#risk reduction strategies | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

logicalnivesh · 2 years ago

Text

Why is risk management essential in the financial world?

In the financial world, risk is inseparable from return. Financial risk management occurs when an investor analyses the potential for losses in an investment and takes the appropriate action depending on the investment objectives and risk tolerance.

What is risk management?

Risk management identifies, assesses, and controls strategic, financial, security, and legal risks of an organization’s capital. These risks can arise from multiple sources like legal liabilities, accidents, economic uncertainties, natural disasters, strategic management errors, technology risk management, etc.

In the financial world, investing is essential while keeping in mind its repercussions and the techniques of risk management. Trading with proper planning results in excellent and profitable returns; for that to happen, financial risk management holds a prominent place in the entire journey.

Five steps of the risk management process

The risk management process involves a series of steps for effective management. This framework includes five basic steps, which are listed below –

Risk identification – The initial step is to identify the exact type of risk for the business to take apt measurements. There are many threats, like environmental, regulatory, legal, market, etc.

Analyze the risk – After identifying the risk, the risk’s scope must be determined to place the focus points. Risk analysis also helps highlight the common issues that cause such risk situations.

Risk assessment – Before taking any action, one needs to prioritize and rank the level of risk depending on its severity. Risk assessment allows exposure to a holistic view of risks to an organization. Risk can be assessed based on two types – qualitative and quantitative.

Risk treatment – Once the risk priorities have been set, it’s time to eliminate them with definite strategies and proper execution. This is best done by contacting the experts of that particular risk type. If you are looking for any financial risk experts focusing on investments, trade, the stock market, etc., our SEBI registered research analyst Ashutosh Bhardwaj and his Logical Nivesh team will help you find an effective solution.

Risk monitoring – Keeping a constant check on risks and their solutions is essential to maintain efficiency. Some risks cannot be eliminated, primarily financial and environmental. Therefore, monitoring them with an expert’s advice helps find accurate solutions to reduce their impact.

Financial risk management strategies

Managing financial risk is essential for individuals and companies to operate productively within the economy and the financial system.

Risk avoidance – It involves avoiding the activities that end up in risk formation. For example, eliminating the use of credit for any purchases.

For corporates, activities like expanding operations in areas with high political uncertainty, etc., are a way to eliminate risk.

Risk transfer – It means transferring your risks to a third party. For example, purchasing a life insurance policy to avoid the risk of premature death.

Business risk management can be done by purchasing insurance on their property and transferring the risk of damage to the insurer.

Risk reduction – For individuals, diversifying your investment portfolio reduces the risk of potential losses and saves you from portfolio downfall.

Corporations can hedge foreign currency transactions to reduce exposure to currency fluctuations.

Risk retention involves accepting your responsibility for any particular risk after risk identification. For example, individuals do not insure their property consciously, or corporations deliberately get volatile input costs without insurance.

Financial risk management types

There are four types of financial risks that financial experts have to consider while proposing investment strategies.

Operational risk management is the indirect or direct loss caused by inadequate or failed internal processes, systems, or external events. It includes many risk types like environmental, legal, physical, and security. These are not revenue driven and can be managed within acceptable risk tolerance levels.

Foreign exchange risk management – When a financial transaction is made in a currency different from the businesses’ operating money due to unfavorable exchange rates between the two.

Credit risk management – A credit risk is experienced when borrowers default on their outstanding payments. Other factors, such as increased collection costs, loss of interest, etc., determine the extent of credit risk. Credit risk management solutions involve purchasing insurance, a debt guarantee by a third party, running a credit check, or holding assets as collateral.

Reputational risk management – Loss of financial capital from damage to an organization’s reputation is called reputational risk. It can even lead to bankruptcy. However, a proper financial risk management course from expert financial advisors can help eliminate such risks. Our Logical Nivesh team is happy to help you with the same.

#finance #financial #Financial risk management #investment research #logical nivesh #Operational risk management #Risk assessment #Risk avoidance #risk management #Risk reduction #Risk retention #security #strategies

0 notes

nv-alexander · 10 days ago

Text

PSA: HARM REDUCTION

This term has been getting thrown around quite a bit this year and I want to clear some things up because this is a very important topic.

What does harm reduction mean?

Harm reduction is the practice of reducing Harm or risk associated with activities such as substance use, self injury, or sex.

For an everyday example: a parent who says, "If you're going to drink, drink at my house," is actually promoting harm reduction strategies. If you are going to do it, do it safely.

Having a DD or using a taxi is harm reduction. Practicing safe sex is also harm reduction.

Harm reduction strategies for substance use:

- education on substances and associated risk

- creating safe use sites

- education on overdose and first aid

- providing new, sterile supplies for use--find out if your town has a needle exchange, never know when you or someone you know will need one

- providing test kits for fentanyl, xylazine, GHB

- public education on administering narcan

- legalization of recreational use of substances to ensure regulation of ingredients

- providing narcan

- creating crisis response units comprised of social workers and paramedics for people experiencing OD or substance related crises.

Harm reduction for self harm:

- using sterile blades

- cutting in places that are not potentially lethal

- using shallow cuts

- properly cleaning and treating of wounds

- education on first aid

- having a crisis plan

- having a safe, clean space for engaging in self harm

- social worker/paramedic crisis response units for mental health crises

Harm reduction for sex:

- condoms and contraceptives

- plan b

- engaging in sex in a safe space (swinger clubs actually fulfill this)

- getting tested for STDs & HIV (also many swinger clubs check this)

- taking PreP

- reproductive education

- decriminalized sex work (provides protections for sex workers and can help limit spread of STDs)

Harm reduction is a very specific concept and does not apply to politics unless you are promoting the implementation of harm reduction practices

Harm reduction is a public health issue. It is not "well person A will be worse than person B so we will vote for person B"

Harm reduction does not present alternative actions but ways to engage in high-risk actions safely. Using it to describe a choice between A and B is a gross misunderstanding of the basic concept.

