Swine Flu Continued

The swine flu saga still continues in the media, however in a slightly calmer manner. Not every swine flu article is predicting the downfall of the human race anymore. Many of the stories, such as this article in the New York Times, are reporting on the decreasing danger of the flu, as it declines.

MEXICO CITY — Citing an ebb in the number of swine flu cases, Mexican officials said Monday that they would lower the public alert against the virus and allow most of the nation’s businesses to reopen this week, even as the outbreak, which appears to have started in Mexico, continued its spread worldwide.

The article goes on to say that the virus may not have been as serious as first thought.

In another sign that the disease may not be as serious as feared, Mr. Cordova said that the flu, influenza A(H1N1), appears only slightly more contagious than the seasonal flu, less than thought. Each sufferer is, on average, passing the disease along to between 1.4 and 1.8 people, a statistic known as the R factor. The number of new cases is declining in Mexico, he said, and no deaths have been reported since April 29.

The media frenzy has died down, and the papers have gradually backed away from the panic angle. There are many articles that say that the flu has slowed down and nearly peaked, although they have retained some suspense and worry with the idea that the virus could return with a vengeance in Autumn.

Mexican police- The Australian photo gallery

Some papers have dedicated an entire feature to the swine flu ‘pandemic.’ Both The Australian and The Times have a whole section on Swine Flu. The Australian’s feature has links such as WHO alerts, Q&A, and gallery.

The Times’ feature has sections such as Swine Flu, The Facts and Analysis and Comment. Both features contain a multitude of news stories on the disease, as well as tips on how to deal with it and expert opinions.

Some journalists, such as author of the article mentioned in my previous post, evaluate how the media has sensationalised the swine flu pandemic, seemingly forgetting that they themselves helped to fuel the panic. Others, such as in this story, seem to imply that it is the health authorities that may have overreacted.

HEALTH Minister Nicola Roxon has denied health authorities around the world have overreacted to the threat of swine flu – which she said has caused only 20 confirmed deaths – saying Australia will not be scaling back its response.

Ms Roxon said despite indications the spread of the disease was slowing it remained likely a case of swine flu would be detected sooner or later in Australia.

The articles that report on the decreasing danger of the disease still make it clear that all is not well yet, as if to retain the sense of drama.

This story reports that the latest figures are that 19 people have died, and the number of confirmed cases in Mexico are 506. This article, like various others, has compared the swine flu to the deadly Spanish flu in 1918-19. They say that like the Spanish flu, swine flu could return in autumn/winter.

This may be true, or just another beat up by the media.

The journalists on this topic usually approach the story from an angle. Some stories seem to present the straight facts, however most seem to have some drama thrown in, or sensationalisation. The story is a global one, in every newspaper and news story, so the journalist here may feel the need to sensationalise to make their story stand out and more interesting.

Cancer Drug Subsidies

Cancer drugs will now be subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benifits Scheme, allowing easier access to them by sufferers. The ABC recently published this article about the subsidies.

The Federal Government says it will find $600 million in this year’s Budget to improve access to cancer drugs.

The bowel cancer drug Avastin is among those to be added to the list of subsidised drugs under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

Health Minister Nicola Roxon says the move will ease the financial burden on many cancer sufferers.

“These drugs are expensive,” she said.

“We have made room for them to be able to be funded. Sutent, Avastin and Herceptin deal with some of the most severe types of cancer, liver cancer and breast cancer.

The Government announced on Friday that it would start subsidising Sutent, which is used to treat renal cell carcinoma, the most common form of kidney cancer.

The article is a positive one, describing the benefits the new subsidisations will have on people with cancer. However, towards the end of the article, it brings in a negative aspect as well. The idea of cuts to the health sector is brought in, to weigh the argument out, and provide opposition to the argument.

Australian Medical Association president Rosanna Capolingua has also welcomed the Government’s announcement.

But she says the $600 million announcement adds weight to concerns the Government is planning to cut the Medicare Safety Net and the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.

“There’s a lot of talk about how savings are going to be made in health,” she said.

“We are very concerned that the Government may attempt to make savings by cutting back.”

The article is straightforward, with just the main facts included, as well as a variety of quotes and sources. There is no real need for sensationalist reporting or exaggeration, as it is mostly just an informative article. There is no real feature, it is just a straight news story. It appears balanced, with the mention of two sides of the issue.

