tested

Showdown at Rocky Flats : When Federal Agents Take On a Government Nuclear-Bomb Plant, Lines of Law and Politics Blur, and Moral Responsibility Is Tested

Barry Seigel, a Times national correspondent, is the author of “Death in White Bear Lake” and “Shades of Gray,” both published by Bantam Books. His last story for this magazine was about the University of Wisconsin’s effort to outlaw hate speech

WHEN FBI AGENT JON LIPSKY PROPOSED IN JUNE, 1988, THAT they “do Rocky Flats,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Ken Fimberg gave him the type of look you’d direct at someone who’d just said something intriguing but utterly wacky. Lipsky was neither surprised nor offended, for he more or less shared this response. They were sitting in Fimberg’s office in the federal courthouse building in downtown Denver. With them was William Smith, an Environmental Protection Agency investigator. As Lipsky’s suggestion hung in the air, the three men couldn’t suppress their grins. Yeah, sure, Fimberg thought, we’re going to prosecute Rocky Flats for environmental crimes. For the moment, they all pretended it was a crazy joke.

The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, after all, was a top-secret, high-security, 100-building fortress spread over some 400 acres on a mesa 16 miles northwest of Denver. You couldn’t just stroll in there. They had guards who were allowed to shoot. They also had missiles–real anti-aircraft rockets. The potential political controversies looked even nastier than the firepower. Although operated under contract by Rockwell International since 1975, Rocky Flats in fact belonged to the United States Department of Energy. There’d never been a criminal environmental case brought against a federal facility. If the U.S. attorney’s office in Colorado were to go after Rocky Flats, one federal agency in effect would be raiding another. The tangled mass of murky environmental law was hard enough to navigate without that complication. “Doing Rocky Flats” would be a huge, unimaginable undertaking.

The idea was tantalizing to Fimberg, though. Then 34, he was not unfamiliar with the weapons plant. A dozen years before, studying at the University of Colorado in Boulder, just up the road from Rocky Flats, he’d sometimes driven by the place at night. In the dark, surrounded by a perimeter of lights, sitting up on that plateau giving off a yellow-tinted glow, Rocky Flats made quite an impact. Its troubled, 35-year-long history made an even bigger one. From government studies and press reports, Fimberg knew of the two explosive fires, one in 1957 that had spewed unfiltered plutonium into the air and another in 1969. He knew of the 5,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated oil that had leached into the soil between 1964 and 1967. He knew of the toxic materials such as beryllium and tritium that had leaked for years into the ground water. He knew of the lawsuits by neighbors that had forced the government in 1984 to buy a 6,550-acre buffer zone around Rocky Flats. He knew that about 1.8 million people lived within 50 miles of the plant.

He now also knew what Lipsky and Smith had turned up during a discreet, yearlong preliminary investigation. Their reports were spread out on the desk between them. They looked interesting.

The prosecutor and two agents eyed each other. Working together the year before on another case, they’d convicted Protex Industries Inc. for exposing three employees to toxic substances–the first such “knowing endangerment” conviction in the nation. The Protex verdict was six months behind them, though. They’d had plenty of time to catch their breath and pat themselves on the back.

Their jokes about the Rocky Flats idea trailed off. Well, why not do Rocky Flats?

Looking back now at this moment in Ken Fimberg’s office, it is tempting to ask whether there ever would have been a Rocky Flats prosecution if the three men sitting there that day had fully grasped what they were getting into. Fimberg, after all, would eventually find himself taking on not just a giant DOE nuclear weapons plant but also 40 years of deeply institutionalized public policy. For pushing his case too hard, he’d eventually face restraints and a change of heart from his politicized Department of Justice supervisors. For pushing too softly, he’d end up being investigated and denounced by an outraged congressional subcommittee. For being beset by ambivalence, he’d get flattened by a runaway grand jury that disagreed with him not so much over the facts as over what to make of them.

Only much later would Fimberg realize that he’d created these problems by inadvertently tackling several complex and ambiguous questions. When broad elements of the federal government disregard the law, who is to blame? Are people to be called criminals if they act in accordance with a pervasive institutional culture? Should Rocky Flats managers be indicted for carrying out the will of their supervisors and employers? For that matter, should grand jurors obey court officers, and prosecutors bow to their bosses, even when they think doing so is wrong? In the end, these were the issues at the heart of the Rocky Flats investigation. Ken Fimberg’s inquiry eventually would become a disturbing exploration into the personal moral responsibility not just of bomb-plant managers but also of their judges–the 23 grand jurors and Fimberg himself.

Perhaps Fimberg would have pursued Rocky Flats even if he’d known he’d have to confront all this. After all, he left a big commercial law firm for the U.S. attorney’s white-collar-crimes unit because he’d tired of “moving big amounts of money from one pocket to another” and thought there were “more important things to do.” He’d clerked for the Environmental Defense Fund and served on the board of the Colorado Wildlife Federation because of a passion for the wilderness. He’d studied moral philosophy and political science at Boulder, and the law at Harvard, because he’d always been interested in “how the legal system forms social values.”

In the end, though, it was not just ethics or idealism or the environment tugging at Fimberg on this June morning. Unvarnished ambition lured as well. Here was a new goal, a larger challenge, a chance once more for a big win.

“Do you know,” Fimberg asked his colleagues, “just how hard Rocky Flats is going to be?”

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN ROCKY FLATS AROUSED PRIDE AND PATRIOTISM, not prosecutors. Against the context of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, the discovery of plutonium and the spread of fallout shelters, the Denver Post in a March 23, 1951, headline felt inspired to announce “There’s Good News Today–U.S. to Build $45 Million A-Plant Near Denver.” The plant’s chief task, to manufacture plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs, was carried out under a cloak of secrecy and an autonomy that few disputed. The country wanted to make bombs, not worry about the environment.

Even in later years, after environmental concerns mounted and Congress adopted statutes such as the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the politicians either exempted DOE bomb plants from the new laws or fudged the issue with vague language. Then, when efforts to regulate weapons plants did begin in the early 1980s, DOE managers fiercely resisted, insisting environmental laws like RCRA didn’t apply to the particular type of waste they generated. Rocky Flats managers often blindfolded EPA investigators before leading them through the plant. The regulatory agencies may not have liked that, but they played along, negotiating “compliance agreements” and “memos of understanding” whose deadlines were rarely met.

It was against this backdrop that EPA investigator Bill Smith brought a curious document to FBI Agent Jon Lipsky in May, 1987. The two of them sat hunched together in Lipsky’s cubicle in the FBI’s Denver office, staring at Smith’s prize. It was an internal DOE memo directed to Mary L. Walker, then the department’s assistant secretary for environment, safety and health. The memo had been written 10 months before, by Walker’s assistant, John Barker, to brief her about yet another compliance agreement DOE was supposed to sign with the EPA and the Colorado Department of Health. This one would finally clarify that RCRA did indeed apply to some of Rocky Flats’ hazardous waste. As usual, DOE was resisting.

“The language seeks to ‘finesse’ the issue of EPA’s authority. . . .” Barker informed Walker. “The only question is one of whether there is a sufficient degree of vagueness and ambiguity; the proposed language provides this.” DOE should not fight this deal, Barker advised. “The compliance posture of Rocky Flats makes it a poor candidate for testing fine points of law. . . . Much of the good press we have gotten from the Agreement in Principle has taken attention away from just how really bad the site is. . . . We have basically no RCRA groundwater monitoring wells. Our permit applications are grossly deficient. Some of the waste facilities there are patently ‘illegal.’ We have serious contamination.” Failure to sign the deal would “suggest that direct, harsh enforcement action . . . will be more expeditious and productive.”

Lipsky understandably found this memo interesting. Then in his early 30s, he was a onetime Las Vegas street cop who had worked his way into the FBI through bulldog persistence. Lipsky had a casual manner, an unimposing build and a taste for the type of lackluster sport coats and checked socks favored by cautious back-room clerks. Lipsky also had a taste for the public corruption beat, particularly environmental crimes. He’d attended training sessions, he’d lectured other FBI agents, he’d been lead investigator in 13 environmental cases. In the Mary Walker memo he smelled his 14th.

Ken Fimberg was intrigued but hesitant when Lipsky and Smith first came to him. Born and raised in Oklahoma City, Fimberg’s commitment to the environment was undeniable, his reputation for integrity squeaky clean. He hiked, he climbed mountains, he rafted rivers, he led a boys’ camping and sports program at his local church, he volunteered as a Big Brother. Full-faced, almost burly, with a mustache and an earnest manner, he liked to thrash out issues with others. He also, though, liked to temper his instincts with a certain rational calculation. He tended to frame and qualify his remarks with the logic of a lawyer.

This bent toward caution prevailed at first. Fimberg knew the movement of prosecuting environmental crimes was still in its infancy. Those few who ventured into the new field usually ended up wrestling with obtuse regulations and mountains of complicated documents. White-collar crime was not sexy. You needed to master a computer database rather than a witness in an interrogation room. You also needed to hold your own with meddlesome Department of Justice supervisors in Washington who didn’t always share their line prosecutors’ enthusiasm for environmental-crime enforcement.

“It’s too early to tell,” Fimberg told the agents that first summer. “Keep poking around. Be discreet. I won’t stop you.”

When they returned to Fimberg a year later, in June, 1988, Lipsky and Smith brought not just suspicious memos, but particulars. The numbers didn’t add up. The numbers didn’t match the permits. The numbers didn’t match the available storage space. Where was all that waste going? The incinerator in Rocky Flats Building 771 seemed to provide the answer. The DOE and Rockwell had always insisted this incinerator was exempt from RCRA regulation because it was a “plutonium recovery” facility, one of those exclusions Congress had given bomb plants. But Lipsky believed the 771 incinerator was in fact burning hazardous wastes, not recovering plutonium. The waste had to be going somewhere. Lipsky was sure it was going up in smoke.

Fimberg considered the reports before him. “I think we have enough to go forward,” he finally told the agents.

Together, the three made an initial presentation that August to acting U.S. Atty. Michael Norton. For a while, Norton held off making a decision. Then an event at Rocky Flats changed the equation.

On Sept. 29, a DOE inspector named Joseph Krupar, while inspecting Building 771, walked unprotected into a radioactive zone that had no warning signs. Understandably disturbed, Krupar railed at assorted DOE and Rockwell supervisors. Building 771 is out of control, he later told FBI agents; in fact, he charged, Rockwell places production over safety all over Rocky Flats. On Oct. 7, DOE responded by ordering the temporary shutdown of Building 771.

Two weeks later, Fimberg, Lipsky and Smith met in the U.S. attorney’s conference room with Norton and other top managers from the FBI and the prosecutor’s office. Fimberg did the talking. “Here’s what we see so far,” he said. “I think it’s enough to go forward on. We’ve done as much as we can in this low-key way. Now we’ve got to be overt.”

A row of skeptical faces stared back at him.

“Are you sure you want to go after this?” Norton asked.

Mike Norton did not bring to this meeting much experience in the field of criminal law. In fact, he had never tried a criminal case in his life. A former regional head of the General Services Administration and twice an unsuccessful Republican candidate for Congress, Norton had been named U.S. attorney by President Ronald Reagan the previous spring and had not yet been confirmed. Partly because of Norton’s brusque manner and partly because nothing in his career suggested much preparation for the role of prosecutor, all sorts of critics had objected to his appointment, calling it a “political cookie” for a Republican loyalist. Whether or not that was fair, Norton undeniably was obliged to rely on the experienced trial lawyers in his department. By then he had come to rely on Fimberg particularly.

Yes, Fimberg said. Let’s do Rocky Flats.

Thus did Operation Desert Glow begin. All decisions would be made by Fimberg in agreement with him, Norton said. Potential targets would include Rockwell International, Rockwell’s employees and DOE employees; sovereign immunity protected the Department of Energy itself. They would need a special grand jury. They would need a search warrant.

Everyone looked at each other. They were going to raid Rocky Flats. The Department of Justice was going to raid the Department of Energy.

TO FIMBERG, FROM THE SKY, THE ROCKY FLATS WEAPONS PLANT–bounded by state highways, a series of holding ponds and a high chain-link fence–resembled nothing so much as an aging industrial foundry. It was early morning on Dec. 9, six weeks after Norton flashed the green light. Fimberg was sitting next to Lipsky in the FBI’s eight-seat prop plane, surrounded by a mess of infrared surveillance equipment, looking down at his target.

This is sort of strange, he thought. They were on a spy mission, not unlike Cold War U-2 pilots flying high over the Soviet Union. Except they were in Colorado, flying over a U.S. government facility.

Studying a monitor connected to the infrared cameras, Fimberg could see white plumes rising from a smokestack and white streams leading toward a body of water. On an infrared image, white signifies a hot spot–thermal activity. An EPA agent on board nudged Fimberg and Lipsky, pointing to the monitor. “Take a look at that,” he said.

Late that night, and again on two more evenings in mid-December, the FBI plane overflew Rocky Flats. Then, in early January, EPA experts in Las Vegas delivered their analyses.

The smokestack plume came from the Building 771 incinerator, one infrared expert said. Even though it was supposedly shut down, it was “thermally active” late on the nights of Dec. 9, 10 and 15. So was a holding pond that on paper had been closed two years before because of leaks. A hot stream of wastes was also flowing from the sewage-treatment plant to Woman Creek, an illegal direct discharge. Samples from one such direct discharge strongly suggested that “medical waste” was coming from some sort of “research laboratory” dabbling in “experimental” chemicals.

Fimberg was excited. Amid the tangle of mind-numbing RCRA regulations, here, he thought, might be some pretty sexy smoking guns: a clandestine midnight incinerator burn, direct toxic discharges into public water supplies, an exotic lab, concealment. White-collar environmental crimes didn’t usually provide anything nearly as dramatic as the AK-47s and sacks of cocaine shown off by criminal prosecutors before crowded press conferences. But this one might.

Fimberg began regularly flying to Washington to brief various Justice Department supervisors. Up the department’s ladder he climbed, repeating his dog-and-pony show. Each time he’d first draw skepticism, if not disbelief. Oh, come on, you’re not serious, we’re not going to do Rocky Flats, they’d say. Each time Fimberg would bring them around.

On Jan. 10, Don Carr, the acting head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, finally gave conceptual approval for a raid of Rocky Flats. In March, Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh signed off. In early June, Thornburgh, Norton, FBI Director William S. Sessions, EPA administrator William K. Reilly and Adm. James D. Watkins, secretary of the Department of Energy, signed a memo of understanding about what was to happen. At 9 a.m. on June 6, the raid began.

Jon Lipsky and Bill Smith led a small team through the main entrance on State Highway 93. Ostensibly, they were on their way to a prearranged meeting with Rocky Flats officials to talk about recent threats from the environmental group Earth First! But once in the meeting room, they revealed the true reason for their visit and slapped copies of the search warrant into the startled hands of DOE and Rockwell officials.

“You can’t be serious,” stuttered Dominic Sanchini, Rockwell’s manager at Rocky Flats.

“We are serious,” replied FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Coyle.

Then 62, Sanchini was a balding, jowly Rockwell veteran with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, a law degree and a background in the development of rocket engines. As the search unfolded, Sanchini told the agents he’d seen notices of noncompliance from various regulatory agencies, but they were always minor and immediately corrected. Problems got solved if DOE wanted to pay for them.

On the fourth day of the search, according to FBI reports, Agent Edward Sutcliff, looking into a cabinet along the west wall of the manager’s office, came upon a large box of steno pads. Sanchini said those were diaries he had kept while working for NASA. He was planning to write a book.

Sutcliff began searching an adjoining middle cabinet. That cabinet has stuff from my old job, Sanchini said. Just as the Rocky Flats manager mouthed those words, Sutcliff discovered in the cabinet, under a foot-high stack of documents, another pile of steno pads. The FBI agent began leafing through the pages. They appeared to be Sanchini’s diary of events at Rocky Flats.

“Environment becoming a big deal. The EPA can destroy us,” read one entry from July 1, 1986. “Don’t tell press. . . . Tie mind, mouth and asshole together,” read another, referring to a discovery of ground-water contamination. “DOE doesn’t follow the law,” read an entry from May 6, 1987.

All told, the search took 18 days, involved 75 FBI and EPA agents and yielded 184 boxes of documents. When it was over, prosecutors and agents hauled their booty to the special office space they’d secured in downtown Denver.

