NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis Assessment

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The Shrouds: new Cronenberg film is an elusive meditation on death, grief and environmental ethics

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura O’Flanagan, PhD Candidate, School of English, Dublin City University

    American filmmaker David Cronenberg is a leading figure in body horror, a film genre that explores disturbing and often grotesque aspects of the human body. Films such as The Fly (1986), eXistenZ (1999) and Crimes of the Future (2022) depict scenes of physical mutilation, illness and technological invasion to represent deeper fears about identity, society and the human condition.

    Through intense bodily imagery, Cronenberg’s films raise powerful questions about human relationships with technology and nature. As our relationship with technology rapidly evolves alongside escalating environmental catastrophe, there is a timely significance in these ideas.

    His latest film, The Shrouds, evokes the writing of Stacy Alaimo, a scholar known for her work exploring the connections between the human body, the environment, and the social forces that shape both. Alaimo’s work combines feminist and materialist ideas and examines how our bodies are physically connected to the world around us – not separate from nature or society, but shaped by both ecological systems and social structures.

    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.

    Like Cronenberg, Alaimo is interested in the entanglement of human flesh with more-than-human worlds, alongside the interplay between bodies and objects.

    In The Shrouds, the body, specifically that of Becca (Diane Kruger) is placed firmly at the centre of the story. Appearing both as a decaying corpse and naked in dream sequences, her body bears fresh surgical scars which are unbandaged and exposed.

    Becca’s body is shown as intensely vulnerable, a gendered depiction of femaleness which is controlled literally by the male gaze through the “shroud”, a piece of sci-fi wearable tech. It comprises a suit of MRI and X-ray cameras which encases a corpse, allowing decomposition to be monitored through a live video link with an app.

    This conceit embeds Becca both in the Earth and in technology, creating deeply memorable imagery which challenges viewers to think about death, grief and the environmental ethics surrounding human burial.

    The presentation of Becca’s body evokes Alaimo’s concept of transcorporeality. In her 2010 book Bodily Natures, Alaimo describes transcorporeality as the idea that “the human is ultimately inseparable from ‘the environment’” – continually transformed through interactions with the landscape, chemicals, technology and non-human forces. Becca’s corpse, decaying in real-time on a live link, highlights this connection.

    Grief: the fictional and the personal

    The film opens with Karsh (Vincent Kassel), Becca’s bereaved husband, in a dentist’s chair being told, “Grief is rotting your teeth”. The film as a whole can be read as a meditation on how grief seeps into and changes the body.

    Written following the death of David Cronenberg’s wife (and initially conceived of as a Netflix series), Cronenberg has rejected the idea that it is fully autobiographical. It is, however, difficult to fully separate the director from the story.

    Cassel as Karsh physically resembles Cronenberg in the film, blurring the boundary between fiction and the personal. Physical duplication is a disorienting motif of the film. Kruger reappears as Becca’s sister Terri and as an animated AI assistant named Honey.

    Alongside the grotesque images of her decaying body, these versions of Kruger are especially striking. Cassel’s performance as the controlling and obsessive Karsh is nuanced and understated. His desire to monitor Becca’s decomposition is presented as a logical step to regain possession of her from her illness, and is deeply disturbing.

    It also has ominous and timely resonance in our modern world, where controversial technology exists that permits artificial intelligence to create avatars of the dead to comfort the bereaved.

    The film becomes a mimetic piece on grief, where boundaries between imagination and reality dissolve. Cronenberg’s frequent collaborator Howard Shore provides an ambient score that reinforces this dissolution. Ethereal and bass-rich, it features spacious, slowly evolving melodies wrapped in velvety synth textures which evoke a dream-like soundscape.

    As the plot progresses into a tangle of conspiracy theories, lines blur between Karsh’s dreams and reality. Background plots drift unresolved, characters are vaguely sketched. Themes of environmental activism versus capitalist enterprise, the exploitation of technology, illegal surveillance and government corruption are all threaded through the story, but none are fully realised. This is not a film which offers a straightforward narrative or closure. Like grief, it remains raw, fluid and difficult to contain.

    Throughout, the film returns to Becca’s decaying body, encased in a shroud that is described as both toxic and radioactive, an object of controversy for eco-activists. “She’s dead, remember, she can’t do anything,” Karsh’s companion reminds him.

    But this is not true for Becca. In death, her body is watched and consumed by systems of surveillance and ecological anxiety. Symbolising Alaimo’s concept of transcorporeality, Becca’s decaying corpse, wrapped in technology, but buried in the Earth, is deeply connected to the environment and cannot be separated from it. Her body is influenced by both its natural surroundings and social factors such as the shroud’s technology, outside interference and Karsh’s control.

    Karsh asserts that burial is a complex matter, converging politics, religion and economics. The Shrouds raises questions that touch on all of these, but provides no tangible answers. Some viewers will be frustrated by the film’s lack of logical structure and resolution. But it is also fair to say that this is how it mirrors the pathways of grief itself: unwieldy, unpredictable and consuming.

    Laura O’Flanagan 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 Shrouds: new Cronenberg film is an elusive meditation on death, grief and environmental ethics – https://theconversation.com/the-shrouds-new-cronenberg-film-is-an-elusive-meditation-on-death-grief-and-environmental-ethics-260009

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Norman Tebbit, Conservative minister known as Thatcher’s enforcer, dies at 94

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

    No man more embodied Thatcherism in the eyes of the public in the 1980s than Norman Tebbit, who died on July 7, aged 94.

    Though certainly no yuppie, Lord Tebbit entitled his memoirs Upwardly Mobile. Margaret’s Thatcher’s triumph was also his. She saw in the Essex MP just the uncompromising approach to transforming Britain to which she too was committed.

    Both had been disgusted by the Conservative government of Edward Heath blinking when it sought to face down trade unions in the early 1970s. The experience was elemental to their plan for government.

    Others were more important to the New Right/neoliberal project elected in 1979: Conservative minister Keith Joseph, and Thatcher’s two chancellors, Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson.

    But Tebbit provided something no one else in Thatcher’s cabinet could: an innate connection with white, working-class voters, who may once have been Labour – Tebbit lauded Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin – but whose values were held to have been washed away in the postwar tide of union militancy, social permissiveness, European integration, and mass immigration.

    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.

    He became a Conservative almost because, rather than in spite, of his background. “Essex man” was a presiding personification of the period.

    Unlike almost all of Thatcher’s ministers, Tebbit did not go to university, but left school at 16 to encounter the “closed shop”: that one had to be a member of a particular union to work in a particular workplace. He became determined at that moment to end this practice, and with it so much else of postwar social democracy.

    Thirty years later he did, as Thatcher’s secretary of state for employment. Tebbit’s 1982 Employment Act avenged the unions’ defeat of Heath. Union rights were weakened, never to be restored, and those of employers emboldened. It was a significant contribution to Thatcherism’s ledger.

    As secretary of state for trade and industry, Tebbit pursued privatisation – the return (as its proponents, simply, put it) of nationalised industries to the private sector – with passion. The postwar settlement in Britain was being upended.

    Public image

    In an age before the televising of parliament (much less 24-hour news and social media), Tebbit cut through in a way few politicians did.

    At at a time of inner-city violence, the public knew Tebbit’s unemployed father, decades earlier, didn’t riot but “got on his bike and looked for work”. No one else could have been called – in the words of Labour’s Michael Foot – a “semi-house-trained polecat”. TV’s puppet satire Spitting Image portrayed him as the “Chingford Strangler”, dressed in biker leathers.

    Tebbit felt no need for his contempt for socialism to be leavened by charm or humour. There was invariably a slight sense of menace. He had no interest in ingratiating or propitiating. And so he was as loved by Conservative party members as he was hated by the left. He welcomed their hatred.

    Tebbit in particular despised the swinging 60s – fittingly, he entered parliament in the election in which Harold Wilson’s government was unexpectedly ejected – and its legacy of “insufferable, smug, sanctimonious, naive, guilt-ridden, wet, pink orthodoxy”. Thus his trenchancy on immigration, overseas aid (a “sink of iniquity, corruption and violence”), sexuality (he was one of the few still to use the word “sodomite”) and Europe (he was a Eurosceptic before Euroscepticism).

    In 1990 Tebbit asked of British-born people of Asian heritage: “Which side do they cheer for? Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?”. Tebbit’s “cricket test” is second only to Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech in the annals of inflammatory – they and their supporters would say candid – rhetoric relating to immigration. Neither would mind the association.



    Read more:
    Tory humiliation down to campaign length and cult of May – Norman Tebbit Q&A

    What silenced most – if not quite all – of his critics, was Tebbit at his most vulnerable. Following the IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel Brighton in 1984, live television footage of him, only partially clad in his pyjamas, covered in dust, being stretchered out of the rubble, became the defining image of the atrocity.

    The following year Thatcher moved him from trade and industry to, less happily, chairman of the Conservative party. It was a job that required a lighter touch than Tebbit’s.

    Nevertheless, as chairman, he delivered the Conservatives’ third election victory, of 1987 – ensuring the permanence of the transformation – only to immediately retire to the backbenches. Margaret, his wife, had been paralysed by the bomb, and he devoted himself to her care for more than 30 years until her death.

    As warranted as his departure from government may have been, Thatcher “bitterly regretted” losing him, a feeling she felt for few. Her defenestration in November 1990 is much harder to imagine had Tebbit still been in the cabinet.

    Norman Tebbit’s conservatism and nationalism harked back to an earlier age, yet presaged the populism of the 2020s. In his remarks following the news of Tebbit’s death, Nigel Farage said he thought him “a great man”.

    Tebbit’s values endure in public discourse, in more ways than he might have expected even a few years ago. But in his last months he was either unable, or unwilling, to say whether those values were those of the Conservatives, the traditional party of the right, or of another project. That may be a final Tebbit “test”.

    Martin Farr 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. Norman Tebbit, Conservative minister known as Thatcher’s enforcer, dies at 94 – https://theconversation.com/norman-tebbit-conservative-minister-known-as-thatchers-enforcer-dies-at-94-260716

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Norman Tebbit, Conservative minister known as Thatcher’s enforcer, dies at 94

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

    No man more embodied Thatcherism in the eyes of the public in the 1980s than Norman Tebbit, who died on July 7, aged 94.

    Though certainly no yuppie, Lord Tebbit entitled his memoirs Upwardly Mobile. Margaret’s Thatcher’s triumph was also his. She saw in the Essex MP just the uncompromising approach to transforming Britain to which she too was committed.

    Both had been disgusted by the Conservative government of Edward Heath blinking when it sought to face down trade unions in the early 1970s. The experience was elemental to their plan for government.

    Others were more important to the New Right/neoliberal project elected in 1979: Conservative minister Keith Joseph, and Thatcher’s two chancellors, Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson.

    But Tebbit provided something no one else in Thatcher’s cabinet could: an innate connection with white, working-class voters, who may once have been Labour – Tebbit lauded Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin – but whose values were held to have been washed away in the postwar tide of union militancy, social permissiveness, European integration, and mass immigration.

    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.

    He became a Conservative almost because, rather than in spite, of his background. “Essex man” was a presiding personification of the period.

    Unlike almost all of Thatcher’s ministers, Tebbit did not go to university, but left school at 16 to encounter the “closed shop”: that one had to be a member of a particular union to work in a particular workplace. He became determined at that moment to end this practice, and with it so much else of postwar social democracy.

    Thirty years later he did, as Thatcher’s secretary of state for employment. Tebbit’s 1982 Employment Act avenged the unions’ defeat of Heath. Union rights were weakened, never to be restored, and those of employers emboldened. It was a significant contribution to Thatcherism’s ledger.

    As secretary of state for trade and industry, Tebbit pursued privatisation – the return (as its proponents, simply, put it) of nationalised industries to the private sector – with passion. The postwar settlement in Britain was being upended.

    Public image

    In an age before the televising of parliament (much less 24-hour news and social media), Tebbit cut through in a way few politicians did.

    At at a time of inner-city violence, the public knew Tebbit’s unemployed father, decades earlier, didn’t riot but “got on his bike and looked for work”. No one else could have been called – in the words of Labour’s Michael Foot – a “semi-house-trained polecat”. TV’s puppet satire Spitting Image portrayed him as the “Chingford Strangler”, dressed in biker leathers.

    Tebbit felt no need for his contempt for socialism to be leavened by charm or humour. There was invariably a slight sense of menace. He had no interest in ingratiating or propitiating. And so he was as loved by Conservative party members as he was hated by the left. He welcomed their hatred.

    Tebbit in particular despised the swinging 60s – fittingly, he entered parliament in the election in which Harold Wilson’s government was unexpectedly ejected – and its legacy of “insufferable, smug, sanctimonious, naive, guilt-ridden, wet, pink orthodoxy”. Thus his trenchancy on immigration, overseas aid (a “sink of iniquity, corruption and violence”), sexuality (he was one of the few still to use the word “sodomite”) and Europe (he was a Eurosceptic before Euroscepticism).

    In 1990 Tebbit asked of British-born people of Asian heritage: “Which side do they cheer for? Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?”. Tebbit’s “cricket test” is second only to Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech in the annals of inflammatory – they and their supporters would say candid – rhetoric relating to immigration. Neither would mind the association.



    Read more:
    Tory humiliation down to campaign length and cult of May – Norman Tebbit Q&A

    What silenced most – if not quite all – of his critics, was Tebbit at his most vulnerable. Following the IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel Brighton in 1984, live television footage of him, only partially clad in his pyjamas, covered in dust, being stretchered out of the rubble, became the defining image of the atrocity.

    The following year Thatcher moved him from trade and industry to, less happily, chairman of the Conservative party. It was a job that required a lighter touch than Tebbit’s.

    Nevertheless, as chairman, he delivered the Conservatives’ third election victory, of 1987 – ensuring the permanence of the transformation – only to immediately retire to the backbenches. Margaret, his wife, had been paralysed by the bomb, and he devoted himself to her care for more than 30 years until her death.

