MIL Submissions Engine

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andy Miah, Chair in Science Communication & Future Media, University of Salford

The 2026 Winter Olympics have come at a turning point in sport in terms of how Olympians are allowed to monetise their performances. In December, the governing body the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that, for the first time, Olympians would have access to footage from their competitions to use for their personal branding and promotion.

In this pilot phase, the material will not be from these Milan Cortina Winter Olympics, but from the previous Games in Beijing in 2022. According to the new Olympian Highlights Programme, athletes who competed in China can have access to 60 seconds of their competition to use on their personal channels to celebrate their achievements during these Games.

But what does this mean, why does it matter, and why is it happening now?

While the permission might not sound like a big deal, the moving image of Olympic competition is the most valuable asset of the entire Olympic movement. It is highly protected due to the exclusive television rights agreements around the world, which have secured the economic fortunes of the Olympic industry for decades.

Today, the rights to the video content of the Games competitions is what makes money for the Olympic movement. The billions of pounds they generate contribute both to the Olympic programme, and also to schemes like Olympic Solidarity supporting federations and nations around the world. But this was not always the case.

In the early years of Olympic competition, broadcasters had free rein to cover the Games. This was seen as a great opportunity to share the Olympic message with the world. The sport then was treated more like news, whereas now it is predominantly entertainment, commercialised and exploited to grow the Olympic industry.

Tightly controlled media content remains the most effective way to monetise the Olympic programme. But this meant athletes could not use video material from their competitions, for fear that this could compromise the exclusivity agreed between the IOC and broadcasters.

Athletes’ frustrations

Similarly, Olympians have been severely restricted in what they can share from their Olympic experience, especially during Games time itself. The IOC Olympic Charter sets out these limitations to avoid things like ambush marketing (when a potential sponsor tries to use the Games period to promote their product in a way that undermines an official sponsor).

For Olympians with a personal sponsor, it means limiting the exposure of this affiliation during Games time, instead prioritising their official team partnership.

Loosening controls on competition videos is an important step to letting Olympians leverage their celebrity status at a time when they’re in the spotlight. Yet it also reflects a changing set of circumstances around media culture. For 20 years, there has been a steady transition of audience habits away from living room TVs towards mobile phones and social media.

This transition had caused the industry anxiety over whether it would hit viewing figures and reduce the value of rights deals. And so Olympic organisers have monitored web traffic and sent warnings to anyone infringing upon their intellectual property.

Today, that mindset is different. There is a recognition that social media amplifies the opportunity to monetise Olympic assets. Video tracking technology can intervene directly when something is posted and limit exposure of unapproved content shares. Or it can simply monetise it with adverts. These capabilities are expanding – and becoming more complicated – with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI).

Provisions for social media sharing for athletes and others with accreditation have been evolving over recent Games. At the London 2012 Olympics, IOC social media guidelines did not allow any video from Olympic venues to be posted. In contrast, for Paris 2024, athletes were allowed to share video of their Olympic journey (but not their performance) with up to two minutes from each competition venue.

The guidance for Milan Cortina goes even further to encourage sharing. But it still prohibits athletes from posting this premium video content between one hour before competition and within one hour after, the crucial window for broadcasters.

Ultimately, giving permission to use video from the Games events is also about recognising the athletes’ own ability to attract audiences. On the days leading to Paris 2024, behind-the-scenes footage from athletes often became prominent social media posts, including viral footage of the athletes’ cardboard beds.

This showed candid moments from athletes before the TV coverage began. Audiences appeared to love this – and leaning into it is crucial for the Olympic movement in these changing times.

For decades, the IOC has shouted about how far the Olympic message travels during each Games, articulating this in terms of television hours watched across the world. Yet, television has changed too. After Rio 2016, there was a shift in the IOC’s language, moving from “television” to “live-streamed” hours, to reflect the new ways in which audiences are exposed to the Olympic Games.

