Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Drury, PhD Candidate in History, Lancaster University

Much has been done, by way of interviews and Instagram reels, to market Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights as a tale of ferocious passion and untameable desire. The question of precisely whose passion we see play out onscreen is a crucial one.

Fennel says the film reflects her personal reading of Emily Brontë’s arresting tale of generational trauma, possession and violence. I had a different experience when I first read Wuthering Heights. I became immersed in a decidedly unsexy story of abuse, and had “bad dreams in the night” over Heathcliff’s brutal nature.

Nowhere is Heathcliff’s brutality more explicit than in his treatment of Isabella Linton, who becomes his wife. Isabella is the sister (or, in Fennell’s interpretation, ward) of Edgar Linton, Heathcliff’s rival for Catherine (Cathy) Earnshaw’s affections.

Heathcliff and Isabella’s marriage is marked by severe domestic and sexual abuse. In Brontë’s novel, Isabella chooses to flee Heathcliff’s tyranny and construct a life for herself independent of him. As the literary scholar Judith E. Pike notes, this was a radical transgression of historical norms, in which Victorian morality would expect her to endure such treatment for love of her husband.

Returning to the novel recently, I was struck once more by Isabella’s decimation of her husband’s propensity towards cruelty. I believe any retelling of Wuthering Heights should be faithful to, as opposed to a taming of, its radicalism. Yet when faced with Fennell’s Isabella, I encountered not the daring figure of the source text, but a doglike submissive.

Dogged desire

The words of writer Katherine Angel came to my mind upon exiting the cinema. In her work Tomorrow Sex Will Be Good Again, Angel argues that, in the wake of #MeToo, a heavy burden has been placed on women to “say what we want, and indeed know what we want” when it comes to sex and desire. It was Angel’s bold question, “Why must the secrets of desire be uncovered?” that reared its head in me after seeing Isabella on all fours.

As Angel contends, “context is everything” when it comes to desire. At first glance, Isabella (portrayed by Irish actress Alison Oliver) is the epitome of the “born sexy yesterday” trope: a female character who is at once physically mature and attractive, but has the mental faculties of an innocent, naive child. Only just coming into the world in her preliminary scenes, Isabella is a lover of dolls and ribbons, elaborate dresses and hairstyles.

It is this infantilised state, to the point of absurdity (in one scene, she unknowingly creates a scrapbook with flowers and mushrooms evoking genitalia), that makes Isabella’s sudden yearning for Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) all the more jarring. Capitalising on established fantasies of Elordi as the “I can fix him”“ archetype, Fennell renders Heathcliff the key to unlocking Isabella’s secret desires.

And yet, it is only when Heathcliff is spurned – after Catherine has (finally) put an end to their trysts – that the duty of sexually satisfying him falls to Isabella. From the moment he breaks through her bedroom window, he discloses all of his ill-intent towards Isabella.

Heathcliff not only desires her virginity (“Do you know what comes next?”) but her hand in marriage, all in the name of spiting Cathy. He repeats the refrain, “Do you want me to stop?” as he makes Isabella aware of the brutality he will bring down upon her. As he derides and undresses her, she clutches her crucifix and shakes her head to say, “No, go on.”

Deviating from Brontë’s story, Fennell’s Isabella is rendered a sexual submissive, a consenting party to her own abuse.

Making no attempt to leave him (as she does in the novel), Isabella relishes being the dog, literally leashed by Heathcliff. Rather than giving credence to Isabella’s words as they appear in the book – “The single pleasure I can imagine is to die, or to see him dead!” – in Fennell’s adaptation, Isabella’s deviant sexual desires are read through the words of her abuser: “I’ve sometimes relented, from pure lack of invention, in my experiments on what she could endure, and still creep shamefully cringing back!”

Fennell’s “uncovering” of Isabella’s secret desires helps the audience to decide, as posited by Angel, “whether a man’s actions were justified”. In order to realise her desires for Cathy and Heathcliff onscreen, Fennell’s Heathcliff must be exonerated. And he is, most grievously, through Isabella desiring to be his sexual submissive. Only then could the film’s ending play out: Heathcliff exudes Romeo as he lays beside a dead Cathy in her “skin room” tomb.

So Isabella’s desire is invoked, in accordance with Angel’s theory, as “proof that violence wasn’t, in fact, violence”. Fennel’s Heathcliff is not cruel and abusive, but a communicative and intentional dominant partner in a BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism and masochism) relationship which Isabella, as a submissive, enthusiastically consents to.

It is deeply troubling that the drive of Brontë’s Isabella, a survivor of domestic abuse, has been reread to dramatically absolve her abuser. The girl sobbing behind me as the credits rolled attests to the success of this exoneration. Really, she should be crying over the scripting of violent abuse as consensual play.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

– ref. In Emerald Fennel’s Wuthering Heights, domestic abuse has been recast as consensual kink – https://theconversation.com/in-emerald-fennels-wuthering-heights-domestic-abuse-has-been-recast-as-consensual-kink-276314

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/23/in-emerald-fennels-wuthering-heights-domestic-abuse-has-been-recast-as-consensual-kink-276314/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Rutland, Professor of Government, Wesleyan University

Perceived wisdom has it that the longer a war goes on, the less enthusiastic a public becomes for continuing the conflict. After all, it is ordinary citizens who tend to bear the economic and human costs.