    As warranted as his departure from government may have been, Thatcher “bitterly regretted” losing him, a feeling she felt for few. Her defenestration in November 1990 is much harder to imagine had Tebbit still been in the cabinet.

    Norman Tebbit’s conservatism and nationalism harked back to an earlier age, yet presaged the populism of the 2020s. In his remarks following the news of Tebbit’s death, Nigel Farage said he thought him “a great man”.

    Tebbit’s values endure in public discourse, in more ways than he might have expected even a few years ago. But in his last months he was either unable, or unwilling, to say whether those values were those of the Conservatives, the traditional party of the right, or of another project. That may be a final Tebbit “test”.

    Martin Farr 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. Norman Tebbit, Conservative minister known as Thatcher’s enforcer, dies at 94 – https://theconversation.com/norman-tebbit-conservative-minister-known-as-thatchers-enforcer-dies-at-94-260716

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why many kidney patients are still choosing hospital dialysis – and how the NHS can help more people access care at home

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leah McLaughlin, Research Fellow in Health Services, Bangor University

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Every week, thousands of people with kidney disease in the UK spend long hours in hospital receiving life-saving dialysis. For many, this means travelling to a kidney unit three times a week and sitting through sessions that last four hours or more. It’s a huge commitment that affects people’s ability to work, travel and maintain a normal social life.

    But for many with kidney failure, there’s another option: dialysis at home. It’s more flexible, often less disruptive and, in the long run, more cost-effective for the NHS. So why do most people still choose hospital dialysis?

    A parliamentary summit in May reflected on how to make dialysis more accessible to patients at home. My colleagues and I published research on this topic in 2019. Working in partnership with people who have kidney disease, their families, NHS staff, dialysis providers and kidney charities, we explored the barriers to home dialysis, and how to overcome them.

    People with kidney failure need either a transplant or regular dialysis to filter waste from their blood. Despite NHS guidance that at least 20% of people on dialysis should be supported to have this treatment at home, this target isn’t being met in many parts of the UK.

    A kidney dialysis machine.
    ali.can0707/Shutterstock

    Our research team, which included people who had experienced dialysis, held discussions with 50 people from across Wales. Many told us that hospital dialysis was presented by healthcare staff as the default option. For those who had not yet come to terms with needing dialysis, or who had delayed planning due to the unpredictable nature of kidney disease, hospital treatment felt like the path of least resistance.

    Some were concerned about the disruption home dialysis might bring. This included changes to their living space or worries that partners or family members might become their carers. Others valued the routine and regular social contact of hospital dialysis.

    Healthcare professionals may unintentionally reinforce this choice. Some feel more comfortable monitoring patients in clinical settings or are unsure about how to support home dialysis effectively. In some cases, home dialysis isn’t an option because local services don’t have the infrastructure to support it.

    Rather than simply identifying problems, we worked together to develop practical solutions. In 2021, working with patients, healthcare professionals, charities, commissioners and industry, we devised a new service plan that outlines how kidney services could be redesigned to support more people to choose home dialysis.

    One important finding was the power of talking to others already doing it. It’s not just about practical advice, but reassurance that it can work.

    We also identified the need for better training for both professionals and patients. People told us they wanted to understand their options earlier, ideally a year before dialysis starts. That means tackling difficult topics, such as advance care planning, sooner and with the right support.

    Social care also has an important role to play. People with complex needs – like living alone, having mobility challenges, or experiencing financial hardship – may need home support, welfare advice or help navigating the system.

    The cost of choice

    In a linked study, published in 2022, we analysed the costs of different dialysis options. Home dialysis was found to cost between £16,000 and £23,000 per person per year.

    Hospital dialysis costs more, between £20,000 and £24,000, rising to over £30,000 when ambulance transport is needed. This suggests that encouraging more people to have dialysis at home could deliver savings for the NHS.

    In Wales, where all kidney services are coordinated through a single clinical network, home dialysis is more widely available. But in England, services are more fragmented, so access can depend on where you live.

    Even if these changes were implemented, fundamental issues may still prevent progress. Beneath the surface of patient satisfaction lies a deeper problem – the NHS dialysis service is no longer working as intended.

    Transport is one of the most frequently cited concerns among people receiving hospital dialysis, and no one seems satisfied with current arrangements. But satisfaction surveys fail to capture the complexity of the situation.

    People often begin dialysis in a unit that isn’t closest to home due to availability. Later, when given the option to move closer or switch to home dialysis, they may decline. These dialysis units begin to function as surrogate families, offering comfort, routine and social interaction, especially for people who live alone or are isolated.

    This emotional connection can obscure the bigger picture. Patients may focus on transport as the issue, rather than recognising that their own decisions – shaped by understandable human needs and system design – are part of the wider challenge.

    shutterstock.
    ali.can0707/Shutterstock

    Staff are caught in the same dynamic. They worry about losing patients they’ve built relationships with or fear someone may not cope alone. But as a result, the service ends up operating not to help people live well for longer but to preserve a sense of satisfaction with a suboptimal status quo.

    By focusing too heavily on keeping people content with the status quo, we risk obscuring what’s truly working, or not. Worse, we may end up wasting already limited resources trying to fix problems that are byproducts of a system shaped more by sentiment than strategy.

    Meanwhile, staff are caught in the middle, trying to deliver care under mounting pressure, with increasingly blurred expectations.

    What needs to change

    To break out of this cycle, different questions should be asked, and not just whether people are satisfied, but whether they are living well, maintaining independence and receiving care that truly reflects their needs and values.

    Our research shows that people already on home dialysis are a valuable and underused resource. They can offer support and insight to others who are starting their treatment.

    The collaborative approach we used could be a model for other parts of the NHS. By designing services with people, not just for them, we can move closer to a future where more people live comfortably with kidney disease, and care that truly fits around their lives and not the other way round.

    Leah McLaughlin receives funding from Health and Care Research Wales. She is affiliated with the Wales Kidney Research Unit.

    We would like to acknowledge Dr Gareth Roberts Chief Investigator of the Dialysis Options and Choices study. Dr Gareth Roberts is a Consultant Nephrologist and Associate Medical Director at Aneurin Bevan University Health Board and is clinical lead of the Welsh Renal Clinical Network.

    – ref. Why many kidney patients are still choosing hospital dialysis – and how the NHS can help more people access care at home – https://theconversation.com/why-many-kidney-patients-are-still-choosing-hospital-dialysis-and-how-the-nhs-can-help-more-people-access-care-at-home-254747

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: I rode the Tour de France to study its impact on the human body – here’s what I learned

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Faulkner, Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology, Nottingham Trent University

    The Tour de France is often called the world’s biggest annual sporting event. Each July up to 12 million people line the roadside, while the cumulative TV audience tops 3 billion viewers across 190 countries.

    In 2025, 184 riders will compete in teams of eight, racing a punishing 3,500 km route with nearly 50,000 metres of climbing – roughly the height of Mount Everest six times over. Across 21 stages riders tackle time trials, flat sprints and brutal mountain passes through the Alps, Pyrenees and Massif Central.

    Professional cyclists possess extraordinary endurance and are capable of generating high power outputs day after day. Yet, despite having far less training and support, in recent years a number of amateur cyclists have begun riding the Tour route just days before the pros. The Tour 21 is one such effort and offers cyclists a chance to follow in the tyre tracks of the elite while raising money for a good cause.

    In 2021 I joined 19 others to ride the full route in support of Cure Leukaemia, with a shared goal of raising £1 million for blood cancer research. As a blood cancer survivor diagnosed at 16, this challenge combined my love of cycling, my background in science and my deep desire to give back to the community that helped save my life. It was also a unique opportunity to study how amateur cyclists cope with one of the most demanding endurance events in the world.

    The research findings were published in the Journal of Science and Cycling, to coincide with 2025’s Grand Départ (the official start of the race) in Lille.

    Training for the impossible

    Originally, the study planned to include lab-based physiological assessments of the amateur cyclists undertaking the Tour de France route, but the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to adapt and rely instead on data from training diaries. These gave us insight into how much (or little) training had been done leading up to the ride, and how riders managed the physical and mental strain during the event itself.

    While professional cyclists typically train 20–25 hours a week – often at altitude, with tailored coaching and racing schedules – our group of amateurs had full-time jobs, were typically 15–20 years older than the pros and trained around seven to ten hours a week.

    Our preparation was far from ideal, averaging just 47km per ride and 350 metres of climbing; a fraction of what the Tour demands. In fact, this amounted to less than 10% of the required climbing during the mountain stages.

    Once the ride began, the contrast between training and reality was stark. The group averaged nearly seven hours of riding a day, a 300% increase from their usual routine. Within four days signs of overtraining began to emerge: riders were no longer able to elevate their heart rates, a classic marker of central nervous system fatigue and excessive physical stress.

    As the days progressed, performance metrics continued to decline: heart rates dropped, power outputs fell and mood scores deteriorated. The cumulative fatigue was undeniable.

    Surprisingly, when we compared our amateur data to metrics from professional riders, we found that although pros ride at much higher power outputs, amateurs were subject to greater relative stress. On some days they spent almost double the time in the saddle, which meant they operated closer to their physical limits, with far less time for recovery – and often suboptimal sleep and nutrition.

    By the final week many of the riders could no longer produce the same power they had in the first few days. In some cases, heart rates wouldn’t rise above 100 beats per minute – a clear sign of accumulated fatigue and physiological overload.

    How to prepare for an ultra-endurance challenge

    If you’re planning to take on a major endurance event – whether it’s cycling, running, or hiking – here are some lessons from the road:

    1. Train specifically for the event

    Your training should mirror the challenge ahead. For the Tour, this meant preparing for long, back-to-back days with significant climbing. Mimic the intensity, volume and terrain as closely as possible.

    2. Understand how quickly fatigue builds

    Over multiple days, fatigue doesn’t just accumulate – it compounds. Listen to your body, adapt your plan and include plenty of recovery time.

    3. Prioritise nutrition and recovery

    These two factors can make or break your performance. You’ll need to consume enough energy to fuel the effort, but avoid excessive intake that leads to unnecessary weight gain. Recovery – through sleep, rest and refuelling – is equally vital.

    4. Work with an experienced coach

    More than fancy bikes or high-tech gear, a good coach is your best investment. They can help tailor your training plan, track your progress and adapt strategies as needed. Don’t underestimate this support.

    A ride to remember

    Completing the Tour de France route is a monumental achievement for any cyclist — amateur or pro. In 2021, our team not only rode the full route, but also raised over £1 million for Cure Leukaemia. For me, it marked a deeply personal milestone in my cancer journey.

    Throughout those 21 days, I thought often of the physical and emotional battles I faced during treatment; moments when I didn’t know if I’d survive, let alone ride across France. That experience gave me the resilience to keep going, even when my body was screaming to stop.

    Riding the Tour taught me that we’re capable of far more than we realise, especially when we ride with purpose.

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

    – ref. I rode the Tour de France to study its impact on the human body – here’s what I learned – https://theconversation.com/i-rode-the-tour-de-france-to-study-its-impact-on-the-human-body-heres-what-i-learned-260524

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Four reasons why many of us feel the global economy is not on our side

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cahal Moran, Visiting Fellow in the Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science

    During my adult life, I have never experienced what it’s like to live in a “good” economy. Starting with the global financial crash in 2008, which hit just as I began studying economics, the world seems to have lurched from crisis to crisis and the UK economy even more so.

    Some of those crises, like the crash and COVID, are sudden shocks. Others have been more gradual, such as increasingly unaffordable housing or the rising dominance of the world’s ultra rich.

    As I explore in my new book, Why We’re Getting Poorer, the result of these crises is an economic system which works for some much more than it does for others. Here are four reasons why you may be feeling let down.

    1. Grasping for growth

    Like many of his fellow leaders across the world, the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, is aiming to make economic growth the primary mission of his government. And understandably so.

    A growing economy puts more money in people’s pockets and brings other benefits such as low unemployment. But economic growth is not easy (in the UK it has been poor for a long time).

    That’s because there’s no GDP dial that a prime minister or president can simply turn up. Research shows that economic growth is an amorphous and difficult goal which depends on many factors – geopolitical, demographic, technological – outside any single country’s control.

    One option is to focus on achievable goals around investment, like the public investments of £113 billion on homes, transport and energy planned in the UK. But big projects can take a long time to build and develop, so even if they do boost growth, it can take a while for households to feel the benefits.

    2. Inherent inequality

    Against the backdrop of low growth in the UK has been high inequality, under Conservative and Labour governments. And again, inequality is an international issue.

    The wealth of the richest people in the world skyrocketed over COVID, buoyed in many cases by the increased importance of the tech sector during lockdowns. Even before the pandemic, wealth inequality was a problem across the globe.

    This imbalance has given the very richest opportunities to buy up commercial competitors, indulge in space travel and control large parts of the media, exerting extreme economic, social and political power. Needless to say, their economic priorities are not the same as everyone else’s.

    Meanwhile, communities and regions may be left behind, with declining physical and social infrastructure. People living in hollowed out areas where incomes and opportunities are limited are unlikely to feel that the economic system is working for them.

    3. Globalisation

    Globalisation has made a lot of people – in places like China, India and Brazil – better off. But it is not a system which ensures economic benefits for everyone.

    With global competition, big businesses are often under pressure to reduce costs. Free trade deals have often failed to enforce labour standards or redistribute gains to poorly paid workers, and in many cases simply made the rich richer.

    Such a distorted form of economic governance, where large sections of society end up feeling left behind was bound to provoke a response. Some would link it to recent political events like Brexit and the presidencies of Donald Trump, whose international tariffs are a clear attempt to reverse the rise of globalisation.

    Sporadic supply chains.
    Corona Borealis Studio/Shutterstock

    Since the pandemic, more fault-lines have been exposed. The global economy has become too dependent on certain regions, epitomised by Taiwanese dominance in the manufacturing of semiconductors, or European reliance on Russia for gas and oil.

    Recent years have also seen supply chain bottlenecks, leading to shortages of goods including cars, phones and even salad ingredients. Inflexible global systems have been ineffective, and internationally agreed fixes are hard to achieve.

