Young Avalon Musicians Win Environment Award
Clean Up Australia Day 2017
SUNDAY 5 MARCH
SCHOOLS CLEAN UP DAY 3 MARCHBUSINESS CLEAN UP DAY 28 FEBRegister or join a site at: www.cleanupaustraliaday.org.au
2108Coasters Retreat Meeting Point: The fire brigade shedDate: March 5th 2017Start time: 9:00 AMEnd time: 11:00 AMContact Wilma Taylor - Email: warwiskataylor@yahoo.com
2107Avalon Beach Meeting Point: Avalon Beach SLSC.Date: March 5th 2017Start time: 9:00 AMEnd time: 10:00 AMSite Coordinator DetailsGuy Williment - Email: gwilliment@live.com.au
Avalon Dunes Careel CreekMeeting Point: near Avalon Skate ParkDate: March 5th 2017Start time: 8:00 AMEnd time: 11:00 AMSite Coordinator DetailsMarita Macrae - Email: marita.macrae@gmail.com
2104Bayview Shore FrontCome For Half An Hour Or As Long As You Can Manage. Plastic Is The Number One Material Caught In The Mangroves, Buried In Mud And Sand And Mixed In With Shore Debris.Meeting Point: Bayview Baths - in the park to the right of Gibsons MarinaDate: March 5th 2017Start time: 08:00 AMEnd time: 11:00 AMSite Coordinator DetailsLouise Smith - Email: le_gbsmith@optusnet.com.au
2103Coastal Environment CentreRepresenting: Upper Northern Beaches Rotary ClubMeeting Point: Volunteers will meet at the Coastal Environment Centre and work north towards Warriewood SLSCThis Clean Up is a recurring one which takes place yearly.Next Clean Up: March 5th 2017Date: March 5th 2017Start time: 9:30 AMEnd time: 11:00 AMSite Coordinator DetailsMichael Baxter - Email: mdbax@hotmail.com
2102Mona Vale BeachRepresenting: Blackmores LtdMeeting Point: Car park next to Bronze CafeDate: March 2nd 2017Start time: 7:00 AMEnd time: 2:00 PMSite Coordinator DetailsJackie Smiles - Email: jsmiles@blackmores.com.au
2101Narrabeen Lagoon State ParkRepresenting: Friends Of Narrabeen Lagoon CatchmentMeeting Point: Berry ReserveDate: March 5th 2017Start time: 8:00 AMEnd time: 11:00 AMSite Coordinator DetailsJudith Bennett - Email: email@narrabeenlagoon.org.au
SCHOOLS CLEAN UP DAY 3 MARCH
BUSINESS CLEAN UP DAY 28 FEB
Register or join a site at: www.cleanupaustraliaday.org.au
2108
Coasters Retreat
Meeting Point: The fire brigade shed
Date: March 5th 2017
Start time: 9:00 AM
End time: 11:00 AM
Contact Wilma Taylor - Email: warwiskataylor@yahoo.com
2107
Avalon Beach
Meeting Point: Avalon Beach SLSC.
Date: March 5th 2017
Start time: 9:00 AM
End time: 10:00 AM
Site Coordinator Details
Guy Williment - Email: gwilliment@live.com.au
Avalon Dunes Careel Creek
Meeting Point: near Avalon Skate Park
Date: March 5th 2017
Start time: 8:00 AM
End time: 11:00 AM
Site Coordinator Details
Marita Macrae - Email: marita.macrae@gmail.com
2104
Bayview Shore Front
Come For Half An Hour Or As Long As You Can Manage. Plastic Is The Number One Material Caught In The Mangroves, Buried In Mud And Sand And Mixed In With Shore Debris.
Meeting Point: Bayview Baths - in the park to the right of Gibsons Marina
Date: March 5th 2017
Start time: 08:00 AM
End time: 11:00 AM
Site Coordinator Details
Louise Smith - Email: le_gbsmith@optusnet.com.au
2103
Coastal Environment Centre
Representing: Upper Northern Beaches Rotary Club
Meeting Point: Volunteers will meet at the Coastal Environment Centre and work north towards Warriewood SLSC
This Clean Up is a recurring one which takes place yearly.
