CT scans: benefits vs cancer risks

Program: CT scans: benefits vs cancer risks

 CT scans can be vital in diagnosing disease, but they do come with small
increased risks because of the radiation exposure. A recent US study found
that if current practices persist, CT-associated cancer could account for
up to five per cent of all new diagnoses. So what can be done to drive down
the risk? One radiologist thinks mandating informed consent before a scan
is done would be a good start.

 ABC 28th Nov 2025, https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/healthreport/ct-scans-cancer-radiation-risk/106076780

December 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fossil Fuels at COP30: Sacred, Profane and Unmentioned

Most conspicuously, the final agreement makes no mention of fossil fuels (it made a unique appearance in COP28), tantamount to discussing a raging pandemic without ever mentioning the devastating virus.

28 November 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/fossil-fuels-at-cop30-sacred-profane-and-unmentioned/

If the camel is a committee’s version of a horse, then the concluding notes of the 30th United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP30) at Belém, Brazil were bound to be ungainly, weak, and messy. That is what you get from an emitting gathering of over 56,000 mostly subsidised attendees keen to etch their way into posterity. Leave aside the fact that some of the conference mongers might have been well meaning, the final agreement was always going to be significant for what it omitted. It was also prominent for lacking any official role from the United States, a country where Make America Great Again has all but parted ways with notions of climate change.

For three decades, these events have drawn attention to climate change ostensibly to address it. For three decades, the stuttering, the vacillation, the manipulation, have become habitual features, making the very object of condemnation – fossil fuels – both sacred and profane. The message is that humanity must do without it lest we let planet Earth cook; the message, equally, is that it can’t. “COP30 will be the ‘COP of truth,’” Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva declared extravagantly at the 80th United Nations General Assembly in September, immediately dooming it to comic platitude. The sacred and profane – fossil fuels – would remain strong at the end of the show.

There was some initial promise that attending member states might do something different. Initial pressure was exerted by the Colombia-led coalition (“mutirão” or joint effort) of 83 countries to abandon the use of fossil fuels and chart a Roadmap to decarbonise the global economy.  

Then came a soggy threat by a group of 29 countries in a letter to the Brazilian COP presidency that any agreement lacking a commitment to phase out fossil fuels would be blocked. “We cannot support an outcome that does not include a roadmap for implementing a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels,” emphasised the authors, which included such countries as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Palau, the UK and Vanuatu. This expectation is shared by a vast majority of Parties, as well as by science and by the people who are watching our work closely.” The threat duly sagged into oblivion.

The resulting COP 30 agreement, with the aspirational title “Global Mutirão: Uniting humanity in a global mobilization against climate change” was a tepid affair. There were the usual tired acknowledgments – the importance of addressing climate change (yes, that’s what they were there for); the need to conserve, protect and restore nature and ecosystems through reversing deforestation (wonderful); the human rights dimension (rights to health, a clean, healthy and sustainable environment); the importance of equity and the principle of common albeit differentiated responsibilities specific to the States (fine sentiments) known as the just transition mechanism.

Most conspicuously, the final agreement makes no mention of fossil fuels (it made a unique appearance in COP28), tantamount to discussing a raging pandemic without ever mentioning the devastating virus. As Jasper Inventor, Deputy Programme Director of Greenpeace International acidly remarked: “COP30 didn’t deliver ambition on the 3Fs – fossil fuels, finance and forests.” In what can only be regarded as an observation born from defeat and desperation, UN Climate Change Secretary Simon Stiell offered his summary: “Many countries wanted to move faster on fossil fuels, finance, and responding to climate disasters. I understand that frustration, and many of those I share myself. But let’s not ignore how far this COP has moved forward.” In this area of diplomacy, movement is excruciatingly relative.

There remained a modish insistence on voluntariness, with COP30 President André Corrêa de Lago announcing a voluntary “roadmap” to move away from fossil fuels. Officially, the sacred and the profane could not be mentioned; unofficially, other countries and civil society could do what they damn well wished to when addressing climate change challenges. To that end, the process would take place outside the formal UN processes and merge with the Columbia-steered “coalition of the willing.” The parties would otherwise, as the agreement stipulated, “launch the Global Implementation Accelerator” to “keep 1.5°C within reach,” yet another woolly term conceived by committee.  

