Woman suffers ‘significant' injury to arm after being mauled by animal at Queensland zoo
The woman, in her 50s, was attacked at Darling Downs zoo, in Pilton, about 50km south of Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, at about 8.32am on Sunday.
The woman was reportedly watching keepers working when she was attacked. The zoo is home to big cats including lions, tigers and leopards.
A spokesperson for Queensland ambulance said the woman suffered a 'significant arm injury'.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The Life Flight rescue helicopter flew her to the Princess Alexandra hospital where she is reportedly in a stable condition.
In a statement on Facebook on Sunday afternoon, the Darling Downs Zoo said the woman was watching keepers working in the carnivore precinct when the attack happened.
'This is something that she has done many, many times over the past 20 years. She is well versed in safety protocols around potentially dangerous animals.
'Inexplicably, at this stage, one animal grabbed her by one arm and caused severe damage to it. At no stage did this animal leave [its] enclosure and there was no risk at all to staff members or members of the public.'
The zoo said the woman was currently being operated on and that police and workplace health and safety personnel were investigating.
'The zoo is working with them to establish how this incident occurred but the full details will not be known until our family member can be interviewed.'
'We are extremely grateful to the QAS [Queensland ambulance service], QPS [Queensland police service] and LifeFlight for their prompt attendance and to all of the people and organisations who have rallied round us with messages of support.'
In a follow-up post, the zoo clarified that the 'injured person was not one of our immediate family nor a keeper'.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'The animal involved was not an animal which has recently cubbed. The animal will definitely not be put down or punished in any way,' it said.
A spokesperson from Workplace Health and Safety Queensland confirmed it was onsite and making inquiries.
The zoo said it would be closed all day on Sunday but would re-open at 9am on Monday.
The zoo has African lions, including white lions from the Greater Timbavati and Southern Kruger Park region of South Africa. It also has other big cats including a Sumatran tiger and a breeding pair of Sri Lankan leopards, according to its website.
The zoo turns 20 this year and has appointed a 'restructuring practitioner' to help 'make our commercial structure more fit for purpose' according to the website.
'The zoo specialises in the captive husbandry and breeding of many critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable species from around the world,' the website says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Scientists say you don't need 10,000 steps a day. Here's how many to do instead
A new study suggests that hitting 7,000 steps a day could be sufficient to ward off a range of serious illnesses, offering a more attainable target than the widely publicised 10,000-step goal. While many find the latter difficult to achieve, new research indicates "sizeable" health benefits are still possible with fewer daily steps. Academics from the University of Sydney in Australia led the study, examining data from dozens of global studies, including those in the UK, involving tens of thousands of adults. Their findings revealed that individuals consistently walking 7,000 steps daily appeared to gain significant protection against various diseases. This included a 25 per cent lower risk of heart disease, a 14 per cent reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, a 38 per cent decrease in dementia, and a 22 per cent reduction in depression. Experts noted that even modest step counts of 4,000 steps a day could yield benefits over very low activity levels. However, they also clarified that "10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps," with the higher count leading to even more comprehensive health advantages. The researchers also found that when people walked 7,000 daily steps, compared to walking 2,000 steps, they were 47 per cent less likely to die during the follow-up periods of the studies analysed. And while the number of steps walked did not sway whether or not a person got cancer, people who walked more steps were significantly less likely to die from cancer – with 37 per cent lower odds of cancer death compared to people who walked fewer steps. 'Although 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active, 7,000 steps per day is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in health outcomes and might be a more realistic and achievable target for some,' the authors wrote in the journal Lancet Public Health. They added: 'Even modest daily step counts were associated with health benefits. '7,000 steps per day was associated with sizeable risk reductions across most outcomes, compared with the reference of 2,000 steps per day.' Commenting on the study, Dr Daniel Bailey, Reader – Sedentary Behaviour and Health, Brunel University of London, said: 'The finding that doing 5000-7000 steps per day is an important addition to the literature which helps to debunk the myth that 10,000 steps per day should be the target for optimal health. 'This study suggested that 5000-7000 steps per day can significantly reduce the risk of many health outcomes, but that does not mean you cannot get benefits if you don't meet this target. 'The study also found that health risks were reduced with each 1000 extra steps per day, up to a maximum of 12,000 steps per day. So just adding more steps from your starting point can have important benefits for health.' Dr Andrew Scott, senior Lecturer in clinical exercise physiology at the University of Portsmouth, added: 'In most cases, the 10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps, just by decreasing margins of health benefit return. 'More important than the exact number of steps, it demonstrates that overall, more is always better and people should not focus too much on the numbers, particularly on days where activity is limited. 'The steps per day is useful when people's exercise is weight-bearing, however cycling, swimming and rowing are not well-represented by the steps per day model.'
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
The exact number of daily steps to slash your risk of dying young by almost 50% – and it's loads less than you think
FOR decades, 10,000 steps a day has been drilled into us as the ultimate daily goal to keep fit and healthy. But new research shows you could move far less and still boost your health, slash the risk of disease, and even live longer. 1 A study led by scientists from the University of Sydney in Australia found that walking just 7,000 steps each day can reduce your risk of dementia, heart disease and dying early. Even modest step counts of 4,000 steps a day can reap benefits over very low levels of activity, experts found. But they added that "10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps" - with the higher step count leading to more health benefits. This isn't the first study to suggest you don't need to hit 10,000 steps a day to claim the rewards. Separate research, published by London scientists last year, found that walking just 5,000 steps three days a week can increase life expectancy by three years. Meanwhile, a Polish study from 2023 found getting your step count up to 2,337 each day was enough to slash your risk of heart disease. The new study, published in The Lancet Public Health, saw researchers examine data from dozens of studies from around the world, including in the UK, on tens of thousands of adults. They found that walking just 7,000 steps a day was linked to a 25 per cent lower risk of heart disease. It was also associated with a 14 per cent reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, a 38 per cent lower risk of dementia, and a 22 per cent reduced risk of depression. The researchers also found that when people walked 7,000 daily steps, compared to walking 2,000 steps, they were 47 per cent less likely to die during the follow-up periods of the studies analysed. Get fit at 50: Workouts for beginners and those short on time And while the number of steps walked did not sway whether or not a person got cancer, people who walked more steps were 37 per cent less likely to die from cancer. "Although 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active, 7,000 steps per day is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in health outcomes and might be a more realistic and achievable target for some," the authors wrote in the study. "Even modest daily step counts were associated with health benefits," they added. "7,000 steps per day was associated with sizeable risk reductions across most outcomes, compared with the reference of 2,000 steps per day." 'More is always better' Commenting on the study, Dr Daniel Bailey, Reader - Sedentary Behaviour and Health, Brunel University of London, said: "The finding that doing 5000-7000 steps per day is an important addition to the literature which helps to debunk the myth that 10,000 steps per day should be the target for optimal health. "This study suggested that 5,000-7,000 steps per day can significantly reduce the risk of many health outcomes, but that does not mean you cannot get benefits if you don't meet this target. "The study also found that health risks were reduced with each 1000 extra steps per day, up to a maximum of 12,000 steps per day. So just adding more steps from your starting point can have important benefits for health." Dr Andrew Scott, senior Lecturer in clinical exercise physiology at the University of Portsmouth, added: "In most cases the 10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps, just by decreasing margins of health benefit return. "More important than the exact number of steps, it demonstrates that overall, more is always better and people should not focus too much on the numbers, particularly on days where activity is limited. "The steps per day is useful when people's exercise is weight-bearing, however, cycling, swimming and rowing are not well-represented by the steps per day model." The truth about 10,000 steps a day By Alice Fuller THE 10,000-steps-a-day concept is floated around as the be-all and end-all of optimal physical health. But in reality, the 'magic' number might actually be significantly less. Dr John Schuna, of Oregon State University, who has studied the topic in detail, said: 'Despite a widespread desire within the public health community to formalise 'steps per day' guidelines, there has been an insufficient body of evidence from which we could derive such recommendations.' In fact, researchers at the Medical University of Lodz in Poland and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the US found that fewer than 4,000 steps a day was enough to ward off premature death, and fewer than 3,000 would keep your heart and blood vessels in decent shape. What's more, research by Harvard Medical School found 4,400 may be more than enough to live a long, healthy life. It turns out the '10,000' idea stems from a 1960s Tokyo Olympics campaign to flog a new pedometer; hugely popular at the time, it appears to have stuck. But according to Dr Schuna, it is actually better to ditch the idea of daily strides altogether and instead focus on movement more generally. He says: 'It's not to say that 10,000 steps a day is not a good goal, as most people who achieve this will meet the current recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, but fitness trackers that monitor step counts don't tell us how intense that exercise was. 