Next Clean Up: March 5th 2017
Date: March 5th 2017
Start time: 9:30 AM
End time: 11:00 AM
Site Coordinator Details
Michael Baxter - Email: mdbax@hotmail.com
2102
Mona Vale Beach
Representing: Blackmores Ltd
Meeting Point: Car park next to Bronze Cafe
Date: March 2nd 2017
Start time: 7:00 AM
End time: 2:00 PM
Site Coordinator Details
Jackie Smiles - Email: jsmiles@blackmores.com.au
2101
Narrabeen Lagoon State Park
Representing: Friends Of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment
Meeting Point: Berry Reserve
Date: March 5th 2017
Start time: 8:00 AM
End time: 11:00 AM
Site Coordinator Details
Judith Bennett - Email: email@narrabeenlagoon.org.au
Calling Western Sydney’s Green Beans To ‘Start Something’ For The Environment
New Approach For Assessing The Social Impacts Of Mining
Draft NSW Marine Estate Threat And Risk Assessment Report Released
2017 Offshore Petroleum Exploration Acreage Release - Proposed Areas
NSW’s Solar Bonanza About To Become Reality
AFMA Turns 25!!!!
Clean Up Australia Event In Antarctica
Glenn Harradine - Expeditioner Glenn Harradine taking part in Clean Up Australia Day at Casey research station (Photo: Lorrienne Lyte)
30th January 2017: Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Antarctic DivisionThe summer snow-melt at Casey research station has provided the perfect opportunity for expeditioners to undertake a Clean Up Australia event.
About 50 expeditioners spent three hours over the weekend collecting debris from around station to ensure that it did not enter the wider Antarctic environment.
Wastes are carefully managed, with most being returned to Australia for recycling, treatment and disposal, but the harsh Antarctic conditions and hurricane-strength winds inevitably result in some items becoming dispersed around station.
The team collected a variety of items including small bits of plastic, old nails, wood and metal that had been picked up by the wind during blizzards.
Casey Station Leader, Paul Ross, said while Clean Up Australia events are usually held in March in Australia, at Casey the activity has had to coincide with the hottest month of the year.
“For 11 months of the year we have ice and snow around all the buildings and infrastructure at Casey, so we can’t really see what may have accumulated,” Mr Ross said,
“During January most of that snow melts, so we can see if any debris has been deposited beneath the ice.
“On station we regularly have blizzards of up to 100 kilometres per hour so sometimes small bits of refuse escape into the local environment.”
There has been a tradition of conducting weekend clean-ups known as ‘emu bobs’, but this is the first time an Australian Antarctic station has registered with Clean Up Australia as an official site.
Clean Up Australia started in 1989 and is the nation’s largest community-based environmental event.
Glenn Harradine - Expeditioner Glenn Harradine taking part in Clean Up Australia Day at Casey research station (Photo: Lorrienne Lyte)
30th January 2017: Department of the Environment and Energy,
Australian Antarctic Division
The summer snow-melt at Casey research station has provided the perfect opportunity for expeditioners to undertake a Clean Up Australia event.
About 50 expeditioners spent three hours over the weekend collecting debris from around station to ensure that it did not enter the wider Antarctic environment.
Wastes are carefully managed, with most being returned to Australia for recycling, treatment and disposal, but the harsh Antarctic conditions and hurricane-strength winds inevitably result in some items becoming dispersed around station.
The team collected a variety of items including small bits of plastic, old nails, wood and metal that had been picked up by the wind during blizzards.
Casey Station Leader, Paul Ross, said while Clean Up Australia events are usually held in March in Australia, at Casey the activity has had to coincide with the hottest month of the year.
“For 11 months of the year we have ice and snow around all the buildings and infrastructure at Casey, so we can’t really see what may have accumulated,” Mr Ross said,
“During January most of that snow melts, so we can see if any debris has been deposited beneath the ice.
“On station we regularly have blizzards of up to 100 kilometres per hour so sometimes small bits of refuse escape into the local environment.”