Now, Fimberg thought, we’ll see if we have a story to tell.

WHEN WES MCKINLEY FOUND A POSTCARD IN HIS MAILBOX ONE afternoon in July, 1989, summoning him to federal grand jury duty in Denver, he didn’t know what to make of it. In truth, he didn’t know what a grand jury was. The term conjured in his mind the vague image of a ponderous group cloaked in judicial robes.

McKinley’s confusion was understandable. Then 45, married and the father of four, he lived where he’d always lived, on a ragged cattle ranch 300 miles from Denver in the barren southeast corner of Colorado. His father had worked this same land before him, and his grandfather had homesteaded it in 1909. There was no way to travel between McKinley’s home and Denver other than charter a plane or make the five-hour drive on two-lane state roads, so he’d always managed to stay fairly isolated from the outside world.

That is not to say McKinley was a rube. Far from it. He had a degree in math and physics from a four-year state college in Oklahoma, and he mixed fairly well with urban types when they showed up for the twice-a-year “city slicker” cattle drives he ran, at $1,000 per guest. He had a jaunty humor and the look of a real cowboy, what with the mustache, the week-old beard just turning to gray, the jeans, the boots, the spurs, the red bandanna, the dirty white cowboy hat and the ragged strands of dark brown hair hanging over his ears and neck. It is true that when he took his hat off, revealing a crown as bald as an egg, the passing effect was somewhat droll. But McKinley was, indeed, a cowboy. The manure on his spurs was the real thing, not the sort slung about in corridors of power in downtown Denver or Washington.

The grand jury postcard in hand, McKinley drove 18 miles north up the unpaved road that leads from his home to the tiny settlement of Walsh, where he continued on to the town of Springfield. There he showed the postcard to an old lawyer friend of his, who explained about grand juries and how Wes had a duty as a citizen if called to serve on one. That sounded fine to McKinley. In the one-room schoolhouse he had attended as a kid, they used to teach citizenship. They used to say the Pledge of Allegiance and mean it. He’d willingly serve if picked.

When McKinley finally managed to locate the federal courthouse in downtown Denver on Aug. 1, 1989, and the meeting room where he was to report, he found himself amid a group of 50 people. Up front, someone was explaining that 23 of them would be picked to serve on a special federal grand jury. They’d be investigating Rocky Flats.

This puzzled McKinley. He recollected that there used to be a hippie camp out near Rocky Flats back in the ‘60s. McKinley raised his hand. “What’s Rocky Flats?” he asked.

Numbers pulled from a bowl determined which 23 of the 50 in the room would serve on the grand jury. One by one, the group took shape. Although chosen by random draw, they looked to be the result of nothing so much as a Hollywood casting director’s call.

There was Jerry Joyner, an overweight, outgoing former police detective in Shreveport, La., with a drawn-out Southern manner full of deference to women and backslapping good ol’ boy charm to men. There was Jerry Sandoval, an earnest and soft-spoken Denver bus driver who worried about losing overtime pay and being away from his family for so long. There was Paul Herzfeldt, a withdrawn, slump-shouldered equipment repairman who chain-smoked and had big rings around deep-set eyes. There was Shirley Kyle, a hairdresser and wheat farmer’s wife from the tiny east Colorado town of Flagler, who welcomed the grand jury summons as a chance to get out and see the world. There was Connie Modecker, an outspoken and devout believer in the Marian sect of the Catholic Church, who feared any disruption of her ordered life but was certain God had a reason for her being called to jury duty. There was Rebecca Walker, a plump woman from a remote northwestern reach of Colorado, whose journey, a one-hour drive through the Colorado National Monument followed by an eight-hour bus ride into Denver, was 10 miles longer even than Wes McKinley’s.

“You’ve met them before” is how grand juror Ken Peck likes to describe his colleagues. “You’ve seen them at Disneyland, you’ve seen them in their pickups.”

Ken Peck, as it happened, was himself a bit more complicated. The 23rd and last grand juror selected, Peck was a Denver lawyer with links to both Colorado Republican politics and Rocky Flats. In 1987, Peck had circulated petitions and written letters for Businesses Against Burning Radioactive and Hazardous Wastes, a group that fought plans to incinerate hazardous mixed wastes at Rocky Flats.

It is hard to see just how Peck ended up being allowed on the grand jury. U.S. Atty. Mike Norton admits he was “acquainted” with Peck from Republican political circles and was “aware of some involvement he’d had with Rocky Flats,” but he “wasn’t clear just what it was.” Pre-selection questioning of the potential grand jurors didn’t provide any further clarification.

“Anyone else have any activity with the EPA or Colorado Department of Health?” U.S. District Judge Sherman G. Finesilver asked at one point.

“Just to clarify your question, you are saying in an employment capacity?” Peck responded.

“Employment or contract capacity also,” the judge replied.

Hearing that, Peck held his tongue. “It was never asked. They almost got to it, but they didn’t,” he explained much later.

After the 23 Colorado citizens were selected, Judge Finesilver spent an hour reading Special Grand Jury 89-2 its instructions. Listening, the grand jurors hung on every word.

“It is every person’s duty to conform his acts to the laws enacted by Congress,” the judge began. “All are equal under the law, and no one is above the law. . . . If 12 or more members of the grand jury after deliberation believe that an indictment is warranted, then you will request the United States attorney to prepare a formal written indictment. . . . The federal grand jury . . . is independent of the United States attorney. . . . It is not an arm of the United States attorney’s office. Please keep in mind, you would perform a disservice if you did not indict where the evidence warranted an indictment. . . . The government attorneys cannot dominate or command your actions. . . . You must be strong and faithful in the discharge of your office.”

In the following months, the grand jurors would reread the transcript of Judge Finesilver’s remarks time and time again. They would invoke the judge’s words as gospel. In fact, Wes McKinley’s wife, Jan, grew so tired of his reading her passages from the instructions that he finally took a green marker and highlighted the sections he wanted her to remember.

“We did exactly as we were told to do,” McKinley says now, looking back at all that has happened. “We didn’t have any choice. It’s a real simple thing. People blow it up, make it complicated. But it’s simple. All we had to do is refer to the judge’s instructions. We did exactly that.”

THE RAID OF ROCKY FLATS AND THE IMPANELING OF SPECIAL Grand Jury 89-2 had an immediate impact on several fronts.

On Sept. 22, 1989, Energy Secretary Watkins terminated Rockwell’s contract as the Rocky Flats manager, one day after the company argued in court that it couldn’t fulfill its DOE contract without violating environmental laws. On Sept. 28, the EPA put Rocky Flats on its Superfund cleanup list as a dangerous site. On Nov. 13, Watkins shut down Rocky Flats’ plutonium operations in response to a warning about plutonium in the plant’s ventilation ducts. On Dec. 1, standing inside the Rocky Flats plant, speaking over a public-address system to all 6,000 employees, Watkins denounced his own department’s past handling of the weapons facility and unveiled sweeping plans for reform.

Ken Fimberg’s case appeared to be on a roll. But appearances can be deceiving. In truth, the prosecutor’s case just then had started to unravel.

The sequence began with the sort of startling revelation prosecutors most fear. One morning that October, Fimberg for the first time met in person the EPA expert who’d provided their infrared analysis. At a meeting to prepare for a grand jury appearance, they sat down to once more walk through what they had.

“The high temps you got mean they were running the incinerator, right?” Fimberg asked again. “It couldn’t be from the building’s heating system?”

The expert told Fimberg he couldn’t really say that.

Fimberg stared at him.

“What about the hot streams into the creeks?” the prosecutor asked. “Aren’t they coming straight from the sewage plant?”

Maybe not, the expert said. It looks more like runoff from the hillside.

“Wait a minute,” Fimberg said. “You’ve already told us that it was. Important decisions were made based on this.”

The EPA expert squirmed and shrugged but offered little more. The guy is backing off, a dismayed Fimberg realized. The guy is flip-flopping.

Without the infrared evidence, they didn’t have their smoking guns. It didn’t mean the midnight incinerator burn didn’t happen, but how to prove it? They had Building 771 oxygen sheets showing a big drop on Dec. 6, and only the incinerator used oxygen. That was enough for Lipsky. But Fimberg didn’t think that was enough to convince a jury.

In time, a good number of other allegations contained in the prosecutors’ search-warrant affidavit began to fall apart.

The exotic lab stuff went first. They’d been able to detect only trace amounts of those mysterious medical chemicals and couldn’t track them back to a particular source. That didn’t mean it didn’t happen, Fimberg knew. But to make a charge, he needed a source.

The 771 incinerator stuff didn’t so much collapse as wither. Yes, they’d been storing and burning hazardous waste in the 771 incinerator for years without a permit. But it turned out you could argue forever over whether it was a type of waste subject to RCRA and EPA jurisdiction. If it was radioactive waste, it was exempt. But what if it was a mixture of radioactive and other hazardous wastes? Not until 1987 had DOE conceded that mixed wastes were subject to RCRA.

Even then, the DOE and Rockwell general counsels stuck to their claim that the 771 incinerator was an exempt plutonium-recovery operation, although no plutonium had actually been recovered there for 10 years. Only when a DOE lawyer heard this fact directly from Rocky Flats laborers–potential witnesses–did Rockwell and DOE abandon this claim. Until then, Fimberg discovered to his considerable chagrin, his own Justice Department had filed legal briefs supporting the DOE’s position.

How could he prove criminal intent? For that matter, how could he keep the jurors awake long enough to explain the whole mess?

He’d started with a hypothesis, he’d tested the hypothesis, the hypothesis had changed. Whatever he dug out now would be much harder to get. Whatever he got now would come from slogging through millions of documents, tracking down hundreds of people, running dozens of witnesses before the grand jury.

To be precise, it would come from 3.5 million documents, 800 interviews and 110 grand jury witnesses. That was the well from which the Colorado investigators eventually pulled their case.

It was, when they finally shaped it, a much more subtle prosecution than they’d first imagined. No longer did it involve clandestine midnight incinerator burns. Now their case focused on a litany of spills, leaks and contamination by a weapons plant that for many years had been ceaselessly generating tons of hazardous wastes it couldn’t legally treat, store or dispose of.

According to FBI reports and court records, FBI agents and prosecutors in time discovered that Rockwell workers had been mixing hazardous and other wastes with concrete to form giant one-ton solid blocks called “pondcrete,” which they’d then stored under tarps on uncovered asphalt pads. Other types of waste they’d piped into a series of holding ponds, even after regulators had closed the ponds because of ground-water contamination. Liquid effluents from the sewage plant, meanwhile, had been “spray irrigated” over open fields through a network of sprinklers, mainly to avoid the cost–and the regulatory and public scrutiny–that would come from directly discharging waste water into creeks.

Most of this had been done without permits, sometimes without telling the EPA or DOE. The pondcrete was supposed to get shipped elsewhere eventually, while the liquids were to be absorbed into the ground or evaporated by the sun. But that is not what had happened.

What were supposed to be rock-solid blocks of pondcrete turned out to be more like putty. Some were part liquid. To test the consistency, workers often stuck their thumbs into the blocks. Piled atop each other, unprotected from the elements, the blocks began to sag and leak. Liquids containing nitrates, cadmium and low-level radioactive waste began to leach into the ground and run downhill toward Walnut and Woman Creek. There they would sometimes meet the liquids spray-irrigated through a system of sprinklers, for they had also run off into the creeks. Far more effluent had been sprayed than the fields could possibly absorb, particularly since the spraying continued even when the fields were saturated or frozen solid by ice and snow.

By the spring of 1987, FBI agents and prosecutors found, a number of Rockwell employees and outside inspectors had started regularly reporting these conditions to Rocky Flats supervisors. For the most part, there was no response. Except, that is, from the supervisor who threatened workers with big fines if pondcrete production goals weren’t met. And from the foreman who told his workers to “cap” the soft pondcrete blocks by throwing fresh concrete over the spots where inspectors usually stuck their instruments.

Certain memos from DOE regional managers might also be construed as a form of response. One urged DOE headquarters to “send a message to EPA that DOE and its contractors are willing to ‘go to the mat’ in opposing enforcement actions at DOE facilities.” According to an FBI report, when DOE inspector Joseph Krupar did warn Rocky Flats manager Dominic Sanchini about split and leaking pondcrete blocks, Sanchini responded by telling Krupar he was going to “define his access” at the plant. Then Sanchini put a barbed-wire fence and “unauthorized personnel keep out” signs around the pondcrete blocks.

In a way, it seemed to Fimberg, all this was just as shocking as the smoking guns. The investigators had found a pervasive, long-term pattern of disregard for environmental laws, by both the government and its contractors. The DOE had allowed Rockwell to “capture” Rocky Flats. Rockwell even wrote DOE’s letters and permit applications; DOE staffers just retyped them on their letterhead and signed them.

In truth, Fimberg’s team had not exactly discovered this situation. It was known–if not to every citizen, certainly to regulators, politicians and a portion of the informed public–that mountains of hazardous wastes were seeping into the air and the ground at most DOE weapons plants. The situation just had never been regarded as a proper target for criminal prosecution, until the Colorado team fixed on this notion. By November, 1990, Fimberg had come to realize he’d unwittingly taken on not just a weapons plant and its managers but also 40 years of public policy.

He wrestled with the implications. No longer could he pin all the blame on a handful of individuals, particularly since the man most responsible at Rocky Flats–manager Dominic Sanchini–had that month died of cancer. Still, environmental laws hadn’t arrived at Rocky Flats overnight. It seemed to him that Rockwell’s crimes were serious and pervasive. There was still surely a case here to prosecute. There was still surely an important story to tell.

Or so Fimberg thought. Others, it turned out, thought differently. Fimberg, it soon became clear, had lost more than evidence over the months. He’d lost the enthusiasm of his boss.

U.S. Atty. Mike Norton had no desire to prosecute 40 years of public policy. The Republican appointee particularly had no desire to prosecute a dozen years of Reagan-Bush Administration public policy. He’d gotten pulled into this with promises of midnight incinerator burns and exotic labs. He felt betrayed by the FBI and EPA agents’ initial reports.

“We frankly bought into the idea that this place was operating clandestinely, illegally and in a fashion in total disregard for environmental laws,” Norton later explained. “I’m not going to prosecute conduct well known to regulators, for which there was no known scientific solution.”

Perhaps Fimberg in time could have rekindled Norton’s interest, given the U.S. attorney’s trust in the veteran prosecutor. Perhaps Fimberg in time could have convinced Norton he still had a case. By late 1990, however, the Rocky Flats prosecution was no longer a matter of conversation only in the Colorado U.S. attorney’s office. By then, the Justice Department in Washington was sitting at the table with Norton and Fimberg. By then, the Justice Department was making clear that it was in charge.

THE LEGACIES OF THE Ronald Reagan and George Bush administrations are many, but surely one that ranks among the most ignominious is the degradation of the Justice Department. Even Republicans in Washington concede that over the past decade, Justice gained a reputation as the most thoroughly politicized and ethically compromised department in the government.

First under Edwin Meese III, appointed attorney general in 1985, then under Dick Thornburgh and William P. Barr, many of the department’s activities were directed to achieving political goals. According to critics, hiring was based on political loyalty, legal decisions on political ideology. Driven by political appointees who burrowed their way into the bureaucracy, the core agenda involved attacking civil rights gains, criminal defendants’ rights, pornographers and abortion rights. No goal was more favored, though, than reining in the enforcement of newly emerging environmental criminal laws.

The notion of imprisoning 50-year-old white-collar industrial managers just didn’t appeal to everyone who occupied desks at the White House and Justice Department during the Reagan-Bush years. That, at least, has been the conclusion of three recent congressional subcommittee investigations into federal environmental prosecutions. In all sorts of cases, the Democrat-controlled subcommittees kept finding the same story: intervention, restrictions, delays, reduced charges and micro-management of line prosecutors by “Main Justice.” There was, the investigators found, a particular unwillingness at Justice to prosecute individuals or establish personal accountability, especially when the case involved large companies.

