Kategori: Nyheter

If you live in a city or near a busy road, it might not just be your lungs bearing the brunt of air pollution – your skin could be suffering too. A recent study has found a significant link between high levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and incidence of eczema – a chronic inflammatory skin condition marked by itching, redness and discomfort.

The research, conducted on more than 280,000 people across the US, revealed that people exposed to higher concentrations of PM2.5 were more than twice as likely to have eczema compared to those in less polluted areas.

This study sheds new light on how our external environment may affect our skin health and raises questions about how we can protect ourselves as pollution levels climb.

Particulate matter and skin health

PM2.5 is shorthand for particulate matter that is less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter. These particles are so small that you’d need a microscope to see them – yet they have significant health risks.

Emitted from sources such as cars, industrial sites and even wildfire smoke, these tiny particles contain harmful chemicals – including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These chemicals are carcinogenic and been linked to respiratory, cardiovascular and developmental health issues.

Although we have a good understanding of the significant effect PM2.5 has on the health of our lungs, scientists are only just beginning to uncover all the ways these particles affect the health of our skin.

This latest study provides yet more evidence of the effects that pollution appears to have on our skin health. The study found that participants with eczema had been exposed to slightly higher than average PM2.5 levels than those without the condition. This difference was linked to a significantly higher incidence of eczema in those exposed to high levels of air pollution. This was true even after the researchers adjusted their analysis to account for other factors that may have affected a person’s risk of eczema.

While this study can’t directly prove that air pollution caused or worsened eczema in these participants, numerous studies have pinpointed the ways in which air pollution affects the skin. This may help to explain the link the study found.

Research shows the tiny size of PM2.5 allows it to infiltrate the skin barrier – the body’s first line of defence. This means it can penetrate skin cells directly, reaching deeper layers where it can cause even more damage to cells. This disruption can impair the skin’s natural defences, leading to increased inflammation and skin sensitivity. For people already struggling with eczema, this intrusion is like pouring salt on an open wound.

Other studies may point to reasons why air pollution could trigger or worsen eczema in the first place.

It appears that PM2.5 may interact with our skin’s immune responses in ways we are only beginning to understand. When these particles reach the skin, they bind to a receptor called the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), a protein known to mediate how cells respond to environmental toxins. This interaction can ignite a cascade of immune responses – essentially triggering an inflammatory response in the skin. For someone prone to eczema, these immune responses can result in the itching, swelling and redness that define the condition.

Eczema causes itching, redness and discomfort.
Kmpzzz/ Shutterstock

Previous studies have also found that people with eczema have an impaired skin barrier, making them more susceptible to absorbing external irritants such as pollutants. In addition, research supports the idea that PM2.5 might exacerbate eczema by further compromising the skin barrier.

Health risks

These findings couldn’t come at a more critical time. Globally, air pollution levels are rising – and urban populations are being exposed to ever-higher amounts of PM2.5. According to the World Health Organization, around 90% of people globally breathe air with unsafe levels of pollutants. Already vulnerable groups – including children, the elderly and those with pre-existing skin conditions – could be most at risk of developing eczema.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that pollution affects health in multifaceted ways, beyond just respiratory issues. Our skin, the body’s largest organ, is also at risk. Recognising these connections could guide policies to enforce stricter air quality controls, protecting not only the air we breathe but also the skin we rely on for protection.

On a personal level, reducing direct exposure to polluted air can be beneficial – especially for those prone to eczema. Some ways of doing this include staying indoors on high-pollution days, using air purifiers and covering exposed skin.

There’s also promise in treatments targeting the AhR pathway. Current research into treatments that activate “good” pathways of AhR in the skin shows potential for managing eczema symptoms – especially for those exposed to elevated PM2.5 levels. Tapinarof, a cream investigators are currently testing, could potentially counterbalance the harmful effect of pollution on the skin if proven successful. This could provide hope to eczema sufferers.

This emerging understanding on the hidden impacts of air pollution suggests that it could be a hidden culprit in the global rise of skin issues such as eczema. Läs mer…

On Sunday November 23 1924, 100 years ago this month, readers perusing page six of the New York Times would have found an intriguing article, amid several large adverts for fur coats. The headline read: Finds Spiral Nebulae are Stellar Systems: “Dr Hubbell Confirms View That They Are ‘Island Universes’; Similar to Our Own”.

The American astronomer at the centre of the article, Dr Edwin Powell Hubble, was probably bemused by the misspelling of his name. But the story detailed a groundbreaking discovery: Hubble had found that two spiral-shaped nebulae, objects made up of gas and stars, which were previously thought to reside within our Milky Way galaxy, were located outside it.

These objects were actually the Andromeda and Messier 33 galaxies, the closest large galaxies to our Milky Way. Today, up to several trillion galaxies are estimated to fill the Universe, based on observations of tens of millions of galaxies.