There has been a tradition of conducting weekend clean-ups known as ‘emu bobs’, but this is the first time an Australian Antarctic station has registered with Clean Up Australia as an official site.
Clean Up Australia started in 1989 and is the nation’s largest community-based environmental event.
Narrabri Gas Project Application In Early Planning Assessment Phase
Public Comment Extended – Pair Trawling Application
Update On The MDBA 2017 Evaluation Of The Basin Plan
Invitation To Nominate Significant Places To The National Heritage List
$10 Million To Protect Koala Habitat
Updated Cystic Fibrosis Diagnosis Guidelines Can Help In Diagnosis, Personalized Treatment
January 31, 2017: Johns Hopkins Medicine
An international research group of 32 experts from nine countries has updated the guidelines for diagnosing the genetic disease cystic fibrosis. The researchers expect that these guidelines will provide better direction for clinicians looking at patients with symptoms of the disease to make a correct diagnosis and recommend personalized treatment.
A report of the updated guidelines and two supplemental articles detailing their implications and the data used in their creation were published on Jan. 24 in The Journal of Pediatrics.
"We've more precisely defined what cystic fibrosis is. That precision was a result of the genetic research we did and from studying the many mutations associated with cystic fibrosis," says Patrick Sosnay, M.D., assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an author on the papers.
Cystic fibrosis is a life-threatening disease that occurs when an individual has two inherited mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. People with the disease exhibit symptoms in a variety of organs, but chronic and debilitating lung infections are often most prominent. There are more than 2,000 known mutations that can occur in the CFTR gene, but not all of them result in cystic fibrosis.
In an effort to better define cystic fibrosis and categorize the mutations associated with it, Sosnay and international collaborators have assembled data from patients in North America, Europe, Australia, the Middle East, Asia and South America to quantify and describe these mutations.
Called CFTR2 (the Clinical and Functional TRanslation of CFTR), the project began in 2008 and has thus far described about 300 out of the 2,000 known mutations, making it the most comprehensive compilation and evaluation of disease liability for all genetic diseases. As a result of CFTR2, mutations are now categorized as either cystic fibrosis causing, mutations of varying clinical consequence, non-cystic fibrosis causing or unknown. Mutations are categorized depending on whether the mutation meets clinical criteria and the likelihood that someone with the mutation will have cystic fibrosis.
The updated cystic fibrosis diagnosis consensus guidelines now recommend using CFTR2 as an aid to determine whether a patient has the genetic evidence of cystic fibrosis, a substantial update from the 23-mutation panel by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that has been in use since 2004.
"The stakes in categorizing a mutation are particularly high. For example, claiming that a mutation 100 percent causes cystic fibrosis may affect people's reproductive decisions if they believe their child will have the mutation," says Sosnay.
However, Sosnay believes that providing patients with all of the available information on cystic fibrosis may lead to more informed health care decisions and a better understanding of the wide spectrum of CFTR-related disease.
"Therapies exist for individuals with certain mutations. The compilation and availability of all this data can lead to more personalized medicine if people know what mutation(s) they have and seek appropriate care," adds Sosnay.
The new guidelines also standardized diagnostic criteria for individuals diagnosed outside of newborn screening. Newborn screening, which started in the U.S. in the 1980s and became rapidly adopted in the 1990s and 2000s, is a standard blood test performed soon after birth that is responsible for the majority of cystic fibrosis diagnoses. However, it's not consistently performed everywhere in the world, and even in the U.S., there is a possibility of a false negative.
Given that over one-third of all U.S. cystic fibrosis diagnoses in 2014 did not occur during newborn screening, it will remain necessary to diagnose cystic fibrosis outside of newborn screening.
Screening outside of the neonatal period relies on symptoms and evidence of CFTR dysfunction, usually indicated by a test for the amount of chloride in a person's sweat. Cystic fibrosis is caused by defects in a protein, coded for by the CFTR gene that is found in places such as the airways and sweat glands. Elevated levels of chloride in sweat provides direct evidence that the CFTR protein is not working, and is used as a main diagnostic test for CF.
Based on data collected from CFTR2 and other research recognizing all cases of cystic fibrosis, the new guidelines lowered the threshold for "possible" cystic fibrosis from 40 millimoles per liter to 30 millimoles per liter for all ages. A normal range for chloride concentration in sweat is 10 to 20 millimoles per liter, and 60 millimoles per liter constitutes a cystic fibrosis diagnosis.
A result of this updated guideline is that those with a chloride level between 30 and 40 millimoles per liter who were previously considered unlikely to have cystic fibrosis will now be reconsidered as possibly having cystic fibrosis or a related disease.
Philip M. Farrell, Terry B. White, Clement L. Ren, Sarah E. Hempstead, Frank Accurso, Nico Derichs, Michelle Howenstine, Susanna A. McColley, Michael Rock, Margaret Rosenfeld, Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus, Kevin W. Southern, Bruce C. Marshall, Patrick R. Sosnay. Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis: Consensus Guidelines from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The Journal of Pediatrics, 2017; 181: S4 DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.09.064
Raise Your Glass Wins 2017 Tamworth Songwriters Association ‘Anzac Song’ Contest
Monday, 30 Jan 2017: by AWM
On Tuesday 24 January the Tamworth Songwriters Association (TSA) announced Paul Grierson and Chris Reiger as the co-winners of its “Anzac song” contest at the annual National Country Music Songwriting Awards in Tamworth.
Director of the Australian War Memorial, Dr Brendan Nelson, wrote a personal letter congratulating Mr Grierson and co-writer Mr Reiger for their song Raise your glass.
“The song is perfectly crafted, speaking directly to us and the debt we owe these men and women whose service and sacrifice has done so much to deepen our understanding of what it means to be Australian.”
Dr Nelson said in both the song and the powerful video, the co-writers of the song paid tribute to generations of men and women who wear and who have worn the uniform of our three services.
“You have also evoked the sense of love, support and loss in families who have given so much for us.”
The Memorial Director also said he would look for the opportunity for the men to perform the song at the Australian War Memorial in due course as “both you and the song are worthy of a wide national audience.”
President of the Tamworth Songwriters Association, Duncan Hill, said the ANZAC section was one of the most popular sections this year in the TSA’s contest.
“There were a large number of excellent songs that made it particularly difficult for the judges,” Mr Hill said.
The other four finalists in the category included “1950” by Laura Byrnes and Chloe Styler, “The Lost Soldier” by Peter Campbell & Brendon Walmsley, “Missing In Action” by Graham Rodger and “With Respect” by Brad Marks & Allan Caswell.
In his letter Dr Nelson also said that in the most powerful way, the winning co-writers reminded us that country music is in the end about the human spirit and the triumph of support of one another over everything else.
“You have done us proud.”
Large Marine Protected Areas Effectively Protect Reef Shark Populations
January 31, 2017: Stanford University
This image shows researchers Kosta Stamoulis of Palmyra Atoll Research Constorium and University of Hawaii and Tim White of Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station measuring a grey reef shark. Credit: Courtesy Palmyra Atoll Research Consortium
Researchers at Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station investigated the role of expanded marine protected areas (MPAs) on grey reef sharks and found that the aquatic no-fishing zones were an effective tool for protecting this near-threatened species.
Originating 423 million years ago, sharks are a group of predators that span 490 species and still play crucial roles within their ecosystems. We often characterize these top predators as nearly indestructible monsters but, of course, that's far from the reality: They mature slowly, they don't have high numbers of offspring, and they're under serious threat due to the value of their fins.
For their study, the team tracked both sharks and fishing vessels in the U.S. Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, a large MPA about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) south of Hawaii. Their findings, published in the Jan. 31 issue of Biological Conservation, provide valuable evidence that these areas are worth creating and maintaining.
"These techniques showed for the first time that large MPAs are effective tools for protecting declining shark populations and other mobile marine predators that are not adequately protected by smaller, coastal MPAs," said Fiorenza Micheli, professor of marine science at Hopkins Marine Station and co-author of the paper.
