What can plants or animals do when faced with harsh conditions? Two options for survival seem most obvious: move elsewhere or adapt to their environment.

Some organisms have a third option. They can escape not through space but through time, by entering a dormant state until conditions improve.

As it turns out, dormancy may not only benefit the species who use it. In new research, we found that a propensity for dormancy may affect the balance of competition between species, and make it possible for more species to survive together when environments change.

What is dormancy?

Many organisms use dormancy as a survival strategy.

Bears hibernate in winter, for example, and many plants produce seeds in summer that lie dormant in soil over the cold months before sprouting in spring. In these examples, the organisms use dormancy to avoid a season where conditions are hard.

However, other organisms can remain inactive for decades, centuries, or even thousands of years.

The oldest known plant seeds to germinate are 2,000-year-old seeds of a Judean date palm.

Even older plant material (though not seeds) has been brought back to life: placental floral tissue more than 31,000 years old, found in an ice age squirrel burrow.

In our research we focus on a particular kind of dormancy in animals called diapause, in which organisms reduce their metabolic activity and resist changes in environmental conditions. Here, animals usually do not eat or move much.

Does dormancy protect species from extinction?

In theory, dormancy can allow species to escape hostile conditions. However, it has been difficult to directly link dormancy to the persistence of a given species.

We tried to make this link by means of experiments using a kind of nematode worm often found in soil called Caenorhabditis elegans. In these worms, the genetic pathway that affects dormancy is well understood.

We looked at four groups of worms. The first group were genetically more inclined to enter dormancy, the second group were less inclined to enter dormancy, the third group were completely unable to enter a dormant state, and the fourth were ordinary wild-type worms with a medium propensity for dormancy.

We created an experiment where all these groups competed with a common competitor species – another worm called C. briggsae – for food in different environments.

Using data from these experiments, we then ran millions of computer simulations to determine whether one species would drive the other to extinction over the long term, or if they could coexist in different environmental conditions.

Dormancy and competition between species

We found that when species are more inclined to dormancy, competing species can coexist under a wider range of environmental conditions.

When we simulated fluctuating environmental conditions, species with a higher investment in dormancy were able to coexist with a competitor over a wider range of temperatures.

This outcome is what is predicted in theory, but it is an exciting result because the prediction has been difficult to test. The experimental system we used has great potential, and can be used to further explore the role of dormancy in species persistence.

Our results also raise an important question: will species that have a dormant form be more resilient to the huge environmental fluctuations the world is currently experiencing? Organisms that can avoid heatwaves and drought may well be more prepared for this era of unprecedented global change.

We hope to begin finding out in the next phase of our research: linking the dynamics we saw in the laboratory to dormancy in plants, animals and microbes in the real world.

Natalie Jones, Lecturer in Ecology, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Imagine a city where everyone can afford a safe home, reach work or school without long, stressful commutes, and enjoy green parks and clean air.

This is Anthony Albanese’s decade-long vision for Australia’s cities after last week’s release of the new National Urban Policy (NUP).

As Transport and Infrastructure Minister in 2011, he introduced Our Cities, Our Future. Then in 2021, as opposition leader, he pledged a new urban framework.

The new NUP now sets the course for transforming Australia’s cities.

However, as our cities grow, so do the complexities they face: a housing crisis, locking out households, heavier traffic, and rising temperatures caused by climate changes.

These challenges can disproportionately affect low-income and vulnerable communities, especially in our outer suburbs.

The new NUP aims to address all of that, but the big question remains: does it go far enough to build the cities we need for the future?

What is the National Urban Policy?

This policy is Australia’s road map for sustainable city development. It guides collaboration between the federal government, states, territories and local communities to shape future cities to be liveable and productive.

The policy focuses on three key pillars:

1. Liveable and equitable cities: this is to ensure the basic human rights everyone should have access to, like affordable housing, public transport, and essential services like healthcare and education.

2. Productive and innovative cities: this will support jobs, industries and infrastructure to drive economic growth.

3. Sustainable and resilient cities: this will protect the environments in Australian cities to develop urban areas for climate change impacts like floods and heatwaves.

A key element of the policy is its commitment to ensuring strong collaboration with First Nations, Aboriginal and Indigenous communities, acknowledging their connection to the land and integrating their knowledge into urban planing of the future cities.

What does this policy mean for everyday people?

If the new policy delivers on its promise, here is how daily life could be affected for Australians.

Affordable housing: With the ambitious goal of delivering 1.2 million homes by 2029, the government aims to ease the housing crunch. More social housing and making homes closer to jobs and schools are top priorities.

Improved public transport: The government is planning to support public transport upgrades for faster, more reliable and greener commute choices like bike paths.