Pandemic or Panic?

We’re all on red alert. It’s an international crisis, a pandemic, and we’re all going to catch the swine influenza. The newspapers are having a field day, or should I say, field week.

12 people are confirmed dead, according to this BBC article. 

Mexico is beginning a five-day shutdown of parts of its economy in a bid to slow the spread of swine flu.

Non-essential government services will be suspended, while businesses such as cinemas and restaurants will be closed.

Mexican officials say the spread of the virus – suspected in more than 160 deaths – is slowing, but international experts are more cautious.

Globally, cases of swine flu have now been confirmed in 12 countries across three continents.

In cases outside Mexico the virus does not appear to be severe, although one death has been confirmed in the US.

The WHO has set its pandemic alert level at five – but says it has no immediate plans to move to the highest level of six.

There are approximately 6 billion people in the world, and 12 people have died. This is hardly a global pandemic. While the virus has caused havoc in Mexico, and panic at most national airports, it has not actually had many fatal cases at all.

The BBC article provided a list of numbers regarding deaths and cases of the influenza.

Mexico: 168 suspected deaths – 12 confirmed

US: one death, at least 109 confirmed cases

New Zealand: 3 confirmed, 13 probable cases

Canada: 19 confirmed cases

UK: 8 confirmed cases

Spain: 10 confirmed cases

Germany: 3 confirmed cases

Israel, Costa Rica: 2 confirmed cases each

The Netherland, Switzerland, Austria: 1 confirmed case each

The media has jumped on the swine flu case with great enthusiasm. Panic inducing articles and exaggeration have fueled people’s fears and caused global chaos.

A scientist handles viral samples at Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, where experts are testing flu samples for H1N1- The Times

Some journalists however, have chosen to approach the topic from a different angle. This Sydney Morning Herald article evaluates whether the swine flu is just a beat up by the media and their use of sensationalist stories.

The real swine flu “pandemic” is not the one threatening large numbers with infection, but the viral spread of sensationalist coverage through the ranks of the media, commentators say.

As the World Health Organisation foreshadowed an imminent pandemic, the “panic stoked” by the media over swine flu has also come into focus.

When asked whether Australian authorities and the media had exaggerated swine flu threats, Health Minister Nicola Roxon said there was a balancing act underway between informing the public and not causing panic.

But it seems that panic is still rife among the masses. This article does point out that it is not only the media that are sensationalising the ‘crisis.’

Claire Hooker, a senior lecturer on medical ethics and law at the University of Sydney, said some blame for the media’s coverage lay at the feet of governments.

“It’s not that the mass media has been outrageously sensationalist; after all, editors do have to sell newspapers and to some extent they are only responding to the ramping-up that’s happening in the halls of government, where politicians and some health officials have upped the ante, moved the response systems to the next number up and spoken grave warnings that sound great in a lead article,” she wrote in Crikey this week.

“No public health official could bear to think that a pandemic occurred because they didn’t act cautiously enough,” she wrote.

The World Health Organisation named the swine flu as a ‘pandemic.’ The BBC article said that the WHO have set the virus at alert level five, six being the highest level. 12 people have died, yet we are at alert level five?

The Sydney Morning Herald article examines the media’s panic- causing reporting.

Part of the reason for the media raising anxiety levels was that it loved getting into “panic mode coverage”, wrote blog publisher Arianna Huffington.

“There’s a distinction between obviously keeping our readers and viewers up to date and sensationalising the story.

“It’s easy for the media to get into panic mode coverage, but very often these things don’t pan out, and the problem is that we’re becoming like the boy who cried wolf.”

The article makes a good point here. If only 12 people have died, yet the alert level is five and it’s a national pandemic, what will happen when there is a virus of actual pandemic proportions? A pandemic, really, is a disease of epic proportions which has spread widely across the population. The Plague could perhaps be described as a pandemic. This Reuters article headline asks, ‘Will pandemic be mild, or kill millions?’  This oxymoron of a headline reveals the ridiculous classifying of the swine flu. A pandemic, by nature is not mild at all, it is defined as a widespread disease that affects people in different nations.