And yet, as the war following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 enters its fifth year, the attitude of the Russian public remains difficult to gauge: Just over half of Russians, according to one recent poll, expect the war to end in 2026; yet a majority say that should negotiations fail, Moscow needs to “escalate” with greater use of force.

As observers of Russian society, we believe this ambiguity in Russian public opinion gives President Vladimir Putin the cover to continue pushing hard for his goals in Ukraine. Yet at the same time, a deeper dive into the Russian public’s apparent support for the war suggests that it is more fragile than the Russian president would like to believe.

Putin’s social contract

From Day 1 of the conflict, Western strategy has been predicated on the belief that economic sanctions would eventually cause either the Russian elite or its society to persuade Putin to abandon the war.

This, in turn, is based on the assumption that the legitimacy of Putinism rests on a social contract of sorts: The Russian people will be loyal to the Kremlin if they enjoy a stable standard of living and are allowed to pursue their private lives without interference from the state.

The Russian economy has been struggling since 2014, so many analysts believed that this social contract was coming under strain even before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, after four years of war, the combination of exclusion from European markets and a tripling of military spending has led to economic stagnation and mounting pressure on living standards.

One problem with the social contract approach is that it tends to downplay the role of ideology.

It is possible that Putin’s “Make Russia Great Again” propaganda resonates with a significant part of the Russian public. Polling has consistently placed Putin’s approval rating above 80% since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict.

Of course, the validity of the results of polls in an authoritarian society at war cannot be taken at face value. Yet, one shouldn’t rule out that some of that support is genuine and rests not just on a stable economy but also on popular endorsement of Putin’s pledge to restore Russia’s power and influence on the world stage.

Rallying Russians

Some scholars point to a “rally around the flag” effect. There was an apparent surge in Putin’s approval rating after the use of military force against Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.

It is hard to tell whether the surge in support for Putin reflects a genuine shift in opinion or just a response to media coverage and what people perceive as the acceptable response.

The Kremlin has tried to hide the costs of the war from the public: concealing the true death toll and avoiding full-scale mobilization of conscripts by recruiting highly paid volunteers. It is also trying to keep the economy stable by drawing down the country’s reserve funds.

That leaves open the question of whether the “Putin consensus” will break down at some point in the future if the costs of the war start to hit home for a majority of Russians.

The problem with polls

The consensus view among observers is that a small minority of Russians oppose the war, a slightly larger minority enthusiastically support the war, and the majority passively go along with what the state is doing.

There are still some independent pollsters conducting surveys in Russia that report a high level of support among respondents for the “special military operation” against Ukraine, with figures ranging between 60% and 70%.

A number of researchers have pointed out the difficulty in getting an accurate snapshot of Russian public opinion, given that the polling questions might make the respondent fearful of being accused of breaking laws that penalize “spreading fake news” and “discrediting the army” with a lengthy prison sentence.

The Levada Center, which is still regarded as an independent and relatively reliable pollster, conducts its interviews face to face in people’s homes but has a very low response rate. Polls conducted online, in return for monetary rewards, can try to find demographically balanced respondents, but the problem of wariness about giving answers that are critical of the regime remains. In Russia’s current political environment, refusing to answer or giving a socially acceptable response is a rational strategy.

Some scholars, such as those associated with the Public Sociology Laboratory, which looks at public sentiment in post-Soviet states, still conduct fieldwork inside Russia, sending researchers to live incognito in provincial towns and observe social practices involving support for the war.

Their ethnographic research finds little evidence for a “rally around the flag” effect in provincial Russian society. Other analysts have turned to digital ethnography of social media as an alternative source of insight. But analysts unfamiliar with the local and digital context risk mistaking performative loyalty for genuine belief.

‘Internal emigration’

Most Russian citizens try to avoid political discussion altogether and retreat into what is often described as “internal emigration” – living their own lives while keeping interactions with the authorities to a minimum.

This practice dates back to the Soviet period but resurfaced as political repression increased after Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012.

There is no doubt that there are many fervent war supporters in Russia. They are quite vocal and visible because the state allows them to be – such as the military bloggers reporting from the front lines.

Apart from looking at opinion polls and social media, one can also probe the level of genuine support for the war by looking at everyday practices. If popular support for the war were enthusiastic, recruitment offices would be overwhelmed. They are not.

Instead, Russia has relied heavily on financial incentives, aggressive advertising, prison recruitment and coercive mobilization. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of men have sought to avoid conscription by leaving the country, hiding from authorities or exploiting legal exemptions.

Symbolic participation follows a similar pattern. State-sponsored Z symbols continue to dominate public space – the letter Z is used as a symbol of support for the war, in slogans such as “Za pobedu,” which translates to “for victory.” But privately displayed signs of support have largely disappeared.