The economic direction of international sport and the growing importance of non-traditional partnerships, such as those with Airbnb, Uber and Alibaba, show that the future of the Olympic Games is wedded to the technological culture of the time. While the technology of the 20th century was television, now sport is intimately connected to the rise of AI. Its integration within social media will be key to how users create and consume Olympic content.

In this way, 60 seconds of footage from a previous Olympic competition is not just a move towards empowering athletes. It is also a step towards safeguarding the future of the Olympic Games at a time of remarkable change in the media. The influencer economy is becoming the new unit of audience attraction and it’s crucial that the Olympic movement embraces this.

Andy Miah 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. Why athletes at the 2026 Winter Olympics are finally being given more power to monetise their performances – https://theconversation.com/why-athletes-at-the-2026-winter-olympics-are-finally-being-given-more-power-to-monetise-their-performances-275185

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vikram Niranjan, Assistant Professor in Public Health, School of Medicine, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick

“House burping” is the latest thing cluttering people’s feeds: short clips of people flinging open every window and door, announcing they’re “burping” their home to get rid of stale, germ-filled air. Behind the playful name is a serious question: does this actually make a home healthier, or are people just swapping indoor germs for outdoor pollution?

In Germany, this trend looks less like a revolution and more like everyday life. Lüften – literally “airing out” – and Stoßlüften, or “shock ventilation”, have long involved opening windows wide for a few minutes to let fresh air race through, even in the depths of winter. Some German rental contracts even mention regular airing as part of looking after the property, mainly to prevent damp and mould.

The health logic is simple. Indoor air collects moisture from showers and cooking, smoke and particles from stoves and candles, chemicals from cleaning sprays and furniture, and tiny particles and viruses that people breathe out.

In a previous study my colleagues and I conducted, we found many diseases linked to indoor air pollution. Over time, these build up, especially in well-insulated homes that keep heat – and pollution – in. When the house is “burped”, the sudden rush of outdoor air dilutes this mixture and pushes a good chunk of it outside.

This is particularly important for infections that spread through the air. During the COVID pandemic, public health agencies stressed that better ventilation – including simply opening windows – could help cut the risk of catching the virus indoors. In one classroom study, opening all windows and doors dropped carbon dioxide levels by about 60% and reduced a simulated “viral load” by more than 97% over an eight-hour day, shrinking the area with higher infection risk to around 15% of the room.

Pets breathe the same air and can act as early warning signs of trouble. Veterinary studies link poor indoor air to lung irritation in dogs and cats, especially near the floor where particles settle – a reminder that stale air harms the whole household.

But the air outside is not always clean. Tiny particles from traffic and factories, and gases such as nitrogen dioxide, damage the heart, lungs and brain and are now recognised as major causes of illness and early death. In many cities, most of the fine particles inside homes and schools actually come from outside and seep in through gaps, vents and, of course, open windows.

Where you live shapes that trade-off. Homes close to busy main roads or motorways tend to have higher levels of traffic-related particles and nitrogen dioxide indoors, especially when windows facing the road are opened.

A study in inner-city schools found that the closer a school was to major roads, the higher the levels of traffic-related PM2.5 (microscopic air pollution particles small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs), nitrogen dioxide and black carbon measured inside classrooms.

That means flinging open roadside windows at rush hour may bring in a surge of exhaust, tyre and brake dust just as traffic pollution peaks. For people with asthma, heart disease or chronic lung problems, that extra pollution can undo some of the health benefits of better ventilation.

The picture looks different in greener, quieter areas. When schools and homes are surrounded by more trees and green space and are further from main roads, indoor levels of traffic-related particles tend to be lower. Vegetation can help filter some particles from the air and break up plumes of pollution from nearby roads.

The right time to burp

Timing also matters. In many cities, outdoor pollution is highest during the morning and evening commute and lower late at night or in the middle of the day. Short bursts of house burping outside these peaks – or just after rain, which can temporarily wash some particles from the air – may offer a better balance between infection control and pollution exposure.