GENEVA (Reuters) – Swine flu will carry the name “pandemic” even if the new virus turns out to cause mainly mild symptoms as it sweeps the world, raising questions about how serious the global alert actually is.

Yes, there have been many hundreds of people suspected to be infected with the swine flu, but the tiniest fraction of these have actually been confirmed dead. Just like the boy who cried wolf, will the public take seriously a ‘pandemic’ of a different kind next time? It is disconcerting  to consider what an actual pandemic could do.

However, the media have overreacted and spawned panic. We are not actually all going to die.

Flu outbreak in Mexico

 There has been an outbreak of swine flu in Mexico, which is thought to have killed around 68 people. This article describes the epic consequences that this could have, not just on Mexico, but the rest of the world.

A new swine flu outbreak that has killed up to 68 people in Mexico has “pandemic potential”, the World Health Organisation has warned, as concern grew of the virus spreading in the US and worldwide.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon published an order that would give his government extraordinary powers to tackle the deadly multi-strain swine flu outbreak, as at least two new cases were reported in the United States.

The article establishes an immediate sense of significance with the mention of the World Health Organistation and United Nations, suggesting this is a global problem.

“This virus has clearly a pandemic potential,” said Margaret Chan, the head of the WHO, on Saturday.

The Geneva-based UN agency branded the outbreak “a public health emergency of international concern”, following a meeting of its emergency committee.

In a statement, it said it was recommending that all nations “intensify surveillance for unusual outbreaks of influenza-like illness and severe pneumonia”.

'Fear of pandemic as killer flu strain spreads' - The Times

 

The article contains a variety of sources and quotes.

  “With infections in many different communities as we’re seeing, we don’t think that containment is feasible,” said Anne Schuchat of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  

The CDC said some of the Mexican victims had died from the same new strain of swine flu that affected eight people in Texas and California.

The journalist has employed medical jargon and emotive language, giving the article a sense of urgency and importance. The use of emotive words such as ‘pandemic,’ ‘epidemic,’ ‘virus,’ ‘deaths’ and ‘infected’ help to instill concern in the readers, and give the article a highly serious feel.

 These features, along with the fact that unusually young healthy adults have fallen victim, and not the very old or very young, have given rise to fears of an epidemic or even a pandemic.

 Mexican Health Minister Jose Angel Cordova confirmed 20 deaths from swine flu late Friday and said authorities were probing another 48 who had died with similar symptoms.

In Mexico City, where 13 confirmed deaths occurred, officials said no deaths from swine flu had been registered on Friday.

Many fearful residents wore freely-distributed surgical masks on the streets on Saturday, after authorities urged people to avoid contact in public. 

 

 The story mostly just reports the facts and statistics, and employs multiple sources and quotes. This is a breaking news article, and is featured in other newspapers, such as The Times, New York Times, and The Australian.

Towards the end of the article it mentions that over 500 sports and cultural events have been cancelled for over a week. It also says that there are no travel restrictions on Mexico, however precautions are being taken.

Nanotechnology

Technology has had a large impact on health, and it is not just specific diseases being addressed. This article looks at nanotechnology being applied to medicine to produce patches that could replace needles in vaccination. Instead of needles, the painless ‘nanopatch’ can be applied to the skin.

The end of deep, painful vaccine injections is in sight. One of the first widespread applications of nanotechnology in medicine could be a painless, needle-free vaccine “nanopatch” being developed by Australian scientists.

It also promises to bring much-needed protection against deadly diseases to people in remote areas where there is a lack of refrigeration or disposable syringes for traditional vaccines. A nanopatch could be sent by post.

It will still pierce the skin. The centimetre-square silicon device has thousands of ultra-sharp microscopic spikes coated with dried vaccine. When applied lightly, it would cause no pain because it penetrates less than a hair’s thickness below the surface.

The tiny spikes deliver vaccine close to where immune cells, known as dendritic cells, are found. Hypodermic injections, on the other hand, inject most of the vaccine too deep to activate these disease-fighters, making the vaccine less effective.

The article goes on to discuss nanotechnology and its impact on modern medicine.

Nanotechnology – the science of the very small – will provide some of these solutions, he says. Along with the nanopatch devised by Professor Mark Kendall, vaccines engineered to resemble viruses are also being developed at the institute, as well as nanoparticles that can deliver drugs to where they are needed in the body.