More green spaces: The government is also keen to boost Australians’ physical and mental health by providing more parks, shaded streets and green rooftops to reduce urban heat. This also aligns with broader climate, health, and wellbeing strategies, and includes heading towards net zero Australia.

Inclusive communities: Ensuring opportunities and services are available to everyone, including First Nations people, elders and those with disabilities, and providing job opportunities closer to home.

Can the policy address Australia’s critical challenges?

Our cities face enormous challenges and the new policy aims to tackle many of them (the housing crisis, climate issues and social inclusion).

But addressing them requires more than a list of goals – it demands bold actions and long-term commitments.

This is an area Western Sydney University has researched in its newly released report looking at international best practices in infrastructure funding.

It highlights how fragmented, short-term funding systems worsen these challenges.

It advocates for long-term, stable funding streams, collaboration, and community-driven approaches and principles successfully embedded in other countries.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and United Nations Habitat’s Global State of National Policy report also provides a comprehensive overview of strategies used by other countries to tackle similar issues.

Other developed countries like Singapore, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States have addressed many of the gaps we have noted through their approaches, including long-term funding models, coordination and clear sustainability goals.

Gaps in the new policy

While the new NUP sets a strong vision, it leaves several critical gaps:

Long-term funding is crucial: The policy leans heavily on short-term budgets and competitive grants, which prioritise projects based on competition, not community need. This leaves many communities and stakeholders with inadequate infrastructure.

An example of this is the short-term, limited support for modular and prefabricated systems as a solution to the housing crisis. A multi-decade funding commitment is essential to allow councils to plan effectively.

Collaboration across government levels is essential: The siloed approach between local councils and state governments impedes effective action. The Commonwealth must take a more proactive role in aligning projects and addressing fragmentation.

Clear timelines and accountability: When will these goals be achieved? The policy lacks clear deadlines and measurable targets to track progress. An ongoing evaluation framework is essential to ensure projects are executed efficiently and build trust among communities.

Embracing digital trasnformation: Many developed countries are using emerging technologies like digital twins and AI to improve their urban planning. Australia’s new policy could adopt similar approach to make smarter, data-driven decisions, though this is not clearly outlined in the current framework.

Infrastructure funding models need overhaul: Australia’s current infrastructure funding system is considered by some as fragmented, inconsistent and poorly coordinated, driven more by short-term political cycles than a by a long-term strategy. The NUP must address this critical gap.

Investment in green construction: The policy overlooks the role of financial institutions in driving sustainable urban development. Green mortgages, green bonds, and incentives for energy-efficient construction, like those in the UK and Europe, could help bridge the gap between affordability and sustainability while ensuring climate resilience in future housing strategies.

More support for vulnerable groups: While inclusivity is mentioned in the new policy, there is room for more specific strategies to support migrants, international students, refugees, single parent families and those from asylum-seeking backgrounds.

Overall, the new NUP is a positive and welcomed step forward.

For success, it must be shaped by meaningful collaboration between policymakers, planners, communities and researchers, drawing on global successes to ensure long-term impact. Only then can the government achieve its ambitious vision.

Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University and Nicky Morrison, Professor of Planning and Director of Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A recent bushfire in Kadnook, western Victoria, which destroyed at least one property and burned more than 1,000 hectares of land, is being investigated due to suspicion it was deliberately lit.

This is not an isolated example. About 28% of bushfires in south-east Australia are deliberately lit. The figure rises to 40% if we’re only talking about fires with a known cause.

These figures are consistent with international trends and tell us preventing arson and unsafe fire behaviour alone could significantly reduce the number of bushfires.

Despite this, prevention of deliberately lit bushfires is mostly absent from emergency, public health and climate action plans.

These fires are devastating

Deliberately lit bushfires can spread rapidly and have devastating consequences. They often occur on the edge of urban areas close to populated places, where there are both dense vegetation and flammable structures.

We see a peak in bushfires during summer when hot temperatures, low rainfall, and dry conditions make fire a more potent threat.

Climate change, land management practices, and increased interaction between people and rural areas increase our vulnerability to fire and the risks associated with deliberate fires.

The royal commission into Victoria’s devastating Black Saturday fires in 2009 reported 173 people died and an additional 414 were injured. The commission concluded at least three of the 15 fires that caused (or had the potential to cause) the greatest harm were deliberately lit.

The commission concluded we need to better understand arson. It recommended research to improve how best to prevent arson and how to detect who’s at risk of offending.

Nearly 15 years on from Black Saturday, these recommendations have not been implemented. There is also very limited evidence globally about how to prevent both bushfire arson and deliberately lit fires more broadly (for instance, fires set to structures or vehicles).

Who lights these fires?

We know little about the characteristics and psychology of people who light bushfires or how to intervene to prevent these fires.