Poor indoor air does not stop at the lungs. Studies link higher levels of fine particles and carbon dioxide to poorer concentration, slower thinking and raised risks of anxiety and depression. A stuffy home quietly chips away at mood and mental sharpness for everyone inside.

How the burp is done makes a difference to comfort and energy bills. German-style Stoßlüften, where all windows are opened fully for a short time, rapidly exchanges air but does not cool walls and furniture as much as leaving a small window open all day. Cross-ventilation – opening windows on opposite sides of the home – usually shifts air faster.

Treating COPD (a chronic lung disease) from poor indoor air can cost thousands yearly in drugs and hospital stays – a lifelong burden once diagnosed. Opening windows for five minutes in winter loses just pennies in heat. Fresh air now beats massive medical bills later.

For most households, a practical middle ground is possible. House burping is more likely to be helpful when it is done in short bursts, away from busy traffic times, and on the sides of the home that face quieter streets or greener spaces.

So the social media trend has a point, even if the name raises a smile. A home that never burps is likely to have higher levels of indoor pollution and a greater build-up of exhaled air, especially during virus season. Give your home a mini spa break at the right time: throw open the windows, let it burp out the stale air, and invite a burst of fresh stuff in. Your lungs, brain and pets will thank you.

Vikram Niranjan 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. House burping: what is this German habit and is it good for your health? – https://theconversation.com/house-burping-what-is-this-german-habit-and-is-it-good-for-your-health-274552

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ivan Kourtchev, Associate Professor, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University

The UK government has published its first national plan to deal with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as Pfas or “forever chemicals”. These chemicals have been used for decades in products such as firefighting foams, non-stick cookware, clothing, electronics and many industrial processes. Because many Pfas do not break down easily, they are now widely detected in the environment and in human blood and tissues.

The policy document, Pfas Plan: Building a Safer Future Together, follows growing public concern, media investigations and years of pressure from scientists calling for stronger controls. This marks an important moment for UK chemicals policy. The plan represents a step forward, but it avoids many of the hardest regulatory choices associated with Pfas.

In practical terms, this could include restricting Pfas-treated finishes from school uniforms and children’s clothing. In parts of the US, including California, state-level rules have already restricted or banned Pfas in textiles, effectively eliminating their use in everyday clothing, including school uniforms.

Unlike many pollutants, Pfas are not a single substance. There are several thousand Pfas in use or in circulation, each with different properties and behaviours. Some have been linked to health effects, such as liver toxicity, developmental problems and negative effects on the immune system. For many others, evidence remains sparse or uncertain.

Pfas are also highly mobile. They can be transported through air, deposited onto land or water, and then re-enter the atmosphere or food chain. Contamination measured in one location may originate from industrial activity, waste handling, consumer products or historic uses far away. This transboundary behaviour is well known in environmental science, but Pfas amplify the challenge because of their persistence.

Read more:
PFAS: you can’t smell, see or taste these chemicals, but they are everywhere – and they’re highly toxic to humans

In the UK, regulation has so far focused on a small number (fewer than a dozen) of well-studied Pfas, mainly through drinking water standards. This has left the wider group of Pfas, and their long-term accumulation in air and soil, largely outside the scope of formal regulation.

The new Pfas plan is intended to provide that framework. Rather than introducing sweeping new bans, it sets out how Pfas risks should be assessed and managed over time, with a strong emphasis on coordination across government, regulators, researchers and industry.

A central element of the plan is its focus on evidence. It recognises that Pfas pollution is not limited to water and soil, but also includes air emissions from manufacturing, industrial processes and waste treatment. Expanding monitoring across air, land and water is intended to improve understanding of sources, pathways and exposure, and to support more targeted controls in future.

The plan also commits to reviewing existing regulatory tools. This includes consultation on limits for Pfas in drinking water, closer scrutiny of industrial emissions and assessment of how current chemicals legislation could be applied more effectively to Pfas as a group. Research into the toxicity of Pfas in food and food packaging, plus more effective detection methods and safer alternatives forms part of this longer-term approach. Some Pfas uses such as medical devices are acknowledged as difficult to replace in the short term.