    4. Climate change

    World news at the start of 2020 was dominated by the massive wildfires raging across Australia. At the start of 2025, Los Angeles burned.

    As the global climate shifts and lurches, extreme weather events are becoming more common. Floods, hurricanes and extreme temperatures look to be the likely outcome.

    When sea levels rise, countless coastal cities will experience flooding, and many Pacific islands may disappear altogether. The UN’s climate science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that humanity will struggle with food production, disease and massive migration.

    This will all result in huge economic costs, impeding growth and disrupting livelihoods across the world. According to the IPCC, the impacts could range from extreme weather events disrupting infrastructure to changing weather reducing yields in agriculture, forestry and fishing.

    Yet many countries appear to be backtracking on their commitment to reducing emissions. It seems they would prefer to deal with the fallout of climate change rather than invest in potential solutions like carbon taxes, walkable cities or alternative fuels. But such acts of self-harm are not a sound basis for a prosperous economy, society or planet.

    Cahal Moran 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. Four reasons why many of us feel the global economy is not on our side – https://theconversation.com/four-reasons-why-many-of-us-feel-the-global-economy-is-not-on-our-side-252220

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    The US government “remains upbeat” about the prospects for at least a ceasefire in Gaza, according to the latest reports from Washington, where the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been meeting the US president, Donald Trump.

    Netanyahu handed the US president a letter nominating him for the Nobel peace prize, saying he deserved it for “forging peace, as we speak, in one country in the region after another”. But as yet there are no signs that either Hamas or Israel have moved any closer to accepting each other’s terms.

    In fact, reports emerging from the White House meeting are that the two leaders discussed the displacement of much of the Palestinian population. And a plan revealed by the Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, proposed the contruction of a “humanitarian city” at Rafah in the north of the Gaza Strip to house more than 600,000 Palestinians.

    The Conversation’s senior international affairs editor, Jonathan Este, spoke with Middle East expert, Scott Lucas, of University College Dublin to address this and other questions.

    The two leaders’ discussions in Washington seemed to centre around displacement of the Palestinian population in lieu of a two-state solution. What does this tell you about the chance of a ceasefire deal?

    I am fascinated – and sometimes disillusioned – by how some media outlets, led by the nose, miss the main story. Last week Donald Trump pronounced on social media that Israel had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire and Hamas “should take this deal”.

    But the Netanyahu government has not accepted the framework, circulated by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, let alone consented to a halt of their attacks, which have continued even as the Israeli prime minister travelled to Washington to meet the US president.

    As Trump hosted Netanyahu in the White House on Monday, the line was that the US president was “upbeat on Gaza ceasefire talks”. Meanwhile, few of them seemed to notice the important development. Hamas responded to the US framework with proposals for the staged release of 28 of the remaining 50 Israeli hostages over the 60 days while Israeli troops withdrew from positions inside the Strip and humanitarian aid was restored.

    But the Israeli government has thus far not given a substantive response. Instead, while pursuing a plan for the long-term military occupation of Gaza, it may also be seeking the displacement of a large portion of the more than 2.2 million population.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    Hard-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, such as finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and internal security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, have long called for more than a million Gazans to be moved out of the territory. Reports over the weekend confirmed that this is not rhetoric. Israeli businessmen and venture capitalists have reportedly been working on plans for postwar Gaza, to include a “Trump riviera”, mirroring the displacement declaration by the US President, and an “Elon Musk smart manufacturing zone”.

    On Tuesday, security cabinet member Ze’ev Elkin, a Netanyahu loyalist, proclaimed “a substantial chance” for a ceasefire. But Qatari negotiators have said there are currently no talks, only discussions with each side about the framework for talks.

    Meanwhile, citing the killing of five Israeli soldiers in Gaza on Sunday night by an improvised explosive device, Ben-Gvir said: “We should not negotiate with those who kill our soldiers. They should be crushed to pieces, starved to death, and not resuscitated with humanitarian aid that gives them oxygen.”

    He called for “a complete siege, crushing them militarily” and reiterated the plan for “encouraging [Palestinian] immigration and [Jewish] settlement — these are the keys to complete victory”.

    Smotrich also called for a ban on any aid to Gaza: “In addition, I demand … that any territory that was conquered and cleansed of terror with the blood of our fighters not be abandoned.”

    So I am not optimistic at the moment.

    Looking at the region as a whole, two events have ‘reset’ the Middle East: the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s recent 12-day war. Can you tell me more about the kaleidoscope effect these two events had?

    In October 2023, there was no open-ended war in Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu’s focus was on curbing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, blocking any possibility of a two-state solution. His tactic was to ease the economic pressure on Gaza and Hamas, maintaining that organisation as a balance against its West Bank rivals.

    Hamas ripped up that approach with its mass murder on October 7 – the first of the two kaleidoscope moments which changed the whole picture in a matter of hours. The attack triggered the deadly Israeli response that continues 21 months later. That response did not “destroy” Hamas, as Netanyahu pledged, but it led the Israelis to take on other foes in the region.

    Pursuing its “octopus doctrine”, Israel severely damaged one of the tentacles, Hezbollah, when it destroyed much of the Lebanese group’s leadership in the autumn of 2024. It assassinated senior Iranian commanders and officials in Damascus, and received a further boost when Turkish-backed factions toppled the Assad regime in December.

    The 12-day war in June aimed to destroy the head of the octopus: Iran. Israel’s strikes and assassinations killed much of the country’s military leadership and many of its top nuclear scientists. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, hid in a bunker, only emerging on July 6. But Israel failed to topple his regime, as it had hoped.

    The war was another kaleidoscope moment. Israel had its regional victory. But paradoxically, because there has been no resolution in Gaza, this has come at the cost of further international isolation. Gulf States, having moved away from “normalisation” with Israel, put out tougher statements about “genocide” of Gazans and the violation of Iranian sovereignty. Saudi Arabia’s state media highlighted a letter from Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi to Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan for “ways to support and enhance [relations] across all fields”.

    This implies that for any normalisation to occur, Israel must end its military operation in Gaza?

    That question cuts to the chase. The Gulf states, with the notable exception of Qatar, are no friends of Hamas. They might even have accepted the destruction of the group if Israel had been able to accomplish it quickly.

    But there is no way that they can publicly acquiesce in the killing of almost 60,000 Gazans, the large majority of them civilians, and the humanitarian blockade that threatens every single person living in the Gaza Strip. Nor will they want to see Israel export Gazans across the region in an echo of the 1948 “Nakba” whose legacy is the millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps across the Middle East.

    Netanyahu can pursue his “absolute destruction” of Hamas by pursuing the destruction and displacement of Gazans. Or he can try to capitalise on his war with Iran through links with Arab countries. He cannot do both.

    Will Donald Trump get his Nobel peace prize?

    I don’t know, for that is a question which does not have a logical answer.

    Herny Kissinger was the US secretary of state who oversaw an escalation of the Vietnam war in which up to 3 million Vietnamese, 310,000 Cambodians, 62,000 Laotians and 58,220 US service members died. The singer-songwriter Tom Lehrer aptly noted: “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    We are in a world where having caused so much disorder and chaos, having enabled violence, including Israel’s open-ended war, Donald Trump may succeed in a pose as “peacemaker”.

    Some may see the least worst option as flattery, which seems to work as a strategy for dealing with the US president. They may accept the White House theatre in which Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, personally hands Trump a peace prize nomination.

    Meanwhile, in the past 24 hours, according to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, the number of casualties in Gaza rose to 57,575 people killed and 136,879 wounded. Twenty hostages spent another day in limbo. That’s what matters here.

    – ref. As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/as-netanyahu-meets-trump-in-washington-what-hope-for-peace-in-gaza-expert-qanda-260722

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Poxon, Senior Lecturer in Counselling Psychology, Department of Social Work Counselling & Social Care , School of Childhood and Social Care, University of East London

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    When someone we care about is grieving the loss of a loved one, our natural instinct is to ease their pain. But when words feel clumsy and gestures fall short, it can be hard to know how to help.

    Drawing on both my research as a counselling psychologist and 18 years of supporting bereaved clients in therapy, I’ve identified five compassionate, research-backed ways to walk alongside someone who is mourning.

    Whether you’re a close friend, family member, or caring colleague, these approaches will help you offer support in meaningful and authentic ways.

    1. Grief wears many disguises

    Our expectations of how grief should look are often shaped by culture, the media or personal experience, and they may bear little resemblance to how grief is actually lived.

    Grief can appear as physical symptoms like exhaustion, loss of appetite, or insomnia; as behaviour like withdrawing from others or drinking more; and as thoughts or emotions ranging from apathy and numbness to anger or intense sadness.

    It can be loud and overwhelming or quiet and barely perceptible. Some people feel deep sorrow immediately; others feel nothing for weeks or even months. A lack of overt sadness isn’t necessarily cause for concern; it may reflect relief that a loved one is no longer suffering, or be a sign of early adjustment.



    Read more:
    Not all mourning happens after bereavement – for some, grief can start years before the death of a loved one

    One of the most compassionate things you can do is validate whatever shape grief takes. Reassure the person that there’s no “right” way to grieve and support them in tuning into what their body and emotions need.

    2. Acknowledge the death and don’t rush the tears

    Nearly every grieving client I’ve worked with has described someone, often a friend, colleague, or even family member, who avoided or ignored them after the loss. It’s one of the most painful experiences for someone already feeling vulnerable.

    Often, the avoidance isn’t malicious. It’s driven by fear of saying the wrong thing or not knowing how to help. But by avoiding the subject, we send an unintended message: your grief is too much.

    Acknowledging the death, even simply by saying “I’m so sorry to hear about your loss”, is not a reminder of their pain, it’s a sign that you see it and honour it. Inviting someone out, even if they decline, communicates that they still belong and are welcome.

    If someone begins to cry, it’s natural to want to fix things, to offer comfort, or even to pass a tissue. But giving a tissue too soon can inadvertently signal that they should stop crying. Sometimes the most supportive thing you can do is to sit with your own discomfort, and simply be present. That silent witness can help a grieving person feel less alone.

    3. Let go of the “stages of grief” myth

    Many people are still taught to expect a tidy progression of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, popularised by Swiss-American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in the 1960s. While these emotions are real and common, research shows that most people don’t experience them in a neat order, or even experience all five at all.

    Despite being widely critiqued, stage-based models are still found in healthcare training manuals and TV scripts, and they can leave people feeling like they’re grieving “wrong”.

    If your loved one is worried they should feel more sadness, or wonders why they haven’t yet felt angry, remind them: grief is personal and unpredictable. There’s no timeline, no script and no shame in not following one.

    Helping someone let go of these expectations may ease guilt, reduce internal pressure and encourage gentler self-care.

    4. Encourage communication – with the living and the lost

    Grief often comes with emotional loneliness, a deep sense of aloneness that persists even in the presence of others. It’s different from social isolation; it’s the ache of missing someone irreplaceable.



    Read more:
    What we can learn from death rites of the past will help us treat the dead and grieving better today

    While you can’t fix that loneliness, you can help the bereaved maintain a continuing bond with their loved one. This might include writing letters to the person who has died, speaking to them at a graveside or special place, saying prayers or engaging in meditation or creating memory boxes or rituals.

    These forms of connection can help integrate the loss into a new reality. You might offer to visit a meaningful place together, or support them in planning a small memorial gesture.

    5. Make specific, practical offers

    It’s common to say “Let me know if you need anything”, but for someone in deep grief, reaching out can feel impossible. Emotional overwhelm, fatigue and even shame can prevent them from asking for help, even when they desperately need it.

    Instead, make intentional, concrete offers that remove decision-making and emotional labour. These might include:

    • delivering a home-cooked meal once a week

    • taking care of pets or houseplants

    • helping with funeral admin or paperwork

    • offering regular lifts to appointments

    • updating others on their behalf

    • messaging with a clear “no need to reply” reassurance

    If you live far away, sending a card, text, or voice note can still be powerful; just be mindful that they may receive many, and feel pressure to respond. A line like, “No need to write back, just wanted you to know I’m thinking of you” can go a long way.

    Grief is not a puzzle to solve or a wound to fix. It’s a human response to love and loss – and it’s different for everyone.

    The most powerful thing you can do? Be there. Stay present. Listen without judgement. And remember that it’s okay not to have the perfect words. Showing up with authenticity, patience and compassion is what matters most.

    Lucy Poxon 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 to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies – https://theconversation.com/how-to-support-someone-who-is-grieving-five-research-backed-strategies-260265

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Brics is sliding towards irrelevance – the Rio summit made that clear

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amalendu Misra, Professor of International Politics, Lancaster University

    The Brics group of nations has just concluded its 17th annual summit in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. But, despite member states adopting a long list of commitments covering global governance, finance, health, AI and climate change, the summit was a lacklustre affair.

    The two most prominent leaders from the group’s founding members – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – were conspicuously absent. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, only attended virtually due to an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court over his role in the war in Ukraine.

    China’s Xi Jinping avoided the summit altogether for unknown reasons, sending his prime minister, Li Qiang, instead. This was Xi’s first no-show at a Brics summit, with the snub prompting suggestions that Beijing’s enthusiasm for the group as part of an emerging new world order is in decline.

    Perhaps the most notable takeaway from the summit was a statement that came not from the Brics nations but the US. As Brics leaders gathered in Rio, the US president, Donald Trump, warned on social media: “Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy.”

    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.

    Trump has long been critical of Brics. This is largely because the group has consistently floated the idea of adopting a common currency to challenge the dominance of the US dollar in international trade.

    Such a move makes sense if we focus on trade figures. In 2024, the value of trade among the Brics nations was around US$5 trillion, accounting for approximately 22% of global exports. Member nations have always felt their economic potential could be fully realised if they were not reliant upon the US dollar as their common currency of trade.

    During their 2024 summit, which was held in the Russian city of Kazan, the Brics nations entered into serious discussions around creating a gold-backed currency. At a time when the Trump administration is waging a global trade war, the emergence of an alternative to the US dollar would be a very serious pushback against US economic hegemony.