Colombia and the Netherlands were quick to announce their co-hosting of the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels. “This will be,” explained Irene Vélez Torres, Colombia’s Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, “a broad intergovernmental, multisectoral platform complementary to the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] designed to identify legal, economic, and social pathways that are necessary to make the phasing out of fossil fuels.”

Admirable as this may be, a note of profound resignation reigned among many in the scientific community. While COP30 might have been seen as a meeting of “truth and implementation,” the truth, charged Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, was that keeping the target of 1.5°C within reach entailed bending “the global curve of emissions downward in 2026 and then reduce emissions by at least 5% per year.” And that’s saying nothing about implementation.

November 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Unseen Battle: Why Access to Alternative Media is a Modern Necessity.

28 November 2025 Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-unseen-battle-why-access-to-alternative-media-is-a-modern-necessity/

In an age where information is power, a silent war is being waged for the mind. The landscape of public discourse is increasingly curated, with gatekeepers – both state and corporate – determining which narratives are amplified and which are silenced. In this environment, the role of alternative media transforms from a simple option to an urgent necessity. It has become the essential immune system for our democracy, fighting not only to disseminate information but to protect our fundamental right to a full and honest picture of the world.

The High Stakes: More Than Just News

To understand the critical importance of alternative media, one must first recognise what is at stake when a single narrative dominates.

The Weaponisation of Information: Mainstream media, often intertwined with powerful political and corporate interests, can be used to manipulate public sentiment. History provides a stark lesson: the powerful newspaper owner William Randolph Hearst famously cabled an illustrator in Havana, “You furnish the pictures. I’ll furnish the war,” demonstrating how media can be used to inflame public opinion and make conflict inevitable. This manipulation taps into deep-seated tribal emotions, a “militant enthusiasm” that can be mobilised on a huge scale for political ends.

The Distraction Economy: While the world faces unprecedented challenges – from the threat of thermonuclear war and catastrophic climate change to rising economic inequality – the mainstream media often offers a diet of pop music, sports, and sit-coms. This functions as a modern-day “bread and circuses,” numbing the public into political passivity and distracting from the severe, systemic issues that demand our immediate attention and action.

The Right to Information Undermined: According to the United Nations, the rise of disinformation is a direct threat to human rights, as it politically polarises populations and hinders people from meaningfully exercising their civic duties. When the information environment is flooded with false or misleading content, our very ability to discern truth is compromised, rendering the right to information meaningless.

The Vacuum of Censorship: Where Misinformation Thrives

A government’s attempt to restrict access to information, particularly under the guise of protection, is not a solution; it is a catalyst for a more profound problem. Limiting exposure to diverse perspectives does not create a well-informed citizenry; it creates an information vacuum.

The Rise of Unchecked Narratives: When official channels curate or suppress information, they create a void. This vacuum is rapidly filled by misinformation (false information shared without malicious intent) and disinformation (deliberately false information spread to deceive). Without the robust, competing frames provided by a healthy alternative media ecosystem, these false narratives can take root unchallenged.

The Illusion of Protection: Shielding any age group, especially the young, from complex political and world issues is a dangerous fallacy. It assumes that without exposure to challenging topics, individuals remain “safe.” In reality, it only ensures they lack the critical tools to analyse information when they inevitably encounter it through other, less reliable means. The lack of media literacy becomes a vulnerability, not a shield.

Challenging the Status Quo: A Skill for All Ages

The manufacturing of unquestioning consent is the goal of any authoritarian system. Breaking this requires a conscious, society-wide effort to foster critical thinking from childhood through adulthood.

Children as Critical Thinkers: The development of “mental state talk” – the ability to attribute thoughts, feelings, and intentions to others – is a cornerstone of understanding different perspectives. Narratives and stories are ideal contexts for children to develop this skill, as they practice connecting a character’s actions with their internal motivations. When children are encouraged to deconstruct stories, they are honing the very skills needed to later deconstruct political narratives.

Education, Not Indoctrination: Teaching media literacy is not about telling people what to think, but how to think. This involves equipping them with simple, effective tools like the “ESCAPE” method:

• Evidence: What facts are provided?
• Source: Who created this?
• Context: When and why was it made?
• Audience: Who is it meant for?
• Purpose: Why was it created?
• Execution: How was it presented?

