'It pulled me out of the darkness': Channel 10's Barry Du Bois says the words 'I'm not okay' helped save his life, and could save countless others
But Channel 10's The Living Room co-host says one of the most important lessons he's learned through it all is the power of a few simple words: "I'm not okay."
"My mental health unravelled after those years of heartbreak," Du Bois told SkyNews.com.au.
"I spiralled into a very lonely, low place. I even contemplated ending my life. But a friend encouraged me to open up - and that conversation pulled me back."
At 65 years old, Du Bois is living with multiple myeloma, a rare and incurable type of blood cancer.
He was initially diagnosed in 2010 with solitary plasmacytoma, another rare form of blood cancer.
This diagnosis progressed to myeloma in 2017, a condition that impacts the immune system while attacking the bone marrow.
Eight years later, he continues to defy the odds, and he's using his platform to inspire others to speak up before they hit crisis point.
"I know personally, when you realise that people will support you, that's when your journey out of that darkness starts to happen," he said.
That philosophy is why Du Bois has joined the Heart on My Sleeve "I'm Not Okay" campaign, founded by mental health advocate Mitch Wallis.
The initiative urges Australians not to wait to be asked if they're struggling.
Instead, they're encouraged to put their heart on their sleeve, literally, and say it out loud.
Alongside Du Bois, the campaign's ambassador line-up includes world champion surfer Layne Beachley, TV host David Koch, NRL star Kieran Foran, actor Sharon Johal, ironman Guy Leech, Gogglebox's Jad Nehmetallah, entertainment reporter Richard Reid and journalist Antoinette Lattouf.
The father-of-two, who is also a proud ambassador and board member of R U OK? Day, said his work with Heart on My Sleeve is "incredibly complementary".
"I think (the campaign) really complements what I do at R U OK? Day," he said.
"One encourages people to check in on their loved ones and the other encourages people to speak up. Really, it's all about strengthening society and understanding the value of emotion, the positive and the negative, and not being afraid to share the tough stuff."
Du Bois admitted that was not something he learned growing up.
"I was raised not to show your emotions, and that took me to a very, very dark place," he said.
"So now I'm incredibly passionate about telling people that they can be brave enough to show their emotions."
As the proud father of 13-year-old twins, Bennett and Arabella, he's determined they'll always feel "heard".
"So many children, in the busy lives that we have today, don't feel heard by their parents," he said.
"The first reason is that parents often… speak in a solution-based conversation.
"They see that there's a problem and the parent wants to solve it.
"And when you've got a child that craves autonomy or craves independence… You telling them what they should do doesn't help."
Instead, he says, parents should create conversations "where you're both learning something".
Without that, kids may look elsewhere, often to social media, for validation and connection.
From his own experience, Du Bois knows that perspective matters- not just for kids, but for carers.
Supporting Leonie through her cancer battle gave him a new understanding of the toll it can take.
"When you're a carer, you're going through something that's called borrowed trauma," he said.
"You're dealing with the trauma of others as well as your own trauma, and it's really important to make sure that we get some reprieve from that.
"We have to make sure our personal cup of empathy is full. We need to care for ourselves so that we can care for others."
Looking back, he admits: "I refused to share the emotion and pain I was in. I sort of resented caring for myself because I believed others needed it more. But that's just not a balanced way to think."
And for those facing their own illness or cancer battle, Du Bois has a simple message.
"So often in this world, particularly in the medical industry, they do give up as a number, but we're not," he said.
"Never give up believing there's an opportunity to do better.
"Be curious about every possibility there is- new treatments, lifestyle changes, support networks. We're not defined by the diagnosis we have today, but by how we get up and thrive after it."
For Du Bois, joining I'm Not Okay is another step in what he calls putting "grains of sand" in front of the wrecking ball of mental ill-health- small but vital acts of advocacy and connection.
"I believe, as a modern day elder (that's how I describe myself these days) it's our duty to be as curious and to be as aware on how we can how it can improve society and how we can strengthen society," said.
