Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Laura Revell, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Canterbury

When we look up at the night sky and see a satellite glide past, we might not consider climate change or the ozone layer.

Space may feel separate from the environmental systems that sustain life on Earth. But increasingly, the way we build, launch and dispose of satellites is starting to change that.

Over the past few years, the number of satellite launches has skyrocketed. There are now nearly 15,000 active satellites in orbit around the Earth, most of them part of “mega-constellations” in which each satellite has a service life of only a few years.

New satellites must be quickly launched as replacements. To avoid leaving old, dead satellites in Earth’s already-crowded low orbits, most satellite operators deliberately de-orbit them into Earth’s upper atmosphere.

Here, they burn up or break apart into smaller pieces: a process known as “demisability”. In effect, satellites have become part of throwaway culture.

That approach is now being taken to a vastly larger scale. We are concerned about the implications for Earth’s climate and atmosphere.

A sleeper risk for our climate and ozone layer

Last month, SpaceX applied to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for permission to launch one million more satellites for untested “AI data centres”.

That sheer number isn’t the only issue. SpaceX’s Starlink V2 “mini” satellites happen to weigh about 800 kilograms (kg) – roughly the mass of a small car – with later versions expected to reach around 1,250 kg. The planned V3 satellites are larger still, comparable in scale to a Boeing 737 airliner.

Rocket launches already contribute to climate change and ozone depletion. Scaling them up to deploy a million aircraft-sized satellites would push upper-atmosphere heating and ozone loss far beyond previous estimates, with the steady burn-up of dead satellites compounding the impacts.

This comes as burnt satellite dust is already being found in the atmosphere. In 2023, scientists studying aerosols in the upper atmosphere found metals from re-entering spacecraft. Just recently, lithium has been detected from the uncontrolled re-entry of a Falcon 9 rocket.

This is just a fraction of what is to come if planned megaconstellations go ahead – and SpaceX is far from the only player. Other operators worldwide have already asked for a combined total of over one million satellites.

All the while, the full environmental consequences remain poorly understood because satellite builders rarely disclose what their spacecraft are made of.

Scientists assume a large fraction is aluminium, which burns up into alumina particles, but the exact mix of materials – and the size of the particles produced – remains poorly constrained.

But we know the very smallest particles, finer than a human hair, can stay suspended in the atmosphere for years, contributing to ozone depletion and climate change.

Following similar assumptions to a previous study, we estimate that a million satellites could mean that a teragram (one billion kgs) of alumina accumulates in the upper atmosphere – enough, alongside launch emissions, to significantly alter atmospheric chemistry and heating in dramatic ways we do not yet understand.

There is no public mandate for a single company in one country to make changes on that scale to the planet’s atmosphere.

The consequences are not confined to the atmosphere. Not all re-entering satellites burn up; debris is already hitting the ground and the chance of a casualty from megaconstellation re-entries is now about 40% per five-year cycle – rising for both people and aircraft as more satellites are added to orbit.

In space, the picture is no less stark: the Outer Space Institute’s CRASH Clock suggests a collision would occur within 3.8 days if satellites stopped avoiding each other.

Many experts agree we are in the early stages of the Kessler Syndrome: a cascading chain reaction of collisions that multiplies space debris.

Our skies are not a dumping ground

Our night sky, especially cherished in New Zealand, is one of the few things everyone on Earth still shares.

According to simulations built by astronomers, constellations on the scale proposed by SpaceX would fill the sky with many thousands of satellites visible to the naked eye anywhere on Earth. Eventually, there could be more visible satellites than visible stars.

For scientists, observing the deaths of stars and searching for new planets would become much harder. Stargazing, astrotourism and cultural astronomy would similarly be disrupted worldwide.

All of this means the FCC’s ruling on the SpaceX proposal, now open to public submissions, could affect everyone – whether through changes to the atmosphere, growing collision risks in orbit or the loss of an unspoilt night sky.

One solution being discussed is to dispose of dead satellites in orbits away from Earth. But this would require much more fuel per satellite to escape Earth’s gravity, increasing both payload and the environmental impact of rocket launches. Some debris would still return to Earth.

With SpaceX and others planning rapid expansion, global regulation is needed: in an uncapped system, regulating one firm just shifts the problem elsewhere. As the largest operator, SpaceX is best placed to lead on an environmentally sustainable solution, just as Du Pont did with phasing out CFCs in the 1980s.

A first step is to define a safe atmospheric carrying capacity for satellite launches and re-entries. Environmental assessments should cover the full lifecycle, including atmospheric effects, and address both orbital safety and impacts on cultural and research astronomy.

Whatever the regulatory outcome, using the atmosphere as a crematorium for satellites at this scale cannot be a solution.

Laura Revell receives funding from the Marsden Fund and Rutherford Discovery Fellowships, administered from New Zealand Government funding by the Royal Society Te Apārangi. She is a member of the International Ozone Commission, UN Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, UN Nuclear War Effects Panel, and a lead author on the IPCC’s 7th Assessment Report.

Michele Bannister receives funding from the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships, administered from New Zealand Government funding by the Royal Society Te Apārangi. She is a member of the International Astronomical Union’s Centre for Dark and Quiet Skies.

Samantha Lawler receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. She is a fellow of the Outer Space Institute, and a Visiting Erskine Fellow at the University of Canterbury.

– ref. A new space race could turn our atmosphere into a ‘crematorium for satellites’ – https://theconversation.com/a-new-space-race-could-turn-our-atmosphere-into-a-crematorium-for-satellites-276366

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Stacey Pizzino, Lecturer, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland

When a war ends and peace agreements are signed, most people assume the danger is over. But for many communities around the world the danger remains in the ground, waiting.

Landmines and other explosives left behind after a conflict can stay active for decades – buried in the paths to school, in the fields that feed families and in the areas where children play.

In some countries, such as Laos and the Solomon Islands, bombs from conflicts decades ago still injure and kill.

This quiet danger isn’t a distant problem. Today, at least 57 countries are contaminated by landmines and other explosive ordnance, including mortars and grenades.

At the same time, some governments are stepping back from the Landmine Ban Treaty, the first comprehensive treaty aimed at eliminating landmines in conflicts. Decisions made in parliaments today can translate into hazards underfoot for years to come.

Our new research is aimed at understanding the ongoing risk landmines pose. The study is the world’s largest analysis of landmine and explosive ordnance casualties. And the data allows us to answer critical questions: who dies from these weapons, and why?

What do the numbers tell us?

In our study, we analysed 105,913 casualties across 17 conflict-affected countries, using operational data. These are the real world operational records routinely collected by national mine action authorities, the UN and other humanitarian organisations.

These records let us see what communities are facing without adding any burden to these often stretched services.

Across all settings, the case fatality rate was 38.8%. Put simply: for every ten people injured by landmines or other explosive ordnance around the world, nearly four die. This is extraordinarily high.

For comparison, the fatality rate for blast injuries among military personnel or civilians treated in well-resourced trauma centres is around 2%.

The gap highlights the brutal disparity between those who are injured in environments with functioning surgical and trauma care and those who are not.

Not all explosive threats are equal, either.

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the most lethal weapon type in our analysis.

IEDs are increasingly used in many modern conflicts and are often remotely detonated to maximise casualties. Their explosive force and unpredictability cause devastating injuries that many local health systems are simply not equipped to manage.

Who is most affected?

Although most casualties from landmines and explosive ordnance are men, women had significantly higher odds of dying from their injuries. This likely reflects unequal access to health care, delayed treatment, and social barriers that limit mobility and decision making in many conflict-affected settings.

Children’s risks are different – they are both vulnerable and resilient.

Children are particularly at risk of detonating landmines when playing, when caught up in active conflict, or simply as bystanders.

The reason is often tragic.
Children tend to play together in groups, meaning when one child encounters an explosive remnant, several are injured at once.

Yet, overall, children in our data were more likely to survive their injuries than adults, perhaps because they sustain different injury patterns or receive care sooner when adults rush to assist.

But survival is only the beginning. Children may need multiple surgeries, new prostheses as they grow up, long-term rehabilitation and lifelong disability support. These are needs that many health systems struggle to meet.

Age also shapes outcomes. The highest odds of death were observed in adults aged 45–64. Older people may have pre-existing health issues and face greater barriers to reaching medical care, yet their needs can often be overlooked.

The human cost of explosives

The impact of landmines and explosive ordnance extends far beyond immediate injuries. These injuries disrupt people’s daily lives in ways that can entrench communities in poverty.

For example, farmers cannot safety cultivate their land because of the threat of landmines. Women gathering water or food can trigger explosives, too.

When injuries occur, families lose breadwinners and care-giving roles change, pushing households deeper into poverty.

How can we strengthen care for survivors?

There are ways to mitigate the impacts of landmines and explosive ordnance, though. This is a preventable public health crisis.

Our findings highlight the urgent need to strengthen emergency, critical and surgical care in conflict-affected areas to reduce preventable deaths.

Reliable pre-hospital care, transport and basic surgical care saves lives. So does long-term rehabilitation and disability support, especially for children who will live with the consequences of these explosive weapons and injuries for decades.

As old conflicts continue and new ones emerge, explosive ordnance keep contaminating the places where people live, play, work and travel.

