Experts

Nov. 6 (UPI) — President Donald Trump’s calls to ramp up nuclear weapons testing last week have put nuclear watchdogs and world leaders on alert while experts say the United States has little to gain.

In a post on Truth Social on Oct. 29, Trump said he is ordering the Department of Defense to immediately begin testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis.” What this means remains unclear, though Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in an appearance on FOX News these would not be full-scale explosive tests.

“These are not nuclear explosions,” Wright said. “These are what we call non-critical explosions.”

The comment by Wright echoes the stance Brandon Williams, under secretary of energy for Nuclear Security in the Department of Energy, shared during his Senate confirmation hearing in May. Williams said testing nuclear weapons above the criticality threshold would not be advisable.

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, the United States possesses more than 5,000 nuclear weapons. It has performed 1,054 explosive nuclear tests, more than any other country.

The type of testing the president is calling for is an important distinction to make, Dylan Spaulding, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told UPI. The delivery systems of nuclear weapons and the components of the weapons are commonly tested.

Subcritical tests are also performed. These are tests that do not yield a sustained nuclear reaction that would cause an explosion.

“He did mention testing on an equal basis,” Spaulding said. “If that’s the case, in fact the United States already does conduct all the kinds of tests of our nuclear delivery systems and even the components of the weapons themselves that other countries do.”

The United States and most of the rest of the world, aside from North Korea, have refrained from full-scale nuclear weapons testing for more than 30 years. In 1993, the United States signed a unilateral moratorium on explosive testing under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Breaking from the treaty is likely to open the door to escalation in the form of other countries, including adversaries like China and Russia, openly testing nuclear explosives, Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, told UPI.

“What if those countries decided that maybe this is a cue for them to test?” Sokolski said. “Would that provoke any of the larger states that signed [the treaty] but didn’t ratify to test?”

The only country to break from the agreement in this treaty is North Korea, conducting six nuclear tests concluding in 2017.

Sokolski argues that the United States has the least to gain by breaking the moratorium and setting off a precedent for open nuclear weapons testing. The United States’ research in the field is extensive, beyond that of any other country. Other countries, such as Russia, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea stand to benefit the most from more explosive research while the United States would likely gain little more knowledge.”

“I spend a lot of time talking to weapons designers about this. You don’t test for reliability testing generally,” Sokolski said. “That requires 10 to 20 datapoints. That means 10 to 20 tests of each design. That seems kind of wasteful. You don’t design to prove things you’ve already proven.”

“If you’re doing a design that is totally radical, that’s something different, but we’re not,” he continued. “We’re fiddling with yield-to-weight ratios. There are countries like Israel who have tested once, in 1979, one test. Are you telling me their stockpile is unreliable and doesn’t work? If you want to make weapons you can do it very cheaply and quickly without testing.”

Spaulding agrees that full-scale testing is not necessary, adding that scientists continue to analyze data from the repository of the United States’ nuclear weapons testing history.

“We are still learning from those underground tests,” he said. “Other countries don’t have that advantage right now but we would be essentially giving them permission to catch up by returning to testing.

The argument for more live-testing of nuclear weapons capabilities is that it can insure and assure that the stockpile of weapons is reliable.

The United States has the Stockpile Stewardship Program that already tests the reliability and safety of its nuclear weapons. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told UPI the scientific community is “very confident” in the program.

While the United States is one of only nine countries that have not ratified the treaty, it is legally bound as a signatory to not violate the object or purpose of the agreement, Kimball said. He is doubtful that this will deter Trump.

Of the 1,054 explosive nuclear tests performed by the United States, 928 have been conducted at the Nevada Nuclear Site in south-central Nevada about 65 miles outside of Las Vegas. The site is the only candidate for hosting further nuclear testing, according to experts.

The last explosive test was conducted in 1992 before the United States began observing the international moratorium.

Past tests at the site yielded observable health and environmental impacts on residents of the region and beyond.

“Anyone born in ’63 or earlier, they were exposed to some level of strontium 90, which was showing up in the baby teeth of American children in the 50s and 60s,” Kimball said. “It accumulates in the teeth because you drink milk and it gets concentrated in the teeth.”

The United States joined the Soviet Union and United Kingdom in the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, in part because of the baby teeth study. The treaty banned nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater.

Subjects of the baby teeth study were children in the St. Louis area, more than 1,600 miles from the Nevada nuclear test site.

With the atmospheric testing ban in place, explosive testing was moved underground in deep boreholes. This was meant to limit nuclear fallout, lessening environmental and health implications.

The vertical testing shafts are reinforced to limit geological impacts but the powerful explosions still generate fractures in the earth and the leakage of radionuclides, a hazardous radioactive material.

People who lived downwind of the Nevada test site, known as downwinders, have experienced higher than average rates of cancer.

“These downwinders, in their second generation, they’re still suffering from some of these adverse health effects,” Kimball said. “They are particularly angry. Trump’s announcement is a slap in the face to them as they see it. They want to see all forms of testing, above and below ground, concluded.”

Restarting full-scale testing would be no small task, Sokolski said. What he refers to as a “quick and dirty” test, one that provides an explosion but little in the way of research, would take months and millions of dollars to prepare.

“To get data, depending on how much data, we could be talking about one to two years and much, much more money, maybe approaching a higher order of magnitude, a billion [dollars],” Sokolski said. “Those stumbling blocks are the ones of interest.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin today ordered his top officials to draft proposals on possible nuclear weapons testing. Putin was reacting to U.S. President Donald Trump’s social media posting last week, stating the U.S. would begin conducting new testing. 

It remains unclear whether Trump was referring to restarting live nuclear detonations or tests on the reliability of warhead delivery systems, like the one conducted today with an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, which already occur regularly. U.S. officials have appeared to clarify, at least to some degree, that Trump’s testing will be limited to delivery systems and the nuclear deterrent apparatus, not detonations. Still, there are questions as to his true intent, which could always change. Regardless, Russian officials “assess that Washington is aiming to prepare and conduct nuclear tests,” according to the official Russian TASS news outlet.

Given Trump’s Truth Social post, Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin that it was “advisable to prepare for full-scale nuclear tests” immediately. He added that Russia’s Arctic testing site at Novaya Zemlya could host such tests at short notice. The site is widely believed to have been used for the recent launch systems test of Russia’s mysterious Burevestnik (also known to NATO as SSC-X-9 Skyfall) cruise missile

Belousov offered no further details, so we asked several nuclear weapons experts for their assessments on how quickly Russia could detonate a nuclear device – something it hasn’t done since 1990 – and what it would entail to make it happen. Some responses have been lightly edited for clarity.

Hans
Kristensen — Director, Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists. Writes the bi-monthly Nuclear Notebook and the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook.

“Short notice is relative. The quickest would be to drive a warhead into an existing tunnel and seal it off. But that wouldn’t give them any new data and probably risk a leak.

So, unless they already have one prepared, if they want to do a new fully instrumented test, I suspect it would involve preparing a tunnel, the device, and rigging all the cables and sensors to record that data. There has been a lot of tunnel-digging at Novaya Zemlya for quite some time for their existing experiments, so presumably a new fully instrumented test would be in addition to that. 

Preparing a new one would probably take several months, possibly six-plus, but difficult to estimate because we don’t know what they already have prepared.“

Jon B. Wolfsthal, Director of Global Risk, American Federation of Scientists.

“Russia also has an active nuclear maintenance program as does the U.S. However, Russia tests near the Arctic Circle at Novaya Zemlya Island. As a result, they can really only – barring a real emergency – test in summer and late fall. So it would take them some time, and at least until next year. 

However, if they want to gain a lot of technically useful data from a test, it may take them longer. Just to conduct a basic test could take less than 12 months. But as I have said, this is what an arms race looks like. Action/reaction cycles. Russia will test if we do. I suspect they will not if we do not. 

I don’t know what Russia would test. It would not have to be a massive bomb to be useful. You generally only need to test the first stage of a thermonuclear device to get useful data. It could be as small as 1 to 5 kilotons or up to 15 to 20, but there is no way for people outside of the Russian scientific community to predict well.”

Daryl G. Kimball has been Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) and publisher and contributor for the organization’s monthly journal, Arms Control Today, since September 2001.

“The U.S., China, and Russia all have ‘nuclear test readiness’ plans and I would assess that Russia would be able to resume nuclear explosive testing more quickly than the United States. 

I just know it would be less than the optimistic 24-36 months for a full-scale underground contained nuclear test explosions at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Russia would not be encumbered by the same safety and environmental safeguards and domestic political obstacles that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) would have to deal with in order to conduct a full-scale multi-kiloton nuclear explosion underground at the former U.S. nuclear test site in Nevada.

But, most importantly, there is no technical, military or political reason why Putin or Trump should order the resumption of nuclear explosive testing, and Defense Minister Belousov’s comments are counterproductive and irresponsible. 

The United States and Russia deploy some 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads and they possess other sub-strategic nuclear weapons. Their arsenals consist of various, well-tested warhead types. The United States conducted more than 1,030 nuclear test explosions and Russia 715, the vast majority of which were to proof-test new warhead designs. Neither side needs to or wants to develop a new warhead, so any new nuclear test explosions would be purely for ‘show,’ which would be extremely irresponsible.“

Ankit
Panda — Expert on nuclear policy, Asia, missiles, & space. Stanton Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Author of ‘Kim Jong Un and the Bomb.’

“We know from both open source and official U.S. assessments that the Russians maintain a relatively high level of test readiness at Novaya Zemlya. They’ve also strongly emphasized the parity principle on the testing issue, so it makes sense that they’d take these steps given Trump’s recent comments. 

They want to be positioned so that if the U.S. tests, they can follow quickly. The specific timeline of Russian readiness is difficult to nail down, but they could test probably without significant instrumentation without much difficulty. I would think weeks if there was sufficient political demand for a rapid demonstration.“

Stephen
Schwartz — Editor/Co-author ‘Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons Since 1940‘.

