By Paul Rodgers

If it were up to me, magic would work. Much of my teens were spent in an imaginary land full of elves and dwarves, steeped in the lore of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and games such as Dungeons & Dragons. Who could resist the idea that waving a wand or drinking a potion could solve life’s problems?

As an adult, though, I found that magic doesn’t work, and science does. Yet the NHS, an institution that should be a bastion of science, continues to spend millions of pounds a year – for remedies, staff and the upkeep of four specialist hospitals – on homeopathy, a practice with no scientific basis whose origins lie in Renaissance alchemy. At best, homeopathy is an expensive placebo, but in leaching scarce resources from treatments that are effective, and by distracting patients from seeking proper medical care, it causes real harm. That kind-hearted Britons are being encouraged to give money to pay for a group of homeopaths to go to Haiti to treat earthquake victims is scandalous.

Let’s be clear. Homeopathy is not the same as herbalism, which has some scientific merit. Its main principle, that “like-cures-like”, dates back to Paracelsus, a 16th century physician, astrologer and occultist who believed that if you suffered from, say, stomach cramps, the cure should be something that causes stomach cramps. The problem – obviously, you might think – was that this “cure” often made things worse. Two centuries later, Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, realised that diluting the like-cures-like medicines reduced their toxic effects, though not, he claimed paradoxically, their efficacy.

And so homeopathy was born. Minute doses of the active ingredients are diluted so much that your chance of finding even one atom of it in your pricey sugar pills could be as low as one in a trillion. Exotic explanations for this vary widely, often involving the sort of pseudoscientific gobbledygook that is the stock in trade for Star Trek scriptwriters. One common idea is that water can “remember” which active ingredient used to be present (though apparently it forgets the myriad other contaminants that have been removed). As David Colquhoun, a professor of pharmacology at University College London, put it: “If homeopathy worked, the whole of chemistry and physics would have to be overturned”. Even some of the purveyors of these snake oils don’t have much faith in them. Paul Bennett, the professional standards director at Boots, one of the country’s biggest homeopathic retailers, admitted in November that “I have no evidence before me to suggest that they are efficacious.”

The Commons Science and Technology Select Committee – which reported on 22 February on its investigation into this “alternative therapy” – concluded that public funding for this hocus pocus should be cut. Even research into it should be abandoned as a waste of money. The MPs should go further. Homeopaths should be held legally responsible if they prescribe their placebos for conditions which demand proper medical attention. In Australia, two homeopaths, husband and wife, were jailed last autumn for gross criminal negligence over the death of their nine-month-old baby in 2002. The baby had severe eczema and died of septicaemia after her parents tried to treat her homeopathically. Even the placebo effect doesn’t work on babies.

Homeopaths will counter that they have several centuries worth of experience during which they’ve given their tonics to patients who have subsequently recovered. The flaw here is clear. Just because a treatment precedes a recovery does not mean it caused the recovery. Often patients seek help when their symptoms are worst, when the only way they could change is to get better. The argument that, in a free country, people should be allowed to choose what therapies they take is stronger, but only if patients are told the facts about those nostrums. And once they know that they’re getting a placebo, its effectiveness will mostly crumble. It has also been suggested that homeopathy helps GPs divert chronic time-wasters. Convenient, perhaps, but dishonest; like magic potions, lies have no place in a doctor’s black bag.

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK without an independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). An independent panel, commissioned under direct rule by Westminster, reviewed environmental governance in Northern Ireland and recommended an EPA. But devolution returned to Northern Ireland, and the Environment Minister rejected the calls for an EPA. She resigned 13 days after announcing her decision.

Ministers opt out of environmental planning

In October 2002, the European Commission highlighted Northern Ireland’s falling compliance of sewage treatment works with EU standards from 53 percent in 2000 to 35 per cent in 2001.

In response, Northern Ireland’s Planning Service recommended that the Executive pass a ban on further developments where current sewage infrastructure was inadequate.

Stormont Parliament building, Belfast, N. Ireland.

But the Minister of the Environment, then Dermot Nesbitt, issued a statement that: “Such an approach, despite the high level of environmental protection that would afforded, would have carried high risk in respect of constraints in economic growth and social progress.”

Professor Sharon Turner, an environmental law professor at Queens University Belfast, explains that: “In the 1970s, Northern Ireland started a steady decline into the Troubles. But by 2000, the European Commission had run out of patience and was no longer prepared to allow Northern Ireland – or indeed the UK – to let the situation continue.”

Review of Environmental Governance launched

In the summer of 2005, a coalition of Non-Governmental Organisations convinced the Minister of the Environment, Jeff Rooker, to put in motion a Review of Environmental Governance.