In a number of these cases–including Rocky Flats–the principal point man for the Justice Department was Barry Hartman. Hartman is brashly outspoken. Originally from Pennsylvania, he served there in the mid-1980s as deputy general counsel to Gov. Dick Thornburgh, then went into the garment manufacturing business in New Jersey, where he also worked for the 1988 Bush campaign. When Thornburgh became attorney general, he brought Hartman along and eventually placed him in the Environment and Natural Resources Division, first as the No. 2 man, later as its acting head. By then, congressional investigators concluded, Hartman had developed his own independent ties to the White House.

He denies such connections and defends his record, noting that his critics have singled out a handful of the more than 1,000 environmental cases he oversaw. But Hartman’s name almost always came up when congressional investigators asked line prosecutors about political compromise in the Justice Department. Among these prosecutors, one congressional report concluded, “Hartman was viewed as highly antagonistic to environmental criminal prosecutions generally. . . . Hartman once described himself as a ‘political hack’ . . . and many assistant U.S. attorneys feel that this self-depiction is, if anything, understated. Thought to have close ties to industry groups and lobbying organizations, Hartman is generally blamed for the hostile reception given many environmental cases at the divisional level.”

As 1990 drew to an end, Hartman’s impact on the Rocky Flats case became increasingly obvious. “Mr. Norton was in consultation with Barry Hartman throughout Mr. Hartman’s time as the acting assistant attorney general,” recalls Peter Murtha, a Justice Department lawyer who worked with the Colorado team on the Rocky Flats prosecution. “I think it is fair to say that Mr. Norton wanted to make sure that Mr. Hartman felt comfortable with the decisions that he, Mr. Norton, was making throughout the case.”

Making Hartman feel comfortable, it soon became clear, meant never talking with gusto about Rocky Flats. Hartman had soured on the case even more than had U.S. Atty. Norton. “It was a very expensive investigation,” Hartman says now. “Time was ticking. It was costing money. The midnight burning was not panning out. Instead, they’d found stuff was being flushed down toilets into the ground. Now it’s a major investigation into illegal toilets. So the pondcrete didn’t set and leaked. So they f—-d up. Can it be done legally? Can it be done physically at all? It was looking like it was going to be a dirty case.”

Given Hartman’s attitude, it isn’t hard to see why some members of the prosecution team responded positively when Rockwell’s attorneys first broached the subject of a plea bargain at a meeting in Norton’s office on Dec. 17, 1990. Here, after all, was a way out of their ever-widening and increasingly unpopular morass.

Fimberg was still arguing for an aggressive posture. If they were going to settle, he wanted at least misdemeanor indictments against individuals and a punishing fine of $50 million to $80 million against Rockwell. But Peter Murtha, the liaison with Washington, saw it differently. He was so cautious and skeptical, his colleagues sometimes joked that he’d never seen a case he liked. Murtha thought the Rocky Flats case was worth somewhere between $4 and $10 million.

Worried about Fimberg’s ambitions for the case, Murtha wrote a memo to Hartman on Dec. 28, 1990: “We thought it would be appropriate to bring to your attention what may potentially be a substantial disagreement between the United States attorney’s office and the Environmental Crimes Section about what an appropriate plea agree would include. . . . The crux of the potential issue is what this case is worth.” Notes taken a month later, during a Jan. 23, 1991, conference call between Denver prosecutors and Justice Department managers, suggest Norton had already swung from Fimberg to Hartman. “Bottom line, no individual felony charges,” the notes read. “Norton: no misdemeanor charges either . . . no fraud; no false statements. . . . Probably be a deal breaker.”

Fimberg kept fighting all that winter and spring with ever-diminishing effectiveness. Setback followed setback. First, the prosecutors learned that the DOE’s longtime policy of indemnifying its contractors meant the Energy Department–and thus taxpayers–would have to pay any fine levied against Rockwell at trial. That meant only if they settled could they make Rockwell pay its own fine.

Then the prosecutors realized they couldn’t prove a public health impact beyond Rocky Flat’s boundaries. They had plenty of evidence of ground-water contamination and toxic runoff into holding ponds and creeks. But they couldn’t track it from there into the public drinking water supply, at least not on a regular or measurable basis. The downstream city of Broomfield had never seen a blip during its constant monitoring of the Great Western Reservoir.

Nor had scientists ever measured unusual health problems in the area. Maybe there’d been contamination sometime, maybe there were undetected long-term effects. A special Colorado Department of Health panel was talking about signs of radioactive tritium in certain surface waters and plutonium concentrations in sediment at the bottom of the Great Western and Standley Lake reservoirs. But as usual in environmental studies, the scientists were saying all conclusions were premature.

Rockwell, meanwhile, had managed to make an end run around the Colorado prosecutors, as often happened in criminal environmental prosecutions against big corporations. For months, Rockwell attorneys had been campaigning for a review of the case by the Justice Department. On April 9, they finally got their opportunity.

The meeting took place in the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s cavernous conference room in Washington. Richard Stewart, then the division’s head, sat at one end of the conference table, with Fimberg on his left and Hartman on his right. Vincent Fuller, a partner at the powerful and politically connected Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly, sat at the other end. Fuller’s animated presentation lasted 20 minutes. At its core was the notion that Rockwell had done no wrong and that the Department of Energy was at fault.

The DOE’s priority was the production of nuclear warheads, so for many years the department quite consciously failed to bring an aging complex into compliance with a rapidly expanding body of environmental law, Fuller argued. Rockwell acted in good faith, following the DOE’s direction, restrained by DOE budgets. There were no rogue actors. Since Rockwell was following the federal government’s own priorities, it’s wrong to now punish Rockwell if you decide those priorities were misguided.

Besides, Fuller continued, the search was based on sensational allegations that were never proven. Justice probably wouldn’t even have authorized the search without them. And Rockwell’s role has to be considered against the extraordinary regulatory confusion surrounding the application of environmental laws to DOE facilities. The laws themselves are full of ambiguity.

What’s more, Fuller reminded them, Rocky Flats is far from unique–every other DOE facility suffers from the same type of environmental problems. Look at the Fernald plant in Ohio. Look at Hanford, Oak Ridge, West Valley, Savannah River. All have waste storage, treatment and disposal problems. No DOE contractor is able to conform to the letter of environmental laws while running these facilities. No other contractor has faced criminal sanctions, though. Is this fair?

After the Rockwell lawyers filed out of the conference room, all eyes swung to Fimberg for his response. He hesitated, and for good reason.

Underlying the defense attorney’s arguments, Fimberg knew, were the critical and complicated questions at the heart of the Rocky Flats controversy. Ever since the Manhattan Project, the Energy Department and its predecessor agencies indeed had established a widespread institutional culture that had gone on for 40 years, unchallenged by Congress or regulatory agencies. It was a terrible culture–but how do you indict a culture?

On the other hand, Fimberg wondered, what is a culture but a set of individuals acting on the basis of certain values? Couldn’t Rockwell have gone to the DOE and flatly said, we can’t execute our contract without violating the law? Once you put that in a memo, isn’t the Energy secretary going to have to approve violations of the law–or change things? Were violations at other DOE plants really a fair defense? If everyone in the room is nodding his head, does that make it right?

Fimberg had been wrestling with these questions for months. To him, the matter was complex. To him, there were no easy answers. On the one hand, he had to admit that Fuller was making some legitimate points. On the other hand, there still was no denying that Rockwell had violated the law.

“Same old song,” he finally told his waiting colleagues, glancing at Fuller’s now empty seat. From his superiors’ looks, Fimberg understood that the prospect of indicting DOE people was fading. But Fimberg flew back to Denver that afternoon still clinging to the notion of indicting Rockwell’s supervisors at Rocky Flats. All we need, he told himself, is one more revelation, one more discovery.

What looked to be the breakthrough finally came just days later. Until then, the prosecutors had failed to get any insiders to turn informant. One evening, Fimberg had even met with the steelworkers’ union, inviting their cooperation, but he’d gotten nowhere. Rockwell is paying for their employees’ lawyers and keeping track of the workers’ contacts with the FBI, Fimberg had reasoned, while the union is protecting all those $48,000-a-year blue-collar jobs. Now, on April 19, Fimberg turned up the pressure–he mailed official warning letters to eight targets of the grand jury investigation. The maneuver worked. Thus pressured, two lower-level targets soon responded with offers of information about their supervisors.

Armed with these offers, an encouraged Fimberg told FBI Agent Jon Lipsky he thought they could indict three top-level Rockwell managers. Lipsky heartily agreed. Draft indictments were drawn up against several Rockwell officials for the illegal and improper storage of pondcrete, for the runoff of pondcrete into Woman and Walnut creeks, for the knowing failure to stop spray-irrigated sewage effluent from flowing into Woman and Walnut creeks, and for false statements to DOE about the use of closed solar ponds. A prosecutor’s memo called these “only the strongest charges.”

Hartman and Norton weren’t buying it, though. They didn’t care about Fimberg’s new informants or any other breakthrough. In fact, Hartman had decided there should never have been a criminal prosecution brought against Rocky Flats of any sort. He wanted to settle; he wanted to move Rocky Flats off the table.

This was not an entirely indefensible position. With all its complications and vagaries, Rocky Flats surely was a prime candidate for a deal. The critical question, though, was what kind of deal. How tough a settlement to insist upon?

At Fimberg’s urging, Norton had started negotiations that spring by proposing a fine of $52 million. Rockwell responded with a figure closer to $1 million, and a list of core demands that included no individual indictments and no charges of fraud, false statements or conspiracy. Rockwell also wanted a public denial from the prosecutor of the more sensational charges, such as midnight burning. By early July, Norton had pretty much come around to Rockwell’s way of thinking.

On July 8, the U.S. attorney in a memo informed Fimberg he planned to settle for $15 million and announce the settlement in a joint news conference with Rockwell, where he’d “advise that some of the more sensational allegations did not bear out.” Fimberg expressed dismay. A mutually agreed upon statement would be hard to achieve, he wrote back. “They will want bare bones–when do we get to tell our story? This will lend itself to characterizations of collusion, of a sweetheart deal. . . . I have real concern that $15 million is low, in terms of political, public and judicial acceptability.”

Despite Fimberg’s objections, Norton the next day formally offered to settle for $15 million, to be paid by Rockwell without the DOE indemnity. There would be no false statement, conspiracy or fraud charges and no individual indictments if the company pleaded guilty to seven less punishing felonies.

They were still months away from finalizing the deal, but for all intents, the investigation was over. In late July, Peter Murtha, the liaison from the Justice Department, told FBI Agent Lipsky to stop trying to develop evidence for individual indictments. They won’t be part of the plea agreement, Murtha advised, so don’t spin your wheels.

Appalled, Lipsky called supervisory Special Agent Robert J. Chiaradio at FBI headquarters in Washington. Chiaradio confirmed Murtha’s instructions and suggested that Lipsky get in line. Stop whining, stop causing problems, Chiaradio said. The directive, he explained, had come from Neil Cartusciello, head of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes section. Cartusciello thought there was “insufficient evidence” to pursue individuals.

Perhaps Cartusciello did indeed reach this conclusion on his own. Since he was new to his job, however, it is likely that he was briefed by the man who’d hired him, and who had just that month taken over as head of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division: Barry Hartman.

Lipsky next turned to Fimberg. He found the prosecutor in his office one morning that July. What’s going on? Lipsky asked, shutting the door and throwing himself into a chair. What’s the status on individuals?

Fimberg and Lipsky eyed each other. It was almost three years to the day since the two men, sitting just where they were now, had excitedly started plotting to “do Rocky Flats.” They were still friends, but relations had started to wear thin. Lipsky thought Fimberg was pulling back, losing his nerve. Fimberg thought Lipsky was letting his judgment get colored by what he wanted to see.

We had the evidence, Lipsky said. You said so yourself, just two months ago.

Fimberg looked away.

Perhaps someone less beset by a sense of complexity, someone less torn by ambivalence, someone more stubborn or more gripped by a single-minded sureness would have held his position. Fimberg, however, wavered now in the face of the isolation from his fellow prosecutors. Wavered just as a DOE manager might have while trying to honor environmental laws from within a hostile institutional culture. Playing the hero, asserting personal moral responsibility, was not such a simple matter after all. “I was only one of four on the team, and the only one pushing for individual indictments,” Fimberg would later say. “No one else had the slightest interest.”

By now, at any rate, his own vision of the case was shaded. Fimberg couldn’t agree with Lipsky on the midnight incinerator burn. He did believe Rocky Flats managers had used the plutonium recovery claim as a way to avoid regulation of the 771 incinerator. DOE on a broad institutional level had endorsed and directed this practice, though, so whom to charge? He also saw some basis for nailing individuals on false statement charges–Rockwell managers had not disclosed some pondcrete leaks and spills or the use of the closed solar ponds. But a plea bargain was now on the table. It would be hard to win at trial, and if they did, the taxpayer would end up paying Rockwell’s fine. If a good deal is likely, what’s the trade-off in the real world?

“I know it’s hard,” he told Lipsky. “There were tough decisions to make. It turned into an increasingly difficult case. This is the best we can do. Other people feel even more strongly on that point than me. It’s a disappointment, I know. But it’s just not going to happen.”

Lipsky leaned forward, his hands on Fimberg’s desk. We could have indicted people, he said.

Fimberg studied Lipsky. He wished he could have a single perspective, like Jon had. Life would be much simpler, he imagined, if he saw only black and white.

“Jon,” he said, “I was outvoted.”

Fimberg didn’t completely surrender. On Aug. 5, days after his confrontation with Lipsky, Fimberg wrote Norton: “It’s my overall sense, Mike, that Rockwell’s achieved its big ticket items. The dollars, while not insignificant, will hardly break the company, and no individuals will be charged. . . . I will continue in my designated role as pushing for the most aggressive settlement possible.”

On Aug. 29, Fimberg wrote Norton again: “I just don’t think Main Justice has the same ‘fire in the belly’ that we do, and I get concerned that they will give up too much just to ‘get it done.’ ”

Since the meeting with Rockwell’s lawyers in Washington that spring, however, Fimberg’s thoughts increasingly had been shifting from the details of the prosecution to the prospect of a grand jury report. Two years before, they’d given the Justice Department’s criminal division two reasons why they wanted to impanel the Colorado district’s first special grand jury: The possibility of a lengthy investigation that would require the “complete energies” of a grand jury, and the possibility of a grand jury report on “issues that did not lead to indictment.” Only a special grand jury can focus on a single case, and only a special grand jury can write such a report.

“One of the important reasons that I requested that a special grand jury be convened . . . was its statutory ability to issue a report,” Norton would later recall. “I believed this ability was critically appropriate. . . . There was recognition, at an early time, that the investigation might disclose important matters which would not be appropriate for indictment, but nonetheless would be appropriate for public disclosure.”

Provided with these reasons, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division had approved the special grand jury. So had Chief U.S. District Judge Sherman Finesilver, who’d specified in his instructions that “the special grand jury may submit a report to the Court concerning non-criminal misconduct. . . . Thus, through the vehicle of this special grand jury, the public may be assisted in learning of the facts as they relate to Rocky Flats.”

If they had to settle without individual indictments, Fimberg decided in the summer of 1991, they could at least tell the public what has been going on at Rocky Flats and other DOE plants over the past 40 years. If they couldn’t indict an institutional culture in court, they could at least denounce it in public.

Fimberg knew the Rocky Flats grand jurors would jump at the chance to write a scathing report. After meeting monthly for almost two years with Wes McKinley, Ken Peck and the 21 others, he knew just how angry they were at what they’d been hearing. He needed only to harness their anger.

The grand jury report now was paramount for Fimberg. The grand jury report now represented the last, best chance he had to save his case–and himself.

Source link

I tested the Salter Chocolatier — it’s the ultimate Velvetiser dupe and it’s on sale for Prime Day

WITH temperatures falling and nights drawing in, it’s offically hot chocolate season.

That means it’s time for me to pull my Salter Chocolatier from the back of the cupboard.

Even at full whack, it’s less than a quarter of the price of the famous Hotel Chocolat Velvetiser, and Amazon has just discounted it for Prime Day, meaning that it’s now just £28.24, down from £34.99.

Read on for my full Salter Chocolatier review.

salter-chocolatier-hot-chocolate-maker-review

Salter Chocolatier Electric Hot Chocolate Maker, £34.99 £28.24 from Amazon

I spend a lot of time outdoors walking my dogs and in winter that’s often a freezing few hours in the mud, snow and rain.