“The United States has an enormous advantage in nuclear testing over every other country in the world, partly because we conducted more tests than everyone else combined (1,030, involving 1,149 individual detonations), and because we have a very elaborate and well-funded ($345 billion to date) Stockpile Stewardship program. Since 1996, this has enabled us to ‘test’ our nuclear bombs and warheads via extremely powerful computers, eliminating the need for actual underground tests and providing us with critical insights into our weapons we could not obtain from physical nuclear testing alone.

So given that, and given Trump’s recent out-of-the-blue demand that we resume nuclear testing immediately, it is unfortunately not surprising that Russia is responding the way that it is. In Russia, as in the United States, there are political and military leaders and weapons scientists who have never given up on one day resuming nuclear testing. Russia, like the United States, has long maintained a readiness program to resume nuclear testing. It is an unfortunate escalation of at least rhetoric at this point, sliding the United States and Russia, and perhaps also China and maybe North Korea and other states further down the road toward resuming nuclear testing, which has not happened in decades.

Right now, we and the Russians conduct what are known as subcritical tests, which are tests that do not result in a nuclear yield, but nevertheless provide useful scientific information that can make our weapons more safe and reliable. 

Russia could probably resume underground nuclear testing pretty quickly. Satellite imagery from 2023 and this past July indicates that they’ve been doing some work at the test site to expand the facilities there and potentially make them more ready to resume nuclear testing. I suspect Russia could probably do this faster than the United States. Our testing would take place in Nevada – at least that’s the only test site that we have available right now, and it would probably take on the order of one to three years (for the U.S.) to do a fully instrumented test.

We can’t see inside the [Russian] buildings that have gone up, so we don’t know exactly what’s going on there. But, if I have to guess, and it is only a guess, I would say a matter of several weeks to several months, perhaps [for a Russian test]. But it really depends on what their intentions are. 

If they simply want to blow something up to demonstrate that they’ve returned to doing that kind of testing that can be done fairly quickly if they want to actually have a scientifically and militarily useful test where there’s all sorts of diagnostic equipment and they’re able to measure the results, and determine something about the test other than the fact that it simply went off, that could take more time.

If they’ve been planning and preparing, if they have personnel and equipment there, they could probably do something fairly quickly – on the very short end, potentially a matter of a few weeks to perhaps a few months. It could be longer; it could be a matter of six months. But again, if you only want to send a political message that we are resuming nuclear testing, you can take a nuclear bomb or warhead out of your stockpile and transport it to Novaya Zemlya, stick it in an underground tunnel, seal it off and detonate it.“

We reached out to the White House to see what concern, if any, they have about Putin’s order for proposals on how to resume nuclear testing. We are waiting for a response. The experts we spoke with, however, voiced their own worries.

“As for concerns, Russia’s testing could enable them to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons via computer simulations where now it is hard for them to do so,” explained Wolfsthal. “Russia could close the testing advantage the U.S. now possesses.”

Contact the author: [email protected]

Kyiv, Ukraine – The collective West is scared of Moscow’s new, nuclear-powered cruise missile because it can reach anywhere on Earth, bypassing the most sophisticated air and missile defence systems, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed.

“They’re afraid of what we’ll show to them next,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told the RIA Novosti news agency on Sunday.

Days earlier, she said Moscow was “forced” to develop and test the cruise missile, which is named the Burevestnik, meaning storm petrel – a type of seabird, in response to NATO’s hostility towards Russia.

“The development can be characterised as forced and takes place to maintain strategic balance,” she was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying. Russia “has to respond to NATO’s increasingly destabilising actions in the field of missile defence”.

With much pomp, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday handed state awards to Burevestnik’s developers.

Also awarded were the designers of Poseidon, an underwater nuclear-powered torpedo which Putin has also claimed has been successfully tested.

Russia says Poseidon can carry nuclear weapons that cause radioactive tsunamis, wiping out huge coastal areas. The “super torpedo” can move at the speed of 200km/h (120mph) and zigzag its way to avoid interception, it says.

“In terms of flight range, the Burevestnik … has surpassed all known missile systems in the world,” Putin said in his speech at the Kremlin. “Same as any other nuclear power, Russia is developing its nuclear potential, its strategic potential … What we are talking about now is the work announced a long time ago.”

But military and nuclear experts are sceptical about the efficiency and lethality of the new weapons.

It is not unusual for Russia to flaunt its arsenal as its onslaught in Ukraine continues. Analysts say rather than scaring its critics, Moscow’s announcements are merely a scare tactic to dissuade Western powers from supporting Kyiv.

“There’s nothing revolutionary about,” the Burevestnik, said Pavel Podvig, director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project at the the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

“It can fly long and far, and there’s some novelty about it, but there’s nothing to back [Putin’s claim] that it can absolutely change everything,” Podvig told Al Jazeera. “One can’t say that it is invincible and can triumph over everything.”

The Burevestnik’s test is part of Moscow’s media stratagem of intimidating the West when the real situation on the front lines in Ukraine is desperate, according to a former Russian diplomat.

The missile is “not a technical breakthrough but a product of propaganda and desperation”, Boris Bondarev, who quit his Russian Foreign Ministry job to protest against the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, wrote in an opinion piece published by the Moscow Times.

“It symbolises not strength but weakness – the Kremlin’s lack of any tools of political influence other than threats.”

Few details about ‘unique’ missile

The problem is that officials have so far unveiled very little about the Burevestnik, which NATO has dubbed the SSC-X-9 Skyfall – a missile that has a nuclear reactor allegedly capable of keeping it in the air indefinitely.

On October 26, when fatigues-clad Putin announced Burevestnik’s successful test, he was accompanied by his top general Valery Gerasimov.

“This is a unique item; no one else in the world has it,” said Putin, in televised remarks.

Gerasimov said the Burevestnik had flown 14,000km (8,700 miles) in 15 hours during a recent test. It can manoeuvre and loiter midair, and unleash its nuclear load with “guaranteed precision” and at “any distance”.

“There’s a lot of work ahead” before the missile is mass-produced, Putin concluded, adding the test’s “key objectives have been achieved”.

A Ukrainian military expert ridiculed the Kremlin’s claims.

“Much of the news report is fake, the (Burevestnik) missile is subsonic, it can be detected and destroyed by missile defence systems,” Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, former deputy head of Ukraine’s general staff of armed forces who specialised in air and missile defence, told Al Jazeera.

As for the Poseidon nuclear drone, it is too destructive – and can be used only as a second-strike, retaliatory weapon after the start of a nuclear war, experts warned. As with the Burevestnik, the lack of detailed information about Poseidon casts doubt upon the Kremlin’s claims.

Trump decries ‘inappropriate’ tests

The announcements followed Washington’s scrapping of United States President Donald Trump’s summit with Putin in Budapest, Hungary.

Trump has called the Burevestnik’s test “inappropriate” and ordered the Pentagon to resume the testing of nuclear weapons and missiles.

But ahead of next year’s midterm elections, he may seek to show how he forced the Kremlin to stop hostilities in Ukraine.

“Trump will have to play with pressure on Russia,” Romanenko said. “Hopefully, the circumstances will force Trump to act.”

What Putin has not mentioned is that only two of the Burevestnik’s dozen tests, starting in 2019, have been successful.

Its 2019 launch near the White Sea in northwestern Russia killed at least five nuclear experts after a radioactive explosion, Western experts said at the time. Russia’s state nuclear agency acknowledged the deaths, but officials and media reports do not provide video footage, detailed photos or other specifics of the Burevestnik and its testing route – making Putin’s latest claims hard to corroborate or disprove.

Western experts were able to identify the Burevestnik’s probable deployment site in September. Known as Vologda-20 or Chebsara, it is believed to be 475km (295 miles) north of Moscow and has nine launch pads under construction, the Reuters news agency reported last year.

The missile’s capabilities have divided military analysts.

“In operation, the Burevestnik would carry a nuclear warhead (or warheads), circle the globe at low altitude, avoid missile defences, and dodge terrain; and drop the warhead(s) at a difficult-to-predict location (or locations),” the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a US nonprofit security group said in a 2019 report after the missile’s first somewhat successful test.

A year later, the US Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center said, if brought into service, Burevestnik would give Moscow a “unique weapon with intercontinental-range capability”.

‘Burevestnik is a mystification’

Others doubt the missile’s functionality.

“Burevestnik is a mystification for the whole seven-and-a-half years since it was first announced,” Pavel Luzin, a visiting scholar at Tufts University in Massachusetts, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s impossible to create a reactor that is compact and powerful enough to ensure a cruise missile’s movement,” Luzin said. “This is a basic physics textbook.”

Moscow claims that Burevestnik utilises nuclear propulsion instead of turbojet or turbofan engines used in cruise or ballistic missiles.

But Luzin said the smallest nuclear reactors used to power satellites weighed 1 metric tonne, supplying several kilowatts of energy – roughly equal to what a regular household consumes – while emitting some 150kw of thermal energy.

The experimental nuclear reactors developed in the 1950s and the 60s for aircraft weighed many tonnes and were the size of a railway carriage, he said.

An average engine for a cruise missile weighs up to 80kg, generates 4kw for onboard electric and electronic devices, and about 1 megawatt of energy for propelling the missile, he said.

Other analysts think that Burevestnik’s nuclear engine can function, but do not consider the weapon groundbreaking.

There are a few places on a plane that are best avoided, and if you’re looking for a few ideas, some experts have shared their top tips for finding a seat that’ll make your trip more comfortable.

Jetting off on holiday is always exciting, especially during the chillier months when the idea of swapping the UK for somewhere warm and sunny is enough to lift anyone’s spirits. However, even if you’re simply heading to a European destination, the journey there isn’t always plain sailing.

We’ve all endured the horror of a dreadful flight before. Whether it’s down to discomfort, fellow passengers’ antics, or something else entirely, it can cast a shadow over your holiday before it’s even started.

So, to help travellers kick off their trips on the right foot, I decided to consult some experts about the worst spot on the aircraft to reserve your seat – and they all had very similar answers.

Nearly all of the specialists I spoke to agreed that the very last row of the aircraft might not be your best bet if you’re after a peaceful journey, reports the Express.

Nicholas Smith, Holidays Digital Director at Thomas Cook, warned that anyone who struggles with turbulence will want to steer clear of this section. He explained: “Seats at the very back are typically less desirable. They are close to the galley and restrooms, service can be slower, food choices may be limited, and it is also the area where movement during turbulence feels strongest.”

