octave

I used the example of Glenbrook because, to me at least, it seems pretty clear-cut. Glenbrook during my time always seemed to be being refurbished. I think the most recent was in 2022 to the tune of $7.6 Million. My first-hand experience is 35 years old, but at that time, it was much more like a gentleman's club. This is a building that, for the most part, the public is not able to visit. My point is not that there should be a fire sale of just about everything, but that these things should be rationally weighed up, and yes, emotion can be part of that equation. Staged refurbishment of a prized heritage building in a live operational environment

I don't really think the plan is to bulldoze heritage properties. I spent 12 years in the RAAF as a musician. We would travel extensively and visit most of these facilities. Many of these buildings, I think, would not be fit for purpose. It is more difficult these days to justify holding onto many of these properties. Some of these properties could be considered poor value for money from the point of view of the taxpayer. As an example that I have in the past had first-hand knowledge of, I would cite RAAF Glenbrook. This is the headquarters of Air Command. This property was a Luxury hotel until I think 1949. When I was in the band, we used to go there (from Richmond) to perform a few times a month for Officer dining in nights and garden parties, etc. It was more of a country club for elite officers, in my opinion. In the Google Earth picture, you see the swimming pool, tennis courts, manicured gardens, etc. The main building (formerly a luxury hotel) is amazingly decadent inside. This facility always seemed to me more of a "country club" I think it is entirely reasonable to question whether this is the best use of the taxpayers' money. The building is protected by a heritage listing and should be preserved and perhaps given a use beyond a small number of elite officers. There is nothing critical about this location in terms of defence. In my opinion, selling off many of these assets is a good idea AS LONG as historic and heritage buildings and sites are preserved. Public access to these historic locations must be assured. It should also be done slowly and carefully. I think people are jumping to conclusions and believing that this means bulldozing historic buildings to build brick veneer houses.

The clever thing about this study is that it was able to analyse NO2 levels on a suburban basis. "The researchers also confirmed that neighborhoods that added more gas-powered cars saw the expected rise in pollution. Finally, they replicated their results using updated data from ground-level monitors from 2012 to 2023. “We tested our analysis in many different ways, and the results consistently support our main finding,” Whilst improved emission standards feed into the overall results they do not account for local differences. "

Yes, diesel plus AdBlue still produces more NO2 than comparable petrol engines. The point of what I posted was that the introduction of EVs has made a measurable difference in NO2 pollution. I thought this was interesting....isnt it?

AdBlue is only used in diesel vehicles. The main source of NO2 is petrol vehicles. Replacing petrol vehicles that produce NO2 with EVs that don't is beneficial to public health. Yes, CO2 is a bigger problem, but NO2 is also a significant health problem, especially in cities. The article does discuss this. "While the shift to electric vehicles is largely aimed at curbing climate change in the future, it is also expected to improve air quality and benefit public health in the near term." My point was that reducing CO2 is not the only benefit of EVs "Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) primarily harms the respiratory system, causing airway inflammation, coughing, wheezing, and increased asthma attacks, especially in children, the elderly, and those with existing heart/lung conditions. Both short-term and long-term exposure can worsen asthma, increase susceptibility to infections like bronchitis, and potentially contribute to developing asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other cardiovascular/neurological issues. NO2 also forms secondary pollutants like ozone and fine particulate matter, which add to overall air pollution risks."

I guess it is lucky for you that you don't live in a country where you can be bailed up by thugs who demand you produce proof of citizenship.

Adoption of electric vehicles tied to real-world reductions in air pollution, study finds "Using satellite data, Keck School of Medicine of USC researchers reported the first statistically significant decrease in nitrogen dioxide linked to zero-emissions vehicles."