Once home, a hot drink is essential and while I doubt my kitchen could create that country-inn atmosphere, I was intrigued to find out if the machine could create a rival to my pub-bought favourite.

I’m not a fan of instant hot chocolate so tend to swerve it as a drink option.

Thankfully, the Salter Chocolatier is a different matter entirely.

Pros:

  • Easy to use
  • Affordable
  • Handy milk frother
  • Works with plant milk
  • Easy to clean
  • Also great for lattes and cappuccinos

Cons:

  • Small capacity
  • Takes a few minutes
  • Sometimes chocolate isn’t fully mixed
  • May not be hot enough for some

Rating: 8/10

How I tested the Salter Chocolatier

It’ll come as no surprise that my main focus during testing was how well the Salter Chocolatier makes hot chocolate, and this function is the one I used the most.

However, I also prepared other drinks with it, including cappuccino, latte and iced coffee.

I considered how easy the hot chocolate maker was to use and how easy it was to clean afterwards.

I was also interested in the quality of the instructions.

I don’t like it when manufacturers supply just a brief product leaflet with their products and then expect users to download a full manual from their website.

Who has time for that? And what about those people who don’t use the internet, such as older consumers?

Finally, I considered how the product looked – was it merely a functional item or did it look good sitting on the kitchen worktop?

Salter Chocolatier review: quick summary

This is a great product. It makes amazing hot chocolate from scratch, though it doesn’t always mix the grated chocolate as well as I would like.

The milk frother is also good, but when using the thick hot froth function I found it impossible to get all of the froth from the jug to the cup.

It’s quite stylish in a minimalist kind of way, and it’s easy to clean.

It doesn’t take long to make your drink but the downside is that it only makes one cup at a time.

Salter Chocolatier review: full review

salter-chocolatier-hot-chocolate-maker-review
One of my early attempts at a cappuccino using the thick froth functionCredit: Lisa Burn

Salter Chocolatier Electric Hot Chocolate Maker, £34.99 £28.24 from Amazon

If you have purchased this then chances are you’re a bit of a hot chocolate connoisseur, or at the very least a big fan.

The machine itself is pretty simple. There’s a jug, lid, frothing ring, heating ring and base.

It’s very much like a mini kettle. with the addition of a function button.

This button has four options:

  • Thick hot froth
  • Light hot froth
  • Hot milk/ hot chocolate
  • Cold milk froth

Unboxing and setup

The box contains the jug, lid, frothing ring, heating ring and base so it’s simple enough to set up the machine.

There’s also a quick start guide and if you want a product manual you have to download it from the Salter website (sigh!).

However, if you’re hoping for a bit more detail on using the machine, you’ll be disappointed.

The instruction manual on the website is the same as the leaflet in the box and does not provide any further information.

Still, I guess that shows how simple the Chocolatier is to use.

Design and features

salter-chocolatier-hot-chocolate-maker-review

2

An indulgent hot chocolate with marshmallows and cream – yum!Credit: Lisa Burn

Salter Chocolatier Electric Hot Chocolate Maker, £34.99 £28.24 from Amazon

There’s an easy-to-see level guide inside the jug for the different drinks and froths.

For example, if you’re after a light or thick froth then you need to add 115ml of milk, but if you’re making a hot chocolate then you would fill to the max 240ml level.

There’s also a minimum level and if the liquid doesn’t reach this then the chocolatier will switch itself off as a safety precaution.

The jug comes with the frother already attached inside, but if you want to clean it or swap it with the heating attachment, you can simply lift it off.

This is tiny, but lives in the lid so you’ll always be able to find it if you remember to pop it back there after use.

The design is minimalist and there’s only one button to get the hang of.

Other than that, the chocolatier sits on its base like a regular kettle.

Operation and performance

salter-chocolatier-hot-chocolate-maker-review

2

A light foam on the latte – though I prefer the thicker froth settingCredit: Lisa Burn

Salter Chocolatier Electric Hot Chocolate Maker, £34.99 £28.24 from Amazon

The inside of the jug is smooth and easy to clean, which is always a bonus.

I found that both plant and dairy milks simply rinsed off the sides and even residual chocolate shavings came off cleanly without any effort.

You can’t pop the jug in the dishwasher, but you can use hot soapy water to clean the inside if anything does stick.

I never had that problem, though, and I think as long as you stick to the functions as set out in the guide then you’ll be fine.

You don’t need to wait long for your drink either – it takes about 4.5 minutes for a hot chocolate and around two minutes for a jug of froth.

A kettle is quicker but we’re not talking instant gratification here.
It’s well worth the few minutes’ wait.

A kettle is quicker but we’re not talking instant gratification here. It’s well worth the few minutes’ wait

You need 35g of chocolate shavings per cup and you can buy these ready-grated, or as a powder from an array of retailers.

I decided to go for the real deal though and did it myself.

My favourite hot chocolate drink was made using 75% cocoa chocolate, which I grated before adding to the jug (be prepared for the grated chocolate to go everywhere!).

I’m a big white chocolate fan, but when I tried it as a drink, I found it a bit too sweet.

I also tried the Chocolatier with dairy and soya milk and both worked well, though as I don’t like dairy, my preference would always be plant milk.

For some reason I was surprised the finished hot chocolate wasn’t frothy; however, it’s not supposed to be, that’s a separate function.

You can always dress it up with a cream topping and mini marshmallows for the full pub/café effect.

It also wasn’t as hot as I expected but it was a pleasant drinking temperature, which was fine. I think some people might be disappointed it’s not warmer though.

I did experiment with the thick and light froth for coffee, but I wasn’t too impressed with the thicker option as it’s impossible to pour all the foam from the jug, resulting in a lot of waste.

There’s also a cold froth setting, which my daughter tried as she’s a big iced coffee and frappe fan.

I have never seen the point of cold coffee so avoided that one.

Salter Chocolatier review: the verdict

Wow! I loved the hot chocolate I made with this.

The texture was rich but not overly thick, while being creamy and smooth at the same time.

For me, it certainly beats standing over a saucepan of milk to make hot chocolate from scratch, or going for a cup of instant using the kettle.

I can see myself using this a lot.

Though I generally used a high-cocoa content chocolate it was perfectly sweet enough and not bitter at all.

I wasn’t so impressed with the frothing functions though, so will most likely save the machine specifically for hot chocolate.

The major downside to it is you can only make one cup of hot chocolate at a time and because it is drinking temperature when ready, the first person will have almost finished theirs in the time it takes to prepare a second cup.

Either that or one of you will be drinking it cold.

At £34.99 it’s less than half the price of the Hotel Chocolat Velvetiser.

The Velvetiser wins out on looks though – this is functional, rather than pretty. However, the Salter model wins on capacity – 240ml compared to 200ml.

If you’re going to use the frother function regularly, or if you’re a big hot chocolate fan and want to invest in an automatic maker without spending a fortune, then I think the Salter Chocolatier is worth it.

Where to buy the Salter Chocolatier Electric Hot Chocolate Maker in the UK

You can buy the Salter Chocolatier Electric Hot Chocolate Maker from the Salter website.

It’s also available from:

Source link

Australian scientists have tested bite-resistant wetsuits by letting sharks bite them at sea

Australian scientists tested the strength of bite-resistant wetsuits by allowing sharks to chomp the materials at sea and found that the suits can help keep swimmers safe.

Fatal shark bites are vanishingly rare, with less than 50 unprovoked shark bites on humans worldwide in 2024, according to the International Shark Attack File at the Florida Museum of Natural History. But increased sightings of large sharks in some parts of the world have swimmers, surfers and divers looking for new ways to stay safe.

Scientists with Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia, tested four bite-resistant materials and found they all reduced the amount of damage from shark bites. They performed the work by dragging samples of the materials behind boats and allowing white and tiger sharks to bite the samples.

The bites from such large sharks can still cause internal and crushing injuries, but the materials showed effectiveness beyond a standard neoprene wetsuit, the scientists said. The research found that the bite-resistant materials “can reduce injuries sustained from shark encounters,” said Flinders professor Charlie Huveneers, a member of the Southern Shark Ecology Group at Flinders and a study co-author.

“Bite-resistant material do not prevent shark bites, but can reduce injuries from shark bites and can be worn by surfers and divers,” Huveneers said.

There were small differences between the four tested materials, but they all “reduced the amount of substantial and critical damage, which would typically be associated with severe hemorrhaging and tissue or limb loss,” said Tom Clarke, a researcher with the science and engineering college at Flinders and a study co-author.

Chainmail suits to resist shark bites have existed for decades, but lack in flexibility for aquatic activities like surfing and diving, the scientists said in research published in the journal Wildlife Research on Thursday. Newer wetsuits can be designed to provide flexibility as well as protection.

The scientists tested the efficacy of wetsuit materials Aqua Armour, Shark Stop, ActionTX-S and Brewster. The scientists said in their paper that they found that all of the materials “offer an improved level of protection that can reduce severe wounds and blood loss, and should be considered as part of the toolbox and measures available to reduce shark-bite risk and resulting injuries.”

The promise of effective shark resistant wetsuits is encouraging for people who spend a lot of time in areas where there are large sharks, said Nick Whitney, a senior scientist and chair of the Fisheries Science and Emerging Technologies Program at the New England Aquarium’s Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life in Boston. That includes surfers and spearfishers, he said.

Whitney, who was not involved in the study, said it’s also encouraging that the materials are unlikely to make a person “feel invincible” and engage in risky behaviors around sharks.

“I also like it because it’s not relying on any impact on the shark’s behavior,” Whitney said. “It’s basically very, very simple. In the extremely rare event that you get bitten by a shark, this material will hopefully make you bleed less than you would if you were not wearing this.”

The researchers said the suits do not eliminate all risks from sharks, and precautions still need to be taken around the animals.

They are hopeful their research will help the public “make appropriate decisions about the suitability of using these products,” Huveneers said.

Whittle writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

I tested Google’s new Pixel 10 Pro XL & was horrified by how GOOD the camera is – it comes with free perk worth £190 too

GOOGLE has always excelled when it comes to smartphone cameras – but the latest effort might have gone too far.

When I tried out the new Google Pixel 10 Pro XL’s star feature I gasped and said “Good God”.

A hand holding a smartphone displaying the app drawer with various Google apps.

6

The Pixel 10 Pro XL sticks to the great look I love about PixelsCredit: Jamie Harris / The Sun
Hand holding a gray Google Pixel phone, showing the back with the camera bar and Google logo.

6

Camera features are where Google has gone big once again

I showed friends some of the results and they were stunned – if a little disturbed – by what the device’s mega zoom was capable of.

My colleague Sean Keach has already tried the smaller Pixel 10 Pro and has given his verdict on the identical camera features on there too.

But is it all worth it?

As The Sun’s main Android smartphone reviewer I’ve been putting the Pixel 10 Pro XL through its paces and here’s what I found…

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL: Look and feel

Google has stuck to a pretty consistent, solid look on the Pixel 10 Pro XL.

As ever with annual upgrades, you may even struggle to tell the difference between last year’s Pixel 9 Pro XL which I also reviewed.

I love the mat glass back and the shiny G logo, it just gives off such a confident premium vibe.

The camera bar is pretty much the same as last year too and I’m still undecided about the bulkiness of it, even though it’s quite tidy and neat.

But given the sorts of photos it takes, all that kit has to be packed in somewhere.

The display has had a noticeable upgrade this year, which is brighter and bursting with crisp detail too.

However, the Pixel 10 Pro XL hasn’t been taking a techy dose of Ozempic like Samsung and iPhone this year with thinner models – it weighs 232g, up a bit on last year.

I absolutely adore the new colours this year too, with Moonstone (the one I’m reviewing) Jade, Porcelain and Obsidian.

Sun tests Google’s 100x Pro Res Zoom on new Pixel 10 Pro phone

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL: Performance and features

Google continues to use its own Tensor chip in Pixel smartphones and this year’s Tensor G5 kit is said to be about 35 per cent faster.

It certainly operates smoothly and without any hiccups in my testing – but this chip isn’t as powerful as the Snapdragon chip found in most other top end smartphones around.

The handset runs on Android 16, the latest version of the operating system and it’s my absolute favourite around – which should be a given seeing as Google owns Android.

A lot of the features are centred on AI once again and most are photography based, which I’ll go into later.

But there are some other tools such as Voice Translate, which translates calls in real-time and sounds like each speaker’s own voice.

Having tried it with my partner in French, it was somewhat eerie to hear.

And it’s all done on device, so no sensitive call conversations are sent off to the cloud.

Google is also among the best for offering quick and fast Android upgrades for years to come, with a commitment to seven operating system versions and seven years of security upgrades.

Who offers free updates longest?

The longer you receive updates, the longer you can safely continue using your smartphone – with the latest features thrown in too for free.

Samsung
Samsung offers at least seven generations of OS updates and seven years of security updates on most of its smartphones, even its latest cheaper FE model.

OnePlus
At the launch of the OnePlus 13, OnePlus committed to at least four years of Android updates and five years of security updates.

Xiaomi
Xiaomi offers four years off Android updates and five years security updates.

Google
For the Pixel 10 series, Google said that devices would receive at least seven years of support.

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL: Battery

You can easily get a good day’s worth of use out of the Google Pixel 10 Pro XL with a good mix of browsing, messaging and Netflix as I tend to test it on.

But it’s not the best battery around – I got more out of the Galaxy S25 Ultra.

There is fast charging though, that’ll get you from zero to full in about an hour and a half with a compatible plug charger.

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL: Camera

The camera on the Google Pixel 10 Pro XL is where things get really juicy.

You have a treasure trove of powerful lenses paired up with AI power to enhance everything.

There’s a 50-megapixel main camera, 48-megapixel ultrawide and 48-megapixel 5x telephoto, as well as a 42-megapixel selfie snapper.

The photos I get on a Pixel are always super impressive with incredible detail and popping with vibrant colour.

It exudes beauty inside and out, and makes taking stunning photos effortless

This year’s shocker is the Pro Res Zoom which can get extremely detailed shots from a remarkable distance, seeing things my naked eye cannot.

It can go up to an eye-watering 100x.

Anything above 30x onward uses an AI model on the phone to recreate bits lost from digital zoom, so it does raise questions about how real the results are.

Whatever way you look at it, the images are highly convincing, as you’ll see from the snaps I took from the same position below with no zoom, a 10x zoom, a 50x zoom and a 100x zoom.

One thing to note: when using the zoom faces are automatically blurred.

A street scene with a green taxi on the left, a pedestrian and bike lane on the right, and modern skyscrapers in the background under a cloudy sky.

6

No zoomCredit: Jamie Harris / The Sun
A green London taxi drives away from the camera up a hill, passing by tall modern and older buildings and streetlights.

6

10x zoomCredit: Jamie Harris / The Sun
A green London taxi drives away from the camera up a hill, passing by tall modern and older buildings and streetlights.

6

50x zoomCredit: Jamie Harris / The Sun
Roofs of buildings with a person on an outdoor patio and streetlights in the foreground.

6

100x zoomCredit: Jamie Harris / The Sun

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL: Price

One bit of good news about the price is it hasn’t increased from last year’s models.

So the Pixel 10 Pro XL starts at £1,199.

If that’s a bit steep for you, you might want to consider the Pixel 10 Pro instead which has much of the same in a smaller physical form from £999 instead.

There’s also a freebie worth £190 included with all the Pro models.

You get access to Gemini Pro for a whole year, which is Google’s more powerful and fast AI system, capable of extra skills such as Veo 3 Fast for text-to-video generation.

Google Pixel 10 Pro XL: Verdict

The Google Pixel continues to be my favourite Android smartphone around even if little has changed.

It exudes beauty inside and out, and makes taking stunning photos effortless.

I do wish Google would focus on trying to boost the battery a bit though instead of AI features.

And although I’m not a power user myself, those who are will surely appreciate a bigger upgrade in that department too.

Rating: 4 / 5

All prices in this article were correct at the time of writing, but may have since changed.

Always do your own research before making any purchase.

Source link

Bus-Sized Uncrewed Airship Being Tested By NATO As Maritime Surveillance Platform

An uncrewed hydrogen-powered autonomous surveillance airship the size of a small bus has been floating over Portuguese waters, collecting imagery of ships and other objects. The goal of these test flights is to see if this airship can provide NATO with situational awareness of the maritime domain.

