The Grim Reaper's preferred walking speed while on the job is 3 km per hour. So walk faster this Christmas if you want to see New Year!

Aussie researchers with a typically morbid sense of humour produced this just in time for The British Medical Journal’s Christmas 2011 issue:“How fast does the Grim Reaper walk? Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis in healthy men aged 70 and over.”

Introduction
“The Grim Reaper, the personification of death, is a well known mythological and literary figure. Reported characteristics include a black cloak with cowl, a scythe, and cachexia. High quality scientific research linking the Grim Reaper to mortality has been scarce, despite extensive anecdotes
Walking speed is a commonly used objective measure of physical capability in older people, predicting survival in several cohort studies. A recent meta-analysis found that being in the lowest fourth of walking speed compared with the highest was associated with a threefold increased risk of mortality. Moreover, the association between slow walking speed and mortality seems consistent across several ethnic groups and shows a dose-response relation. Although the association between walking speed and mortality has been well documented, the plausible biological relation between the two remains unclear.
We assessed whether the relation between slow walking speed and mortality results from the increased likelihood of being caught by Death. By assessing this relation using receiver operating characteristics curve analysis, we hypothesised we would be able to determine the walking speed of the Grim Reaper—information of importance to public health.”

Discussion
“Based on receiver operating characteristics analysis and estimation of the Youden index, a walking speed of 0.82 m/s (2 miles (about 3 km) per hour) was most predictive of mortality. Therefore, we predict that this is the likely speed at which the Grim Reaper prefers to ambulate under working conditions. Older men who walked at speeds greater than 0.82 m/s were 1.23 times less likely to encounter Death. In addition, no men walking at speeds of 1.36 m/s (3 miles (about 5 km) per hour) or above were caught by Death (n=22, 1.4%). This supports our hypothesis that faster speeds are protective against mortality because fast walkers can maintain a safe distance from the Grim Reaper. Interestingly, the predicted walking speed of Death estimated in the present study is virtually identical to the gait speed (0.80 m/s) associated with median life expectancy at most ages and for both sexes in a recent meta-analysis of gait speed and mortality using data from diverse populations. This indicates that the preferred walking speed of the Grim Reaper while collecting souls is relatively constant irrespective of people’s geographical location, sex, or ethnic background.”

Conclusion
“The Grim Reaper’s preferred walking speed is (2 miles (about 3 km) per hour) 0.82 m/s under working conditions. As none of the men in the study with walking speeds of 1.36 m/s (3 miles (about 5 km) per hour) or greater had contact with Death, this seems to be the Grim Reaper’s most likely maximum speed; for those wishing to avoid their allotted fate, this would be the advised walking speed.”


The bad news oozing out from this study is that the infamous lycra-clad fitness freak, Opposition Leader Tony Look at my Box Abbott, is bound to make it through to polling day in 2013.

Lismore Council blocks CSG testing and calls on other north coast councils to do the same

Today's Northern Star reports:

Lismore City Council has received unprecedented community support for its popular, though legally uncertain, moratorium on coal-seam gas activities on all council-controlled land.

Lismore mayor Jenny Dowell said she had been flooded with emails and phone calls from a wide range of community members who were "one-hundred per cent supportive" of the council's controversial decision.

At its final meeting for 2011 last week, the council rejected initial legal advice and voted six to five to reject a seismic testing application by Metgasco along up to 14 kilometres of council road reserves at Rock Valley, before imposing a full moratorium (nine to two) pending further legal, community and industry consultation.

"It is now up to Metgasco to decide if they want to override council's refusal of this application, and our decision to impose a moratorium on further applications," Cr Dowell said.

"If they choose to go to a higher authority, they do so in the knowledge that not only is council against their activities, but so is the community at large."

Metgasco chief Peter Henderson was fiercely critical of the council arguing it had no authority to block the company and the action threatened to deprive the Northern Rivers of "a significant and environmentally attractive source of gas (and) infrastructure needs".

"In opposing our activities and incurring additional legal costs in challenging its own staff's advice, Lismore Council might wish to question if it is spending rate-payers' money in a responsible manner," he said.

"We aim to be a long-term participant in the Northern Rivers region and would still prefer to have the support of council for our activities. As such, Metgasco is reviewing its position in regard to the proposed seismic activity in Lismore Council areas."

Lismore City Council's decision follows a similar moratorium at Moree Plains Shire Council and preceded another at Gloucester Shire Council last Thursday.

Cr Dowell said the pressure was now on other councils to act, particularly those on the Northern Rivers, in order to send a strong message to Macquarie Street.

Read the full report here.

Source: The Northern Star, 19/12/11

Another perspective on Anchor Resources' antimony mining proposal

The 101 year-old Don Dorrigo Gazette ran this letter to the editor by Jacqueline Williams on its front page in December 2011:

Mining in Dorrigo: another perspective

The article appearing in the Don Dorrigo Gazette 16/11/2011 under the heading ‘Mining in Dorrigo’ presents information that appears to be directly from an Anchor Resources brochure on the Bielsdown Project.  It would seem appropriate to question and challenge this article and highlight perhaps what we the community haven’t been told.

Anchor Resources is one of three companies holding mineral exploration licences on the Plateau and is currently the most active. Anchor Resources activities include drilling for gold at Dundurrabin, proposed drilling for antimony/gold at Wongwibinda (Fishington Mine) and further drilling at Bielsdown. This flurry of activity in our region reflects the rising price of antimony, gold and other metals and I question whether this is due to resource scarcity or market manipulation? China produces 90% of the world’s antimony, and we have seen the price of antimony skyrocket from $4K per tonne to $16K per tonne in the last two years.  This price increase has largely been associated with the closure of a number of large producing antimony mines in China due to human health/safety and environmental concerns. It is pertinent to add here that Anchor Resources is now at least 96% owned by the Chinese company Shandong Jinshunda Group as of mid 2011.

I note that Anchor Resources refer to the exploration licence process, however it is difficult to find the latest approval for their Bielsdown project with the Government gazette showing an application to renew the licence in February 2011, however this licence doesn’t appear to be granted as yet. Also of concern is that a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) has not been undertaken for any of the exploration licence applications submitted by Anchor for the Bielsdown project since 2007.  My understanding is that a REF is a requirement of all exploration licence applicants to undertake an environmental impact assessment of the proposed activities so that NSW DPI can make an assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to granting the licence. Given that the Bielsdown project location has state and national significance as habitat for threatened species I question the currency of the exploration licence and how the NSW government has overlooked an important part of the approval process. This is not to mention the requirements under the Commonwealth legislation that the location triggers. It is unclear whether Anchor Resources have notified the Commonwealth government to determine if their exploration activities are considered a ‘controlled action’ under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requiring further environmental impact assessment and approval. Many farmers have shared with me their frustration about their efforts and sacrifices in conserving native vegetation and habitat for the public good only to see mining companies given open slather.

I don’t wish to dwell solely on the environmental issues surrounding the potential of mining on the Plateau, as there are other issues that need to be considered. It seems that Dorrigo is not immune to the unprecedented mining expansion in regional Australia where the potential social and economic impacts need to be considered by the communities faced with these challenges. As the current legislation has been identified as inadequate to accommodate the risks, new policies are being developed and proposals to change legislation under debate. In the meantime, mining activities continue to expand.  In considering the full impacts of mining, the concerns of landholders and rural communities should not be dismissed as simply ‘alarmist’.....

Read the full letter here.

You want an apology? Think again, Mr. Mayor

One suspects that Coffs Harbour City Mayor Cr Keith Rhoades may be regretting his insistence on an initial apology from Cr. Mark Graham (in the latest mayoral manoeuvre in a distinctly Byzantine local government saga) on 15 December 2011 - followed by an ineffectual demand for a second apology.

One local wag went so far as to post a transcript of this 'apology' in the online comments section of The Coffs Coast Advocate, which is appreciated as at the time of writing Council still had not published the minutes of this meeting on its website.

By pedrowe from Corindi Beach on 16/12/2011 at 2:25PM

For those who haven't read or heard the apology, here it is.... brilliant…………………………………………

1. I am sorry that Council has used two Conduct Review procedures that are not prescribed within the Code of Conduct. Specifically they are:

a. appointing a Sole Conduct Reviewer who is not independent or unbiased as she has received significant remuneration from Council to provide advice on corporate governance failures surrounding the Rigby House refit prior to her appointment as a Sole Conduct Reviewer. The Code of Conduct is very clear in requiring that Conduct reviewers are independent and unbiased. None of the three members of the Conduct review committee appointed by this Council have an existing pecuniary relationship with Council.

b. appointing a “peer reviewer”. The Code of Conduct does not contain a procedure for appointing a “peer reviewer”.

2. I am sorry that Council has allowed a Sole Conduct Reviewer with multiple conflicts of interest to continue to investigate me. I am sorry that the General Manager has decided to waste ratepayers funds engaging both a Sole Conduct reviewer with multiple conflicts of interest and a “peer reviewer”, given that there is no procedure for appointing a “peer reviewer” within our adopted Code of Conduct.

3. I am sorry that Council has failed to learn from the corporate governance failures that led to the sacking of the former General Manager.
4. I am sorry that Council has used improper and politically motivated conduct review procedures in an attempt to prevent public disclosure of the ongoing involvement of the Mayor and two other Councillors in the corporate governance failures that led to the sacking of the former General Manager.

5. I am sorry that Council has improperly used the Code of Conduct against my open, transparent and perfectly legal handling of the Rigby House refit and the sacking of the former General Manager.

6. I am sorry that the Sole Conduct Reviewer has consistently misrepresented my conduct and published material that defames me. The Sole Conduct Reviewer has implied that my conduct has been dishonest and unlawful. I demand an immediate retraction of these defamatory statements and an apology from her for defaming me.

7. I am sorry that the Public Officer, a subject of complaints against me, has been involved in investigations into my conduct on behalf of the General Manager. This is a clear conflict of interest that the Public Officer has failed to disclose.

8. I do not apologise for any of my conduct as I have not breached the Code of Conduct. Reading the following statement from correspondence between the Mayor and the General Manager “Finally, this matter is only known by the three Councillors and the several staff involved. The matter will and, I repeat, will stay with these people” does not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. This statement is not confidential. Nor are the statements “Mayor has been kept informed of the progress of this investigation from the commencement. How can the work done be less than $150000 and not have gone out to tender” or “Probably the most important part of this correspondence is that in another dot point related to building refurbishment costs were confirmed in February 2010 as being $1million”.

9. I do not apologise for sending Council’s Acting Public Officer a written request for legal advice relating to the dismissal of the former General Manager. She did not respond to my correspondence. Leaving two voicemail messages with the Acting Public Officer requesting to be provided with this legal advice does not constitute a breach of Code of Conduct. At no stage have I spoken with the officer or made any improper requests of her. I required the legal advice to enable me to meet my obligations under the Local Government Act. The failure to provide me with this advice prevented me from meeting my obligations under the Act.

How not to grow the worth of your .au domain name

Clarrie Rivers sent me at link to lcreview.com.au which in turn was the starting point for this post.

Originally people on the NSW North Coast knew lcreview.com.au as a digital address associated with the free weekly community newspaper The Lower Clarence Review, until it broadened its horizons to become the Clarence Valley Review accompanied by an online presence at www.cvreview.com.au.

This eventually left its original digital address an unclaimed orphan wandering out there in cyberspace.

It appears to have been snapped up by Publishing Australia Pty Ltd (formerly Netfleet Pty Ltd) - a buyer and seller of Australian domain names.

This company is reportedly owned by David Lye and his brother Mark.