Four years before Hubble’s announcement, an event called “the great debate” had taken place in Washington DC between the American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis. Shapley had recently shown the Milky Way to be larger than previously measured. Shapley argued that it could accommodate spiral nebulae within it. Curtis, on the other hand, advocated for the existence of galaxies beyond the Milky Way.

In hindsight, and ignoring certain details, Curtis won the debate. However, the method Shapley used to measure distances across the Milky Way was critical to Hubble’s discovery, and was inherited from the work of a pioneering US astronomer: Henrietta Swan Leavitt.

Edwin Hubble made his discovery at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California.
Edwin Powell Hubble Papers / The Huntington, Author provided (no reuse)

Measuring distances to stars

In 1893, a young Leavitt was hired as a “computer” to analyse images from telescope observations at Harvard College Observatory, Massachusetts. Leavitt studied photographic plates from telescope observations of another galaxy called the Small Magellanic Cloud carried out by other observatory researchers.

Leavitt was searching for stars whose brightness changed over time. From over a thousand variable (changing) stars, she identified 25 were of a type known as Cepheids, publishing the results in 1912.

The brightness of Cepheid stars changes with time, so they appear to pulse. Leavitt found a consistent relationship: Cepheids that pulsed more slowly were intrinsically brighter (more luminous) than those pulsing more quickly. This was dubbed the “period-luminosity relationship”.

Other astronomers realised the significance of Leavitt’s work: the relationship could be used to work out distances to stars. While a student at Princeton University, Shapley used the period-luminosity relationship to estimate distances to other Cepheids across the Milky Way. This is how Shapley reached his estimate for our galaxy’s size.

On 5-6 October Edwin Hubble took this image of the Andromeda Galaxy (Messier 31), which established that it was a separate galaxy from our own.
Mount Wilson Observatory, Author provided (no reuse)

But, in order for astronomers to be sure about distances within our galaxy, they needed a more direct way to measure distances to Cepheids. The stellar parallax method is another way to measure cosmic distances, but it only works for nearby stars. As the Earth orbits the Sun, a nearby star appears to move relative to more distant background stars. This apparent motion is known as stellar parallax. Through the angle of this parallax, astronomers can work out a star’s distance from Earth.

The Danish researcher Ejnar Hertzsprung used stellar parallax to obtain the distances to a handful of nearby Cepheid stars, helping calibrate Leavitt’s work.

The New York Times article emphasised the “great” telescopes at the Mount Wilson Observatory near Los Angeles, where Hubble was working. Telescope size is generally assessed by the diameter of the primary mirror. With a 100-inch (2.5-metre) diameter mirror for collecting light, the Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson was the largest telescope at the time.

Diagram of how the distance to a near star is determined using the stellar parallax method.
Jeff Grube, Author provided (no reuse)

Large telescopes are not only more sensitive to resolving galaxies, but also create sharper images. Edwin Hubble was therefore well placed to make his discovery. When Hubble compared his photographic plates taken using the 100 inch telescope with those taken on previous nights by other astronomers, he was thrilled to see one bright star appear to change in brightness over time, as expected for a Cepheid.

Using Leavitt’s calculations, Hubble found that the distance to his Cepheid exceeded Shapley’s size for the Milky Way. Over subsequent months, Hubble examined other spiral nebulae as he searched for more Cepheids with which to measure distances. Word of Hubble’s observations was spreading among astronomers. At Harvard, Shapley received a letter from Hubble detailing the discovery. He handed it to fellow astronomer Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, remarking: “Here is the letter that has destroyed my universe”.

Expansion of the Universe

Besides estimating the distance to a galaxy, telescopes can also measure the speed at which a galaxy moves towards or away from Earth. In order to do this, astronomers measure a galaxy’s spectrum: the different wavelengths of light coming from it. They also calculate an effect known as the Doppler shift and apply it to that spectrum.

The Doppler shift occurs for both light and sound waves; it is responsible for the pitch of a siren increasing as an emergency vehicle approaches, then decreasing as it passes you. When a galaxy is moving away from Earth, features of the spectrum known as absorption lines have longer measured wavelengths than they would if they were not moving. This is due to the Doppler shift, and we say that these galaxies have been “redshifted”.

Edwin Hubble seated at the 100 inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory.
Edwin Powell Hubble papers, The Huntington Library, San Marino, California, Author provided (no reuse)

Beginning in 1904, the American astronomer Vesto Slipher used the Doppler technique with a 24-inch telescope at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. He found that nebulae, including Andromeda, were all redshifted. Slipher found they were moving away from Earth at speeds as high as a thousand kilometres a second.

Hubble combined Slipher’s measurements with his distance estimates for each galaxy and discovered a relationship: the further a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. This can be explained by the expansion of the Universe from a common origin, which would become known derisively as the Big Bang.