The little research we have suggests there is no one “profile” or “mindset” associated with deliberately lighting bushfires.

But there are some risk factors or vulnerabilities we see more commonly in people who light them. These include:

• an interest or fascination with fire or fire paraphernalia. This could include an interest in watching fire, or a fascination with matches or the fire service

• experiences of social isolation, including a lack of friends or intimate relationships

• increased impulsivity

• general antisocial behaviour, such as contact with the police, truanting or property damage

• difficulties managing and expressing emotions

• problems with being assertive.

However, most people with these vulnerabilities will never light a fire.

Research shows rates of mental illness are higher in people who set fires (including schizophrenia, mood and anxiety disorders, personality dysfunction, and substance use disorders). However, mental health symptoms are rarely a direct cause of firesetting. Instead, they appear to worsen existing vulnerabilities.

Why do people light these fires?

There are many, complex reasons why people light fires. Commonly reported drivers include: relieving boredom or creating excitement, gaining positive recognition for putting out a fire (they want to be seen as a hero), as a cry for help, or because they’re angry.

However, not everyone who lights a fire intends to cause serious damage or harm. In some cases, people may not be aware of the possible consequences of lighting a fire or that the fire may spread into a bushfire.

Knowing these kinds of facts about people who light bushfires is important. However, they don’t help us prevent people from lighting fires in the first place. This is because authorities don’t always know who sets the fires.

So how can we prevent this?

First, we can learn more about why people set fires more generally, particularly those who do not attract attention from authorities.

Research in the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand has started to investigate those who set fires but don’t attract police attention. The aim is to identify ways to prevent people lighting fires in the first place, and support them so they don’t light more.

There is almost no research in Australia or internationally into the effects of community awareness, and prevention campaigns or targeted strategies to prevent firesetting, including bushfire arson, in higher risk groups.

We know slightly more about interventions to reduce repeat firesetting. Fire safety education programs delivered by fire and rescue services show some promise as an early intervention for children and adolescents who have already set a fire, particularly those motivated by curiosity, experimentation, or who are not aware of the consequences.

There is also some evidence suggesting specialist psychological interventions can be effective in reducing vulnerabilities associated with adult firesetting. Forensic or clinical psychologists typically deliver a combination of cognitive behavioural therapy (a type of talking therapy), skills building (such as building coping skills, emotion and impulse control, and reducing their interest in fire), and fire safety education.

However, availability of firesetting interventions is patchy both in Australia and internationally. Interventions that are available are also not always tailored to people with complex needs, such as those with significant emotional or behavioural problems or mental health needs. We also don’t know if these interventions lead to a long-term change in behaviour.

Climate change is making this urgent

The continued and escalating effects of climate change makes it more urgent than ever to address the problem of deliberate firesetting, including bushfire arson.

Failing to address deliberate firesetting will have significant long-term consequences for public health, human life and the environment.

But until funding is available for Australian arson research, identifying and helping people who are more likely to set fires will continue to be based on guesswork rather than evidence.

As we enter another summer of high fire danger, our failure to fund arson research should be at the forefront of everyone’s minds.

Nichola Tyler, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology and Troy McEwan, Professor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Measuring your blood pressure at home means you can take readings over several days to get a better picture of your health, instead of one-off measurements at the doctor’s clinic.

It’s important you follow specific steps to get an accurate reading.

But our study found most Australians do not measure their blood pressure correctly at home and very few were told the steps to follow.

We have created resources to help people measure their blood pressure at home, understand their readings and take action with their health-care team.

High blood pressure is a big issue

High blood pressure is a major health problem in Australia and globally.

One in three Australian adults have high blood pressure, also called hypertension. This is when your blood pressure is at or above 140/90mmHg (mmHg refers to millimetres of mercury, a standard measurement of blood pressure).

High blood pressure is the leading contributor to preventable health issues and early death among Australians because it is the main risk factor for heart disease, stroke, dementia and kidney disease.

Why measuring blood pressure is important

High blood pressure often has no symptoms. So the only way to know if you have it is to measure it.

You may also need to check if your blood pressure has lowered after starting medication or if you’re making changes to your lifestyle, such as doing more exercise, giving up smoking or reducing salt intake. Low blood pressure (hypotension) can also be an issue.

But blood pressure changes based on how we are feeling, what we’ve eaten or the activities we have just been doing.

These normal responses mean our blood pressure can change from minute to minute and hour to hour. This is why there are specific, recommended steps to follow to reliably measure your blood pressure and to be able to compare readings taken days, months and years apart.

Mistakes are common

We surveyed and interviewed 350 people (who were all measuring their blood pressure at home) from around Australia to find out how Australians measure blood pressure at home and if they receive any education to help them know what to do.