Humanitarian aid to be sent to soldiers on the front lines or occupied Ukraine is often collected through schools and churches, where participation is shaped by social or administrative pressure. But many participants frame their involvement as helping individuals rather than supporting the war itself.

Reality vs. lived experience

High-profile propaganda products frequently fail to resonate. Music charts and streaming platforms in Russia are dominated not by patriotic anthems but by an eclectic mix of songs about personal relationships, such as Jakone’s moody ballad “Eyes As Wet As Asphalt,” songs in praise of “Hoodies” and even a catchy Bashkir folk song.

Book sales show strong demand for works such as George Orwell’s “1984” and Viktor Frankl’s Holocaust memoir “Man’s Search for Meaning,” suggesting that readers are searching for ways to understand authoritarianism, trauma and moral responsibility rather than celebrating militarism.

And instead of watching the state-backed film “Tolerance,” a dystopian tale of moral decay in the West, Russians are streaming the “Heated Rivalry” gay hockey romance.

Putin’s campaign to promote what he sees as traditional values appears not to be cutting through. Divorce rates are among the highest in the world – and birth rates continue to fall.

Heading into the Ukraine war’s fifth year, the gulf between the Kremlin version of reality and the lived experience of ordinary Russians remains. It echoes a pattern we have seen before: In the final decade of the Soviet Union the Kremlin became increasingly out of touch with the views of its people.

History will not necessarily repeat itself – but the masters of the Kremlin should be conscious of the parallels.

– ref. As war in Ukraine enters a 5th year, will the ‘Putin consensus’ among Russians hold? – https://theconversation.com/as-war-in-ukraine-enters-a-5th-year-will-the-putin-consensus-among-russians-hold-275666

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/23/as-war-in-ukraine-enters-a-5th-year-will-the-putin-consensus-among-russians-hold-275666/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pnina Levine, Senior Lecturer, Curtin Law School, Curtin University

Australian students are returning to university campuses for the start of the academic year. They do so amid highly charged debates around racism and antisemitism.

Australian universities have been accused both of failing to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom, and failing to protect the safety and wellbeing of Jewish students and staff.

A new Australian Human Rights Commission study found more than 90% of religious Jewish students and staff had experienced racism at university. High rates were also reported for secular Jewish, Middle Eastern, Indigenous and Asian students.

The study noted how universities

face the challenge of creating respectful learning environments while allowing some discomfort in engaging with difficult ideas.

I research academic freedom and freedom of speech. As we begin semester one, how can universities balance the need to protect students, teachers and staff with the need to encourage robust and proper debates?

Academic freedom and freedom of speech

Academic freedom concerns speech or work related to teaching, study or research. Freedom of speech relates to activities on university land or in connection with the university, but not related to teaching, study or research.

Legislation requires Australian universities to safeguard freedom of speech and academic freedom and to have policies upholding these freedoms. All university enterprise agreements also contain provisions around academic freedom.

The main practical framework for universities is a voluntary model code for academic freedom and freedom of speech. This was developed by former High Court chief justice Robert French in 2019 at the federal government’s request. It is set up to “ensure” freedom of lawful speech and academic freedom, subject to other “restrictions”.

New report cards

In 2026, universities will also need to demonstrate they have taken meaningful steps to regulate antisemitic speech. They will be assessed via a report card, with grades A through to D.

This was a recommendation from the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism’s report last year. The report cards will focus on university policies, complaints processes and antisemitism awareness. Greg Craven, a former vice-chancellor of Australian Catholic University, is leading the assessment process.

Universities will be given a chance to respond and improve their performance if there are issues. The first round of reports is due in May, adding to the focus on how universities handle these issues.

How can unis respond?

Universities can take several steps if there is antisemitic speech in classes or on campus.

They can take disciplinary action (including sacking or expulsion) against unlawful speech. Unlawful speech includes incitement of violence or hatred toward “protected groups”. These are groups distinguished by a certain characteristic, including race, religion or nationality. It is also illegal to display prohibited symbols or perform the Nazi salute.

Universities can also take action against speech that disrupts its teaching and research activities or prevents it from fostering the wellbeing of students and staff. This might include derogatory slurs in classrooms, protesters coming into classrooms or chanting outside libraries and lecture halls.

There are also protections against threatening, humiliating or intimidating behaviour. This is distinct from something that is merely offensive, shocking or insulting.

This distinction can be difficult to pin down and may require universities to take detailed legal advice. But the model code can be used to protect student and staff safety, while upholding freedom of speech and academic freedom

What does this mean in 2026?

This year, universities need to demonstrate they have taken meaningful steps to regulate antisemitic speech, but without contravening freedom of speech or academic freedom.

It should mean students can debate and take opposing sides about Israel and the conflict in Gaza in an international law class, for example.

If they do this in a biology class, this would not be academic freedom. It may be freedom of speech, but could also be seen as disrupting teaching activities – and so subject to disciplinary action.

If students use derogatory slurs against each other at that time, universities may decide this not only disrupts teaching but is threatening, humiliating or intimidating and so may take disciplinary action.

What about outside classes?

Universities will need to ask similar questions if derogatory slurs, personal attacks or loud aggressive arguments or chanting occur in university corridors or elsewhere on campus.