He also emphasised the importance of being organised when reserving aircraft seats. This often comes at an extra charge, but if you’re anxious about securing a decent seat, then there’s a good chance it’ll be money well spent.

The expert continued: “Thinking about your priorities in advance also makes a difference – nervous flyers will be more comfortable over the wings, those with a tight connection should choose an aisle near the front, while couples booking a row of three might secure the window and aisle, leaving the middle free for a chance at extra space.”

Izzy Nicholls, a travel expert and founder of road trip blog The Gap Decaders, agreed, saying: “Seats at the back are best avoided. They’re typically noisier because of engine proximity and galley activity, and you’ll be among the last to board and leave the plane.”

Unsurprisingly, the front of the aircraft proved to be the best location for the smoothest experience. Izzy explained: “Travellers who want a calmer journey should book seats at the front of the plane. This area is away from restrooms and heavy foot traffic, so you’ll experience fewer interruptions.

“Choosing an aisle seat here also gives you the freedom to stretch your legs and get up easily without disturbing others. Select these placements to make long flights more comfortable and reduce the effects of motion.”

The rear section of the aircraft isn’t just problematic for comfort – it’s also less ideal when it comes to storage space, particularly if you’re late boarding. Jacob Wedderburn-Day, CEO and Co-Founder of luggage storage firm Stasher said: “Avoid sitting near galleys and toilets, where staff members often store their things in overhead bins, leaving less space for passenger baggage.

“The last few rows are a concern because if you board late, the bins above you may be filled, which means you may have to store your luggage several rows away. Also, stay away from seats that are located behind bulkheads, as these spaces often have limited storage.”

Travel expert Andrea Platania from Transfeero also warned passengers to avoid the back row when flying, explaining: “The very last row is typically the least desirable: limited recline, proximity to bathrooms, and more cabin noise. Middle seats anywhere are usually least popular unless you’re traveling in a group.”

However, for those seeking maximum legroom, there are two areas offering the most space. Andrea said: “Exit-row and bulkhead seats offer more space, but they come with trade-offs: fixed armrests, limited recline, or restrictions for passengers traveling with children.”

And for travellers prone to airsickness during turbulence, one specific location is recommended. The expert added: “Sit over the wings. This area is closest to the aircraft’s centre of gravity, so you’ll feel less turbulence compared to the back, where bumps are magnified.”

Minutes before he met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping in Busan, South Korea on Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a statement on social media saying he “instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.” The reason, Trump explained, was because of “other countries [SIC] testing programs.”

Other countries, he said, “seem to all be nuclear testing” but when it comes to the U.S., “We have more nuclear weapons than anybody. We don’t do testing. I see them testing and I say, well, if they’re going to test, I guess we have to test.”

Asked where the tests would occur, the president said, “It’ll be announced. We have test sites.”

At this point, it’s unclear if the president is talking about testing out nuclear weapons delivery systems, something that happens on a regular basis, or actual warheads via a detonation, which the U.S. hasn’t done in more than three decades. The fact that this has not been officially clarified is highly problematic. We reached out to the White House for more details, and they referred us back to Trump’s social media post. We also reached out to several experts for their insights, which you can read more about later in this story.

Testing that results in setting off a chain reaction, known as “critical testing,” last took place nearly a decade ago by North Korea on Sept. 3, 2017. The last U.S. critical nuclear weapons test took place on Sept. 23, 1992, according to the Arms Control Association (ACA). While Russian President Vladimir Putin recently announced the testing of a nuclear-powered cruise missile and a nuclear-powered, nuclear-tipped torpedo, which could have spurred Trump’s tweet if he really meant testing delivery systems, Moscow last conducted a critical nuclear device test on Oct. 24, 1990, according to the ACA. Meanwhile, China’s last test was on July 29, 1996.

In the interim, however, several nations, including the U.S., have conducted what is known as sub-critical testing, which does not result in setting off a chain reaction. It’s possible that expanding those efforts could be at least part of what Trump is referring to, as well. 

Clearly, restarting live nuclear weapons testing would be a massive departure for the U.S. and a very costly one at that. It would likely prompt other nuclear powers to return to live testing, as well. That is if this is what Trump was truly referring to. Assuming that’s the case, we contacted some of the smartest people we know who work on these issues for a living to give us an understanding of what such a revival would actually entail and how long it would take. Their answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Our participating experts are:

Hans
Kristensen — Director, Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists. Writes the bi-monthly Nuclear Notebook and the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook.

Jon B. Wolfsthal, Director of Global Risk, American Federation of Scientists.

Daryl G. Kimball has been Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) and publisher and contributor for the organization’s monthly journal, Arms Control Today, since September 2001.

Q: Can you tell me the process by which this could happen? What is the chain of command, and who has to be involved?

Hans Kristensen

A: The process for this would require the White House to direct the Department of Energy (DOE) to order the nuclear laboratories to start preparing for a nuclear test. And since the United States doesn’t currently have a nuclear weapons test explosion program, Congress would have to appropriate the money first. 

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: Not sure what “this” is at this point. To conduct operational flight tests of US delivery systems, those are already underway for existing systems and systems in development. For nuclear testing, the US would need to fund the conduct of a nuclear explosive test. It would be conducted by the US Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: The President has the legal authority to do this, but he needs authorization and appropriations for this purpose by Congress, and Congress can block or modify what he can do or under what conditions, etc. It’s the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that is responsible for maintaining the existing warheads in the U.S. arsenal. They’ve been doing this since the mid-90s, since the U.S. halted nuclear testing in September 1992 through a very well-funded, sophisticated stockpile stewardship program, which uses non-nuclear, or I should say, non-testing methods, to maintain the seven warhead types in US arsenal.

Q: What specifically would be tested?

Hans Kristensen

A: It is hard to understand what Trump is referring to. It might have been triggered by Russia’s two new missile tests over the last week. But the United States already tests its nuclear weapons in similar ways by conducting test launches and laboratory experiments. If by testing he means nuclear explosive testing, that would be reckless, probably not possible for 18 months, would cost money that Congress would have to approve, and it would most certainly [result in] Russian and Chinese, and likely also India and Pakistan nuclear tests. Unlike the United States, all these countries would have much to gain by restarting nuclear testing. Besides, although there have been occasional rumors that Russia and China may have conducted very small-yield tests, I’m not aware of any reports that they have conducted significant nuclear test explosions.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: Again, it depends. This is not well explained by the President at this point.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: Well, this is a great question that the president’s people need to answer. Nuclear testing has historically been used to proof-test new warhead designs. Does the device explode? Does it detonate to the desired explosive yield? Does it have the characteristics that you want? That is the main reason why the United States conducted most of its 1,030 nuclear tests. What exactly they will be trying to figure out from a technical standpoint, I do not know, and frankly, there is no reason why the United States needs nuclear test explosions to maintain existing warheads in our arsenal.

So, looking at Trump’s statements, it’s pretty clear that whatever kind of nuclear testing he’s thinking about, it’s for political purposes. It is a juvenile kind of tit-for-tat reaction to what he perceives other countries are doing. And I would note that he claims that this is from an overnight quote on Air Force One, one you know, all other countries seem to be doing this. Well, those of us who follow these issues extremely carefully do not see any other country conducting nuclear explosive tests. So the president and his scientific advisors need to explain what he’s talking about. I would say that he appears to be confused and misinformed about this issue.

Q: How long would it take from the time of this social media posting until the tests take place?

Hans Kristensen

A: It would be expensive because the timeline for doing a simple explosion is six to 10 months, a fully instrumented test in 24 to 36 months, and a test to develop a new nuclear warhead is about 60 months.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: It would require anywhere from a few months to conduct a rapid explosive test and 18 months to conduct a fully instrumented test that would yield scientific results.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: I think it would take many months. I would put it at around 36 months to be able to conduct a nuclear explosive test underground that is contained. There are generally two kinds of tests. One is a demonstration test that simply says, ‘We have nuclear weapons and they explode.’ Then there is a test that is designed to derive some data about the weapon’s design to help understand how it’s working. A scientific test requires much more preparation and time than a simple demonstration test. In theory, the United States could fire a Minuteman III missile from the ground. Within an hour, it could detonate a nuclear device high in the atmosphere, and we would see that one of our nuclear warheads works. But that’s not what I think Donald Trump was talking about.

Q: Where could these tests take place?

Hans Kristensen

A: It can practically only be done in Nevada.

Jon B. Wolfsthal

A: The most likely spot is the Nevada National Security Site, which is the former US nuclear weapons test site about 45 minutes north of Las Vegas. No other location is currently capable or legally structured for the conduct of nuclear explosive tests.

Daryl G. Kimball

A: The Nevada National Security Site, which is nearly the size of Rhode Island, is where the United States conducted the majority of its nuclear test explosions, including 100 in the atmosphere, beginning in 1951. That is the site where, if there’s a military scientific need to resume testing, that’s where the United States has been planning for.

With so many questions about Trump’s nuclear testing statements still outstanding, we are waiting for further clarification from the White House. We will update this story with any pertinent details provided.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The Celebrity Traitors may appear like it is all fun and games on TV, but some of the participants have explained that they really did find it difficult to live under rules and deception for several weeks during filming

The makers of The Celebrity Traitors have confirmed mental health experts are on hand to support the contestants at all times after Jonathan Ross revealed he struggled while making the show. The star-filled version of the game show has been a ratings smash for the BBC.

But it seems lying to all those around you can play heavily on those taking part, both faithfuls and traitors alike. In a recent podcast, talk show host Jonathan, 64, admitted that he found it difficult to lie to the fellow stars in the first UK celebrity version of the show.

He was selected alongside comedian Alan Carr, 49, and singer Cat Burns, 25, as a traitor – and tasked with killing off fellow stars and working to manipulate the other contestants to wrongly guess who the traitors were. But speaking on his podcast, Jonathan remarked: “You’re on the defence this whole time” – and complained it was hard to be constantly lying.