Our study found no one followed all of the specific, recommended steps to measure their blood pressure. Instead they said they measured their blood pressure at different times of the day after doing different things.

We found most people measured their blood pressure while sitting down (90%) and with the cuff on their bare arm (77%), which is the right thing to do.

While 58% of people took two blood pressure measures each time, which is correct, only 40% used the average of the two blood pressure readings. Very few (15%) measured their blood pressure over several days in both the morning and evening.

Only half of the people in our study used a blood pressure device that had been clinically validated. This means the device has been tested for accuracy by the manufacturer according to international standards, not just safety.

Consultation and communication

Regardless of whether or not a doctor had recommended they measure their blood pressure at home, most people (78%) reported their blood pressure readings to their doctor.

These findings tell us doctors often use home blood pressure readings to help diagnose and manage high blood pressure. This emphasises how important it is to ensure people measure blood pressure correctly.

Many people were measuring their blood pressure a few times a week or month. But most guidelines recommend blood pressure only needs to be measured at home: every day over a week, every six months; and ideally before you see your doctor and after you start or change blood pressure medication.

Measuring blood pressure at home can bring peace of mind, which many study participants described. But measuring your blood pressure too often may create unnecessary stress, potentially leading to higher blood pressure readings.

Instead, it’s better to agree with your doctor how often you should measure your blood pressure and to follow the recommended steps each time to make sure your readings are as accurate and useful as possible.

Support for blood pressure measurement

We found few people had received any education or guidance from health-care professionals about how to measure their blood pressure at home.

Instead, many study participants looked for information online to help them know what their blood pressure numbers meant and changes they could make to lower their blood pressure. They were less interested in learning how to measure accurately.

So we have worked with people who measure and manage their blood pressure at home to create a simple guide to help you choose a blood pressure device, measure your blood pressure accurately, understand your blood pressure readings and take action to control your blood pressure.

For more information about managing your blood pressure at home, see our resources. You can also check if your blood pressure device has been tested for accuracy.

Niamh Chapman, Senior Research Fellow, Hypertension and Patient Engagement, University of Sydney; Dean Picone, Senior Research Fellow, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, and Eleanor Clapham, PhD candidate, School of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

By 2050, around 135 million people worldwide will be living with dementia. The most common cause of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease. Women are more likely than men to develop Alzheimer’s disease, even after accounting for women living longer.

The symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease most commonly occur after the age of 65. However, changes in the brain begin decades before symptoms start. For women, this typically coincides with their transition to menopause.

Menopause results from the body decreasing production of two hormones made by the ovaries: oestrogen and progesterone. These hormonal changes are associated with a wide range of symptoms, including hot flushes, night sweats, difficulties sleeping, reduced libido, mood changes and brain fog.

Menopause hormonal therapy (also called hormone replacement therapy or HRT), including oestrogen alone or oestrogen combined with a progesterone, has been prescribed to help with menopausal symptoms for decades.

But how does menopause hormone therapy affect the risk of dementia? And why do some studies say the therapy increases the risk, while others say it reduces it?

Hormones and the brain

A large body of pre-clinical (animal based) research shows oestrogen helps protect the brain. It reduces any damage to nerve cells and supports overall brain health.

Receptors that respond to oestrogen are in areas of the brain related to reproductive functions. But they’re also in areas of the brain important for learning, memory and higher-order cognitive abilities such as planning, organisation and decision making.

The loss of the “neuroprotective” effects of oestrogen after menopause is thought to contribute to more cases of Alzheimer’s disease in women than men.

Clinical studies have also shown women who have a medical or surgical menopause before the age of natural menopause have a higher lifelong risk of dementia and cognitive impairment.

This risk appears to be reduced in women who take oestrogen therapy after their surgery.

This has led researchers to hypothesise that adding oestrogen back – via menopause hormone therapy – might protect and maintain women’s cognitive health.

However, the research findings have not been consistent.

Could menopause hormone therapy impact dementia risk?

Concern about dementia risk and menopause hormone therapy have been partially driven by the unexpected findings from a landmark study conducted more than two decades ago.

The findings showed hormone therapy use in post-menopausal women, 65 years and older, was associated with an increased risk for dementia.

However, these studies have some key limitations:

1) most of the women were aged over 65 and more than ten years post-menopause

2) the type of oestrogen and progestogen (a synthetic form of progesterone) used may have less benefit on brain health.

The most recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of scientific data linking hormone therapy to the risk of Alzheimer’s disease included findings from 51 different reports that were published up to 2023.

The results showed if hormone therapy was initiated in midlife, or more generally within ten  years of the final menstrual period, there was a decreased risk of later-life Alzheimer’s disease compared to women not using any hormone therapy.