Although the students or staff would still be exercising their rights to freedom of speech on campus, the manner of this speech can be regulated. Is aggressive chanting disrupting teaching or research? Is it threatening, humiliating or intimidating students on campus?

Under the model code, universities can ban visiting speakers if a speech is likely to be “unlawful”, “prejudice the fulfilment by the university of its duty to foster the wellbeing of staff and students” or,

fall below scholarly standards to such an extent as to be detrimental to the university’s character as an institution of higher learning.

When it comes to protests, different universities have different laws and policies. If universities allow protests, they will need to ensure they do not disrupt teaching and research or undermine wellbeing.

All this shows universities face a delicate balancing job ahead. They need to make sure they remain places of robust debate. And students and staff feel safe to study, work and participate in these debates.

– ref. How can unis balance academic freedom with the need to protect against antisemitism? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-unis-balance-academic-freedom-with-the-need-to-protect-against-antisemitism-275212

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/23/how-can-unis-balance-academic-freedom-with-the-need-to-protect-against-antisemitism-275212/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Isakhan, Professor of International Politics, Deakin University

Since October 2023, Israel’s war in Gaza has caused mass human suffering. But it has also brought devastation to the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people.

In our recent article in the International Journal of Heritage Studies, we documented the extent of heritage destruction in Gaza and analysed the strikingly limited response by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

We argue that UNESCO’s failures have consequences beyond Gaza, as they weaken deterrence of attacks on heritage sites globally and risk normalising impunity for these types of crimes in conflict.

Heritage destruction in Gaza

Gaza has a rich and layered heritage, with archaeological traces dating to at least 1300 BCE. It has long sat at the crossroads of many cultures, and has been controlled by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

Gaza is also home to historical sites important to the three main faiths of the region – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Much of this cultural heritage now lies in ruin. UNESCO’s Gaza damage assessment list includes 150 sites that have been damaged or destroyed since the war began.

Some of these are globally significant sites. Two are on UNESCO’s World Heritage Tentative List:

Other damaged or destroyed sites include:

• the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrios Church, which dates to 425 CE and is sometimes referred to as the third-oldest church in the world

• the seventh-century Great Omari Mosque, thought to be the first mosque in Gaza, along with its 13th-century library containing rare Islamic manuscripts

• the Qasr al-Basha, a fortress also known as Pasha Palace, which was built in the mid-13th century by the Mamluk sultanate and had been turned into an archaeological museum

• a Roman cemetery (Ard-al-Moharbeen), thought to have at least 134 tombs dating back to 200 BCE.

UNESCO’s failures

Apart from creating this list, UNESCO has been relatively muted in its response, compared with the role the agency has played in other conflicts.

This doesn’t mean it’s been completely silent. It has issued several statements condemning the destruction in Gaza and calling on “all involved parties to strictly adhere to international law”.

It has also elevated one heritage site to its List of World Heritage in Danger – the Saint Hilarion Monastery. Taking this step strengthens the protections around the site, with potential penalties for intentional damage.

Yet, despite these efforts, we question whether UNESCO has truly met the moment. Our analysis identifies a pattern of omission and understatement that is difficult to reconcile with UNESCO’s own mandate and the legal architecture that exists to protect cultural property in armed conflict.

For example, UNESCO has failed to publicly invoke the 1954 Hague Convention in relation to Gaza, which aims to protect cultural sites during conflict. The agency has cited it in virtually every major conflict since its ratification.

It also didn’t seek urgent action from the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly to protect cultural sites. The agency did this in response to the Islamic State’s acts in Syria and Iraq (including the desecration of the World Heritage site of Palmyra). In 2017, for instance, the security council passed a resolution backed by UNESCO that laid out a number of steps to help protect cultural heritage in conflict.

Similarly, UNESCO has not worked with the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice to initiate proceedings against Israel or Israeli officials for the destruction of heritage in Gaza. The agency did this after conflicts in the Balkans and Mali. These trials established the intentional destruction of cultural property during conflict as a war crime.

Finally, UNESCO has not taken its usual approach of explicitly naming Israel as the perpetrator of cultural destruction in Gaza. It has taken this step in many recent conflicts. This includes Ukraine, where is has frequently named and condemned Russia as the perpetrator.

Why has UNESCO been so cautious?

One explanation offered by critics is geopolitical constraint. UNESCO has increasingly been criticised for an overdependence on voluntary state contributions. This can make the agency reluctant to confront powerful countries for fear of alienating supporters.

This dynamic is certainly evident in UNESCO’s long and strained relationship with Israel and the US. Both formally withdrew from UNESCO in 2019 because the agency had described Israel as an occupying power in Gaza and the West Bank, and condemned its destruction of Palestinian heritage.

But we argue there’s something more troubling occurring – the erosion of UNESCO’s willingness and capacity to activate the legal and normative tools it helped build.

Once a mighty advocate for the protection of culture worldwide, UNESCO has slowly withered into a largely ineffective and technocratic agency that sidesteps complex issues and is hamstrung by internal division.