The announcement 100 years ago cemented Hubble’s place in the history of astronomy. His name would later be used for one of the most powerful scientific instruments ever created: the Hubble space telescope. It seems incredible how, over the course of just five years, our understanding of the Universe was brought into focus. Läs mer…

Parents frequently lie to their children. “No, you can’t have any chocolate – it’s all gone,” when there’s a jumbo bar of Dairy Milk in the cupboard. “No, you can’t have my phone to watch YouTube – the battery’s flat,” when it’s at a solid 65%.

Lies like these make parents’ lives easier, particularly so when the children are small. Lying might also be thought to be in kids’ own interests. For instance, young children get told that eating carrots will help them to see in the dark.

Leveraging the promise of superpowers might help children develop habits that will serve them well in the longer term. Similarly, lies might be told to protect children from what might be distressing truths. Communicating about death or serious illness with young people can be challenging, and it may be tempting to distort reality in order to avoid upsetting them.

But before lying becomes a habit, it’s worth dwelling upon the reasons for doing so – and considering whether a different approach would be better.

Types of lie

Roughly, people lie when they say things they believe to be false with the intention of deceiving others.

Philosophers have discussed various definitions of lying in order to develop a definition that captures all and only those cases which we think really are instances of lying. For example, we want our definition of lying to exclude jokes or metaphors or some cases of exaggeration (“it’s raining cats and dogs”, “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse!”).

Lying can be well meaning, such as white lies and noble lies. White lies are small lies told to protect social relations – for instance, to avoid upsetting or offending someone (“that jacket really suits you”). Noble lies serve some greater good, such as maintaining political harmony (“We have nothing to fear but fear itself”).

There are also some edge cases, which don’t quite meet the definition of lying given above. Altruistic “lies” are told to get someone to believe the truth – if you know someone will disbelieve you, then you might say something strictly false, but with the intention of getting them to believe the truth.

For example, Ben always confuses cinnamon with nutmeg. He loves cinnamon and hates nutmeg but believes, incorrectly, that he loves nutmeg and hates cinnamon. Sally knows Ben’s preferences and also that he reliably mistakes cinnamon for nutmeg. She offers Ben a cinnamon bun and tells him “you’ll love it – it’s full of nutmeg”. In cases such as these, there is no intention to deceive.

Alternatively, someone might intend to deceive without making a false statement: lies by omission involve misleading someone by leaving out relevant information. It is also possible to deceive by telling the truth – for example, responding “I prefer brie” when asked “did you eat the bit of Stilton I was saving?”. This is known as paltering.

But the lies that parents often tell children aren’t these “sort-of” lies.

Why shouldn’t we lie to children?

Clearly, adults sometimes lie to other adults. Some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, think that lying is never justified, even if the consequences of telling the truth could be disastrous. But we don’t have to take such an extreme position to think that the ways and frequency with which people lie to children are troubling.

Sometimes a lie is a quick way to avoid a meltdown.
MIA Studio/Shutterstock

People don’t just lie to children when the implications of telling the truth would be very severe. People often lie to children for trivial reasons – to avoid the effort of explaining the truth, to avoid another meltdown, to speed up some process or gain compliance.

And the lies aren’t always that small. Children might be told the police will come and arrest them if they don’t obey their parents’ demands. Small children are not well placed to judge the plausibility of these claims and can’t be expected to recognise their absurdity.

So what, if anything, is wrong with lying to children like this? I think there are a few reasons why lying to children is not trivial.

Trust: One problem is the risk of being found out, and the subsequent loss of trust. It seems important that children can trust adults, particularly their parents. Lying to children jeopardises that trust and may be associated with other negative outcomes, such as higher levels of psychosocial maladjustment later in life.

Child development: Some of the lies that get told to avoid distress or confrontation might appear kind, but they serve to bypass the need for children to exert self-control or prevent them from developing an understanding of the world. Meltdowns and confrontation are unpleasant but unavoidable with children, and they must learn to manage emotions like frustration and injustice.

Respect: It’s important to remember that children are people too. We don’t casually lie to other adults partly because it’s disrespectful to act as if the accuracy of their beliefs is unimportant. We should have the same approach to children.

Reflecting on our reasons: By committing to tell the truth we force ourselves to reflect upon our behaviour. For instance, what is the real reason your toddler isn’t allowed to watch cartoons right now, or you won’t take them to the playground? Parents have an incredible degree of power over their children, and it should be deployed responsibly. Telling the truth can encourage us to think about why we’re controlling our children in particular ways and whether or not it’s justified.

Parenting can be exhausting, and lying is the easy option. But treating children with respect and supporting them to develop and mature requires holding ourselves to higher standards of truthfulness. So think about why you won’t hand over the bar of chocolate to your three year old, and consider giving that as the reason next time the request comes. Läs mer…

The US has come quite some way in legalising cannabis use, with nearly half of states having laws permitting recreational cannabis use. Yet the legalisation of cannabis remains an ever-present, heated and polarising debate. One that is often exploited by politicians to win votes, either by stoking fear of the harms that will come from legalising cannabis, or by the promise of decreased violent crime and increased tax revenue from cannabis sales.