The Role of Alternative Media: While mainstream media often operates with a top-down, “sedimenting” function – stabilising a single interpretation of events – alternative media can make an “explosive dent in the political culture of the moment.” It is vital for organising social movements, providing a platform for reflection and debate, and correcting the distorted picture provided by the mainstream.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Our Cognitive Sovereignty

The battle for a healthy information ecosystem is not a lost cause. It requires a multi-faceted approach that defends alternative voices while empowering individuals.

Defend Alternative Media: Support and engage with independent media outlets. Their survival and growth are crucial for a balanced discourse, as they often give life to, and are given life by, social movements that challenge power.

Demand Media Literacy: Advocate for the integration of robust media literacy education at all levels of schooling. This is not a niche subject but a fundamental skill for navigating the modern world, helping individuals become discerning consumers and creators of media.

Embrace Critical Inquiry: As a society, we must move beyond the comfort of passive consumption. We must cultivate a culture where questioning the status quo and challenging state-manufactured narratives is not seen as subversion, but as the duty of every engaged citizen.

The trend towards restricting information and manufacturing consent is indeed dangerous. It addresses no real-world problems; it only hides them. In the face of this, the mission of alternative media and the critical, questioning citizen has never been more vital. It is a race between education and catastrophe, and we must ensure that the immune system of our democracy is strong enough to prevail.

This article synthesises key insights from academic and research sources to build a compelling case. It frames the issue not just as a matter of media preference, but as a fundamental requirement for democratic health and individual autonomy.

November 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PORT ADELAIDE COMMUNITY OPPOSING AUKUS (PACOA)SUBMISSION TO ANI CONSULTATION

We are a community group of local residents on the Le Fevre Peninsula who have held
two well-attended town hall meetings, film and cultural events, and a rally strongly
opposing the foisting of AUKUS and its nuclear submarines on our local community.
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION

November 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Supporting genocide. Australian funds risk breaking international law.

by Stephanie Tran | Nov 14, 2025,  https://michaelwest.com.au/supporting-genocide-australian-funds-risk-breaking-international-law/

Australian fund managers who continue to invest in companies that supply weapons to Israel may be in breach of international law and risk prosecution. Stephanie Tran with the story.

Leading international law experts say Australia’s sovereign wealth fund could be complicit in genocide in Gaza if they continue investing in companies supplying weapons and technology to Israel.

Former Australian Human Rights Commissioner Chris Sidoti, who was a member of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Palestine and Israel, told MWM that both the government and private sector have clear obligations to avoid complicity in genocide.

“States like Australia, and the private sector too, are now on notice,” Sidoti said. “A UN Commission of Inquiry has found war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, and they have responsibilities arising from that.”

Tim McCormack, Professor of International Law at the University of Tasmania and former Special Adviser on War Crimes to the International Criminal Court, said the government must confront the legal implications of its inaction.

“We need a government that’s prepared to say we believe in the international legal order, and that means certain implications for us about having to draw lines in the sand when we see international law being violated egregiously,” he said.

Future Fund complicity

The Future Fund, Australia’s sovereign wealth fund, continues to hold shares in Elbit Systems despite extensive evidence that the Israeli weapons manufacturer is a key enabler of the IDF in the commission of genocide in Gaza as Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer.

During a Senate Estimates hearing last month, Future Fund CEO Raphael Arndt and Chief Corporate Affairs Officer Will Heatherton were grilled about why the fund still invests in Elbit, whose drones are believed to have been used in the Israeli strike that killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom.

Elbit Systems was added to the Fund’s exclusion list in 2018 for producing cluster munitions but was reinstated in April 2023 after what Heatherton described as a process of “due diligence, review and testing.”

“Through our process of regular due diligence, review and testing – as I mentioned, every six months – in 2023 it was identified that Elbit Systems was no longer involved in the activities that led it to be taken out of the portfolio, so it became investable once again,” said Heatherton.

When pressed about the concerns raised by several UN reports regarding the complicity of Elbit Systems in genocide, Heatherton stated that under the board’s policy “there is no reason to exclude the company, on the basis of conventions and treaties the Australian government has ratified”.

“In this particular case, Elbit is not subject to Australian or US sanctions and is not excluded under the exclusions framework adopted by the board,” he said.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information provide insight into the Future Fund’s decision to maintain its investment in Elbit Systems following a MWM investigation on the matter.

Sidoti said the Fund’s position exposed deep flaws in how it applies ethical and legal standards to its investments.