UNESCO’s response

In response to the arguments raised here, UNESCO sent a detailed email explaining its actions on heritage protection in Gaza. These are some of the points raised by a UNESCO spokesperson:

On citing the 1954 Hague Convention:

Across different conflicts, UNESCO sometimes explicitly cites the 1954 Hague Convention […] and in other instances use the broader formulation “international law”.

UNESCO also communicates with the concerned Member States bilaterally […] This has been done on several occasions through correspondence addressed to the authorities of Israel, for example to remind Israel of its obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention.

On explicitly naming Israel as a perpetrator:

UNESCO is not a judiciary body, therefore its role is not to assign responsibility. In specific case of Ukraine, there are several Security Council and/or UNESCO governing bodies decisions that may explain specific statements.

On the lack of willpower to use its tools and resources on Gaza:

UNESCO activates its legal, normative and programmatic tools within the remits of its mandate and available funds. The needs are enormous, and we take this opportunity to renew UNESCO’s call in support of the people of Gaza.

Why Gaza matters

UNESCO’s limited response to the destruction in Gaza matters. Heritage protection is not only about salvaging damaged sites and trying to rebuild them. It’s also vital for defining unacceptable conduct and deterring future violations.

When the world’s foremost body on the protection of cultural heritage limits itself to cautious generalities, it fosters a permissive environment. It allows this destruction to be treated as regrettable collateral damage of war, rather than an actionable crime. This undermines UNESCO’s credibility.

It can also set a dangerous precedent. If the large-scale destruction of heritage occurs in full view of the world, with no repercussions, future belligerents may believe the costs of heritage crimes will be tolerated.

– ref. Gaza’s cultural sites have been decimated. UNESCO’s muted response sets a dangerous precedent – https://theconversation.com/gazas-cultural-sites-have-been-decimated-unescos-muted-response-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-275091

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/23/gazas-cultural-sites-have-been-decimated-unescos-muted-response-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-275091/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Manenti, Experimental particle physicist, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney

When most people hear the word radiation, their mind jumps straight to nuclear disasters, such as at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

But radiation is everywhere. In fact, right now, as you read this, you are being exposed to radiation from the ground beneath your feet, the air around you, and even your own body. Radiation is not inherently bad: what matters is how much you are exposed to.

To this end, my team and I have built the first radiation map of our home town, Sydney. This map provides a new perspective of the city, showing that the ground beneath the city is constantly emitting a small amount of natural radiation. Spoiler: it’s nothing to worry about.

What is radiation?

At its most basic level, radiation is energy travelling through space.

In nature, it is often produced by radioactive elements – atoms that are unstable and so prefer to convert into other elements by releasing energy, ending up in a more stable state. This process is called radioactive decay.

When Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago, it contained radioactive elements, such as uranium, thorium and potassium. Some radioactive elements decay in a fraction of a second; others decay so slowly they are still present today.

For example, natural uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. That means it takes 4.5 billion years for half of a given amount of uranium to decay, eventually turning into lead, which is stable.

Uranium, thorium and potassium dominate natural background radiation because they combine two key features: they were abundant when Earth formed, and they have half-lives comparable to, or even longer than, the age of Earth. Many other radioactive elements either decayed away long ago or were never present in significant amounts.

Because of this, these elements are everywhere. They are found in rocks and soil, taken up by plants, eaten by animals, and ultimately end up in our bodies. That is why we are, in a very literal sense, mildly radioactive.

We said that radiation is energy. But if you zoom in far enough, that energy starts to look like it’s being carried around by tiny particles: alpha particles (helium nuclei), beta particles (electrons or positrons), and gamma rays – photons, just like light, but far more energetic.

The key difference between the types of particle is how far they manage to travel. Alpha and beta particles don’t get very far before they run out of steam. A bit of air, clothing, or skin is usually enough to stop them. For that reason, they are mostly a concern when the radioactive material ends up inside the body – for example if it is inhaled, as can happen with radon gas.

Gamma rays, on the other hand, travel easily through air and out of the ground.

That makes them more relevant for external exposure, but also extremely useful: they escape from rocks and soil and reach our detectors. This is why gamma radiation is the type we can use to map what is happening beneath our feet.

Measuring Sydney’s radiation

When I moved from Abu Dhabi to Sydney in 2024, I observed something unexpected. The natural radioactivity I was measuring around the city with a small handheld gamma-ray detector was about five times higher than what I had been used to in the United Arab Emirates.

That raised two questions: why was natural radiation higher in Sydney than in Abu Dhabi? And was it safe?

Australia does have national radiation maps. But these are mostly based on surveys carried out from aircraft flying tens of kilometres apart. They are excellent for understanding broad geological patterns, but far too coarse to tell you how radiation varies from one neighbourhood, park or suburb to the next.

My students Tengiz Ibrayev and Matilda Lawtong and I set out to build the first high-resolution, ground-based map of natural gamma radiation for metropolitan Sydney. We carried out a radiation survey across a 10 by 10 kilometre region of the city, dividing the area into a grid and visiting almost every square on foot.

At each location – usually in public parks or open green spaces – we placed a gamma-ray detector on the ground and let it measure radiation for several minutes.