The greatest reduction in risk was associated with oestrogen-only hormone therapy.

In contrast, when considering using hormone therapy in late-life, or more than ten  years after menopause, oestrogen-only therapy had a neutral effects on Alzheimer’s disease risk.

However, oestrogen-progestogen therapy was associated with a risk increase.

Only one clinical trial has been published since this meta-analysis. This study examined the long-term effects of menopause hormone therapy use initiated in early menopause.

Women were on average aged 52.8 years and 1.5 years post-menopause when they entered this trial. They were randomly assigned to an oestrogen (with or without progestogen) or placebo for four years.

Researchers followed 275 women up ten years later. They found no cognitive effects (no harm nor any benefit) based on whether women were exposed to 48 months of hormone therapy or a placebo.

What affects your risk?

It appears the effects of menopause hormone therapy on dementia risk are influenced by several factors. These include when someone starts taking it, how long they take it for, the type of hormones used, and the person’s genetic and health background.

1. When therapy starts: the critical window hypothesis

One key factor in determining the effect of menopause hormone therapy on cognitive function and the risk of dementia appears to be when therapy starts relative to menopause. This is called the “critical window hypothesis”.

According to this hypothesis, oestrogen may help protect neurons in the brain only if started early in the menopause transition, particularly within a few years of menopause, when the brain may still be more responsive to hormones.

2. Type of menopause hormone therapy and the role of progesterone

The type of hormones included in hormone therapy can vary widely in their molecular structure as well as their physiological actions.

Different types of oestrogens (such as estradiol or conjugated oestrogen) and the inclusion of a progestogen (needed for women who have not undergone a hysterectomy) may have different impacts on brain health and dementia risk.

Some studies suggest adding a progestogen to oestrogen therapy could counteract some of the cognitive benefits of oestrogen alone, possibly by blocking oestrogen receptors in the brain.

3. The role of vasomotor symptoms

Vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes and night sweats, are the hallmark of menopause. Experiencing more vasomotor symptoms has been linked to poorer memory as well as an increase in biological markers associated with dementia risk.

Therefore, one possible pathway by which menopause hormone therapy may moderate Alzheimer’s disease risk is via their effects on reducing vasomotor symptoms.

4. An person’s genetic and health background

The greatest genetic risk factor for older-onset Alzheimer’s disease is carrying one or more copies of a specific version of the APOE gene, called APOE e4.

There is an emerging hypothesis that women who have this genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease may show the greatest benefit from using hormone therapy.

What does this mean for you?

The clinical and scientific community are still debating whether menopause hormone therapy may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease risk.

Overall, the decision to use hormone therapy should be individualised, taking into account your age and timing of menopause, health status and specific menopause symptoms.

We need more research before we can make clear decisions about the role of hormone therapy and dementia risk, but based on the current evidence, hormone therapy may be beneficial if started early in the menopause transition, particularly for women at genetic risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

Caroline Gurvich, Associate Professor and Clinical Neuropsychologist, Monash University; Rachel Furey, Teaching Associate, Neuropsychology, Monash University, and Samantha Loi, Associate Professor and Neuropsychiatrist, Department of Psychiatry and Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Physical activity doesn’t need to be complicated. Even just a brisk, ten-minute daily walk can deliver a host of health benefits – lowering the risk of several diseases, including heart disease, stroke and several cancers.

And by making a few small changes to the way you walk, you can transform this simple everyday activity, making it even more beneficial for your health.

If you’re looking to get more out of your walks, here are five ways to supercharge them.

1. Vary your speed

One way to enhance the benefits of walking is to vary your speed. Rather than maintaining a steady pace, try incorporating intervals of faster walking followed by slower recovery periods. This technique, known as interval walking, can improve cardiovascular fitness more effectively than walking at a constant speed.

In one study conducted over a four-month period, alternating three minutes of fast walking with three minutes’ walking at a moderate pace showed greater improvements in blood sugar control and fitness levels in adults with type 2 diabetes than those who walked at a steady pace for the same time period. Interval walking also lead to reductions in body fat and better overall physical endurance.

To incorporate this into your daily walks, try picking up your pace for a few minutes, then returning to your normal speed. Repeat this cycle throughout your walk to elevate your heart rate and burn more calories.

2. Pick up the pace

Walking faster not only gets you to your destination sooner but also provides greater health benefits.

Data analysed from over 50,000 walkers found that a pace of at least five kilometres per hour (about three miles per hour) was associated with a reduced risk of death from any cause – including a significantly lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Researchers have also shown that increasing your walking speed can improve heart health and aid in weight management.

If you’re unsure about your pace, aim to walk at a speed where you’re breathing harder but can still hold a conversation.