Harm reduction is "if you are going to do it, do it safely"

#harm reduction #self h@rm #safe sex #self harm #substance use #addictions #politics #mental health #reproductive health #public health #self injury #safety #public safety #this has been a psa #source: i work in addictions

95 notes · View notes

covid-safer-hotties · 3 months ago

Text

Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of posts on social media that ask “why do people who were masking suddenly stop after having covid?”

This is definitely “a thing” – one that I’ve seen occur among many of own previously “covid cautious” friends and extended family members after they’ve been infected for the first time. The phenomenon isn’t restricted to mask wearing, either: I have a friend who lives in a very large and crowded urban area who had been masking consistently for four years. Recently, she was down with the virus for the first time. After she recovered, she kept masking, but she also started visiting the city’s perennially crowded restaurants – something she had avoided doing since those establishments temporarily shuttered in 2020.

Why does this sort of “giving up” after infection occur? Well, fundamentally, recidivism has to do with how people assess both a health risk and its associated risk reduction activities. So to begin, let’s do a quick review of the processes that shape people’s health judgments and behaviors regardless of whether or not they’ve experienced a threat directly:

First, people often assess personal health risks and mitigation strategies based on a whole host of factors that may have little or nothing to do with the threat itself, including what they’re being asked to do to mitigate the threat (for example, how easy or hard those behaviors are to do, and how well they think they can do them); how they feel about those activities; what other folks they know (or know of) think about risk mitigation, and how those other folks are behaving. If people believe that a risk prevention activity or strategy isn’t likely to keep the threat at bay; if they think the (financial, social, or other) costs of engaging in risk reduction are too high; or they think they just can’t do the risk-reducing behavior for some reason, they aren’t likely to try or to keep trying.

But two other big factors in health risk assessment and prevention (which together are called risk judgments) have to do with the threat itself. The first of these factors is people’s perceptions of how likely it is that a negative event (like an infection) will happen to them, specifically – that is, the perceived event probability, which is often based on the person’s perceived susceptibility to the health threat. The second factor is their perceptions of the threat’s severity – for example, what people believe will happen to them as a result of experiencing the health-related event.

At this point in the pandemic, people’s perceptions of “personal vulnerability” to infection with SARS-CoV-2 may be the same as they were previously, or may even have increased over time due to personal experience with infections; once you’ve been through an event, it becomes harder to think that you never could. But a perception of vulnerability going forward isn’t a given, because many people assume that prior infection or vaccination compliance means they’re now immune, to some degree; in such cases, people may perceive their vulnerability to getting infected as being lower than it once was, even if they’re engaging in more risk activity than they were in previous years. (This is why messaging about waning immunity is so important.)

What is likely to have decreased is people’s perceptions of severity. To some degree, this is due just to the passage of time: when people become alarmed about a new threat (like a novel virus) yet do not experience the most feared outcomes (like sudden disability or death) over a stretch of time, perceptions of both event probability and risk severity tend to wane; this is reflected in the attitude that “if it hasn’t happened yet, it’s not going to.” To some degree, these perceptual changes can be adaptive, because maintaining a state of hypervigilance over long periods can itself have negative health effects, and because viewing a threat as less concerning than one used to allows folks to re-engage with things they may really need to do but had put on hold (like dealing with a dental issue, which many folks waited on in 2020). But ironically, the tendency to relax over time means that the things many folks do daily (like driving or riding in cars) tend to be perceived as less risky than those we do less frequently (like flying in planes), even when people “know” that those more frequently taken risks are also statistically more likely to result in harm.

One example of people “habituating” to a health risk from the world of viruses is influenza. Seasonal flu is an illness that affects hundreds of millions of people globally every year, with millions of severe cases and (according to the WHO), 290,000 to 650,000 acute respiratory deaths annually. (Not all flu-related deaths are acute, of course; for example, the actor Harry Anderson suffered strokes from a flu infection in 2018, eventually dying from one three months later.) Yet most people in industrialized nations don’t give much thought to avoiding the flu, in significant part because we’ve all grown up with it in the background of our daily lives. In the US, fewer than half of us tend to get our annual flu shot (especially if we’re young and without particular risk factors that make us more aware of the threat), even though flu vaccination is an annual one-off intervention that’s pretty easy for most folks to do. And far less of the population engages in more ongoing risk-reduction for flu; for example, before the covid pandemic, some high-risk people wore masks during flu season (I was one of them, depending on the flu strain), but doing so never would have occurred to most.

We also know that just participating in health risk behavior is sometimes associated with lower perceptions of the likelihood of negative outcomes. “Wait, what?” I hear you asking. But it’s true; people who do various risky things may view those activities as less risky than the folks who abstain do. One reason is that, when people intend to engage in risk behavior (whatever their motivation), they often then “adjust their perceptions of risk down” as a way of reducing cognitive dissonance and justifying their choices. Some studies show that general perceptions of population-level risk might not change (so, for example, folks who are socializing without a mask may still know that covid is “out there” and can kill and disable people), but perceptions about one’s own behavior and expected outcomes get rosier.