“That coalition was one of the most successful NGO campaigns I have ever seen,” says Professor Tom Burke, CBE and Chair of the Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland.

Prof Turner and Gordon Bell, the managing director of Liberty IT, were the other two panel members. The independent review began in 2006.

“One factor that was really clear to the panel was that there was an overwhelming lack of confidence in the Government institutions from the people of Northern Ireland,” Prof Burke said.

Prof Burke explains that an independent EPA would allow policy to be separated from delivery and it would bring Northern Ireland into alignment with the rest of the UK.

But the one exception in the support from the public for an EPA was with the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU).

“I never understood what the UFU’s problem with it was; they seemed to have an ideological view that you shouldn’t have an EPA, which was not really based on any analysis,” Prof Burke said.

Stephen Farry, an Alliance party representative, points out that the UUP, Sinn Fein, Alliance and SDLP were all in favour of an EPA. “The only party not in favour of an EPA was the DUP, and the only DUP lobby group against it was the UFU,” he said.

David Ford, the leader of the Alliance party said: “The UFU were concerned that farmers would not have their views taken into account.” He added: “Ian Paisley said these men just want to farm the way they have always farmed, but the world has changed.”

The panel on the Review of Environmental Governance were commissioned while Northern Ireland was still under direct rule from Westminster. But while working on the review for two years, the political situation changed.

Devolution granted to Northern Ireland

McGuinness, George W. Bush and Ian Paisley meeting at Stormont.

History was made on 8 May 2007 when Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness joined forces and signed a pledge to share power.

The power-sharing arrangements were Ian Paisley (DUP) as First minister and Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin) as Deputy first minister. Peter Robinson (DUP) governed Finance and Personnel, Catriona Ruane (Sinn Féin) Education, Arlene Foster (DUP) Environment, and Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin) Agriculture.

The review panel knew that might be problematic for any recommendations they made. “We knew that, quite rightly, when you put the democracy back in, the democratically elected representatives want to have a say.” Prof Burke said.

Minister rejects calls for an EPA

In May 2008, Arlene Foster, the Minister of the Environment, announced that she rejects the calls for an independent EPA. She stated: “I and my party take the role of environmental governance too seriously to externalise the organisation.” She resigned 13 days after her decision.

“The Environment Minister then, went against the will of the majority,” says Lisa Fagan of Friends of the Earth (Northern Ireland).

“I believe there are underlying political and economic issues that the UFU have to answer for regarding the rejection of an EPA for Northern Ireland.” Ms Fagan said.

Tom Burke believes it was unfair to the majority of people in Northern Ireland that one institution had disproportionate power.

“If direct rule had continued, then Northern Ireland would have an EPA. Yes, I’m sure it would have an EPA,” Prof Burke said.

But he adds that this was not the only reason. “I think it was partly the shift from direct rule to Stormont, partly the terms under which portfolios are allocated inside the power-sharing peace and partly the opposition of the UFU.”

Stephen Farry spoke of how the power-sharing dynamics should not depend on the ‘lucky dip’ of which party gets what office.

“Particularly on significant and controversial matters, there should be a collective view, to ensure that all interests represented in government are buying into decisions” he said.

This decision continues to have an impact on Northern Ireland’s environment. For example, Northern Ireland Water (NIW) was granted permission to open a sewage treatment works that provides only primary treatment of sewage before it is pumped into the North Channel. By the time the plant opens, the new Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive will require any sewage works serving over 2000 people to apply secondary treatment.

Ms Foster has yet to respond to many questions sent to her regarding this matter.

By Smitha Mundasad

In defence of a state they helped to create, thousands of pensioners gathered in force to fight for protection of the welfare state at the 10410 demonstration.

“The same generation that fought fascism, the same generation that built the welfare state is now calling this demonstration,” said Bob Crow, of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

Protecting the NHS played a prominent part in the rally, which was organised by the National Pensioners Convention and gained support from a diverse range of public sector workers and trade unions, from the British Medical Association, and National Union of Teachers to Medway Pensioners Forum.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association said: “Never has it been a more important time to speak out in support of the NHS, when public services are facing unprecedented financial strain.”

Commenting that the major political parties in England “seem obsessed with marketed healthcare”, he asked the crowd, “isn’t it ludicrous that while we have nationalised banks, we are privatising the NHS?”

Dr Rob Galloway, an Accident and Emergency doctor of eight years said: “Patients are not commodities, they are people. But despite that, there has been a raft of policies to commercialise the NHS which has led to inefficiencies and decreased productivity”.

This was a unique event, bringing together people from all major public sectors. “We are not in competition with each other. Those who are in competition are the ones who purchase and make a profit out of our services,” said Dot Gibson, an organiser of the event and general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention.

