear weapons. Newer nuclear powers were not permitted to join unless they gave up their weapons.

    Israel declined to join, as it had developed its own undeclared nuclear arsenal by the late 1960s. India, Pakistan and South Sudan have also never signed; North Korea was a member but withdrew in 2003. Only South Sudan does not have nuclear weapons today.

    To make the obligations enforceable and strengthen safeguards against the diversion of nuclear material to non-nuclear weapons states, members were later required to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol. This gave the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wide powers to inspect a state’s nuclear facilities and detect violations.

    It was the IAEA that first blew the whistle on Iran’s concerning uranium enrichment activity in 2003. Just before Israel’s attacks this month, the organisation also reported Iran was in breach of its obligations under the NPT for the first time in two decades.

    The NPT is arguably the world’s most universal, important and successful security treaty, but it is also paradoxically vulnerable.

    The treaty’s underlying consensus has been damaged by the failure of the five nuclear-weapon states to disarm as required, and by the failure to prevent North Korea from developing a now formidable nuclear arsenal.

    North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003, tested a weapon in 2006, and now may have up to 50 warheads.

    Iran could be next.

    How things can deteriorate from here

    Iran argues Israel’s attacks have undermined the credibility of the IAEA, given Israel used the IAEA’s new report on Iran as a pretext for its strikes, taking the matter out of the hands of the UN Security Council.

    For its part, the IAEA has maintained a principled position and criticised both the US and Israeli strikes.

    Iran has retaliated with its own missile strikes against both Israel and a US base in Qatar. In addition, it wasted no time announcing it would withdraw from the NPT.

    On June 23, an Iranian parliament committee also approved a bill that would fully suspend Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, including allowing inspections and submitting reports to the organisation.

    Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, said the US strikes:

    […] delivered a fundamental and irreparable blow to the international non-proliferation regime conclusively demonstrating that the existing NPT framework has been rendered ineffective.

    Even if Israel and the US consider their bombing campaign successful, it has almost certainly renewed the Iranians’ resolve to build a weapon. The strikes may only delay an Iranian bomb by a few years.

    Iran will have two paths to do so. The slower path would be to reconstitute its enrichment activity and obtain nuclear implosion designs, which create extremely devastating weapons, from Russia or North Korea.

    Alternatively, Russia could send Iran some of its weapons. This should be a real concern given Moscow’s cascade of withdrawals from critical arms control agreements over the last decade.

    An Iranian bomb could then trigger NPT withdrawals by other regional states, especially Saudi Arabia, who suddenly face a new threat to their security.

    Why Iran might now pursue a bomb

    Iran’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria’s Assad regime certainly shows it is a dangerous international actor. Iranian leaders have also long used alarming rhetoric about Israel’s destruction.

    However repugnant the words, Israeli and US conservatives have misjudged Iran’s motives in seeking nuclear weapons.

    Israel fears an Iranian bomb would be an existential threat to its survival, given Iran’s promises to destroy it. But this neglects the fact that Israel already possesses a potent (if undeclared) nuclear deterrent capability.

    Israeli anxieties about an Iranian bomb should not be dismissed. But other analysts (myself included) see Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons capability more as a way to establish deterrence to prevent future military attacks from Israel and the US to protect their regime.

    Iranians were shaken by Iraq’s invasion in 1980 and then again by the US-led removal of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. This war with Israel and the US will shake them even more.

    Last week, I felt that if the Israeli bombing ceased, a new diplomatic effort to bring Iran into compliance with the IAEA and persuade it to abandon its program might have a chance.

    However, the US strikes may have buried that possibility for decades. And by then, the damage to the nonproliferation regime could be irreversible.

    Anthony Burke received funding from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council for a project on global nuclear governance (2014–17).

    – ref. The war won’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it will drive it underground, following North Korea’s model – https://theconversation.com/the-war-wont-end-irans-nuclear-program-it-will-drive-it-underground-following-north-koreas-model-259281

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How old are you really? Are the latest ‘biological age’ tests all they’re cracked up to be?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

    We all like to imagine we’re ageing well. Now a simple blood or saliva test promises to tell us by measuring our “biological age”. And then, as many have done, we can share how “young” we really are on social media, along with our secrets to success.

