If it had been the usual tie break, [first to 7 with a two point advantage] I would have lost. –Third seed Roger Federer, after his narrow victory in the third round. 

The best on show

by Roger Childs

The first grand slam in Melbourne is always a chance to see if the highly experienced stars are still up to it, and whether the younger brigade can get through to the finals. There have already been lead-up tournaments in Australia and here in Auckland, and this year for the first time, a men’s national tournament. [See the article on 14 January] 

However, it is the four grand slams of the year that are the measure of tennis greatness, and over the last three years the men’s titles they have been won by the three legends – Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. Among the women there have been an incredible eleven grand slam champions since 2016. In that group, American Serena Williams, has been desperately seeking her 24th major to equal the record held by Australian great, Margaret Court.

Seeds tumbling out

As usual there has been some early carnage for the seeds, and the third round saw two men in the top ten knocked out and four women. The second and third ladies seeds Karolina Pliskova and Naomi Osaka, were beaten in straight sets, with the promising American 15 year old, Coco Gauff, easily accounting for the Japanese two time grand slam winner.

Serena Williams won the Auckland tournament earlier in the month and was seeded eighth in Melbourne. She was up against 27th ranked China’s Wang Qiang in the third round and struggled from the start. Wang took the first set 6-4, but Williams fought back to take the second set 7-5. However, the 38 year old tired in the final set and Wang won it 7-5. 

The coveted 24th grand slam may elude the American great, as there are so many younger, fitter and lighter women players on the circuit these days. Serena can usually win if her fast serve is on target and her powerful ground strokes are well placed. But she struggles if a match goes to three sets and opponents know she is beatable. Her next grand slam opportunity will now be in Paris, in May.

The winner of last November’s ATP Final, which pits the top eight men against each other, was seeded six in the Australian Open. However, Stephanos Tsitsipas came up against the former top ten Canadian Milos Raonic in the third round, and was beaten in straight sets – 7-5, 6-4, 7-6. In the same round number 10 seed, Spaniard Roberto Bautista Agut faced former grand slam winner, Marin Cilic, who is on the comeback trail after a poor season on 2019.  The match went to five sets, with big serving Croatian winning through to the fourth round.

Federer survives, just

Roger Federer seeded 3 is seeking his 21st grand slam, but very nearly didn’t make it past round three either. Australian John Millman beat him in the 2018 US Open, but was not expected to trouble the Swiss maestro in Melbourne. However, the Aussie won sets one and four, Federer two and three. The final set was level at 6-6 with what is called the super tie break – first to 10 and two points clear – to decide the match.  Millman should have won as he held a 8-4 lead in the breaker, however the Swiss champion showed all his skill and experience to take the next 6 points and qualify for the fourth round.

Federer played very inconsistently and most of Millman’s points came from his opponents unforced errors. There were flashes of brilliance from the Swiss and his big serve was a key factor in keeping him in the match. However, he will need to be more focused if he is to win in later rounds as the competition gets tougher.

Plenty of top tennis to come

The fourth round beckons and there is plenty of quality tennis in prospect. Local Ashleigh Barty is playing well and Ukrainian, Eline Svitolina, Angelique Kerber from Germany and Romanian Simona Halep are still there too, so it is very hard to pick a winner. Teenager Coco Guff is a wild card who could surprise.

Among the men the usual suspects are featuring: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, DominicThiem, and Cilic. 

There will be plenty of quality matches in the coming week!

This was an oral question asked in Parliament last year by Angie Warren-Clark (Labour MP) to the Minister of Health as per the parliament.nz website:

Hon. Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): All New Zealanders have the right to expect their tap water to be safe to drink. We know from the experience in Havelock North in 2016, where 5,000 people got sick, that, unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Yesterday, the local government Minister and I were pleased to announce approval for a dedicated water regulator to ensure we can have confidence in the safety of our drinking water. This was one of the key recommendations of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry Stage 2 report.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will a dedicated water regulator prevent outbreaks of water-borne disease, like the Havelock North outbreak, from happening again?