    Read more:
    Why Donald Trump’s election could hasten the end of US dollar dominance

    But the freshly concluded Brics summit did not present any concrete move towards achieving that objective. In fact, the 31-page Rio de Janeiro joint declaration even contained some reassurances about the global importance of the US dollar.

    There are two key obstacles hindering Brics from translating its vision of a common currency into reality. First is that some founding member nations are uncomfortable with adopting such an economic model, in large part due to internal rivalries within Brics itself.

    India, currently the fourth-largest economy in the world, has a history of periodic confrontation and strategic competition with China. It is reticent about adopting an alternative to the US dollar, concerned that this could make China more powerful and undercut India’s long-term interests.

    Second is that the Brics member nations are dependent on their bilateral trade with the US. Simply put, embracing an alternative currency is counterproductive when it comes to the current economic interests of individual countries. Brazil, China and India, for example, all export more to the US than they import from it.

    In December 2024, following his election as US president, Trump said: “We require a commitment from these countries that they will neither create a new Brics currency nor back any other currency to replace the mighty US dollar or they will face 100% tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful US economy”. This blunt message all but killed any enthusiasm that was there for this grand economic model.

    Caught in contradiction

    The Brics group is a behemoth. Its full 11 members account for 40% of the world’s population and economy. But the bloc is desperately short of providing any cohesive alternative global leadership.

    While Brazil used its position as host to highlight Brics as a truly multilateral forum capable of providing leadership in a new world order, such ambitions are thwarted by the many contradictions plaguing this bloc.

    Among these are tensions between founding members China and India, which have been running high for decades.

    There are other contradictions, too. In their joint Rio declaration, the group’s members decried the recent Israeli and US attacks on Iran. Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, also used his position as summit host to criticise the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

    But this moral high ground appears hollow when you consider that the Russian Federation, a key member of Brics, is on a mission to destroy Ukraine. And rather than condemning Russia, Brics leaders used the Rio summit to criticise recent Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s railway infrastructure.

    Brics declared intention to address the issue of climate change is also problematic. The Rio declaration conveyed the group’s support for multilateralism and unity to achieve the goals of the Paris agreement. But, despite China making significant advances in its green energy sector, Brics contains some of the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases as well as several of the largest oil and gas producers.

    Brics can only stay relevant and provide credible leadership in a fast-changing international order when it addresses its many inner contradictions.

    Amalendu Misra is a recipient of British Academy and Nuffield Foundation Fellowships.

    – ref. Brics is sliding towards irrelevance – the Rio summit made that clear – https://theconversation.com/brics-is-sliding-towards-irrelevance-the-rio-summit-made-that-clear-260653

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Cancellations at Canadian film festivals raise questions about accountability

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Dorit Naaman, Alliance Atlantis Professor of Film and Media, Queen’s University, Ontario

    Film festivals are unique cultural institutions, spaces to see diverse films by local and global filmmakers and an important market for distributors. These films are often difficult to see, or even know about, outside of festival circuits.

    Festivals are also answerable to funders and to different stakeholders’ interests. Cancellations of planned films raise questions about festivals’ roles and accountability to community groups who find certain films objectionable, the wider public, politicians, festival sponsors, audiences, filmmakers and the films themselves.

    In September 2024, The Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) faced a backlash from pro-Ukrainian groups — and former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, who is of Ukrainian descent — when the documentary Russians at War was included in the program.



    Read more:
    ‘Russians at War’ documentary: From the Crimean to the Iraq War, soldier images pose questions about propaganda

    The Ukrainian Canadian Congress and other advocates called on TIFF to cancel the film, directed by Russian Canadian Anastasia Trofimova, which they accused of being Russian propaganda.

    TIFF did cancel festival screenings after it was “made aware of significant threats to festival operations and public safety,” but once the festival was over, showed Russians at the TIFF Lightbox Theatre.

    In November, the Montréal International Documentary Festival (RIDM) cancelled the Canadian premiere of Rule of Stone, directed by Israeli Canadian director Danae Elon. As a film and media professor, I supervised Elon’s research for the film while she pursued a master’s degree at Queen’s University.

    RIDM acknowledged Elon’s “personal commitment to criticizing and questioning the state of Israel” through her story about the stone that, by Israeli law, has to be used on the exterior of every new building in Jerusalem.

    In the film, Elon examines how, in post-1967 Jerusalem, “architecture and stone are the main weapons in a silent, but extraordinarily effective colonization and dispossession process” of Palestinians.

    As a documentarist and a researcher in Israeli and Palestinian media representations of fighters, I have analyzed both films and followed the controversies. Each focuses on contemporary political issues relevant to our understanding of current affairs.

    While the reasons for the cancellations are different, in both cases the festivals responded to pressures from community groups, placing the public right to a robust debate at the festival and beyond as secondary.

    ‘Russians at War’

    Director Anastasia Trifamova embedded herself in a Russian supply unit, and later a medical team, eventually making her way to the front lines in occupied Ukraine.

    Trifamova comes across as a naive filmmaker, using an observational, non-judgmental form of filmmaking common in 21st-century war documentaries, as seen in films like Armadillo and Restrepo (respectively following Danish and U.S. troops in Afghanistan).

    As noted by TIFF, Russians was “an official Canada-France co-production with funding from several Canadian agencies,” and Trifamova said she did not seek or receive official permission from the Russian army to film.

    The film documents the machination of war, where soldiers are both perpetrators of violence and its victims. It humanizes the soldiers, which understandably can be upsetting to Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian publics. But should emotions of one group, outraged and incensed as they may be, prevent the public from having the difficult conversations promoted by the film?

    Early in the film, Trifamova confronts the soldiers about why they are fighting and they respond with Russian propaganda (fighting Nazism, defending the borders).

    Later, soldiers approach Trifamova — on camera — to express doubts about the justification of the war and their presence in Ukraine. The film provides an unflattering view of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, emphasizing the futility of the war and the incredible toll on soldiers and civilians (including some Ukrainian civilians). Russian troops appear untrained and poorly equipped to fight in chaotically managed battles.

    Like Armadillo and Restrepo, Russians at War represents the soldiers without judgment and contributes to necessary conversations about war. In my analysis, while Trifamova refrains — in her sporadic voice-over — from condemning the war outright, it is difficult to read the film as Russian propaganda.

    While TIFF cited security concerns as the reason for cancellation, security was in place for another film that attracted controversy, Bliss.

    A cancellation from such an established festival likely has an effect on how a film is able to circulate. For example, TVO, one of the funders of Russians at War, cancelled its scheduled broadcast days after the TIFF cancellation.

    ‘Rule of Stone’

    Rule of Stone, as noted by RDIM, “critically examines the colonialist project of East Jerusalem following its conquest by Israeli forces in 1967.”

    The title references a colonial bylaw to clad building with stone, first introduced by the British, which still exists today.

    The film, which examines architecture’s role in creating modern Jerusalem, is led by Elon’s voice-over. It mixes her memories of growing up in 1970s Jerusalem and her reckoning with the “frenzy of building,” which included projects by architect Moshe Safdie, a citizen of Israel, Canada and the United States. Elon recounts that her father, journalist and author Amos Elon, was a close friend of Safdie, as well as legendary Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kolek.

    Safdie is among the Israeli architects, architectural historians and planners who Elon interviews. The expansion of Jewish neighbourhoods is contrasted with the restrictions on and disposession of Palestinians in Jerusalem. Multiple scenes show the demolition of Palestinian homes or the aftermath. In intervwoven segments, Izzat Ziadah, a Palestinian stonemason who lives in a stone quarry, gives a tour of what is left of his destroyed home.

    Viewers hear how the planning, expansion and building of Jewish neighbourhoods, post-1967, were designed to evoke biblical times. As architectural historian Zvi Efrat notes, the new neighbourhoods look like, or attempt to look like, they were there forever.

    ‘Rule of Stone’ trailer.

    As reported by La Presse, the RIDM cancellation came after the festival received information about the documentary’s partial Israeli financing, something that “embarrassed” them with some of the festival’s partners. Funding for the development of the film came from the Makor Foundation for Israeli Films, which receives support from Israel’s Ministry of Culture and Sport.

    Two organizations, the Palestinian Film Institute and Regards Palestiniens, opposed the film’s showing on the basis of their commitment to the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).

    In the organizations’ logic, Israel state funding means a film should be subject to boycott as “PACBI specifically targets Israeli institutional funding in the arts which serves to culturally whitewash and legitimize the Israeli state.”

    In my view, this position differs from the PACBI guidelines, which state:

    “As a general overriding rule, Israeli cultural institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit in maintaining the Israeli occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights, whether through their silence or actual involvement in justifying, whitewashing or otherwise deliberately diverting attention from Israel’s violations of international law and human rights.”

    Makor should be exempted since it regularly funds films that draw attention to Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights. In 2024 alone, the list includes The Governor, The Village League and Death in Um al hiran.

    RIDM’s website does not disclose support for a boycott. In the end, RIDM announced that Elon withdrew her film. She stated: “Screening my film at RIDM does not serve the long-term purpose of the festival, nor is it possible now to address the nuances in our common fight for justice for Palestine. I am deeply saddened and distressed by [what] has brought it to this point.”

    To date, the film has not found a cinema in Montréal willing to screen it.

    Provoking important conversations

    The two festivals’ mission statements promise high-quality films that transform or renew audiences’ relationships to the world.

    It is clear why programmers chose both films, since they’re cinematically innovative and provoke important conversations.

    However, both festivals silenced these films and signalled to other filmmakers that these festivals are not brave spaces to have difficult and necessary conversations.

    Dorit Naaman 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. Cancellations at Canadian film festivals raise questions about accountability – https://theconversation.com/cancellations-at-canadian-film-festivals-raise-questions-about-accountability-250892

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marc Stears, Director of UCL Policy Lab and Professor of Political Science, UCL

    Simon Dawson/Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Exhausted from a long campaign but buoyed by an extraordinary victory, Keir Starmer stood on the steps of Downing Street just over one year ago to deliver his victory speech. “Your government,” the new prime minister said, “should treat every single person in this country with respect.”

    This message of respect resonated strongly in the year leading up to the campaign, coming as close as anything to providing a central argument to Labour’s case for government. And, according to polling and focus groups that my team at UCL Policy Lab designed along with polling company More in Common, it seemed to work.

    As our research at the time showed, voters felt that “respecting ordinary people” was the most important attribute that any politician could have, more important than having ideas for the future, managing effectively or having real experience. And they thought Starmer was the leader who displayed that respect most.

    A year later, the picture looks quite different. In new polling, we asked a representative sample of over 7,000 people to evaluate the government one year on. On respect, the judgement has not been good.

    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.

    During the general election campaign, 41% of the electorate said that they believed that Starmer “respected people like them”. One year on, that stands at only 24%. At the same time, the number who say that he does not respect them has risen from 32% to 63%. Starmer is now outstripped on that question by Nigel Farage – 33% say the Reform UK leader respects people like them.

    Losing support

    This view has had crucial political consequences. Of those who voted for Labour in the general election, only 60% of our respondents say they would vote for the party in an election held tomorrow.

    And that is not because some other political party is suddenly swooping in for their supporters. Labour’s voters are defecting in a host of different directions: 11% say they would vote Reform; 8% would vote Liberal Democrat; 4% would vote Green and 4% would vote Conservative. A further one in ten say they simply don’t know how they would vote.

    Labour’s losses have been most dramatic among their first-time voters. Of those who voted for Labour in 2024 but not in any other general election since 2010, barely a third still support the party, while a fifth would vote for Reform UK.

    These political failures, our report contends, are directly related to the declining sense of respect. The top reason voters gave for turning away from Labour are the broken promises and U-turns made by Labour in government, followed by the party’s failure to reduce the cost of living and changes to the winter fuel payment.

    The idea of “respect” being key to the public’s sense of whether a government is on their side or not has been growing for many years now, both in academia and in politics itself. Since at least the 2007/8 financial crisis there has been a sense that large swathes of the public feel neglected, overlooked and even disdained by those who govern them.

    When people talk about wanting to see “change” in Britain, this is often what they mean. It was a theme I touched on recently in two books, Out of the Ordinary and, with my co-author Tom Baldwin, England.

    Just over a year ago, a happier Starmer delivers his victory speech.
    Shutterstock

    But respect is not just an abstract idea. People appear to judge whether they are respected by those who govern them or not primarily on the basis of whether the government stands up for them against powerful vested interests.

    Our earlier research demonstrated that there is a widespread sense among the British public that certain groups have had it too easy for too long. This is either because they have been able to intimidate the government, or because government ministers and advisers have themselves been recruited from among these groups.

    In our new report, therefore, we see that the new government’s most popular act was their willingness to raise the minimum wage by £1,400 in April, against the objections of some in business who suggested that such a move was too burdensome on them.

    Changes to the winter fuel allowance and proposed changes to the disability benefits system, on the other hand, registered poorly. They suggest that the interests of ordinary and vulnerable people count for too little in decision-making.

    These judgements currently shape the mood of the country and probably top the list of issues that the government now needs to address. There is still time for the government to rebuild its appeal, of course. Indeed, our respondents who said they would vote for Labour said they would do so because the party needs more time to fix the problems they inherited.

    But as it seeks to do so, voters will want to know who this government stands for. Whose interests does it put first? What kind of people does it respect?

    Much of the electorate thought they knew the answer to these questions one year ago. Now they’re not so sure.

    Marc Stears directs the UCL Policy Lab, a non-partisan think tank based at University College London. He was previously chief speechwriter to the UK Labour Party.

    – ref. Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll – https://theconversation.com/nearly-two-thirds-of-voters-think-starmer-doesnt-respect-them-new-poll-260606

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: New therapy teplizumab could delay type 1 diabetes by years – if caught early

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Oram, Professor of Diabetes and Nephrology, University of Exeter

    Dorde Krstic/Shutterstock.com

    For more than a century, type 1 diabetes has meant one thing: a lifetime administering insulin. But for the first time, science is breaking that paradigm – not by managing the disease, but by intercepting it before symptoms even appear.