READ MORE: I’m A Celebrity line-up – Huge comedian return to the limelightREAD MORE: Stephen Fry’s response after pal opened up about his cocaine near-death experience

Fans of the Traitors will note that a psychologist, Victoria Plant, and a psychotherapist and counsellor, Tanya Taylor-Wright, are listed as part of the crew. A source told The Sun that the mental health experts were on hand to support those taking part.

They said: “People may think it is just a telly show, but when you’re living the game 24/7, it takes a toll. It was made clear to the celebrities that help was on hand for them if they were struggling with the mind games.

“There is a duty of care in television now, so medical experts are employed on set, but it was of paramount importance on The Traitors because of the nature of the show.”

A spokesperson for The Traitors confirmed to The Mirror that the exact same measures are put in place for the civilian version of the show – and that showmakers take ensuring the care and safety of contestants is met at all times extremely seriously. This always includes making a psychotherapist and a psychologist available to the cast.

The spokesperson said: “Since the very first series in 2022, we have had a dedicated welfare team and psychological support on hand at all times who monitor and regularly speak to all of the players in private to ensure they feel comfortable throughout the entire process. Our priority is and will continue to be supporting the well-being of our cast, and this is the case before, during and after filming.”

So far, the traitors have managed to avoid being uncloaked as the 16 faithful contestants have either been picked off like sitting ducks or tricked into banishing their fellow faithfuls.

Viewers have been left in amusement as the traitors have expertly taken out the other stars while competing to win a prize of up to £100,000 for charity. Alan spilled the first blood when he marked singer Paloma Faith for death in plain sight when he completed a task which involved planting a black mark on her face.

Jonathan’s time could be running out, however, as the faithful contestants have speculated that either he or Stephen Fry could be a traitor, but they voted out the Blackadder actor at a round table.

Follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Relations between the United States and China are tense, once again, with experts saying that the administration of US President Donald Trump “doesn’t quite know how to deal with China”.

The latest flare-up took place when Beijing, on October 9, expanded its restrictions on the export of rare-earth metals, increasing the number of elements on the list.

China has the largest reserves and the majority of processing facilities of rare-earth metals that are used in a range of daily and critical industries like electric vehicles, smartphones, laptops and defence equipment.

In a first, it also required countries to have a licence to export rare-earth magnets and certain semiconductor materials that contain even trace amounts of minerals sourced from China or produced using Chinese technology.

China’s actions on rare-earths also came after the US expanded its Entity List, a trade restriction list that consists of certain foreign persons, entities or government, further limiting China’s access to the most advanced semiconductor chips, and added levies on China-linked ships both to boost the US shipbuilding industry and loosen China’s hold on the global shipping trade. China retaliated by applying its own charges on US-owned, operated, built or flagged vessels.

“For the US, its actions on chip exports and shipping industry fees were not related to the trade deal with China,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president for research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

Since then, the two countries have also been in an “information war”, said Nadjibulla, each blaming the other for holding the world hostage with its policies.

But beyond the rhetoric, the world is seeing China really up its game.

“For the first time, China is doing this extra-terrestrial action that applies to other countries as well [with its amped up export restrictions on rare-earths]. They are prepared to match every US escalation, and have the US back down,” Nadjibulla said. “This is a very different kind of a trade war than we were experiencing even three months ago.”

This was a “power play” by China in the run-up to a planned meeting later this month between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea because “China has decided that the leverage is on their side,” said Dexter Tiff Roberts, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Global China Hub, pointing out that after some initial noise with Trump saying there was no reason to meet Xi any longer, the meeting is back on.

“If you look at the approach of the Trump administration right now, they are all over the place,” said Roberts.

Roberts was referring not only to the multiple tariff threats that the US has issued both on China and on specific industries and the carve-outs that were soon announced on those, but also in its statements on the Trump-Xi meeting, with Trump saying it was not happening, only to reverse that two days later.

“The Trump administration doesn’t quite know how to deal with China,” said Roberts. “They don’t understand that China is willing to accept a lot of pain,” and will not be easily cowed by US threats.

Beijing, on the other hand, has realised that Trump is determined to get his big deal with China and wants his state visit to seal that, maybe because “he feels that is important to his credentials as a big deal maker,” added Roberts, but that he cannot get there without giving more to China.

“China saw that they could push harder in the lead-up to the meeting.”

Wei Liang, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies who specialises in international trade and Chinese economic foreign policy, agrees.

“Trump has a track record of TACO,” she said, referring to a term coined by a Financial Times columnist in May, which stands for “Trump always chickens out” in reference to his announcing tariffs and then carving out exemptions and pushing out implementation dates.

“He cares more than any other US president [about] stock market reactions, so definitely will be more flexible to making concessions. This is the inconsistency that has been captured by his negotiation partners,” Liang said.

China’s defiant stance also comes at a time of its own political concerns, Liang added.

While the domestic economy is “a black box” with no reliable data available on growth, employment and other criteria, the consensus among China experts is that the country has been hit by the tariffs, economic growth has slowed, and unemployment has ramped up.

As China started its four-day fourth plenary session on Monday where it plans to approve the draft of its next five-year national economic and social development plan, Xi can use the moment to tell his domestic audience that the country’s problems are stemming from Trump’s policies and the whole world is suffering because of those tariffs and it’s not related to Chinese policies, Liang said.

A possible decoupling

All of this also signals that Beijing seems to be prepared to “decouple” from the US more than ever, a significant change in mentality, as, in the past, the standard response to the idea was that it would be a “lose-lose” situation for both countries, Liang told Al Jazeera.

But in the last few years, China has diversified its exports to other countries, especially those in its Belt and Road Initiative, the ambitious infrastructure project that it launched in 2013 to link East Asia through Europe and has since expanded to Africa, Oceania and Latin America.

Even when it comes to things that it needs from the US – soya beans, aeroplanes and high-tech chip equipment – it can find other suppliers or has learned to work around that need, as is the case for the chip equipment, Liang pointed out.

In the meantime, especially in the years since the US-China trade war started under Trump as president in his first term, China has brought in a set of national security laws – including its version of the US Entity List, through which it is setting limits on those exports, Nadjibulla said.

“Everybody should have been preparing the way the Chinese have been preparing. We breathed a sigh of relief when there was a change in government [in the US after the first Trump administration], but China kept preparing,” she said.

“This should be a wake-up call for all countries to find other sources for its needs. Everyone should be redoubling their efforts to diversify, because we have now seen the Chinese playbook.”

It seems as if all eyes are on Oklo (OKLO 1.39%) right now. Shares have surged in value by more than 700% since April. But when you look closer, Oklo’s entire industry is skyrocketing. Nuscale Power, another company focused on small modular nuclear reactors, has seen its valuation nearly quadruple since April.

Why are stocks like Oklo and Nuscale rising exponentially? There’s one primary factor to be aware of now for investors to consider.

Small-scale nuclear power may soon be a reality

For decades, small modular nuclear reactors have been relegated only to science fiction. In theory, the technology makes a lot of sense. Small modular reactors, commonly referred to as SMRs, can be deployed anywhere in the world, even in remote locations without any road access. Once built, they can produce fairly affordable power with minimal carbon emissions. And they don’t have as many issues with generation intermittency as other renewable energy sources like wind or solar.

Companies like Oklo and Nuscale, however, claim that they are just a handful of years away from constructing the world’s first commercial SMRs. Nuscale is already certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Council in the U.S. Oklo is currently in the application process. If successful, this industry could upend the global energy paradigm, delivering low-cost, low-carbon fuel at any scale, anywhere in the world.

Image source: Getty Images.

Here’s the problem: We still don’t know if what these companies are promising is even possible. Neither Oklo nor Nuscale has any existing orders from customers. And analysts are ready to point out the industry’s consistent failures over the years.

Many of these failures weren’t technological, but simply a matter of cost, with huge cost overruns the norm throughout history. “The technical and extreme cost challenges of SMRs has been known and widely reported on for years, raising the question of why the hype continues to grow,” observes Jim Green, a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

Expedia has released its top travel trends for 2026 – including ‘Fan Voyage’, ‘Salvaged Stays’, and ‘Hotel Hop’ – and the destinations to visit for a ‘smart’ holiday

The ‘Unpack ’26’ report from travel giants Expedia, Hotels.com, and Vrbo has revealed the top holiday trends for the year ahead, including ‘Fan Voyage’, ‘Hotel Hop’, and ‘Salvaged Stays’. The report, which surveyed 24,000 people across 18 countries, shows a growing trend of travellers booking trips specifically to experience immersive local activities.

‘Fan Voyage’ holidays combine travel with unique regional sporting activities, such as Sumo Wrestling in Japan or curling in Canada, according to Expedia. Meanwhile, ‘Salvaged Stay’ sees holidaymakers blending historical architecture with modern amenities, opting for upcycled retreats like former schoolhouses, train stations, and banks. As a result, Hotels.com has seen a surge in searches for these types of stays.

The emerging trend of ‘Hotel Hop’ is being driven by two thirds of British millennial travellers who are making every trip count by booking multiple hotels within a single destination. This is fuelled by a desire to explore different neighbourhoods (58%) and keep trips varied (52%).

Expedia has also unveiled its 2026 Destinations of the Year list, based on real-time data from millions of daily visitors to its site and app. Six of these hotspots meet the criteria for the brand’s new Smart Travel Health Check , a first-in-travel framework, inspired by the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC).

It acknowledges destinations that strive to provide meaningful travel experiences whilst proactively managing tourism in a sustainable manner. The leading locations featured Big Sky in Montana, USA, Okinawa in Japan, Hobart in Australia and Savoie in France, which has witnessed a 51% surge in searches.

Ariane Gorin, CEO of Expedia Group, said: “Some of my most unforgettable travel moments come from immersing myself in local cultures, supporting local economies, and exploring less-travelled destinations.

“We have a responsibility to shape the future of travel: one that’s smarter, more sustainable, and deeply respectful of the places we go.”

Christopher Imbsen, vice president policy at WTTC, added: “Expedia’s Smart Travel Health Check is an innovative initiative that reflects the urgent need to embrace responsible growth models that safeguard communities, protect cultural and natural heritage, and ensure the long-term resilience of destinations.”

Research carried out on behalf of the Vrbo division of the firm discovered that trips in 2026 are driven by 91% who are pursuing breaks centred on reading, relaxation, and precious time with family.

As #BookTok continues to rule social media, fascination with literary-themed journeys – ‘Readaways’ – is also soaring, with Pinterest searches for “book club retreat ideas” climbing 265%. And reading-related phrases in the holiday rental firm’s guest reviews have almost trebled.

The ‘slow travel’ trend is on the rise, with a whopping 84% of holidaymakers keen to stay on or near a farm. Meanwhile, ‘Set-Jetting’, travelling to locations inspired by TV shows and films, is making a big comeback.

While we’re still waiting for official confirmation of The White Lotus’s next filming location in France, the 2026 Set-Jetting Forecast has unveiled the next hotspots for film-inspired getaways – including Tuscany, Italy, brought to life by Jay Kelly, and Yorkshire, made famous by Wuthering Heights and Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale.

Here are the top holiday trends for 2026:

1. Fan Voyage (Expedia) – Mixing travel with unique sporting activities
2. Salvaged Stays (Hotels.com) – Seeking out hotels with distinctive architecture but modern amenities
3. Hotel Hop (Hotels.com) – Holidays featuring more than one accommodation venue
4. Readaways (Vrbo) – Breaks based on reading-related themes like ‘reading retreat’
5. Farm Charm (Vrbo) – Holidays centred around terms like ‘farm’ or ‘homestead’ for a cosy escape
6. Set-Jetting Forecast (Expedia) – Holidays inspired by TV shows and films

STAVANGER, Norway — President Trump’s bid to win the Nobel Peace Prize has drawn added attention to the annual guessing game over who its next laureate will be.

Longtime Nobel watchers say Trump’s prospects remain remote despite a flurry of high-profile nominations and some notable foreign policy interventions for which he has taken personal credit.

Experts say the Norwegian Nobel Committee typically focuses on the durability of peace, the promotion of international fraternity and the quiet work of institutions that strengthen those goals. Trump’s own record might even work against him, they said, citing his apparent disdain for multilateral institutions and his disregard for global climate change concerns.

Still, the U.S. leader has repeatedly sought the Nobel spotlight since his first term, most recently telling United Nations delegates late last month “everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize.”

A person cannot nominate themself.

Public lobbying campaigns but a private committee decision

Trump’s boasts and previous high-profile nominations make him the blockbuster name on the list of bookmakers’ favorites. But it’s unclear whether his name comes up in conversation when the five-member Nobel committee, appointed by Norway’s parliament, meets behind closed doors.

Trump has been nominated several times by people within the U.S. as well as politicians abroad since 2018. His name also was put forward in December by U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), her office said in a statement, for his brokering of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states in 2020.

Nominations made this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Pakistan’s government occurred after the Feb. 1 deadline for the 2025 award.

Trump has said repeatedly that he “deserves” the prize and claims to have “ended seven wars.” Last week, he teased the possibility of ending an eighth war if Israel and Hamas agree to his peace plan aimed at concluding the nearly two-year war in Gaza.

“Nobody’s ever done that,” he told a gathering of military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. “Will you get the Nobel Prize? Absolutely not. They’ll give it to some guy that didn’t do a damn thing.”

Israel and Hamas have since agreed to the first phase of the peace plan for Gaza, paving the way for a pause in the fighting and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. In the early hours of Thursday, families of hostages and their supporters started chanting “Nobel prize to Trump” as they gathered in Tel Aviv’s hostages square.

Sustained peace efforts prioritized over quick wins

Nobel veterans say the committee prioritizes sustained, multilateral efforts over quick diplomatic wins. Theo Zenou, a historian and research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, said Trump’s efforts have not yet been proven to be long-lasting.

“There’s a huge difference between getting fighting to stop in the short term and resolving the root causes of the conflict,” Zenou said.

Zenou also highlighted Trump’s dismissive stance on climate change as out-of-step with what many, including the Nobel committee, see as the planet’s greatest long-term peace challenge.

“I don’t think they would award the most prestigious prize in the world to someone who does not believe in climate change,” Zenou said. “When you look at previous winners who have been bridge-builders, embodied international cooperation and reconciliation: These are not words we associate with Donald Trump.”

Avoiding political pressure

The Nobel committee was met with fierce criticism in 2009 for giving then-U.S. President Barack Obama the prize barely nine months into his first term. Many argued Obama had not been in office long enough to have an impact worthy of the Nobel.

And Trump’s own outspokenness about possibly winning the award might work against him: The committee won’t want to be seen as caving in to political pressure, said Nina Græger, director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo.

Trump’s prospects for the prize this year are “a long shot,” she said. “His rhetoric does not point in a peaceful perspective.”

The Nobel announcements began with the prize in medicine on Monday, and continued with physics on Tuesday and chemistry on Wednesday. The literature prize is being awarded on Thursday. The winner of the prize in economics will be announced on Monday.

Lewis writes for the Associated Press. Stefanie Dazio in Berlin and Darlene Superville in Quantico, Va., contributed to this reporting.

On Monday, the artificial intelligence giant OpenAI introduced a feature that would allow users to make purchases through ChatGPT, in partnership with Etsy and Shopify. Travel experts say this will pave the way for a big change.

The way we book holidays is set to change hugely as the travel industry braces for a “massively disruptive” tech update.

On Monday, the artificial intelligence giant OpenAI introduced a feature that would allow users to make purchases through ChatGPT, in partnership with Etsy and Shopify.

“Users can now buy directly from US Etsy sellers right in chat, with over a million Shopify merchants, like Glossier, SKIMS, Spanx and Vuori, coming soon. Today, Instant Checkout supports single-item purchases. Next, we’ll add multi-item carts and expand merchants and regions,” the organisation announced.

The move is set to disrupt the online commerce world, as soon the 700 million weekly users of ChatGPT will be able to shop on the AI interface, without visiting other websites. This will hand OpenAI a huge amount of power in the world of e-commerce, and make it a lot of money through fees from sellers.

READ MORE: Scotland’s ‘most haunted’ A-road famous for ‘phantom trucks’ and ghostsREAD MORE: Fears elderly will be stopped from flying as new Ryanair rule dubbed ‘ageist’

Following the announcement, experts in the future of travel have predicted a world in which ChatGPT – or another similar large-language model – will achieve market dominance and become a ‘super-app’, serving as a portal to every part of the internet.

It will be possible to plan holidays in great detail using the AI, as many tech-savvy travellers already do. The big difference in the future will be that it’d then be possible to book the entire holiday in a minimal number of clicks, without leaving the page, the experts predicted.

Speaking at the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) summit in Rome on Tuesday, Guy Johnson, an anchor with Bloomberg, said: “That is a huge shift. That is a new model. That is massively disruptive.”

Gaurav Bhatnagar, co-founder of TBO.com, predicted that the changes would be positive from the customer’s perspective. “The quality of service will improve. You will need fewer people (as a travel company). From a customer’s perspective, it will be cheaper, easier to book, and the experience will be better,” he said.

The change would be far more significant for travel companies. “It is likely that when ChatGPT gets the customer to the point when they’re going to book, it will send the holiday plan out to their clients and say ‘who is going to bid for this?’ My guess is that ChatGPT wants to replace Amazon, Booking.com, to become the super app,”Mr Bhatnagar continued.

Paolo Benanti, president of the AI Commission for Information and a member of the UN Advisory Board on AI, was similarly boosterish. He said: “You would expect that an AI agent could arrange more accurately than a human can.”

The prospect of an AI revolution in travel has been brewing for a number of years. At last year’s WTTC summit, similar predictions were made about how large language models could be used to generate personalised travel itineraries for holidaymakers.

“Challenges that must be overcome by travel and tourism businesses include a shortage of AI-skilled workers, limited AI infrastructure, and the absence of a formal ‘AI strategy’ in many business plans. Travel and tourism businesses are urged to embrace AI as a strategic priority, investing heavily in talent to foster collaboration between humans and AI,” a statement from the WTTC read.

During the first months of the rollout of ChatGPT, the Mirror embarked on a mystery road trip arranged by the software and discovered some of the strong points and pitfalls of relying on a bot for advice and direction.

A BRIDE on MAFS UK has made another ‘fat shaming’ comment about her husband at the first dinner party.

The experts, Paul Brunson, Mel Schilling and Charlene Douglas were left seriously unimpressed on the E4 show.

6

6

6

Viewers of Married At First Sight UK tuned in tonight to see the last of the honeymoon scenes.

Next week, all the couples will land back in Blighty for the first dinner party of the series.

A preview for the next episode was shown to the audience at the end of the episode to give them a taste of what they can look forward to.

At the table, Dean, 31, stood up as he broke into one of his custom raps for the rest of the contestants at the table.

The team building host rapped: “Here we are on this mad experiment, seeing things not in our element.”

His bride Sarah, also 31, later made it clear on their honeymoon that she was not a fan of his spontaneous performances.

At the time she said: “The outburst of song and rapping is beginning to grate on me.”

Once again, her expression indicated that she had still not warmed up to aspects of his personality as she was left grimacing.

Then, the voiceover artist teased that Sarah served a ‘scathing review‘ of her new husband after his rap.

Turning to Maeve, she remarked: “He asked me if I ever slept with anyone fat before.”

Before she added: “He’s calling himself the funny fat kid, he’s like a care bear.”

The experts were all seen to be watching all the action unfold in another room.

Mel was left completely unimpressed by those words as she remarked: “That’s not a very hot thing to say about your partner.”

More jibes

This is not the first time that Sarah has landed herself in hot water on the show due to the alleged ‘fat shaming’.

On her wedding day, Sarah admitted that Dean wasn’t her dream man – as she branded him “over the top” and saying she “didn’t fancy him” or want to “rip his clothes off”.

Sarah confessed on their honeymoon that she has never dated anyone as “big” as Dean, which came as a huge blow.

A devastated Dean admitted at the time: “It’s hard to hear, that has left me feeling empty,” as droves of viewers slammed her cruel delivery.

He’s calling himself the funny fat kid, he’s like a care bear.

SarahMAFS UK

She was later heard talking to the camera about what it would take to get a “spark” with Dean.

The recruitment consultant bluntly replied: “Get some tattoos, lose some weight.”

6

6

6

Married At First Sight UK continues on E4 and is available to stream back on Channel 4.

WASHINGTON — On a Phoenix tarmac in 2016, former President Clinton and U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch had a serendipitous meeting on a private jet. The exchange caused a political firestorm. At a time when the Justice Department was investigating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, the appearance of impropriety prompted a national scandal.

“Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes,” Donald Trump, her Republican rival that year, would later write of the meeting on Twitter. “Totally illegal!”

It was the beginning of a pattern from Trump claiming political interference by Democrats and career public servants in Justice Department matters, regardless of the evidence.

Now, Trump’s years-long claim that it was his opponents who politicized the justice system has become the basis for the most aggressive spree of political prosecutions in modern American history.

“What Trump is doing now with the U.S. attorneys is really in complete opposition to how the people who created those offices imagined what those officials would do — the Founders simply did not envision the office in this way,” said Peter Kastor, chair of the history department at Washington University in St. Louis.

“From the inception of the Justice Department,” he added, “one of the most remarkable things is how it was never used in this way.”

On Thursday, at Trump’s express direction, federal charges were filed against James Comey, the former FBI director, alleging he gave false testimony before Congress and attempted to obstruct a congressional proceeding five years ago.

The indictment was secured from a federal grand jury after Trump fired a U.S. attorney with doubts about the strength of the case — replacing him with a loyalist, and telling Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi openly on social media to pursue charges against him and others.

“JAMES COMEY IS A DIRTY COP,” Trump wrote on social media after the charges were filed. “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Comey, who was fired by Trump in 2017, denies the charges.

“My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way,” Comey said in a statement posted online. “We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either.

“My heart is broken for the Department of Justice. But I have great confidence in the federal judicial system,” Comey continued. “And I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

Behind the charges against Comey, legal experts see a weak case wielded as a cudgel in a political persecution of Trump’s perceived enemy. Comey is accused of lying about authorizing a leak to the media about an FBI investigation through an anonymous source.

It is only the latest example. Over the summer, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Pulte, used his position to accuse three of the president’s political foes of mortgage fraud, referring the cases to the Justice Department for potential charges — actions actively encouraged by Trump online.

“It’s not a list,” Trump said Thursday, asked whether more prosecutions are coming. “I think there will be others. They’re corrupt. These were corrupt radical left Democrats. Comey essentially was Dem — he’s worse than a Democrat.”

The president’s overt use of the Justice Department as a partisan tool threatens a new era of political persecutions that could well backfire on his own allies. The Supreme Court has made clear that presidents enjoy broad immunity for their actions while in office. But their aides do not. Bondi, Pulte and others, just like Comey, are obligated to provide occasional testimony to House and Senate committees under oath.

“The Comey indictment is notable for its personalized politicization being so open,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College. “The same actions carried out clandestinely would seem scandalous, because they are — and the fact they were so blatantly advertised does not make them less corrupt.”

But the Comey case can also be seen as a test of the viability of a prosecution based purely on politics. Already, lawyers for Trump’s other legal targets have said they plan on using his overt threats against them to get cases against their clients thrown out in court.

This week, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, defended Trump’s vocal advocacy for criminal charges against political foes as a matter of “accountability.”

“We are not going to tolerate gaslighting from anyone in the media, from anyone on the other side who is trying to say that it’s the president who is weaponizing the DOJ,” Leavitt said.

“You look at people like [California Sen.] Adam Schiff, and like James Comey, and like [New York Atty. Gen.] Letitia James, who the president is rightfully frustrated with,” she continued. “He wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abused their power, who abused their oath of office to target the former president.”

But Trump’s accusations against Democrats have routinely failed the tests of inspectors general, journalistic inquiry and public scrutiny.

When Trump was investigated over potential coordination between his campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 race, he claimed a liberal, “deep state” cabal was behind an inquiry based on, as the special prosecutor’s report concluded, “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.”

And when charged with federal crimes over his handling of highly classified material, and his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, he dismissed the charges as a witch hunt choreographed by President Biden and his attorney general, a claim that had no basis in fact.

The special counsel investigations against Trump, Kastor said, were “prosecutions, not persecutions.”

“His claims that the investigations surrounding him are specious — the investigations were appropriate,” Kastor added. “These investigations are not.”

China’s new target for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions has been branded “disappointing” and “underwhelming” by climate experts, who warn the pledge falls far short of the action needed to avert climate catastrophe.

But the goal also raised hopes that China, which until now has only promised to stop emissions from rising, may be underpromising the level of cuts it can deliver amid a massive expansion in the country’s renewable energy capacity.

In a video address to the United Nations on Wednesday, Chinese President Xi Jinping said China would lower its emissions by 7-10 percent from their peak by 2035.

It was the first time that China, the world’s biggest polluter, outlined a goal for cutting emissions outright.

Xi, who called the shift away from carbon “the trend of our time”, also pledged to raise the share of non-fossil fuel sources in energy consumption to more than 30 percent, and increase wind and solar capacity sixfold compared with 2020.

While a significant moment in the global fight against climate change at a time when the United States is abandoning efforts to cut emissions, China’s target fails by some distance to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement, said some analysts.

“It’s unfortunately very disappointing: This target will not drive down emissions – it is below what China is likely to achieve already under its current climate policies,” Bill Hare, CEO of Berlin-based policy institute Climate Analytics, told Al Jazeera.

“China can do a lot better than this, and it hardly reflects its highest possible ambition.”

The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) has estimated that China would need to cut emissions by about 30 percent to be consistent with the Paris accord.

The agreement, adopted by 195 countries in 2015, calls for the rise in the average global temperature to be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

China’s actions on climate are viewed as especially critical following the US’s exit from the Paris accord under President Donald Trump, who used his UN speech this week to call the scientific consensus on climate change the “greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”.

“China’s underwhelming headline target misses a chance to deliver real leadership,” Li Shuo, director of China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera.

“Beijing is choosing to tiptoe forward when science calls for a full sprint. The pledge would, unfortunately, still put the world on a pathway to catastrophic climate impacts.”

Xi’s announcement left key questions about the emissions target unanswered, including how Beijing would define peak emissions.

Many climate experts believe that China’s emissions have already peaked or will do so this year, though some observers caution that the trend has been driven as much by the decline in business activity during the COVID-19 pandemic as the rollout of renewable energy.

China has had a paradoxical influence on global efforts to address climate change.

While responsible for roughly one-third of global emissions, the country is also a leader in green energy.

China produces about 80 percent of the world’s solar panels and 70 percent of its electric cars, according to the International Energy Agency.

The country also manufactures about 60 percent of wind turbines worldwide, according to London-based energy think tank Ember.

At the same time, China has continued to invest heavily in coal.

Last year, construction began on nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new or suspended coal power projects, the most in a decade, according to the CREA.

“China’s new pledge clearly falls short of expectations. Despite President Xi’s earlier promise to strictly control new coal power, the country has just approved more projects than at any point in nearly a decade,” Andreas Sieber, the associate director of policy and campaigns at 350.org, told Al Jazeera.

“The targets announced today, which are vague on the base year and conservative on renewables, leave ample room for continued emissions growth from coal-heavy sectors.”

Still, climate experts expressed hope that China’s target could be a signal of more transformative change to come.

While China’s announcement fell short of expectations, Beijing has a tendency to set targets that it can “confidently deliver”, said Yao Zhe, a Beijing-based policy adviser to Greenpeace East Asia.

“What’s hopeful is that the actual decarbonisation of China’s economy is likely to exceed its target on paper,” Yao said in a statement responding to the target, adding that her organisation’s latest analysis showed that emissions from China’s power sector could peak this year.

In a world “increasingly driven by self-interest”, China is in a stronger position than most to spur climate action, the Asia Society’s Li said.

“The country has emerged as a global clean tech superpower, and its dominant role in this sector could enable it to surpass current targets,” he said.

“Over time, this could push China toward a more proactive role on the international stage.”

THE real ‘Da Vinci Code’ is close to finally being solved after a major scientific breakthrough.

Experts are racing to crack the mystery of DNA, death and burial tied to legendary artist, scientist and inventor Leonardo da Vinci.

9

9

9

The world was captivated by 2003 novel and 2006 movie The Da Dinvci Code.

It saw Tom Hanks playing a professor looking to uncover a religious mystery around the Holy Grail with clues hidden in Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic painting The Last Supper.

But the real Da Vinci Code that scientists are trying to solve involves mapping out the artist’s genome.

That’s the entire collection of DNA in da Vinci’s body – all of the genetic instructions needed to make and maintain him.

Now scientists say that they’ve confirmed a male bloodline that they can date all the way back to 1331.

This family tree spans 21 generations and involves as many as 400 individuals.

And they’ve found at least six descendants who, after DNA testing, can be traced directly to Leonardo da Vinci, who was born in 1452 in Anchiano, Vinci, Florence and died in 1519.

As part of the research, the scientists have also confirmed the existence of a da Vinci family tomb, in the Church of Santa Croce in Vinci.

The experts think this may be where several of Leonardo da Vinci’s family members are buried.

That includes his grandfather Antonio, uncle Francesco, and half-brothers Antonio, Pandolfo, and Giovanni.

“Further detailed analyses are necessary to determine whether the DNA extracted is sufficiently preserved,” said David Caramelli, of the University of Florence.

“Based on the results, we can proceed with analysis of Y chromosome fragments for comparison with current descendants.”

Now scientists hope to analyse the remains in the Vinci church tombs to find a match with the Y chromosome of the living descendants.

And scientists are also hoping to look for traces left on his original works.

9

9

9

This could allow scientists to fully reconstruct da Vinci’s DNA.

“Our goal in reconstructing the Da Vinci family’s lineage up to the present day,” said Alessandro Vezzosi, of the Leonardo da Vinci Heritage Association.

“While also preserving and valuing the places connected to Leonardo, is to enable scientific research on his DNA.

“Through the recovery of Leonardo’s DNA, we hope to understand the biological roots of his extraordinary visual acuity, creativity, and possibly even aspects of his health and causes of death.”

Scientists may be able to use this information to confirm da Vinci’s final resting place.

The Renaissance painter was originally said to have been buried in Amboise, France in the Saint Florentin church.

This church was severely damaged during the French Revolution.

And bones believed to belong to him were moved to the Chapel of St Hubert in Amboise.

9

But there have been doubts over whether these bones really do belong to da Vinci – a puzzle that could be solved using his DNA.

So scientists are probing what remains of da Vinci in terms of his works and descendants to crack the real code.

“Even a tiny fingerprint on a page could contain cells to sequence,” says Jesse H. Ausubel, of The Rockefeller University, who is director of the DNA project.

“21st-century biology is moving the boundary between the unknowable and the unknown.

9

9

“Soon we may gain information about Leonardo and other historical figures once believed lost forever.”

President Trump blamed the over-the-counter drug acetaminophen, commonly known by the brand name Tylenol, as a significant factor in the rise of U.S. autism diagnoses on Monday, at a news conference in which he offered often inaccurate medical advice for the nation’s children and pregnant women.

“Taking Tylenol is not good. I’ll say it. It’s not good,” Trump said, flanked by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz.

In a series of rambling, error-filled remarks that touched upon pain relievers, pregnancy, vaccines and the Amish — who he inaccurately said have no autism prevalence in their communities — Trump also said that the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine should be broken up into multiple shots and that children defer until age 12 the hepatitis B vaccine series now started at birth.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

“I’m just making these statements from me, I’m not making them from these doctors,” he said. “It’s too much liquid. Too many different things are going into that baby.”

The announcement was met with dismay from autism researchers and advocates who said that research thus far into causal links between acetaminophen and autism has turned up minimal evidence.

“Researchers have been studying the possible connections between acetaminophen and autism for more than a decade,” said Dr. David Mandell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. The Trump administration, he said, “has cherry-picked findings that are not in line with most of the research.”

Physicians and researchers also took issue with Trump’s insistence that there was “no downside” to women avoiding fever-reducing drugs in pregnancy. In fact, studies show that untreated fever in pregnancy is associated with higher risk of heart and facial birth defects, miscarriage and neurodevelopmental disorders — including autism.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will initiate a safety-label update for Tylenol and other acetaminophen products and send a letter to physicians about potential links between the drug’s use and autism, Kennedy said.

The actual text of the letter is much milder than Trump’s impassioned critique.

“In the spirit of patient safety and prudent medicine, clinicians should consider minimizing the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy for routine low-grade fevers. This consideration should also be balanced with the fact that acetaminophen is the safest over-the-counter alternative in pregnancy among all analgesics and antipyretics,” states the letter, signed by FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary.

Monday’s announcement followed weeks of speculation that Kennedy planned to publicly link Tylenol usage to autism, which prompted multiple medical associations to release statements clarifying that any evidence of a causal relationship between the two is limited, and that the drug is safe to take during pregnancy with medical advice.

“All of us in the advocacy community, and all of us who have children with autism, had very high hopes that RFK and the President were serious when they said they wanted to find the causes of autism,” said Alison Singer, co-founder and president of the Autism Science Foundation. “The problem is that so far, what we’ve heard has not been gold-standard science.”

The administration also said it would fast-track the labeling of leucovorin, a generic drug currently used to reduce side effects of chemotherapy, as a treatment for autism-related speech deficits. Also known as folinic acid, leucovorin is a form of the B vitamin folate. Research into its effect on autistic children is still in its early stages, researchers said. The few studies that have been published had small sample sizes and found only minimal improvements in symptoms of concern, Mandell said.

“I want to see a large, rigorous, independent trial. In the absence of that, to tout this as a cure is reckless,” he said. “Families deserve better.”

Autism spectrum disorder is a complex neurological and developmental condition. Symptoms cluster around difficulties in communication, social interaction and sensory processing, and the condition can manifest in many different ways based on co-occurring disabilities and other factors.

Diagnoses in the U.S. have risen steadily since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking data in 2000, thanks in large part to a broadening definition of the disorder and increased efforts to identify children with ASD.

Today one in 31 U.S. 8-year-olds has been identified as having autism spectrum disorder, according to the most recent CDC data, up from one in 150 in 2000.

Kennedy has long asserted that’s due to an external environmental cause, often using inaccurate statements to describe both the condition and the research around it.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Most experts believe genetic links and changing diagnostic criteria play a significant role in the trend. In April, Kennedy dismissed such research and arguments as “epidemic denial.” He said he was certain an external factor was to blame.

“We know it’s an environmental exposure. It has to be,” Kennedy said. “Genes do not cause epidemics.” He said at the time that the administration would find an environmental cause by September.

Research into causal links between acetaminophen and autism have not found strong evidence.

Last year, a team of researchers from the U.S. and Europe reviewed records of 2.5 million babies born in Sweden between 1995 and 2019. At first glance, it did seem like children exposed to acetaminophen in the womb were 5% to 7% more likely to be diagnosed with autism than those who weren’t. But when the researchers compared those children to their siblings, they found that kids from the same parents were equally likely to be diagnosed with autism, whether their mother took acetaminophen during pregnancy or not.

“If you actually do an apples to apples comparison, you see absolutely zero effect. The association flatlines. In other words, there’s no real risk that’s attributable to acetaminophen,” said Brian K. Lee, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Drexel University who was on the study team. “A large elephant in the room is being ignored, and that’s genetics.” Hundreds of studies over the years have explored the complex genetics of autism, with both inherited and spontaneous genes contributing to the condition.

The paper also noted that women who took acetaminophen while pregnant were, unsurprisingly, more likely to suffer from the kinds of ailments for which the medication is indicated, like fevers or chronic pain.

They were also more likely to have diagnoses of autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders, to have pre-existing mental health conditions or to be taking other prescribed medications, the team found. Their results were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“People don’t take acetaminophen for fun. They are taking it for a health condition,” Lee said.

He compared the correlation between Tylenol exposure and autism to the correlation between ice cream sales and drownings. Both of those things tend to increase at the same time each year, he said, not because ice cream is deadly but because both rise during hot summer months. In other words, the underlying health causes that women are taking acetaminophen to treat could be more likely linked to autism than the pain reliever itself.

“This is just such a shame when there are so many things we could do to help autistic children and adults, and the negative consequences — making parents feel guilty about taking Tylenol during pregnancy and newly pregnant women afraid — are real,” said Catherine Lord, a clinical psychologist and autism researcher at UCLA. “Just sad all around.”

As airlines are getting stricter with their baggage restrictions, travellers are coming up with inventive ways to pack more while paying less – but there’s one trick experts are urging people not to risk doing

There are so many different travel ‘hacks’ circulating on social media – but experts urge travellers not to follow the viral pillowcase luggage trick as it’s not worth the risk.

Many of us are guilty of overpacking when going away, so it’s no wonder we’re always looking at ways to pack more and keep within the allowed size and weight limit for our luggage without paying more.

However the viral pillowcase hack, that sees travellers stuffing an empty pillowcase with extra clothes rather than bags when boarding a plane could come at a risk that experts advise people not to follow.

READ MORE: ‘My son live blogged his suicide then I bought the poison he used – it needs to be banned’READ MORE: UK gardeners with tomatoes in garden told to take action before Saturday

As airlines become stricter on their hang luggage rules, Amanda Parker from Netflights has shared her thoughts. She said: “Passengers are cunningly avoiding these strict hand luggage limits and avoiding paying up to £150 in extra fees by taking advantage of an empty pillowcase.

“Travellers are using a standard pillowcase, removing the pillow inside, and instead using it as a secret storage compartment for extra clothes. Travellers rely on airlines not counting a pillow as an additional item when boarding, so by stuffing a standard pillowcase with soft clothing items like T-shirts and jumpers, they’re essentially creating a travel ‘pillow’ that they hope to sneak through.”

However the expert said “airlines are cracking down on sneaky flight hacks” and said you might want to think twice about testing this hack on your next flight.

“An overly stuffed pillowcase bursting with clothes can raise suspicion, and if you’re already boarding the plane with maximum baggage, then your pillow can be flagged as extra.” Amanda said what works for one airline may not for another as different airlines cabin baggage rules vary.

She added: “By risking the pillowcase hack, you could risk holding up the boarding process or being denied boarding entirely if you can’t pay the fee. Some low-cost airlines state that any item used to carry belongings, even if disguised, must be treated as luggage,” and advised before jetting off to always check the baggage allowance rules with the correct bags.

The expert said airlines issue fines for overweight baggage due to the fact that the heavier a plane is, the more fuel it burns. “So every kilogram of baggage increases the plane’s weight, which directly impacts fuel consumption.

“Since fuel is one of the biggest costs for airlines, they want to limit unnecessary weight, and charging for excess baggage is one way to do it.”

Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We’d love to hear from you!

IF you’ve managed to end this summer with a lush green lawn, and no unexplained bald patches or a depressing brown sheen – then well done you.

The majority of people I’ve spoken to have been left with grass that’s definitely looking a bit under the weather (literally).

3

3

3

But fear not.

One of Britain’s biggest shorts-wearing lawn lovers has got some golden rules for Sun Gardening to whip that outside space back into shape.

Jonny Hinks – AKA @gardenwithjonny on social media – describes himself as a self-taught gardener, firefighter and full time garden obsessive from Warwickshire.

And with nearly two million followers on instagram alone – it’s not just his comedy videos that have caught the attention of garden lovers everywhere.

His lawn is spectacularly well maintained – and even in the midst of one of the hottest summers on record, it still managed to look a lot better than most.

“Now is the perfect time for Autumn lawn care”, he told Sun Gardening.

“It’s nice and moist, the soil is warm from the summer. So in terms of germination for grass seed, it’s just the perfect conditions.

“And it’s also a good time because the grass is still growing and if you get it all sorted now –  the roots will be established enough to take the Winter cold that’s on its way.

“Everyone’s lawns have been suffering and turning brown from all the sun – and although it will come back if it hasn’t already, there’s a few things you can do now to help it along.”

FEEDING

“Be careful you buy the right feed. What you need now is high potassium Autumn feed, which helps the grass improve its root strength.