So habituation and cognitive dissonance are part of the story. But what about all the people who presumably knew that mask wearing and other forms of covid risk mitigation were important for them personally (because, after all, they were doing it), yet suddenly stopped once they’d had an encounter with the virus? Wouldn’t that personal experience make them even more committed to avoiding another infection?

The answer is: not necessarily. To some unknown degree, people may be dropping their masks after recovery from infection with SARS-CoV-2 simply because the thing they were trying to accomplish (“never getting covid”) is now off the table, and in that all-or-nothing way of thinking in which people are so often inclined to engage, they feel they’re no longer playing the same game – so they don’t feel the need to play at all. This pattern of response contributes to recidivism within a whole host of health risk reduction realms, from weight management to the abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs. (Unfortunately, messages from the covid cautious community that people must engage in consistent risk avoidance all the time, without allowing for relapse, don’t help this situation.)

Even when people develop long-term health issues after an experience like a covid infection, they may convince themselves that “the damage is already done,” so why keep avoiding the threat? With both covid and other health threats, folks often don’t fully grasp that one experience of a threat doesn’t mean there’s no benefit to avoiding subsequent encounters; I used to see this in my own research with HIV+ men, who sometimes failed to recognize the benefit of avoiding new exposures to additional strains of that virus – including drug resistant ones. Another, especially vivid picture of this kind of thinking, which was embodied by the character played by Andy Garcia in the film Dead Again, is of smokers who develop cancer; receive tracheostomies; and then continue to smoke through the stoma hole. As Garcia’s character asks, “I’m dying; what the f** is the difference?”

But mostly, the cessation of masking (and re-commitment to restaurant dining, and all the rest) once people experience a covid infection likely has to do with changes to the perception of disease severity discussed above. Some of this change is undoubtedly due to the fact that folks with a recent infection under their belt (just like everyone else) have been told by trusted authorities and the media that covid is now more mild than it was, which most people take to mean “not a threat.” The absence of morgue trucks parked outside hospitals, and the absence of accessible statistics about hospitalizations and deaths, both lend credence to that narrative. The perception of a threat as something you need to avoid is a necessary precondition to wanting to ameliorate that threat; why would people avoid doing an enjoyable activity that they don’t view as “too dangerous,” or put themselves out to sidestep exposure to a virus they think is “just a cold?”

Additionally, when people have been engaging in risk reduction behavior (like masking) yet still experience the outcome they were trying to avoid (like a covid infection), this often leads to a perception that the mitigation behavior is itself ineffective (so what’s the point in continuing to do it?) and a sense of helplessness or fatalism (because “everyone’s going to keep getting it, anyway”). Both compromise people’s intentions to avoid risk activity. Even when people were infected simply because they weren’t engaging in an intervention consistently or effectively, (say, they removed their mask in a high-risk situation, or they were wearing just a “baggy blue” when an N95 would have been appropriate) or because there were extenuating circumstances (say, their exposure took place during an unusually high risk-situation like a Taylor Swift concert, where they were masked but the air was laden with the breath of tens of thousands of unmasked people), folks may be likely to start viewing an intervention like masking as globally ineffective. So they abandon it, rather than recognizing that, although no intervention is fool-proof, a “harm reduction” approach to masking when you can is better than adopting an all-or-nothing attitude that leads to giving up.

Finally and perhaps most important, when people engage in risk activity and come out the other side “unscathed” (or think they have), perceptions of risk and associated intentions to engage in activity like masking may be especially likely to take a hit. Emotionally, “getting away with it” (which the majority of people believe they do, with any one infection, whether that means avoiding hospitalization or avoiding long-term health issues) provides positive reinforcement for engaging in health risk behavior, as well as a sense of invulnerability. (For some, engaging in risk behavior even provides a “buzz” that is itself reinforcing!) Cognitively, navigating an infection without experiencing unacceptably adverse consequences (or without realizing you did, at the time) provides people with concrete information about what to expect from the virus; this allows them to conclude that getting infected is an acceptable thing to keep doing.

Even if a person is aware of new research studies and statistics such as hospitalization/mortality numbers – which isn’t likely, these days – such population-level information is often perceived as much more abstract and much less relevant to a person’s own situation than their lived experience is. If you’ve ever looked askance at a friend who is doing something patently unsafe and been told “don’t worry, I’ve done this before,” that’s an instance of this sort of reasoning. This phenomenon occurs with regard to behaviors we do all the time; one example is of folks who think it’s safe to use their phones – or to unwrap their fast food order, or to turn around to yell at their kids – while driving. It also affects decisions we make about much more rare events, as when people stay in their homes after receiving evacuation orders, because they’ve “done this for years.” Having ridden out a storm successfully (whether it’s a literal or metaphorical one) reinforces the idea that all storms can be successfully ridden out.

Together, all of these factors can combine to foster an “illusion of invulnerability.” As psychologist Neil Weinstein once wrote, “the lesson we learn about most hazards is that they do not happen to us.” And when people are provided with mitigation guidance that they later deem to have been unnecessary, that further contributes to an unwillingness to follow that guidance again. One example from outside the world of covid is that of homeowners in Florida or the Carolinas who ignore evacuation messaging and tell newscasters it’s because “we left once, but it turned out we could have just stayed where we were, so now we just do that.” This sort of situation is directly analogous to the decision-making of folks who were told they needed to wear masks; did so (whether well or poorly, consistently or inconsistently); had a covid infection; recovered; feel fine; and so, conclude that that covid mitigation isn’t worth the trouble.