'For instance, two people might both average an accumulated 5,000 steps a day — one spread evenly over a 16-hour period, the other condensed into a brisk 2.5-hour walk. 'Despite the totals being equivalent, the second individual will yield far greater health benefits because they are engaging in some moderate or higher-intensity activity.' The benefits of opting for the latter approach? Not only will you lower your chances of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity, you'll also have a reduced risk of cardiovascular problems and premature death, Dr Schuna adds. London GP Dr Zoe Watson says: 'The 10,000 figure is rather arbitrary in all honesty, and not based on any scientific evidence. 'It has been latched on to because it's memorable and easy to use as a benchmark — much like our five-a-day fruit and veg consumption and eight hours of sleep at night. 'While it might give us a sense of control and help us to stick to a routine, it can pile on the pressure and make us feel inadequate if we don't meet it. 'That is just totally counterproductive. Some common sense is needed — any body movement is a good thing. 'Every human has different genetics, social circumstances, and lived lives, so predicting how many steps will reduce their risk of heart disease or stroke is virtually impossible. 'Forget the number. Just do what brings you joy and raises your heart rate a bit.'
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
I thought my swollen fingers and toes were harmless... but cancer had 'replaced' my bones with tumors
A man suffering from an aggressive form of lung cancer experienced an extremely rare complication of the disease - with one of his fingers and toes swelling unexplainably. It turns out, the bones in his digits had been 'completely replaced' by cancerous tumors as the cancer spread throughout his body. The 55-year-old from Australia had been diagnosed with metastatic squamous-cell lung cancer, an advanced form of the disease that starts in the flat, thin cells lining the airways. It is a type of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), making up about 25 percent of all lung cancer cases - approximately 58,000. He went to his local hospital six weeks after he noticed painful swelling in his right middle finger and right big toe, giving them a club-like shape. Doctors, who recounted the man's case in a medical journal, found that each tip of the affected digits were red, swollen and sensitive to touch. An ulcer - an open sore or raw area - had formed near the nail of the toe, turning it bright yellow. Scans showed that the hand and foot contained 'destructive lytic lesions,' areas of the bone where tissue had been destroyed. In the man's case, the empty space has been 'completely replaced' by more tumors. Using a form of x-ray called a radiograph, doctors diagnosed the man with acrometastasis, a rare instance in which cancer spreads to bones below the elbow or knee like the hands or feet. Acrometastases only account for about 0.1 percent of cancer cases that have spread to the bones, recent studies suggest. In most cases, like the man's, it's seen in patients who already have cancer. But in some instances, symptoms of acrometastasis are the first signs of undiagnosed cancers, such as those in the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genital and urinary tract. It's also much more common in men than women, a 2021 review suggests, largely because lung cancer is more prevalent in men. In many cases, cancer that has spread to the fingers and toes reacts like gout or osteomyelitis - a bone infection - which cause inflammation, redness and swelling. It's thought that acrometastases are so rare because, in most cases, cancer cells are drawn to bone marrow, which is found in the long bones of the arms, legs, ribs, backbone, breastbone and pelvis. Finger and toe bones, by contrast, contain much less marrow. Additionally, the further a bone is from the heart, the less blood it gets. Lower blood flow makes it harder for cancer cells to reach the fingertips or toes, so acrometastases happen there far less often. Acrometastases have a grim prognosis because they are generally found in advanced cancer cases. They have been associated with less than six months of survival time after diagnosis. Patients are typically given medications to manage their pain rather than cure the disease. In the man's case, doctors started with palliative radiotherapy, which focuses on pain relief from cancer that has spread to the bone. He died three weeks later from refractory hypercalcemia, dangerously high calcium levels in the blood that don't respond to treatment, a common complication in cancer patients.