“Nanotechnology is medicine’s next transforming technology,” says Gray, who oversees 360 scientists and engineers.

The benefits of such technology are great. The journalist emphasises the usefulness and positive nature of this new technology. The journalist highlights the danger of ancient diseases and uses a descriptive language style to present this.

Many of our ancient microbial foes remain unconquered, says Gray. Polio has begun to break out again in Third World countries where it had been eradicated. Malaria is resurgent in tropical regions, measles still thrives, and an influenza pandemic is a constant threat.

“Eliminating or controlling diseases that have haunted humans for millennia requires a quantum leap in vaccine technology,” Gray says.

The journalist uses war-like imagery to show the power of disease and puts the new technology in a good light. The new technology is seen as the step needed to eradicate disease. The article provides clear, in depth information. The story could be built on as new developments arise, or when it is possibly introduced further into medicine.

Stem cells continued

Returning to the stem cell topic for a third time, this time, stem cell therapy has been developed to cure blindness. It seems stem cells have a variety of uses,  from curing deafness, helping fertility and now helping cure blindness. This article discusses the latest developments in stem cell therapy, and the process involved.

A STEM cell therapy to cure the most common cause of blindness has been developed.

Surgeons predict it will become a routine one-hour procedure that will be generally available within seven years.

The treatment involves replacing a layer of degenerated cells with new ones created from embryonic stem cells. It was pioneered by scientists and surgeons from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London and Moorfields Eye Hospital in Britain.

Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical research company, will announce its financial backing this week to bring the therapy to patients.

The treatment will tackle age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the most common cause of blindness. The disease involves the loss of eye cells.

Under the new treatment, embryonic stem cells are transformed into replicas of the missing cells. They are then placed on an artificial membrane, which is inserted in the back of the retina.

The story also goes on to say

 Embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into all types of body tissue.

However, their use is controversial because it involves the destruction of human embryos.

This article  does acknowledge their controversial nature, and even provides the explanation of why.

 Only one of the previous three articles I looked at mentioned the other side of the research, and even this was only through the use of the word ‘controversial.’ The other articles did not acknowledge or mention stem cell research’s controversial side. One article even said

Marcelo Rivolta, who led the study at the University of Sheffield, said: “The potential of stem cells is very exciting. We have now an experimental system to study genes and drugs in a human context.

The article does not really look at both side of the stem cell story, presenting the view that it is ‘exciting’ and beneficial. While it does appear beneficial to patients, it fails to mention the downside to stem cell research.

These are different styles of writing. In the majority of the stem cell stories, the journalist appears to want to keep it light and positive, by focusing more on the good news than the bad.

The journalist in the blindness article also seems to make the point that this treatment is not yet commonplace.

The director of the Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields and the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, Peng Khaw, said the development showed stem cell therapy was coming of age.

“It offers great hope for many sufferers around the world who cannot be treated with conventional treatment,” he said.

By mentioning other treatments as ‘conventional’ there seems to be a suggestion that this stem cell treatment is unconventional and slightly abnormal. The other articles do not venture into this, preferring to focus on stem cells in a positive light. These stories could perhaps be built on with a follow up with the opposing side’s point of view on stem cell research. It could also continue to look at further stem cell developments which will most likely continue to occur.

Problems with genetic analysis

Disease and treatment, or medical breakthrough? I found it hard to categorise this article when I found it. It seemed to be  the opposite of these two categories. The story struck me as interesting when I found it, just because of the way it was written. Generally, medical stories report on breakthroughs in medicine, or treatments for disease. The article I found in the New York Times, however, seemingly did the opposite. The story is about the problems that are arising in the genetic analysis of human disease, and basically, the lack of a ‘breakthrough.’

 The era of personal genomic medicine may have to wait. The genetic analysis of common disease is turning out to be a lot more complex than expected.

Since the human genome was decoded in 2003, researchers have been developing a powerful method for comparing the genomes of patients and healthy people, with the hope of pinpointing the DNA changes responsible for common diseases.

This method, called a genomewide association study, has proved technically successful despite many skeptics’ initial doubts. But it has been disappointing in that the kind of genetic variation it detects has turned out to explain surprisingly little of the genetic links to most diseases.