The science around the harms of cannabis is relatively well-established. Frequent use of high-potency cannabis and starting use at a young age is a risk factor for various mental health conditions – particularly schizophrenia. It can also lead to cognitive impairment and poor educational attainment, as well as increasing the risk of developing cannabis-use disorder (addiction).

Using cannabis before driving – within about eight hours of consumption – increases the risk of road traffic accidents. And if it is used during pregnancy it can cause birth complications.

The important question is: how are these harms affected by legalisation?

Cannabis potency is a main driver of cannabis harm, and US states with legal cannabis have seen a dominance of high-potency products. The increase in potency began, however, during prohibition in both the US and Europe.

There is also some evidence that cannabis potency levels in legal retail stores are exaggerated to make the products more appealing to customers.

Cannabis use rates are higher in states where cannabis is legal. However, this does not mean that legalisation necessarily drives people to use cannabis. Overall, the evidence is somewhat mixed.

On the whole, though, the data suggests that cannabis legalisation is associated with an increase in adult cannabis use. But most studies suggest no change in adolescent use.

This topic is complex to research because background trends are that cannabis use rates in both the US and Europe have been rising since the early 2000s, long before legalisation was introduced.

Rates of substance use, such as cannabis, are normally gathered from surveys, which have historically been prone to under-reporting due to “social desirability biases” – when respondents to surveys conceal their true opinion on a subject to make themselves look good.

One good example of this is from research conducted in Sweden, which, despite its well-known progressive social values, has a prohibitionist attitude to drugs compared with other European countries. For example, police can forcibly take blood samples if they suspect someone has taken drugs. Ordering drugs from a drug dealer is also a specific crime (“attempted drug offence”).

In an innovative study approach, where researchers indirectly asked people about their cannabis use (known as the “crosswise model”), Swedes reported almost two to three times as much cannabis use as in standard surveys. This is in line with other research which found that people are more likely to admit to doing risky things depending on how they are asked about it.

One cause for concern is the observation that legalisation has increased visits to emergency departments due to cannabis-induced psychosis, as well as accidental poisoning in children. This is especially pronounced in places with high densities of cannabis shops.

A contributor to this has been the increase of high-potency edible products, often in the form of sweets.

The province of Quebec in Canada has counteracted this by putting restrictions on edibles’ potency and restricting products that could appeal to children. This has resulted in shops selling cannabis-infused vegetables instead of sweets.

Early results suggest Quebec has fewer children needing emergency care and has not seen a rise in acute psychoses.

The availability of ‘edibles’ has led to an increase in cannabis poisoning in children.
F42PIX / Alamy Stock Photo

Depends on what measures you put in place

The legalisation of cannabis is not a binary choice. Drug policy decisions within a legal framework can have a substantial effect on the number of people who use a drug and the level of harm the society experiences. For instance, we know that marketing, number of stores, opening hours, taxes and price, labelling, minimum age limits, minimum unit pricing influence our most commonly consumed intoxicant, alcohol, and its harms.

Uruguay legalised cannabis in 2012 and adopted several of these measures. It has not seen an increase in cannabis use, perception of harm, or rates of cannabis addiction compared with neighbouring countries.

Lastly, a serious debate on legalisation should also consider the effectiveness and potential harms of prohibition. Prohibition leaves the vast profits of cannabis sales (and other drugs) to criminals, which helps them grow and expand their organisation and activities. And studies have found links between increased drug law enforcement and increased violence.

Many more harms of prohibition have been discussed by experts, and the evidence that punitive laws prevent cannabis use is very weak.

Overall, there is no perfect drug policy, and drugs such as cannabis will always exist in human societies. Future cannabis policy considerations should take a nuanced and evidence-based approach, learning from the US and other parts of the world where cannabis laws have been relaxed. Läs mer…

The Italian Senate recently passed a law making surrogacy a “universal crime”. In a country where surrogacy is already illegal, and has been since 2004, this decision takes restrictions to a whole new level.

While Italian law already prohibited surrogacy within Italy, the new ban will make it a crime for Italians to access surrogacy abroad – even in countries where the practice is legal.

The use of the term “universal crime” (reato universale) to describe the ban has raised further concern. The language evokes the wording of the Italian criminal code for crimes considered so serious that they contravene “universal values”. The wording therefore puts surrogacy on a par with genocide and crimes against humanity.

Countries are not aligned on whether surrogacy should be allowed or prohibited. Several allow it, albeit with different restrictions and safeguards. In Greece, non-commercial surrogacy has been legal since 2002, allowing the intended parents to have legal parenthood at birth. In California, even so-called commercial surrogacy – where the surrogate receives compensation – is allowed.