Hon. Dr DAVID CLARK: For too long, drinking-water quality and safety has been covered by a number of pieces of legislation, and responsibilities have been split between a number of agencies. As a result, oversight has been fractured and ineffective. The new regulator will ensure coherent oversight of the entire drinking-water supply system. They will also ensure compliance with standards through monitoring and enforcement. Furthermore, they will provide leadership to the sector; help build capability; provide information, advice, and education; and report on the performance of the sector.

Angie Warren-Clark: What powers will the new water regulator have?

Hon. Dr DAVID CLARK: The new water regulator will have the final say on drinking water. Its powers will be set out in the new water services bill the Government intends introducing this year. This legislation will clearly set out all of the obligations to suppliers to provide safe drinking water to their communities. It’ll strengthen the compliance, monitoring, and enforcement of drinking-water regulations. This is a critical milestone for drinking-water safety in this country.

The Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand of 2005 (Revised in 2018) can be read on the Ministry of Health website here

An article on Summit News:-

Historian Niall Ferguson has slammed Greta Thunberg’s climate change hypocrisy at Davos, asking why “I don’t see her in Beijing or Delhi.”

Teenage environmentalist Thunberg gave another hysterical speech at the global confab yesterday in which she claimed, “Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour. We are still telling you to panic, and to act as if you loved your children above all else.”

“We don’t want these things done in 2050, 2030, or even 2021,” Thunberg said. “We want this done now.”

Ferguson, Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, questioned why Thunberg isn’t directing her message to the biggest polluters on the planet.

The short answer is that the Globalists are fixated with developed (relatively affluent) countries and don’t care about Third World countries which can do what they like as far as they are concerned.  Contemporaneously, the Mainstream Media has become obsessed with attacking Donald Trump, and the two work in well together.

“60% of CO2 emissions since Greta Thunberg was born is attributable to China… but nobody talks about that. They talk as if it’s somehow Europeans and Americans who are going to fix this problem… which is frustrating because it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter,” said Ferguson.

“If you’re serious about slowing CO2 emissions and temperatures rising it has to be China and India you constrain,” he added, noting that while Greta travels to New York and Davos, “I don’t see her in Beijing or Delhi.”

Ferguson is right. Take the UK for example.

“Britain’s CO2 emissions peaked in 1973 and are now at their lowest level since Victorian times,” reports the Spectator. “Air pollution has plummeted since then, with sulphur dioxide levels down 95 per cent. Britain’s population is rising but our energy consumption peaked in 2001 and has since fallen by 19 per cent.”

This global pollution map published by the WHO perfectly illustrates Ferguson’s point.

This separate list on Wikipedia gives the 500 cities of the World with the most atmospheric pollution.

Notably, there are no U.S., Canadian, Australian, NZ, British, German, French, Spanish, Japanese or Russian cities on the list.   There are 7 Italian cities and 17 Polish cities listed.

But what about Chinese, Indian and Iranian cities?  The totals are 283, 32 and 44 respectively — will Stuff(ed), Radio NZ, Newshub and TVNZ ever mention that?

You know they won’t.

Julian Assange is a hero in the cause of Open Government, a journalist who dared to expose the machinations of senior politicians and bureaucrats.

On behalf of all 251,000 signatories a formal request for a Royal Pardon for Julian Assange from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been administered. The formal name for such an application is a “Royal Prerogative Power of Mercy”. I have pasted the script of the application below and uploaded a snip of only page one of the document [above]

Full article and details on the Change.org website

By Graham Clouston

This series of seven articles on prostate and other cancer has highlighted the positive impact of Mind-Body Medicine when combined with Conventional Medicine. The following are a few closing thoughts.

Coping with the bad news

The words from a Clinician saying, “You have cancer”, are a shock to most people. Immediately there is concern for the future and what it may bring. Some may hear the words, “You have terminal cancer”. This is very confronting for most people.

If we unpack things a little, we have a “diagnosis” which is usually accurate and factual. If you are told that you have cancer then this view is normally evidenced by clinical tests and radiology.

Then we have a “prognosis” which is a clinical opinion of possible outcomes, based on experience, for the condition diagnosed. A “prognosis”, being an opinion, is not necessarily definitive of what a final outcome may be.

It is therefore reasonable to accept a “diagnosis” as fact and a “prognosis” as opinion, albeit an educated opinion. With a ‘terminal prognosis” it is very important not to accept the forecast outcome as a fait accompli. If you do, you may find that you could go “on time”, and you may not want that to happen.