Early in the pandemic, people didn’t know what to expect of SARS-CoV-2. The threat was new, ambiguous, and hard for people to assess because they had no prior experience from which to draw. They were shocked by all the deaths being described on TV and social media, and were given concrete instructions to stay home and mask up. But for most people, personal experiences with infection (as well as policy changes) have altered that risk assessment. When their own acute infection is asymptomatic or mild (as most acute infections are, regardless of what may happen later) and people perceive no lasting damage (whether or not there was some), that can lead folks to believe that covid is actually no big deal, and so, lead them to conclude that interventions aren’t worth their perceived costs. This kind of thinking is especially likely when there’s a time lag between a health risk exposure and development of subsequent negative outcomes; we see it with smokers who later develop lung cancer or heart disease, and with heavy drinkers who develop cirrhosis. In early HIV intervention, we saw it all the time among people who had unprotected sex and were later surprised to learn they had HIV, because (since the consequence didn’t follow immediately from the precipitating behavior), they really felt like they’d been dodging the bullet.

So how can we deal with this reality?

Well, telling people that they’re likely to experience dire consequences from acute infection isn’t often going to be persuasive, both because that usually isn’t true (most people don’t die from acute infection, or even become hospitalized) and because people can think of a great many examples of folks they know who caught covid and didn’t die – including themselves. (That’s the availability heuristic, which I’ve discussed before.) In those situations, people are simply likely to assume the messenger isn’t a credible source of information. Even reminding people of the risks of long covid is typically likely to fall on deaf ears, at this point, because of perceived invulnerability and optimism bias issues – as noted above, when a message asks people to prioritize a theoretical risk over actual experience, it’s often ignored. My personal opinion is that, given where we are right now, the best approach we can take is one of harm reduction, which emphasizes lessening risky or harmful behaviors and increasing health-protective ones, rather than looking to achieve, in one dramatic leap, a perfect world in which everyone abstains from risky behavior all of the time. Some important questions are therefore: Who are the people most at risk? What are the most important settings in which to work to increase infection control measures? What policies do we need to fight for, and against? How can we meet people where they currently are? And what are the obstacles to doing that?

Risk reduction messaging needs to adapt based on what people’s beliefs and attitudes are at the moment; the strategies and message that people were receptive to early on are not the same as those they may be receptive to now. This is a different time – not because we aren’t still living through a pandemic, but because public perceptions and public policy have both shifted dramatically. To create compliance, we need to take into account the misunderstandings and biases that people – even those folks who are not inherently anti-mask or anti-vax – have now embraced and carry with them. We must understand the foundations of people’s risk behavior and current views of risk reduction if we are to build on that base.

For example, risk perceptions fluctuate; many people who don’t generally mask may be willing to return to masking during specific surge periods, but one obstacle is that there is poor public awareness of when the threat is highest. The reluctance of some media outlets to get out in front of surges (rather than mentioning them in passing once the horse is out of the barn) is a contributing factor, but there are others that are far less obvious. For instance, when well-meaning people convey to friends or social media followers that community transmission is at a high level all the time, this may make it harder for unmasked-but-mask-receptive folks to know when community transmission has really hit a level at which they, personally, would be willing to mask. Over time, believing that credible information about these surge events is unknowable, those folks may simply tune out and stop engaging with surge alerts. (I’ve seen this happen with a very kind, decent friend who always respects the mitigation needs of others who explicitly inform her of those needs, but who has been infected multiple times because she hasn’t known when it’s most important to protect herself.)

The beliefs and behaviors being “deconstructed�� in this particular essay aren’t those of folks who were calling life-saving vaccines “fascism” or having mask burning parties, early on. They reflect the psychology of well-intentioned people who have often tried to do the right things, but who don’t understand the full risks of new and repeated covid infections. Yes, the cause of this disconnect is due in part to government institutions having poorly conveyed those risks (and sometimes having actively sought to limit, or even restrict, effective risk reduction activity, rather than to promote it). But it’s also simply because people think, feel and behave as people are generally “wont to do” about a wide variety of health risks – not just SARS-CoV-2. For example, thousands of people in the US are injured or die each year in home fires or from falling off of furniture. But firefighters tend to be far more aware than the rest of the public is of how burning candles and leaving the kitchen with food cooking on the stove can significantly increase house fire risks. ER doctors are more aware than other folks are of how frequently people are injured by falling off of the chairs they’ve stood on to reach something. Likewise, covid-cautious people can be hyper-aware of risk behavior that they’ve been sensitized to, without appreciating that humans in modern society often feel safe with regard to many sorts of risk activity that they engage in as a matter of course.

In general, I’m not a huge fan of the expression “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” because I tend to believe that most people could be doing better at most things, most of the time, than they are; I am, by nature, an optimizer. But I also think we need to recognize the psychological forces that have both led people to abandon covid mitigations and which keep them from taking up those risk-reducing behaviors again – and we should look to deal with those dynamics while appreciating that they are deeply ingrained aspects of the human condition. No matter how frustrated, angry or upset folks are that so many people, including their previously masking friends, have “moved on,” we need to tailor current strategies to engage with people about risk reduction on the battlefields on which we currently find ourselves, if we hope to win those battles, let alone to prevail in the larger war on public health.

#covid #mask up #pandemic #covid 19 #wear a mask #coronavirus #sars cov 2 #still coviding #public health #wear a respirator

46 notes · View notes

rinielelrandir · 4 months ago

Text

I have googled drug interactions & overdose symptoms for meds I am *prescribed by a doctor* and had Google offer me suicide prevention sources. It's *incredibly* frustrating to try and research how to safely take meds I'm on and instead get "don't kill yourself! there's hope!" for multiple pages. Like thanks google, wasn't where my head was at, I really just wanted to know if I can have some wine with dinner or not???