This gave us reliable averages rather than quick snapshots.

We also took measurements over open water in Sydney Harbour on a ferry. Water blocks radiation coming from the ground, so this let us measure cosmic radiation from space – high-energy charged particles originating from the Sun and deep space that constantly hit Earth). We then subtracted this background radiation, so we could focus on the radiation coming from the ground.

To understand why radiation levels changed from place to place, we also collected soil samples at selected locations and analysed them in the laboratory using very sensitive gamma detectors. This allowed us to measure how much uranium, thorium and potassium were present in the soil – the elements responsible for most natural radiation.

The pattern follows geology

Radiation levels across the city do vary, but not randomly. Areas built on sandstone and shale tend to show higher natural radiation than areas dominated by younger sediments.

In other words, the pattern follows geology, not human activity.

Radiation exposure is usually measured in units called millisieverts (mSv). Your own body contributes about 0.03mSv each year, mainly from potassium naturally present in your tissues.

Across the part of Sydney we mapped, the average terrestrial gamma radiation from the ground is about 0.24mSv per year. Even the highest values we measured are well within the range of natural background radiation seen worldwide.

We are hoping to expand this work to other cities around Australia through citizen science in schools. Doing so helps us turns something abstract and invisible into something we can measure, compare and understand.

Measuring radiation replaces fear with context. It doesn’t make the world more dangerous – it makes it clearer.

– ref. The ground beneath Sydney emits radiation. But it’s nothing to worry about – https://theconversation.com/the-ground-beneath-sydney-emits-radiation-but-its-nothing-to-worry-about-274109

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/23/the-ground-beneath-sydney-emits-radiation-but-its-nothing-to-worry-about-274109/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Marie Brennan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato

The extreme weather events and resulting destruction that have hit New Zealand this summer are not only signs of a changing climate. They also highlight the now indispensable role of remote sensing satellite technology.

Broadly, remote sensing involves gathering information about Earth from a distance – most often from satellites equipped with sensors that measure different forms of electromagnetic energy.

Operating across multiple wavelengths, these instruments can function at night and capture conditions over large areas in a single pass. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites detect ground movement and flood extent even during heavy rain and thick cloud.

Optical sensors capture detailed imagery showing building damage, blocked roads, sediment plumes and coastal change. Thermal sensors identify heat patterns and temperature anomalies that signal hotspots or stressed environments.

Together, these systems provide a reliable, real-time picture of ground conditions, especially when severe weather renders traditional monitoring impossible.

But despite this technological progress, the framework that controls access to satellite data is alarmingly fragile, leaving a disaster-prone country like New Zealand vulnerable.

Better emergency response and risk mapping

For affected communities, satellite sensing technologies can be transformative. When rivers overflow, bridges collapse and extreme weather prevents response teams from entering affected areas, satellites continue operating uninterrupted.

Authorities can use the information to rapidly determine which communities are at risk, where landslides have destabilised slopes, and which roads or bridges have failed. It sharply reduces the time between impact and emergency response.

Instead of relying on scattered reports, responders can prioritise resources, guide evacuations, plan helicopter drops and coordinate rescue operations using a shared, high-resolution map of evolving hazards.

Remote sensing remains equally valuable long after the immediate crisis. Satellite data supports damage assessments for insurance and government relief, informs the reconstruction of roads, river systems and stormwater infrastructure, and helps refine hazard models for future storms and floods.

In remote areas such as the West Coast, East Coast and alpine South Island – where monitoring networks are sparse and terrain is difficult – satellite imagery is often the only wide-area information source.

Over months and years, repeated imagery helps scientists and planners understand how landscapes are changing: whether slopes are weakening, rivers are shifting course, or coastlines are retreating under rising seas and intensifying storms.

Stronger global agreements needed

Rapid access to satellite data is supported by the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters, which coordinates satellites from different agencies and companies to provide free imagery and disaster maps when activated.

New Zealand is not a member but the National Emergency Management Agency secured “user status” in 2024.

Since participation is voluntary, some experts worry there is no guarantee satellites will be tasked appropriately, no assured access to archives, and no obligation for members to respond to every request.

The legal framework around remote sensing remains sparse. Outer space law states that space activities should benefit all countries but offers little detail.

The United Nations Remote Sensing Principles encourage cooperation and “reasonable” access, but lack enforcement and set no minimum standards for timely data sharing.

As well, many high-value satellites are privately owned. Outside voluntary emergency arrangements, access depends on commercial licences, pricing and national security restrictions. These constraints can delay critical information when it is needed most.

Commercial operators refusing to provide imagery can be a major challenge. With no binding international obligations on private companies, New Zealand cannot compel access during emergencies without pre-existing contracts.

Refusals can delay situational awareness, reduce mapping accuracy and leave dangerous gaps in response planning. So it is heartening that the New Zealand Space Agency is taking steps to address the gaps in international arrangements, and ensure more reliable access to commercial satellite data.

AI complicates the picture

The growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in satellite-based disaster analysis adds capability but also complexity.