And low nitrogen – as you don’t want too much leaf before Winter as there’s a risk if it’s too leafy it will be prone to disease.

SCARIFY

“This is like exfoliating your face. Basically you just need to take off all the moss and thatch, which is a layer of dead grass and roots – and too much of it prevents water and nutrients from reaching the grass.

It lets the lawn breathe, which is so important. I use a battery-powered scarifier, but there are manual ones, or you can use a rake.

Go diagonally in one direction and then again in the other direction. It’s a great work out

AERATE

“This is when you create air pockets within the lawn which reduces compaction, and like scarifying, allows water and nutrients to penetrate the earth.

“This makes for better root systems. I don’t like using a fork or aerating shoes for this – that just spreads the soil apart.

“Instead I have a tool a bit like a fork, but with hollow tines,  that takes plugs out the lawn.”

TOPSOIL AND SEED

“As soon as I’ve finished all these jobs – I scatter a covering of grass seed over the area – and then cover with a thin layer of topsoil.

“I have been known in the past to do a mix of both together, but I’ve found this way works well. And then water, of course.”

Also in Veronica’s Column this week…

Top tips, Gardening news, competition and Plant of the Week

FOR more gardening content, tips, news and competitions, follow me @biros_and_bloom

PLANT OF THE WEEK! Nemesia Melody Morello Ice – still bringing colour to your garden now – this lovely Nemesia is totally hardy, with masses of dark green foliage, flowers from March to October, perfect for filling baskets, containers, beds and borders and has a sweet scent. Grow in moist well drained soil in sun or partial shade.

JOB OF THE WEEK! Prune climbing and rambling roses, remove any leaves covering pumpkins to get them ripe for halloween, if you’ve got rotten apples on the tree, remove them to prevent disease.

TOP TIP! It can be confusing as to which bulbs should be planted when – so here’s a few tips. This month – September – you can go for early spring-flowering bulbs like daffodils, hyacinths and crocus.
Especially daffodils – as it will help with their root establishment.
You can also get hardy summer flowering bulbs like Alliums and Lillies in now as well. None of the above mind the soil still being warm.
But wait until November for Tulips – as they much prefer the colder soil to get them going. Always plant bulbs in groups to get a better display. And they like the warmth and sun – so keep that in mind. Try and plant them three times the depth of the bulbs – this is when a sturdy bulb planter comes in handy.

TOP TIP! If you’ve noticed dead patches, loose turf and even holes appearing in your lawns, you could be under attack from Leatherjackets – the destructive larvae of crane flies, AKA daddy long legs.
They feed on grassroots and seedlings, and can also attract birds, badgers and foxes that dig up turf in search of a snack, adding to the damage. But there is help at hand.
Nowadays you can basically water in a beneficial nematode – called Steinernema feltiae – which are basically microscopic worms that naturally target and kill leatherjackets. They enter the grubs body and then release bacteria that kill the pest from within. Sounds grim, but it works. There aren’t many brands on the market – I’ve used Nemasys, which was great – but you can also find them from Dragonfli and Dobies online.

TOP TIP! Clean out old pots to make sure they don’t have old compost/bits of dead plants – that can hide pests and diseases over winter and check online to see if you’ve got local recycling – some garden centres take them. 

NEWS! Great Comp Garden’s Bulbs N Things Autumn fair has doubled in size this year. Taking place at the seven-acre Kent garden, it will have a huge range of unusual bulbs, including dwarf iris, crocus, anemone, hyacinth, erythronium, fritillary, hermodactylus, leucojum, muscari, puschkinia, scilla and more. There will also be gardenware, handmade gifts, rare and unusual plants and curated sellers at the two day event October 11 and 12. 

WIN!! Two lucky winners will receive a Westland Autumn Lawncare bundle worth £100 each – including feed, seed, a scarifying rake and aerator. To enter visit www.thesun.co.uk/WestlandAutumn or write to Sun Westland Autumn Lawncare competition, PO Box 3190, Colchester, Essex, CO2 8GP. Include your name, age, email or phone. UK residents 18+ only. Entries close 11.59pm. September 27, 2025. T&Cs apply

Health experts said Kennedy’s ‘repeated efforts to undermine science and public health’ have left Americans ‘less safe’.

More than 20 health groups and medical associations have called on Robert F Kennedy Jr to step down as the United States’ health secretary, accusing him of putting lives at risk by disregarding decades of lifesaving science and reversing medical progress.

In a joint statement published on Wednesday, the groups – including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Public Health Association, and the American Association of Immunologists – said Kennedy is forcing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) experts to “turn their back on decades of sound science” to further his agenda.

The groups also accused Kennedy of “repeated efforts to undermine science and public health”, leaving Americans “less safe in a multitude of ways”.

“Our country needs leadership that will promote open, honest dialogue, not disregard decades of lifesaving science, spread misinformation, reverse medical progress and decimate programs that keep us safe,” the statement said.

“We are gravely concerned that American people will needlessly suffer and die as a result of policies that turn away from sound interventions,” it added.

The letter comes after multiple former CDC directors said last week that Kennedy’s decisions are putting Americans’ health at risk, after he fired the agency’s director, Susan Monarez, less than a month after she was sworn in.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai said Monarez was not “aligned with” President Donald Trump’s agenda and refused to resign, so the White House terminated her.

Monarez’s lawyers said she had been targeted as she “refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts”.

Her departure coincided with the resignations of at least four other top CDC officials in response to Kennedy’s influence over the agency.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Kennedy said his mission was “to restore the CDC’s focus on infectious disease” and “rebuild trust through transparency and competence”.

Kennedy – who has long been accused of spreading anti-vaccine misinformation – has made sweeping changes to US vaccine policies since being appointed by Trump, causing friction with health officials.

In May, he withdrew federal recommendations for COVID shots for pregnant women and healthy children. In June, he also fired all members of the CDC’s expert vaccine advisory panel and replaced them with hand-picked advisers, including fellow anti-vaccine activists.

In August, he then cancelled nearly $500m in funding for mRNA vaccine research in a move health experts said could make the US much more vulnerable to future outbreaks of respiratory viruses.

Kennedy said the US will shift mRNA funding to other vaccine development technologies that are “safer” and “remain effective”.

The International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health credits mRNA vaccines with preventing millions of deaths from COVID-19, saying the innovative technology has the potential to treat diseases such as cancer and HIV.

Most recently, on August 20, hundreds of federal health employees wrote to Kennedy imploring him to “stop spreading inaccurate health information” and for him to either resign or be fired.

Signatories accused Kennedy of “sowing public mistrust by questioning the integrity and morality” of the CDC’s workforce, including by calling the public health agency a “cesspool of corruption”.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia ’s request for asylum in the United States is a prudent legal strategy, experts say, because it gives his lawyers better options for fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to deport him.

But it’s also a gamble. Depending on how the courts rule, Abrego Garcia could end up back inside the notorious El Salvador prison where he says he was beaten and psychologically tortured.

“It’s a strategic move,” Memphis-based immigration attorney Andrew Rankin said of the asylum request. “And it can certainly backfire. But it’s something I would do as well if I were representing him.”

Abrego Garcia, 30, became a focus of President Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was wrongfully deported to his native country in March. The administration is trying to deport him again.

Here are some things to know about his case:

‘You can’t win every case’

The administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador because U.S. officials said he was an MS-13 gang member. It’s an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he wasn’t charged.

His removal to El Salvador violated a U.S. immigration judge’s ruling from 2019 that barred his deportation there. The judge found that Abrego Garcia faced credible threats from a local gang that had extorted from and terrorized his family.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court order, the administration returned him to the United States in June. But it was only to face human smuggling charges, which his lawyers have called preposterous and vindictive.

The administration has said it now intends to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and the main architect of Trump’s immigration policies, told reporters Friday that Garcia has “said he doesn’t want to go back to El Salvador.”

Miller said the administration is “honoring that request by providing him with an alternate place to live.”

In an effort to fight back, Abrego Garcia has notified the U.S. government that he fears being sent to Uganda, which has documented human rights abuses. He said he believes he could be persecuted, tortured or sent from there to El Salvador.

But even if he thwarts deportation to Uganda in immigration court, he probably will face attempts to remove him to another country and then another until the administration succeeds, Rankin said.

“By the law of averages, you can’t win every case,” the lawyer said. “The government has sunk its teeth far into what they’re doing with Kilmar and immigration in general, that it wouldn’t make any sense for them to just give up the fight.”

Taking a risk

Asylum, however, could end the fight.

The request would place the focus solely back on his native El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia has previously shown that he has a credible fear of gang persecution.

But he’s taking a risk by reopening his 2019 immigration case, Rankin said. If he loses the bid for asylum, an immigration judge could remove his protection from being returned to his native country.

That could place him back in the infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECO, in El Salvador. It’s where, Abrego Garcia alleges in a lawsuit, he suffered severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Abrego Garcia had applied for asylum in 2019. The immigration judge denied his request because it came more than a year after Abrego Garcia had arrived in the U.S. He had fled to Maryland without documentation around 2011.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers will probably argue that he has the right to request asylum now because he has been in the U.S. for less than a year after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Rankin said.

If approved, asylum could provide him with a green card and a path to citizenship.

‘Not going to let this go’

Abrego Garcia’s asylum petition would go through the U.S. immigration court system, which is not part of the judiciary but an arm of the Department of Justice and under the Trump administration’s authority.

That’s where the risk comes in.

Abrego Garcia has a team of lawyers fighting for him, unlike many people who are facing deportation. And a federal judge is monitoring his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland to ensure he can exercise his constitutional rights to fight against deportation in immigration court.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis cannot rule on whether he gets asylum or is deported, but she said she will ensure his right to due process. His team says he is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, including to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

“Even if he does manage to win asylum, the government is going to appeal,” Rankin said. “They’re not going to let this go. Why would they after they’ve invested months and months into this one guy?”

Rankin noted that if Abrego Garcia remains within the jurisdiction of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that court’s laws would govern his asylum claim. He said that court has been generally positive toward asylum claims and likely would give Abrego Garcia a “fair shake.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Luena Rodriguez-Feo Vileira in Washington contributed to this report.