Need to get some reference images let's see if google decides I'm gonna kill myself.

#idk i really don't think this strategy of having helplines come up instead #when you search certain things #is actually the best harm reduction strategy #given it makes it so difficult to do *actual research* and get quality info #like oh thanks for 3 pages of helplines + treatment centers + quora results #that doesn't actually answer any of my questions or provide actual harm reduction info tho #like genuinely if someone who cuts is trying to do so in a harm reduction way #but all the results are just 'noooo!! it gets better!!!'#who does that help?#the person is still gonna cut #but now they don't have good information on how to minimize risk doing so

15 notes · View notes

transmutationisms · 1 year ago

Text

i have a handful of anonymous asks in my inbox right now asking about harm reduction as applied to eating disorders that their loved ones are experiencing. i'm not answering these individually, both because it would get repetitive and because i don't know your loved ones and can't give them personal advice, but i did want to say a few general things on this topic.

the basic principles of harm reduction are the same in regards to EDs as anything else. the point here is not to force a person to stop doing something dangerous (this is impossible) or even to pressure them to stop (this also doesn't work, and will often have the effect of making you into a person they don't feel safe around and can't turn to for help, thus actually decreasing their access to support and resources). instead, the goal of harm reduction generally is to give people the knowledge and resources they need to engage in risky behaviours as safely as possible. the reasons people do things that are physically or socially harmful to them vary, obviously, but in general these behaviours are serving some purpose in the person's life, like providing emotional 'blunting' they need to deal with otherwise intolerable circumstances, or meeting a physical need for specific substances. harm reduction meets people where they are, beginning with the premise that they deserve basic respect, dignity, and self-determination, whether or not they continue to engage in behaviours that may be endangering them.

some baseline harm reduction strategies for EDs could include:

take necessary safety precautions if (over)exercise is a feature of the disorder, or if you are at risk for fainting; ideally, have someone around (or reachable by phone) who can help in case of injury

do your best to compensate for any micronutrient deficiencies resulting from food restriction; dietary supplementation may be necessary

know if any substances/pharmaceuticals you may use (recreationally or not) can affect you more strongly, faster, or more dangerously on an empty stomach; here, harm reduction for EDs will overlap with harm reduction for drug use

know the signs of electrolyte imbalance and resultant cardiac events, particularly in EDs involving purging by laxative use or self-induced vomiting; keep a stockpile of items like sports drinks/gels that can rapidly replenish electrolytes; know where to seek emergency medical treatment and how to recognise when it may be vitally necessary

monitor long-term health risks, like bone density loss, tooth enamel damage, hyperglycaemia (in cases of diabulimia), &c. note that both this step and the above require finding medical practitioners who will treat patients non-judgmentally and without threat of institutionalisation

....and so forth.

harm reduction plans are highly individualised: they depend on the person's own goals and desires. a harm reduction plan might include strategies for engaging in ED behaviours less frequently or intensely, and may even include a long-term goal of recovery. however, harm reduction has not 'failed' if the person doesn't want to, or can't, reduce frequency or severity of behaviours right now or ever. ED harm reduction that does include goals for reducing behaviours, without necessarily trying to eliminate them entirely, might include strategies like:

purge less frequently; avoid or reduce flushing and chew/spit

reduce food restriction by raising calorie limits, not counting calories at all, eating certain 'fear foods', &c

identify triggers for restriction, binging/purging, &c; try to avoid those triggers (& possibly enlist assistance doing this)

ask someone trusted to eat with you if this would help you, for example, become more comfortable with eating non-restrictively, and turn eating into a social connection rather than a stressful event

consume a sufficient amount of food regularly and consistently <- this is the bedrock of all recovery work

again, though, the particular strategies in a person's harm reduction plan will depend on what they want to implement and are capable of doing right now. a person who's not ready for any step that asks them to engage in fewer behaviours, or to engage in behaviours less frequently, can still benefit from a harm reduction approach if they're interested. this is a conversation that should always be approached non-judgmentally and with the understanding that any harm reduction plan depends on the person's own capacities and goals. harm reduction is not about telling someone else what would be 'best' for them in an 'ideal' world. it's about meeting them where they are right now.

something important to note about EDs is that efforts to restrict food and food groups and to shrink body size are considered extremely common and 'normal' in much of the contemporary popular culture, and are frequently encouraged and prescribed by medical practitioners. this means that even when you are worried about someone with a self-endangering ED, there is often a considerable risk that, in trying to help them, you might still be promoting or acceding to the same fatphobic logic that can fuel the ED. if you, for instance, think that pursuing intentional weight loss is generally benign or healthy; if you have ideas about what size a person's body 'should' be based on things like actuarial charts; if you think that some foods are universally 'bad' and need to be restricted or eliminated; if you think that food should be 'earned' or compensated for by physical activity—stop, do not pass go, and do not try to dispense any kind of advice, harm reduction or otherwise, to someone struggling with an ED. you are not capable of being a resource here unless and until you are committed to a politics of fat liberation, disability rights, mad liberation, and anti-racism. you are not reducing harm if you are contributing to further entrenching the cultural beliefs and economic mechanisms of fatphobia and body fascism that the ED itself thrives on.