AI can rapidly detect floods, classify landslides, and evaluate building and road damage. But when errors occur, accountability becomes unclear. Does it lie with the data providers, the analytics companies that process the imagery, or the public agencies relying on the outputs?

Ensuring reliability requires transparent documentation of models, inputs, thresholds and uncertainties. Robust cybersecurity safeguards are also needed to prevent deliberate attempts to alter data streams or mislead machine‑learning models (which could distort analysis during a disaster).

But no binding rules require human oversight of AI-derived remote-sensing products, leaving governments to determine how much human review is necessary for safety-critical decisions.

To strengthen national resilience, New Zealand needs to advocate for clearer international data-sharing rules, and embed privacy, transparency and human oversight in public sector workflows.

It must also treat the satellite-to-ground data chain as critical infrastructure, with built in redundancy, security and rapid incident reporting. Remote sensing is now core national infrastructure.

The extreme weather of the past months emphasises why. When storms intensify too quickly for traditional systems to cope, satellites and AI-enabled analytics help provide a rapid, scalable view of unfolding risk.

Strong agreements, responsible AI governance and resilient data pipelines ensure New Zealand gets the right data – fast – when communities need it most.

– ref. Satellite imaging is now vital for disaster management. But there are dangerous gaps in our systems – https://theconversation.com/satellite-imaging-is-now-vital-for-disaster-management-but-there-are-dangerous-gaps-in-our-systems-276274

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/23/satellite-imaging-is-now-vital-for-disaster-management-but-there-are-dangerous-gaps-in-our-systems-276274/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Moffitt, Associate Professor in Microbiology, Western Sydney University

What do coffee, sugar, wheat, soy, eucalypts and paperbarks all have in common?

They are all susceptible to parasitic rust diseases caused by fungi. Plant rust disease can easily be spotted by the characteristic orange or yellow spores that cover plant leaves, making them look rusty.

The spores are easily transferred to your skin by touch or carried by the wind to other host plants.

Despite their symptomatic similarities, each species of rust fungus is restricted to a single type of plant host.

Farmers and nursery managers often use fungicide to tackle plant rust disease, but we need to find ways to decrease our reliance on fungicide treatment. Otherwise, we risk fuelling fungicide resistance.

Could treating with natural beneficial fungi be a viable alternative?

What we did and what we found

To find out, we grew 143 species of fungi that were living in association with the leaves of the Australian native scrub turpentine tree, a species now considered critically endangered due to the effects of myrtle rust disease.

Myrtle rust disease, cause by the exotic fungus Austropuccinia psidii is a type of plant rust disease, and it’s a huge problem. At least 380 Australian native plants are susceptible to it.

Myrtle rust threatens trees and shrubs in the Myrtaceae family of plants. This is Australia’s largest plant family in Australia, and includes tea tree and eucalypts. It also threatens several rainforest tree species.

The recent arrival of this disease into Australia, in 2010, means little is known about how we may feasibly control it within natural ecosystems.

Our research found that of the 143 species of fungi we grew, nine of them naturally stopped the germination of the myrtle rust spores in the lab.

This suggests native plants may already harbour beneficial fungi that could protect them from this deadly disease.

How? Our research shows one way beneficial fungi can protect the plant from the rust disease is by producing chemicals that attack the disease and prevent it from infecting the plant.

It’s like a biological machine, producing microscopic amounts of fungicide directly onto the rust as it grows.

Other ways these fungi can protect the plant are through competition for nutrients or by stimulating the plant’s immune system to protect itself.

One advantage over fungicides may be that if the fungi establishes a symbiotic relationship with the plant, repeated applications may not be necessary.

So far, we’ve only shown this in the lab. More research is clearly needed.

Now, we need to make sure the fungi can effectively do their job in the environment on our most susceptible plants. We may even one day be able to incorporate these fungi into our plant conservation breeding programs.

A growing body of research

A similar study of myrtle rust disease in Hawaii found that adding multiple beneficial fungi to the leaves of the native Hawaiian Koʻolau eugenia or nioi plant increased the effectiveness of the beneficial fungi over using a single strain alone.

This highlights that we have a lot to learn about how beneficial fungi can protect plants.

Our previous research also identified that fungi can protect crop plants such as wheat, barley and oats from rust disease.

Similar studies around the world have found fungi can also protect against coffee rust and soybean rust, among others.

Despite many successful lab studies, there remains a gap between lab studies and field applications. And even if it could be proven to work in the field, then we’d need to find efficient ways to get the beneficial fungi onto the plants that need it.

That said, it’s worth persevering. If we want strategies to reduce fungicide usage on farms and in the environment we must continue to learn more about beneficial fungi and how we can best use them to our advantage.

– ref. Good fungus may one day help save plants from bad fungus like deadly myrtle rust disease – https://theconversation.com/good-fungus-may-one-day-help-save-plants-from-bad-fungus-like-deadly-myrtle-rust-disease-269819

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/23/good-fungus-may-one-day-help-save-plants-from-bad-fungus-like-deadly-myrtle-rust-disease-269819/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toni Pikoos, Adjunct Research Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology; Federation University Australia

If you walk into a cosmetic surgeon’s office, you probably wouldn’t expect to be asked about your recent break-up or how you cope with stress.