A starting point

At the same time, the new plan leaves many hard decisions for later. It does not ban Pfas as a class, set timelines for phase-outs or define which uses should ultimately be considered essential. Much depends on future consultations and how quickly new evidence emerges.

This caution has attracted criticism, but it reflects a real constraint. New Pfas continue to enter the market, sometimes as replacements for substances that have already been restricted. Others occur as impurities or degradation products that are not routinely monitored. Regulating a group of chemicals that continues to evolve is inherently difficult, particularly when emissions are diffuse and exposure pathways complex.

In July 2025, the EU adopted a new Chemicals Industry Action Plan to support a transition away from Pfas through measures such as innovation, substitution, and improved data generation. In parallel, the European Chemicals Agency is assessing a proposed Pfas group restriction – its opinion is expected to be announced by the end of 2026 to inform a subsequent European Commission proposal to phase out Pfas.

The UK’s new plan acknowledges that historic Pfas contamination already exists and commits to developing guidance and technical tools to support its management. What remains unclear is how large-scale remediation would be prioritised or funded. Experience from heavily contaminated areas in Belgium, particularly around industrial hotspots near Antwerp, shows that cleaning up legacy Pfas pollution can take decades and involve very high costs.

Taken together, the UK’s Pfas plan is best seen as a starting point rather than a solution. It brings air, water and land into a single policy debate and recognises that Pfas pose a long-term challenge rather than a short-term compliance issue.

Whether it leads to meaningful reductions in exposure will depend on what follows: how quickly methods capable of addressing the many thousands of Pfas in commerce and the environment are developed and validated; how monitoring data is used; how rapidly regulatory reviews translate into enforceable standards; and whether future decisions prevent new Pfas problems from emerging.

For now, the plan does not solve the Pfas problem. But it makes clear that Pfas are no longer a peripheral issue, and that dealing with them will require sustained scientific effort and difficult policy choices over many years.

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.

Ivan Kourtchev 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 the UK government plans to limit ‘forever chemical’ pollution – and what’s missing – https://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-government-plans-to-limit-forever-chemical-pollution-and-whats-missing-275191

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Belinda Zakrzewska, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Birmingham

After the NFL chose triple Grammy winner Bad Bunny as the halftime headliner for the upcoming Super Bowl on February 8, a backlash erupted among Donald Trump supporters and conservative commentators. The president criticised the entertainment lineup last week and said he would not attend the event.

Much of the backlash focused on the Puerto Rican rapper’s identity and politics. As the first solo Latino artist set to headline the Super Bowl halftime show, he was accused by critics of “not being an American artist” despite Puerto Rico being a US territory. Others took aim at his outspoken criticism of the Trump administration, arguing that such views had no place at this prestigious occasion.

The Super Bowl functions as a spectacle to promote ideas of US unity and patriotism through ritualised displays such as the national anthem, military flyovers and televised tributes to troops, visually linking sport to nationhood. Set against this backdrop, Bad Bunny’s selection becomes even more striking. Why would the US’s most important stage give space to an artist who so directly questions its dominance?

Bad Bunny made history with his recent album Debí Tirar Más Fotos which became the first predominantly Spanish-language release to win album of the year at the 68th Grammy Awards. He is also Spotify’s most streamed global artist for the fourth time in five years.

Bad Bunny’s rise is inseparable from his activism, which is woven into his artistic choices, television appearances and live performances. This commitment was on full display last Sunday at his most recent Grammy appearance, where he took the stage with the message “ICE out”.

His Debí Tirar Más Fotos album addresses Puerto Rico’s colonial history and ongoing struggles, a direct critique of US imperial power. The song Lo Que Pasó en Hawaii draws parallels between Puerto Rico and Hawaii, another land colonised by the US. These lyrics refuse to treat colonial harm as historical and instead frame it as ongoing and systemic.