(**i am not saying that all EDs start or end with the desire to be thin as articulated through white supremacist body ideals, but it is a very common feature at this moment in history, and having these ideas reinforced, including through the lens of medical fatphobia, can certainly contribute to or worsen already-present behaviours and thought patterns where EDs are concerned.)

harm reduction also means giving a person the knowledge they need to evaluate their own goals and needs. in regards to EDs specifically, lots of public health communication is confounded by industry-funded diet and 'obesity' research that prescribes food restriction, compensatory exercise, and other recognisably 'eating disordered' behaviours, especially to fat people. many people with EDs, and their loved ones, may not even realise how many misconceptions they have learned about body size, nutrition, and the health risks of EDs. some basic places to start learning about these things from a weight-neutral / fat-liberationist angle that i would suggest include: christy harrison's podcast 'food psych' (her book is also decent but treads a lot of the same ground); gwyneth olwyn's work; lindo bacon and lucy aphramor's papers on 'health at every size'; jennifer gaudiani's book 'sick enough', which is a good starter resource on the medical effects of EDs. note that none of these resources are working within an explicitly harm reductionist framework, and imo make some missteps in this arena! but they still contain insights and information that can be useful to those who are interested in harm reduction, and to those with EDs generally.

harm reduction can be a tool to recovery, or a step on that road; it can also be an alternative for people who are not ready to seek recovery, and who may never be ready. the reality is that you cannot force someone to stop engaging in behaviours they rely on to live, whether drug use, EDs, or anything else. harm reduction proceeds from this place and from a fundamental commitment to respect for people who are generally already suffering. when approaching a loved one, you may or may not be able to initiate a conversation in which you express, eg, that you are worried about them hurting themselves, and would like to offer whatever emotional or material resources you can to help. but you have to go into any such interaction understanding that they may very well already know all of the risks of what they're doing, and may have other reasons they can't or don't want to stop. if you're trying to impose your will on them---by force, pressure, or coercion---you're not doing harm reduction, and you're most likely alienating them and turning yourself into a person they don't feel safe around where these behaviours are concerned.

#harm reduction #eating disorders

267 notes · View notes

neuroticboyfriend · 1 year ago

Text

I don't know how to start this post, but. When it comes to drug use, there's something called harm reduction, and it's well... exactly what it sounds like. Harm reduction is about improving safety in a given situation, and it stands in opposition to the abstinence-only approach. It accepts that, for better or worse, drug use is part of society, part of life. No matter what we do, there are always going to be people who use drugs. The most any of us can do is offer support, advice, and resources.

Examples of harm reduction practices are: offering free drug testing, clean needles/syringes, having someone to watch over/take care of you during drug use (a tripsitter), having naloxone for opioid overdoses... It's educating people about the drugs they're on, the risks involved, potential drug interactions, signs of a medical emergency and what to do in one... that kind of thing. But I want to further explain the whole "given situation" part.

In most cases, the immediate goal of harm reduction isn't to have someone not use drugs. In fact, in the case of withdrawal, having someone not use may be dangerous than them not using at all. There are also situations where, if someone doesn't have access to drug A, they'll go take the more dangerous drug B. They may even combine multiple drugs to try to achieve similar effects as drug A... which can also be dangerous. All of it can be deadly. This is to say, sometimes harm reduction means giving people drugs - especially drugs that aren't cut (laced) with other substances (commonly, fentanyl).

There are many situations where someone is going to do something dangerous no matter what we do - but maybe, we can help change how dangerous it is. Some of the practices I mentioned earlier will do that, but further examples are taking a lower dose, taking a break to lower tolerance, taking one drug at a time, spacing out how often you use a drug... Hell, even making sure you're fed, hydrated, and as comfortable as possible helps. Or maybe, when it comes to cravings, you distract yourself with something for a bit, even if you still end up using.

Instead of "everyone needs to not use drugs ever," which doesn't actually help anyone who's using... harm reductions strategies are based on an individual person/population's needs. It's not coercive. It accepts people know their needs/wants better than others, and that bodily autonomy is a human right even when that autonomy leads to someone harming themself. And this premise can be (and is being) applied to other things, like behavioral addictions, self harm, and disordered eating.

Basically, abstinence-only may work for some, but they're only a small portion of the population. Applying a single approach to everyone who does/will do drugs is not only ineffective, but deadly. Harm reduction has saved and improved countless lives through its acceptance and versatility, and more people need to know about it.

126 notes · View notes

rjzimmerman · 26 days ago

Text

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

A row of executives from grain-processing behemoth Archer Daniels Midland watched as Verlyn Rosenberger, 88, took the podium at a Decatur City Council meeting last week. It was the first meeting since she and the rest of her central Illinois community learned of a second leak at ADM’s carbon dioxide sequestration well beneath Lake Decatur, their primary source of drinking water.

“Just because CO2 sequestration can be done doesn’t mean it should be done,” the retired elementary school teacher told the city council. “Pipes eventually leak.”

ADM’s facility in central Illinois was the first permitted commercial carbon sequestration operation in the country, and it’s on the forefront of a booming, multibillion-dollar carbon capture and storage, or CCS, industry that promises to permanently sequester planet-warming carbon dioxide deep underground.

The emerging technology has become a cornerstone of government strategies to slash fossil fuel emissions and meet climate goals. Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, has supercharged industry subsidies and tax credits and set off a CCS gold rush.

There are now only four carbon sequestration wells operating in the United States — two each in Illinois and Indiana — but many more are on the way. Three proposed pipelines and 22 wells are up for review by state and federal regulators in Illinois, where the geography makes the landscape especially well suited for CCS. Nationwide, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing 150 different applications.

But if CCS operations leak, they can pose significant risks to water resources. That’s because pressurized CO2 stored underground can escape or propel brine trapped in the saline reservoirs typically used for permanent storage. The leaks can lead to heavy metal contamination and potentially lower pH levels, all of which can make drinking water undrinkable. This is what bothers critics of carbon capture, who worry that it’s solving one problem by creating another.