I thought I would have a look at what rare earth minerals are used for. Lanthanum (La) Camera and telescope lenses (high refractive index glass) Nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries (hybrid vehicles) Oil refining catalysts Hydrogen storage alloys Cerium (Ce) Glass polishing (phones, screens, optics) Catalytic converters Self-cleaning ovens UV-blocking glass Praseodymium (Pr) Permanent magnets (with neodymium) Aircraft engines (high-strength alloys) Yellow pigments for glass and ceramics Neodymium (Nd) High-strength permanent magnets (NdFeB) Electric vehicle motors Wind turbine generators Headphones, speakers, hard drives Promethium (Pm) (very rare & radioactive) Nuclear batteries (limited use) Thickness gauges Research applications only Samarium (Sm) Samarium-cobalt magnets (high-temperature, defence) Nuclear reactor control rods Microwave devices ⚙️ Medium / Heavy Rare Earth Elements (HREEs) Europium (Eu) Red phosphors in TV and LED screens Anti-counterfeiting inks (banknotes) Fluorescent lighting Gadolinium (Gd) MRI contrast agents Neutron shielding Magnetic refrigeration research Terbium (Tb) Green phosphors (displays) Strengthens neodymium magnets for high heat Sonar and sensors Dysprosium (Dy) High-temperature permanent magnets Electric vehicles and wind turbines Nuclear reactor components Holmium (Ho) Medical lasers Nuclear control rods Precision magnetic devices Erbium (Er) Fibre-optic signal amplifiers Laser technology Pink colouring for glass Thulium (Tm) Portable X-ray machines Medical lasers Radiation sources (very niche) Ytterbium (Yb) Stainless steel strengthening Fibre lasers Atomic clocks Lutetium (Lu) PET scan detectors Cancer treatment catalysts Oil refinery catalysts ➕ Related Rare Earths (Not Lanthanides) Scandium (Sc) Aluminium-scandium alloys (aerospace, sports gear) Solid oxide fuel cells High-intensity lamps Yttrium (Y) LEDs and display phosphors Thermal barrier coatings (jet engines) Superconductors Cancer treatments (Y-90)

Yep, like the motor I installed on my inflatable kayak - serious engineering required😁

Generally, I favour speech being as free as possible. Obviously inciting someone to violent acts or impuning someones reputation with falsehoods needs some limits on it. I am not necessarily an enthusiastic supporter or detractor of the new bill. My point is that these are not new restrictions; they have been tweaked as far as I can see. It is hard to argue that all of a sudden, we are all going to be highly regulated. The things you could say are not really so different from before. There will always be controversial edge cases. "Is it likely to incite violence or not?" I would suggest that for most of us, we are unlikely to ever stray into that territory since we obviously haven't previously.

We already have laws that place some restrictions on speech. Free speech has never been absolute. These are things you could have problems with threaten people incite violence harass or intimidate defame others. These restrictions have been around for many years. Why are you not all nervous about these restrictions? Have you actually read any of the bill? The Bill would introduce a new aggravated offence for religious or other leaders who advocate or threaten force or violence against groups, members of groups, their close associates, or their property, in contravention of sections 80.2A to 80.2BE of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The offence applies if a person, in their capacity as a religious or other leader, advocates or threatens force or violence in the course of providing religious instruction, or religious or secular pastoral care.

This is short summary https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/fact-sheet-combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill-2026

Just wondering in what way it will curtail your speech. What is it you want to say but think you will no longer be able to say?

Because a small number of people do drive drunk. Random breath testing literally does save lives. If it is a choice between offending your overly delicate feelings or preventing a drunk driver from killing someone, I think most rational, well-adjusted people will accept the trade-off.

Jeez, you do seem to be overly sensitive. When you fly, and you go through airport security, are you upset because you think the security staff are accusing you of carrying weapons? Random breath testing is not just about catching an individual who is a danger on the road, but more importantly, it is a deterrent against attempting to drink and drive. There are already laws against what you can and can't say (defamation). Do you believe that this means "everyone is a suspect?" There are many things we are called upon to do to keep society running relatively smoothly. When I rent a car (or many other transactions), I am not offended by having to show my driver's license or ID. I don't believe I am presumed to be guilty of anything. When travelling overseas, whilst it is a slight burden, the customs officer may want to look inside my bag. I do not take this as some kind of personal attack or allegation. None of these examples makes me feel "guilty"