I’ve been doing some spring cleaning on the computer and came across this article I wrote and recorded for my Geotalk podcast about five years ago. After reading it today I realised it still holds relevance, particularly for new geocachers.

Tip 1 – Don’t follow the arrow, follow the trail

Your GPS receiver will always show where the geocache is in a straight line. But if you’re walking through the bush, there’s a far chance that the track will not be straight. In fact sometimes the track may take you away from the cache. Don’t be tempted to bush-bash and head straight for it. You may find that the track eventually makes its way to the geocache.

Not following the track can not only take you longer, as you travel through thick bush, you could also damage flora and fauna habitats. 

Tip 2 – Plan your cache hunt

Some geocaches are straight forward. Many urban caches are not hard to find and typically rely more on cunning placement than a challenging walk. But geocaches in bushland or remote regions should be studied in detail to identify things such as terrain, where you should park and what path you should follow. Google Maps and Open Cycle Map are great places to start. The satellite/aerial images on Google Maps allow you to identify the lay of the land, while OCM includes detailed contours. Topographic maps and street directories are also very useful.

Tip 3 – Take a back pack

Now matter where you go a backpack is handy to take geocaching. In the summer, you should carry sunscreen, insect repellant, a hat and plenty of water (at least one litre). In the winter, a rain jacket, beanie and even an umbrella are handy. I also pack a small first aid kit, torch, Leatherman tool, spare pens and logbooks, snacks and gloves. Gloves are handy not only for bush geocaches – where you might be wary of snakes, ticks and spiders – but also with urban caches, where you have to avoid spiders (again), rubbish and occasionally syringes.

Tip 4 – Respect the environment

Most of the time you know where to find the geocache, or at least where it should be.

If you need to conduct a more detailed search of the area make sure you replace any rocks, logs, branches and even leaf litter. You could be disturbing someone’s home.

Sometimes the geocache is close to the corner of a garden bed or on the outer edge of a clump of shrubs. Occasionally the hider likes to make it a little difficult to find, but this doesn’t give you an excuse to tear the place apart. If you can’t find it, then walk away and try again another time.

Hiders should also be aware that by placing a geocache it will encourage a greater number of people to explore that area, typically within a 20-metre radius. It will also lead to the formation of trails. A recent study by students at the Australian Catholic University in North Sydney found trails form with two weeks with as little as 20 ‘finders’. Consider what impact your geocache will have on the environment.

Also remember Tip 1 about paths and tracks. Park rangers frown upon the creation of new paths, particularly through sensitive areas. Ensure that your geocache is far enough from muggle zones, but don’t venture too far into unmarked areas.

Tip 5 – Respect the feelings of your fellow geocachers.

The internet is a very impersonal medium. Sarcasm loses its humourous nature and its very easy to offend someone when you thought you were being funny. Remember that your logs also appear in the public domain. If you are unhappy with an experience at a geocache, be diplomatic and fair, or contact the owner privately. If you find a particular geocacher’s style of geocaches not to your liking, consider adding them to your ignore list and avoid confrontation.

Remember, there are many types of geocachers, each with their own likes and dislikes. What you consider to be ‘geo-trash’ is another person’s ‘geo-treasure’.

From a science journalist’s perspective, health is one of the easiest areas to source stories. There is a seemingly endless stream of press releases from  medical journals, as well as an even longer list from public relations companies (typically promoting a product that isn’t likely to have undergone clinical testing).

Even if a journalist discounts the later, which I frequently do, there is no guarantee that research in a peer-reviewed journal is A-grade.

Competing for attention

US-based journalist, David Freedman, told Media Report host Richard Eady that the medical journals have a conflict of interest when it comes to publishing study results, and focus on those that are most likely to produce the greatest ‘exposure’ to their journal. He adds that a lot of this research turns out to be least reliable or “wrong”.

“It turns out that most scientific published findings don’t in fact hold up over time, and so when science journalists transmit them accurately they are in fact transmitting bad information to the world,” says Freedman.

He says a recent study tracked the reliability of claims made by several medical journals, and found many failed to hold up over time – sometimes within less than three years.

“The very best journals, at least in medicine, you have close to a two-thirds ‘wrongness’ rate and it goes up in other journals.”

Science and health journalists are most likely to focus on published research that is most newsworthy in an effort to compete with other areas of the media, such as politics, sport, finance and entertainment. This still holds true in the internet age, where publishers are not constrained by print inches or on-air time, but rather the amount of time the consumer has to spend reading a website.