Other countries, including France and Germany, prohibit surrogacy. This means that the surrogate is the legal mother when the child is born. But they still typically allow the intended parents to establish a legal bond with the child by other means, for example by giving legal recognition to the genetic father alongside the surrogate mother or to both parents via adoption, in cases where surrogacy has been sought abroad.

In the UK, the surrogate is the legal parent at birth but courts can transfer parenthood to the intended parents through a parental order, a surrogacy-specific mechanism designed to be less burdensome than adoption.

Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni called the new surrogacy ban “common sense” and celebrated it as protecting women and children from “commodification”. Others see the ban as the opposite of protecting women and children.

International rulings

The European Court of Human Rights often examines events in its member countries (which include Italy) to determine whether there is broader consensus on an issue. In 2014 it looked into surrogacy in its Mennesson v France judgment. And in 2019 it issued an advisory opinion on the matter.

While it found no consensus on the lawfulness of surrogacy arrangements, it decided that the rights of children born through surrogacy require “a possibility of recognition of a legal parent-child relationship”. Italy’s absolute ban goes against this reasoning.

In 2019, the British supreme court also invoked the child’s welfare as the main driver for judges to recognise intended parents as legal parents. To do otherwise in most cases, it concluded, risks leaving the child “legally parentless (and possibly also stateless)” – because they would be legally tied to a person living abroad and who did not intend to be their parent.

A UK study found that most surrogates don’t view themselves as the mother and would support recognising intended parents as legal parents from birth.

Meloni’s government, led by the far-right Brothers of Italy, has consistently focused on policies that promote what it sees as a “traditional” form of family. Running on a platform focused on the fascist motto of “God, family, fatherland”, Meloni’s government has been open about its anti-LGBTQ+ stance.

Banning surrogacy was in the party’s manifesto, along with policies against same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. During the debate in the Senate, a Brothers of Italy senator called motherhood “the foundation of our civilisation”. Meloni’s policies, from banning surrogacy to restrictions on abortion, curtail reproductive choice – ideologically driven by an emphasis on “natural” motherhood.

Italian senators cheer after voting through the ban.
EPA/Fabio Frustaci

While it is mostly straight Italian couples who use surrogacy by going abroad, many of them will hide the fact that they had a child this way. Same-sex couples are even more restricted since they obviously cannot fly under the radar in the same way. Under Italian law, they also have no other choices for having a child together: they are banned from accessing IVF or adopting.

While legal scholars and activists question whether the law can hold up to legal scrutiny or how it will be applied in practice, same-sex parents express fear that they are faced with two impossible options: leave their country indefinitely, or stay in Italy and face prison time. Under the new law, they face up to two years in prison and a fine of up to €1 million (£836,000).

Italy’s surrogacy ban is perhaps no surprise in an era of populist politics, where LGBTQ+ and women’s rights are increasingly weaponised, but it should still worry us. Läs mer…

Fibromyalgia is a chronic disorder characterised by muscle pain throughout the body, fatigue, sleep problems and cognitive difficulties. The condition predominantly affects women, but men can also suffer from it. However, they often do so in silence, as they face cultural, medical and psychological barriers to being taken seriously and receiving treatment.

While the disorder itself is well-documented, the male experience remains under-discussed, which only furthers its invisibility.

Fibromyalgia affects 2-4 % of the world’s population. Of this percentage the vast majority are women, which has led research to focus mostly on women, with most cases in men being unnoticed or misunderstood.

Underdiagnosis in men

Gender bias plays a significant role in making fibromyalgia invisible among men. Diagnosis is more frequent in women, meaning male patients are under-represented in clinical studies and diagnoses.

However, this imbalance may exist because diagnostic criteria and assessment tools do not always capture symptoms as they present in men. A recent study found that, in specific subgroups of patients reporting pain in multiple areas of the body, men were less likely to receive a formal diagnosis of fibromyalgia compared to women, despite presenting with similar symptoms.

Additionally, society often associates chronic pain and vulnerability with women. Males, culturally, are pressured to suffer in silence or seek alternative explanations that conform more closely to traditional expectations of masculinity.

This social pressure can lead to them not seeking medical help, or to health professionals minimising their symptoms.

Men’s experiences, in their words

The experiences of men with fibromyalgia are still under-explored in clinical settings. However, qualitative – as opposed to quantitative – studies are beginning to shed light on a complex and unique reality.

This methodology allows us to capture nuances and delve deeper into the specific challenges faced by men with the disease, revealing aspects that are often overlooked in quantitative studies.

These experiences include quotes such as the following taken from a study entitled
“I can’t have it; I am a man. A young man!” – men, fibromyalgia and masculinity in a Nordic context”:

“One [male] doctor said that I have this [fibromyalgia] because I am fat. I had already lost more than 10 kilos then. You are fat. Grannie’s illness. Overweight. Lose more … And he was a skinny kind of a guy, 170 cm tall and weighted like 40 kilos … I could have twisted him into a knot if I wanted to … And he comes and says that you are nothing but fat! Lazy bastard you are … Fuck, I could have lifted him on the wall! … But the nurses are different … they have this compassion in them … when they hear that you have this illness, they kind of put the professional role aside and the human person steps in … But when you get to see the male doctors … their attitude is different … much more negative … they belittle the symptoms, say that it’s all in the head and so on … It is so fucking infuriating!”

