tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/a-view-on-5410/articlesA view on – The Conversation2013-05-28T02:53:09Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/146992013-05-28T02:53:09Z2013-05-28T02:53:09ZA view on: vaccination myths<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/24509/original/yj22gw8q-1369706685.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p>In recent years there’s been growing debate around the safety of vaccinations – but how much of this is based on untruths? </p>
<p>In the latest collaboration between SBS and The Conversation, Dr Rachael Dunlop – a post-Doctoral fellow in the School of Medical and Molecular Sciences at the University of Technology Sydney – shares six myths about vaccinations.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V2tS3cWCY7o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><strong>Video transcript:</strong></p>
<p>In Australia recently, figures were released showing that childhood vaccination rates have fallen to dangerously low levels in some areas of the country. And this has started again what some people refer to as the “vaccine debate”. In reality, there’s no debate: the science is in, and vaccines are safe and effective. </p>
<p><strong>So let’s look at Myth Number 1: Vaccines cause autism.</strong></p>
<p>This is an unsinkable rubber duck, and this myth was initiated in 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield, who published a paper in The Lancet suggesting that the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine was linked to autism. Since then, he has been struck from the medical records as a doctor. </p>
<p>The paper has been withdrawn from publication, and his work has been suggested to be fraudulent. This is because he didn’t reveal many conflicts of interest about his research, including the fact that he was paid by lawyers to build a case against the safety of the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. And also, that he had submitted a patent for a singles measles vaccine of his own. </p>
<p>So after thousands of publications and 14 years, there is still no good evidence to support the link between vaccine and autism. </p>
<p><strong>Myth Number 2: Smallpox and polio have virtually disappeared from the world, so why do we need to vaccinate?</strong></p>
<p>Well it’s precisely because of vaccination that India has now had two years polio-free and smallpox exists only in freezers in scientific laboratories. In fact we’ve seen evidence recently in Wales in the UK of the effect of being complacent about vaccinating. Once we stop vaccinating as we did after the scare by Wakefield, then we see the resurgence of preventable diseases like there are now in measles outbreaks in Wales. </p>
<p>And this is one of the problems with vaccines – in a way they’re a victim of their own success. Once the diseases are reduced, they’re out of mind, out of sight. We don’t see a need to vaccinate any more. But it’s important to remember: they haven’t gone away. They’re still around, and they’ll come back with a vengeance. </p>
<p><strong>Myth Number 3: More vaccinated people get the disease, therefore vaccines don’t work.</strong></p>
<p>Vaccines are not 100% effective. They’re not like a force-field. So we can still pick up diseases even if we’ve been vaccinated. In addition, all vaccines have a different level of effectiveness. Some are more effective than the other, some are more effective after you’ve had two shots, as opposed to one shot. </p>
<p>But if you do catch the disease when you’re vaccinated, it’s much less likely you’ll get severe complications, severe side-effects, and the severity of duration of the disease will be reduced. </p>
<p><strong>Myth Number 4: My unvaccinated child should be no risk to your vaccinated child.</strong></p>
<p>Vaccines are not 100% effective. And there’s also many people in the community who can’t be fully vaccinated or can’t be vaccinated at all. For example, very young babies may have not had any vaccines yet so they’re at risk of contracting disease, and they’re more likely to die. </p>
<p>Also some people have suppressed immune systems or may be receiving cancer therapies. They can’t have vaccinations. Community immunity is the term we give when everyone is vaccinated – thus we can protect the community. Vaccination is not just a personal choice, it’s a social responsibility. </p>
<p><strong>Myth Number 5: Vaccines contain toxins.</strong></p>
<p>So many of us these days turn to the internet to research our medications and to look up and diagnose our conditions. And if you type “vaccination” into Google, you’ll find a whole bunch of scary-sounding chemicals and toxins that are contained in vaccines. Well, in fact, they’re all there for a reason. </p>
<p>The most common one that people will say is dangerous is mercury. It’s also known as thiomersal or thimerosal. But it was taken out of all childhood scheduled vaccines in the year 2000. It’s simply not there.</p>
<p>Some of the other compounds such as formaldehyde, that is in vaccines, but there’s 600 times more formaldehyde in a pear that you eat than what you get in a vaccine. And your body naturally makes formaldehyde. </p>
<p><strong>Myth Number 6: Vaccines can overwhelm a child’s immune system.</strong></p>
<p>Now this is a concept that some people call “too many too soon”. And it can seem logical to think: “my tiny baby’s body can’t take all these vaccines”. Very recently, the Institute of Medicine in the US looked at the number of vaccines that children receive on the childhood immunisation schedule. </p>
<p>After extensive study and meticulous analysis, they determined that they are quite safe. For the amount of immune challenges that a child might experience in their environment every day equals between 2000 and 6000, whereas across the lifetime of a child schedule, it’s only about 150. So there’s nothing to worry about with overwhelming a child’s immune system. </p>
<p><strong>Postscript:</strong></p>
<p>Despite the array of opinions online, there are reliable sources on the web that you can head to for information. One good tip is to search for “immunisation”, not “vaccination”.</p>
<p>Most hits that come up for “vaccination” contain anti-immunisation messages.</p>
<p>Also look for government sites such as Immunise Australia or the Australian Academy of Sciences. Otherwise, have a chat with your GP or immunisation nurse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/14699/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachael Dunlop receives funding from The Institute for Ethnomedicine, WY. She is a Vice President of Australian Skeptics Inc. and an administrator of the Stop the AVN Facebook page</span></em></p>In recent years there’s been growing debate around the safety of vaccinations – but how much of this is based on untruths? In the latest collaboration between SBS and The Conversation, Dr Rachael Dunlop…Rachael Dunlop, Post-doctoral fellow, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/141142013-05-10T03:43:43Z2013-05-10T03:43:43ZA view on: high-speed rail in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/23490/original/bx6t6m4y-1368152745.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>Welcome to the second in our new series of <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/">video collaborations with SBS</a>. In this episode, Dr Rico Merkert, Senior Lecturer in Aviation Management at the University of Sydney, gives his view on the Australian federal government’s plans for high-speed rail.</em></strong></p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LHalum5EUn8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><strong>Introduction:</strong></p>
<p>For trips of less than 400 kilometres, the door-to-door travel time on high speed trains doesn’t differ all that much to flying. And the longer trips - including the proposed Sydney to Melbourne route in under three hours - may be hindered by communities on the way demanding a stop of their own. </p>
<p>While the environmental benefits are also often cited, there are also some hidden environmental downsides - not to mention cost. Merkert proposes that, as the European example shows, high-speed rail complementing air travel may be the more viable option, if it ever happens in Australia.</p>
<p><strong>Full video transcript:</strong></p>
<p>Modern high-speed trains are very fast, comfortable, reliable – they connect city centre with city centre.</p>
<p>Because these trains come with power sockets, free WiFi, stable mobile phone operation, people can spend that travel time working on the trains.</p>
<p>High-speed train travel offers less waiting time at airports and substantially less hassle with security, check-in and luggage. Given that Sydney-Melbourne is the fourth busiest airline route in the world, there is quite a lot of demand for high-speed travelling along Australia’s east cost. But the process of implementing high-speed rail in Australia is no easy feat. High-speed trains require high-speed infrastructure. </p>
<p>I’m originally from Germany, where high-speed trains connecting the large cities are the norm. This is true for most Western European countries, China, Japan, South Korea and even Russia.</p>
<p>Australian airlines shouldn’t be too afraid with losing some of the most important domestic routes. I actually think high-speed trains can help Sydney airport with its predicted capacity problems. Airlines in Europe actually use high speed trains to feed their long haul international routes through the hubs.</p>
<p>Many people talk about the potential of transforming Canberra into a second Sydney airport. Giving what we have seen so far in Europe it would make a lot more sense to connect Canberra’s city centre with Sydney airport with long haul international flights.</p>
<p>First of all it is questionable whether the assumed 84 million passengers would materialise. Also all the evidence that we have from Europe suggests subsidies that will be required particularly for the infrastructure operation.</p>
<p>The question is then if the government should spend tax payers money on a service that is already provided by the private sector at a profitable level in the form of aviation.</p>
<p>The required tunnelling of some 144 kilometres is not only costly but will bring with it a substantial amount of consultation. Many people claim that high speed trains emit a lot less CO2 emissions compared to an aeroplane but, of course, you would have to also factor in the energy intense construction phase, you also have to consider the energy mix once the high speed train is in operation.</p>
<p>They assume that these trains were run constantly at 350 kilometres per hour, the fastest trains in Europe, China and Japan currently run at 320 kilometres maximum. We would have to have non-stop connections between the city centres of Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Brisbane this is because it takes a while to slow down and also to accelerate. This is not only time consuming but also very energy intense.</p>
<p>These trains wouldn’t stop anywhere else which would surely will create some opposition amongst the communities that currently hope to benefit from the train stop in exchange for having a high speed train going through their backyard.</p>