As a result, health news ends up consisting of a mix of the following:

• discovery of a potential cure
• studies that contradict previous scientific understanding
• what foods prevent/cause illness and disease
• weird, whacky and unusual

It is far from representative of the research that is the breadth of health research. But once again, it comes down to how newsworthy it is when compared to other stories, such as ‘largest black hole ever discovered’, ‘ancient fish first to have evolved a sex organs’, or ‘last year was hottest ever recorded during human existence’. It’s a competition for ‘airtime’.

Freedman says “science journalists aren’t causing the problem of wrongness, they’re simply amplifying it.”

“We’ve got a problem right away with the science journals. If science journalists are taking the most interesting, most novel, most provocative findings from those studies and giving those the most play in the media then they are in effect picking the worst of the worst and we get terrible health information.”

Back to the source

So the problem doesn’t necessarily lay with the journalists, but with journals. Or it could be even before the research is submitted, if at all.

UK-based doctor and science communicator Ben Goldacre is highly critical of health journals and the secrecy that surrounds clinical trials. His latest book, Bad Pharma (which is queued up on my ‘to read’ list) highlights how researchers and ‘Big Pharma’ manipulate the system. Rather than try to paraphrase his work, check out his TEDtalk from last year.

According to Goldacre, “Positive findings are around twice as likely to be published as negative findings. This is a cancer at the core of evidence-based medicine.”

As a health consumer, this is frightening stuff and makes me want to curl into a ball in the corner of my office. Can I not trust the British Medical Journal, the New England Journal of Medicine or JAMA? The publication of Wakefield’s 1998 study linking autism to the MMR vaccine (which has been disproved and withdrawn – in other words it was FALSE) is one of the reasons why some of my colleagues no longer trust The Lancet.

To reject all research published in these journals would be pointless. Rather it highlights the need for journalists, and the general public, to question the research we come across. In other words, don’t take everything with a grain of salt.

Watching over the journalists

As someone with a background in the physical sciences (physics and mathematics), I have found writing and editing health stories interesting and challenging. Interesting, because I get to spend some time learning more about an area of science that isn’t second-nature to me; and challenging because I have to watch out for pitfalls that aren’t as obvious and those that I find in my comfort zone. The one thing on my side though, is that I have some understanding of the scientific process, something many mainstream journalists don’t appear to have.

This would explain why ‘main stream media’ ranks lower on the University of Newcastle’s Media Doctor website, compared to specialist publications such as Cosmos or ABC Science. 

But it’s not necessarily a lack of understanding from the journalist that is the problem. It sometimes comes back to the medium. News stories on radio and television are constrained by time. Conveying a complex, but highly important, piece of research is difficult to do in 60 to 90 seconds. A transcript of these stories reveals that they are typically no more than 200 words, which is usually less than the abstract at the front of the study. Should a journalist not cover an important health story because they may ‘oversimplify’ it in the eyes of the medical world? Obviously, no.

Many fellow science and health journalists have dismissed Media Doctor for taking a hard line on our work. They say the reviewers don’t understand the pressures journalists are under, in particular deadlines and the inability to describe every scientific nuance in detail. I agree. However, I believe Media Doctor has played a significant role in ensuring that I am careful in how I deal with science and health stories.

Two stories in which I’m glad I did more research involved a study that concluded soy-based foods caused a significant reduction in fertility for men, and another that examined the suitability of gastric band surgery for adolescents. The later ended up appearing on ABC’s Media Watch, thankfully I got a bouquet. Because of Media Doctor, and advice from colleagues, that I have developed my sixth-sense for BS in scientific papers.

I should point out though that in both instances, a lot more time and effort was dedicated to those stories than would normally be the case – something that isn’t always possible in a busy newsroom. There have been numerous instances where I have ‘dropped the ball’.

Tips for the reader

So where does this leave the average reader or viewer – or as they say these days ‘media consumer’. Here my list of questions that everyone, including journalists, should ask when reading a health story.

• Who conducted the research and who funded it? Sometimes there is a connection (or they are one and the same). This doesn’t totally discredit the research, but should raise questions about possible conflicts of interest.
• How was the data collected? If it was a study that involved sampling over a period of time then chances are it’s on the upper end of the trustworthy scale. If it involved a questionnaire that asked participants to recall what they ate, did, or felt in the past, it may not be all that reliable.
• How many participants were in the study? My university statistics courses always mentioned that a sample size of at least 120 was needed to be ‘reflective’ of the population. If the study involves two groups, then the number needs to go up to 240. However, there are some studies in which only a small group of people have a particular ‘condition’. Therefore it’s not uncommon to see a small sample size. Either way, the more participants, the better the chances of a more statistically significant result.
• Is the discovery or breakthrough too good to be true? Is it completely different to everything previously discovered? Like with all things in life, “If it’s too good to be true, it probably is”. Follow up research would be needed to confirm the results. This is the basis of good science. I would wait to see what other researchers find as a result of that study before trumpeting it as a breakthrough.
• Finally, where did you read it? Without wanting to cast stones, there are some publications that are more likely to run whacky stories that turn out to be untrue than others. If the story appears in one publication and doesn’t appear elsewhere within a few days, it’s a safe bet there was something wrong with the research.