In September, the public learned of a leak at ADM’s Decatur site after it was reported by E&E News, which covers energy and environmental issues. Additional testing mandated by the EPA turned up a second leak later that month. The EPA has confirmed these leaks posed no threat to water sources. Still, they raise concern about whether more leaks are likely, whether the public has any right to know when leaks occur, and if CCS technology is really a viable climate solution.

Officials with Chicago-based ADM spoke at the Decatur City Council meeting immediately after Rosenberger. They tried to assuage her concerns. “We simply wouldn’t do this if we didn’t believe that it was safe,” said Greg Webb, ADM’s vice president of state-government relations.

#carbon sequestration #carbon capture and storage #Illinois #ADM

10 notes · View notes

frithwontdie · 7 days ago

Text

Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review | BMJ Open

Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.

6 notes · View notes

a-modernmajorgeneral · 2 months ago

Text

The United States government is doubling down on its commitment to safeguarding Ukrainian culture amid the Eastern European country’s ongoing war with Russia.

On September 19, U.S. officials announced a new $1 million grant to the International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), which will use the funds to “support the next phase of a multiyear project to help Ukraine improve risk reduction and emergency management of its cultural heritage,” according to a statement. The grant is part of the U.S.’s $10.5 million commitment to Ukraine under the Ukraine Cultural Heritage Response Initiative, which was established in 2023 by the U.S. Department of State.

“Ukraine is fighting the Russian invasion on all fronts,” says Maksym Kovalenko, the Ukrainian consul general in Naples, Italy, in the statement. “The cultural front is no exception. The support of the international community provides us with an ability to respond to the challenges of war and, despite everything, to develop a long-term strategy for the preservation and restoration of our cultural heritage.”

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, UNESCO has verified damage to 438 Ukrainian cultural sites, including religious sites, buildings of historical or artistic interest, museums, monuments, libraries, and an archive. The agency previously said it was “gravely concerned” over threats to Ukrainian heritage.

Russian troops have removed “entire truckloads of artworks and historical artifacts” from Ukrainian museums, supposedly for “safekeeping,” reports Vitaly Shevchenko for BBC News. In some museums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, Russian troops have removed exhibitions and replaced them with propaganda glorifying the war.

In a 2023 essay for Smithsonian magazine, Smithsonian Distinguished Scholar and Ambassador-at-Large Richard Kurin wrote, “These attacks are not just random, nor do they represent collateral damage. Rather, they suggest a targeted attack on Ukrainian history, culture and identity, a means toward [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s ends—the destruction is a deliberate attempt to obliterate Ukrainian history and culture.”

Hundreds of professionals associated with Ukrainian and international organizations—among them the Smithsonian Cultural Rescue Initiative—have been fighting the threat to Ukrainian heritage for the past two years. In some cases, cultural heritage workers have been able to smuggle important works of art out of Ukraine and display them elsewhere. Last year, for example, five precious artworks rescued from Kyiv’s Khanenko Museum went on view at the Louvre in Paris.

The $1 million grant—the second-largest awarded under the Ukraine Cultural Heritage Response Initiative to date—arrives on the heels of newly imposed emergency import restrictions aimed at fighting the illegal removal and sale of Ukrainian cultural artifacts. Those restrictions, which limit the types of Ukrainian cultural property that can enter the U.S., will be in place until 2029.

In addition to offering funds for cultural rescue initiatives, the U.S. announced more than $8 billion in military assistance to Ukraine on September 26, the day that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the White House. In total, Congress has appropriated $175 billion in aid to Ukraine, per the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Ukrainians are fighting for the human rights and freedoms we all cherish,” says Lee Satterfield, the U.S.’s acting under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, in the statement. “And they are also fighting, in a very real sense, for their identity as a distinct and unique culture, which Vladimir Putin has denied—a denial he has used to falsely justify his brutal, full-scale invasion. [The $1 million] funding will support the heroic efforts of Ukrainians to protect and preserve their cultural heritage.”

8 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 22 days ago

Text

In July, the local government of the Italian region of Sardinia suspended the construction of hundreds of new wind turbines, claiming that it would destroy the island’s beautiful landscape. In October, the government then announced its intention to stop the construction of new wind farms altogether, also adding solar panels to the ban.

These decisions followed mounting protests by large groups of activists who opposed these renewable energy developments, advocating instead for the use of natural gas to produce electricity. In August, unknown people set fire to two wind farms that were due to be installed in the north of the island. Similar attacks destroyed solar panels destined to be constructed on local farmland.

Under its new plans, Sardinia is betting instead on developing its natural gas infrastructure while delaying the shutdown of its coal-fired power plants, which now produce more than 60 percent of the electricity needed by the island of 1.6 million people.

The opposition to renewables in Sardinia is a blow not only to other Italian local governments, which are facing tough decisions on how to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a major setback for the central government in Rome and especially for the European Union and its European Green Deal, the ambitious climate plan for the entire continent.

The ongoing battle in Sardinia is the latest example of the struggle European countries are facing in reaching their ambitious decarbonization plans in the continent. Countries such as France, Germany, and Spain have been facing opposition to these projects over the past few years, raising questions about the attainability of a central element of the EU’s green strategy.

The ability and political will of each European country to translate Europe’s plans and goals into actual national laws and policies will be crucial in reaching the continent’s ambitious climate targets. But the risk that a two-speed—or even multispeed—Europe could ultimately derail the overall plans is growing, and it will test the new European Commission’s determination to achieve sufficient progress during its upcoming mandate.