    While chronological age is how long you have been alive, measures of biological age aim to indicate how old your body actually is, purporting to measure “wear and tear” at a molecular level.

    The appeal of these tests is undeniable. Health-conscious consumers may see their results as reinforcing their anti-ageing efforts, or a way to show their journey to better health is paying off.

    But how good are these tests? Do they actually offer useful insights? Or are they just clever marketing dressed up to look like science?

    How do these tests work?

    Over time, the chemical processes that allow our body to function, known as our “metabolic activity”, lead to damage and a decline in the activity of our cells, tissues and organs.

    Biological age tests aim to capture some of these changes, offering a snapshot of how well, or how poorly, we are ageing on a cellular level.

    Our DNA is also affected by the ageing process. In particular, chemical tags (methyl groups) attach to our DNA and affect gene expression. These changes occur in predictable ways with age and environmental exposures, in a process called methylation.

    Research studies have used “epigenetic clocks”, which measure the methylation of our genes, to estimate biological age. By analysing methylation levels at specific sites in the genome from participant samples, researchers apply predictive models to estimate the cumulative wear and tear on the body.

    What does the research say about their use?

    Although the science is rapidly evolving, the evidence underpinning the use of epigenetic clocks to measure biological ageing in research studies is strong.

    Studies have shown epigenetic biological age estimation is a better predictor of the risk of death and ageing-related diseases than chronological age.

    Epigenetic clocks also have been found to correlate strongly with lifestyle and environmental exposures, such as smoking status and diet quality.

    In addition, they have been found to be able to predict the risk of conditions such as cardiovascular disease, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

    Taken together, a growing body of research indicates that at a population level, epigenetic clocks are robust measures of biological ageing and are strongly linked to the risk of disease and death

    But how good are these tests for individuals?

    While these tests are valuable when studying populations in research settings, using epigenetic clocks to measure the biological age of individuals is a different matter and requires scrutiny.

    For testing at an individual level, perhaps the most important consideration is the “signal to noise ratio” (or precision) of these tests. This is the question of whether a single sample from an individual may yield widely differing results.

    A study from 2022 found samples deviated by up to nine years. So an identical sample from a 40-year-old may indicate a biological age of as low as 35 years (a cause for celebration) or as high as 44 years (a cause of anxiety).

    While there have been significant improvements in these tests over the years, there is considerable variability in the precision of these tests between commercial providers. So depending on who you send your sample to, your estimated biological age may vary considerably.

    Another limitation is there is currently no standardisation of methods for this testing. Commercial providers perform these tests in different ways and have different algorithms for estimating biological age from the data.

    As you would expect for commercial operators, providers don’t disclose their methods. So it’s difficult to compare companies and determine who provides the most accurate results – and what you’re getting for your money.

    A third limitation is that while epigenetic clocks correlate well with ageing, they are simply a “proxy” and are not a diagnostic tool.

    In other words, they may provide a general indication of ageing at a cellular level. But they don’t offer any specific insights about what the issue may be if someone is found to be “ageing faster” than they would like, or what they’re doing right if they are “ageing well”.

    So regardless of the result of your test, all you’re likely to get from the commercial provider of an epigenetic test is generic advice about what the science says is healthy behaviour.

    Are they worth it? Or what should I do instead?

    While companies offering these tests may have good intentions, remember their ultimate goal is to sell you these tests and make a profit. And at a cost of around A$500, they’re not cheap.

    While the idea of using these tests as a personalised health tool has potential, it is clear that we are not there yet.

    For this to become a reality, tests will need to become more reproducible, standardised across providers, and validated through long-term studies that link changes in biological age to specific behaviours.

    So while one-off tests of biological age make for impressive social media posts, for most people they represent a significant cost and offer limited real value.

    The good news is we already know what we need to do to increase our chances of living longer and healthier lives. These include:

    • improving our diet
    • increasing physical activity
    • getting enough sleep
    • quitting smoking
    • reducing stress
    • prioritising social connection.

    We don’t need to know our biological age in order to implement changes in our lives right now to improve our health.

    Hassan Vally 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. How old are you really? Are the latest ‘biological age’ tests all they’re cracked up to be? – https://theconversation.com/how-old-are-you-really-are-the-latest-biological-age-tests-all-theyre-cracked-up-to-be-257710

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –