La geopolítica que se oculta tras los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno de Milán-Cortina 2026

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Noah Eliot Vanderhoeven, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

Los Juegos Olímpicos de este invierno no serán un evento deportivo internacional normal. Una nube de tensión geopolítica se cierne sobre las competiciones en Milán-Cortina, así como sobre la próxima Copa Mundial de Fútbol Masculino de la FIFA.

La tensión se intensificó tras el discurso del primer ministro Mark Carney en Davos, donde expuso su visión de un nuevo orden mundial para las potencias medias. Esto contrastó claramente con el discurso del presidente de los Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, quien siguió expresando su interés en adquirir Groenlandia.

Como resultado, es probable que los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno de 2026 perturben de manera singular el objetivo declarado por el Comité Olímpico Internacional de que el deporte una al mundo bajo una misma bandera. En lugar de silenciar el conflicto político, los Juegos podrían amplificarlo.

La política detrás de los anfitriones

La misión unificadora de los Juegos Olímpicos se sitúa en una posición incómoda, sobre todo si se tienen en cuenta debates pasados sobre la moralidad de celebrarlos en Estados represivos. Durante décadas, los críticos han argumentado que esos regímenes utilizan los Juegos para mejorar su imagen global y promover sus objetivos políticos y económicos.

Los eventos deportivos internacionales proporcionan una amplia cobertura mediática y exposición de marca. Esa atención es especialmente atractiva para quienes buscan legitimidad en la escena mundial. El acceso a una audiencia occidental brinda a estos Estados la oportunidad de “lavar su imagen” a través de una percepción cuidadosamente construida.

Los regímenes represivos han recurrido cada vez más a esta estrategia. Las investigaciones muestran que la proporción de eventos deportivos internacionales organizados por autocracias se redujo del 36 % en 1945-1988 al 15 % en 1989-2012, pero ha repuntado hasta el 37 % desde 2012.

El lavado deportivo y el acuerdo olímpico

El sportswashing, o lavado deportivo, consiste en utilizar el deporte para desviar la atención del público de conductas poco éticas. En el caso de los eventos internacionales, el objetivo suele ser mejorar la reputación del país anfitrión utilizando la inmensa popularidad del deporte para “evitar” el escrutinio relacionado con los abusos de los derechos humanos o el retroceso democrático.

El lavado deportivo también puede servir para establecer una mayor aceptación global de los regímenes represivos, especialmente cuando las instituciones occidentales aceptan su riqueza y consienten sus objetivos.

Las organizaciones deportivas internacionales también se benefician de este acuerdo. Los anfitriones autoritarios son más propensos a aceptar la construcción de costosas instalaciones deportivas de un solo uso, ya que no se enfrentan a las repercusiones que puede tener en una democracia el utilizar fondos públicos para un evento que reporta pocos beneficios a los ciudadanos.

En algunos casos, estos regímenes incluso han estado dispuestos a sobornar a funcionarios con el objetivo de obtener los votos necesarios para ganar las licitaciones para albergar estos eventos deportivos.

Del lavado deportivo al nacionalismo

A menudo existe una relación simbiótica entre los regímenes represivos y las organizaciones deportivas internacionales. Sin embargo, es poco probable que el evento de Milán-Cortina sirva para el lavado deportivo que hemos visto recientemente. En cambio, es posible que los relatos políticos de los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno de 2026 sean más explícitamente nacionalistas.

El deporte es un poderoso vehículo para la retórica nacional. Puede reforzar la identidad social de una persona o la forma en que se percibe a sí misma en relación con los demás. Así, anima a la gente a verse como miembros de un equipo o de un país, celebrando la victoria como un éxito colectivo o interpretando la derrota como una pérdida simbólica.

El deporte también posee un fuerte simbolismo que puede ser explotado para construir una identidad de país. Por ello, esta identidad conecta con formas primitivas de ideología nacional.

Tensiones políticas de cara a Milán-Cortina

En el período previo a los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno de 2026, una serie de conflictos geopolíticos ha intensificado las tensiones en torno al evento. Entre ellos se incluyen la invasión estadounidense de Venezuela, el deseo de Trump de anexionar tanto Groenlandia como Canadá a Estados Unidos y sus continuas disputas comerciales con quienes eran aliados tradicionales.

Ya sea por la tensión entre la Unión Europea y Estados Unidos o entre estos y Canadá, hay muchas historias que pueden reactivar la retórica nacionalista.

El campeonato de hockey sobre hielo 4-Nations Face-Off, que Canadá ganó hace un año, demostró lo rápido que se puede movilizar el nacionalismo canadiense en medio de tensas negociaciones comerciales con Estados Unidos. Cualquier partido olímpico de hockey sobre hielo entre ambos alimentará la imaginación nacional de los dos países y de sus líderes políticos.

Dinamarca y Estados Unidos también están en el mismo grupo en el torneo masculino de hockey sobre hielo, lo que significa que tendrán que enfrentarse entre sí en la fase de liguilla.

El torneo masculino de hockey sobre hielo de los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno de 1980 en Lake Placid, Nueva York, supuso un momento crucial en la Guerra Fría. Cuando Estados Unidos, el equipo que nadie creía que podría ganar, venció a los favoritos, el Ejército Rojo de la Unión Soviética, se consideró un “milagro sobre el hielo”.

Dadas las amenazas de Trump contra Groenlandia, un territorio danés, el enfrentamiento olímpico entre los dos equipos podría servir como el propio “milagro sobre el hielo” de Dinamarca.

Un medallero propicio para la manipulación política

Más allá del hockey sobre hielo, todo apunta a que estos Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno serán fructíferos para Estados Unidos, ya que los equipos de Noruega y Rusia, que suelen ser los favoritos, están inmersos en diferentes problemas.

Noruega, líder histórico en medallas de los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno, y tradicionalmente una potencia en los deportes nórdicos y las pruebas de esquí, se enfrenta a un enorme escándalo por haber hecho trampas en el salto de esquí. Por su parte, los atletas rusos siguen sin poder competir bajo su bandera nacional debido a la guerra en Ucrania y solo se les permite participar como atletas individuales neutrales previamente seleccionados.

Es probable que Trump le dé mucha importancia a cualquier buen resultado de Estados Unidos, comparando cualquier éxito con los de la UE y Canadá.

Durante su segundo mandato, Trump ha recibido a numerosos atletas en la Casa Blanca y ha vinculado públicamente el éxito deportivo con la fortaleza nacional. Celebró la participación estadounidense en la Ryder Cup de golf y el 4-Nations Face-Off, incluso cuando Estados Unidos fue derrotado en ambas.

Por lo tanto, el éxito de los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno podría proporcionar capital político en un momento delicado. En medio de su ataque a Venezuela y su objetivo declarado de adquirir Groenlandia, los principales países futbolísticos y los poderosos de la UE –entre ellos Francia y Alemania– han hecho tentativas de reconsiderar su participación en la Copa Mundial Masculina de 2026, organizada en gran parte por Estados Unidos.

Pero primero, los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno de 2026 ofrecerán una serie de enfrentamientos que servirán a los objetivos nacionalistas de Trump, Carney y los líderes de la Unión Europea.

The Conversation

Noah Eliot Vanderhoeven no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

ref. La geopolítica que se oculta tras los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno de Milán-Cortina 2026 – https://theconversation.com/la-geopolitica-que-se-oculta-tras-los-juegos-olimpicos-de-invierno-de-milan-cortina-2026-275161

¿Y si desacralizamos la opinión, al menos la periodística?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Chelo Sánchez Serrano, PDI en Facultad de Comunicación, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca

Igor Link/Shutterstock

Si la democracia es el gobierno de la opinión, “no el de los filósofos platónicos o el de los científicos”, parafraseando al politólogo Fernando Vallespín, la España democrática lo viene ejercitando, otorgando el poder a una opinión pública conformada a través de los medios y canales que la modelan y reflejan.

Pero ¿se trata de la opinión de todos o de la opinión autorizada que se obtiene como subconjunto restringido de la opinión pública, de quienes son dignos de tener una opinión? ¿Son igual de solventes y respetables todas las opiniones o depende de quién y dónde se formulen? ¿Y qué pasaría si el periodismo volviera a ser más informativo, contribuiríamos a rebajar la polarización y la desconfianza?

Un problema que viene de lejos

La opinión es una necesidad humana, un paso en el proceso de la información al conocimiento y un nivel más del método de interpretación sucesiva de la realidad que es el periodismo, cuyo sustento esencial es la información.

Sin embargo, la actualidad ha dejado de ser muchas veces un proceso informativo para convertirse en un estado opinativo. No es algo nuevo: los académicos y profesionales llevamos años identificando y reflexionando a partir de un modelo de periodismo sin información.

Lo de los pseudoperiodistas, aunque parezca la última gran crisis, no es más que otro elemento sumatorio en la degeneración al que las malas prácticas, la confusión entre información y cualquier otra práctica comunicativa y un modelo de negocio cortoplacista nos han ido abocando. Sigue haciéndose buen periodismo, y la información solvente y compartida es y será un elemento de justicia social.

La pérdida de credibilidad en el periodismo y la desafección por las noticias tiene muchas causas, y entre ellas se encuentra este proceso de editorialización continuo de la profesión y el cuestionamiento de la figura profesional de los periodistas.

Tampoco es nada nuevo. Algunos de los que lean este artículo quizá recuerden un libro publicado en los 90 bajo el título Periodistas. Polanquistas, sindicato del crimen, tertulianos y demás tribus. Y acaba de llegar a las librerías un nuevo ensayo bajo la sugerente descripción de Tertulianos. Un viaje a la industria de la opinión en España.

De los tertulianos de café a las opiniones viralizadas

Si hace años nos hubieran dicho que alguien haría carrera como tertuliano, seguramente le hubiéramos desmentido. “Ya nadie se acuerda, pero hubo un tiempo en que no existían los contertulios”, escribía Elvira Lindo en un artículo en El País en el año 2008. Ese es un ejercicio diletante, para entretenerse, no un trabajo: tertuliano somos todos, apuntaríamos con total rotundidad hace 40 años.

Palabras que nos hemos tragado ya: ¿qué saben otros que usted no sepa? Usted puede ser tertuliano, escribía el periodista Javier Valenzuela. Hoy hay cientos de personas que viven de hacer tertulia, una carrera profesional que les puede reportar, mientras estén en la cresta de la ola, considerables beneficios económicos y sociales. Ser contertulio abre hoy muchas otras puertas, pero también puede cerrar algunas.

Quién se lo iba a decir a los insignes conversadores de los siglos XIX y XX, aquellos que hacían tertulia en los cafés y casinos pagándose el café. Quién nos iba a decir hace 30 años que en 2026 cualquiera podría opinar de manera pública en Zamora y viralizarse su opinión en Viena, incluso negarle las evidencias a un experto y recibir el aplauso público. Pero ahí estamos, porque ese gobierno de la opinión, que es la democracia, y los nuevos canales de comunicación lo garantizan en buena medida. Y ¡bendito sea!, aunque cada vez nos haga más complejo entendernos.

Menos tertulias en la radio

Las tertulias, que surgieron en la radio española en los años 80 como la consolidación de un periodismo ejercido ya en democracia, han derivado en un género tremendamente espectacularizante, omnipresente en televisión e incluso en formato pódcast conversacional (ya sea solo audio o vídeo). Un espectador puede tener la sensación de que hoy en la tele todo es tertulia y opinión.

En la radio ha ocurrido lo contrario: el tiempo dedicado a la tertulia en el total de la programación de la radio generalista ha ido reduciéndose. Al mismo tiempo, sigue practicándose mayoritariamente desde su conceptualización original: un género periodístico para el análisis, el intercambio de ideas y opiniones y el respeto en la discusión.

Las excepciones que “se salen del tiesto” generalmente se suelen reconducir como parte de la praxis propia del periodismo radiofónico. Uno de los ejemplos más recientes se producía en una de las emisiones en directo del programa Hoy por Hoy de la Cadena SER.

Sin embargo, frente a la ausencia tradicional del editorial radiofónico, en los últimos 20 años han ido floreciendo los monólogos y los comentarios de opinión de los autores de los principales programas de radio. Espacios de opinión con una altísima penetración e influencia pública. Otra derivada de la editorialización.

El reto de desacralizar la opinión

Antes de que el desafío del periodismo del futuro sea opinar sin hechos irremediablemente –ya me he encontrado con algún estudiante que ante mi pregunta de cuál es la noticia, responde que “mi opinión es la noticia”–, podríamos valorar retirar discretamente a “los cuarteles de invierno” tanta opinión periodística, desacralizarla en beneficio de los hechos y la información. Eso requiere un cambio del modelo de negocio y de la estrategia periodística de muchos medios, así como de una ciudadanía valiente y responsable, capaz de volver a darle el valor a la información, incluso de pagar por ella.

Si todos llevamos un tertuliano dentro, no todos podemos ni sabemos hacer información periodística. Escribía el profesor Gabriel Galdón que el periodismo, si no está corrompido, es un saber prudencial, que comunica de manera adecuada las realidades humanas actuales, realidades que a los ciudadanos les es útil conocer para actuar libre y solidariamente.

Cuando se recurre a la primera persona, se opina y se defienden unas u otras causas en las páginas de información, en las tertulias, en los perfiles corporativos o personales en redes, se está cruzando una importante línea. Parece que ya la hemos sobrepasado. Y no, no se trata de no defender la libertad de expresión y opinión, se trata de salvaguardar la libertad de información y de colocar a las noticias y a la información de nuevo en el centro del periodismo, sin atajos.

The Conversation

Chelo Sánchez Serrano no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

ref. ¿Y si desacralizamos la opinión, al menos la periodística? – https://theconversation.com/y-si-desacralizamos-la-opinion-al-menos-la-periodistica-274925

Prohibir las redes sociales a menores de 16 en España: lo que falta por saber

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Tatiana Íñiguez Berrozpe, Profesora Titular del área de Sociología, Universidad de Zaragoza

iamsevensix/Shutterstock

La noticia saltó el 3 de febrero y el debate ya está en la calle, en los medios, en las familias, en los centros educativos: “España va a prohibir el uso de las redes sociales para menores de 16 años”. Ante un tema de tal relevancia para nuestros menores, todos nos hemos lanzado a opinar al respecto. Pero aún no se conocen los detalles de la enmienda. Y los detalles, como veremos a continuación, son mucho más que detalles.

Lo que sabemos: responsabilidad compartida

El Presidente del Gobierno de España, Pedro Sánchez, ha especificado que esta prohibición de acceso a las redes sociales obligará a las plataformas digitales a incorporar sistemas efectivos de verificación de la edad. La medida otorga responsabilidad individual a los usuarios menores y a sus familias, pero también de manera sistémica a las propias redes sociales.

Este foco en las propias plataformas, aunque insuficiente, dado que se queda sólo en su limitación de uso por edad, es relevante, ya que supera las narrativas de responsabilidad individual para que el compromiso en la regulación y la rendición de cuentas recaiga sobre los verdaderos artífices de unas redes sociales con algoritmos opacos, diseño adictivo y escaso control de contenidos.




Leer más:
¿Cómo diseñar tecnología más segura para niños y adolescentes?


Sabemos también que la medida sigue la estela de países como Australia, cuya regulación entró en vigor en septiembre y a la que se sumarán otras similares como Francia o Portugal. En esta línea, el Parlamento Europeo también ha propuesto limitar el acceso a menores de 16 años o requerir el consentimiento parental entre los 13 y 16 años.

Lo que falta por saber

Lo que no sabemos es casi todo lo demás. Y deberíamos empezar por definir lo que la ley define como “red social”. En Australia, por ejemplo, han quedado fuera de esta prohibición WhatsApp o Telegram, aplicaciones de inteligencia artificial generativa o páginas de apuestas en línea. ¿Son menos dañinas estas plataformas? ¿Qué redes sociales entrarán en la normativa española? ¿Se tendrán en cuenta las plataformas de vídeo y streaming? ¿Y juegos como Roblox?




Leer más:
El lado oscuro de los videojuegos: cómo los ‘chats’ ponen en riesgo a los más pequeños


Otra de las grandes cuestiones que se plantean es cómo se va a implementar la herramienta de la “Cartera Digital Beta” para la verificación de edad al iniciar sesión en las redes sociales, medida que puede tener impacto en toda la población española que las use.

Y, unido a ello, cómo se va a solucionar y gestionar el posible, y más que probable, uso clandestino y no supervisado por parte de los menores de estas plataformas, tanto por parte de las propias corporaciones como por parte de familias y comunidad educativa.

Evidencias tras la medida

Es importante saber qué evidencias se han tenido en cuenta para el diseño de la medida. Afirmar tajantemente que las redes sociales son la causa de muchos de los problemas de salud mental de los jóvenes es una visión simplificadora. Es cierto que las zonas del cerebro que regulan el autocontrol, el razonamiento y la atención maduran en la adolescencia tardía, por lo que la autogestión en dedicación de tiempo y acceso a contenido digital debe ser supervisada.

Pero no se pueden ignorar investigaciones previas que indican que un uso responsable y equilibrado de pantallas puede ser más positivo que su uso inexistente. Por ejemplo, el uso equilibrado correlaciona con mayor sentido de pertenencia al centro educativo y mejor rendimiento académico.




Leer más:
Niños y grupos de WhatsApp: ¿cuándo y cómo?


Incluso Unicef afirma que para muchos menores, las redes sociales son un salvavidas que les da acceso al aprendizaje, la conexión y la autoexpresión. La soledad es otro de los grandes problemas de la adolescencia actualmente, especialmente en colectivos minoritarios o desfavorecidos, y las redes pueden ayudar a mitigar esta desconexión con sus iguales.

No olvidar otros factores

En este sentido, se corre el riesgo de confundir correlación con causalidad y no tener en cuenta que las redes sociales pueden ser más un amplificador de problemáticas preexistentes que la causa de las mismas. La calidad de la evidencia sobre el impacto del uso de redes en la salud mental de los menores es modesta. Cuando tenemos en cuenta otras variables contextuales y personales, el efecto de éstas es poco significativo. Cuando los problemas tienen raíces sociales, es poco probable que las restricciones técnicas por sí solas los resuelvan.

En definitiva, una prohibición que trata a las redes sociales como el principal problema, en lugar de plantear preguntas más profundas sobre por qué ocurren ciertos comportamientos y cuestiones sociales que afectan en gran medida a nuestros menores (acoso, misoginia, racismo, presión académica, etc.) desplazaría la solución de estas cuestiones a un foco con menor peso en su bienestar.

Evaluación de impacto

Para quienes nos dedicamos a investigar esta cuestión, uno de los aspectos principales que nos queda por saber es cómo, cuándo y con qué indicadores va a medirse el impacto de esta medida. En Australia el sistema de evaluación de impacto se está centrando básicamente en analizar si el método de verificación de edad está funcionando, con resultados no muy alentadores, ya que la precisión es muy variable según plataforma y perfiles de usuarios, y se dan errores cerca del umbral de los 16 años. De momento, no se han planteado mediciones de más alcance (salud mental, resultados académicos).

Si la medida en España está enfocada a minimizar o mitigar los “efectos negativos” del uso de redes sociales por parte de los menores, deben plantearse criterios claros, transparentes y mensurables de evaluación de impacto.




Leer más:
Redes sociales reales frente a las virtuales: cómo la participación protege el bienestar juvenil


Medidas educativas y papel de las familias

Otras preguntas que habrá que resolver son: ¿la prohibición vendrá acompañada de medidas educativas en pro del uso responsable? ¿Qué papel tendrán las familias en esta medida y cómo acompañarlas? ¿Cómo se regularán el resto de usos digitales de los menores?

Más allá de las prohibiciones, se tendrán que plantear las medidas socializadoras y educativas que deberían acompañar a esta propuesta para responder a estas preguntas.

Esperaremos a la publicación de la norma para poder hacer una interpretación en clave científica.

The Conversation

Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.

ref. Prohibir las redes sociales a menores de 16 en España: lo que falta por saber – https://theconversation.com/prohibir-las-redes-sociales-a-menores-de-16-en-espana-lo-que-falta-por-saber-275104

‘Less lethal’ crowd-control weapons still cause harm – 2 physicians explain what they are and their health effects

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michele Heisler, Professor of Internal Medicine and Health Behavior and Health Equity, University of Michigan

A Border Patrol tactical unit agent dispenses pepper spray at a protester attempting to block an immigration officer’s vehicle. Alex Kormann/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images

Images and videos from Minneapolis, Chicago and other U.S. cities show masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents in military-style gear pointing weapons at people protesting or observing immigration enforcement actions. These are not typical firearms; they are riot control agents, and they emit cascades of projectiles or plumes of smoke.

In other scenes unfolding in cities across the country, officers launch metal canisters that explode loudly and scatter blinding flashes of light. The people targeted are shown screaming, disoriented and in some cases bleeding after being struck at close range. Those enveloped by smoke frequently cough and gasp for air.

What exactly are these weapons? What do they do to the human body? Are there rules governing their use? And what are their short- and long-term health effects?

As physician-researchers who have investigated the health consequences of human rights violations for decades, including misuse of so-called less lethal weapons in multiple countries, including the United States, we have studied how these tools are deployed and the harms that can result.

What are less lethal weapons?

U.S. law enforcement and federal agents deploy four main categories of crowd-control weapons: chemical irritants, kinetic impact projectiles known as KIPs, disorientation devices and electronic control weapons.

These weapons have been dubbed “less lethal” compared with live ammunition. But “less lethal” does not mean harmless. They can cause pain, fear and physiological stress and can result in serious injury or death.

An agent dressed in tactical gear throws a canister emitting smoke on the road. In the background stand onlookers holding cameras.
An ICE agent deploys a canister of tear gas near protesters in Minneapolis.
AP Photo/Adam Gray

Chemical irritants, commonly called tear gas, cause intense pain and irritation of the eyes, skin and upper respiratory tract. They trigger coughing, breathing difficulty, disorientation, vomiting and panic. Delivered through sprays, pellets or canisters, they are inherently indiscriminate, affecting anyone in the area.

The most widely used agents in tear gas include chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, CS for short, and oleoresin capsicum, or OC, also called pepper spray. OC contains capsaicin, which is the compound that gives chiles their burning heat, at concentrations thousands of times stronger than those found in natural peppers. A synthetic version known as PAVA is also sometimes used. The amount, composition and concentration released can vary widely by manufacturer and country and remain largely unregulated. The spray can eject forcefully, reaching up to 20 feet depending on the canister design.

A diagram showing the chemistry, health effects and dispersal methods of tear gas.
Unlike pepper spray, CS gas – the key ingredient in tear gas – doesn’t contain capcaisin. CS is a solid that is dispersed as tiny particles when burned in a canister.
Andy Brunning/Compound Interest 2020, CC BY-NC-ND

Kinetic impact projectiles transfer energy from a moving object into the body. Often called rubber bullets, they may be made of rubber, plastic, metal, foam, wood or composite materials. Some are fired as single projectiles, while others are dispersed in multiple pellets. Injury risk depends on the projectile’s size, speed, material, direction and firing distance.

Flash-bang grenades, or stun grenades, are designed to disorient through a combination of deafening noise, blinding light, heat, fragmentation and pressure. Some devices produce sound levels above 170 decibels – far louder than most gunshots.

Electronic conduction devices, such as Tasers, have historically been used in individual arrests, but they are increasingly used in protest policing. Metal barbs from the device lodge in the skin and deliver high-voltage electrical current, causing intense pain and temporary loss of muscle control.

More recently, electrified shields and devices attached to an officer’s body or equipment – previously used inside prisons – have appeared at protests in some countries.

How are less lethal weapons supposed to be used?

In 2020 the United Nations issued detailed guidance on the use of less lethal weapons in law enforcement. In 2023 we worked with Physicians for Human Rights and the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations to conduct updated analyses of these weapons.

The U.N. basic principles on the use of force and firearms specify that force should be used only as a last resort, and it should be proportionate to the threat. Officers using force should protect bystanders and vulnerable populations, such as children and older adults, and stop once the threat has ended.

Similar principles appear in use-of-force policies adopted by most U.S. police departments, though adherence is uneven. The Department of Homeland Security and specifically ICE have older published guidance. Recent ICE actions appear to breach that already vague language.

A 2021 Government Accountability Office report found that most ICE agents do not receive specialized training in the safe and appropriate use of crowd-control weapons, and training appears to be more limited now.

According to the U.N. guidelines, before deploying such weapons, well-trained officers are expected to assess whether a genuine threat exists, communicate with demonstration leadership when possible, consider alternative options and provide clear warnings. If officers use crowd-control weapons, they should be deployed to minimize injury and avoid indiscriminate harm.

Two police officers dressed in tactical gear aim gun-like weapons into the dark night, with a cloud of tear gas in the background.
Police aim weapons that shoot rubber bullets – a type of kinetic impact projectile – during protests in Portland, Ore., in 2020.
Allison Dinner/AFP via Getty Images

For proper deployment, the U.N. use of force guidelines stipulate that officers should not fire weapons directly at individuals, and they should avoid the head and face. They should communicate prior to deploying, use only the minimum amount necessary and maintain safe exit routes.

In practice, these safeguards can be difficult to implement in fast-moving, crowded environments

Potential health harms

Crowd-control weapons can cause severe and sometimes permanent injuries. Chemical irritants affect the eyes, skin and lungs first, causing scratches to the surface of the eye, painful skin reactions, breathing difficulties and acute psychological distress. Some people develop longer-term post-traumatic stress disorder.

Our global review of the medical literature documented more than 100,000 injuries from chemical irritants between 2016 and 2021, along with at least 14 deaths, all due to blunt trauma from canisters. Higher concentrations or prolonged exposure increase the risk of serious and permanent injuries, including open sores on the surface of the eye, chemical burns and chronic respiratory disease.

Kinetic impact projectiles can cause both blunt and penetrating injuries, with eye injuries among the most severe. Direct impact often results in permanent blindness and, in rare cases, penetration of the brain through the eye socket.

Blunt head trauma from these projectiles can cause concussions, internal bleeding, skull fractures and lasting neurological damage. Projectiles striking the chest, abdomen or genitalia can injure vital organs. Risk is highest when KIPs contain metal components, are fired at close range or disperse multiple projectiles.

Our global 2017 systematic review identified nearly 2,000 people injured by KIPs over 25 years, including 53 deaths and hundreds of permanent disabilities. Subsequent reviews documented thousands more injuries worldwide, many resulting in permanent disability or death.

Flash-bang grenades also pose significant risks. Investigative reporting and medical analyses have documented dozens of severe injuries and deaths linked to their use in the United States. These devices have caused deep burns, hearing loss and blast-related trauma, particularly when deployed in enclosed spaces or thrown directly at individuals. When fired toward a person, these devices can also act as kinetic projectiles, compounding the risk of serious injury.

Electronic conduction devices can cause dangerous heart rhythm problems and electrocution injuries. They also can rip the skin when barbs strike sensitive areas, such as the eyes or genitalia.

If you’re exposed to tear gas, do not touch your face or skin. Skip rinsing with milk, and try to get to fresh air.

In practice, the harm these “less lethal” weapons can cause depends less on what they’re called than on how, where and against whom they’re used. In the absence of clearer limits and oversight, people exercising their right to protest face real risks of injury.

From a medical perspective, people exposed to crowd-control weapons should move to fresh air, rinse exposed skin and eyes with clean water, and remove contaminated clothing as soon as possible.

Anyone struck by a projectile or exposed to a flash-bang should seek medical evaluation, even if they don’t have immediately obvious injuries. Internal injuries, eye damage, hearing loss or brain injury may not be apparent at first. Persistent eye pain, vision changes, breathing difficulty, chest symptoms, severe pain, or confusion warrant prompt medical care, particularly for children, older adults and people with underlying health conditions.

The Conversation

Michele Heisler is affiliated with Physicians for Human Rights, a non-partisan nongovernmental health and human rights organization that leverages medical, scientific, and public health evidence/research to document the health effects of human rights violations.

She currently has research funding from the NIDDK, NHLBI, American Diabetes Association and the Wellcome Trust but not for any research related to the topic of less-lethal weapons.

Rohini J Haar serves as a medical expert and consultant at Physicians for Human Rights, a non-partisan nongovernmental health and human rights organization that leverages medical, scientific, and public health evidence/research to document the health effects of human rights violations. She is not engaged in any partisan political activities as a volunteer or member.

ref. ‘Less lethal’ crowd-control weapons still cause harm – 2 physicians explain what they are and their health effects – https://theconversation.com/less-lethal-crowd-control-weapons-still-cause-harm-2-physicians-explain-what-they-are-and-their-health-effects-274809

The backlash to Bad Bunny’s halftime show reveals how MAGA defines who belongs in America

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gavin Furrey, PhD Student, Political Science, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Benito Ocasio, better known as his stage name Bad Bunny, has challenged English dominance in music over the past few years. The streaming era has allowed the Puerto Rican artist to bypass traditional gatekeepers and he recently became Spotify’s most streamed artist globally for the fourth time in his career.

He also made history at the 2026 Grammy Awards, becoming the first artist to win album of the year for a record sung entirely in Spanish, DeBÍ TiRAR MáS FOToS.

Yet his selection to perform at this year’s Super Bowl halftime show has sparked controversy and backlash from President Donald Trump’s administration and its supporters in the United States.

The U.S. has a long history of excluding Latinos from its sense of national identity. In this current era of MAGA politics, Bad Bunny is exposing the many ways the American conservative right has narrowed its ideas about who truly “belongs” in America.

Borders around — and within — the U.S.

Borders have been central to MAGA politics, most clearly demonstrated by Trump’s hardline stance on immigration. So too has the subject of who can count themselves as part of “the people” — not simply who we agree with, but who is seen as deserving protection and belonging.

In MAGA’s political logic, citizenship status is only one factor of this. Race, language, sexual orientation, gender identity and political leanings have all emerged as markers of belonging or exclusion.

Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren’s insistence that Bad Bunny is “not an American artist,” U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s threats to have ICE present at the halftime show and one Fox News host’s description of Ocasio as a “cross-dresser who doesn’t speak English” all reveal the importance of ethno-nationalist and populist border-making for the American right.

In this regard, history is repeating itself. In 1936, the U.S. forcibly removed up to two million people of Mexican descent from the country — up to 60 per cent of whom were American citizens. More recently, between January and October 2025, approximately 170 American citizens were detained by ICE, including young children and pregnant women.

Partly as a result of the Mexican-American war (1846-48), Latinos — and Mexicans in particular — were racialized in the U.S. in ways that positioned them not as internal “others,” but as “aliens” imagined to be external to the nation.

This logic resurfaced in Arizona’s ethnic studies ban, which targeted a Mexican-American studies program in Tucson between 2010 and 2016. Beyond territorial boundaries, this policy drew boundaries around the national story the country tells about itself.

Puerto Rico and second-class citizenship

Puerto Rico’s political status is another manifestation of Latino alienation in the U.S. As an unincorporated territory, Puerto Ricans have no voting representation in congress and cannot vote for president.

Puerto Ricans are arguably treated as second-class citizens in the U.S.. In 2017, nearly 3,000 Puerto Ricans died waiting for assistance after Hurricane Maria struck. In contrast, the number of direct and indirect deaths for hurricanes that struck Florida and Texas weeks earlier was 84 and 94 respectively.

Bad Bunny has been vocal about this neglect. He has regularly stood up for Puerto Rico, including cancelling his European tour in 2019 to protest the Puerto Rican governor’s sexist and homophobic comments.

He also excluded the dates on the continental U.S. during his most recent tour to avoid drawing ICE attention to his fans, and also spoke out against ICE at the recent Grammys, saying “ICE out.”

Despite not identifying as queer himself, Bad Bunny has also been a consistent ally of the LGBTQ+ community. In 2020, he wore a skirt on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon to bring attention to the killing of a transgender woman in Puerto Rico.

Following the ICE slayings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, demanding that authorities be held accountable appears to have joined the list of MAGA’s targetable offences. Bad Bunny’s embrace of people different from him may be yet another point of friction for the cult of national purity that the MAGA movement advocates for.

The dog-whistle of ‘family-friendly’

Turning Point USA is hosting an alternative “All American” Super Bowl halftime show “celebrating faith, family and freedom” — a description that reinforces right-wing ideas of nationhood and acts as a dog whistle for racial, sexual, linguistic and national purity.

One could argue the Turning Point show isn’t about race or exclusion, but it’s a difficult argument to sustain given the pattern of recent backlash.

Since 2019, Jay-Z’s company Roc Nation has collaborated with the NFL to rebuild the league’s image after its conflict with Colin Kaepernick, who was effectively pushed out of the league after kneeling during the national anthem to protest police violence and racial injustice.

The partnership has increased visibility for genres associated with resistance and resilience, including hip hop, rap and now reggaeton.

A more inclusive, somewhat diplomatic, selection process has pushed the halftime show into the realm of cultural relevancy, allowing the NFL to reach new communities. In America’s polarized climate, however, what counts as relevant is up for debate.

In 2020, complaints sent to the Federal Communications Commission about Shakira and Jennifer Lopez’s Super Bowl halftime show described it as “inappropriate.”

In 2022, complaints about Kendrick Lamar’s show revolved around alleged “anti-American” themes, inappropriate lyrics, an all-Black dance crew and moments when Lamar grabbed his crotch.

Concerns of “family friendly” content are evoked. Yet, they stand close to discourses of anti-Americanism and concerns about a lack of white representation. Turning Point USA doesn’t need to explicitly evoke race or language to signal it.

A political stage — whether we admit it or not

Many argue the NFL halftime show has become politicized. But in reality, it’s always been an inherently political event.

Who gets to be seen on a broadcast with hundreds of millions of viewers, who is considered a conventional choice and who is deemed provocative all involve questions about who really belongs — and who doesn’t.

The Super Bowl halftime show is just one manifestation of a larger conversation happening in the U.S. about the validity of a variety of expressions of the American experience.

The MAGA movement may have won the White House, but in terms of America’s cultural values and tastes, its borders aren’t stopping millions of Americans from getting excited about the show.

The Conversation

Gavin Furrey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The backlash to Bad Bunny’s halftime show reveals how MAGA defines who belongs in America – https://theconversation.com/the-backlash-to-bad-bunnys-halftime-show-reveals-how-maga-defines-who-belongs-in-america-274815

City skylines need an upgrade in the face of climate stress

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mohamed Shaheen, Lecturer in Structural Engineering, Loughborough University

The downtown district of Hong Kong city. Lee Yiu Tung/Shutterstock

When structural engineers design a building, they aren’t just stacking floors; they are calculating how to win a complex battle against nature. Every building is built to withstand a specific “budget” of environmental stress – the weight of record snowfalls, the push of powerful winds and the expansion caused by summer heat.

To do this, engineers use hazard maps and safety codes. These are essentially rulebooks based on decades of historical weather data. They include safety margins to ensure that even if a small part of a building fails, the entire structure won’t come crashing down like a house of cards.

The problem is that these rulebooks are becoming obsolete. Most of our iconic high-rises were built in the 1970s and 80s – a world that was cooler, with more predictable tides and less violent storms. Today, that world no longer exists.

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier, making the consequences of environmental stress on buildings much worse. It rarely knocks a building down on its own. Instead, it finds the tiny cracks, rusting support beams and ageing foundations and pushes them toward a breaking point. It raises the intensity of every load and strain a building must weather.

To understand the challenge, I have been studying global hotspots where the environment is winning the battle against engineering.

The 2021 collapse of Champlain Towers South in Miami, Florida, killed 98 people. While the 12-storey building had original design issues, decades of rising sea levels and salty coastal air acted as a catalyst, allowing saltwater to seep into the basement and garage.

When salt reaches the steel rods inside concrete that provide structural strength (known as reinforcement), the metal rusts and expands. This creates massive internal pressure that cracks the concrete from the inside out — a process engineers call spalling. The lesson is clear: in a warming world, coastal basements are becoming corrosion chambers where minor maintenance gaps can escalate into catastrophic structural failure.

While the Miami case affected a single building, the historic coastal city of Alexandria, Egypt, is more widely at risk. Recent research shows that building collapses there have jumped from one per year to nearly 40 per year in the past few years.

Not only is the sea rising, the salt is liquefying the soft ground beneath the city foundations. As the water table rises, saltwater is pushed under the city, raising the groundwater level. This salty water doesn’t just rust the foundations of buildings; it changes the chemical and physical structure of soil. As a result, there are currently 7,000 buildings in Alexandria at high risk of collapse.

white sail boat on blue sea with city skyline in background
The historic city of Alexandria, Egypt, is widely affected by the retreating coastline.
muratart/Shutterstock

In Hong Kong during Super Typhoon Mangkhut in 2018, wind speeds hit a terrifying 180 miles per hour. When strong winds hit a wall of skyscrapers, they squeeze between the buildings and speed up — like water sprayed through a narrow garden hose.

This pressure turned hundreds of offices into wind tunnels, causing glass windows to pop out of their frames and raining broken glass onto the streets below. With 82 deaths and 15,000 homes destroyed across the region, skyscrapers became “debris machines”, even if they didn’t fully collapse.

Supercomputer simulations of Japan’s river systems show that in a world warmed by 2°C, floods of today’s “once in a century” magnitude could recur about every 45 years. With 4°C of warming, they could be every 23 years. These surges in water volume will expand flood zones into areas previously considered safe, potentially overflowing sea walls and flood defences. In a critical region like Osaka Bay, storm surges could rise by nearly 30%.

In the US, a study of 370 million property records from 1945 to 2015 found over half of all structures are in hazard hotspots. Nearly half are facing multiple threats like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. In the UK, climate-driven weather claims hit £573 million in 2023, a 36% rise from 2022. Annual flood damage to non-residential properties in the UK is also projected to nearly double from £2 billion today to £3.9 billion by the 2080s.

Maintenance is our best defence

Much of the world’s building stock is therefore entering its middle age under environmental conditions it was never designed to face. Instead of panicking or tearing everything down, the solution is to adapt and treat building maintenance as a form of climate resilience – not as an optional extra.

Mid-life building upgrades can help protect our skylines for the next 50 years. Our hazard maps must look at future climate models — not just historical weather — to set new safety standards. Regular structural health monitoring is essential – by using sensors to track invisible stresses in foundations and frames before they become fatal, dangerous situations can be foreseen.

Buildings can stay strong by focusing retrofits on the weakest and most vulnerable parts. This includes glass facades, the underground drainage, the foundation piles and corrosion protection.

Climate change isn’t rewriting the laws of engineering, but it is rapidly eating away at our margins of safety. If we want our cities to remain standing, we must act now – before small, invisible stresses accumulate into irreversible failure.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Mohamed Shaheen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. City skylines need an upgrade in the face of climate stress – https://theconversation.com/city-skylines-need-an-upgrade-in-the-face-of-climate-stress-267763

How politics, technology and the environmental crisis turned these movies into horror films in 2026

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexander Sergeant, Lecturer in Digital Media Production, University of Westminster

A famous expression, often wrongly attributed to Mark Twain, states that comedy is merely tragedy plus time. This theory highlights how our response to films can depend on the context in which we see them.

We tend to think of the genre of a film as something very fixed, decided by a combination of studio producers and marketers. But, in the right context, films can move across many different genres in the span of their lifetime, depending on the audiences that watch them.

To demonstrate this idea, here are five scary films for 2026. The twist, however, is that none of these films were ever intended to be horror films. Most on the list were satire or comedy when they were made. Instead, they have become horrific due to the way they touch on contemporary issues surrounding the global politics of President Donald Trump, impending environmental disaster, ever-accelerating technology and contemporary attitudes towards gender.

1. Duck Soup (1933)

The finest film produced by the famous Marx Brothers comedy troupe, Duck Soup is an anarchic political satire that tells the story of an unserious playboy president named Rufus T. Firefly. Beloved by film enthusiasts, the film showcases a series of mishaps and misdeeds caused by his selfish, erratic behaviour which inadvertently led his country of Freedonia into a war with its neighbours.

Duck Soup is considered a classic of Hollywood slapstick and quick-witted verbal comedy. But, in an era of a genuine unserious president, its central joke might not feel funny any more. Nor indeed is the idea that, nearly 100 years after its release, this biting satire on the politics of rising authoritarianism would be as timely now as it was then.

2. The Apartment (1960)

People often say “they don’t make them like they used to any more” when trying to articulate a nostalgia for the films of the past. That description can be aptly applied to Billy Wilder’s romantic comedy-drama The Apartment. They do not make films like this any more. But in this case, that’s a good thing.

Jack Lemmon’s “Buddy Boy” Baxter is the bachelor who routinely loans his apartment out to his bosses for them to conduct extra-marital affairs. Shirley MacLaine’s Fran is the loveable but down-on-her-luck elevator operator involved in a tawdry situation with Baxter’s boss. Their own romance emerges out of a suicide attempt, workplace harassment and abuses of power. It feels like the film is set not just in the past, but in some creepy alternative world.

To be fair to The Apartment, it hardly treats some of the more problematic behaviour of its characters as virtues we are supposed to admire. But it never quite attacks the deeply unpleasant nature of its central conceit either. Baxter is not just a loveable goof unaware of what he’s got himself mixed up in. He’s a complicit enabler. And Fran is not a ditsy but loveable woman mixed up with the wrong crowd. She’s a victim.

3. Idiocracy (2006)

Idiocracy was something of a box office bomb, given neither the marketing campaign nor the reviews it needed to ensure success. The fact it has since become a cult hit speaks to how startlingly prescient the film is for contemporary audiences now discovering the film in droves 20 years later.

Idiocracy tells the story of a young man put into suspended animation who wakes up 500 years in the future. The average intelligence of the population has severely decreased, to the extent that the world has become increasingly consumerist, vulgar, crass and prejudiced in its thinking. America has even elected a former pro wrestler and porn star, Dwayne “Mountain Dew” Camacho, as its leader.

Made in 2006 during the final year of George W. Bush’s presidency and set against the rise of Barack Obama, the film failed initially as a comedy. It now works perfectly as a terrifying exaggeration of what the world looks like in 2026.

4. Wall-E (2008)

Wall-E is part of a long history of animations with an interest in the environment, from Princess Mononoke (2001) to Ferngully: The Last Rainforest (1992). That part of its dystopic vision still stands up. The film’s vivid opening of Wall-E wandering around a silent world of trash is still its best moment.

The film’s vision of the humanity that has left the garbage-strewn world behind, however, has become increasingly concerning over time. Predicting a world of humans who are dumb, obese and screen-obsessed, it is increasingly difficult to watch Wall-E as a nostalgic childhood treat.

5. Her (2013)

The amazing feat pulled off by this absurdist romantic drama was to somehow get an audience to root for the idea of a romantic pairing between a lonely middle-aged man and an AI-enabled operating system. More than a decade later, Her’s open-minded approach to AI seems far more fraught.

As the romance develops between Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) and Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), it is difficult not to imagine the fingerprints of powerful but not necessarily benign tech moguls turning the screws tighter, manipulating Theodore further into spurning human contact for his digital desires.

Equally, it is difficult not to wonder whose voice has been stolen to create her warm, affectionate tones, or to ask what the company might do with the recording of their conversations. The dangers in our current technological reality have once again spoilt a perfectly good film.


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.


The Conversation

Alexander Sergeant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. How politics, technology and the environmental crisis turned these movies into horror films in 2026 – https://theconversation.com/how-politics-technology-and-the-environmental-crisis-turned-these-movies-into-horror-films-in-2026-268679

The unanswered questions in the NHS’s new cancer plan

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

Frame Stock Footage/Shutterstock.com

NHS England’s new national cancer plan focuses on catching cancer earlier and treating it faster. The government has also promised to meet all cancer waiting-time targets by 2029. This includes a long-missed target, namely that most patients should start treatment within 62 days of being referred by their GP.

Why does the UK lag behind comparable countries?

Cancer survival in England has improved, but it still trails behind countries such as Australia, Canada and Nordic nations for many common cancers.

For some of the deadliest cancers – lung, liver, oesophageal, pancreatic and stomach cancers – the UK ranks near the bottom of the league table among similar wealthy countries. Fewer patients are still alive five years after diagnosis compared to other nations.

No single cause explains this gap. A key factor is that people in the UK are more likely to be diagnosed when their cancer is already advanced. This makes it harder to cure and limits treatment options.

Getting to see a specialist can also be slow. Patients struggle to get GP appointments, symptoms may not seem urgent at first, and people often need multiple visits before getting referred to a specialist.

Once in the system, patients hit more delays. The NHS has fewer CT and MRI scanners per person than many comparable health systems, contributing to waits for imaging and other tests.

There are also longstanding workforce shortages, especially in radiology and oncology. This means fewer specialists to read scans, plan treatment and deliver radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Limited surgical capacity, operating theatre time and radiotherapy machines cause further delay treatment.

How countries record cancer survival accounts for some of the difference. But even when researchers adjust for this, the UK still lags behind the best-performing countries. The result is a system where many individual steps function under strain, and those small delays add up for patients.

What actually happens to a patient during the 62 days?

The 62-day target measures the journey from urgent referral for suspected cancer to starting treatment. In principle, a person referred urgently by their GP, a screening programme or a hospital doctor should have their diagnosis confirmed and their initial treatment underway within just over two months.

That sounds straightforward. But for patients, it’s a complex and emotionally draining experience.

The journey usually starts when someone notices a worrying symptom – a breast lump, unusual bleeding, a persistent cough or a change in their bowels – and gets a GP appointment. If the GP is concerned, they make an urgent referral to a specialist clinic. The patient then waits for their first hospital appointment, where they’ll have further assessment and tests: blood tests, X-rays, endoscopy, CT scans, MRI scans or ultrasound.

If scans show something suspicious, the next step is often a biopsy. This lets a pathologist confirm whether it is cancer and identify the type.

Modern pathology may also include molecular and genetic tests, which help decide which treatments are most likely to be effective.

All of this information is then brought to a multidisciplinary team meeting, where surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and specialist nurses discuss the case and agree a plan.

Only after that can the first treatment be scheduled, whether that is surgery, radiotherapy, drug treatment or active monitoring. Delays can happen at every stage: getting the first appointment, accessing scans or endoscopy, receiving pathology results, convening the multidisciplinary team, and finding an operating theatre or radiotherapy slot. And the 62-day clock keeps ticking.

For patients, what appears as a single target number actually represents weeks of waiting, uncertainty and repeated encounters with an overstretched system.

Is early diagnosis always beneficial?

Catching cancer early has become a cornerstone of cancer policy. Cancers caught early are easier to treat and more likely to be cured.

A small, localised tumour can often be removed with surgery or treated effectively with radiotherapy or drugs. But cancers that have spread are harder to control.

This link between early detection and survival drives efforts to encourage people to seek help quickly, expand screening programmes and speed up diagnosis. But early diagnosis isn’t always beneficial for everyone or every type of cancer.

Screening can lead to overdiagnosis. This means detecting very slow-growing cancers or abnormalities that would never have caused symptoms or shortened someone’s life. People in this situation may live for years with a cancer label, alongside the physical and psychological consequences of surgery, radiotherapy or drugs that they might not have needed.

So-called “false positives” are another important issue. Tests sometimes flag abnormalities that aren’t cancer, but still trigger scans, biopsies and procedures, as well as significant anxiety for patients and families.

For some aggressive cancers, finding the disease a little earlier on a scan may not change the eventual outcome if available treatments remain limited. The challenge is to design programmes that catch the right cancers early, using accurate and targeted tests, while clearly explaining both benefits and risks so people can make informed decisions.

What does ‘9.5 million more tests and scans’ really mean?

One of the most eye-catching promises in the new plan is to deliver 9.5 million more tests and scans by 2029. Much of this extra activity is expected to take place in community diagnostic centres, which bring CT and MRI scanners, ultrasound, endoscopy and blood tests closer to where people live.

Extending opening hours into evenings and weekends should give patients more flexibility and, in theory, shorten waiting times for investigations and diagnosis.

But tests and machines are only part of the picture. Every scan needs a professional to interpret it, and every endoscopy list requires trained staff and recovery space.

Patient entering an MRI scanner.
Patient entering an MRI scanner.
Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock.com

England already has a shortage of imaging specialists, and increasing the number of scans without increasing the number of people who can report them risks swapping one bottleneck for another.

Laboratories also need enough biomedical scientists and pathologists to process additional blood tests and tissue samples. If staffing does not keep pace, the promise of millions more tests could translate into longer queues for results and less time for doctors to explain findings and discuss options with patients.

New technologies, including artificial intelligence to support image reading and automated laboratory systems, may help to increase efficiency, but they still rely on human oversight and do not remove the need for a well-trained, reasonably staffed diagnostic workforce.

How realistic is the staffing fix?

The success of the plan depends heavily on people, not just equipment. Yet there are already substantial gaps in the cancer workforce, especially among radiologists, oncologists, pathologists, specialist nurses and radiographers.

Professional bodies have warned for several years that the shortfall in key specialties is growing, with services relying on overtime, outsourcing and temporary staff to keep up with demand. These pressures affect not only the speed of diagnosis and treatment, but also the time healthcare professionals can devote to communication, compassion and shared decision-making.

Training more specialists is essential but slow. From entry to medical school to becoming a consultant radiologist or oncologist typically takes well over a decade, meaning that decisions made now will only fully affect services in the 2030s.

Meanwhile, the NHS will keep relying on recruiting from abroad, the private sector, and new ways of working that expand what nurses and other non-doctor professionals can do.

The risk is that without serious attention to burnout, working conditions and retention, new trainees will simply replace experienced staff who leave because of workload and stress. Any realistic staffing fix will therefore need to combine expanded training with measures that make cancer services sustainable places to work: manageable rotas, protected time for training, supportive leadership and a sense that delays and shortages are being addressed rather than normalised.

Who benefits first – and who might miss out?

Cancer care in England is already unequal, and a national plan that ignores this risks making the gap worse. People in poorer areas are more likely to develop certain cancers, get diagnosed late, and die from them.

Access to primary care varies widely. Some communities face long waits for appointments or can’t see the same doctor regularly.

Rural patients may need to travel far for scans, endoscopy or radiotherapy, while some urban communities face language barriers, cultural differences or mistrust that make screening and early diagnosis programmes harder to access.

Expanding community diagnostic centres, mobile services and workplace partnerships could reduce some barriers – but only if they’re deliberately placed where they are needed most. But if new facilities go to already well-served areas, or if information campaigns and booking systems don’t reach marginalised groups, the extra capacity will mostly benefit people who already navigate the system easily.

Ensuring that the benefits of earlier diagnosis and faster treatment reach everyone will require careful use of data on stage at diagnosis, waiting times and outcomes, broken down by region, ethnicity and deprivation, and a willingness to direct extra resources where need is greatest, not just where uptake is easiest.

What does ‘success’ look like for patients after treatment?

Politically, the headline ambition is framed in terms of five-year survival, and improving that is undeniably important. From a patient’s perspective, though, success is more than being alive at a particular time point.

Many people live with the long-term consequences of treatment, including fatigue, pain, bowel or bladder changes, sexual difficulties, early menopause, cognitive effects and altered body image. These can disrupt work, relationships and everyday activities long after the end of chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

Anxiety about recurrence is common, and routine follow-up appointments can be both reassuring and a source of renewed fear.

A cancer plan that truly serves patients has to focus on how people are living, not just how long. That means investing in rehabilitation, psychological support, specialist nursing, social care and fair access to financial and employment advice.

It also means recognising that some patients will never be “finished” with cancer but will live for many years with incurable disease, requiring ongoing treatment and support to maintain the best possible quality of life.

When we judge whether the new targets have been met, we should therefore look beyond the headline numbers. Success would be a future in which more people are diagnosed early, treated promptly and supported to rebuild their lives, with fewer left waiting in pain or confusion, and fewer feeling abandoned once the last dose of treatment has been given.

The Conversation

Justin Stebbing does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The unanswered questions in the NHS’s new cancer plan – https://theconversation.com/the-unanswered-questions-in-the-nhss-new-cancer-plan-275103

Winter Olympics: the new video technology that could help power Britain’s skeleton team to gold

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steffi Colyer, Senior Lecturer in Sports Biomechanics, Centre for Health and Injury and Illness Prevention in Sport,, University of Bath

Skeleton is an exhilarating Winter Olympic sport in which athletes race head-first down an ice track at speeds reaching over 80 miles per hour (130km/h). While the event can look basic at first glance, success relies heavily on highly engineered equipment and extensive wind‑tunnel testing – much like elite Olympic track cycling programmes.

Each run begins with the athlete pushing a sled (also known as a “tea tray”) explosively off the starting block, then sprinting rapidly for about 30 metres downhill. After diving on the sled, they ride the rest of the course with their head just a few inches above the ice. The sleds have no brakes, and riders wear only a thin suit and helmet for protection.

A powerful start is considered the defining component of skeleton performance. So, developing a skeleton athlete’s strength and power while refining their pushing technique is a central focus in the lead-up to competitions. The biggest of all these, the Winter Olympics, is being held in Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy, this month. Skeleton events start on February 12.

While Britain does not tend to rank highly in Winter Olympic sports, in skeleton it has won a world-best nine Olympic medals, including three golds. Over the past ten years, my colleagues and I at the University of Bath have worked with Team GB skeleton athletes to help improve their starts, using a form of “markerless” motion capture technology.

But the applications of this technology extend far beyond the Winter Olympics. There is potential for it to replace traditional motion capture systems in the film, TV and gaming industries, and to be used in injury rehabilitation.

How motion analysis began

The origins of motion analysis can be traced back to the pioneering work of English photographer Eadweard Muybridge in the late 19th century. Muybridge developed early techniques for capturing sequences of images, including documenting equine gait.

Eadweard Muybridge developed pioneering motion capture techniques. Video: Cantor Arts Centre.

By manually annotating specific features across successive images, researchers have since been able to build a detailed picture of how a person or animal moves. But while this method was the standard for many decades, it was both time- and labour-intensive.

So, technological advances in cameras and computer processing led to the development of automated methods of motion analysis – notably, marker-based motion capture. This uses reflective markers placed on key parts of the body, which are automatically tracked by infra-red cameras as the person moves around.

In film, animation and gaming, this mean an actor’s body movements and facial expressions can be translated into to realistic CGI characters. Marker-based technology is currently the most widely used 3D motion analysis technique across the film, gaming and health sectors, with an estimated global market value of over US$300 million (£220 million).

However, this advanced technology has limitations too, including the need for specialist equipment, controlled laboratory environments, and lengthy preparation time to attach the markers. These can be problematic in sports and many other fields – particularly during live competitions and public performances.

As a result, the field of motion analysis has come almost full circle. Thanks to major advances in computer vision and artificial intelligence, biomechanists such like me are once again extracting detailed movement information directly from video images – but this time in an automated way.

The markerless motion capture systems we use rely on deep‑learning models that are trained on a huge number of images of people performing everyday activities. When applied to unseen images, the algorithms can then automatically detect the same body landmarks. By fusing multiple camera views, a simplified digital 3D skeleton can be extracted, from which the person’s movement across time can be modelled and analysed.

Video: CNN.

Analysing the optimum technique

Markerless motion capture makes it possible to unobtrusively measure athletes’ movements outside the lab, in training and even during competitions. Our recent research has demonstrated its value in many different sports, including badminton, tennis and Olympic weightlifting.

In skeleton, the unique, bent-over position at the start of each run, as the athlete sprints alongside the sled with one hand holding it, makes this form of biomechanical analysis particularly important.

Using markerless motion capture, we have explored the differing roles of an athlete’s limbs in the push-start performance, comparing these biomechanics with conventional sprinting. Importantly, we have also validated this markerless approach by comparing it with a traditional marker‑based system.

The optimum starting technique for each skeleton athlete is shaped by their physical characteristics, including factors such as relative limb lengths and flexibility. Analysing each athlete’s pushing technique, how it relates to their performance and how this evolves over time, can help give them a crucial competitive edge during this all-important first phase of each skeleton run.

Medals can be won and lost by hundredths of seconds as athletes sprint away from the starting block. In these first few seconds, we hope Britain’s athletes reap the benefit of our markerless motion capture technology.

The Conversation

Steffi Colyer receives funding via the Centre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research & Applications (CAMERA) from the UKRI’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

ref. Winter Olympics: the new video technology that could help power Britain’s skeleton team to gold – https://theconversation.com/winter-olympics-the-new-video-technology-that-could-help-power-britains-skeleton-team-to-gold-274859

The sale of Russell & Bromley is a symbol of the challenges facing independent heritage brands

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Naomi Braithwaite, Associate Professor in Fashion and Material Culture, Nottingham Trent University

William Barton/Shutterstock

The UK heritage shoemaker Russell & Bromley has been bought by high-street clothing giant Next. Despite the brand’s rescue from administration, dozens of jobs will be lost in initial redundancies, and there are rumours that more than 30 shops could close. As one of the few independently owned footwear brands left in the UK, the sale spells another loss to the industrial heritage of the British footwear industry.

The closure of fashion stores is nothing new, and the gradual demise of the British high street has been well documented. In fact, research in 2021 revealed that the fastest-declining sector on the UK high street was fashion retail. Shifts in consumer behaviour driven by online shopping, alongside fast fashion, placed inevitable pressure on independent, mid- to high-end stores like Russell & Bromley.

With so much competition (particularly in the context of footwear, where many clothing retailers and supermarkets have added shoe lines), staying relevant has become even more challenging.

What set Russell & Bromley apart was its long history. It was founded in 1880 in Sussex and continued under the leadership of five generations of the same family. It has a strongly defined heritage as a British independent brand, with a focus on craftsmanship and understated luxury.

It has also been a favourite of the Princess of Wales, which guaranteed the brand further endorsement. More recently, another brand linked to the princess, LK Bennett, was sold to the owner of Poundland. LK Bennett was founded in 1990, also as a high-end shoe retailer, later branching out into clothing as well.

The Russell & Bromley sale followed the announcement that heritage sports shoe brand Gola had been acquired by Japanese conglomerate Marubeni – a response to booming sales in retro trainers. Gola, too, has a long history. It was founded in Leicester, once a centre for British shoemaking in 1905, making it one of Britain’s oldest sportswear brands.




Read more:
The history of sneakers: from commodity to cultural icon


Its origins were in making football boots, but in the 1960s the brand took off with its Harrier style being favoured by football fans, and its later endorsement by celebrities including Liam Gallagher and Paul Weller. But in recent years, Gola struggled to compete with the powerhouses of Nike and Adidas.

The cases of Russell & Bromley and Gola exemplify the challenges of maintaining independence in the complex global footwear industry where conglomerates are taking a dominant stance. The brands’ change in ownership highlights the transformation of what was once a flourishing footwear manufacturing and retail industry.

Dominance and decline

The 1960s was the heyday of fashion retail on the British high street with the emergence of boutiques like Mary Quant’s Bazaar and the advent of Topshop in 1964, which brought a new, younger consumer.

Footwear retailers were always a staple on the high street, with brands like Dolcis, and Lilley and Skinner. Both were part of the Leicester-based conglomerate the British Shoe Corporation, and alongside Clarks and Russell & Bromley they captured the footwear retail market.

But the UK’s fashion footwear retail industry started to decline in the 1990s with the closure of the British Shoe Corporation and its huge portfolio of stores.

This decline in shoe retail followed a significant change in the UK’s footwear manufacturing industry. While Northampton remains a centre of excellence for men’s footwear manufacturing, shoe factories in Leicester started to close from the 1980s. They could no longer compete with the prices and volumes of manufacturers in Brazil, India and China.

Recently, China has taken the lead in global shoe manufacturing, adapting the traditional skills and craftsmanship with technical advances and the ability to produce high volumes.

So where does Next fit into this picture? In 1982, the Midlands-based clothing company opened its first womenswear store and by 1988 had launched the Next Directory, which introduced home delivery. Consumers no longer had to go to separate shops to find shoes to match their outfits – suddenly it was all available in one place.

It was not just Leicester that suffered the decline of its footwear industry. London also had a long history in shoemaking, but failed to weather the competitive landscape. The 1990s saw an increase in international brands and retailers entering the UK retail space, placing further competition on domestic brands.

aretesanal shoemaking equipment laid out on a workbench alongside completed and half-made shoes.
There’s still a market for artisanal footwear.
sopf/Shutterstock

Despite this uncertainty and change in UK footwear and retail, Russell & Bromley continued to thrive well into the 21st century. This is testament to its position as a high-end retailer that sold its own well-crafted shoes and bags with the desirable Made in Italy label. Investments in a refresh in 2025 may have proved too costly, as the market became increasingly difficult.

While there is plenty of choice for consumers at the lower and designer ends of the footwear market, the mid to high-price points where Russell & Bromley sits could perhaps be at risk of becoming squeezed out.

Italy, Spain and Portugal have maintained their rich shoemaking heritage. While this has much to do with legacy, it may also be the result of these countries’ continued endorsement by luxury brands, where the allure of artisanal shoes resonates with higher price points.

Despite the sales, the Russell & Bromley and Gola brands are not being lost. Under their new owners, they will be able to go on representing the legacy of the British footwear industry, which has been defined by heritage, fashion and craftsmanship.

The Conversation

Naomi Braithwaite does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The sale of Russell & Bromley is a symbol of the challenges facing independent heritage brands – https://theconversation.com/the-sale-of-russell-and-bromley-is-a-symbol-of-the-challenges-facing-independent-heritage-brands-274444