One issue of debate among researchers is whether, despite the prospect of diminishing returns, to continue with the genomewide studies, which cost many millions of dollars apiece, or switch to a new approach like decoding the entire genomes of individual patients.

Unlike the rare diseases caused by a change affecting only one gene, common diseases like cancer and diabetes are caused by a set of several genetic variations in each person. Since these common diseases generally strike later in life, after people have had children, the theory has been that natural selection is powerless to weed them out.

The problem addressed in the commentaries is that these diseases were expected to be promoted by genetic variations that are common in the population. More than 100 genomewide association studies, often involving thousands of patients in several countries, have now been completed for many diseases, and some common variants have been found. But in almost all cases they carry only a modest risk for the disease. Most of the genetic link to disease remains unexplained.

 

This story is written in a more negative style than most ‘breakthrough’ stories, for obvious reasons. The journalist has employed negative phrases and words, such as ‘disappointing’, ’skeptics,’ and ’surprisingly little.’

It is not often that we see an article that basically tells us that ‘despite research, we haven’t really achieved anything important or found anything.’

I found this to be an interesting angle taken, and it made the story stand out. It was not just another new ‘cure.’

Because of the angle, the story can be easily built on later. If a breakthrough or new development does arise, the current story can have a positive follow up.

So, Disease and Treatment, or Medical Breakthroughs? I’m going to go with Disease and Treatment for now, because as yet, there has been no breakthrough.

More on stem cells

It seems stem cells are a potential solution to a number diseases. I found another stem cell article, this one about the use of stem cells to increase fertility.

 Infertile women may one day be given stem-cell injections to repopulate their ovaries with eggs.

Therapy hopes follow experiments in which sterilised mice produced eggs and gave birth to healthy young after having stem cells injected into their ovaries.

The controversial research challenges the long-held belief that most female mammals are born with a fixed number of eggs and are unable to make more.

The procedure may lead to treatments that extend fertility beyond menopause and help younger women whose eggs have been damaged by cancer therapies or disease.

I found another stem cell breakthrough article in The Times. This article looks at the use of stem cells to treat diabetes.

 Patients with type 1 diabetes who received an experimental stem-cell treatment have been able to go as long as four years without needing insulin, researchers say.

Stem-cell transplants have effectively “reversed” the condition and freed a small group of patients from the need to have daily injections to control their condition.

Type 1 diabetes, also known as “insulin-dependent” diabetes, occurs when the body loses the ability to produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels. Distinct from type 2 diabetes that is associated with obesity, it is usually diagnosed in childhood and typically requires lifelong insulin therapy in the form of injections or pumps.

One patient did not use insulin for four years, four patients remained insulin-free for three years and three patients for two years, and four patients did not use insulin for more than a year after treatment with the stem cells, Dr Burt said.

  

Both articles begin by describing the latest breakthrough. An expert or doctor’s name or quote is usually dropped in the first few lines. However, in the second half of both articles, we are cautioned that these breakthroughs are not exactly confirmed to work. The journalists are careful to not say anything definite about the breakthroughs, in case the treatments don’t work. Both articles end with similar quotes about the need for more research to verify findings.

Article one ended with:

“A lot more work is needed to understand what these new cells really are, and to verify the findings and the claims,” said Robin Lovell-Badge, a stem-cell researcher at the National Institute For Medical Research in London.

 The second article finished by saying:

“It would be wrong to unnecessarily raise the hopes of people living with diabetes about a new treatment for the condition on the back of the evidence provided in this study.”

  The first article was not overly  specific, saying :

Some experts said other researchers needed to confirm the findings.

The second article however, was more comprehensive, with the use of medical jargon and specific information.

Stem cell breakthrough

Stem cell research has been constantly surrounded by controversy. However, I found an interesting article recently about a ‘medical breakthrough’ regarding the use of stem cells to cure deafness.

Scientists have announced a “major breakthrough” in attempts to find a cure for deafness after the cells vital for hearing were grown in a laboratory.

Early versions of the sensory hair cells and the brain cells that enable hearing have been made from stem cells derived from the human inner ear.

Scientists hope that further work will lead to functional cells that could be implanted into the ears to treat total hearing loss. The team has now started the next stage of research on animals. Any practical treatments for deafness are believed to be at least a decade away but the cells could also provide useful research tools for studying the causes of deafness and testing new drugs.