<p>And all of that doesn’t even consider the A$114 billion upfront infrastructure cost that are likely to go up given the amount of tunnelling that is required.</p>
<p>High-speed rail in Australia would be very exciting indeed to have, but unless the government is prepared to make a strategic rather than a cost benefit decision on this project I don’t see any high-speed rail coming to Australia in the near future.</p>
<p><em>The Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at the University of Sydney Business School will host “HSR in Australia forum – is it value for money?” on May 22, 2013.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/14114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rico Merkert 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.</span></em></p>Welcome to the second in our new series of video collaborations with SBS. In this episode, Dr Rico Merkert, Senior Lecturer in Aviation Management at the University of Sydney, gives his view on the Australian…Rico Merkert, Senior Lecturer in Aviation Management, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/138682013-05-01T23:14:12Z2013-05-01T23:14:12ZA view on: Australia’s manufacturing industry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/23096/original/8w2vqfbk-1367379334.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> </figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>Welcome to the first in our new series of <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/">video collaborations with SBS</a>. In this episode, Dr Phillip Toner, a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney, gives his view on Australia’s manufacturing industry.</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Do let us know what you think and, if you like what you see, spread the word.</strong></em></p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3J3MCXQnOhs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><strong>Full video transcript:</strong></p>
<p>Many people seem to equate manufacturing with 19th century technology, with the steam engine and grease, but in fact that is not the case.</p>
<p>What is manufacturing? It is pharmaceuticals, it’s advanced industrial chemistry, it’s advanced materials, nanotubes.</p>
<p>Consider the car industry. It draws on an extraordinarily wide-range of advanced technology and services, advanced metallurgy, machining. Consider the millions of lines of code that go into engine management systems and safety systems of modern vehicles.</p>
<p>Australia is just one of 13 countries in the world that have the capacity to go from the drawing board right through to the production line and the showroom - and every country that has that capacity seeks to nurture its industry. The modern motor vehicle industry sits at the very heart of a national input-output system at the very heart of its national science and technology base.</p>
<p>Well, so what? Surely the resource sector can fill the gap? But in fact under present policy settings the resource sector draws most of its advanced components - its advanced manufactured inputs - from overseas, in contrast to many other countries with large resource sectors, such as Norway.</p>
<p>The other consequence of increasing dependence on a large resource sector is that growth in the economy and tax receipts of governments will become increasingly volatile as a consequence of the large swings in commodity prices and national income.</p>
<p>It is explicit government policy to shift resources away from manufacturing and other non-resource based industries into the resource sector. This sets up a vicious cycle; every time there is a boom in the resource sector, the rest of the non-resource parts of the economy are actually forced to shrink.</p>
<p>Another consequence of the decline of Australian manufacturing is this ever widening trade deficit as we increasingly import more of our manufactured products.</p>
<p>The Australian science and technology base is fairly fragile.</p>
<p>The science and technology base in Australia is much more dependent on government funding than in many other countries. There really isn’t the type of political consensus that can ensure its continued funding.</p>
<p>We can ill-afford to lose an industry such as manufacturing which is so science and technology intensive. 25% of total private sector R&D is conducted by manufacturing. You go back ten years and the figure was 50%. It is simply not sustainable in the long run for a country to embark on a strategy (whereby) it can think it can retain the advanced science and technology but outsource manufacturing. It is simply not possible in the long run to divorce those two.</p>
<p>The continuing and rapid decline of the manufacturing industry isn’t inevitable. There is undoubtedly a cost in attempting to retain a large and sophisticated manufacturing industry. However what we have to consider is, what is the cost of its continued decline?</p>
<p><br>
<strong>Further reading:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-choice-the-high-road-to-productivity-or-a-race-to-the-bottom-10695">Australia’s choice: the ‘high road’ to productivity or a race to the bottom</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/13868/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phillip Toner 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.</span></em></p>Welcome to the first in our new series of video collaborations with SBS. In this episode, Dr Phillip Toner, a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney…Phillip Toner, Honorary Senior Research Fellow Department of Political Economy, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.