I bet that would invoke some very different and colourful adjectives for the expensive junk.

JUST this week, Andrew Forrest and his wife announced a $400 million philanthropic gift.

What about similar philanthropic gifts here in Wagga?

They don’t need to be of that magnitude, they just need to be gifts. They can have strings attached too.

For example, they could be for public artworks.

Then instead of "grant-deciding agencies", the benefactor could decide where their money is spent. 

That way, there could be public art at no cost to the public purse.

People could still look at the result and make whatever comments they wish.

The works may or may not be liked.

You might say that someone making a substantial gift might want a statue of their own image. So what?

If they make substantial gifts to the community, they should be remembered, certainly more than anonymous artists.

So I repeat, there should be no public money spent on public artworks.

All public artworks should be donated by private individuals or entities.

THERE are several easy to find lunatic fringe sources which distort statistics about Bone Mass Density (BMD), milk consumption, bone fractures and osteoporosis.

They also claim that antibiotics are poison, vaccine is child abuse and other tinfoil hat hysteria.

I’m guessing that your correspondent of May 20, Jenny Moxham, likes these sources.

As well she might – mumbo-jumbo is often simpler to understand than real science.

Controlled, peer-reviewed studies refute Ms Moxham’s assertion that the more milk one drinks, the higher the likelihood of bone fractures and osteoporosis; it’s balderdash. 

Firstly, BMD, a key element in the minimising of these risks, is largely developed during adolescence.

Drinking milk during adulthood is good for essential calcium intake, but its effect on BMD is minimal; that “body-work” has already reached its peak much earlier in life.

Cadogan et al studied 80 12-year-old girls (who were given 450ml of milk per day) over 18 months and found that BMD growth increased significantly (over the control group who consumed 150ml per day).

The study concluded: “Increased milk consumption significantly enhances bone mineral acquisition in adolescent girls and could favourably modify attainment of peak bone mass” which it called “one of the most protective measures against fracture in later life”.

Kanis et al did a study compiling previously published statistics, using only adults and found no correlation between increased milk consumption, during adulthood or late adulthood, and reduction of fractures and osteoporosis.

Their key findings were that, during later life, milk intake alone is not a risk indicator and other calcium-rich products, such as butter, cheese and yoghurt need also to be included. That’s what the science of the topic looks like.

Blithe, fact-less, sweeping statements like those in the letter to which I refer reflect pseudo-science at its trashiest level.