3. Add some weight

Carrying extra weight while walking can increase the intensity of your workout. By wearing a weighted vest or backpack, it forces your muscles to work harder – boosting strength and burning more calories.

If you’re keen to give this a try, it’s important to start with a light weight to avoid strain or injury. Ideally, you should begin with a vest or backpack that’s about 5% of your body weight. So someone who weighs around 80kg could start by adding just 4kg of extra weight to their backpack.

Gradually increase the amount of weight you carry as you become more comfortable. Ensure the weight is evenly distributed and maintain good posture throughout your walk.

4. Incorporate hills or stairs

Adding inclines to your walk can make a significant difference.

Walking uphill or climbing stairs engages different muscle groups, particularly in your legs and glutes compared to walking on flat terrain. This not only increases strength, it also burns more calories since uphill walking increases the intensity of your workout – without actually needing to walk faster.

Plus, walking downhill on your return also improves muscle function and balance as well.

5. Practice mindful walking

Walking isn’t just beneficial for your physical health – it can also improve your mental wellbeing.

Mindful walking is one way of doing this. This involves paying close attention to your movements, breathing and surroundings. Research has shown that people who regularly did mindful walking for a month saw reductions in their stress levels, as well as improved mood and overall mental health.

To give mindful walking a try, start by focusing on the sensations of each step, the rhythm of your breath and the sights and sounds around you. This not only boosts your mental health but can also make your walks more enjoyable.

How to get started

Enhancing your walk doesn’t require drastic changes, but there are some things to keep in mind to stay safe, lower the risk of injury and maximise benefits:

• Warm up and cool down: Begin with a few minutes of easy walking to warm up your muscles. End your walk by slowing your pace down and finish with some gentle stretches to cool down.
• Wear proper footwear: Choose comfortable shoes with good support to prevent injuries.
• Stay hydrated: Bring water, especially on longer walks or in hot weather to avoid dehydration.
• Listen to your body: If you experience pain or discomfort, slow down or take a break. Speak to your doctor if the problem persists.
• Gradually increase intensity: Whether you’re adding weight, tackling hills or increasing your speed, do so gradually to allow your body to adapt. This means doing a little more each time to gauge how you’re feeling.

Walking is a fantastic way to improve and maintain your health. By making small adjustments to the way you walk, you can make this daily habit even better.

Jack McNamara, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Exercise Physiology, University of East London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Concern has been rising over the use of a feed supplement, Bovaer 10, to reduce methane production in cows.

Bovaer 10 consists of silicon dioxide (basically sand), propylene glycol (a food stabiliser approved by Food Safety Australia New Zealand) and the active compound 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP).

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation about the safety of 3-NOP, with some labelling milk from herds fed the additive as “Frankenmilk”. Others have been concerned it could make its way to humans via beef.

The bottom line is that 3-NOP is safe. Let’s unpack some of the major misunderstandings.

Why do we need to reduce methane production?

In our attempts to reduce global warming, most of the focus has been on CO₂ as a a major human-produced greenhouse gas. But methane is also a greenhouse gas, and although we produce less of it, it is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂.

Agriculture is the largest human-produced source of methane. As cattle herds expand to fuel our increasing desire for meat and milk, reducing methane production by cows is an important way to reduce greenhouse emissions.

There are several ways to do this. Stopping the bacteria in cows’ stomachs that generate methane from making methane is one approach.

The methane cows and sheep produce is not from the animals themselves, but from microbes that live in their digestive systems. 3-NOP stop the enzymes that do the final step of methane synthesis in these microbes.

3-NOP is not the only compound trialled as a feed additive. A seaweed-based Australian product, Rumin8, for example, is also under development. Saponins, soap-like chemical compounds found in plants, and essential oils have also been investigated.

However, 3-NOP is currently one of the most effective treatments.

But isn’t it a poison?

There is concern on social media about Bovaer “poisoning our food”.

But, as we say in toxicology, it’s the dose that makes the poison. Arsenic, for example, is lethal at 2–20 milligram per kilogram of body weight.

In contrast, 3-NOP was not lethal at the doses used in safety studies, up to 600 mg 3-NOP per kg of body weight. At 100 mg per kg of body weight in rats, it had no adverse effects.

What about reproductive issues?

The effect of 3-NOP on reproductive organs has caused a lot of comment.

Research in rats and cows found that doses of 300–500 mg per kg of body weight resulted in ovarian and testicular shrinkage.

To put that in perspective, to achieve the same exposure in humans, a 70 kg human would need to consume 21–35 grams (around 2 tablespoons) of pure 3-NOP a day every day for weeks on end to see this effect.

No human will be exposed to this amount as 3-NOP does not enter milk – it’s fully metabolised in the cow’s gut.

No cow will be exposed to these levels either.