Feel free to add any tips you have whenever you’re reading a health/medical story to ensure you getting the ‘good oil’.

Alive and kicking.

Most people who know me well, know that I try to cram way too much into my day. There’s been many times I’ve joked about wishing there were 48 hours in a day so I could get everything done. Of course if there was, I’d probably manage to fill that up as well.

The last three months of 2012 were extremely busy for my wife and I. In October, she returned to work full time having spent the previous 12 months on maternity leave, raising our youngest son. Our eldest was finishing his time in childcare and preparing to start primary school in February. It felt like we were juggling way too many things at once, but we were looking forward to 2013 knowing that things would settle down. We would move into a routine that would be our lives for the next few years. And if a small crisis occurred, we’d tweak it a little and continue on.

It was during this chaotic time that I started to question where my priorities in life lay. I was happy with my job and felt I had struck the right balance. Although part of me wanted to spend more time networking and doing ‘special projects’, I was content and enjoying it. Outside of my work hours, I volunteered my time to running an association, producing a podcast and writing freelance stories. A quick look at my calendar would show barely a weekend in which I wasn’t doing something. This was before I started adding time with my family. Over the Christmas-New Year break I decided that some of this would have to give – I would have to give less to others and more to my family. Little did I know that that decision would be forced upon me a few weeks later.

After spending Christmas and New Year with my extended family in Melbourne and an extra week of leave back home in Sydney, I felt recharged and ready for the New Year. But after a few days back at work, things didn’t feel right. Instead of being full of energy and enthusiasm, I felt like I was picking up from where I left off in December. I was ‘stumbling’ through the afternoon in a cloud of fatigue and crashing on the couch once I got home. After two weeks, I was convinced I had some sort of inner ear infection that was slowing me down and making me feel woozy.

I took a few days off to rest, felt better and returned to work. The following week it was back, but it was getting worse. My colleagues at work noticed I wasn’t well and suggested I see a doctor. The next day I did. She examined me and concluded that I had sinusitis  To make sure it was not too bad, or something else, she also gave me a referral for a CT scan. The scan detected a tumour in my brain.

To say that this is a life changing moment in my life is a massive understatement.

Within a week I had surgery to have the tumour removed and spent a week recovering in hospital. Although the surgery went extremely well, the results from pathology were not what I had hoped for. The tumour was malignant, which meant I would require further treatment.

At the moment, I am feeling fine and have recovered from my surgery. I’ve spent most of my time gardening, playing with my children and doing things around the house. My wife has been wonderful in caring for me and the boys, and we’ve also been blessed to have received help from family and friends, as well as support from my colleagues at work. From babysitting through to messages of support, it has been wonderful to know you are there for us.

Later this week I begin a six-week course of combined radio/chemotherapy, which will be followed by another six months of less intensive chemotherapy. While I’m not looking forward to the possible side-effects of the treatment, I’m keen to get it started … and over with. It will be a tough battle, but one I’m willing to fight. How I will be over the next three months is the great unknown, but I’m confident I will pull through. My ‘plan’ is to recover well enough to be able to gradually return to work and a normal life by the middle of the year. I don’t intend to let this defeat me.

The hardest aspect of all this has been sharing my story with others. Despite being a relatively public person, I’ve found the events of the past five weeks difficult to share outside of family. Announcing the birth of my sons, photos from my wedding, or other milestones in my life are something I do easily. But telling the world I have cancer is a very different thing. There is no joy or happiness in the news. The reaction from those I have told has varied greatly, but all have included a strong sense of sadness and concern. In a strange way, I feel guilty for making people feel these emotions, and hence why I’ve been quiet about what has happened. I also feel guilty for not telling many of my friends, especially those who are only discovering about this through this post. Funny how the mind works isn’t it?

This has been difficult news to share and it may be some time before I write about it again. However, feel free to contact me at anytime. I may not get back to you immediately, but I will eventually.

Old tech meets new with the BioLite.