Stem cells are immature cells, mostly found in embryos and foetuses. Those used in the new research were isolated from the developing cochleas of discarded human foetuses aged nine to 11 weeks. Dr Rivolta’s team grew the cells in the laboratory and exposed them to a cocktail of special chemicals. About 56 per cent of the cells displayed the electrical and physical features of sensory hair cells — the cells in the inner ear that use tiny hairs to turn sound waves into nerve impulses. Other cells showed the biological properties of auditory neurons — the nerve cells that transmit hearing messages to the brain.

However, many people would probably agree that this is a medical ‘miracle.’  This breakthrough would improve many people’s quality of life. The article tells us that almost nine million people across Britain are deaf or hard of hearing. It also says that the stem cell technology could be used to treat age-related hearing loss, or damage caused by exposure to loud noise.

This story could be built on as more developments arise, but it could also be looked at from the anti-stem cell perspective, perhaps with interviews or opinions from these groups.

I find it interesting that it’s not just as simple as finding a cure. There are also many other factors to take into consideration.

More on the Health System

We have been frequently hearing things lately in the news about the terrible state of the nation’s health system and hospitals. However, it seems that although the Government have promised to improve on the national health crisis, it’s too little too late for hospital staff. This article describes  hospital staffs’ scepticism towards new promises to reform the health system.

THE head of one of the state’s busiest trauma centres warns that senior doctors have lost faith in the Government and remain highly cynical of its ability to overhaul the health system.

Valerie Malka, head of trauma at Westmead Hospital, said yesterday it was “no longer possible to trust the Government” after it had neglected the system for 10 years despite constant pleas from clinicians and nurses.

She said senior doctors had been urging the Government to improve patient safety for at least a decade but it took the death of a Sydney teenager, Vanessa Anderson, for bureaucrats and ministers to pay any attention to their concerns. (Ms Anderson died two years ago in Royal North Shore Hospital where she was treated after being hit on the head by a golf ball.)

“We were so grateful for the Garling report but when John Della Bosca says he is going to implement 134 of the 139 recommendations it is really hard to believe what the Government says,” Ms Malka said.

“Things are getting worse, beds are closing, there are increasing cuts and, if we don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel very soon, I think you will see a lot of doctors leaving for the private sector.”

Too many empty promises in the past have, to no one’s surprise, caused the staff, and the public to be highly sceptical towards the Government’s assurances. The Garling Report came as a relief to the hospital staff, but they are not convinced of Health Minister John Della Bosca’s claims to address 134 of the 139 claims made in the report.

In more bad news for the health system, this article describes how the Government’s emissions trading scheme will give the nation’s hospitals a hefty bill each year, and could lead to cuts in health and aged care services.

 THE Government’s emissions trading scheme will add $100 million every year to the nation’s hospital bill, a leading health group has warned.

Catholic Health Australia fears there will be cuts to health and aged care services without better compensation measures in the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

“The average Australian hospital bed has been found to emit 28 tonnes of carbon per annum, twice that of the average household.

“We’ve been able to calculate that in year one, using the Government’s $20 a tonne carbon price, it’s going to cost us $10.8 million.

“If you transfer our 10 per cent of the health sector to the country as a whole, that’s a $100million cost impost in one year for all hospitals.”

Mr Laverty said the $10.8million did not include the carbon costs that would be incurred by CHA’s 19,000 residential aged care beds.

He accused the Government of forgetting the health and aged care sectors in designing its emissions trading scheme, and called for funding to be indexed to match the expected inflationary impact of the CPRS.

“If you are to impose costs without giving new revenues, the only alternative we would have is to look at cuts to health and aged care services,” Mr Laverty warned.

“There’s a genuine will by the Government to give consideration to low-income earners, those who will be adversely impacted by the scheme, but to date they have ignored hospitals, aged and the not-for-profit sector generally.”

 

It seems the doctors’ lack of faith in the Government may indeed be justified. How can the health system be reformed if the money keeps going elsewhere?  Sure, the environment definately needs all the help it can get, but why is it that the health system should suffer further at the hands of the government? This story could be built on as new developments arise, which they surely will, if the emissions scheme is implemented.