“The commission’s legacy will depend on its ability to push forward vital green policies within a maelstrom of political and domestic discontent,” said Mats Engström, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The climate team’s members must also bridge political divides within the commission to deliver on its Green Deal promises. Whether it succeeds in this task will be closely scrutinized over the upcoming five-year term.”

The European Green Deal, a policy framework to achieve climate neutrality—meaning full decarbonization—by 2050, was approved in 2020. Subsequent legislation set a 55 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. EU institutions are currently assessing the feasibility of an intermediate goal of a reduction of 90 percent by 2040, which has also been proposed by the commission.

Replacing fossil fuel energy production with renewables is just one aspect of the bloc’s goals. Others include recovering Europe’s biodiversity, making its food system more sustainable, and creating a well-functioning circular economy, all while making its industries greener.

These policies will affect all sectors of the bloc’s economy—households, industry, services, and agriculture—with the aim of also making it more competitive globally.

Analysts at Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published a report in October that identified four areas of risk that may derail the achievement of the EU’s climate goals, which also appear to be intertwined: geoeconomic instability, technological progress, exacerbated inequality, and policy credibility.

“A global economy with more trade disputes and greater risk of conflict endangers the massive capital investment needed for the transition, while the cost of clean technologies is a primary determinant of the economic viability of decarbonisation,” the analysts wrote. They added: “Climate policies will affect people’s everyday lives in disruptive ways, meaning that regressive outcomes must be guarded against, balanced with a concrete commitment to the established climate policy pillars.”

In a September report, the European Commission—the executive arm of the EU—listed a number of key achievements already reached. EU’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 32.5 percent from the 1990 baseline, while the European economy has grown by 67 percent over the same period, demonstrating the decoupling of growth from emissions.

However, the commission warned that although the installation of renewable power plants has been at a record high over the past few years, the pace toward EU energy efficiency and renewable targets must be further increased to ensure their achievement.

The bloc’s executive also warned about the significant challenge to the continent’s competitiveness due to rising competition with China, high energy price differentials compared to industrial competitors such as the United States, and potential strategic dependencies on clean energy technologies.

At the same time, European citizens still face high energy bills, which—combined with the rising cost of living—further reduce their purchasing power.

“The sectors in which it goes pretty well are the sectors where the economic case is there,” said Linda Kalcher, the executive director at Strategic Perspectives, another Brussels-based think-tank. “For instance, as long as there are schemes that actually support households to buy heat pumps or electric vehicles, we see that there is high uptake on them. The areas where it’s still not economically beneficial, like renovating the building stock, are obviously very slow.”

This September’s Eurobarometer, a survey conducted over the previous few months on behalf of European institutions, found that 81 percent of the sample agree that implementing a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target will contribute to Europe’s fight against climate change and to the protection of the environment.

Yet, 53 percent said the EU should encourage member states to make their first or second energy priority enacting measures to support households in energy poverty, while 50 percent said that member states should prioritize focusing on measures to reduce energy consumption or that help citizens to produce or consume energy from renewable sources.

Conall Heussaff, a research analyst at Bruegel, said the biggest risk that could hamper the achievement of the EU’s 2030 decarbonization targets is what the think tank called the “policy credibility risk.”

“There’s a danger for divisive politics to use the energy transition as a wedge, as a way to divide the public and push against the sort of ‘elite imposition’ on people’s lives,” he said.

Political disputes about climate policy were evident in the run-up to European Parliament elections in June in relation to several policy measures, including the phaseout of internal combustion engines, the so-called nature restoration law, and gas boiler sales bans in Germany. These laid bare the divisive nature of policies with a direct impact on households, businesses, and agriculture.

Experience suggests the European Green Deal policies will likely face postponements and even rollbacks in the coming years, analysts warn. These rollbacks, in turn, could stall planned investments and trigger a rise in cost for businesses and citizens that have already made investments in clean technologies.

Achieving the intermediate 90 percent emission reduction target by 2040 largely relies on replacing the current expenditure on fossil fuel with capital investments in clean technologies. According to the European Commission, the annual investment required would be around 700 billion euros ($760 billion) from 2031 to 2040.

But geoeconomic risk looms large on these plans. The disruption of clean technology supply chains potentially emerging from simmering trade tensions between the major trading blocs could derail the continent’s energy transition. So too could broader economic shocks, which might destabilize the macroeconomic situation by driving up interest rates or limiting fiscal space of European countries.

Trade tensions—particularly with China, which dominates the market for critical raw materials and many green technologies, such as solar panels and batteries—could slow down the energy transition and increase its costs.

At the same time, the initial capital investment for technologies such as wind, solar, and batteries comprises the largest share of the total cost of their implementation. Rising interest rates could therefore slow down such investments.

Increased geopolitical instability—and the possible reelection of former U.S. President Donald Trump, some argue—could also trigger higher defense spending by European countries, limiting their fiscal space to finance the energy transition. The slower development of technologies could also have a negative impact. All pathways to a net-zero economy partially rely on technologies which are so far unproven on a large scale.

In particular, progress on carbon removal technologies will be key, because if it proved to be insufficient, other sectors such as agriculture or industry could be required to reduce emissions more quickly. “To succeed, the 2040 climate and energy policy framework needs to be designed to be resilient to such risks,” Bruegel’s analysts said in their October report.

The green transition envisaged by the EU will need to have the buy-in of all the bloc’s governments as well as its citizens to overcome the risks to its success. It will require European leaders to ensure the timely and thorough implementation of existing EU legislation, while limiting political concessions to the many different groups opposing the changes needed.

6 notes · View notes