TERMITES in Australia are equally likely to attack a brick house as a
weatherboard one. Surprising as it may seem, their choice of target is
unaffected by building materials, according to an extensive survey mostly
conducted by young people.
The nationwide study of more than 5000 homes was undertaken by secondary
school student members of CSIRO鈥檚 Double Helix Club under the broad supervision
of CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products. It has refuted the conventional wisdom
that termites are more likely to sink their teeth into wooden buildings than
anything else. And the size of the sample means the conclusions are solidly
based.
鈥淭he findings show the most important factor influencing termite hazard is
temperature, followed by rainfall,鈥� says Laurie Cookson of CSIRO. He was
surprised to find that houses with concrete floors are just as likely to be
infested as those with wooden floors. And that termites were found as often in
double brick and steel-framed houses as in those with timber frames. Climate and
the age of the house emerged as the best indicators of the risk of termite
attack.
Advertisement
The Double Helix Club encourages young people to take an interest in science.
The members are spread out around the country, making them an ideal research
team for a national study of this type. In this case, CSIRO designed a
questionnaire and each student researcher surveyed about 20 households in his or
her neighbourhood. This provided the great bulk of the data, but was
supplemented with CSIRO staff and telephone interviews to fill in gaps in the
national coverage.
The result is a rating of regions for termite hazard. While the risk is
negligible in Tasmania鈥攚here 100 houses were surveyed without finding any
which had been attacked鈥攊t is very high along the sub-tropical and
tropical coasts of Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland.
The findings about the vulnerability of brick, concrete and steel
constructions add a new source of concern for householders in the warm parts of
the country.
In this Olympic year, there is great interest in the question of the use of
banned drugs by athletes. One group of scientists, working for the testing
agencies, is trying to out-smart another group working for the drug cheats. The
most obvious motivation for drug testing is to ensure equal competition. But
another aspect of drug use is the associated health risk.
While the hazards of steroid abuse are well known, there are growing concerns
about other practices, some of which are widespread in junior sport. A Brisbane
mother showed me a leaflet encouraging her teenage son to use oral creatine as a
dietary supplement. Creatine kinase is a limiting factor for the biochemical
reactions behind recuperating during strenuous exercise. So the theory is that
supplementing the diet with creatine may provide extra energy for short bouts of
running or cycling. Many young athletes are trying this short-cut to boost their
performance.
But there have now been three reports in the British medical journal, The
Lancet and another in the New England Journal of Medicine, all
describing kidney damage in users of the supplement. Those who market the
product say there are no data from controlled studies to support a causal link
between the therapy and kidney disease. While that is true, the anecdotal
evidence is worrying.
And hard evidence that the treatment works is pretty thin. The manufacturers
cite five studies. Three reported a benefit, but the other two found no
significant effect. It鈥檚 not a convincing basis to justify risking even a small
probability of serious damage.
US PRESIDENT Bill Clinton has just announced an increase of US$2.8
billion in research funds in the next Budget 鈥渢o ensure science and technology
will continue to fuel economic growth and allow Americans to lead longer,
healthier lives鈥�. It鈥檚 a pity we don鈥檛 have governments in this part of the
world interested in those sorts of goals. On a per capita basis, Clinton鈥檚 move
would be equivalent to the Australian government putting an extra A$400
million into research in the forthcoming Budget, and dividing it about equally
between basic science, biomedical research, information technology and
nanotechnology. Now, I鈥檇 like to see that.