Census of whales in Australia
SBS Indonesian
03/07/2025 06:27 Indonesian Citizen scientists have taken part in the 26th annual whale census, with the number of reported sightings breaking the previous record set in 2023. Every year, Australians gather along the country's eastern coastline to document the world's longest mammal migration. About 40,000 humpback whales travel from Antarctica to warmer waters along the Australian coast where they mate, give birth and babysit their newborn babies. Listen to SBS Indonesian every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday at 3pm.
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram , and don't miss our podcasts .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
CSIRO develops landmark framework to protect deep sea ecosystems
In the face of calls from around the Pacific for a moratorium or a complete ban, there's a new twist in the ongoing debate over deep sea mining. Australia's peak scientific body the CSIRO has developed the first environmental management and monitoring frameworks designed to protect deep sea ecosystems should the International Seabed Authority allow mining to go ahead. The project was commissioned by the Canadian exploration corporation, The Metals Company... and the research findings are based on its test mining activities in international waters known as the Clarion-Clipperton zone. FEATURED: CSIRO's Senior Principal Research Scientist, Dr Piers Dunstan
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
What is lyssavirus? Rare bat disease claims a fourth life in Australia
The rare but deadly lyssavirus has now claimed four lives in Australia. New South Wales Health confirmed a man aged in his 50s from the state's north died from the virus on Thursday after being bitten by a bat several months ago. It was the first known case in NSW. Here's what we know about the disease. Lyssavirus is a rabies-like infection transmitted via a bite or scratch from an infected bat to humans and other mammals, such as dogs and cats, or by exposure to an infected animal's saliva through the eyes, nose or mouth. NSW Health says lyssavirus affects the central nervous system and can take anywhere from weeks to years to present. The early symptoms are flu-like and include headache, fever and fatigue. The illness progresses rapidly to paralysis, delirium and convulsions. Death usually follows within a fortnight. Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV) has been found in species of flying foxes, fruit bats and insect-eating microbats, and has been detected in NSW, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia. The CSIRO first identified the Australian bat lyssavirus in 1996 after a black flying fox was found displaying nervous symptoms near Ballina in northern NSW. Later that year a Queensland woman who had recently become a bat handler started to suffer numbness and weakness in her arm before falling into a coma and dying. In 1998 and 2013, respectively, a woman and an eight-year-old died after they were bitten or scratched by bats. University of Sydney veterinary scientist Alison Peel said bats had coevolved with lyssavirus over a number of years. "We know that a large number of bats have been exposed to the virus but not gone on to have clinical signs that they ultimately die of," she said. "It's a small proportion of bats that go on to develop those clinical signs, whereas in people and other animals it ultimately causes those clinical signs. Dr Peel said it was yet to be understood why some bats were resistant to the disease and that infected bats often exhibited erratic and aggressive behaviour. Trish Paterson, who ran the Australian Bat Clinic and Wildlife Trauma Centre in Queensland, said less than 0.1 per cent of the Australian bat population was infected with lyssavirus. "They catch it from a bite or a scratch from an infected bat, so the bats die from it exactly the same away we do, and it's nasty, very painful, and can take three to four weeks for an animal to die once they've contracted lyssavirus," she said. Ms Paterson said being fully vaccinated against rabies was crucial for anyone who handled bats and that it was worrying that another person had died from an infection despite receiving prompt medical attention. "If he received treatment and still contracted the virus, that would be a little bit concerning," she said. There is no cure for lyssavirus but there are measures that can limit the likelihood of a person developing the disease, including the rabies vaccine. "ABLV is closely enough related to rabies that all of the preventative measures developed around the world for rabies, including vaccines and post-exposure treatment, work against ABLV," Dr Peel said. She said the vaccinations were vital for anyone coming into contact with bats, including carers, veterinarians and wildlife officers. Dr Peel said anyone bitten or scratched by a bat should immediately wash the wound thoroughly for 15 minutes with soap and water and apply an antiviral antiseptic before allowing the affected area to dry. Post-exposure treatment involves getting a course of the rabies vaccine and potentially a dose of antibodies. "You're giving your immune system a head start rather than waiting for it to develop those antibodies," Dr Peel said. Dr Peel said it was rare for post-exposure treatment to fail. There is no cure once the disease is detected in the body. People are advised to avoid contact with bats and call WIRES on 1300 094 737 if they find a bat in distress, injured or trapped on the ground.