    As the first patients in the UK begin receiving the groundbreaking new therapy, teplizumab, we are developing ways to identify who might benefit from a drug that only works if given before any symptoms appear. At the Royal Devon NHS, we are currently treating the first UK adult, Hannah Robinson, who was found to have early type 1 diabetes by chance during routine pregnancy screening.

    About 10% of people with diabetes have type 1, while the remaining 90% have type 2, a condition linked to lifestyle factors where insulin is still produced but does not work properly. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition that leads to complete loss of insulin production from the pancreas. Without insulin, blood sugar levels rise dangerously, increasing the risk of blindness, kidney failure and early death.

    Although type 1 is often thought of as a disease of childhood, research from the University of Exeter has highlighted that more than half of all new cases occur in adults.

    For millions around the world living with type 1 diabetes, treatment to keep blood sugar in check means lifelong daily insulin. However, using insulin comes with its own risks.

    If blood sugar drops too low, it can cause hypoglycaemia, or “hypos”, which in severe cases may lead to seizures or even death. It is no surprise that constantly balancing between high and low blood sugars takes a heavy toll on both physical and mental health. During her pregnancy, Robinson needed insulin and saw firsthand how “life completely revolves around balancing your blood glucose”.

    Teplizumab offers a completely different approach. Instead of simply replacing insulin, it targets the immune attack that causes type 1 diabetes.

    Our immune system is usually remarkably good at telling friend from foe, protecting us from infections and cancer while leaving our own organs alone. But sometimes, for reasons still not fully understood, this balance breaks down in a process known as autoimmunity. In type 1 diabetes, the immune system mistakenly attacks the pancreas, destroying insulin-producing cells.

    Diabetes symptoms.

    Teplizumab works by retraining the immune system and dialling down the specific cells that target the pancreas. Studies show it can delay the disease and the need for insulin therapy by two to three years, with generally mild side-effects. For Robinson, who knows all too well from pregnancy and the full-time job that is living with type 1 diabetes, the possibility of a few extra years without insulin really mattered.

    The drug is already approved in the US and is under review for routine NHS use, although a few children and teenagers in the UK have also received it through special access programmes.

    Finding people early

    There is a catch. By the time people develop symptoms of type 1 diabetes, such as thirst, weight loss and fatigue, more than three-quarters of their insulin-producing capacity is already destroyed.

    For teplizumab and similar therapies to work, they need to be given before symptoms appear, while blood sugar levels are still normal. This means these treatments are not an option for people who already have established type 1 diabetes.

    So how do we find people at this early stage? Fortunately, it is possible to detect the beginnings of the autoimmune attack many years before symptoms show using simple blood tests that measure immune markers called pancreatic autoantibodies.

    Just a few drops from a finger prick can reveal whether the immune system has started to target the pancreas. Finding people early not only offers the chance to delay disease progression, it can also help avoid the life-threatening emergencies that sometimes come with a first diagnosis – such as diabetic ketoacidosis.

    With type 1 diabetes affecting roughly one in 200 people, there is still the question of who to test. Not everyone’s risk is the same. When we think of inherited diseases, we often imagine conditions caused by a single gene change, such as cystic fibrosis.

    Type 1 diabetes does have a genetic component, but it involves many different genes, each nudging a person’s risk up or down. Having genetic risk alone is not enough, with unknown environmental factors also needed to tip the balance.

    Nine in ten people who develop type 1 diabetes have no family history. While testing relatives of people with type 1 is a logical first step, research at the University of Exeter suggests that combining all these genetic factors into a single risk score could help predict who might develop the disease and identify babies who should be monitored more closely. This could become an important tool as we move towards wider genomic screening.

    It is still early days, but we are seeing a fundamental shift in how we approach type 1 diabetes. For more than a century, treatment has meant patients taking on the daily burden of replacing the insulin their bodies can no longer make. Now, the focus is turning to therapies that tackle the immune problem at its source, with the hope of stopping the disease before it fully develops and opening the door to an insulin-free future.

    Richard Oram has received research grants or contracts from Randox and Sanofi. He has also received royalties and license from Randox, consulting fees from Sanofi, Provention Bio, and Janssen and payment or honoraria from Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. He has served on data safety monitory board or advisory board for Sanofi.

    Nicholas Thomas serves on an advisory boards for Sanof (manafacturer of Teplizumab) guiding the technical delivery of therapy within the NHS. He is currently employed by Exeter University as an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow.

    – ref. New therapy teplizumab could delay type 1 diabetes by years – if caught early – https://theconversation.com/new-therapy-teplizumab-could-delay-type-1-diabetes-by-years-if-caught-early-259814

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The US has high hopes for a new Gaza ceasefire, but Israel’s long-term aims seem far less peaceful

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

    US President Donald Trump has hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for dinner at the White House, where he has declared talks to end the war in Gaza are “going along very well”.

    In turn, Netanyahu revealed he has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, saying:

    he is forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region, after the other.

    Despite all the talk of peace, negotiations in Qatar between Israeli and Palestinian delegations have broken up without a breakthrough. The talks are expected to resume later this week.

    If an agreement is reached, it will likely be hailed as a crucial opportunity to end nearly two years of humanitarian crisis in Gaza, following the October 7 attacks in which 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas-led militants.

    However, there is growing scepticism about the durability of any truce. A previous ceasefire agreement reached in January led to the release of dozens of Israeli hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

    But it collapsed by March, when Israel resumed military operations in Gaza.

    This breakdown in trust on both sides, combined with ongoing Israeli military operations and political instability, suggests the new deal may prove to be another temporary pause rather than a lasting resolution.

    Details of the deal

    The proposed agreement outlines a 60-day ceasefire aimed at de-escalating hostilities in Gaza and creating space for negotiations toward a more lasting resolution.

    Hamas would release ten surviving Israeli hostages and return the remains of 18 others. In exchange, Israel is expected to withdraw its military forces to a designated buffer zone along Gaza’s borders with both Israel and Egypt.

    The agreement being thrashed out in Doha includes the release of Israeli hostages, held in Gaza for the past 22 months.
    Anas-Mohammed/Shutterstock

    While the specific terms of a prisoner exchange remain under negotiation, the release of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons is a central component of the proposal.

    Humanitarian aid is also a key focus of the agreement. Relief would be delivered through international organisations, primarily UN agencies and the Palestinian Red Crescent.

    However, the agreement does not specify the future role of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund, which has been distributing food aid since May.

    The urgency of humanitarian access is underscored by the scale of destruction in Gaza. According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, Israel’s military campaign has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians. The offensive has triggered a hunger crisis, displaced much of the population internally, and left vast areas of the territory in ruins.

    Crucially, the agreement does not represent an end to the war, one of Hamas’s core demands. Instead, it commits both sides to continue negotiations throughout the 60-day period, with the hope of reaching a more durable and comprehensive ceasefire.

    Obstacles to a lasting peace

    Despite the apparent opportunity to reach a final ceasefire, especially after Israel has inflicted severe damage on Hamas, Netanyahu’s government appears reluctant to fully end the military campaign.

    There is scepticism a temporary ceasefire would lead to permanent peace.
    Anas-Mohammed/Shutterstock

    A central reason is political: Netanyahu’s ruling coalition heavily relies on far-right parties that insist on continuing the war. Any serious attempt at a ceasefire could lead to the collapse of his government.

    Militarily, Israel has achieved several of its tactical objectives.

    It has significantly weakened Hamas and other Palestinian factions and caused widespread devastation across Gaza. This is alongside the mass arrests, home demolitions, and killing of hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank.

    And it has forced Hezbollah in Lebanon to scale back its operations after sustaining major losses.

    Perhaps most notably, Israel struck deep into Iran’s military infrastructure, killing dozens of high-ranking commanders and damaging its missile and nuclear capabilities.

    Reshaping the map

    Yet Netanyahu’s ambitions may go beyond tactical victories. There are signs he is aiming for two broader strategic outcomes.

    First, by making Gaza increasingly uninhabitable, his government could push Palestinians to flee. This would effectively pave the way for Israel to annex the territory in the long term – a scenario advocated by many of his far-right allies.

    Speaking at the White House, Netanyahu says he is working with the US on finding countries that will take Palestinians from Gaza:

    if people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave.

    Second, prolonging the war allows Netanyahu to delay his ongoing corruption trial and extend his political survival.

    True intentions

    At the heart of the impasse is the far-right’s vision for total Palestinian defeat, with no concession and no recognition of a future Palestinian state. This ideology has consistently blocked peace efforts for three decades.

    Israeli leaders have repeatedly described any potential Palestinian entity as “less than a state” or a “state-minus”, a formulation that falls short of Palestinian aspirations and international legal standards.

    Today, even that limited vision appears to be off the table, as Israeli policy moves towards complete rejection of Palestinian statehood.

    With Palestinian resistance movements significantly weakened and no immediate threat facing Israel, this moment presents a crucial test of Israel’s intentions.

    Is Israel genuinely pursuing peace, or seeking to cement its dominance in the region while permanently denying Palestinians their right to statehood?

    Following its military successes and the normalisation of relations with several Arab states under the Abraham Accords, Israeli political discourse has grown increasingly bold.

    Some voices in the Israeli establishment are openly advocating for the permanent displacement of Palestinians to neighbouring Arab countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This would effectively erase the prospect of a future Palestinian state.

    This suggests that for certain factions within Israel, the end goal is not a negotiated settlement, but a one-sided resolution that reshapes the map and the people of the region on Israel’s terms.

    The coming weeks will reveal whether Israel chooses the path of compromise and coexistence, or continues down a road that forecloses the possibility of lasting peace.

    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. The US has high hopes for a new Gaza ceasefire, but Israel’s long-term aims seem far less peaceful – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-high-hopes-for-a-new-gaza-ceasefire-but-israels-long-term-aims-seem-far-less-peaceful-260286

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What is the ‘Seven Mountains Mandate’ and how is it linked to political extremism in the US?

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

    People pray before Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance at a town hall hosted by Lance Wallnau on Sept. 28, 2024, in Monroeville, Pa. AP Photo/Rebecca Droke

    Vance Boelter, who allegedly shot Melissa Hortman, a Democratic Minnesota state representative, and her husband, Mark Hortman, on June 14, 2025, studied at Christ for the Nations Institute in Dallas. The group is a Bible school linked to the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR.

    The NAR is a loosely organized but influential charismatic Christian movement that shares similarities with Pentecostalism, especially in its belief that God actively communicates with believers through the Holy Spirit. Unlike traditional Pentecostalism, however, the organization emphasizes modern-day apostles and prophets as authoritative leaders tasked with transforming society and ushering in God’s kingdom on Earth. Prayer, prophecy and worship are defined not only as acts of devotion but as strategic tools for advancing believers’ vision of government and society.

    After the shooting, the Christ for the Nations Institute issued a statement “unequivocally” denouncing “any and all forms of violence and extremism.” It stated: “Our organization’s mission is to educate and equip students to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through compassion, love, prayer, service, worship, and value for human life.”

    But the shooting has drawn attention to the school and the larger Christian movement it belongs to. One of the most important aspects of NAR teachings today is what is called “the Seven Mountain Mandate.”

    The Seven Mountain Mandate calls on Christians to gain influence, or “take dominion,” over seven key areas of culture: religion, family, education, government, media, business and the arts.

    With over three decades of experience studying extremism, I offer a brief overview of the history and core beliefs of the Seven Mountains Mandate.

    ‘Dominion of Christians’

    The Seven Mountains concept was originally proposed in 1975 by evangelical leader Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. Now known as “Cru,” the Campus Crusade for Christ was founded as a global ministry in 1951 to promote Christian evangelism, especially on college campuses.

    United by a shared vision to influence society through Christian values, Bright partnered with Loren Cunningham, the founder of Youth With A Mission, a major international missionary training and outreach organization, in the 1970s.

    The Seven Mountains Mandate was popularized by theologian Francis Schaeffer, who linked it to a larger critique of secularism and liberal culture. Over time, it evolved.

    C. Peter Wagner, a former seminary professor who helped organize and name the New Apostolic Reformation, is often regarded as the theological architect of the group. He developed it into a call for dominion. In his 2008 book “Dominion! How Kingdom Action Can Change the World,” he urged Christians to take authoritative control of cultural institutions.

    For Wagner, “dominion theology” – the idea that Christians should have control over all aspects of society – was a call to spiritual warfare, so that God’s kingdom would be “manifested here on earth as it is in heaven.”

    Bill Johnson.
    Doctorg via Wikimedia Commons

    Since 1996, Bill Johnson, a senior leader of Bethel Church, and Johnny Enlow, a self-described prophet and Seven Mountains advocate, among others, have taken the original idea of the Seven Mountains Mandate and reshaped it into a more aggressive, political and spiritually militant approach. Spiritual militancy reflects an aggressive, us-vs.-them mindset that blurs the line between faith and authoritarianism, promoting dominion over society in the name of spiritual warfare.

    Their version doesn’t just aim to influence culture; it frames the effort as a spiritual battle to reclaim and reshape the nation according to their vision of God’s will.

    Lance Wallnau, another Christian evangelical preacher, televangelist, speaker and author, has promoted dominion theology since the early 2000s. During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Wallnau, along with several prominent NAR figures, described Donald Trump as anointed by God to reclaim the “mountain” of government from demonic control.

    In their book “Invading Babylon: The 7 Mountains Mandate,” Wallnau and Johnson explicitly call for Christian leadership as the only antidote to perceived moral decay and spiritual darkness.

    The beliefs

    Sometimes referred to as Seven Mountains of Influence or Seven Mountains of Culture, the seven mountains are not neutral domains but seen as battlegrounds between divine truth and demonic deception.

    Adherents believe that Christians are called to reclaim these areas through influence, leadership and even, if necessary, the use of force and to confront demonic political forces, as religion scholar Matthew Taylor demonstrates in his book “The Violent Take It By Force.”