Now the new owner of the domain name apparently decided to position it in such a way that it might take whatever advantage there maybe in developing site content to draw traffic numbers which in turn enhance the possibility of re-sale. The site collects as much information as possible about its visitors as well.

This is where the exercise becomes amusing for Northern Rivers residents.

Not only did the web designer not realise that Grafton is not in the Lower Clarence Valley and so is not a direct match for the domain name; the very generalised desciptions of this regional city and the Clarence River area (along with the links) leave one wondering if the website is speaking about Clarence Valley in New South Wales or some other valley in an alternate universe.

The air of unreality is made worse by two of the photographs used on the homepage as seen here:

These are clearly not images of Grafton, NSW Australia, but of Upper Grafton Street in Dublin, Ireland (pictured below) in the Northern Hemisphere.

This is one of the many images of the real NSW North Coast City of Grafton's main shopping street which can be easily found on the world wide web:

Is it any wonder that Alexa: The Web Information Company gives the site a global three-month traffic rank of 8,788,387 - a number which probably hasn't altered all that much since it was owned by local media.

Being kind, I personally rate the value of lcreview.com.au at $1.

Finally, the light begins to dawn.......

The New York Times 16 December 2011:

The National Institutes of Health on Thursday suspended all new grants for biomedical and behavioral research on chimpanzees and accepted the first uniform criteria for assessing the necessity of such research. Those guidelines require that the research be necessary for human health, and that there be no other way to accomplish it.

In making the announcement, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the N.I.H., said that chimps, as the closest human relatives, deserve “special consideration and respect” and that the agency was accepting the recommendations released earlier in the day by an expert committee of the Institute of Medicine, which concluded that most research on chimpanzees was unnecessary.

One of the reasons why Japan thumbs its nose at Australia and continues to slaughter whales in the Southern Ocean?

A Japanese ship injures a whale with its first harpoon.

 It took three harpoon attempts to kill the mammal.

Photograph: Kate Davidson/EPA/Corbis,

The Guardian UK December 14, 2011

Perhaps this is the answer to the puzzle of why, in the face of ongoing Australian opposition, the Government of Japan (under the guise of research) continues to needlessly kill whales in Antarctica for a dwindling domestic whale meat market – it thinks it owns us.

According to the Australian Parliament’s About the House Magazine in December 2011:

Japan [is] ranked as Australia’s third largest source of merchandise imports in 2010 (after China and the United States), worth $18.2 billion. The automotive sector dominates this trade, with Australia constituting the third-biggest market for new passenger motor vehicles manufactured in Japan.

The economic relationship between Australia and Japan is not only about trade. Japan has been Australia’s third largest foreign investor for many years (after the United States and the United Kingdom). The total stock of Japanese investment in Australia at the end of 2010 was $117.6 billion, almost twice as large as that of China (including Hong Kong). When both trade and investment are included – and taking account of both the depth and breadth of that investment, which has been critical to the development of Australia’s most important industries – Japan could still be considered to be Australia’s most important economic partner overall.

Japanese demand for Australia’s resources – and the accompanying investment – has contributed enormously to the development of Australia’s mining industry. In the area of agriculture, over 40 per cent of ‘Aussie beef’ imported into Japan comes from Japanese-owned farms in Australia. Kirin Holdings now owns Australia’s largest dairy company, as well as some of Australia’s largest beer producers. In the field of manufacturing, Toyota not only exports passenger vehicles to Australia, but – through its in-country production facilities – is also the largest producer of these vehicles in Australia. Furthermore, Japanese investment is increasingly targeted at using Australia as a springboard into the emerging economies of Asia. Japanese investment has been remarkable for its breadth, continuity and steady expansion over time, regardless of fluctuations in the global economic situation.

Australians can noticeably alter this scenario if enough individuals refuse to purchase goods imported from Japan or goods produced by Japanese–owned companies operating in this country, for as long as Japan acts as an inhumane environmental vandal in the Southern Ocean.