Other studies have interviewed male sufferers on how the condition affects them in specific contexts. The following are taken from an article entitled “‘I just want my life back!’ – Men’s narratives about living with fibromyalgia”, and detail men’s experiences of fibromyalgia in a number of different areas.

“For example, somebody comes to my office with a question or a
problem … and I am just like … ??? … I don’t necessarily even
understand what this person asked … and it takes time … and he is
like ‘are you not going to answer’ … and I have to ask ‘what was your
question again?’ … it always comes out of the blue, unexpectedly … I really have to struggle to be able to answer at least
something.”

In day to day life:

“I have always been a very sport-oriented person, but I had to give up
some hobbies … I used to do competitive dancing, but I noticed that
my body did not tolerate it anymore … It was too burdening
… as fun as it was … I just had to admit that my body does not
tolerate it anymore … ”

Getting a health checkup:

“I was in a physical test where you had to lift 10 kg weights above your
head … there was a male sports instructor who looked like a body-
builder … I felt that they wanted to check if I was faking or something
… so I decided that I would really try my best … My result was the
best he had ever seen and he doubted if he could have done the
same … but they did not see how much pain I had … they just did not
see it … it does not matter how many times I can lift the weights …
life is not just about lifting weights above your head, is it?”

How to talk about fibromyalgia in men

We should keep the following in mind when listening to someone talking about fibromyalgia and men:

Expectations of masculinity and psychological barriers: Masculine stereotypes and pressures may lead men to minimise their symptoms or not seek help for chronic pain. Admitting weakness or vulnerability may go against social expectations.
Impact on quality of life: Fibromyalgia not only causes physical pain, it also affects sufferers’ cognitive and emotional capacities.
Possible gender imbalances in medical treatment: As the aforementioned studies show, some men feel a lack of understanding and empathy from health professionals, especially from other men.
Treatment needs to be personalised: Fibromyalgia is complex, making it essential to adopt treatment approaches that account for individual factors like gender, and psychological or social contexts.

The reality of fibromyalgia in men is complex and invisible, and influenced by gender stereotypes that hinder proper diagnosis and treatment. It is essential to acknowledge men’s experiences and adapt healthcare approaches to reduce stigma and provide effective support. Only by doing this can we improve quality of life and ensure more equitable and empathetic treatment for all patients. Läs mer…

Two Australian teenagers are severely ill in hospital in Thailand after experiencing suspected methanol poisoning while they were travelling in Laos.

The pair are reportedly among several foreign nationals to become ill after unknowingly consuming alcoholic drinks containing methanol in the south-east Asian country.

So what is methanol, and how does it make people sick?

Methanol versus ethanol

Methanol is an alcohol, like the familiar ethanol we consume in alcoholic beverages.

Like ethanol, methanol is a colourless, flammable liquid. It has a smell similar to ethanol as well.

But the two have different chemical structures. Methanol is composed of only one carbon atom, while ethanol has two.

Methanol (left) and ethanol (right) have differing chemical structures.
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

That one carbon atom makes all the difference. It means methanol is processed differently in our bodies and is much more toxic than ethanol.

Methanol is used in a variety of industrial and household products, such as windshield cleaning fluids, antifreeze and fuel. It’s not safe for human consumption.

What makes methanol toxic?

The difference is in how methanol is metabolised, or broken down in our bodies.

Ethanol is metabolised into a chemical compound called acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is toxic, but is rapidly converted to acetate (also known as acetic acid, found in vinegar). Generating an acid may sound bad, but acetate actually produces energy and makes important molecules in the body.

By contrast, methanol is metabolised into formaldehyde (a chemical used in industrial glues and for embalming corpses, for example) and then to formic acid (the chemical in some ant bites that makes them hurt so much).

Unlike acetate, which the body uses, formic acid poisons the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cells.

As a result, a person exposed to methanol can go into severe metabolic acidosis, which is when too much acid builds up in the body.

Methanol poisoning can cause nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. The acidosis then causes depression of the central nervous system which can cause people with methanol poisoning to fall unconscious and go into a coma, as well as retinal damage leading to vision loss. This is because the retinas are full of active mitochondria and sensitive to them being damaged.

Death is not inevitable if only a small amount of methanol has been consumed, and rapid treatment will greatly reduce damage.

However, permanent vision damage can occur even at non-lethal doses if treatment is not administered quickly.

What does treatment involve?

Treatment is mainly supportive care, such as intubation and mechanical ventilation to help the patient to breathe.