What about cancer?

3-NOP is not genotoxic or mutagenic, meaning it can’t damage DNA. So 3-NOP’s effects are dose-limited, meaning small doses aren’t harmful while very high doses are (unlike radiation, where there is no safe dose).

At a dose of 300 mg per kg of body weight, researchers found benign tumours in the small intestines of female rats, but not male rats, after 2 years of daily consumption. At a 100 mg of 3-NOP per kg of body weight, no tumours were seen.

Cows are consuming less than 2 grams Bovaer 10 a day (of which only 10% or 0.2 grams, is 3-NOP). This is around 1,000 times less than the acceptable daily intake of 1 mg 3-NOP per kg of body weight a day for a 450 kg cow.

This level of intake will not result in tumours, or any of the other adverse effects.

So how much will humans be exposed to?

Consumers of milk and meat will be exposed to zero 3-NOP. 3-NOP does not get into milk or meat: it is completely metabolised in the cow’s gut.

Farmers might be exposed to a small amount handling the feed additive and industrial workers producing 3-NOP will be potentially exposed to more. Farmers and industrial workers already wear personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to other agricultural chemicals – and are recommended to do so with Bovear 10 as well.

How extensively has it been tested?

3-NOP has been developed over 15 years, subject to multiple reviews by the European Food Safety Authority, the United Kingdom’s Food Safety Authority and others.

It has been extensively tested over months of exposure to cattle with no adverse effects. Some studies actually say it improves milk and meat quality.

Bovaer has been approved for use in dairy cattle by the European Union since 2022 and in Japan in 2024. It is also used in many other countries, including in beef products in Australia.

Very little 3-NOP enters the environment (less than 0.2% of the ingested dose), it does not accumulate and is readily broken down so is not an environmental risk.

Since humans are not exposed to 3-NOP though milk and meat, long-term human exposure is not an issue.

What does Bill Gates have to do with it?

Bill Gates has invested in a different feed treatment for methane, the Australian seaweed based Rumin8. But he has nothing to do with Bovaer 10.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given research grants to the company that makes 3-NOP for malaria control research, not for 3-NOP.

The bottom line is that adding 3-NOP to animal feed poses no risk to consumers, animals or the environment.

Ian Musgrave, Senior lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Christmas is the season to be jolly, but it’s wrapped in some cheerless trials. There’s car park mania, pre-dawn pilgrimages to purchase seafood, and the ever-perplexing question, “What should I buy family and friends for Christmas?”

I have no tips for parking zen or pilfering prawns, but here’s a solution for your gift-giving puzzle: how about a musical instrument?

They come with physical and mental benefits, and there’s an instrument to suit everyone.

The gift of an instrument can solve your problem and revive everyone’s jollies.

Gifts from playing musical instruments

Research shows that playing an instrument is good for our brains across the life span.

Studies of children and adolescents have linked learning an instrument with a positive effect on cognitive skills and academic achievement.

Studies on the elderly suggest playing protects against dementia and cognitive decline.

Playing an instrument is a gift for our fine motor skills. A Canadian study found university students who had learnt an instrument performed better at beginner surgical skills. Likewise, research on older adults found that one year of piano lessons improved players’ hand control.

Learning an instrument opens the door to social connection: one-to-one interaction with a teacher, participating in group lessons, joining ensembles, starting a band and performing for others. In a lonely world, players can experience belonging, confidence and collaboration.

Combined, the findings suggest giving a musical instrument is like giving multiple gifts. So, here’s some suggestions for matching the right instrument with the right person.

For fitness fans

A drum kit can liven up the exercise routines of fitness fans and engage energetic kids.

Studies of rock and heavy metal drumming measured players’ heart rate and oxygen consumption, finding these are relatively high-intensity physical activities.

Don’t worry about the noise of your purchase. According to The Little Drummer Boy, pa-rum-pum-pum-pumming makes babies smile. But if you’re sceptical, an electronic kit with headphones will keep the peace.

For quirky fitness options, look out for second-hand pianolas and pump organs. These musical relics require vigorous pedalling while playing. (Think exercise bike without boredom.)

For upper body strength, the weight and pumping action of the accordion can give the arms a workout. Alternatively, if you want something smaller, buy castanets and suggest flamenco dance lessons.

For the creative and the troubled

Researchers have long connected creative expression with mental well-being.

If you’re shopping for expressive relatives, downhearted friends or angsty teenagers, instruments support the healthy emotional outlet of songwriting.

Novice songwriters can play pianos and guitars to accompany themselves while singing their hearts out. These instruments provide a healthy avenue for releasing inner pain.

For the budget-conscious

If you’re watching the dollars this year, mini keyboards and ukuleles give singer-songwriters their accompaniment without the expense of pianos or high-end guitars.