    Diverse perspectives and interpretations surround the rhetoric and actions associated with the New Apostolic Reformation. Some analysts have pointed out how the NAR is training its followers for an active confrontation. Other commentators have said that the rhetoric calling for physical violence is anti-biblical and should be denounced.

    NAR-aligned leaders have framed electoral contests as struggles between “godly” candidates and those under the sway of “satanic” influence.

    Similarly, NAR prophet Cindy Jacobs has repeatedly emphasized the need for “spiritual warfare” in schools to combat what she characterizes as “demonic ideologies” such as sex education, LGBTQ+ inclusion or discussions of systemic racism.

    In the NAR worldview, cultural change is not merely political or social but considered a supernatural mission; opponents are not simply wrong but possibly under the sway of demonic influence. Elections become spiritual battles.

    This belief system views pluralism as weakness, compromise as betrayal, and coexistence as capitulation. Frederick Clarkson, a senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, a progressive think tank based in Somerville, Massachusetts, defines the Seven Mountains Mandate as “the theocratic idea that Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.”

    The call to “take back” the culture is not metaphorical but literal, and believers are encouraged to see themselves as soldiers in a holy war to dominate society. Some critics argue that NAR’s call to “take back” culture is about literal domination, but this interpretation is contested.

    Many within the movement see the language of warfare as spiritually focused on prayer, evangelism and influencing hearts and minds. Still, the line between metaphor and mandate can blur, especially when rhetoric about “dominion” intersects with political and cultural action. That tension is part of an ongoing debate both within and outside the movement.

    Networks that spread the beliefs

    This belief system is no longer confined to the margins. It is spread widely through evangelical churches, podcasts, YouTube videos and political networks.

    It’s hard to know exactly how many churches are part of the New Apostolic Reformation, but estimates suggest that about 3 million people in the U.S. attend churches that openly follow NAR leaders.

    At the same time, the Seven Mountains Mandate doesn’t depend on centralized leadership or formal institutions. It spreads organically through social networks, social media – notably podcasts and livestreams – and revivalist meetings and workshops.

    André Gagné, a theologian and author of “American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times,” writes about the ways in which the mandate spreads by empowering local leaders and believers. Individuals are authorized – often through teachings on spiritual warfare, prophetic gifting, and apostolic leadership – to see themselves as agents of divine transformation in society, called to reclaim the “mountains,” such as government, media and education, for God’s kingdom.

    This approach, Gagné explains, allows different communities to adapt the action mandate to their unique cultural, political and social contexts. It encourages individuals to see themselves as spiritual warriors and leaders in their domains – whether in business, education, government, media or the arts.

    Small groups or even individuals can start movements or initiatives without waiting for top-down directives. The only recognized authorities are the apostles and prophets running the church or church network the believers attend.

    The framing of the Seven Mountains Mandate as a divinely inspired mission, combined with the movement’s emphasis on direct spiritual experiences and a specific interpretation of scripture, can create an environment where questioning the mandate is perceived as challenging God’s authority.

    Slippery slope

    These beliefs have increasingly fused with nationalist rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

    The ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flags symbolize the belief that people have the right to appeal directly to God’s authority when they think the government has failed.
    Paul Becker/Becker1999 via Flickr, CC BY

    A powerful example of NAR political rhetoric in action is the rise and influence of the “Appeal to Heaven” flags. For those in the New Apostolic Reformation, these flags symbolize the belief that when all earthly authority fails, people have the right to appeal directly to God’s authority to justify resistance.

    This was evident during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, when these flags were prominently displayed.

    To be clear, its leaders are not calling for violence but rather for direct political engagement and protest. For some believers, however, the calls for “spiritual warfare” may become a slippery slope into justification for violence, as in the case of the alleged Minnesota shooter.

    Understanding the Seven Mountains Mandate is essential for grasping the dynamics of contemporary efforts to align government and culture with a particular vision of Christian authority and influence.

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

    – ref. What is the ‘Seven Mountains Mandate’ and how is it linked to political extremism in the US? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-seven-mountains-mandate-and-how-is-it-linked-to-political-extremism-in-the-us-260034

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The aftermath of floods, hurricanes and other disasters can be hardest on older rural Americans – here’s how families and neighbors can help

    Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Lori Hunter, Professor of Sociology, Director of the Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder

    Edith Schaecher, center, and her daughter and granddaughter look at a photo album recovered from her tornado-damaged home in Greenfield, Iowa, in May 2024. AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

    Hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme weather do not distinguish between urban and rural boundaries. But when a disaster strikes, there are big differences in how well people are able to respond and recover – and older adults in rural areas are especially vulnerable.

    If a disaster causes injuries, getting health care can take longer in rural areas. Many rural hospitals have closed, leaving patients traveling longer distances for care.

    At the same time, rural areas have higher percentages of older adults, a group that is more likely to have chronic health problems that make experiencing natural disasters especially dangerous. Medical treatments, such as dialysis, can be disrupted when power goes out or clinics are damaged, and injuries are more likely around property damaged by flooding or powerful winds.

    As a sociologist who studies rural issues and directs the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder, I believe that understanding the risks is essential for ensuring healthier lives for older adults. I see many different ways rural communities are helping reduce their vulnerability in disasters.

    Disasters disrupt health care, especially in isolated rural regions

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 20% of the country’s rural population is age 65 and over, compared with only 16% of urban residents. That’s about 10 million older adults living in rural areas.

    There are three primary reasons rural America has been aging faster than the rest of the country: Young people have been leaving for college and job opportunities, meaning fewer residents are starting new families. Many older rural residents are choosing to “age in place” where they have strong social ties. And some rural areas are gaining older adults who choose to retire there.

    An aging population means rural areas tend to have a larger percentage of residents with chronic disease, such as dementia, heart disease, respiratory illness and diabetes.

    According to research from the National Council on Aging, nearly 95% of adults age 60 and older have at least one chronic condition, while more than 78% have two or more. Rural areas also have higher rates of death from chronic diseases, particularly heart disease.

    At the same time, health care access in rural areas is rapidly declining.

    Nearly 200 rural hospitals have closed or stopped providing in-patient care since 2005. Over 700 more — one-third of the nation’s remaining rural hospitals — were considered to be at risk of closing even before the cuts to Medicaid that the president signed in July 2025.

    Hospital closures have left rural residents traveling about 20 miles farther for common in-patient health care services than they did two decades ago, and even farther for specialist care.

    Those miles might seem trivial, but in emergencies when roads are damaged or flooded, they can mean losing access to care and treatment.

    After Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, 44% of patients on dialysis missed at least one treatment session, and almost 17% missed three or more.

    When Hurricanes Matthew and Florence hit rural Robeson County, North Carolina, in 2016 and 2018, some patients who relied on insulin to manage their blood sugar levels went without insulin for weeks. The county had high rates of poverty and poor health already, and the healthy foods people needed to manage the disease were also hard to find after the storm.

    Insulin is important for treating diabetes – a chronic disease estimated to affect nearly one-third of adults age 65 and older. But a sufficient supply can be harder to maintain when a disaster knocks out power, because insulin should be kept cool, and medical facilities and drugstores may be harder for patients to reach.

    Rural residents also often live farther from community centers, schools or other facilities that can serve as cooling centers during heat waves or evacuation centers in times of crisis.

    Alzheimer’s disease can make evacuation difficult

    Cognitive decline also affects older adults’ ability to manage disasters.

    Over 11% of Americans age 65 and older – more than 7 million people – have Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia, and the prevalence is higher in rural areas’ older populations compared with urban areas.

    Caregivers for family members living with dementia may struggle to find time to prepare for disasters. And when disaster strikes, they face unique challenges. Disasters disrupt routines, which can cause agitation for people with Alzheimer’s, and patients may resist evacuation.

    Living through a disaster can also worsen brain health over the long run. Older adults who lived through the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami were found to have greater cognitive decline over the following decade, especially those who lost their homes or jobs, or whose health care routines were disrupted.

    Social safety nets are essential

    One thing that many rural communities have that helps is a strong social fabric. Those social connections can help reduce older adults’ vulnerability when disasters strike.

    Following severe flooding in Colorado in 2013, social connections helped older adults navigate the maze of paperwork required for disaster aid, and some even provided personal loans.

    Community support through churches, like this one whose building was hit by a tornado in rural Argyle, Wis., in 2024, and other groups can help older adults recover from disasters.
    Ross Harried/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Friends, family and neighbors in rural areas often check in on seniors, particularly those living alone. They can help them develop disaster response plans to ensure older residents have access to medications and medical treatment, and that they have an evacuation plan.

    Rural communities and local groups can also help build up older adults’ mental and physical health before and after storms by developing educational, social and exercise programs. Better health and social connections can improve resilience, including older adults’ ability to respond to alerts and recover after disasters.

    Ensuring that everyone in the community has that kind of support is important in rural areas and cities alike as storm and flood risks worsen, particularly for older adults.

    Lori Hunter receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. The aftermath of floods, hurricanes and other disasters can be hardest on older rural Americans – here’s how families and neighbors can help – https://theconversation.com/the-aftermath-of-floods-hurricanes-and-other-disasters-can-be-hardest-on-older-rural-americans-heres-how-families-and-neighbors-can-help-247691

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: 3 basic ingredients, a million possibilities: How small pizzerias succeed with uniqueness in an age of chain restaurants

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Paula de la Cruz-Fernández, Cultural Digital Collections Manager, University of Florida

    Variety is the sauce of life. Suzanne Kreiter/Boston Globe via Getty Images

    At its heart, pizza is deceptively simple. Made from just a few humble ingredients – baked dough, tangy sauce, melted cheese and maybe a few toppings – it might seem like a perfect candidate for the kind of mass-produced standardization that defines many global food chains, where predictable menus reign supreme.

    Yet, visit two pizzerias in different towns – or even on different blocks of the same town – and you’ll find that pizza stubbornly refuses to be homogenized.

    We are researchers working on a local business history project that documents the commercial landscape of Gainesville, Florida, in the 20th and 21st centuries. As part of that project, we’ve spent a great many hours over the past two years interviewing local restaurant owners, especially those behind Gainesville’s independent pizzerias. What we’ve found reaffirms a powerful truth: Pizza resists sameness – and small pizzerias are a big reason why.

    Why standardized pizza rose but didn’t conquer

    While tomatoes were unknown in Italy until the mid-16th century, they have since become synonymous with Italian cuisine – especially through pizza.

    Pizza arrived in the U.S. from Naples in the early 20th century, when Italian immigration was at its peak. Two of the biggest destinations for Italian immigrants were New York City and Chicago, and today each has a distinctive pizza style. A New York slice can easily be identified by its thin, soft, foldable crust, while Chicago pies are known for deep, thick, buttery crusts.

    After World War II, other regions developed their own types of pizza, including the famed New Haven and Detroit styles. The New Haven style is known for being thin, crispy and charred in a coal-fired oven, while the Detroit style has a rectangular, deep-dish shape and thick, buttery crust.

    By the latter half of the 20th century, pizza had become a staple of the American diet. And as its popularity grew, so did demand for consistent, affordable pizza joints. Chains such as Pizza Hut, founded in 1958, and Papa John’s, established in 1984, applied the model pioneered by McDonalds in the late 1940s, adopting limited menus, assembly line kitchens and franchise models built for consistency and scale. New technologies such as point-of-sale systems and inventory management software made things even more efficient.

    As food historian Carol Helstosky explains in “Pizza: A Global History,” the transformation involved simplifying recipes, ensuring consistent quality and developing formats optimized for rapid expansion and franchising. What began as a handcrafted, regional dish became a highly replicable product suited to global mass markets.

    Today, more than 20,000 Pizza Huts operate worldwide. Papa John’s, which runs about 6,000 pizzerias, built its brand explicitly on a promise rooted in standardization. In this model, success means making pizza the same way, everywhere, every time.

    So, what happened to the independent pizzerias? Did they get swallowed up by efficiency?

    Not quite.

    Chain restaurants don’t necessarily suffocate small competitors, recent research shows. In fact, in the case of pizza, they often coexist, sometimes even fueling creativity and opportunity. Independent pizzerias – there are more than 44,000 nationwide – lean into what makes them unique, carving out a niche. Rather than focusing only on speed or price, they compete by offering character, inventive toppings, personal service and a sense of place that chains just can’t replicate.

    A local pizza scene: Creativity in a corporate age

    For an example, look no farther than Gainesville. A college town with fewer than 150,000 residents, Gainesville doesn’t have the same culinary cache as New York or Chicago, but it has developed a very unique pizza scene. With 13 independent pizzerias serving Neapolitan, Detroit, New York and Mediterranean styles and more, hungry Gators have a plethora of options when craving a slice.

    What makes Gainesville’s pizza scene especially interesting is the range of backgrounds its proprietors have. Through interviews with pizzeria owners, we found that some had started as artists and musicians, while others had worked in engineering or education – and each had their own unique approach to making pizzas.

    The owner of Strega Nona’s Oven, for example, uses his engineering background to turn dough-making into a science, altering the proportions of ingredients by as little as half of a percent based on the season or even the weather.

    Satchel’s Pizza, on the other hand, is filled with works made by its artist owner, including mosaic windows, paintings, sculptures and fountains.

    Gainesville’s independent pizzerias often serve as what sociologists call “third places”: spaces for gathering that aren’t home or work. And their owners think carefully about how to create a welcoming environment. For example, the owner of Scuola Pizza insisted the restaurant be free of TVs, so diners can focus on their food. Squarehouse Pizza features a large outdoor space; an old, now repurposed school bus outfitted with tables and chairs to dine in, and a stage for live music.

    Squarehouse also is known for its unusual toppings on square, Detroit-style pies – for example, the Mariah Curry, topped with curry chicken or cauliflower and coconut curry sauce. It refreshes its specialty menus every semester or two.