I admit it – I’m a geek. I love technology, especially gadgets that do the unexpected, that make life ‘easier’, or that are just plain cool.

So it was no surprise that I was impressed by a gadget that a colleague of mine showed me a few months ago, which not only worked as a fuel efficient wood stove, but could also produces electricity.

Called BioLite, this wood stove was originally conceived as an efficient wood fuel cooker that creates less smoke. According to the company’s website:

BioLite started back in 2006 as a side project for founders Alec Drummond and Jonathan Cedar who were inspired to find a better way to design a camp stove.

In the article that was sent to me, they highlighted that wood is still the most commonly used fuel for cooking, but the health risks due to smoke make it dangerous to human health. To reduce smoke and increase the efficiency of the burning wood, Drummond and Cedar designed a fan-forced stove powered by a rechargeable battery. The circulating air increases the efficiency of the burning wood, reducing the amount of fuel needed and resulting in less smoke being produced. A simple thermoelectric generator tops up the battery that powers the fan. You can find out more about the design on their website.

The added spin-off from their design is that excess power can be used to recharge over electrical devices via a USB port. This includes mobile phones, which have rapidly grown in use in developing areas such as Africa and South Asia.

Protoype of BioLite stove being used in Ojire, near Mangalore. Credit: Biolite.

I was immediately impressed with this device and forwarded it on to a number of friends via Facebook and Twitter. Then I thought nothing of it … until Christmas Day. My wonderful wife had seen my post. Given that I consistently run out of power in my mobile phone during overnight hikes, and that I love a good gadget, she decided to order one from the company. It was a great surprise when I unwrapped it on Christmas Day (I’d actually knew about it a few weeks earlier when it arrived in the post with the product name emblazoned on the outside of the box – opps!).

A few weeks later I gave it a test run, and despite a few false starts, I eventually had it boiling up a saucepan of water for a cup of tea, while charging my mobile phone. It didn’t require much in the way of fuel – I used a handful of small sticks a few matchbox-sized pieces of wood and a fire lighter to start it off.

Last week, it came out again to rescue me from a terrible ‘first world problem’. Constant rain over a number of days resulted in a series of electrical blackouts in our neighborhood. This meant both my, and my wife’s mobile phones, were almost empty come Saturday night – our ‘date night’. While she used her laptop to recharge her phone, I grabbed the BioLite to recharge mine. After almost an hour it managed to boost the phone’s charge from 1 to 20 per cent. With the 3G and Wi-Fi settings turned off, it was enough to get the phone through the rest of the day and into the morning. I was impressed.

So now the question for me is what do I take on my next overnight hike? For the past 25 years I have used my trusty Trangia stove, which is ultra reliable and uses methylated spirits for fuel. The BioLite, while not as efficient and slightly heavier than the Trangia, doesn’t require fuel to be carried in and can recharge my mobile phone. I’m confused. Maybe I’ll take both.

I’ll also post some of the articles I wrote for CSIRO Education’s The Helix and Scientriffic magazines, which are part of the Double Helix Science Club. I’d been contributing to these magazines for more than 12 years, but decided recently to take a break. Thank you CSIRO Education for allowing me to be part of your great magazines. If you have school-aged children with an interest in science (or you want to encourage to have an interest), do sign them up as Double Helix Science Club members.

Finally, if you get the chance to fly Qantas, or can get your hands on the February issue of their in-flight magazine, you’ll see a short article by me about innovation in Australian science.

The steps below are how I can get up to 500 geocaches display in the Favourites folder.

1. Delete your favourites – Go to Tools > My Data >Delete Favourite(s). Tick Select All and press Delete. Note: You’ll lose your home address. One way around this is to set up your home address (or the neighbour’s) as a geocache.
   

   Select All and press Delete

2. Connect Nuvi to computer and wait for drive to appear.
3.  Filter the number of caches you want to display on the unit to less than 500. (Not sure if you can do more, may depend on unit). I use the filter to only display Traditional/EarthCache/Virtual, not Micro, Difficulty and Terrain less than 3 when on driving holidays.
4.  Use the GSAK macro nuvifavoriteexportgpx.gsk. Select the drive that has been assigned to the Nuvi (click on the folder to make sure, don’t assume it’s the same letter time as the macro has a habit of freezing up). Then select the Garmin folder. Press start. Note: I have tried saving on my hard drive and then copying to the Nuvi, but it doesn’t seem to work.
   

   How caches are displayed in Favourites list.

   

   Press on geocache icon to display information.

   

   Press Go! to head to geocache.

This series of steps should result in the geocaches appearing on your map, and whenever you choose Where to > Favourites.