"Because if we're vigilant to constantly change for the better society, that means my children will have a place where they'll be able to thrive and where they will have their best opportunities."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
PFAS experts answer common questions about 'forever chemicals' and the risks to human health
PFAS, it seems, are everywhere. From farmers in Queensland managing contaminated land, to residents north of Perth fighting for tainted pipework to be replaced, Australians are grappling with how to live with so-called "forever chemicals". Last week, a New South Wales Health expert advisory panel delivered its report on the health impacts of PFAS, on the same day researchers confirmed 21 new PFAS chemicals had been detected in Sydney's tap water. With a Senate inquiry into the extent, regulation and management of PFAS looming, some academics are encouraging a rethink on the essential use of these substances. To better understand how "forever chemicals" work, what the risks are, and what's being done to address the problems, we sat down with three leading PFAS experts: These researchers, who have a combined six decades of experience in the fields of environmental science, engineering and molecular toxicology, are urging caution around what they've called a growing problem. Have you got a question about PFAS? Dr O'Carroll will join us live from 11am to answer the common questions about forever chemicals. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) refers to a group of over 14,000 synthetic chemicals used in all sorts of industrial and domestic products since the 1950s. They're often used in firefighting foams, pesticides, building materials and electronics, as well as household products such as stain-resistant upholstery, waterproof clothing, cleaning products, cosmetics, food packaging and non-stick cookware. Dr O'Carrol explains that the chemical properties of PFAS make them very effective at repelling water, oil and dirt. "It's a chemical that likes to be at interfaces … it doesn't let water through jackets, doesn't allow wine to stain our carpets," he says. Dr Clarke adds "anything that is advertised as oil- or water-repellent is likely to have a PFAS in it". "It has a carbon-fluorine bond, which is very strong, and it doesn't degrade easily in the environment … they get the term 'forever chemicals' because they don't really degrade," he says. The durability of PFAS means they can persist in the environment — and in the bodies of humans and animals — for a long time, and this presents significant concerns. According to the latest National Health Measures survey, most Australians have detectable levels of PFAS in our blood. The most common types detected are perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), found in more than 85 per cent of the population. The Australian government's PFAS taskforce notes these chemicals aren't directly manufactured in Australia, but we do know they are found in products we use and traces have been found in the environment. Dr DeWitt says most people are exposed to PFAS through ingestion — the water they drink or the food they eat. Pioneering research by Dr O'Carroll, in collaboration with international scientists, tested 45,000 soil and groundwater samples from around the world, and found "a substantial fraction" had PFAS levels exceeding safe drinking water guidelines. The highest PFAS levels tended to be around known exposure sites, including training areas where firefighting foam had been in high use, or around landfills. Levels of PFAS have also been detected in water filtration plants in Sydney, in compost being sold to the public in Western Australia, and in the nesting soils of little penguins around Tasmania. Last year, Australia updated its guidelines around safe drinking water to reduce the accepted levels of several PFAS chemicals. Dr DeWitt says less is known about other routes of exposure, such as skin absorption or inhalation. "But we know that when PFAS are [ingested in food or drink] the bulk of what you take into the body can get absorbed across your intestines and get into your blood," she says. Dr DeWitt says once PFAS are distributed throughout the body, they can cross cell membranes and interact with proteins that affect various bodily functions. "Some of these proteins can affect vitally important processes in our bodies, such as the production and action of hormones, the production of cholesterol. So they can interact with these physiological proteins in the body to produce toxicity," she says. Researchers say one of the biggest concerns with PFAS is their persistence — that is, how long they hang around in our bodies. "Many PFAS get excreted in the urine, so they travel from the blood to the kidneys, where they can get pushed out of the body whenever somebody urinates," Dr DeWitt says. But this can take a long time. For some PFAS, the half-life — that is, the time it takes for half of the amount ingested to be excreted — is a matter of hours or days, but for most, it's years. "The problem is, even if you have low levels of exposure, you can still build up amounts in your body