Likewise, his NUEVAYoL music video stands as one of his most direct pro-immigrant provocation. Released on July 4 last year – Independence Day – it reimagines the Statue of Liberty draped in a Puerto Rican flag, recasting the monument as a site where liberation is actively reclaimed rather than merely symbolised. A Trump-like voiceover apologising to Latinos and recognising America as a continent, further sharpens the critique of the ongoing immigration crackdown, exposing the gap between US ideals and people’s realities.

More fundamentally, Debí Tirar Más Fotos grounds its anticolonial message in historically marginalised musical traditions. Bomba, plena, and salsa are genres rooted in Afro-Caribbean struggles and Black cultural traditions, but for a long time they were dismissed due to colonial attitudes. By putting these genres at the centre of his work, Bad Bunny protects Puerto Rican culture and reclaims its history, making it visible to the world.

Bad Bunny further intensified controversy recently by excluding the US from his world tour. He cited concerns about immigration enforcement around venues, particularly the risk posed to undocumented fans.

The decision framed safety as more important than profit. Critics questioned why he would play the Super Bowl while skipping US tour dates, while supporters argued the broadcast lets Latino people watch safely from home without risking detention or harassment.

Why is the NFL choosing BB?

Super Bowl entertainment decisions ultimately serve a clear goal: maximising profit and viewership. The NFL understands that controversy fuels conversation, and conversation fuels ratings. This strategy is not new.

Beyoncé’s 2016 performance referenced the Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter, igniting a backlash while dominating media coverage. Kendrick Lamar’s 2025 halftime show similarly confronted themes of systemic oppression and racial injustice.

Looking at the broader 2026 lineup, the NFL has paired Bad Bunny with Green Day, a pointed choice given conservative calls for an “All American” alternative. Green Day, in contrast, fit comfortably within the US cultural canon: white, English-speaking punk veterans embedded in rock history. Yet their recent performances, such as Coachella 2025, included overt political jabs at Trump and Maga.

Last week, Trump publicly criticised the lineup stating: “I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred. Terrible.”

Overall, selecting artists who generate cultural debate helps the NFL reach younger, more diverse audiences while dominating media cycles for months. This strategy acknowledges demographic shifts in US culture: the growing political and economic importance of Latino audiences, the changing nature of patriotism itself, and the reality that not all Americans view the Super Bowl through the same lens of national unity.

Risky business

When artists take clear political stances, they risk alienating segments of their audience. Public opposition to Trump, for example, frequently triggers coordinated boycotts, social media backlash, and online harassment. But late-night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel have shown how political commentary can ignite national debates while boosting attention and ratings.

For Bad Bunny, these risks appear deliberate, reflecting an authenticity that aligns his political stances with his artistic vision and public persona. His critiques of US colonialism, immigration policy and cultural erasure are inseparable from his music and performances, making his activism a central part of his identity rather than a marketing tactic.

By embracing these positions on the Super Bowl stage, he challenges traditional expectations of entertainment neutrality while amplifying underrepresented voices, particularly within the Latino community. This approach underscores a commitment to cultural and political truth, even when it invites controversy and threatens mainstream approval.

Flavia Cardoso received funding from the Chilean Government (Fondecyt 2016) and the Luksic Foundation in 2022.

Belinda Zakrzewska and Jannsen Santana do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Bad Bunny is a controversial pick for the Super Bowl – and that’s the point – https://theconversation.com/bad-bunny-is-a-controversial-pick-for-the-super-bowl-and-thats-the-point-274477

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Professor of Health Economics, Bangor University

For nearly three decades, decisions about which medicines the NHS pays for have not been made by ministers, but by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, known as Nice. Its job has been powerful: to act as a check on the pharmaceutical industry by demanding evidence that new drugs are clinically effective and worth the price, protecting NHS budgets from spiralling costs.