There are plenty of examples of people recovering

There are many reported cases of people recovering from serious, including Stage 4, cancers. These survivors invariably use Mind-Body Medicine in addition to Conventional Medicine.

A very good read on the subject which comes highly recommended is Dr Kelly Turner’s Radical Remission. Dr Turner’s research was funded by the American Cancer Society. She interviewed several hundred cancer survivors, people for who western Conventional Medicine had done all that it could, but not enough to remit their cancer. These people used nine common factors, all aspects of Mind Body Medicine, to move into long term cancer remission.

It is possible to improve a cancer outcome using Integrative Oncology (Integrative Oncology is Conventional Oncology and Mind-Body Medicine working together). This hope, which is very real, is based on the knowledge that others have done so. The alternative is to be without hope and this would not be helpful in any situation, let alone when dealing with a cancer.

Having support and hope

Social support is important for persons with serious and/or life threatening disease. This support may come from family, friends, a church, or perhaps from organisations such as the Cancer Society. In New Plymouth where I live, the Cancer Society is very active, providing gym based exercise groups, walking groups, and classes in Qi gong, relaxation/yoga, meditation and life skills. There is practical support provided by qualified staff. Reiki massage is available and there are Men’s and Women’s support groups that meet monthly. A sense of positive support and belonging is reported by those who engage.

If you have serious disease make sure that you do have good social support. My recommendation is that you also include the Cancer Society as part of your support base.

There is hope that the combination of Conventional Medicine and Mind Body Medicine will achieve a better outcome than may have been expected. This is my world.

There is hope that new treatments, both fully funded and unfunded, will become available. In the nearly four years that I have been on my own cancer journey I have seen that happening for others with some great outcomes.

Be positive on the journey

If you too are on a cancer journey, it should be just that, a “journey” and not a “battle”. Battles are about war, struggle, grief and misery. A journey is an adventure. Cancer need not be a bad thing. Unwelcome yes, but strangely not necessarily a disaster. Take the “journey”, enjoy life, be positive, and cast aside the negativity of the “battle” mentality.

You will be better for it

I hope that you have gained something from this series on cancer. If you do have cancer or other serious disease, I hope that the treatments you have chosen bring you wellness and peace.

It’s a major threat to native plants, and some councils list it as a pest species. But the fact it’s so hard to eradicate makes others wary of taking it on. –Nicholas Boyack, Dominion Post 19 January 2018

By Roger Childs

The popular South African import

It’s flowering time for agapanthus and you may have the attractive white and purple-blue flowers in your garden at the moment, or down the road on a bank.

But many exotaphobes regard it as a weed.

Well, it’s not a native and is seen by some as a threat to our biodiversity. Some local authorities have suggested to their citizens to root them out, but should all foreign plants in the country be wiped out solely for that reason? Kapiti Coasters will have noticed the prolific growth of agapanthus in the central barrier of the old state highway near Coastlands, so presumably the KCDC is OK with them [or at least the NZTA is —Eds].

Biodiversity is what we’ve got!

biodiversity: diversity among and within plant and animal species in an environment. –dictionary.com

Some ecological and horticultural purists are obsessed with plants that are native to New Zealand and some don’t even like trees like pohutukawa growing outside their heartland in the northern half of the North Island!

Surely, our biodiversity is what we’ve got now: radiata pine, gorse, blackberry, poplars, the native forest and everything else that’s growing on our land. Not to mention sheep, cattle, possums, blackbirds, stoats, trout and rats.

Wellington ecologist Jamie Steer argues that we have a moral responsibility to value introduced species as well as natives. However, there are other scientists who support eliminating “unwanted” plants and animals.

Enjoy the agapanthus

These flowers have long been popular with gardeners and because of their powerful root systems they are great for holding banks together and growing along boundaries.
There is no question that highly developed agapanthus can be difficult to root out, however, why move them if they have a role in your garden? They are no more a weed than roses, camellias or rhododendrons, and no-one is suggested we should get rid of those garden favourites.

At this time of the year the distinctive agapanthus are a great sight!  Enjoy.