if what you rake in is greater than what you put out," Dr DeWitt says. The science on PFAS and the potential impact on human health has been the subject of much public debate in the past few years. Not all of these 14,000 chemicals have been closely studied. Most research has focused on the effects of well-known PFAS, often in populations who have been exposed to high doses. From that research, PFAS exposure has been associated with increased levels of cholesterol and uric acid in the blood, reduced kidney function, altered immune function and levels of thyroid hormones, delayed menstruation, earlier menopause and lower birth weight. The Australian Health Department's PFAS guidelines note these differences have generally been small and unlikely to cause significant negative health outcomes. And less is known about the toxicity of these chemicals at low doses over time. However, Dr DeWitt notes several large-scale epidemiological studies of people who have been highly exposed to PFAS have led to some concerning findings. "Right now, PFOA has the strongest evidence of links to cancer, followed by PFOS. For the others, there haven't been enough studies to understand if they are linked to cancer," Dr DeWitt says. "But we also have evidence from experimental studies with animals like mice and rats to support what we observe in exposed people, which gives biological plausibility or credibility to those findings in people." The NSW Health advisory panel's report on PFAS, published last week, concluded that "health effects of PFAS appear to be small", and cautioned authorities to "avoid using currently available epidemiological studies to derive threshold levels due to the higher risk of bias". Dr Clarke warns that while more research is needed, there are potential risks we should be mindful of. "We know that there's a lot of harm from particular types of pollutants, so I'm talking about cancers, reproductive health problems, impaired immune systems, and neurological damage. "We've seen a 50 per cent decline in male fertility over the last century, which many researchers believe is associated with exposure to chemicals." In a group of more than 14,000 chemicals, not all PFAS are the same. Researchers use several criteria to evaluate the harm of different PFAS chemicals, including how persistent they are in the environment, whether they accumulate in the bodies of humans or animals, and whether they produce toxicity. The bulk of the research to this point has focused on the impact of what are known as longer-chain PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS. The structure of these long-chain PFAS is understood to play a significant role in toxicity, and they are generally highly mobile in water, which means they can travel long distances in the environment. Certain long-chain PFAS, such as those used in firefighting foams, have been phased out around the world and Australia introduced a ban on PFOA, PFHxS and PFOS in July. But Dr DeWitt warns that PFAS with shorter carbon chains may still be harmful. "A short-chain PFAS is as equally persistent in the environment as a longer-chain PFAS. So whether a PFAS has eight carbons or four carbons, it doesn't break down," she says. "The difference is that the shorter-chain PFAS tend to get excreted more rapidly from the bodies of living organisms … that does mean that they have a lesser opportunity to interact with molecules in our bodies to produce toxicity, but they can still produce toxicity." Dr Clarke says there's still a lot we don't know about newer PFAS, including their effects on our bodies or the environment. "But we can reasonably predict that they will be persistent [in the environment] because of that perfluoro–carbon bond, which is very strong," he says. "So [while] we don't have full scientific evidence to demonstrate that it causes an environmental harm, we can reasonably predict that it will, because it has similar properties to things that we've already banned or phased out." Dr DeWitt wants the conversation to focus on what we really need PFAS for, and to consider limiting our use to chemicals that are "essential for the health, safety and functioning of society, and for which there are no alternatives". "So, do you have to have a sofa in your house that has a stain-resistant coating? Is it really that difficult to remove stains with soap and water?" she says. "Do you have to have PFAS in your dental floss so that it glides perfectly between your teeth? "I think we need to think about the essentiality of chemicals before we put them in products." The experts say, while products like non-stick cookware and cosmetics are not thought to be a major pathway for PFAS to get into the body, there are still choices you can make to reduce exposure. "The teflon pan isn't really thought to be an exposure source to people … be mindful about how you use it, though. If you're burning it, and you see smoke coming off it, that's a sign that you shouldn't be using it at that temperature," Dr Clarke says. As for cosmetics and personal care products, if you want to avoid PFAS, check ingredients lists for any chemical with "perfluoro" in the name.
Sky News AU
a day ago
- Sky News AU
'It pulled me out of the darkness': Channel 10's Barry Du Bois says the words 'I'm not okay' helped save his life, and could save countless others
Barry Du Bois has weathered more storms than most- the death of his mother, a debilitating back injury, years of unsuccessful IVF, the loss of a pregnancy, his wife Leonie's cervical cancer diagnosis, and his own battle with an incurable blood cancer. But Channel 10's The Living Room co-host says one of the most important lessons he's learned through it all is the power of a few simple words: "I'm not okay." "My mental health unravelled after those years of heartbreak," Du Bois told "I spiralled into a very lonely, low place. I even contemplated ending my life. But a friend encouraged me to open up - and that conversation pulled me back." At 65 years old, Du Bois is living with multiple myeloma, a rare and incurable type of blood cancer. He was initially diagnosed in 2010 with solitary plasmacytoma, another rare form of blood cancer. This diagnosis progressed to myeloma in 2017, a condition that impacts the immune system while attacking the bone marrow. Eight years later, he continues to defy the odds, and he's using his platform to inspire others to speak up before they hit crisis point. "I know personally, when you realise that people will support you, that's when your journey out of that darkness starts to happen," he said. That philosophy is why Du Bois has joined the Heart on My Sleeve "I'm Not Okay" campaign, founded by mental health advocate Mitch Wallis. The initiative urges Australians not to wait to be asked if they're struggling. Instead, they're encouraged to put their heart on their sleeve, literally, and say it out loud. Alongside Du Bois, the campaign's ambassador line-up includes world champion surfer Layne Beachley, TV host David Koch, NRL star Kieran Foran, actor Sharon Johal, ironman Guy Leech, Gogglebox's Jad Nehmetallah, entertainment reporter Richard Reid and journalist Antoinette Lattouf. The father-of-two, who is also a proud ambassador and board member of R U OK? Day, said his work with Heart on My Sleeve is "incredibly complementary". "I think (the campaign) really complements what I do at R U OK? Day," he said. "One encourages people to check in on their loved ones and the other encourages people to speak up. Really, it's all about strengthening society and understanding the value of emotion, the positive and the negative, and not being afraid to share the tough stuff." Du Bois admitted that was not something he learned growing up. "I was raised not to show your emotions, and that took me to a very, very dark place," he said. "So now I'm incredibly passionate about telling people that they can be brave enough to show their emotions." As the proud father of 13-year-old twins, Bennett and Arabella, he's determined they'll always feel "heard". "So many children, in the busy lives that we have today, don't feel heard by their parents," he said. "The first reason is that parents often… speak in a solution-based conversation. "They see that there's a problem and the parent wants to solve it. "And when you've got a child that craves autonomy or craves independence… You telling them what they should do doesn't help." Instead, he says, parents should create conversations "where you're both learning something". Without that, kids may look elsewhere, often to social media, for validation and connection. From his own experience, Du Bois knows that perspective matters- not just for kids, but for carers. Supporting Leonie through her cancer battle gave him a new understanding of the toll it can take. "When you're a carer, you're going through something that's called borrowed trauma," he said. "You're dealing with the trauma of others as well as your own trauma, and it's really important to make sure that we get some reprieve from that. "We have to make sure our personal cup of empathy is full. We need to care for ourselves so that we can care for others." Looking back, he admits: "I refused to share the emotion and pain I was in. I sort of resented caring for myself because I believed others needed it more. But that's just not a balanced way to think." And for those facing their own illness or cancer battle, Du Bois has a simple message. "So often in this world, particularly in the medical industry, they do give up as a number, but we're not," he said. "Never give up believing there's an opportunity to do better. "Be curious about every possibility there is- new treatments, lifestyle changes, support networks. We're not defined by the diagnosis we have today, but by how we get up and thrive after it." For Du Bois, joining I'm Not Okay is another step in what he calls putting "grains of sand" in front of the wrecking ball of mental ill-health- small but vital acts of advocacy and connection. "I believe, as a modern day elder (that's how I describe myself these days) it's our duty to be as curious and to be as aware on how we can how it can improve society and how we can strengthen society," said. "Because if we're vigilant to constantly change for the better society, that means my children will have a place where they'll be able to thrive and where they will have their best opportunities."
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The lifecycle of plastics, a modern wonder that is choking the planet
This is the thought that keeps Professor Sarah Dunlop awake at night: every piece of plastic that has ever been made – and ever will be made – will eventually break down, piece by piece, into ever-smaller fragments. There's growing international recognition that we can't recycle our way out of this mess. Global negotiations in Geneva, which failed to reach consensus on Friday, were seen as the last chance to convince UN member states to sign up to legally binding measures to limit plastic production to address waste at its source. Negotiator Kate Lynch said Australia was 'very disappointed' the session adjourned without resolution for an ambitious global plastics treaty, which aimed to reduce pollution through the lengthy life cycle of plastic products. 'This isn't an ambit claim or rhetoric for us,' she told the session. 'We know that it is an important issue for the global community, particularly the Pacific, where an outsized impact of plastic pollution is felt.' As plastic ages, it degrades. Most of us have heard of microplastics; the small pieces of plastic smaller than 5mm. Less well-known are nanoplastics, which are invisible to the naked eye but enter the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat; in ever-increasing amounts. 'Plastic is toxic, whether it's virgin or recycled,' says Dunlop, the head of plastics and human health at Minderoo Foundation. 'It has toxic chemicals in it, and it will break up into micro and nanoplastics which are like a massive army of mini-Trojan horses carrying toxic chemicals into us. It's a flawed material.' Chemicals added to polymers in the process of creating different types of plastic cause disruption to human endocrine systems and may be carcinogenic. The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), representing the packaging industry, estimates Australians used 1.26 million tonnes of plastic packaging in 2022-23 – equivalent to 47 kg of plastic packaging for every person. Packaging fuels the climate crisis The overwhelming majority of soft plastic we in use in Australia (more than 90 per cent) is constructed from virgin fossil fuels, rather than recycled plastic polymers. Global petrochemical companies like ExxonMobil and Dow, and the Chinese state-owned Sinopec, have a massive stake in our dependence on single-use plastic. According to research by Minderoo Foundation, in 2021 (the most recent figures available) ExxonMobil was the world's biggest creator of polymers used in single-use plastics. From 55 of Exxon's facilities came 11.2 million metric tonnes of polymer plastics that year, which ultimately produced about 5.9 million metric tonnes of plastic waste. (Asked about the findings, and why the company doesn't rely more heavily on recycled polymers, a spokeswoman for ExxonMobil said she had 'nothing to share on the results of Minderoo's study'.) Global plastics leader China manufactured an estimated 80 million metric tonnes of plastic in 2021. The UN reports the world produces about 400 million metric tonnes of plastic waste each year. Not only is single-use plastic creating a pollution nightmare, it is fuelling the climate crisis. Minderoo, and energy transition experts Wood Mackenzie, estimate the global 'cradle to grave' greenhouse gas emissions from single-use plastics in 2021 was 460 million tonnes – equivalent to the total emissions output of the United Kingdom. From factories here and overseas, single-use plastics now enters our lives in a dizzying and growing number of ways. Adding insult to injury, we're paying for the stuff. Research conducted by the Australian Marine Conservation Society showed the cost of pre-packaged fruit and vegetables was often higher than loose produce. A study by CSIRO and University of Toronto, released in April, estimated some 11 million tonnes of plastic now sits on ocean floors around the globe. At the current trajectory, plastic pollution will double by 2040, and the rate of plastics entering the world's oceans would triple in that time. Within 30 years it could surpass the biomass of the world's fish. Industry body APCO says 19 per cent of plastic packaging was recovered in 2022-23, while the Environment Department calculates only 13 per cent of single-use plastic is recycled. The rest goes into landfill or waterways. 'As people, as responsible citizens trying desperately to look after our common home, the planet, we must always think: where does something come from, and where does it go? It comes from fossil fuel, and it goes to waste,' says Dunlop. 'Because at the moment, we are wedded to the convenience. It's this death by a thousand conveniences.' The Minderoo Foundation argues that nothing less than internationally binding instruments – a Paris Agreement for plastic pollution, if you will – will stem this toxic tide. 