That independence has helped to shape how NHS money is spent in England and Wales, and, just as importantly, what it is not spent on. Nice does not exist to block new medicines, but to make sure limited public funds are used where they deliver the greatest benefit.

The Nice cost-effectiveness threshold for approving new medicines is currently £20,000 to £30,000 per additional year of good quality life (measured as “quality adjusted life years”). The UK government now plans to take control of this threshold from Nice and raise it to £25,000–£35,000 per quality adjusted life year from April 1. The result will be less money available for existing NHS services and medicines, and, most worryingly, for public health and prevention.

Trade pressure and US drug companies

This change has come from wider government concerns over protecting UK-based pharmaceutical manufacturing, and now from pressure to open up the UK market to US drug companies. Shifting the decision-making power to ministers rather than Nice represents a far-reaching structural change, not just an administrative one.

Ministers have agreed to lift UK health service spending on new medicines by 25% as part of a deal with the US to avoid the tariffs threatened by President Donald Trump. This will apply to all new medicines, not just those manufactured by US-based companies. They have told Nice to change its rules to achieve the terms of this agreement. Nice will continue to evaluate evidence on new drugs but will be subject to the new threshold set by ministers.

This uplift to the threshold is the first since Nice was set up in 1999. We already have an imbalance in spending between prevention and treatment that heavily favours treatment. A further threat to this imbalance would be that the pharmaceutical industry presses in future for further increases to the threshold in line with inflation.

So much of the ill health and premature death in the UK population is down to lifestyle and, for example, smoking, harmful alcohol use, poor diet, lack of exercise and declining mental health.

Focusing attention and budgets on new expensive branded drugs, many of them from the US, will draw attention away from tackling the underlying causes of premature ill health and death, which are often linked to poverty and inequality.

Nice’s chief executive, Jonathan Benger, recently told the Financial Times that further increases in the price at which drugs are judged cost-effective would deliver diminishing returns. He said there are better ways to support life sciences investment in the UK.

The US deal is expected to cost the NHS around £3 billion, largely through paying higher prices for branded medicines. If that £3 billion were instead invested in public health prevention, it could generate an estimated 618,000 quality adjusted life years, according to research from York University. That is around three times more than could be achieved through treatment alone.

This plan to raise the Nice threshold directly contradicts the direction set out in the UK government’s NHS 10 Year Health Plan for England, which prioritises neighbourhood health care, prevention and reducing inequality.

What the international evidence shows

In 2022 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) called on countries to spend more on preventing illness, rather than treating it. The report suggested increasing the share of national income – gross domestic product (GDP) – devoted to prevention by around 1.4 percentage points.

The warning was clear. Health systems focused on treatment alone are less prepared for future pandemics. Resources should be spent to take account of the fact that around 80% of chronic conditions such as heart disease, stroke and diabetes are at least partly preventable.

Three-quarters of public health interventions assessed by Nice fall well below the current cost-effectiveness threshold, meaning they offer good value for money. There is evidence that if governments want better value from the NHS, the cost-effectiveness threshold should be lower and closer to £13,000 per quality adjusted life year. This would make it possible to increase spending on prevention, which currently accounts for just 5% of total NHS spending.

To fund the planned 25% increase in drug spending, the government will need to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. If those cuts fall on public health or on areas such as housing, transport, employment or access to green space, the long-term damage to population health will be severe.

Investment in those areas supports healthier lives and reduces preventable illness and premature death. If public money is not available for this prevention, the government will be forced to look for novel ways to fund it, such as public-private partnerships and social outcomes contracting (which is when payments are linked to specific outcomes rather than merely delivering activities).

Any short-term boost to economic growth from US drug trade deals is unlikely to outweigh the long-term costs of an ageing population living with preventable ill health, and the pressure that puts on health and social care.

Rhiannon Tudor Edwards 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. Why raising NHS spending on new drugs by 25% is the wrong decision – health economist’s view – https://theconversation.com/why-raising-nhs-spending-on-new-drugs-by-25-is-the-wrong-decision-health-economists-view-273952