Understanding who dies, and why, is essential to preventing future deaths and ensuring that peace, when it comes, offers real safety.

Stacey Pizzino received funding from the Australian government Research Training Program.

Michael Waller 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. New global study: long after war, nearly 4 in 10 people injured by landmines and explosives die – https://theconversation.com/new-global-study-long-after-war-nearly-4-in-10-people-injured-by-landmines-and-explosives-die-276062

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adrian R. Camilleri, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Technology Sydney

You’re scrolling through an online retailer, like Amazon, Shein or eBay, and spot a shirt on sale for $40. You add it to your cart, but at checkout, a $10 shipping fee suddenly appears. Frustrated, you close the tab.

But what if that same shirt was priced at $50 with “free” shipping? The likelihood that you would have bought it without a second thought is much higher.

COVID changed the way we shop and accelerated our reliance on e-commerce. But as online sales have grown, so has the expectation of free delivery.

The reality, however, is that shipping physical goods is never actually free. Retailers use subtle marketing strategies and psychological hacks to mask these costs. As a result, consumers are often the ones footing the bill.

The magic of zero

There is something uniquely attractive about the concept “free”. In behavioural economics, zero is not just a lower price; it flips a psychological switch.

When a transaction involves a cost, we instinctively weigh the downside. But when something is entirely free, we experience a positive emotion and perceive the offer as more valuable than it is mathematically.

Retailers no doubt realise that offering free delivery is one of the most effective ways to stop a consumer from abandoning a digital shopping cart.

The minimum spend trap

Perhaps the most common marketing tactic is the free shipping threshold. Sometimes this is phrased as: “Spend $55 to qualify for free shipping.”

If your shopping cart is sitting at $40, you face a dilemma. You can pay $10 for postage, or you can find a $15 item to reach the threshold. Many of us choose the latter, reasoning it is better to get a tangible product, such as a pair of socks, than to “waste” money on shipping.

This tactic uses the “goal gradient effect”, which describes the tendency to put in more effort the closer we get to a goal. It also works incredibly well for the retailer.

Research shows that free shipping increases both purchase frequency and overall order size. Policies with a threshold for free shipping often prompt this exact “topping up” behaviour. The consumer ends up buying things they did not initially want, thus boosting the retailer’s sales.

Baked-in costs and the reality of ‘free’ returns

Another strategy is unconditional free shipping, where the delivery cost is simply baked into the product’s base price. This allows consumers to avoid the “pain of paying” a separate fee at checkout. However, we are still paying for the postage through higher item costs.

For retailers, offering unconditional free shipping without a markup can be difficult to sustain profitably. The bump in sales usually does not offset the lost fee revenue and the costs of fulfilment.

A major reason for this lack of profitability is that free shipping leads to significantly higher product return rates.

Consumers tend to make riskier purchases if the appearance of waived fees lowers the perceived financial risk of the transaction.

For example, you might order the same shirt in two different sizes, knowing you can just send one back for free. Who pays for that added convenience? The retailer, who now has to cover the courier fees twice.

The retailer usually won’t simply absorb this cost, but will have to pass it on in other ways.

The subscription illusion

To combat these unpredictable costs, many businesses are turning to membership, loyalty, or subscription models such as Amazon Prime. Consumers pay an upfront annual fee in exchange for “free” expedited shipping year-round.

Membership-based programs successfully increase customer loyalty and purchase frequency, and allow for better customer segmentation.

But in the long run, they may actually hurt a retailer’s profit margins. While loyalty rises, the operational costs of fulfilling many smaller, free-shipped orders can potentially outweigh the benefits if not strictly managed.

For the consumer, this model manipulates our “mental accounting”. Because we view the upfront fee as money already spent, every additional purchase feels like it comes with a free perk. We end up shopping more frequently on that specific platform just to “get our money’s worth”.

Don’t buy the illusion

The age of limitless free shipping may be coming to an end.

As global supply chain costs remain volatile, we are likely to see retailers raising their minimum spend thresholds, removing offers, or increasing base product prices to compensate.

The next time you are shopping online, resist the urge for instant gratification.

If you are about to add a $15 pair of novelty avocado socks to your cart, just to save $10 on shipping, take a step back. Ask yourself if you truly need that purchase to arrive this week.

Instead of rushing to checkout, let your digital basket fill up naturally over time with items you actually need. You will eventually hit the threshold, but on your own terms.

“Free” delivery is just a clever psychological illusion. The cost is rarely eliminated; it is simply redistributed into higher product prices or reframed as a loyalty perk.

Don’t let the allure of “free” shipping trick you into paying for more than you intended.

Adrian R. Camilleri 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. Does ‘free’ shipping really exist? An expert shares the marketing tricks you need to know – https://theconversation.com/does-free-shipping-really-exist-an-expert-shares-the-marketing-tricks-you-need-to-know-276397

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexandra James, Research Fellow, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

Among the corsets and chemistry, the latest season of Bridgerton gets one thing right: the taboos around talking about sex and sexual pleasure.

Newlywed Francesca asks in hushed confusion what it means to reach “the pinnacle” (orgasm). As she cannot reach one, she is concerned this may be linked to her inability to fall pregnant.

When Francesca seeks advice from her mother Violet, she’s told:

A pinnacle, it is pleasant … It is a delightful um, closeness, that is um, it’s nearly impossible to describe. It’s like a shared language. And when you speak the same language you are able to feel um [a] magical, special feeling inside.

Confused, Francesca turns to her more experienced sister-in-law Penelope for clearer answers. But she still can’t find what she’s looking for.

Bridgerton may be a Regency-era historical fantasy. But this dynamic mirrors what we see today – young people want information about sex and sexual pleasure, yet parents often feel awkward and ill-equipped to provide it.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Some things don’t change

Young people today consistently say they want information about sex and relationships that emphasises emotions and pleasure. But they often learn about it from peers or online.

Meanwhile, many parents share their discomfort when discussing the more intimate dimensions of sexuality.

In our 2025 study of Australian parents and carers, many said they were uncertain about how to initiate or sustain meaningful conversations about sex and relationships. They were unsure what information was age-appropriate, especially where children may already find sexual content online.

Parents and carers were more confident talking about body image, consent and safety, puberty and periods. But they were particularly uncomfortable talking about sexual pleasure, satisfaction and masturbation.

Parents frequently connected their unease to their own upbringing, describing childhood homes where sex was rarely discussed openly. (In Bridgerton, when Francesca’s mother later admits she struggles to talk about sex even with her lover, the parallel is hard to miss.)

Parents who felt more comfortable discussing sex with partners, friends or health professionals were more likely to feel confident talking about it with their children.

Mothers still take the lead

While Francesca searches for information about her own pleasure, a female housekeeper cautions her brother Benedict about power and responsibility when she notices his attraction to Sophie, a housemaid.

This echoes contemporary differences in how sons and daughters are prepared for intimate relationships. Boys are positioned to manage power and consent, often with less space to explore ideas of love and romance.

Significantly, it is also women who most often take on this preparatory work.

In Bridgerton, the roles of Francesca’s mother, her sister-in-law Penelope and the housekeeper reflect a broader pattern of gendered labour in sex education: women continue to be positioned as the default parent responsible for navigating these conversations.

In our study, mothers reported significantly higher confidence than fathers in discussing consent and safety with both daughters and sons, compared with fathers, particularly fathers of sons.

What about pleasure?

When we talk about sex only in terms of risk, focusing on pregnancy, infection and harm, we also narrow the story young people can tell about intimacy.

It can reinforce a familiar binary: boys as potential perpetrators, girls as potential victims, and sex itself as something that “happens” rather than something negotiated.

Leaving pleasure out of conversations between parents and their children doesn’t make conversations safer; it makes them incomplete. Without a language for desire, boundaries and dissatisfaction, young people have fewer tools to recognise coercion, communicate their needs, or imagine sex that is mutual and wanted.

We also cannot expect young people, especially young women, to advocate for their own pleasure if they have never been given the vocabulary to understand what it is and what to expect.

We also know young people ask for clarity about the “mechanics” of sex; how it works, what it feels like, and how to do it.

Parents play an important role in supporting this learning, particularly as sexual pleasure and wellbeing are among the topics less likely to be covered in school-based education, which has tended to focus on reducing harm.

Read more:
6 ways to talk to your teens about sex without the cringe

But some things have changed

If parents are reluctant to talk to their children about sex and relationships, it’s rarely because they don’t want to. Our study shows they’re not certain what to say, when to say it, and how much detail to provide.

Many parents worried their child would feel uncomfortable, or feared saying the wrong thing. One in three said they had not had any conversations about sex or relationships with their children in the past 12 months.

But unlike in Bridgerton, today’s parents are not confined to metaphor. Resources exist to support more open, direct conversations about bodies, relationships and pleasure, which young people want.

Talking about sex, especially pleasure, can feel uncomfortable. But this is not a reason to stay silent. It is often a sign the conversation matters.

Talk soon. Talk often: a guide for parents talking to their kids about sex helps parents judge age-appropriate information and how to talk about it.

Alexandra James received funding from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.

Andrea Waling receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (AU) and the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research (UK).

– ref. What Bridgerton’s ‘pinnacle’ tells us about sex talk today – https://theconversation.com/what-bridgertons-pinnacle-tells-us-about-sex-talk-today-276504