Review

• This is the final article in The Conversation’s six-part series on insomnia, which charts the rise of insomnia during industrialisation to sleep apps today.
• Insomnia is not just a personal issue that affects an individual’s health and wellbeing.
• The global insomnia market is expected to reach US$6.3 billion by 2030, driven by increased diagnoses and therapy, as well as sleep aids, including sleep apps.

There’s an app for that

• You can buy wearable devices, such as smartwatches and smart rings or wristbands, to digitally monitor your sleep.
• You can download apps that record how long you sleep and where you can log your tiredness and concentration levels.
• You can also buy “smart” pillows, mattresses and a range of smart light-fittings and lightbulbs to help track and improve sleep.
• You can listen to “sleep stories” – bedtime stories, music or guided meditations meant to help you sleep.

Sharing and connecting can help

• Sharing and connection can ease the loneliness we know can impact sleep.
• So online sharing, support and feelings of belonging can alleviate the stresses and unhappiness that may prevent people from finding a good night’s sleep.

What is this fixation costing us?

• A focus on sleep can create a vicious cycle in which worrying about a lack of sleep can itself worsen sleep.
• Using sleep-tracking apps and wearable devices can encourage people to become overly fixated on the metrics these technologies gather.
• The data generated by digital devices are not necessarily accurate or useful, particularly for groups such as older people.

Are we missing the bigger issue?

• People living in poor housing or in noisy environments have little choice over the conditions in which they seek good sleep.
• And multiple socioeconomic factors (for instance, gender, ethnicity and economic hardship) can combine, making it even more likely to have poor sleep.

• Yet, much of the advice offered to people about how to improve their sleep focuses on individual responsibility to make changes.
• It assumes everyone can buy the latest technologies or can change their environment or lifestyle to find better “sleep health”.

Deborah Lupton receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

• Many of the big wind and solar farms planned to help Australia achieve net zero emissions by 2050 will be built on the lands and waters of First Nations peoples.
• More than half of the projects that will extract critical minerals to drive the global clean energy transition overlap with Indigenous-held lands.
• Australia’s Pilbara and Kimberley regions have high rates of Indigenous land tenure, while hosting some of world’s best co-located solar and wind energy resources.

The long but hopeful journey back from Juukan Gorge

• First, the furore and subsequent parliamentary inquiry following the Juukan Gorge incident forced the resignation of Rio Tinto boss Jean-Sebastien Jacques.
• Companies were put on notice that they can no longer run roughshod over First Nations communities.
• Third, there is a question whether the Native Title Act allows large-scale clean energy developments to go ahead without native title holders’ permission.
• Because these agreements are voluntary, native title holders can refuse to allow large wind and solar farms on their Country.

Promising partnerships on the road to net zero

• Many significant proposed projects announced in the last few years show huge promise in terms of First Nations ownership and control.
• Still, much more needs to happen to provide Indigenous communities with proper consent and control.
• And much needed reforms to cultural heritage laws in WA were scrapped following a backlash from farmers.

Why free, prior and informed consent is crucial

• So long as governments can compulsorily acquire native title to expedite a renewable energy project and miners are allowed to mine critical minerals (or any mineral) without native title holders’ consent, the net zero transition will transgress this internationally recognised right.
• Communities must decide the forms participation takes – full or part ownership, leasing and so on – after they have properly assessed their options.
• Rapid electrification through wind and solar developments cannot come at the expense of land clearing and loss of biodiversity.

Ganur Maynard was formerly a member of the steering committee of the First Nations Clean Energy Network. Brad Riley, Janet Hunt, and Lily O'Neill do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• The ramp-up to cold and flu season is a bad time for consumers to learn that some of their most trusted go-to products don’t actually work.
• The 2023 FDA advisory panel met to review growing evidence that oral phenylephrine is an ineffective treatment for nasal congestion.
• Consumers may also question whether combination cough, cold and flu products will still be safe and effective for use at home.

The backstory

• The most recent analysis is not the first time an FDA advisory panel has scrutinized oral phenylephrine.
• A 2007 panel examining its use concluded that more studies were needed to make a final decision regarding the effectiveness of phenylephrine.

Safety concerns

• No safety issues with oral phenylephrine alone were documented in the 2023 advisory panel conclusion.
• However, researchers and advisory panel members have raised concerns about the possibility of products containing ineffective phenylephrine remaining on pharmacy shelves.
• Even if oral phenylephrine is safe, taking an ineffective medication could cause consumers to spend money on products that work no better than a placebo.

The story behind pseudoephedrine

• Luckily, the nonprescription oral nasal decongestant pseudoephedrine – which is known to be effective – has been commercially available for many years.
• Pseudoephedrine is a nasal decongestant that is taken by mouth to relieve a stuffy nose.
• If the FDA acts on the advisory committee’s conclusions that oral phenylephrine is not an effective nasal decongestant, pseudoephedrine may be the only remaining oral medication available without a prescription to treat nasal congestion.

Pseudoephedrine should not be used in doses higher than those that are recommended on the label. Use of products containing pseudoephedrine should be stopped and a health care provider consulted if dizziness, nervousness or sleeplessness occurs.
Pseudoephedrine should not be used by consumers with heart disease, high blood pressure, thyroid disease, diabetes or an enlarged prostate without talking with a health care provider like a pharmacist or a physician.
Products with pseudoephedrine should not be used while taking, or within two weeks of stopping, a prescription monoamine oxidase inhibitor, which is most commonly used to treat for depression or Parkinson’s disease.

Other treatments

• These products are sold under the brand name Afrin and others.
• All of these non-drug approaches can help sooth the nasal passage to provide temporary relief from congestion.
• If symptoms of congestion continue for more than two weeks, or if signs of an infection arise, go see your doctor.

Lucas Berenbrok is part owner of the consulting company, Embarx, LLC. Colleen Culley and Karen Steinmetz Pater do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on the costs, benefits, necessity, and regulatory and economic impact of its Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs), also called the Alternative Fuels Rule, including issues related to electric vehicle charging stations.
• The FTC is conducting this review as part of its ongoing, systematic review of all agency rules and guides.
• The FTC first published the Alternative Fuels Rule in 1995 as directed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
• In addition to seeking comments on general questions about the rule, the FTC now seeks comments on specific issues related to electric vehicle charging stations.