The flights are part of the alliance’s annual demonstration seeking new robotic technology to boost its defenses. The airship is one of several systems that NATO is evaluating during this exercise, which is called Robotic Experimentation and Prototyping using Maritime Unmanned Systems (REPMUS) 25 and Dynamic Messenger (DYMS) 25. NATO is also trialing unmanned surface and underwater vehicles, as well as other aerial ones, as part of the exercise.

The airship being tested is made by the Finnish Kelluu company, which also operates the aircraft. It is one of about 10 that are providing imagery and other sensing capabilities for commercial and scientific purposes. With NATO already conducting maritime security missions, the company sees a potential military role for its airships to provide persistent, low-level surveillance. 

A Finnish hydrogen-fueled dirigible called “Kelluu” is participating in NATO’s annual REPMUS exercise.
The long-range reconnaissance airship covers an area up to 300 km in diameter.
And the promotional video is beautiful. pic.twitter.com/TZYsZaqE4K

— Roy🇨🇦 (@GrandpaRoy2) September 17, 2025

The Kelluu LTA is relatively small as far as airships go, clocking-in at about 12 meters long. It can fly for up to about 12 hours at low level, the company states. They are designed to carry an assortment of sensors, including electro-optical/infrared cameras and passive systems that can detect electromagnetic emissions. Able to launch from austere locations with no runways, these airships operate “very quietly and without emissions, providing real-time connectivity without being limited by radio-link ranges (BRLOS),” company CEO Janne Hietala told us on Wednesday.

default
A Kelluu airship operating over Finland. (Kelluu)

NATO officials did not want to elaborate on any particular system taking part in REPMUS25. However, they did discuss the overall goals for this demonstration.

“All of these systems require experimentation and integration into the operational environment,” Cmdr. Arlo Abrahamson, spokesperson for NATO’s Allied Maritime Command, told TWZ on Wednesday. “We want to place these systems in the hands of our operators and ensure those systems meet the operational requirements of Allied forces.”

Dynamic Messenger/REPMUS is working to bring new unmanned systems into the operational environment by gaining user feedback to spur development, Abrahamson told us. With the tests still being conducted, it is too early to say if or how an airship would be useful for NATO operations, Abrahamson noted.

Earlier this year, the alliance stood up Operation Baltic Sentry in response to several instances of underwater cable sabotage believed to have been carried out by China and Russia. In one such incident, Finnish authorities say the Russian-linked Eagle S purposely dragged its anchor across the sea floor to break undersea cables. The ship was later found to be full of spy equipment. Finnish authorities detained the ship and its crew, which you can see in the following video.

One of the main goals of Baltic Sentry is to provide additional persistent surveillance to better track vessels. That in turn is meant to ensure a quicker response to ships acting in a suspicious manner. 

The case could be made that airships in general could potentially benefit such a mission because of their long loitering and diverse sensing capabilities, as well as their efficiency. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the potential that deploying larger numbers of these uncrewed airships over a wide area can provide a drastic increase in situational awareness. This distributed approach to persistent sea surveillance using extended-endurance uncrewed systems has garnered major interest from militaries around the globe.

Overall, the U.S. and other nations are either developing or increasingly using lighter-than-air-craft for just those reasons. The Chinese spy balloon incident brought this reality to the headlines.

Additionally, China, in particular, as we have frequently noted, appears to be investing heavily in lighter-than-air technologies. A huge hangar in a remote area in the country’s northwest is a key example of this. The War Zone has been following activities at the facility, which is tied to the country’s development of high-altitude airships that could potentially gather intelligence, facilitate long-range communications, provide early warning capabilities for missile defense, or even possibly serve as launch platforms for drones and other payloads.

Balloons, airships and aerostats have a long history as surveillance and maritime patrol platforms, and transportation aircraft.

Kelluu’s uncrewed concept is a revamping of sorts of the maritime patrol role of lighter-than-air craft dating back to the First World War and widely used during the Second World War.

However, several fatal accidents and mishaps in the past have created headwind for the development and fielding of these systems.

The Navy’s USS Akron. (USN)

There appears to be growing interest in the Kelluu airship.

The Finnish Air Force tested the Kelluu LTA in June. It was the first time an airship took part in Atlantic Trident 25, a two-week tactical and operational training exercise held across multiple locations in Finland.

“The airships complement high-level intelligence with low-altitude precision data and multi-sensor capabilities that support real-time situational awareness,” the Finnish Air Force stated on X at the time.

The Finnish Air Force did not provide details about what, if any, plans it has to further test or use the Kelluu airships. We’ve reached out for comment. Kelluu declined comment.

There are at least two more NATO evaluations in the works for Kelluu as well. The company’s airships will take part in NATO’s Digital Backbone Experimentation (DiBaX) in Latvia. The goal of that exercise is to “test the use of unmanned vehicles in contested environments and the application of artificial intelligence in detection and decision-making tasks.”

Kelluu’s uncrewed airship is also being gauged by NATO’s DIANA accelerator program, which is looking to find and develop emerging technology.

There is no timetable for the rollout of any of the technologies being tested by NATO. Regardless of what happens with the Kelluu airship, the alliance is clearly interested in seeing if platforms like it can help protect its member nations.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Howard is a Senior Staff Writer for The War Zone, and a former Senior Managing Editor for Military Times. Prior to this, he covered military affairs for the Tampa Bay Times as a Senior Writer. Howard’s work has appeared in various publications including Yahoo News, RealClearDefense, and Air Force Times.


Tyler’s passion is the study of military technology, strategy, and foreign policy and he has fostered a dominant voice on those topics in the defense media space. He was the creator of the hugely popular defense site Foxtrot Alpha before developing The War Zone.




Source link

I tested three of the best heat protectants to keep your hair healthy – one is a real treat

IF you use a hair dryer, or heated styling tools, you should also be using heat protectant to keep your hair healthy.

Without it, strands will become dry, brittle and harder to manage.

Collage of hair products.

4

We test three heat protectants to keep your hair healthy

Try these three . . . 

BUDGET

E45 Protection Lip Balm SPF30, £7.99 for 10ml, boots.com

Arkive The Prologue hair primer bottle.

4

You really can’t go wrong with the Arkive The Prologue hair primerCredit: Supplied

Arkive The Prologue hair primer, £14 for 200ml, boots.com

You really can’t go wrong with this product.

Not only does it protect hair from heat, it also de-tangles, adds shine, reduces frizz and smells delicious, thanks to the rhubarb, tomato leaf, honeysuckle and vetiver.

So it doubles up as a hair perfume.

It makes my hair feel like silk, and I really notice on the days I don’t use it, which is always the sign of a brilliant product.

It’s also nearly impossible to apply too much, as it doesn’t weigh hair down or leave it looking greasy.

MID-RANGE

Ghd Bodyguard heat protect spray, £23.95 for 120ml, boots.com

ghd bodyguard heat protect spray.

4

Ghd Bodyguard heat protect spray is the original heat-straightener brandCredit: Supplied

Ghd Bodyguard heat protect spray, £23.95 for 120ml, boots.com

As the original heat-straightener brand, it will come as no surprise that ghd knows how to protect hair from styling.

This spray isn’t at all sticky and does not leave a residue behind, despite conditioning ingredients such as castor oil and glycerin.

It also helps maintain my style for longer, so curls don’t drop out by the end of the day, which is usually the case.

Plus, it smells like a fancy hair salon, so every time I use it I feel like I have had a professional treatment.

The Inkey List has launched new tinted lip balms, and they have saved my dry lips this summer

LUXURY

Dyson Omega leave-in conditioning spray, £59.99 for 165ml, dyson.co.uk

Illustration of Dyson Olmega hydrating hair oil and leave-in conditioning spray.

4

Dyson Omega leave-in conditioning spray is the newest heat protectant in my arsenal

Dyson Omega leave-in conditioning spray, £59.99 for 165ml, dyson.co.uk

This is the newest heat protectant in my arsenal, and its almost milky formula is thicker than the others.

That is great for dull, brittle lengths or hair that gets dry between washes, as it immediately softens strands.

I have very fine hair, and if I apply too much to my roots it can make them feel dirty, so that’s something to be aware of.

But as long as I keep the spray away from my scalp, it’s not an issue.

This one feels super luxe, and is refillable, so better for the planet too.

PICK OF THE WEEK

THIS week, I had a Charlotte Tilbury makeover and afterwards, couldn’t stop looking at my skin in the mirror.

The redness across my cheeks and around my nose had disappeared, my pores were blurred and, best of all, I was glowy without looking greasy.

It was all down to the new Charlotte Tilbury airbrush flawless foundation, £39, which promises 24-hour wear.

For details, see charlottetilbury.co.uk.

Source link

Social Security praises its new chatbot. Ex-officials say it was tested but shelved under Biden

John McGing couldn’t reach a human. That might be business-as-usual in this economy, but it wasn’t business; he had called the Social Security Administration, where the questions often aren’t generic and the callers tend to be older, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable Americans.

McGing, calling on behalf of his son, had an in-the-weeds question: how to prevent overpayments that the federal government might later claw back. His call was intercepted by an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot.

No matter what he said, the bot parroted canned answers to generic questions, not McGing’s obscure query. “If you do a key press, it didn’t do anything,” he said. Eventually, the bot “glitched or whatever” and got him to an agent.

It was a small but revealing incident. Unbeknownst to McGing, a former Social Security employee in Maryland, he had encountered a technological tool recently introduced by the agency. Former officials and longtime observers of the agency say the Trump administration rolled out a product that was tested but deemed not yet ready during the Biden administration.

“With the new administration, they’re just kind of like, let’s go fast and fix it later, which I don’t agree with, because you are going to generate a lot of confusion,” said Marcela Escobar-Alava, who served as Social Security’s chief information officer under President Joe Biden.

Some 74 million people receive Social Security benefits; 11 million of those receive disability payments. In a survey conducted last fall, more than a third of recipients said they wouldn’t be able to afford such necessities as food, clothing, or housing without it. And yet the agency has been shedding the employees who serve them: Some 6,200 have left the agency, its commissioner told lawmakers in June, and critics in Congress and elsewhere say that’s led to worse customer service, despite the agency’s efforts to build up new technology.

Take the new phone bot. At least some beneficiaries don’t like it: Social Security’s Facebook page is, from time to time, pockmarked with negative reviews of the uncooperative bot, as the agency said in July that nearly 41% of calls are handled by the bot.

Lawmakers and former agency employees worry it foreshadows a less human Social Security, in which rushed-out AI takes the place of pushed-out, experienced employees.

Anxieties across party lines

Concern over the direction of the agency is bipartisan. In May, a group of House Republicans wrote to the Social Security Administration expressing support for government efficiency, but cautioning that their constituents had criticized the agency for “inadequate customer service” and suggesting that some measures may be “overly burdensome.”

The agency’s commissioner, Frank Bisignano, a former Wall Street executive, is a tech enthusiast. He has a laundry list of initiatives on which to spend the $600 million in new tech money in the Trump administration’s fiscal 2026 budget request. He’s gotten testy when asked whether his plans mean he’ll be replacing human staff with AI.

“You referred to SSA being on an all-time staffing low; it’s also at an all-time technological high,” he snapped at one Democrat in a House hearing in late June.

But former Social Security officials are more ambivalent. In interviews with KFF Health News, people who left the agency — some speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from the Trump administration and its supporters — said they believe the new administration simply rushed out technologies developed, but deemed not yet ready, by the Biden administration. They also said the agency’s firing of thousands of employees resulted in the loss of experienced technologists who are best equipped to roll out these initiatives and address their weaknesses.

“Social Security’s new AI phone tool is making it even harder for people to get help over the phone — and near impossible if someone needs an American Sign Language interpreter or translator,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told KFF Health News. “We should be making it as easy as possible for people to get the Social Security they’ve earned.”

Spokespeople for the agency did not reply to questions from KFF Health News.

Using AI to automate customer service is one of the buzziest businesses in Silicon Valley. In theory, the new breed of artificial intelligence technologies can smoothly respond, in a human-like voice, to just about any question. That’s not how the Social Security Administration’s bot seems to work, with users reporting canned, unrelated responses.

The Trump administration has eliminated some online statistics that obscure its true performance, said Kathleen Romig, a former agency official who is now director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The old website showed that most callers waited two hours for an answer. Now, the website doesn’t show waiting times, either for phone inquiries (once callback wait time is accounted for) or appointment scheduling.

While statistics are being posted that show beneficiaries receive help — that is, using the AI bot or the agency’s website to accomplish tasks like getting a replacement card — Romig said she thinks it’s a “very distorted view” overall. Reviews of the AI bot are often poor, she said.

Agency leaders and employees who first worked on the AI product during the Biden administration anticipated those types of difficulties. Escobar-Alava said they had worked on such a bot, but wanted to clean up the policy and regulation data it was relying on first.

“We wanted to ensure the automation produced consistent and accurate answers, which was going to take more time,” she said. Instead, it seems the Trump administration opted to introduce the bot first and troubleshoot later, Escobar-Alava said.

Romig said one former executive told her that the agency had used canned FAQs without modifications or nuances to accommodate individual situations and was monitoring the technology to see how well it performed. Escobar-Alava said she has heard similarly.

Could automation help?

To Bisignano, automation and web services are the most efficient ways to assist the program’s beneficiaries. In a letter to Warren, he said that agency leaders “are transforming SSA into a digital-first agency that meets customers where they want to be met,” making changes that allow the vast majority of calls to be handled either in an automated fashion or by having a human return the customer’s call.

Using these methods also relieves burdens on otherwise beleaguered field offices, Bisignano wrote.

Altering the phone experience is not the end of Bisignano’s tech dreams. The agency asked Congress for some $600 million in additional funding for investments, which he intends to use for online scheduling, detecting fraud, and much more, according to a list submitted to the House in late June.

But outside experts and former employees said Bisignano overstated the novelty of the ideas he presented to Congress. The agency has been updating its technology for years, but that does not necessarily mean thousands of its workers are suddenly obsolete, Romig said. It’s not bad that the upgrades are continuing, she said, but progress has been more incremental than revolutionary.

Some changes focus on spiffing up the agency’s public face. Bisignano told House lawmakers that he oversaw a redesign of the agency’s performance-statistics page to emphasize the number of automated calls and deemphasize statistics about call wait times. He called the latter stats “discouraging” and suggested that displaying them online might dissuade beneficiaries from calling.

Warren said Bisignano has since told her privately that he would allow an “inspector general audit” of their customer-service quality data and pledged to make a list of performance information publicly available. The agency has since updated its performance statistics page.

Other changes would come at greater cost and effort. In April, the agency rolled out a security authentication program for direct deposit changes, requiring beneficiaries to verify their identity in person if what the agency described in regulatory documents as an “automated” analysis system detects anomalies.

According to documents accompanying the proposal, the agency estimated about 5.8 million beneficiaries would be affected — and that it would cost the federal government nearly $1.2 billion, mostly driven by staff time devoted to assisting claimants. The agency is asking for nearly $7.7 billion in the upcoming fiscal year for payroll overall.

Christopher Hensley, a financial adviser in Houston, said one of his clients called him in May after her bank changed its routing number and Social Security stopped paying her, forcing her to borrow money from her family.

It turned out that the agency had flagged her account for fraud. Hensley said she had to travel 30 minutes to the nearest Social Security office to verify her identity and correct the problem.

Tahir writes for KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Source link

The conscience of humanity is being tested in Gaza | Israel-Palestine conflict

The humanitarian tragedy unfolding in the Gaza Strip must not be perceived merely as a conflict confined to a narrow strip of land; rather, it should be regarded as a deepening humanitarian catastrophe that wounds the collective conscience of humanity with each passing day. Israel’s months-long bombardments have targeted women, children, and the elderly, rendering cities uninhabitable. Homes, hospitals, schools, and places of worship have been reduced to rubble; essential services such as food, water, healthcare, and electricity have collapsed. Hunger, thirst, and the threat of epidemic disease are propelling Gaza towards a total humanitarian collapse. To date, more than 61,000 Palestinians — the majority of them women and children — have been killed in Israeli attacks. This picture is not only the mark of war, but also a stark testament to a systematic policy of annihilation.

In the face of such a dire picture, the world’s silence or its feeble responses only deepen the suffering and pave the way for the continuation of oppression. The West’s double standards — rushing to act in other crises while adopting an ambivalent approach to Gaza — undermine the credibility of an international order purportedly founded upon principles and rules. It is a fact that had the swift and comprehensive sensitivity shown towards the crisis in Ukraine also been displayed in the face of the atrocities in Gaza, the landscape we confront today would be entirely different. Israel’s ability to act without the slightest sanction has accelerated the erosion of international law and human rights norms. The crisis in Gaza stands before us as a litmus test of whether the international community is willing and able to uphold the most fundamental human values.

From the outset, Turkiye has demonstrated a resolute, consistent, and principled stance to end the atrocities and the worsening humanitarian disaster in Gaza. Our Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), the Turkish Red Crescent, and our civil society organisations are working actively on the ground, and despite all obstacles, food, medicines, and medical supplies are being delivered to the region with the support of brotherly nations in the vicinity. Wounded Gazans are being evacuated and treated in Turkiye. These relief efforts not only address urgent needs, but also proclaim to the world that the people of Gaza are not alone. On the diplomatic front, our calls for a ceasefire continue within the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and our mediation efforts between Palestinian groups are ongoing.

At the NATO Summit held in The Hague on June 25, I underlined that the fragile ceasefire must be transformed into a lasting peace, warning that “Gaza has no time to lose.” I have openly defined Israel’s attacks and policy of collective punishment — in flagrant disregard for international law — as genocide. We are working closely, particularly with Qatar, on humanitarian access, ceasefire negotiations, and reconstruction. We value Qatar’s leading role in facilitating humanitarian aid and in advancing diplomatic initiatives aimed at bringing the massacre to an end.

The violence in Gaza threatens not only the Palestinian people but also the stability of the entire region. Tensions between Israel and Iran heighten the risk of a broader conflict, with the potential to disrupt the security balance from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Gulf. The deepening of the crisis poses serious threats in the form of new waves of displacement, increased radicalisation, and risks to energy security. The Gaza question is, therefore, not solely a humanitarian crisis, but also a matter of strategic importance for global security and peace.

The path to a solution is, in essence, clear. An immediate ceasefire must be declared, and all attacks must be halted unconditionally. Humanitarian corridors must be opened to ensure the unimpeded delivery of food, water, and medical aid, and international mechanisms must be established to protect civilians. Turkiye stands ready to serve as an actor in shaping this process. War crimes and human rights violations must be investigated before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice; perpetrators must be held to account before the law. Sustainable resources must be secured for aid organisations — particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) — which are being strangled by Israeli pressure.

The reconstruction of Gaza must not be confined to rebuilding destroyed structures; it must evolve into a comprehensive process that safeguards the rights to education, healthcare, infrastructure, economic development, and political representation. This process should be conducted with the direct participation of the local population and under the oversight of the United Nations and regional organisations. The foundation of lasting peace lies in the recognition of an independent and sovereign State of Palestine with its territorial integrity safeguarded. A two-state solution is the sole key to peace and stability in the region.

The events in Gaza once again demonstrate that war also targets those who pursue truth. In recent months, numerous journalists have been murdered simply for doing their duty, striving to bring the reality of conflict zones to the world. The losses suffered by Al Jazeera, in particular, rank among the most brutal assaults on press freedom and the right to information. The death of courageous individuals who strive to bring the truth to the world and to lift the veil of lies and propaganda that shrouds war is a profound loss for us all. Their memory will remain a symbol of the pursuit of justice. I extend my condolences to the families of the deceased, to their colleagues, and to the entire media community.

The cause of Palestine and Gaza transcends borders; it is a common test for humanity. We must never forget the heavy price borne by human dignity when the world turned a blind eye to the tragedies of Bosnia and Rwanda. For this reason, Turkiye’s unwavering stance on Gaza is both a moral obligation and a strategic necessity. Together with all actors who believe in humanitarian diplomacy, foremost among them Qatar, we will continue our efforts towards a lasting, just, and honourable peace. We hold the view that achieving peace is not beyond reach, but rather an essential goal that has been awaited for far too long. We are committed to making every effort to achieve peace and will persist in our endeavours.

History is bearing witness to those who took action and to those who turned away from the cruelty in Gaza. Gaza has no time to lose; the international community must heed the voice of the global conscience and act. The future of humanity will be shaped by the courage of the steps we take today.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Source link

US sanctions DR Congo armed group over illicit mining, ceasefire tested | Armed Groups News

The US is sanctioning the Pareco-FF armed group, as well as the Congolese mining company CDMC.

The United States has sanctioned an armed group accused of illicit mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), as both the army and the Rwandan-backed M23 rebel group traded accusations of violating a recently reached US-mediated ceasefire deal by attacking each other’s positions.

The US Department of the Treasury said on Tuesday that it was blocking all interests and restricting transactions with Pareco-FF, an armed group that it said controlled the key coltan mining site of Rubaya from 2022 to 2024, and which has opposed the M23 group.

The administration of President Donald Trump has been pushing for US access to the region’s minerals, as it has done in other parts of the world, including Ukraine.

It also slapped sanctions on the Congolese mining company CDMC, saying it sold minerals that were sourced and smuggled from mines near Rubaya and two Hong Kong-based export companies, East Rise and Star Dragon, which have been accused of buying minerals from the armed group.

“The United States is sending a clear message that no armed group or commercial entity is immune from sanctions if they undermine peace, stability or security in the DRC,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said in a statement.

Rubaya is currently under the control of the M23 group, which is already targeted by US sanctions. The mine there produces 15 to 30 percent of the world’s supply of coltan, a mineral used in electronics such as laptops and mobile telephones.

Many Pareco rebels integrated into the DRC military in 2009, but Pareco-FF emerged in 2022 in response to the M23 gains.

The sanctions come as Congolese army spokesman Sylvain Ekenge said in a statement that the M23 group’s “almost daily” attacks constitute an “intentional and manifest violation” of the declaration of principles, which the two parties signed in mid-July in Doha, whose terms include a “permanent ceasefire”.

It followed a separate peace deal between the Congolese and Rwandan governments, signed in Washington, DC, the previous month, which also helped the US government and US companies gain control of critical minerals in the region.

The Congolese army said it was ready to respond “to all provocations from this [M23 group] coalition, accustomed to violating agreements”, the statement said.

M23 spokesman Lawrence Kanyuka said in a post on X on Monday that DRC’s government was continuing “its offensive military manoeuvres aimed at full-scale war”.

The eastern DRC, a region bordering Rwanda with abundant natural resources but plagued by non-state armed groups, has suffered extreme violence for more than three decades.

A new surge of unrest broke out early this year when the M23 group captured the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, setting up their own administrations, with thousands killed in the conflict.

Violence has continued on the ground despite the US and Qatar-brokered peace deal, with fighting becoming more intense since Friday around the town of Mulamba in South Kivu province, where the front line had been relatively stable since March.

The M23 attacked positions between Friday and Monday held by pro-Kinshasa militia and army forces, and pushed them back several kilometres, after clashes using light and heavy weapons, local and security sources said.

The DRC government and the M23 rebels have agreed to sign a permanent peace deal by August 18, but the renewed fighting has threatened this effort.

Source link

I tested ‘unhinged’ hot weather £6 gadget that apparently guarantees a good night’s sleep – I was surprised by it

IT’S been hailed a ‘game-changer’ when it comes to getting to sleep on hot nights.

But would you sleep on a gel pillow designed to keep your dog or cat cool in a heatwave?

Woman lying in bed using a Chilmax cooling pillow to stay cool in hot weather.

2

Lynsey Hope tested sleeping on a cooling mat during hot weatherCredit: Gary Stone
Woman lying in bed using a cooling pillow.

2

Can the gadget guarantee a good night’s sleepCredit: Gary Stone

Pet cooling mats can be found at many high street stores in the UK, and whilst they are designed for animals, some people have been buying the gadgets for themselves – or nicking them from their four-legged friends.

Commenting on a TikTok video calling for people to share their ‘unhinged tips on how to stay cool’ during hot spells, one social media user wrote: “Borrowed by cat’s gel cooling mat as she’s uninterested in it and it’s a lifesaver.”

With temperatures set to hit the mid-30s in parts of the UK this week, I’m happy to give anything a go in a bid to stave off the extreme heat and get some kip.

There are lots available to buy including a Sunny Daze Cooling Dog Mat for just £5 at petsathome.com, or a slightly larger and more plush Weashume Dog Cool Gel Pad for £10.99 on amazon.

I opt for one from Chillmax costing just under £6 on Amazon, which has dozens of five-star reviews online.

When it arrives it doesn’t look much. It’s a simple blue mat filled with cooling gel.

But manufacturers claim it absorbs excess heat and dissipates it away for up to three hours, giving your skin a lovely cool feeling.

There’s no water so no refilling is necessary.

You simply pop it in the fridge and get it out when your pet needs a rest so they can lay on it and cool down.

I popped it in the fridge during the day, then laid it over my sheet when it was time for bed.

It was pretty hard to lay my entire body weight down on it as it felt icy cold. I really had to grit my teeth.

I laid on it feeling pretty uncomfortable, but after around five minutes, the initial discomfort eased, my body adjusted to the cold and I drifted off to sleep pretty quickly.

This was quite an achievement as I’ve been really tossing and turning of late due to the frequent spells of hot weather.

In fact, I think I fell asleep at least 45 minutes faster than I had on previous hot nights. It was actually quite calming too and refreshing.

The coolness wears off after a few hours and though it was soft enough to lay on, I woke up feeling a little uncomfortable.

But I just pulled it out from under me and tossed it on the floor.

The next night I tried putting it on top of my pillow case but I found the cold felt too extreme against my face.

It was a little better inside the pillow case, but still I preferred it near my body.

This funny little pet pillow has become a must-have in my bedroom now for hot nights.

Even better as it’s so small, you can easily take it away with you if you need to. No need to lug a big fan around instead.

You can also wipe it clean, making it a good gel option as most are built into the pillow and can’t be washed.

You can sit on it whilst working if you want to, though I did not find this comfortable.

But I didn’t mind using it as a foot rest on hot working days and it can also be used as a laptop cooling pad.

My kids kept stealing it saying it kept them cool so I guess I might be buying more to keep us all as cool as cucumbers.

Others have said similar pet mats are not only helpful in the heatwave but hot flushes, too.

One Amazon reviewer said it was brilliant for menopausal women, especially for the price.

You can spend £20 to £30 on a pet cooling pillow, but most of us won’t want to pay that much when the heatwave doesn’t last long in the UK.

Similar products designed for humans also tend to be more pricey.

This is wallet-friendly and effective. For less than £6 this is a real bargain. If it’s good enough for Fido, it’s good enough me.

No more sweaty nights here.

Five ways to keep your kids cool in the heat

IT can be really difficult – and costly – to keep kids cool when it’s hot outside. But Fabulous Digital Senior Reporter and mum-of-two Sarah Bull shares five ways to help, and they won’t break the budget either.

Strip them off

It might sound simple, but stripping kids off at home can really help them regulate their temperature when it’s warm outside. Just remember to regularly apply suncream, as more of their skin will be exposed to the sun.

Cool down bedrooms before nighttime

When it’s hot outside, it can be difficult for kids to go to sleep – especially if their bedroom feels like an oven. If you have a room that’s not in direct sunshine, keep the windows open to let in a breeze. It’s also a good idea to keep the curtains closed, to prevent the room from heating up.

Wear a hat

Another simple technique, but one that really works. Make sure that if your kids are playing outside, they’ve got a hat on. It keeps their face and head shielded from the sun, and also helps if you’ve got a little one who struggles with bright sunlight. If your tot struggles to keep a hat on, try one with a strap that goes under the chin to help.

Avoid the car

The car can be one of the hottest places during a heatwave, and often takes a long time to cool down. If you have the option, it’s better to stay at home rather than taking kids out anywhere in a hot car.

Stay hydrated

This is always important, but even more so in a heatwave. Make sure you’re regularly reminding your kids to have a drink, and top them up with cool liquids whenever you can. Use ice too to ensure it’s as cold as it can possibly be.

Source link

Australia arrests childcare worker; 1,200 children urged to get tested

July 1 (UPI) — Authorities in Australia are recommending that 1,200 children be tested for infectious diseases after a 26-year-old man who worked at 20 childcare centers over the last few years was charged with dozens of offenses related to the sexual abuse of minors.

Victoria Police announced in a statement Tuesday that Joshua Brown of Point Cook, a Melbourne suburb, has been charged with more than 70 counts related to the alleged abuse of eight children at a Point Cook childcare center between April 2022 and January 2023.

He was arrested on May 12 and was remanded into police custody, where he remains, authorities said.

Since his arrest, Victoria Police has undertaken what the department described as a “significant investigation” that established Brown worked at 20 childcare centers between January 2017 and May, and they are examining evidence of potential additional alleged offenses having committed at a second childcare facility.

Investigators are currently trying to identify potential additional victims, Acting Commander Jane Stevenson of Crime Command said.

“There will be people in the community who hear this news and feel very concerned about their own children. Parents who had a child at a center at the time of the many’s employment are being notified today and a website has been set up by the Victorian government with further information for impacted families,” Stevenson said in a statement.

Australian police and health officials said families were being contacted “to ensure appropriate support and welfare services are provided.”

“The manner of the alleged offending means some children may be recommended for screening for infectious diseases,” the government of Victoria said in a statement.

“We acknowledge how distressing this will be for all families involved and the impact it will have on the broader community. Everything possible is being done to provide the vital support now required.”

Chief Health Officer Christian McGrath told reporters during a press conference that around 2,600 families have been contacted in connection to the case and that they are recommending approximately 1,200 children undergo testing for infectious diseases.

“Families and the wider community can be reassured that the infections that the children were potentially exposed to can be treated with antibiotics and that there’s no broader public health risk to the community,” he said.

Stevenson said in the press conference that they are not suggesting that the accused offended in all 20 centers, but they are encouraging anyone with information to come forward.

She added that all alleged offenses are believed to have taken place within Victoria and that no other childcare workers were involved.

Premier Jacinta Allan of Victoria issued a statement saying she was “sickened” by the allegations and that her “heart breaks for those families who are living every parent’s worst nightmare.”

“As a parent, I can only imagine the unbearable pain and distress the affected families are feeling,” she said.

“Every health and mental health support will be provided to them.”

Source link

Hundreds of kids to be tested for disease after childcare rape charge

About 1,200 children are being urged to undergo testing for infectious diseases after a Melbourne childcare worker was charged with a string of offences including child rape.

Joshua Dale Brown was arrested in May and faces 70 charges, with police alleging he abused eight children – including a five-month-old – between April 2022 and January 2023.

The 26-year-old has worked at 20 childcare centres since 2017, prompting local health authorities to notify parents of any children who may have been in his care, recommending many be tested as a “precaution”.

Brown, who is yet to enter a plea to the charges, has been remanded in custody and is due to appear at Melbourne Magistrates Court in September.

The eight children – all under the age of five – who police allege were harmed attended the Creative Gardens Early Learning Centre in Point Cook, in Melbourne’s south-west.

Brown is accused of child rape and sexual assault offenses, as well as producing and transmitting child abuse material.

Detectives are also investigating alleged offences by Brown at a childcare centre in Essendon “as a priority”.

At a press conference, authorities said he had a valid working with children check and was employed as a fill-in childcare worker when he was arrested.

Brown was not known to them before the investigation, they said, adding that they believed he acted alone and that the alleged offending only happened in Victoria.

Revealing Mr Brown’s identity was an “unusual decision”, Victoria Police’s Janet Stevenson said, but this is a “unique” case.

“It’s very important to ensure that every parent out there that has a child in childcare knows who he is and where he worked,” she said.

Chief Health Officer Christian McGrath would not say if Mr Brown had tested positive to sexually transmitted infections, but said the manner of the alleged offending meant some children may be asked to undergo screening for infectious diseases.

About 2,600 families had been contacted, with 1,200 children recommended for testing, she said, adding that the infections that the children may have been exposed to can be treated with antibiotics.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said she was “sickened” by the allegations.

“My heart breaks for the families who are living every parent’s worst nightmare,” she said.

Families across Victoria will be “angry and frightened” by the case, Allan said, adding that a dedicated website has been set up for those impacted.

Source link

8 best cooling pillows for hot sleepers 2025 UK, tried and tested

SUMMER is just around the corner, and those scorching nights are about to make decent kip feel like mission impossible.

For hot sleepers, the battle against night sweats and overheating is a year-round struggle – but when temperatures soar, finding the best cooling pillow becomes absolutely essential.

Woman sleeping peacefully in bed.

1

Stay cool and comfyCredit: Getty

Whether you’re naturally hot-blooded, going through menopause, or dealing with medical conditions that trigger night sweats, a cooling pillow could be your ticket to uninterrupted slumber.

Unlike standard pillows that trap heat against your head and neck, cooling pillows are clever little sleep savers engineered specifically to keep you comfortable all night long.

The secret lies in their innovative materials and design. Traditional pillows often use dense materials that absorb and hold heat – exactly what you don’t want during a heatwave!

Cooling pillows, however, work their magic in several different ways.

Some feature thermoregulating natural fabrics like bamboo, silk or wool that actively wick moisture away from your skin.

Others incorporate high-tech foam with open-cell structures that allow air to circulate freely around your head.

The most advanced options even use special gel layers or phase-changing materials that literally draw heat away from your body.

According to The Sleep Charity, the ideal bedroom temperature for quality sleep is between 16°C-18°C.

When your bedroom thermometer creeps above 24°C, you’re far more likely to wake up during the night – leaving you groggy and irritable the next day.

While a cooling pillow isn’t the only solution (a lightweight duvet, a home fan, and strategic window opening all help), it’s one of the simplest ways to dramatically improve your sleep during hot weather.

Ready to chill out and sleep better this summer? We’ve put the UK’s top cooling pillows through their paces to bring you our definitive ranking of the very best options for every type of sleeper.


How we tested cooling pillows

Each cooling pillow was tested over several weeks in our reviewers’ homes.

They considered several factors when rating the products, including the fabric, how cool it was and the shape of each pillow.

Each reviewer also considered the thermoregulating properties and any special features it had, such as open-cell memory foam, spring layers, adjustable height and cooling technology.

Our testers also evaluated whether the pillows were soft to the touch, comfortable, supportive and something our reviewers actually liked sleeping on.


Best cooling pillows at a glance:


8 best cooling pillows, tried and tested

Best overall: The Simba Hybrid

White pillow on a bed.
This one has over 14,000 glowing reviews onlineCredit: Kiya-Ellen

The Simba Hybrid Pillow, £109

Pros: Customisable height, temperature-regulating, breathable, soft

Cons: Pricey

Rating: 5/5

The Simba Hybrid pillow has been cleverly designed to regulate your temperature and increase airflow.

It incorporates astronaut-inspired temperature regulation, which absorbs, stores and releases heat as and when you need it, which means that — even on a hot summer’s night — it’ll absorb the heat and keep you cool.

With over 14,000 five-star reviews, we decided to put one to the test and see what all the fuss was about.

As someone who usually opts to buy budget £5 pillows, I was taken aback by the price, but once my head hit the pillow, I couldn’t believe the difference in comfort.

The pillow is filled with breathable and lightweight nanocubes, which can be removed to adjust the height and firmness of your pillow.

Once I tweaked the height to suit my needs, it was glorious to sleep on. The material is thick, plush and supportive, and I swiftly found myself among the army of Simba pillow lovers.

Whilst this is one of the more expensive pillows in our round-up, the consensus of those who have tried it is that it’s worth every penny.

Read our full Simba Hybrid Pillow review here.

Material: Cotton, hypoallergenic microfibre, foam Nanocubes; Support: Medium-firm (adjustable)


Best for back sleepers: Eve Sleep The Memory Foam Pillow Hybrid Front and Back Sleeper

Best-cooling-pillows
The honeycombed layer helps air circulateCredit: Eve Sleep

Eve Sleep The Memory Foam Pillow Hybrid Front and Back Sleeper, £70

Pros: Honeycomb memory foam top layer ensures coolness, supportive, anti-allergy hollowfibre

Cons: Price

Rating: 4/5

The Eve Memory Foam Hybrid pillow is constructed in three parts: there’s a memory foam centre that relieves pressure on your neck and head, a hollow fibre layer that gives extra support and an outer layer of breathable memory foam.

This final layer is honeycombed, allowing air to pass through it so you don’t overheat and your head stays cool.

I tested this pillow for a week and really noticed the difference from my old cheap pillows. This one is more supportive as it keeps your spine in alignment, which helps prevent aches in your neck and back.

It also kept me cool, and I didn’t feel too hot while I was sleeping on this pillow, which I think is due to the fact it has a breathable cotton cover and mesh borders, as well as the air holes in the memory foam that worked their cooling magic.

The cover is removable, and you can wash it in the machine, which is handy.

Eve also offers a 30-night trial, which is a great idea if you’re unsure about buying, as you can return the pillow if it’s not to your liking.

Material: Memory foam middle layer, hollow fibre mid layer and honeycomb memory foam top layer, encased in a cotton cover, Support: Medium


Best firm pillow: Simba Hybrid Firm Pillow

White pillows on a bed with string lights on the headboard.
The Simba Hybrid Firm (right) is noticeably big in comparison to standard pillows

Simba Hybrid Firm Pillow, £159

Pros: Breathable, temperature-regulating, supportive, adjustable height

Cons: Expensive, might be too big for some pillowcases, firmness may not be to everyone’s taste

Rating: 4.5/5

Simba seems to be storming ahead of its competitors when it comes to cooling technology.

The sleep company is known and loved for its Simba Hybrid Firm pillow (and many other products), and I tested it out during a heatwave.

The Hybrid Firm is comprised of three individual pillows (two soft fibre pillows and one layer of firm Aerocoil springs), which can be combined and rearranged to adjust the height and firmness of the pillow.

It also features Stratos tech (the astronaut-inspired temperature regulation we mentioned earlier), which means it’s as good as a pillow can be at regulating your body temperature.

While it took me a few days to get used to the firmness of the pillow, its superior cooling properties and adjustability make it the most comfortable pillow I’ve ever slept on.

Undeniably, the price of the pillow is pretty high, but if you’re able to afford it, we believe it will be a worthwhile investment.

Read our full Simba Hybrid Firm Pillow review here.

Material: Cotton, mesh, Aero coil, Support: Firm to medium-firm (adjustable)


Best budget: Panda Memory Foam Bamboo Pillow

White pillow with black panda-like design on a bed.
The material draws moisture away from the skin

Panda Memory Foam Bamboo Pillow, £44.95

Pros: Luxurious, improved the quality of my sleep, next-level comfort

Cons: Genuinely couldn’t find one!

Rating: 4/5

The Panda Hybrid Pillow is designed with sleep tech to regulate your body temperature while in the land of nod, and it is incredibly comfortable.

The Orthopaedic grade design is made from a bamboo charcoal-infused memory foam, and whether I am sleeping on my back, side or front, this pillow provides ample support.

The bamboo fabric is highly breathable, promoting airflow to keep your body at the optimum temperature and drawing moisture away from the skin, keeping you dry and comfortable.

It has made a considerable difference to the quality of my sleep, and I genuinely wake each morning feeling ready to start the day, having had good quality rest.

Material: bamboo fibre outer layer, polyester, memory foam; Support: medium-firm


READ MORE:


Best for night sweats: Emma Premium Foam Pillow

Hand pressing a white pillow.
You can customise the layers to suit your preference

Emma Premium Foam Pillow, £75 £63.75

Pros: Removable and washable moisture-resistant cover, layers can be removed and changed to suit you 

Cons: Expensive! 

Rating: 4.5/5

The Emma Premium Foam Pillow certainly lives up to its premium name.

Its temperature-regulating design means it is filled with removable layers and stays fresh and clean.

The removable layers include a foam layer that regulates temperature, which means you can adjust the pillow to suit how you sleep.

This is great for women struggling with menopausal or general hormonal night sweats as the design is customisable and easy to remove and replace.

I like that the knitted white fabric of the pillow is breathable, as there’s nothing worse than a hot, sweaty sleep. 

I won’t lie; I did love this pillow, but because of the memory foam, you may find this pillow a little harder than others. I also think it’s expensive at full price.

Material: ThermoSync foam, HRX Foam, polyester and 2% elastane; Support: Medium (but fully adjustable layers)


Best for side sleepers: Simba Cooling Body Pillow

Best-cooling-pillows
A great option if you prefer to sleep on your sideCredit: Lucy Gornall

Simba Cooling Body Pillow, £109

Pros: Good for pregnancy and nursing, washable cover

Cons: High price point, takes up a lot of space on the bed

Rating: 4/5

This body pillow is designed to provide extra support if you sleep on your side, as it keeps your spine and hips in alignment. It’s also fab if you’re pregnant, as it supports your bump while taking pressure off your hips.

I found it really soft – thanks to the Simba Renew Bio fibres inside – and cool. It is made with Stratos cool-touch technology, which stops you from getting too hot, and I could definitely feel that coolness.

The cover is removable, and it’s machine washable, which is always a good thing.

The body pillow is incredibly comfy, as well as supportive, and it’s ideal as a back pillow for sitting and reading in bed.

The only issue you’re going to have is finding somewhere to store it when you’re not using it.

Material: 100% cotton cover incorporating Stratos cooling technology with down-like Simba Renew Bio fibre interior; Support: soft but supportive


Simba Stratos Pillow

Best-cooling-pillows

Simba Stratos Pillow, £60

Pros: Supportive, cooling technology, hypoallergenic

Cons: None

Rating: 4/5

The Simba Stratos is filled with recycled fibres from plastic bottles – Simba Renew Bio – which is breathable, so reducing heat as you sleep and avoiding sweating.

Simba’s Stratos technology on one side of the pillow keeps the fabric cool to the touch.

It reacts to your body temperature and dissipates heat, ensuring you feel cool and comfortable. The sustainable cotton cover is washable, which is another plus point.

I loved that this pillow arrived in a strong bag, which is useful for storage should I ever need to pack it away.

Material: Sustainable cotton cover; Simba Renew Bio interior (made from recycled plastic bottles); Support: Soft but supportive

Woolroom Organic Washable Wool Baby/Travel Pillow

Best-cooling-pillows

Woolroom Organic Washable Wool Baby/Travel Pillow, £71.24 (was £94.99)

Pros: Organic fabric and filling, cooling in summer, very comfortable, machine washable, great size

Cons: Price

Rating: 3.5/5

Wool is a great material for regulating your temperature, so this pillow is a must for hot summer nights.

It’s a travel pillow, so great for you or the kids when you’re heading off on holiday, though I must admit I use it more at home.

It’s also lovely and soft for sleeping on – I’m not a fan of hard pillows and sleep much better on a squishy (or medium-squishy) version.

This one is made from 100% organic British wool and has a 100% organic cotton outer cover.

Because of the wool’s hypoallergenic qualities, it’s endorsed by Allergy UK and house-dust mite resistant.

Sustainability is important to me, so I love that the wool is traceable back to the farms from which it was sourced, and the sheep that supply it are kept in high welfare conditions.

The pillow is also certified by the Soil Association and meets the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). It even comes with its own zipped carry bag for storage.

Material: 100% organic British wool inner with 100% organic cotton cover; Support: soft


Best cooling pillows FAQs

Click the links below to navigate.

Where to buy cooling pillows

Looking for the perfect cooling pillow to beat the summer heat? Here’s where to grab them:

Most retailers offer free delivery when you spend over a certain amount, so why not pair your new cooling pillow with matching sheets for the ultimate summer sleep upgrade?

How do cooling pillows work?

Cooling pillows are used mainly in the warmer summer months to prevent heat retention and provide a cool surface when sleeping.

The design of the pillow increases airflow, so keeping you cooler, while fabrics are breathable and often include natural fibres, such as bamboo, silk or wool.

Some pillows may contain water or gel pouches that absorb heat from the skin, cooling you down and wicking away moisture.

As they absorb your body heat, they warm up, so they need to be cooled again – either by not sleeping on them or turning them over.

You can always pop the gel pack into the fridge for a few hours before bed so it cools ready for use.

What are the main differences between a cooling pillow and a regular pillow?

Regular pillows use dense, standard fillings that trap heat against your head like a furnace, leaving you tossing and turning in a sweaty mess.

Cooling pillows, however, are engineering marvels that actively regulate temperature.

They feature thermoregulating natural fabrics like bamboo, silk or wool that wick moisture away, while innovative open-cell foam structures allow continuous airflow around your head.

The most advanced versions contain phase-changing materials or gel layers that literally pull heat away from your body throughout the night.

Do you need a pillowcase for a cooling pillow?

Your cooling pillow absolutely needs a pillowcase for protection and hygiene, but standard synthetic covers will trap heat and completely undermine its temperature-regulating technology.

Natural fabrics are essential for maintaining maximum coolness.

Bamboo offers exceptional breathability and feels instantly cool against your skin, while silk provides unmatched temperature regulation along with impressive beauty benefits for hair and skin.

Cotton and linen are decent options too – just avoid polyester blends at all costs.

Do cooling pillowcases really work?

Fans of cooling pillowcases swear they really do work.

Silk is usually the fabric of choice. It is thermoregulating and also wicks away moisture, but its added skin and hair benefits seal the deal.

Hair is less frizzy because the super smooth fabric reduces friction as you move around in bed, and your skin is less creased in the morning, in theory, leading to fewer wrinkles.

Bamboo is another good option as it regulates temperature and feels cool to the touch, especially when you first lay your head on the pillow.

Natural fibres generally will be cooler than synthetic fabrics, which hold in heat.

What is the best cooling pillow in the UK?

Many cooling pillows could take the title of best, depending on what you’re looking for.

The Simba Hybrid is an incredibly popular choice and has more than 27,000 five-star reviews on Simba’s website.

If you need more support, especially for your neck, then the Simba Hybrid Firm is another great option with over a thousand five-star reviews online.

What fabric, high-tech features and firmness to go for depends on the individual and the budget.

Generally speaking, when looking for the best cooling pillow available, go for natural fibre covers, such as silk, bamboo and wool, as they draw heat away from the body.

As for the filling, again, that’s a personal choice – natural materials are cooling, but so is the recycled polyester used in many man-made bestsellers, and it’s a lot cheaper than feathers and down.

How do I keep a pillow cold at night?

Cooling pillows come in different designs that work in different ways to ensure you get the best night’s sleep.

Their effectiveness depends on their features and how you use them.

Pillows with gel or water inserts only keep you cool for a certain amount of time – your body heat transfers to them as they cool you, and eventually, they’re no longer cold.

They need re-cooling (either by not using them or refrigerating the gel pack) before you can sleep on them again.

Technical fabrics, such as the ones used in the Simba Stratos pillow design, work by absorbing body heat, while the nanocubes inside allow for greater airflow.

Again, though, you may find even the high-tech material becomes warm after a few hours.

Buy pillowcases made from natural fibres such as cotton, linen, bamboo, wool and silk, as these are cooler to sleep on.

Once your pillow becomes too warm, simply turning it over will give you a whole new layer of coolness.

Do cooling pillows help with night sweats?

Anything that feels cool on your face or body is going to help with night sweats, but it’s a question of degree.

The cover and filling in a cooling pillow are designed to draw heat away from your body so you don’t wake up feeling all hot and bothered.

As a result, your sleep isn’t disturbed, and you’re more rested in the morning.

However, if you suffer from frequent and intense night sweats due to menopause, you may need to take extra steps to keep cool.

These could include using only natural-fibre bedding, sleeping under just a sheet, buying a cooling mattress or running a fan in the bedroom.

Buying a gel pad that you can pop in the fridge and then put in your pillowcase with your pillow could also help ease night sweats.

What is the best cooling pillow for side sleepers?

Side sleepers should look for a supportive cooling pillow with a higher loft (thickness).

This is because lying on your side can mean your body is not aligned, causing pain in your shoulders, neck, knees and hips.

Memory foam is a good choice as it moulds to your body, supporting you as you sleep; however, it does absorb heat.

Instead, you can opt for a pillow with open-cell foam layers that allow air to circulate, improving breathability and coolness.

Side sleepers may also want to consider adding a second pillow – between their knees – to help keep their spine, neck and hips in alignment.

The Simba Cooling Body Pillow is great for this, and our reviewer found it “incredibly comfy, as well as supportive”.

For more cool ways to get a great night’s sleep, check out our sleep tips and tricks section.