By Julius Goldthorpe

Regardless of which political party reigns triumphant in the upcoming UK general election on May 6, one area where we can expect to see change is the UK policy on the illegal timber trade. With the three leading political parties agreeing, at the very least, the UK needs a domestic ban on the importation of illegal timber.

The agreement between Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats fully underlines the importance of this issue. With all parties stating in their election manifestos that a UK ban on illegally logged timber is essential. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have gone one step further by suggesting a campaign for an EU-wide ban to be implemented if they can gain support from other EU nations.

Need to end illegal timber trade to reduce climate change says Environment Minister

UK Minister of Environment Hilary Benn, believes the EU cannot expect to see a decline in deforestation if it continues to allow the importation of illegal timber from foreign soil. He also indicated at the 15th Illegal Logging Update, held at Chatham House, that if an agreement on a ban could not be met at a continental level, then the UK would take action at a national level.

Benn also criticised the policies of other EU members with regards to illegal logging. He believes it is the responsibility of EU nations to stop illegal timber from entering Europe and, in turn, help reduce the global warming effect that is caused by deforestation. He said: “It’s no good being in the same boat as everyone else if that boat is sinking.”

But, it is not just the EU politicians that are divided over this topic. The European timber industries also have their fair share of sceptics. Some industries favour a ban because it would reduce competition. However, others are concerned that a ban could lead to excessive bureaucracy for forest owners.

Despite concerns expressed by some EU members, it is believed that an agreement to suit all parties may be within reach.

Although the UK does face opposition to a ban, it is not alone in its desire to put a stop to the illegal timber trade. André de Boer, of the European Timber Trade Federation insists: “We must make illegal trade an offence under criminal law.”

If a law is passed, Benn is sure concerns regarding increased bureaucracy will be short lived. “A prohibition would be a boost for the domestic timber industry,” he said.

The cost of incorporating this law into EU policy is unclear, but Benn believes “the argument for getting this done in Europe is overwhelming.”

By Nan King

Panic, anxiety, scaremongering, conspiracies… but just a few months on, and swine flu seems to have been all but forgotten. Whilst we are much more likely to die of cancer or heart disease than we are of swine flu or terrorism, the latter two seem much more chilling. In this short podcast, I talk to experts on both sides of the pond, and ask if our emotional reaction to disease influences its spread.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

By Charlotte King

In the wake of the attempted aircraft bombing on Christmas day, compulsory full-body scans have been introduced by the UK government as part of pre-flight security checks on passengers travelling from Heathrow and Manchester airports.
According to the Home Office, the current terrorism threat level in the UK is ‘severe’, the second highest possible. This means a terrorist attack is considered highly likely.

The new full-body scanners could help detect and deter terrorists, but not everyone will be scanned, and the selection process is not well defined. Lord Adonis, Transport Secretary, said: “If a passenger is selected for scanning and declines, they will not be permitted to fly,” and the Department of Transport’s interim code states that passengers cannot be selected by profiling - based on gender, age, race or ethnic origin.

Manchester airport has been trialling full body scanning using x-ray technology since October 2009. So far, passengers have been scanned on a voluntary basis, but now it will be compulsory.
The scanners are based on backscatter technology, which involves firing low level x-rays at the body and then analysing the response as the radiation is reflected back. The resulting pattern varies depending on the materials the x-rays hit, uncovering hidden items. Each scanner costs around £80,000.

Although there are concerns about the safety of exposing passengers to x-ray radiation, an assessment by the Health Protection Agency showed that the total dose received in one scan is less than a single hour’s background radiation – which occurs naturally.
The backscatter technology differs from traditional x-ray machines, such as those used in hospitals, where x-rays fully penetrate the body and can cause harm with repeated exposure.

BAA Heathrow said: “the technology will better enable the detection of concealed items while allowing passengers to remain fully clothed.”
However, many are concerned about privacy, including Big Brother Watch (BBW) - a campaigning group which aims to protect civil liberties and personal freedoms. Director of BBW Alex Deane said: “what kind of a free society does the government think it is ‘protecting’, when it invades our privacy like this?”.
Airport staff are allowed to scan anyone, including children, although the images are immediately deleted after they have been examined. In addition, the staff who select scanning subjects do not view the images themselves. The whole process takes only around seven seconds, but the images do not leave much to the imagination.

Ian Hutcheson, BAA Security Director said: “The security and safety of our passengers and staff is BAA’s first priority. The introduction of full-body scanners and other technology is one significant step towards a more robust defence against the changing and unpredictable threat posed by terrorists”.
BAA plans to install scanners in each of the five terminals at Heathrow. There are also plans to install scanners at Gatwick and other UK airports.