But in Australia, that has been standard practice for nearly three years.

That’s after the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency introduced mandatory mental health screening before cosmetic procedures. This includes cosmetic surgery, like a facelift, and non-surgical procedures including cosmetic injections and laser treatments.

This decision was part of a series of reforms designed to help keep patients safe. But it has also made the Australian cosmetic industry one of the most tightly regulated in the world.

So how effective have these reforms been, almost three years on? And are patients any better off?

Cosmetic medicine is booming in Australia

Each year, Australians spend more than A$1 billion on more than 500,000 cosmetic procedures. That means we spend more money on cosmetic medicine per capita than the United States.

In 2023, more than a third of Australians were considering having cosmetic surgery in the next decade. Interest is particularly strong among young women, with 54% of young Australian women considering cosmetic surgery at some point in their lives. Most people seeking surgery hope these elective procedures will improve their appearance or self-esteem.

After having cosmetic surgery, about 80–90% of patients are satisfied with the results. Many also report feeling better about their appearance up to five years after the procedure. Some studies also show cosmetic surgery improves patients’ mood and quality of life.

However, some patients may regret a cosmetic procedure or feel worse afterwards. This is why identifying vulnerable patients, especially those considering irreversible procedures, is crucial.

So, what’s the link between cosmetic surgery and mental health?

Research shows examining patients’ mental health before any cosmetic procedure affects how they feel after an operation. People with heightened symptoms of psychological distress, such as anxiety and depression, are more likely to be dissatisfied with the results of a cosmetic procedure. They are also more likely to find their recovery challenging and even experience more physical complications after surgery.

Certain psychological conditions have a greater impact on patients’ mental health after surgery. One example is body dysmorphic disorder, where people often obsess over perceived flaws in their appearance. These so-called flaws can be subtle or not apparent to others. As a result, these patients may look to cosmetic surgery as a way to fix their perceived flaws.

A 2022 review of related studies found up to 20% of patients requesting cosmetic procedures had body dysmorphic disorder. And our 2025 study shows about 12% of Australian cosmetic patients either have unrealistic expectations of cosmetic surgery or show symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder or psychological distress.

Many patients with body dysmorphic disorder still feel dissatisfied with their appearance after cosmetic treatment. This is because they often focus on the same perceived flaw or a completely different one. This can negatively impact their mental health and, in some cases, may lead patients to take legal action against surgeons for not delivering the desired result.

The reason for screening

Nearly three years ago, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency changed its guidelines about cosmetic procedures.

As a result, doctors who perform cosmetic procedures must screen patients for psychological conditions, such as body dysmorphic disorder. They can do this by conducting interviews or using tools such as a written questionnaire.

If doctors identify any concerns, they must refer patients to a psychologist, psychiatrist or GP before proceeding with treatment.

However, a recent national survey suggests the cosmetic industry is not embracing these reforms. This research shows 84% of plastic surgeons referred fewer than 5% of patients. This is far less than our research would indicate have body dysmorphic disorder. About 70% of plastic surgeons interviewed say they would not continue screening if it were not mandatory.

Some surgeons have made their concerns public. In 2024, one group of surgeons even took the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to court. They sought to overturn the new guidelines or establish other protections for patients.

From a patient’s perspective, mandatory screening may mean they can’t undergo cosmetic surgery. In our 2025 study involving more than 8,000 Australian cosmetic patients, we found people were much more hesitant to report mental health symptoms in a cosmetic clinic, compared to when completing the same questionnaire anonymously for research. This is likely because they felt they needed to “pass” psychological screening tests to receive cosmetic surgery. So, the self-reporting element of current questionnaires is a major limitation.

So, is psychological screening necessary?

The purpose of screening was never to exclude people from cosmetic treatment. Rather, it was designed to help practitioners and patients make informed decisions.

Almost half of people considering cosmetic procedures report mental health concerns. For most, this does not make them unsuitable candidates. But in certain cases, they may benefit from delaying a cosmetic procedure. This would give them time to seek additional psychological support or talk to a practitioner about what they should expect from cosmetic surgery.

Importantly, screening tools should not be used alone. Instead, they should be part of a broader assessment of a patient’s motivations, goals and overall wellbeing. This includes a discussion of how cosmetic surgery may positively or negatively affect their mental health.

But researchers, like ourselves, are working on new screening questionnaires to help surgeons more accurately assess a patient’s mindset and identify any psychological concerns before they have a cosmetic procedure. But we need more research to know if these will improve outcomes for patients and practitioners.

Yes, talking about your mental health with a cosmetic surgeon may feel uncomfortable. But it helps ensure any decision to change how you look comes from a place of stability, not distress.

– ref. Planning a face lift? Why asking about your mental health doesn’t always hit the mark – https://theconversation.com/planning-a-face-lift-why-asking-about-your-mental-health-doesnt-always-hit-the-mark-276051

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/23/planning-a-face-lift-why-asking-about-your-mental-health-doesnt-always-hit-the-mark-276051/