“If the statements made by the senior people in the Future Fund are correct, then, firstly, there needs to be a complete change in the membership of the board, and secondly, there needs to be a change in the legislation to make sure that the Future Fund acts lawfully under international law and ethically.”

Sidoti pointed to the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund as an example of a fund that has aligned its investment strategy with its obligations under international law. The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund banned investments in Elbit Systems in 2009 due to its supply of surveillance technology to Israeli forces in the West Bank. In August, the fund also terminated all contracts with asset managers handling its Israeli investments.

“If the largest fund in the world can act ethically and be concerned about acting ethically, why can’t a relatively small one like ours? If the board can’t ensure that that occurs, then the legislation needs to be changed. It is an institution that is part of the state, and so it bears the responsibilities under international law that the state bears far more than any private corporation,” Sidoti said.

Australia … “a very real risk”

Sidoti warned that the Australian government may be in breach of its obligations under international law due to its inaction after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that it was “plausible” that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide.

“There is a very real risk that Australia is breaching its international legal obligations. I’m not saying at this stage that we are definitely in breach, but from what the Australian government has said and done in response to the situation in Gaza and in response to decisions already made by the International Court of Justice, I have to say that we are at real risk of being in violation of international law the court.”

He said the government had failed to implement even basic steps to ensure it is not aiding or assisting Israel’s unlawful activities.

“I would have expected Australia to undertake a major review of all aspects of its relationships with Israel… but I am not aware of any such comprehensive review having been undertaken.”

“The [ICJ] have said that all states have an obligation not to aid or assist the continuation of Israel’s unlawful activities in the occupied Palestinian territory. The first step of not aiding and assisting is to know exactly what we’re doing, the aspects of the relationship and what we should be stopping. But that doesn’t seem to have been done.”

Jerusalem defence and trade office

Sidoti also called for the immediate closure of Australia’s defence and trade office in Jerusalem, which promotes cooperation with Israel’s arms industry.

“To have that office still operating and promoting defence cooperation is nothing short of scandalous. It is absolutely scandalous that under these circumstances, we are promoting defence cooperation between Australia and Israel,” he said.

Between March 2019 to June 2025, Austrade paid WeWork Israel $218,115 to lease the premises for the West Jerusalem Trade and Defence office. In July 2025, the lease was extended until December 2025 for a further $26,185.

While the government maintains a ban on arms exports to Israel, Sidoti said the government’s continued defence contracts with Israeli weapons manufacturers such as Elbit Systems fund the development of weapons and surveillance technology used against Palestinians.

“The Australian government is hiding behind the fact that for five years it has had a prohibition on the export of arms and munitions to Israel.”

“But when we buy drones or surveillance technology from Elbit, we are, in fact, funding research and development of the Israeli armaments industry, and in particular the development of surveillance technology that is used against Palestinians. There is no excuse whatsoever for any form of arms trade between Australia and Israel.”

McCormack added that Australia’s participation in the supply of components for the F-35 stealth strike fighter programme continues to implicate us in the atrocities committed in Gaza.

“We know those aircraft … are being used to drop incredible amounts of ordnance on Gaza,” he said.

Obligation to prevent genocide

Sidoti said Australia’s legal duty to prevent genocide was triggered in January 2024 after the ICJ ruled that genocide in Gaza was ‘plausible’. Under the Genocide Convention, states have an obligation not only to punish genocide after it occurs, but to actively prevent it. The ICJ’s ruling activated this obligation, requiring states to use all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide from happening.

“The critical legal issue is the obligation to prevent genocide; that obligation is not dependent on genocide having actually occurred, it is triggered by a reasonable risk that genocide may occur,” he said. “The obligation to prevent is a real and present obligation that has existed at the latest, since January 2024, yet we seem to have done very little, and certainly almost nothing meaningful in response to that obligation.”

In September, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Palestine and Israel found that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide in the Gaza Strip.

“Our UN Commission of Inquiry has been looking closely at the situation in Palestine and Israel for four years now, and we’ve focused particularly on the situation in Gaza for the last two years. … In a series of reports, eight in all, we found war crimes, crimes against humanity and most recently, based upon all of our earlier findings, the crime of genocide,” Sidoti said.
Chris Sidoti will be speaking in a series of public events organised by the Association for the Promotion of International Law in conjunction with Amnesty International, ANU Law School and the International Commission of Jurists. He will be in Victoria on 19 November, Hobart on 20 November and Sydney on 27 November.

November 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment