one would think with the MASSIVE healthcare? beaurocracys statistics like these would be easily accessable how bout non hodgkins lymphoma rates in some farming shires? 40 dead boys in Afganistan doesnt look good; but AUs stats are better than USA (It took a bit of fragging to improve our wartime stats)
I would like to know the statistics for prescribed drug overdose in Australia I heard recently the figure is higher than vehicle deaths But I think that was in the US.
According to this source, just one (1) 'government administration and defence' worker died in the comparative year. I'm presuming they mean non-combat, or maybe even admin roles (as I'm sure there where a few defence personal killed in 'training' incidents during that same year)? Note: The above source also claims fifty (50) 'agriculture, forestry & fishing' workers died in that same year. All goes to show, sometimes you have to cross-reference your stats, and then be very clear with definitions. Even then, some times the numbers just don't add up. Welcome to world of 'the researcher/critical reviewer'. It can be very frustrating at times.
According to this article citing coronial records, in Victoria (fairly indicative of Australia), in the comparative year (2012): ...prescription drugs contributed to the deaths of 304 Victorians in 2012, up 13 per cent from 270 in 2011. A total of 282 people died on Victoria's roads last year. Overall, drug overdoses caused the deaths of 367 Victorians last year, with some deaths caused by a combination of prescription and illicit drugs. Illicit drugs were a factor in 131 deaths. As an aside, and concerning the USA, overlay the two maps in this report, and one is able to see in the states where more prescription (in this case, 'painkiller') drugs are sold, in general more people overdose. Now, overlay this Wikipedia map and note, at a glance, it appears that *some* states with progressive cannabis laws also appear to have fewer prescription overdoses. Should be interesting to watch Washington and Colorado into the future to see if the rates fall further post November 2012, when cannabis was legalised in both states.
Would have to drill down to health records per LGA (of which there are about 565). Would be a good research project for someone to undertake and map.
Not sure how we got here from an election but it is all interesting! https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/whats-causing-spike-non-hodgkin-lymphoma https://www.uniken.unsw.edu.au/features/written-body My brother-in-law is just finishing 6 months of intensive chemotherapy for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and his prognosis at this stage looks very good.
Cheers, MITH. I guess it's all connected in the sense that this is the stuff politicians should be debating in policy discourse. Writing of which, looks like a good lineup on the Q&A panel tonight. BTW, thanks for the great links to some great embarkation of scientific voyages. And, I'm glad your BiL's outlook is 'very good'. Regards, M
Just back on the political stuff; I wrote a little while ago to Senator Nick Xenophon about a very serious conservation issue in southern Africa and whether he could indirectly offer any help, advice etc. Today I got a reply with a copy of his personal letter to the Federal Minister for Environment, Heritage and Water asking what measures if any the Australian govt. have taken on the issue (as it has not only serious natural heritage implications but security implications also - think arms financing, drug trafficking and terrorism.) He has promised to write back to me as soon as he gets a reply from the Minister. To be honest I was pleasantly surprised and at least gladdened to have 'the system' working for me instead of feeling like it's the other way around!
Yeah, considering his current Senate term expires in 2014, it will be interesting to see if he gets another seat via the upcoming election.
I notice this group has green leanings! I watched Ghandi the other nite and he said somthing like' if they fight you ;you win!" i find it very hard to accept the victory and not return the verballing! Im getting better at it on good days!:rofl: With our achieve a yield mantra ;I guess that places us on the right side of green!
Please share your thoughts,enlighten us as to how you came to your decision and what your alternative view is.
The AEC finally got around to updating the list of registered political parties on its website. So in addition to those already studied, and on the issue of climate change, here's a few more positions for you to mull over: Australian Sovereignty Party No specific policy. Australian Voice Party No specific policy. Drug Law Reform Party No specific policy. Future Party Self-labeled 'technophiles', the FP have a very comprehensive policy platform regarding climate change (and just about everything else under the sun it seems). But, what else would you expect from a party that is truly future-orientated? Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop the Greens) No prizes for guessing their position, haha. However, no specific policy. The 23 Million No specific policy, although an interesting 'single-issue' party looking to reform the entire governance system. Well, that's it, at least for now. Note: There are another eight parties pending approval.
I had a go at Vote Compass but I have some issues with it. It's touted as a way to gauge how you align with each of the major political parties and their 'policies'. What disturbs me that most is that it gives the impression that the policies of the major parties are just those ones that you see and hear about in the popular media. So is that all their policies? I was expecting a much more detailed look into the parties and their overall policy and philosophical view point. One of the questions it asks you later in the process is how would you vote if this election was today. I hovered between Greens and 'I will spoil my vote' well once the process was over I actually thought I might be even closer to 'spoiling' my vote than I was beforehand. This is so even though I had a pretty high percentage correlation with the Greens. The other parties fittingly had almost no correlation with my views. Anyone else have a go?
Yes I had a go Grahame. Same as you it wasn't as comprehensive as I would have liked. Not all policies in there and the designers seem to have picked out what they think are most important issues. Still it is an interesting exercise. No surprises for me. High percentage green.
I had a look at it, but perhaps like you, Grahame, found it was targeting the un/ill-informed (which I guess is about 80% of the electorate), and as such found it to be of little interest to me. If you are looking for a more detailed comparison between the majors (LIB, ALP, GRN), and their respective policies, try the following: https://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/policy/ Failing that, if you want to see what the positions of all the candidates are with respect to issues that are of interest to you, then you are just going to have to do what I did (i.e. with 'climate change'), and study their individual policy platforms available at their respective websites. In the lower house, my choice (in the seat of Bendigo) is, at this stage (nominations don't close until 14 Aug), rather slim, and I'll have to wait and see which way each of the candidates direct their preferences before I decide who (if any) gets my vote. In the (Victorian) upper house, things are not much better. But once again, I'll just have to wait until the final ballot draw is called. It's a pity, but my old mate Dr Joseph Toscano does not appear to be in the running. His platform in the Higgins by-election was one that I really liked, especially the second last dot point.
I had a go at it. Similar concerns about its' limitations. Still an interesting exercise. Result: close to landing on planet Green, planet Labor orbiting and planet Liberals was out in a galaxy far, far away.