Other low-cost musical instruments include harmonicas, glockenspiels, palm-sized clay whistles called ocarinas and that old school favourite, the recorder, which has more advantages than you think.

If purchasing a drum kit is too much, consider cheaper percussion possibilities. Teenagers can enjoy mastering a cajon – a wooden box which street performers sit on and play with their fingers, palms and heels. Youngsters can experiment with handheld percussion, like tambourines and maracas.

You can also keep costs down by watching local advertising for listings of second-hand instruments. Musicians (and their parents) frequently sell beginner models to fund the next instrument upgrade. You can pick up bargains on trumpets, flutes, clarinets and violins.

For the eco-friendly

When saving the planet tops your Christmas list, check out the range of bamboo instruments.

Bamboo has been used for centuries for instruments such as the shakuhachi (a traditional Japanese flute) and angklung (an Indonesian instrument where players rattle bamboo segments together to produce notes). Today we value bamboo ecologically because it is natural, biodegradable, re-grows easily and grows faster than the wood used in other instruments. Its tubular shape and acoustic properties make it an ideal material for musical instruments.

This Christmas you can pick up bamboo flutes, panpipes and xylophones.

If recycling is your passion, then lurk around at pre-Christmas drinks and collect discarded beer bottle caps. Then, with a stick, hammer and nails, you can gift someone a home-made lagerphone while saving the environment.

And for the reluctant musician?

There are hundreds of musical instruments so you’ll never be shopping for the person who has everything. You may, however, encounter the reluctant musician.

Solve this challenge by gifting a novelty instrument, like the comically-sounding kazoo or nose flute (yes, you play it with your nose!).

I can’t vouch for all the benefits, but when you’re sitting around the Christmas table watching Dad trying to play his new nose flute, you’ll unwrap another gift – laughter. That will put the jolly back into Christmas.

Wendy Hargreaves, Senior Learning Advisor, University of Southern Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Anthony Albanese has announced an Australian Federal Police Special Operation Taskforce to combat antisemitism, after criticism from within and outside the Jewish community that the government has not done enough to deal with the escalating issue.

Following a meeting of cabinet’s national security committee, the prime minister faced the media on Monday afternoon flanked by Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw, the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, the Attorney- General, Mark Dreyfus, and the Immigration Minister, Tony Burke.

Earlier in the day, Friday’s attack on Melbourne’s Adass Israel synagogue was formally declared a “likely terrorist incident”. This upgrades the investigation to come under the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, which includes the Australian Federal Police, Victoria Police and ASIO.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton told a Melbourne news conference that while there had not been sufficient evidence on Friday to label the firebombing a terrorist incident, the investigation since had made “significant progress” and had reached the threshold.

The declaration of a terrorist attack was advised by a joint management committee meeting of federal and state police, and ASIO, on Monday morning. The upgrade means the tougher anti-terrorism laws apply, rather than the law covering arson. The anti-terrorism law includes the power of preventative detention.

Albanese, who will visit the Melbourne synagogue this week, said Special Operation Avalite was in response to the Friday attack, that followed the attack on Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns’ office in Melbourne and an incident in Sydney in which a car was set set on fire and other cars were vandalised with anti-Israeli graffiti.

Kershaw said: “Special Operation Avalite will be an agile and experienced squad of counter-terrorism investigators who will focus on threats, violence, and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians.

"In essence, they will be a flying squad to deploy nationally to incidents.

"The Commonwealth offences Special Operation Avalite will investigate will include emerging violence, urging violence against members or groups, advocating terrorism, advocating genocide, using a carriage service to make a threat, and using a carriage service to menace or harass.”

While Patton refused to give details of the synagogue investigation, so as not to compromise it, he indicated the police were looking at three suspects.

Albanese and other politicians had already labelled the incident a terrorist attack, but to be officially declared one, it had to meet certain criteria.

AFP Deputy Commissioner for National Security Krissy Barrett told the Melbourne joint news conference the transition of the attack to come under the Victorian Joint Counter-terrorism team was a “crucial turning point in the investigation”.

“Joint counter-terrorism teams include the best terrorism investigators in the country, and a JCTT investigation unlocks more power, more capability, and more intelligence,” she said.

She said since the attack, the AFP, ASIO, and Victoria Police had been in regular contact, and this meant “that now it has been allocated to the Joint Counter-terrorism Team, we are already well-prepared, well-briefed, and well-progressed”.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan told the news conference her government would immediately seek advice on strengthening the state’s laws to protect people going to their place of worship.

Albanese seemed to brush off a question about whether there should be a national cabinet meeting on antisemitism. “What we want to do is to act. If people want to have a phone hook up, I’m very welcome for that to occur.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.