    While the American pizza landscape may be shaped by big brands and standardized menus, small pizzerias continue to shine. Gainesville is a perfect example of how a local pizza scene in a small Southern college town can be so unique, even in a globalized industry. Small pizzerias don’t just offer food – they offer a flavorful reminder that the marketplace rewards distinctiveness and local character, too.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. 3 basic ingredients, a million possibilities: How small pizzerias succeed with uniqueness in an age of chain restaurants – https://theconversation.com/3-basic-ingredients-a-million-possibilities-how-small-pizzerias-succeed-with-uniqueness-in-an-age-of-chain-restaurants-259661

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How slashing university research grants impacts Colorado’s economy and national innovation – a CU Boulder administrator explains

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Massimo Ruzzene, Vice Chancellor of Research and Innovation, University of Colorado Boulder

    Federal funding cuts to the University of Colorado Boulder have already impacted research and could cause even more harm. Glenn J. Asakawa/University of Colorado

    The Trump administration has been freezing or reducing federal grants to universities across the country.

    Over the past several months, universities have lost more than US$11 billion in funding, according to NPR. More than two dozen universities, including the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Denver, have been affected. Research into cancer, farming solutions and climate resiliency are just a few of the many projects nationally that have seen cuts.

    The Conversation asked Massimo Ruzzene, senior vice chancellor for research and innovation at the University of Colorado Boulder, to explain how these cuts and freezes are impacting the university he works for and Colorado’s local economy.

    How important are federal funds to CU Boulder?

    Federal funding pays for approximately 70% of CU Boulder’s research each year. That’s about $495 million in the 2023-2024 fiscal year.

    The other 30% of research funding comes from a variety of sources. The second-largest is international partnerships at $127 million. Last year, CU Boulder also received $27 million in philanthropic gifts to support research and approximately $29 million from collaborations with industry.

    CU Boulder uses this money to fund research that advances fields like artificial intelligence, space exploration and planetary sciences, quantum technologies, biosciences and climate and energy.

    At CU Boulder, federal funding also supports research projects like the Dust Accelerator Laboratory that helps us understand the composition and structure of cosmic dust. This research allows scientists to reconstruct the processes that formed planets, moons and organic molecules.

    How much federal funding has CU Boulder lost?

    So far in 2025, CU Boulder has received 56 grant cancellations or stop-work orders. Those amount to approximately $30 million in lost funding. This number is not inclusive of awards that are on hold and awaiting action by the sponsor.

    This number also does not include the funds that have not been accessible due the considerable lag in funding from agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
    Nationwide, National Science Foundation funding has dropped by more than 50% through the end of May of this year compared to the average of the past 10 years. The university anticipates that our funding received from these agencies will drop a similar amount, but the numbers are still being collected for this year.

    What research has been impacted?

    A wide variety. To take just one example, CU Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research investigate how to monitor, predict, respond to and recover from extreme weather conditions and natural disasters.

    This research directly impacts the safety, well-being and prosperity of Colorado residents facing wildfires, droughts and floods.

    Michael Gooseff, a researcher from the College of Engineering and Applied Science, collects weather data from the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica.
    Byron Adams/University of Colorado Boulder

    Past research from these groups includes recovery efforts following the 2021 Marshall Fire in the Boulder area. Researchers collaborated with local governments and watershed groups to monitor environmental impacts and develop dashboards that detailed their findings.

    How might cuts affect Colorado’s aerospace economy?

    Colorado has more aerospace jobs per capita than any other state. The sector employs more than 55,000 people and contributes significantly to both Colorado’s economy and the national economy.

    This ecosystem encompasses research universities such as CU Boulder and Colorado-based startups like Blue Canyon Technologies and Ursa Major Technologies. It also includes established global companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies.

    At CU Boulder, the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics is one of the world’s premier space science research institutions. Researchers at the lab design, build and operate spacecraft and other instruments that contribute critical data. That data helps us understand Earth’s atmosphere, the Sun, planetary systems and deep space phenomena. If the projects the lab supports are cut, then it’s likely the lab will be cut as well.

    The Presidential Budget Request proposes up to 24% cuts to NASA’s annual budget. These include reductions of 47% for the Science Mission Directorate. The directorate supports more than a dozen space missions at CU Boulder. That cut could have an immediate impact on university programs of approximately $50 million.

    Scientists test the solar arrays on NASA’s Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution orbiter spacecraft at Lockheed Martin’s facility near Denver.
    Photo courtesy of LASP

    One of the largest space missions CU Boulder is involved in is the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution orbiter. MAVEN, as it’s known, provides telecommunications and space weather monitoring capabilities. These are necessary to support future human and robotic missions to Mars over the next decade and beyond, a stated priority for the White House. If MAVEN were to be canceled, experts estimate that it would cost almost $1 billion to restart it.

    Have the cuts hit quantum research?

    While the federal government has identified quantum technology as a national priority, the fiscal year 2026 budget proposal only maintains existing funding levels. It does not introduce new investments or initiatives.

    I’m concerned that this stagnation, amid broader cuts to science agencies, could undermine progress in this field and undercut the training of its critical workforce. The result could be the U.S. ceding its leadership in quantum innovation to global competitors.

    Massimo Ruzzene receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. How slashing university research grants impacts Colorado’s economy and national innovation – a CU Boulder administrator explains – https://theconversation.com/how-slashing-university-research-grants-impacts-colorados-economy-and-national-innovation-a-cu-boulder-administrator-explains-257869

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Higher ed’s relationship with marriage? It’s complicated – and depends on age

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John V. Winters, Professor of Economics, Iowa State University

    Education rates are rising; marriage rates are falling. But the relationship between those two trends isn’t straightforward. Ugur Karakoc/E+ via Getty Images

    The longer someone stays in school, the more likely they are to delay getting married – but education does not reduce the overall likelihood of being married later in life, according to our research recently published in Education Economics. Education also influences who Americans marry: Obtaining a four-year degree vs. just a high school diploma more than doubles someone’s likelihood of marrying a fellow college graduate.

    Previous research has documented that the more education you have, the more likely you are to get married. But correlation does not imply causality, and plenty of other factors influence marriage and education.

    My research with economist Kunwon Ahn provides evidence that there is indeed a causal link between education and marriage – but it’s a nuanced one.

    Our study applies economic theory and advanced statistics to a 2006-2019 sample from the American Community Survey: more than 8 million people, whom we divided into different cohorts based on birthplace, birth year and self-reported ancestry.

    To isolate the causal relationship, we needed to sidestep other factors that can influence someone’s decisions about marriage and education. Therefore, we did not calculate based on individuals’ own education level. Instead, we estimated their educational attainment using a proxy: their mothers’ level of education. On the individual level, plenty of people finish more or less education than their parents. Within a cohort, however, the amount of schooling that mothers have, on average, is a strong predictor of how much education children in that cohort received.

    We found that an additional year of schooling – counting from first grade to the end of any postgraduate degrees – reduces the likelihood that someone age 25 to 34 is married by roughly 4 percentage points.

    Among older age groups, the effects of education were more mixed. On average, the level of education has almost zero impact on the probability that someone age 45 to 54 is married. Among people who were married by that age, being more educated reduces their likelihood of being divorced or separated.

    However, more education also makes people slightly more likely to have never been married by that age. In our sample, about 12% of people in that age group have never married. An additional year of education increases that, on average, by 2.6 percentage points.

    Why it matters

    Marriage rates are at historical lows in the United States, especially for young people. Before 1970, more than 80% of Americans 25 to 34 were married. By 2023, that number had fallen to only 38%, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    Over the same time, the percentage of Americans with a college degree has increased considerably. Additional education can increase someone’s earning potential and make them a more attractive partner.

    Yet the rising costs of higher education may make marriage less attainable. A 2016 study found that the more college debt someone had, the less likely they were to ever marry.

    While marriage rates have fallen across the board, the drop is most pronounced for lower-income groups, and not all of the gap is driven by education. One of the other causes may be declining job prospects for lower-income men. Over recent decades, as their earning potential has dwindled and women’s job options have grown, it appears some of the economic benefits of marriage have declined.

    Declining marriage rates have important effects on individuals, families and society as a whole. Many people value the institution for its own sake, and others assign it importance based on religious, cultural and social values. Economically, marriage has important consequences for children, including how many children people have and the resources that they can invest in those children.

    What still isn’t known

    Education levels are only part of the explanation for trends in marriage rates. Other cultural, social, economic and technological factors are likely involved in the overall decline, but their exact contribution is still unknown.

    One idea gaining traction, though little research has been done on it, considers the ways smartphones and social media may be reducing psychological and social well-being. We stay in more, go out less, and are increasingly divided – all of which could make people less likely to marry.

    The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

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

    – ref. Higher ed’s relationship with marriage? It’s complicated – and depends on age – https://theconversation.com/higher-eds-relationship-with-marriage-its-complicated-and-depends-on-age-258664

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Academic slams NZ government over ‘compromised’ foreign policy

    Asia Pacific Report

    A prominent academic has criticised the New Zealand coalition government for compromising the country’s traditional commitment to upholding an international rules-based order due to a “desire not to offend” the Trump administration.

    Professor Robert Patman, an inaugural sesquicentennial distinguished chair and a specialist in international relations at the University of Otago, has argued in a contributed article to The Spinoff that while distant in geographic terms, “brutal violence in Gaza, the West Bank and Iran marks the latest stage in the unravelling of an international rules-based order on which New Zealand depends for its prosperity and security”.

    Dr Patman wrote that New Zealand’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasised partnership and cooperation at home, and, after 1945, helped inspire a New Zealand worldview enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations and norms such as multilateralism.

    Professor Robert Patman . . . “Even more striking was the government’s silence on President Trump’s proposal to own Gaza with a view to evicting two million Palestinian residents.” Image: University of Otago

    “In the wake of Hamas’ terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, the National-led coalition government has in principle emphasised its support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza and the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank,” he wrote.

    However, Dr Patman said, in practice this New Zealand stance had not translated into firm diplomatic opposition to the Netanyahu government’s quest to control Gaza and annex the West Bank.

    “Nor has it been a condemnation of the Trump administration for prioritising its support for Israel’s security goals over international law,” he said.

    Foreign minister Winston Peters had described the situation in Gaza as “simply intolerable” but the National-led coalition had little specific to say as the Netanyahu government “resumed its cruel blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza in March and restarted military operations there”.

    Silence on Trump’s ‘Gaza ownership’
    “Even more striking was the government’s silence on President Trump’s proposal to own Gaza with a view to evicting two million Palestinian residents from the territory and the US-Israeli venture to start the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in late May in a move which sidelined the UN in aid distribution and has led to the killing of more than 600 Palestinians while seeking food aid,” Dr Patman said.

    While New Zealand, along with the UK, Australia, Canada and Norway, had imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar ben Gvir, in June for “inciting extremist violence” against Palestinians — a move that was criticised by the Trump administration — it was arguably a case of very little very late.

    “The Hamas terror attacks on October 7 killed around 1200 Israelis, but the Netanyahu government’s retaliation by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) against Hamas has resulted in the deaths of more than 56,000 Palestinians — nearly 70 percent of whom were women or children — in Gaza.

    Over the same period, more than 1000 Palestinians had been killed in the West Bank as Israel accelerated its programme of illegal settlements there.

    ‘Strangely ambivalent’
    In addition, the responses of the New Zealand government to “pre-emptive attacks” by Israel (13-25 June) and Trump’s United States (June 22) against Iran to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities were strangely ambivalent.

    Despite indications from US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had not produced nuclear weapons, Foreign Minister Peters had said New Zealand was not prepared to take a position on that issue.

    Confronted with Trump’s “might is right” approach, the National-led coalition faced stark choices, Dr Patman said.

    The New Zealand government could continue to fudge fundamental moral and legal issues in the Middle East and risk complicity in the further weakening of an international rules-based order it purportedly supports, “or it can get off the fence, stand up for the country’s values, and insist that respect for international law must be observed in the region and elsewhere without exception”.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Academic slams NZ government over ‘compromised’ foreign policy

    Asia Pacific Report

    A prominent academic has criticised the New Zealand coalition government for compromising the country’s traditional commitment to upholding an international rules-based order due to a “desire not to offend” the Trump administration.

    Professor Robert Patman, an inaugural sesquicentennial distinguished chair and a specialist in international relations at the University of Otago, has argued in a contributed article to The Spinoff that while distant in geographic terms, “brutal violence in Gaza, the West Bank and Iran marks the latest stage in the unravelling of an international rules-based order on which New Zealand depends for its prosperity and security”.

    Dr Patman wrote that New Zealand’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasised partnership and cooperation at home, and, after 1945, helped inspire a New Zealand worldview enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations and norms such as multilateralism.

    Professor Robert Patman . . . “Even more striking was the government’s silence on President Trump’s proposal to own Gaza with a view to evicting two million Palestinian residents.” Image: University of Otago

    “In the wake of Hamas’ terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, the National-led coalition government has in principle emphasised its support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza and the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank,” he wrote.

    However, Dr Patman said, in practice this New Zealand stance had not translated into firm diplomatic opposition to the Netanyahu government’s quest to control Gaza and annex the West Bank.

    “Nor has it been a condemnation of the Trump administration for prioritising its support for Israel’s security goals over international law,” he said.

    Foreign minister Winston Peters had described the situation in Gaza as “simply intolerable” but the National-led coalition had little specific to say as the Netanyahu government “resumed its cruel blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza in March and restarted military operations there”.

    Silence on Trump’s ‘Gaza ownership’
    “Even more striking was the government’s silence on President Trump’s proposal to own Gaza with a view to evicting two million Palestinian residents from the territory and the US-Israeli venture to start the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in late May in a move which sidelined the UN in aid distribution and has led to the killing of more than 600 Palestinians while seeking food aid,” Dr Patman said.

    While New Zealand, along with the UK, Australia, Canada and Norway, had imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar ben Gvir, in June for “inciting extremist violence” against Palestinians — a move that was criticised by the Trump administration — it was arguably a case of very little very late.

    “The Hamas terror attacks on October 7 killed around 1200 Israelis, but the Netanyahu government’s retaliation by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) against Hamas has resulted in the deaths of more than 56,000 Palestinians — nearly 70 percent of whom were women or children — in Gaza.