'We can't recycle our way out of this' In 2010, the REDcycle scheme was launched with great fanfare, giving consumers a sense of power over the sheer volume of plastic that enters our homes as packaging. But the soft plastics captured by the REDcycle scheme weren't recycled into new plastics packaging; they were transformed into ingredients used in concrete, asphalt, street furniture, bollards and shopping trolleys. Australian Marine Conservation Society plastics campaigner Cip Hamilton describes plastics recycling as a hollow victory. 'Recycling [plastic] really delays our disposal of products – we need to look at the root of the issue, which is how we can reduce the amount of plastic that we're using.' In a factory in Melbourne's industrial west, the air is acrid with the stench of chemicals. Every hour this factory's machines thunder along, another tonne of single-use plastic is diverted from landfill. Much of the degraded plastic being processed here was stockpiled by the ill-fated REDcycle scheme, which collapsed in 2022, all-but wiping out the already-inadequate soft plastics recycling initiatives in Australia. Australian Food and Grocery Council chief executive Tanya Barden last year told a Senate inquiry that, even at its peak, REDcycle was only collecting 2-4 per cent of soft plastics on the market. 'One of the problems with the REDcycle system was the lack of processing capacity [and] that is still a significant issue,' she said. 'There isn't infrastructure in Australia that can process soft plastic back into food-grade quality [plastic]; existing mechanical recycling can't do that. So at the moment, you can only put it back into road bases and bollards.' Tangaroa Blue Foundation chief executive Heidi Tait told the same inquiry that while soft plastics can be transformed into materials like decking and bollards, it doesn't mean they should. 'Those products that are meant to be the solution to our soft plastics [problem] are just degrading into microplastics in the environment,' she said. 'They start to look ugly, they get pulled out, and they go to landfill ... we're not actually diverting from landfill, we're actually delaying landfill, and we're giving these products opportunity to pollute again in process [by] extending their life.' This is an inconvenient truth. Another inconvenient truth is that in Australia currently, there are four options: use less plastic, send it to landfill, let it wind up in the natural environment, or repurpose it into other single-use products. Back in the factory in Melbourne's west, CRDC Australia managing director Shane Ramsey strides between giant bales of tattered soft plastics. Ramsey heads the Australian arm of a company that began as a beach clean-up enterprise in Costa Rica. Now, the company has factories in four countries, including a fledgling factory in Melbourne that can repurpose one tonne of plastic an hour. CRDC transforms soft and hard plastics, and aluminised plastics like chip packets, into an aggregate used in building materials called Resin8. It's lighter and holds more heat than regular building materials, making it an attractive prospect for industry. Ramsay estimates the factory has processed hundreds of tonnes of stockpiled plastic from REDcycle. 'High-value plastic should stay in the loop as long as it can,' he says. 'But ultimately, it gets to the point where it can't continue in the life it was in, and we need to have an alternative for it.' Where do we go from here? Australia has set a national target for 70 per cent of plastic packaging to be recycled or composted by this year. We're well behind on the goal – according to the latest figures available, in 2022-23 we managed to repurpose just 19 per cent (down 1 per cent on the previous year). Before the election, former environment minister Tanya Plibersek said the federal government, states and territories and business were investing $1 billion to recycle an extra 1.3 million tonnes per year. Loading 'Australians know how important it is to reduce our plastic waste. That's why so many are doing their bit to reduce their consumption, reusing where they can and recycling as much as possible,' she told this masthead. 'Having individuals keen to do their bit is fantastic – but it's not enough. More than 70 per cent of a product's environmental impact is locked in at the design stage, before a customer ever looks at it.' A departmental spokeswoman said the government remained committed to reform. Australia has long pushed for a strong new international treaty on plastic pollution, and the government has been promising since 2023 to introduce mandatory packaging design standards and targets. In February, the federal Environment Department published the results of a government consultation that showed a clear majority of respondents supported Commonwealth regulation of packaging. Dunlop says to reduce our reliance on plastic we should start being more frugal and thinking more like our great-grandparents who didn't live with single-use plastic. We also urgently need safe and sustainable alternative materials that don't contain toxic chemicals, she said. 'The problem is very serious and accelerating.' she says. 'And we can act now.'