But it can also involve drugs such as fomepizole (which inhibits the generation of toxic formic acid) and dialysis to remove methanol and its metabolites from the body.

Methanol poisoning can cause serious illness and death.
NATNN/Shutterstock

How does methanol get into alcoholic drinks?

Methanol can turn up in any alcoholic beverage, but it’s most likely in beverages with higher alcohol content, such as spirits, and traditionally brewed drinks, such as fruit wines.

Methanol can get into alcoholic beverages in a number of ways. Sometimes it’s added deliberately and illegally during or after manufacturing as a cheaper way to increase the alcohol content in a drink.

Traditional brewing methods can also inadvertently generate methanol as well as ethanol and produce toxic levels of methanol depending on the microbes and the types of plant materials used in the fermentation process.

We don’t yet know how the Australian teenagers came to be poisoned in this tragedy. But it is a good idea when travelling (particularly in areas with traditionally fremented drinks, such as south-east Asia, the Indian subcontinent and parts of Africa) to always be careful.

The Australian government’s Smartraveller website advises that to avoid methanol poisoning you should be careful drinking cocktails and drinks made with spirits, drink only at reputable licensed premises and avoid home-made alcoholic drinks.

Drinking only mass-produced commercial brews can be safer, though understandably people often want to try locally made drinks as part of their adventure. Läs mer…

The government says it will take “big money” out of election campaigns – or, more realistically, curb it – with its legislation imposing donation and spending caps and real-time disclosure.

But crossbenchers and other critics are up in arms, about the effect on small players and the fact the package is being rushed through parliament in a fortnight.

On this podcast we are talking with Special Minister of State Don Farrell about the bill and the criticisms.

Why the rush? Farrell argues people knew what was coming:

Nothing in this bill is a surprise to anybody who’s been involved in the process that has taken place over the last two and a half years. We went to the last election saying we were going to reduce the disclosure threshold, saying that we were going to introduce real-time disclosure of donations, saying that we were going to introduce caps on spending and donations. And that’s exactly what we’ve done in this legislation and there’s now been two Senate inquiries into this legislation. And all of the parties have absolutely adequate time to have looked at the recommendations.

Why do we need to get it through so quickly? Well, these are significant changes to the electoral system. They’re probably the most significant changes to the Australian electoral system in decades. And it’s going to take time to set up the systems that are going to be required to implement this.

Farrell has introduced truth-in-advertising provisions but he won’t push them this time, given a lack of bipartisan support. They will be a matter for another term:

We’ve had truth in political advertising in South Australia. We had a [state] byelection in South Australia last weekend and that legislation was used to clarify some statements that the opposition were claiming against the state government. So I think it’s a good provision. I’ve said all along that I want to get the maximum support for any piece of legislation in the electoral space.

Just at the moment, we haven’t been able to convince enough people that the legislation is worth their support. But I’m going to be continuing to work on that and one day we will get legislation through for truth in advertising.

Labor’s changes have also been criticised for not disallowing certain groups and industries from donating, such as those associated with the gambling industry. Farrell says:

If we were to do what you’re suggesting there, and then ban some companies, I think we would run into exactly the issues that [constitutional expert] Anne Twomey was talking about in her article in The Guardian Australia. One thing that would guarantee a challenge and perhaps a successful challenge is if we started to pick which companies in this country could donate. The cap that we’re applying, $20,000, really does limit the ability of any company, or any union for that matter, or any other party, or any individuals to dramatically influence the outcome.

We’re seeing Clive Palmer putting at the last election, $117 million dollars into the electoral process. I don’t think that’s what Australians want to want to see. But if I was to ban, say, the companies I don’t like from donating, I think that would result in a challenge to this legislation.

When asked if he intends to serve out the rest of his term as a senator (which isn’t due to end until 2028) Farrell says

Yes.

I love my job. I’ve got three terrific portfolios trade, tourism and special minister of state. I enjoy all of them equally. I think I can continue to contribute to political debate in this in this country. Just in my trade space: we started with $20 billion worth of trade impediments from China. We’ve managed to get that removed, or certainly by the end of the year to get that removed.

I think I can look back on a number of things in the tourism space – we’ve pretty much got back to where we were pre-COVID.

I like being involved in politics. I enjoy the process. And I’d like to continue doing it. Läs mer…

The Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory have won bragging rights for having the fastest growing economies within Australia.

Their growth was highlighted in annual data on gross state product, released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday.

The ABS defines GSP as the total market value of goods and services produced in a state or territory after the costs of goods and services used in production are deducted.

It is the state and territory equivalent of gross domestic product.

Unsurprisingly, New South Wales and Victoria, the most populous states, have the largest GSP. They account for 31% and 23% of our national economy.

But the Australian Capital Territory, with a population of 473,000, has a larger GSP than Tasmania despite the Apple Isle’s bigger population of 576,000.