Not only did they find little evidence of fishing within the refuge, they saw that there was a surprisingly high density of ships just outside its boundaries, suggesting that even remote locations are primed for significant fishing if protection were to disappear.
Questioning the value of protection
Marine protected areas have been around for decades but they've mostly been near the coasts and rather small, with 1 square mile being a typical size. Recently, much larger MPAs have been established in waters far from large human populations. In 2016 alone, the title of "largest MPA" changed hands twice. In August, the U.S. Papahnaumokukea Marine National Monument off the coast of Hawaii was the largest ever established but soon that title went to the Ross Sea Protected Area in Antarctica, collaboratively designated by 24 countries, including the United States, and the European Union.
"Some of these protected areas are twice the size of Texas and they've been very recently established, so they hold great conservation potential," said Tim White, a graduate student at Hopkins Marine Station and lead author of the study. "But we're not sure of the effects that these marine protected areas will have on a range of species."
A substantial question is whether working to protect ocean far from well-populated land is worth the effort or whether that work would be better used to create more traditional, smaller MPAs. Another concern is whether these areas do much to support mobile species, like sharks, which can come and go from the protected waters as they please.
Tagging sharks and watching ships
To monitor the movement of the sharks, the researchers used both conventional numbered tags and satellite-enabled tags. The first method is cheap and can cover large numbers of sharks -- they tagged 262 this way -- but relies on the return of tags to the researchers by fishers who catch the sharks, which is a rare occurrence. The second method allows the researchers to track the sharks' movement by satellite, but each tag is very expensive. They attached satellite tags to 11 sharks.
Devices called automatic identification system (AIS) transceivers helped the researchers identify the movement of distant fishing vessels. Boats are equipped with these devices in order to let each other know their identities and locations in order to avoid collisions. They can also transmit additional information, such as the size and type of boat. By collecting this publicly available data and applying an algorithm previously developed by Global Fishing Watch, a partnership between Oceana, SkyTruth and Google, the researchers figured out where and when each vessel was likely to be fishing.
The combination of these tools meant that the researchers could track shark and fishing activity throughout the large, remote reserve. What they found suggests that the expanded MPAs are working. There were more sharks in the MPA than outside and the majority stayed within its limits. Fishing vessels almost exclusively sat outside the boundaries but they were there in unexpected abundance, nearly 200 ships from 12 countries over the course of two years.
Another discovery was that one of the grey reef sharks, so-named because they are considered reef dwellers, swam more than 575 miles (925 km) from the atoll where it was tagged and spent 97 percent of its time in open water. Additional tags recovered at various islands further suggested that grey reef sharks may swim longer distances than previously thought.
For sharks, fishermen and tourists
Balancing all the different impacts of MPAs isn't easy but the researchers believe preserving sharks has benefits for both ocean-dwellers and people. Keeping shark numbers healthy supports ecosystem health and this, in turn, can bring in millions in tourism dollars because people prefer to visit healthy reefs.
As shown by this research, greater insight into what goes on in and around protected areas can also fill existing gaps in our knowledge of their occupants, like the maybe not-so-aptly-named grey reef shark.
"It is extremely difficult to understand what are the baselines of shark populations and what oceans looked like before the rise of industrial fishing," said Giulio De Leo, professor of biology at Hopkins Marine Station and co-author of the paper. "Large marine protected areas located in such remote places provide us with an opportunity to have a glimpse of the past, of how the oceans functioned before we started to systematically harvest them."
The researchers plan to continue to study this area of the Pacific. The levels of human influence on the waters around these islands vary widely and, therefore, offer a unique display of how our actions impact ocean ecosystems.
Materials provided by Stanford University. Original written by Taylor Kubota.
Journal Reference:
Timothy D. White, Aaron B. Carlisle, David A. Kroodsma, Barbara A. Block, Renato Casagrandi, Giulio A. De Leo, Marino Gatto, Fiorenza Micheli, Douglas J. McCauley. Assessing the effectiveness of a large marine protected area for reef shark conservation. Biological Conservation, 2017; 207: 64 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.009