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Eight sunscreens that failed their SPF claims tested by same lab, Princeton Consumer Research
At least half the sunscreens that failed to meet their SPF claims in recent testing had their original SPF certification conducted at an overseas laboratory whose test results are now being called into question by senior industry experts. An ABC investigation can reveal that the lab, Princeton Consumer Research (PCR), is used by a wide range of sunscreen makers to verify their SPF claims before they are allowed on the Australian market. Consumer group Choice released test results from an Australian lab for 20 popular sunscreens last month and found that 16 of them did not meet their SPF 50 label claim, including one that returned an SPF result of just four. In response to the findings, the brands said they had their own original testing showing their SPF was compliant. The ABC can reveal that at least eight of those tests were performed by Princeton Consumer Research, which returned significantly higher SPF results than the Choice testing. A number of senior industry experts have raised concerns about PCR's testing methodology and calculations. Mathias Rohr, one of the world's top sunscreen testing experts, said he had never seen results like PCR's in his entire career, while another senior sunscreen scientist told the ABC the results warranted investigation. The ABC has confirmed that the underperforming sunscreens which used PCR for their initial SPF validation include three Cancer Council products, one Woolworths sunscreen, one Coles sunscreen, one Ultra Violette sunscreen, one Bondi Sands sunscreen and a Sun Bum product. Another two sunscreens that met their SPF 50 label in the Choice testing — a MECCA sunscreen and a Cancer Council Kids sunscreen — used PCR, with the PCR lab returning much higher SPF results. Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mineral Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen returned the worst result in the Choice testing, with an SPF of just four. Ultra Violette rejected the Choice result and published two of its own tests conducted by PCR — one commissioned immediately after the Choice investigation, as well as its original testing. Both returned an SPF value above 60. But industry experts have raised serious concerns about the reliability of PCR's testing for Ultra Violette. In SPF testing, a panel of ten volunteers is exposed to UV rays with and without sunscreen applied. The readings are then used to calculate an SPF result for each volunteer. The mean of those results is the final SPF. Mathias Rohr, chief operating officer of the Germany-based Normec Schrader Institute, described the SPF results in PCR's original report as "quite surprising". In an email, Dr Rohr said there was very little variation in the SPF number recorded for each test subject. He said his lab had conducted SPF testing for decades, spanning more than 1,000 products a year, and that "a table of results including only two different numbers is quite surprising for me". "In my entire career, we have not [had] such homogeneous results in an in vivo [human] SPF test," Dr Rohr said. The institute was engaged by Choice to conduct a specific "validation" test on Ultra Violette's product, because the SPF results were so low compared to the other sunscreens. The validation test returned an SPF result of five, in line with Choice's original result of four. Ultra Violette criticised the validation test as it was performed on a smaller panel of people than the original. Two other experts not involved in Choice's testing agreed that the lack of variation in individual SPF test results was a red flag. One industry scientist who looked over a number of PCR's test results told the ABC it was "unusual to see this kind of spread of SPF results" and it "would never happen in real life". "All I could do would be to suggest, recommend that they investigate that data because it doesn't look realistic." While he said there may be a valid explanation for the uniformity of data, "I don't have any explanation for why that has happened like that". An expert scientific statistician who looked over the same PCR results agreed. He said this type of test procedure could generate identical values "more often than one might suspect" but he said, "it does seem odd that they're lining up that cleanly". "There is no obvious data manipulation as far as I can tell, however it is odd how frequently the same numbers appear for different individuals and in different tests," he said. "It seems unusual, and I would ask the lab people about why they're getting that." PCR technical director Barrie Drewitt, who is also one of the lab's principal investigators, defended the results. While conceding the uniformity of SPF values was "uncommon", he insisted it was "not inherently implausible, particularly with high-performing products and consistent application across a controlled test environment". A spokesperson for Ultra Violette said it had now "engaged another [separate] lab to re-test the SPF of the product". "That testing is currently underway." The spokesperson added that because PCR is an internationally accredited lab, "we've never had reason to doubt the accuracy of the lab's results". The Cancer Council's PCR reports released to the ABC display a similar lack of variability in their individual test subject results. Of the four Cancer Council products tested by Choice, three didn't meet their SPF label claims and one did. In one test, nine of the ten volunteers received exactly the same results, while in three other tests, the results of eight volunteers were identical. Another PCR technical director, Jack Donnelly, conceded that the lack of variability was not as common as more variation between subjects. "However, it is not rare to see. It just so happens the test results you are observing have a consistent SPF value between each subject," he said. In a statement, the Cancer Council said it was committed to providing high quality, reliable sunscreens. "The Choice findings have raised questions about the accuracy of SPF test results, and we are investigating the matter thoroughly." It said the organisation had already submitted all four products tested by Choice to a different independent international laboratory. "Princeton Consumer Research is a commonly used facility for SPF testing across the industry," it said. The Cancer Council spokesperson said that even sunscreens that scored lower than their SPF label claim still provided protection. "It is important to keep using sunscreen … What matters most is using any broad-spectrum sunscreen correctly and consistently." The ABC investigation has also discovered that in 2010, Mr Drewitt was disqualified from being a company director in the UK for eight years, for financial mismanagement at a previous testing firm. Euroderm Research went into liquidation in 2008, owing creditors more than 500,000 British pounds ($1,037,307). Mr Drewitt was also accused of fabricating clinical trial data in 2006 and 2007 at Euroderm Research. According to media reports, Mr Drewitt and others at the company were charged with contravening the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations in 2011. However, the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) presented no evidence for these charges at the trial, and the charges were withdrawn. The judge ordered the jury to find Mr Drewitt and his co-defendants not guilty. The ABC is not suggesting any wrongdoing by Mr Drewitt in relation to the historical charges that were dismissed. Mr Drewitt did not comment on his directorship disqualification, but said in a statement that the clinical trial charges were laid over a decade ago and "thrown out of court". "It is also worth noting that I was not an owner nor a director of that company. I was an employee. "The claims were not only dismissed but effectively proven to be without merit. "It is deeply misleading to suggest otherwise or to infer wrongdoing from a matter that was legally resolved in our favour." He added that the historical accusation had "no bearing on the company I currently am employed by [Princeton Consumer Research]". "Our methodologies, data integrity, and quality control processes are robust and verifiable," Mr Drewitt said. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which regulates sunscreens in Australia, told the ABC it was recently made aware of Mr Drewitt's previous business record. However, the TGA told the ABC it did not directly regulate SPF testing by third-party labs such as PCR. Instead, it relied on self-certification by sunscreen manufacturers that their products met all regulatory requirements. "As such, the TGA does not hold information regarding whether PCR is engaged by a majority of sunscreen sponsors," a spokesperson said. "The TGA is investigating the Choice findings and will take regulatory action as required," the spokesperson said. The Cancer Council told the ABC it was committed to working closely with the TGA as they progressed their investigation. Campbell Richards, CEO of Baxter Laboratories, one of Australia's largest sunscreen manufacturers, which engages laboratories including PCR for testing, said the company took questions around the integrity of sunscreen testing seriously. "Confidence in SPF testing is a priority for us and for our partners. We recognise the significance of this moment for the category and are committed to contributing to clarity and trust across the sector," Mr Richards said. "We are monitoring developments closely and remain focused on ensuring that the products we are responsible for meet the expected standards of safety, efficacy, and regulatory compliance," he said. A TGA spokesperson also reiterated that sunscreen was "an important measure to prevent harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation, in addition to seeking shade, wearing a wide-brimmed hat, wearing protective clothing and using sunglasses". The ABC approached all the other companies that had products which underperformed in the Choice review and used PCR for their original SPF certification. A spokesperson for Woolworths said all its own brand sunscreens were regularly tested as per Australian regulations. A spokesperson for Coles said as soon as it became aware of Choice's query it conducted a review, and its product met the necessary requirements. The ABC has confirmed Bondi Sands's underperforming sunscreen in Choice's review, its SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen, also used PCR for its original testing. A spokesperson for Bondi Sands did not respond to specific questions about PCR's testing but said "we choose our manufacturing partners and testing laboratories carefully based on our high quality and safety standards". Sun Bum didn't reply to a series of questions, but the ABC has confirmed its product, which received an SPF rating of 39.5 in the Choice review, also had its validation SPF testing conducted by PCR. Aldi, Banana Boat, and Nivea also returned SPF results lower than their advertised claims in Choice's investigation, but would not disclose which labs conducted their testing. Neutrogena had one product that didn't meet its label claim, and told the ABC it didn't use PCR for its SPF testing for that product. In a statement from Invisible Zinc, which also didn't meet its label claim, said its testing was performed at an Australian lab, and not PCR. The MECCA sunscreen met its SPF claim according to the Choice review. A spokesperson for the company said it used PCR. "We are incredibly passionate about SPF and we take the formulation and testing of our sunscreen protection products extremely seriously," the MECCA spokesperson said. La Roche Posay's product also met its label claim but the company did not respond to the ABC's questions about which sunscreen lab it used.