Where the growth occurred

The fastest growing economy in 2023-2024 was the NT, which expanded by 4.6% followed by the ACT, whose GSP was up by 4.0%. These figures, given in real terms, exclude the impact of inflation. Unlike many recent years, the figures are not distorted by the impact of the COVID lockdowns.

The ABS attributes the NT’s strong growth in 2023-24 to

a bounce back in mining production which was hampered by maintenance work and plant shutdowns in 2022-23.

The ACT economy was boosted by “the expansion of government agencies”.

The bronze medal went to Queensland, but it was well behind the territories. Its economy grew by 2.1%, helped by increased coal production.

The laggard was Western Australia, whose economy grew by only 0.5%. Mining and oil and gas production fell due to weather disruptions.

Tasmania’s economy expanded by the national average of 1.4%. But given population growth has been much less there, Tasmania was the only state (along with the territories) whose economy expanded in per person terms.

The recession-proof economy?

Collection of the GSP data started in 1989-1990. Since then the fastest average growth has been recorded by Queensland and the ACT, an annual average of 3.6%.

Last year, the ACT could claim the unique status of being the only state or territory never to have economic activity contract in any of these years. The statisticians have now revised the 1995-96 number (the year the Howard government came in with plans to cut the public service) to a minuscule -0.1% contraction.

But it is still the case that being more services-based makes the ACT economy less volatile.

Growth is down but WA still the wealthiest

The state with the highest level of real GSP per person is Western Australia. It has led in every year the data have been compiled. Real GSP per person has been lowest every year in Tasmania.

WA’s GSP per person is more than double that in Tasmania. This means WA has GSP per person higher than global leaders such as Norway and Switzerland.

Tasmania’s is more like that in Poland. To put it another way, the real GSP per person in Tasmania is only now where the rest of Australia was in 1999.

What causes the differences?

One important cause of these differences is the different structure of industry in the various states.

WA (and the Northern Territory) benefits from its mineral resources. Mining accounts for almost half of WA’s income. Mining is no longer the labour intensive activity it was when men were swinging a pick “down the pit”. It now takes few people to generate a lot of mining revenue.

Tasmania has the smallest proportion of its population working (58% compared to a national average of 64%). One reason is that more than a fifth of Tasmanians are aged over 65. This is the highest proportion of any state.

Furthermore, only a quarter of Tasmanians hold a university degree compared to almost half of Canberrans.

These data on economic performance do not mean the quality of life or wellbeing is lower in Tasmania.

GSP does not reflect factors like the world’s cleanest air being found in Tasmania, for example. Läs mer…

Next month’s federal budget update is expected to revise down company tax receipts for the first time since 2020, amid continued low economic growth in the near term.

In his Wednesday ministerial statement on the economy, the forecasts remained subdued but Treasurer Jim Chalmers emphasised the upside.

Chalmers said any growth was welcome, given many countries’ economies have gone backwards. Treasury was expecting a gradual recovery “driven by rising real incomes thanks to our cost-of-living relief, jobs growth and progress bringing inflation down,” he said.

Consumer confidence was already showing a modest recovery and households were feeling more confident about the next year, Chalmers said.

“This is the soft landing we have been planning for and preparing for,” he said. “Inflation coming back to band, an economy still growing and unemployment with a 4 in front of it.”

Chalmers said while there was still data to come, including on the national accounts and tax collection, before the December budget update (titled the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook), the Treasury’s current estimate was that any revenue upgrade would be a “sliver” of Labor’s earlier budget updates.

In each of Labor’s earlier budget updates, revenue upgrades averaged $80 billion.

But this trend is diminishing with the labour market softening, and problems in the Chinese economy hitting commodity prices. Iron ore prices are down more than 30% since the start of the year.

Treasury’s latest inflation forecasts are generally in line with the May budget.

“Treasury expected inflation to be back in the [Reserve Bank’s target band of 2–3%] by the end of this year, and that’s what happened,” Chalmers said.

He said government spending wasn’t the main driver of prices and the government’s budget surpluses were assisting the fight against inflation – “points Governor Bullock has repeatedly made”.

With wages growing and inflation falling, “real wages are growing again. They were going backwards by 3.4% when we came to office,” Chalmers said.

“Real wages grew by 0.7% in the year to September – the largest annual increase in over four years, and there’s now been four consecutive quarters of real wages growth.

”The average full-time worker is now earning $159 more per week since we came to office. For women it’s $173 per week more. Since we came to government, wages in industries dominated by women have risen by more than 8%,” Chalmers said.

In his reply, Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor said there was “nothing soft” about the landing.

He said prices were still rising, and “there is nothing soft about the pain Australians are feeling”.

“On nearly every metric, Australians are not better off than they were almost three years ago,” Taylor said.

Labor had added $315 billion of spending, boosting inflation. “That is $30,000 per household of extra spending,” he said. “The RBA has said extra government spending is making their job harder.” Läs mer…