    Over the same period, more than 1000 Palestinians had been killed in the West Bank as Israel accelerated its programme of illegal settlements there.

    ‘Strangely ambivalent’
    In addition, the responses of the New Zealand government to “pre-emptive attacks” by Israel (13-25 June) and Trump’s United States (June 22) against Iran to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities were strangely ambivalent.

    Despite indications from US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had not produced nuclear weapons, Foreign Minister Peters had said New Zealand was not prepared to take a position on that issue.

    Confronted with Trump’s “might is right” approach, the National-led coalition faced stark choices, Dr Patman said.

    The New Zealand government could continue to fudge fundamental moral and legal issues in the Middle East and risk complicity in the further weakening of an international rules-based order it purportedly supports, “or it can get off the fence, stand up for the country’s values, and insist that respect for international law must be observed in the region and elsewhere without exception”.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Reduce, remove, reflect — the three Rs that could limit global warming

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dante McGrath, Postdoctoral Researcher, Centre for Climate Repair, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge

    NASA Johnson/flickr, CC BY-NC

    Since 2019, the UK has been committed to the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Legally binding net zero targets form the basis for national efforts to meet the international goals of limiting global warming to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and ideally to 1.5°C.

    These goals, launched in 2015 as part of the UN’s Paris agreement, set the stage for climate action in a warming world. Much like the “reduce-reuse-recycle” sustainability initiative, various climate actions fit within three Rs — reduce, remove and reflect. These actions were the subject of a recent debate in the UK parliament.

    My colleagues and I have reviewed how these three Rs differ in scope, scale and state of knowledge. Our analysis reveals that a range of climate interventions may complement intensified mitigation efforts (to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), but more research is urgently needed.

    Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is at centre stage. This is non-negotiable. Emissions reduction must be deep, rapid and sustained if we are to limit global warming to less than 2°C. These drastic cuts demand an ensemble cast, players from all sectors, from energy to agriculture. The energy to power modern society accounts for almost 75% of our greenhouse gas emissions.

    We need a prop change at centre stage: an energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables. This requires electrification and energy efficiency measures — both are central to managing the growth in energy demand sustainably.

    At stage right, greenhouse gas removal offers a supporting role by removing historical emissions and offsetting residual emissions from sectors lagging behind in the energy transition (such as shipping and aviation). A number of academics have stressed that a range of removal methods is required to achieve net zero emissions and halt the rise in global temperature.

    Conventional carbon removal methods, such as forestation or the restoration of peatlands and wetlands, are vital. However, due to resource constraints (such as land and water security) and ecosystem impacts of global warming, we need to scale new methods rapidly to meet Paris agreement targets. These include ways to capture and store carbon on land and at sea.

    Novel methods have many challenges, however, related to their effectiveness (including storage durability and permanence), unintended environmental consequences, economic costs and demands on natural resources. The challenges constraining the scale-up of novel removal methods must be addressed if we are to achieve net zero and halt global warming.

    The consequences of climate change are outpacing efforts to abate it. With each year, the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 and 2°C warming increases, posing major risks to society and Earth’s ecosystems. That’s why the third R — reflect — needs to be assessed.



    Read more:
    UK funds controversial climate-cooling research

    Sunlight reflection methods have been in the wings on stage left. In the context of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, they have been considered feasible in theory, but fraught with challenges in practice. As the chance of exceeding 1.5°C in the coming years increases, this form of climate intervention needs further consideration. Experts brought together by the UN Environment Programme have concluded that, although this intervention is “not a substitute for mitigation”, it is “the only option that could cool the planet within years”.

    The most studied methods to reflect sunlight are called stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. These methods mimic natural processes that cool the earth by reflecting sunlight, be it through the release of reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere, or the addition of droplet-forming salt crystals into marine clouds in the lower atmosphere.



    Read more:
    Five geoengineering trials the UK is funding to combat global warming

    Sunlight reflection methods pose immense challenges with respect to research, ethics and governance. There are many scientific uncertainties about how these interventions will influence the climate. There is also no global regulatory framework in place. Any legislation needs to be based on scientific evidence and informed decisions.

    Shining the spotlight

    Meeting climate goals requires an ensemble cast performing actions across the warming world stage. Emissions reduction is indispensable and should remain centre stage in climate policy. Climate interventions at stage right and left — in the form of greenhouse gas removal and sunlight reflection — need responsible and responsive direction. Their risks and benefits need to be assessed.

    Before curtains are drawn, let’s make sure every climate action — reduce, remove and reflect — gets a fair hearing.

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

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

    Dante McGrath 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. Reduce, remove, reflect — the three Rs that could limit global warming – https://theconversation.com/reduce-remove-reflect-the-three-rs-that-could-limit-global-warming-258413

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Reduce, remove, reflect — the three Rs that could limit global warming

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dante McGrath, Postdoctoral Researcher, Centre for Climate Repair, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge

    NASA Johnson/flickr, CC BY-NC

    Since 2019, the UK has been committed to the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Legally binding net zero targets form the basis for national efforts to meet the international goals of limiting global warming to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and ideally to 1.5°C.

    These goals, launched in 2015 as part of the UN’s Paris agreement, set the stage for climate action in a warming world. Much like the “reduce-reuse-recycle” sustainability initiative, various climate actions fit within three Rs — reduce, remove and reflect. These actions were the subject of a recent debate in the UK parliament.

    My colleagues and I have reviewed how these three Rs differ in scope, scale and state of knowledge. Our analysis reveals that a range of climate interventions may complement intensified mitigation efforts (to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), but more research is urgently needed.

    Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is at centre stage. This is non-negotiable. Emissions reduction must be deep, rapid and sustained if we are to limit global warming to less than 2°C. These drastic cuts demand an ensemble cast, players from all sectors, from energy to agriculture. The energy to power modern society accounts for almost 75% of our greenhouse gas emissions.

    We need a prop change at centre stage: an energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables. This requires electrification and energy efficiency measures — both are central to managing the growth in energy demand sustainably.

    At stage right, greenhouse gas removal offers a supporting role by removing historical emissions and offsetting residual emissions from sectors lagging behind in the energy transition (such as shipping and aviation). A number of academics have stressed that a range of removal methods is required to achieve net zero emissions and halt the rise in global temperature.

    Conventional carbon removal methods, such as forestation or the restoration of peatlands and wetlands, are vital. However, due to resource constraints (such as land and water security) and ecosystem impacts of global warming, we need to scale new methods rapidly to meet Paris agreement targets. These include ways to capture and store carbon on land and at sea.

    Novel methods have many challenges, however, related to their effectiveness (including storage durability and permanence), unintended environmental consequences, economic costs and demands on natural resources. The challenges constraining the scale-up of novel removal methods must be addressed if we are to achieve net zero and halt global warming.

    The consequences of climate change are outpacing efforts to abate it. With each year, the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 and 2°C warming increases, posing major risks to society and Earth’s ecosystems. That’s why the third R — reflect — needs to be assessed.



    Read more:
    UK funds controversial climate-cooling research

    Sunlight reflection methods have been in the wings on stage left. In the context of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, they have been considered feasible in theory, but fraught with challenges in practice. As the chance of exceeding 1.5°C in the coming years increases, this form of climate intervention needs further consideration. Experts brought together by the UN Environment Programme have concluded that, although this intervention is “not a substitute for mitigation”, it is “the only option that could cool the planet within years”.

    The most studied methods to reflect sunlight are called stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. These methods mimic natural processes that cool the earth by reflecting sunlight, be it through the release of reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere, or the addition of droplet-forming salt crystals into marine clouds in the lower atmosphere.



    Read more:
    Five geoengineering trials the UK is funding to combat global warming

    Sunlight reflection methods pose immense challenges with respect to research, ethics and governance. There are many scientific uncertainties about how these interventions will influence the climate. There is also no global regulatory framework in place. Any legislation needs to be based on scientific evidence and informed decisions.

    Shining the spotlight

    Meeting climate goals requires an ensemble cast performing actions across the warming world stage. Emissions reduction is indispensable and should remain centre stage in climate policy. Climate interventions at stage right and left — in the form of greenhouse gas removal and sunlight reflection — need responsible and responsive direction. Their risks and benefits need to be assessed.

    Before curtains are drawn, let’s make sure every climate action — reduce, remove and reflect — gets a fair hearing.

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

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

    Dante McGrath 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. Reduce, remove, reflect — the three Rs that could limit global warming – https://theconversation.com/reduce-remove-reflect-the-three-rs-that-could-limit-global-warming-258413

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Staying positive might protect against memory loss

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christian van Nieuwerburgh, Professor of Coaching and Positive Psychology, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Want to remember things better as you get older? The secret might be surprisingly simple: focus on feeling good.

    Recent research involving over 10,000 people aged 50 and above has found that people with higher wellbeing perform better on memory tests as they age. The study, which followed participants for 16 years, checked their wellbeing and memory every two years.

    The researchers expected that good memory might improve wellbeing, but found no evidence for that. Instead, it was wellbeing that predicted better memory performance over time.

    The study also found that the link between wellbeing and memory stayed strong even after taking things like depression into account. This means wellbeing may affect memory on its own, not just through effects on mood.

    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.

    However, the study’s authors acknowledge some limitations that should be taken into account when considering the real-life application of their findings.

    The study relied on people reporting their own wellbeing, which can be biased – some people might overestimate how good they feel. The research also can’t prove that wellbeing directly causes better memory – other factors like income or life experiences might play a role.

    Also, the memory tests used were relatively simple and might not capture the full complexities of how memory works in real life.

    Despite these limitations, the study offers a compelling reason to invest in your wellbeing now. Here are five evidence-based strategies to increase the positive emotions in your day-to-day experiences.

    Five strategies to boost your wellbeing now

    1. Be grateful

    Some people feel better when they keep a gratitude journal.

    2. Engage in acts of kindness.

    Being kind can boost the wellbeing of both initiators and receivers of kindness.

    3. Nurture your most important relationships

    Positive relationships are important for our wellbeing. These should be nurtured and maintained.

    4. Be more present.

    In a distracted world, being present in the moment can be difficult. Being present is the opposite of multitasking. This takes intentional practice and you can develop it through meditation or mindfulness practices.

    5. Do things that lead to a “flow” state.

    Being in a flow state means that we are fully engaged in an activity. It is a mental state where a person feels fully involved and enjoys a process or activity that provides just the right balance of challenge and reward. People often talk about this as “being in the zone”. Finding an engaging hobby or sport is a good way of increasing flow moments.

    Ensuring that you and the people around you experience positive emotions regularly is not just about feeling good in the moment. It is also an important investment for the future, ensuring better mental health and wellbeing for yourself and others. What will you do?

    Christian van Nieuwerburgh 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. Staying positive might protect against memory loss – https://theconversation.com/staying-positive-might-protect-against-memory-loss-259617

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Online therapy as effective as in-person therapy, finds large study

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fabian Lenhard, Researcher, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet

    Chay Tee/Shutterstock.com

    When COVID arrived early in 2020, pandemic restrictions made in-person mental health care difficult or impossible. Both therapists and patients had to adapt almost overnight. For many in the field, it felt like a gamble: could this screen-based format offer the same level of support for people struggling with depression, anxiety or trauma?

    Evidence has been growing, but until now few studies have compared treatment outcomes before and during the pandemic. Research my colleagues and I conducted offers new insights into this period.

    We followed 2,300 patients treated in Sweden’s public mental health system over six years – three years before and three years during the pandemic – and tracked outcomes for common conditions including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

    We found that nearly half of visits shifted online during the pandemic (up from just 4% pre-COVID), yet treatment outcomes did not decline – they remained stable, despite the rapid transition.

    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.

    Patients filled out regular questionnaires during treatment to track their progress, using standard mental health assessments that measured depression and anxiety symptoms. We examined the degree of symptom improvement and the number of patients who transitioned from severe to manageable symptoms.

    Fully 38% of depressed patients recovered, along with 56% of those with generalised anxiety disorder, 46% with OCD and 59% with PTSD. These recovery rates were almost identical before and during the pandemic.

    Recovery rates were the same during the pandemic.
    AlessandroBiascioli/Shutterstock.com

    As long as care is done well

    We aren’t certain why remote care works, but one reason might be that the most important aspects of good therapy – things like building trust between patient and therapist, using evidence-based treatments and regular follow-up – can still occur online. In fact, for some people, meeting by video can make it easier to show up and feel comfortable. Our study suggests that, when care is done well, whether it’s in person or online doesn’t make much difference.

    Online care also helps with everyday difficulties. It’s often easier for people who live far away, have trouble getting around or have busy schedules to get help from home. And during a health crisis like the pandemic, being able to keep up with treatment probably helped many people stay on track instead of falling behind.

    Still, the findings come with limits. The study did not include children, people in acute psychiatric crisis or those with severe psychotic disorders — groups for whom in-person care may still be essential. And while online therapy offers flexibility, it also requires access to a private space, stable internet and the ability to engage through a screen — conditions that aren’t guaranteed for all patients.

    Just turning on a webcam isn’t enough. The clinics in this study followed proven treatment methods and kept a close eye on how patients were doing. These steps probably made a big difference and are important for making remote care work.

    Rather than being a temporary fix, online mental health care has become a core part of the system. Our study offers strong evidence that remote care, when well implemented, can match in-person treatment in effectiveness, even during something as challenging as a pandemic.

    There is no one-size-fits-all model – and not all patients will benefit equally from internet-based treatments. But giving people the choice – and maintaining high standards of care regardless of delivery method – appears to be a key to success.

    Because in the end, what matters most isn’t where care happens. It’s that it happens and that it works.

    Fabian Lenhard works as the Head of Data & Analytics for WeMind Psychiatry and is affiliated as a researcher at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

    – ref. Online therapy as effective as in-person therapy, finds large study – https://theconversation.com/online-therapy-as-effective-as-in-person-therapy-finds-large-study-259959

    MIL OSI Analysis –