Source link

13 best waterproof mascaras for smudge-free lashes 2024 UK, tried and tested

ON the hunt for the best waterproof mascara? We’ve made it easy for you, with our tried and tested top picks for every budget.

Whether you’ve got sensitive eyes that are prone to getting watery, are dealing with humidity and rain, or simply want gorgeous fluttery lashes that are smudge-proof – having a tube of waterproof mascara in your makeup bag is a must.

With so many formulas out there to choose from though, it can be hard to find the best option but fear not: below are 13 of the best contenders for 2024, meticulously tried and tested to deliver flake-resistant perfection.

These waterproof heroes boast buildable formulas, delivering both length and volume to your lashes without compromising on durability.

Each one has been put through its paces, so read on for my honest thoughts on each product – and get ready to say ‘goodbye’ to panda eyes and ‘hello’ to perfect lashes that withstand rain, sweat, and tears…

best-waterproof-mascara

14

Writer Lucy tested out 13 of the best waterproof mascaras on the marketCredit: Lucy Gornall

Best waterproof mascaras at a glance:

Mac Mascara in Extreme Dimension Waterproof

best-waterproof-mascara

14

This Mac mascara was our favourite overallCredit: Lucy Gornall

Mac Mascara in Extreme Dimension Waterproof, £25

Pros: Seriously thick, great brush

Cons: Quite expensive

Rating: 5/5

Mac says that this is a lightweight, whipped mascara and I can see why.

Honestly, this is hands down one of my favourite mascaras as the wand seamlessly pulls out of the tube, with just enough mascara liquid on the brush.

Applying this mascara is like a dream; I didn’t need many coats for a voluminous, dark look, and despite a few clumps lingering on the brush, my lashes were clump-free.

I loved the look of my lashes after applying this Mac mascara, and it lasted throughout a gym workout, a shower, and the rest of my day.

Plus, when I applied this mascara, the entire lash was coated from root to tip and there was zero smudging. 

Hands down, this mascara is worth every penny and I am already recommending it to all my friends and family.

Shade: 3D Black, Size: 12g, Vegan: No

Lancôme Hypnôse Drama Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

It’s expensive, but the curved brush of the Lancôme Hypnôse Drama Waterproof Mascara grabs onto all lashesCredit: Lucy Gornall

Lancôme Hypnôse Drama Waterproof Mascara, £29 £23.20

Pros: Sleek bottle, curved brush grabs all lashes

Cons: Expensive

Rating: 5/5

Lancome is a dream brand; its products do what they claim, and they do it well.

This mascara is essentially the waterproof version of the cult Hypnôse Drama Mascara, and it’s just as good.

I love Lancome packaging; it’s sleek and chic and always looks expensive. For just under £30, though (when not on sale) you’d hope this mascara looks expensive — it costs the equivalent of my weekly food shop. 

The curved brush of this mascara latched onto every one of my lashes and gave my eyes a really nice wide-open look. This is ideal on those mornings when a lack of sleep leaves your eyes looking half-closed.

Lancome says that the waterproof formula of this mascara has up to 24-hour hold, and I can certainly vouch for the claim that it stays put. I had dark eyes and long lashes all day long! Even my tiny lashes were caught by this brush.

Taking this mascara off was also simple and I wasn’t left with awful panda eyes or clumps of mascara that wouldn’t budge.

Shade: Excessive Black, Size: 6ml, Vegan: No


READ MORE:


Mavala Volume and Length Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

The Mavala mascara packs a ton of health perksCredit: Lucy Gornall

Mavala Volume and Length Waterproof Mascara, £19.40 £17.46

Pros: Great price, contains healthy ingredients

Cons: A bit clumpy

Rating: 5/5

The Mavala mascara comes in a bottle that looks nothing like the others we tested. It’s white for starters and it looks almost slightly medical, as though it’s filled with health perks.

That sounds odd for a mascara, but when I researched the ingredients, it turns out there are actually several lash-boosting benefits. 

It’s protein enriched, offering your lashes extra nourishment, while its antioxidant ingredients hydrate too. Meanwhile, Bisabolol is soothing, meaning less irritation. This makes it great for sensitive eyes. 

I like the brush as it’s thick and contains zero clumps, plus it just glides out of the tube really nicely. Applying this mascara was a dream as it slid onto my lashes without any bumps and it latched onto every lash offering a nice intense dark colour.

You can pick up this mascara in several different shades too, so if you don’t fancy black, like me, you could opt for a blue or even a plum shade.

Shade: Black, Size: 10ml, Vegan: No

Benefit Badgal Bang Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

Although the brush is slightly flimsy, you don’t need many coats of this mascara to achieve an intense lookCredit: Lucy Gornall

Benefit Badgal Bang Waterproof Mascara, £27

Pros: Catches every lash, don’t need many coats to achieve an intense black

Cons: A thicker brush would be nice

Rating: 4.5/5

I wore this to the gym and for the rest of my day and it didn’t smudge or budge, so I know this is a reliable mascara.

The bottle is beautifully designed and Benefit tends to be one of those brands that looks good on your bathroom shelf or in your makeup bag. 

I will say that I prefer a thicker brush, and when I pulled this brush out of the tube, I didn’t feel like it would do a great job. But having said that, I managed to achieve a pretty dark intense lash look with just a couple of coats and the brush definitely caught every lash, from root to tip, as the product claims.

It caught even the small lashes on the bottom, which I often find end up carrying big mascara clumps. 

This mascara also contains provitamin B5 which apparently is known to fuel thickness, so that’s a bonus.

Shade: Black, Size: 8.5g, Vegan: No

Clinique High Impact Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

We couldn’t find any downsides to Clinique’s waterproof mascaraCredit: Lucy Gornall

Clinique High Impact Waterproof Mascara, £25

Pros: No clumps, smooth application, brush seamlessly pulls out of tube

Cons: None

Rating: 4.5/5

When a mascara starts to veer above the £15 mark, I do expect good things.

Clinique hasn’t disappointed with this mascara; the brush pulls effortlessly out of the tube which is incredibly satisfying and it feels like a nice, expensive product. 

I didn’t need many coats to get a bold colour, and the brush caught every lash easily, with no clumps. Plus, it stuck all day through a workout and a full out-and-about in the city. There was also no smudging around the eyes.

Clinique also says this is ideal for sensitive eyes and contact lens wearers too, so you can rest safe in the knowledge that your eyes won’t suffer.

Another point I will make about Clinique is that its products always feel ‘clean’, from the nice, natural green packaging (including this mascara tube) to the feel of the product itself, which always does what it says without feeling heavy or chemical-heavy.

Shade: Black or black brown, Size: 8ml, Vegan: No

Maybelline Lash Sensational Sky High Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

Maybe she’s born with it…Credit: Lucy Gornall

Maybelline Lash Sensational Sky High Waterproof Mascara, £12.99 £9.49

Pros: Love the bottle, cheaper than some alternatives, stayed in place all day

Cons: Ever so slightly clumpy

Rating: 4/5

As Maybelline would say: “Maybe she’s born with it; maybe it’s Maybelline.’

Well, I wasn’t born with incredibly long lashes, but this Maybelline mascara certainly gave me the volume and length I was after.

This lasted through a sweaty run and through the rest of my day, but came off easily when I finally went to bed in the evening. During the day, though, it didn’t budge an inch.

The price is mid-range, which makes it more affordable than many others, and Maybelline is one of those brands you can just rely on. It’s a household name, after all. 

I liked how the brush smoothly pulled out of the bottle, and the brush definitely latched on to all my lashes really well. Plus, the mascara formula has apparently been ‘infused with bamboo extract and fibres for long, full lashes that never get weighed down’.

This mascara was ever so slightly clumpy on the smaller lashes, but it wasn’t too much of a problem. 

I’ll definitely be keeping this in my handbag going forward.

Shade: Black, Size: 9.6ml, Vegan: No

Boots No7 Intense Volume Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

The No7 Intense Volume Waterproof Mascara is great for tired eyesCredit: Lucy Gornall

No7 Intense Volume Waterproof Mascara, £9.56

Pros: Thick brush, leaves zero clumps, good price point

Cons: Several layers needed to achieve an intense colour

Rating: 4/5

Another brand that can pretty much always be relied on is Boots’ No7.

This waterproof mascara is most certainly waterproof, and only smudged slightly when I rubbed my wet eyes after coming out of the shower; pretty impressive considering how soaked my face was.

I like the brush and how smooth it comes out of the tube, and I like how nice it feels to apply to lashes. I picked up even the smallest of lashes with this mascara wand, though I did need several coats to really get the dark black colour that I love.

I wore this on a Saturday morning following a measly five hours of sleep and it definitely helped me to look more awake. Sometimes, you just need to fake it till you make it!

Shade: , Size: 7ml, Vegan: Black

Freezeframe Instant Lash Xtreme

best-waterproof-mascara

14

Freeze Frame’s Instant Lash Xtreme is the most expensive mascara we testedCredit: Lucy Gornall

Instant Lash Xtreme, £38

Pros: Comes off easily, clings to every lash, sob-proof (I wore it to a wedding)

Cons: Very expensive, not as bold as I’d like

Rating: 4/5

I was hoping for the crème de la crème of mascaras with this one, considering its eye-wateringly high price. 

It didn’t disappoint.

The aim of this mascara is to give the look of professional lash extensions. I’m not sure if it did that, but it certainly brushed on incredibly smoothly, opened up my eyes and stayed put during a very teary wedding ceremony.

I loved the brush too, which caught every lash and made me look awake and alert (despite a groggy wine head…).

Despite this mascara being budge-proof when I cried and sweated, it was easy to remove at the end of the day, which is always a good thing as I find that overly rubbing my eyes to remove makeup ruins the thin skin that sits around my peepers.

Shade: Black, Size: 8ml, Vegan: Yes

Catrice Pure Volume Mascara Waterproof

best-waterproof-mascara

14

Another product by Catrice, this feels more expensive than it isCredit: Lucy Gornall

Catrice Pure Volume Mascara Waterproof, £3.95

Pros: Feels expensive, thick brush

Cons: A little clumpy

Rating: 4/5

The first thing I noticed about this bargain mascara was how totally non-bargain it felt. The tube feels quality and I love the gold lid. 

Luckily, the mascara itself is of a decent quality. I actually got caught in a classic British downpour whilst wearing this, with zero brolly or hood. My face was dripping, yet my cheap-as-chips mascara stayed put. So it’s certainly waterproof. 

As for the mascara itself, it applies beautifully, and every lash was caught by the brush.

I did apply a few layers for the darkness I desire, but this is my personal preference. As I am dark-haired, I like my lashes to be extra dark! 

This mascara is also enriched with ricinus oil and almond oil to help nourish lashes and promote hair growth, so I was pretty happy knowing that I was showing my lashes plenty of love.

Shade: Black, Size: 10ml, Vegan: Yes

Collection Lash Surge Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

If you’re doing your makeup in a rush, this affordable Collection mascara is for youCredit: Lucy Gornall

Collection Lash Surge Mascara, £5.99

Pros: Smells delicious, dark intense colour

Cons: Brush gets a little clumpy, smudges

Rating: 3.5/5

The dual wand applicator that comes with this mascara means that an even amount of product is layered on the lashes, so there are fewer clumps and less smudging under the eyes, which is ideal for people like me who are always applying their makeup in a rush.

However, over the course of a morning, I did notice some smudging from this mascara which was annoying as I didn’t realise until I looked in a mirror and had to do a cheeky little undereye sweep with my finger.

Generally though, a good amount of mascara came out when I applied this and I did only need a couple of coats for a really intense set of lashes.

Several of the more expensive mascaras didn’t have this level of intensity, so that’s a big positive for this bargain five quid product.

Shade: Black, Size: 8ml, Vegan: No

Catrice Glam & Doll False Lashes Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

The perfect cheap mascara for throwing into your handbagCredit: Lucy Gornall

Catrice Glam & Doll False Lashes Waterproof Mascara, £3.50 £3.30

Pros: Lovely design, smooth application

Cons: Brush feels quite thin, took a few coats to see visible difference

Rating: 3.5/5

This is another bargain mascara which is ideal for carrying around in your handbag. It costs less than a fiver, so I didn’t feel too precious about it and if I had lost it, I wouldn’t have had a meltdown. 

The brush is curved slightly which contributes to the ‘Glam and Doll False Lash effect’ as it latches to every lash for a really wide-eye appearance. But, I needed several coats to see a big difference and the brush did feel quite thin. 

I did like the fact that the mascara lived up to its waterproof claim as it didn’t budge at all throughout the day and I didn’t need to reapply either.

Again, this mascara just goes to show that the cheaper options can deliver really good results.

Shade: Black, Size: 10ml, Vegan: No

Essence I Love Extreme Crazy Volume Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

£2.45 for a waterproof mascara is cheap by anyone’s standardsCredit: Lucy Gornall

Essence I Love Extreme Crazy Volume Waterproof Mascara, £2.33 (campaign price)

Pros: Smells lovely, thick and bold, great brush, latched onto every lash, super cheap

Cons: Smudged a little, hard to get off completely

Rating: 3.5/5

A £2.33 mascara that’s actually decent is hard to come by. Until now.

For anyone wanting a cheaper option that works, then this fits the bill. The brush is super thick and although I did need to apply several coats, the brush did grab every lash, giving an even coating of mascara. 

Plus, as the name suggests, this mascara does offer mega volume; my eyes were dark! A gym workout, Pilates, meeting and a dinner date were no bother for this mascara as it stayed put throughout.

It was a little tricky to take off, but for £2.33, I really cannot fault this.

Shade: Black, Size: 12ml, Vegan: No

Essence Lash Princess False Lash Waterproof Mascara

best-waterproof-mascara

14

We had to require this several times throughout the day, but it’s still a total bargainCredit: Lucy Gornall

Essence Lash Princess False Lash Waterproof Mascara, £3.29

Pros: No clumps, total bargain, very sweatproof

Cons: Requires reapplication

Rating: 3/5

Essence is a brand that’s been around for a while, and it’s notorious for its low price-point products.

But low price doesn’t mean bad quality, as this mascara proves.

It stood the test of time when I wore it in the gym during a brutally sweaty boxing session on a Friday morning. There was minimal smudging around the eyes, and when I rubbed my eyes with a towel, I didn’t end up looking like a panda. 

Much like the other cheaper mascaras, you do need a fair few coats to really see the benefit of high-impact lashes, but there was actually minimal clumping on the lashes when I applied this mascara and the colour itself is dark. 

I did reapply a couple of times during the day but this was more so that my lashes were lengthened as opposed to wanting a darker eye. 

Big fan of this one; it’s made it into the gym bag makeup case already.

Shade: Black, Size: 12ml, Vegan: No (but is cruelty-free)

Where can I buy waterproof mascara in the UK?

Finding the perfect waterproof mascara can be a daunting task. However, with numerous options available both in-store and online, you’re definitely spoilt for choice.

Not only does investing in a waterproof mascara promise smudge-free, flake-resistant lashes, but it also provides peace of mind in the face of our unpredictable British weather.

Whether you prefer the convenience of online shopping or the experience of browsing in-store, waterproof mascaras are readily available – so you can effortlessly elevate your lash game.

To help you get started, we’ve listed some of our favourite retailers below:

How much does waterproof mascara cost?

Curious about the cost of achieving smudge-free, waterproof lashes? As with most beauty products, prices can vary depending on factors like brand, formulation and retailer.

From budget-friendly options to high-end splurges, you’ll definitely find something that suits your budget.

To give you an idea of what to expect; in our roundup, the most expensive waterproof mascara was Freezeframe’s Instant Lash Xtreme at £38, which certainly didn’t disappoint.

Meanwhile, the cheapest was Essence I Love Extreme Crazy Volume Waterproof Mascara which at a campaign price of just £2.33 definitely fits the bill if you’re on a tight budget.

Can I wear waterproof mascara while swimming?

Yes! Waterproof mascara is designed to withstand moisture and is often marketed as suitable for activities like swimming.

Its formulation creates a barrier against water, helping to prevent smudging and flaking, even when exposed to splashes or full immersion.

However, while it provides enhanced durability compared to regular mascara, its effectiveness may vary depending on the product, application and how long you’re in the water.

Some people find waterproof mascara ideal for swimming, while others prefer additional eye protection like goggles. See how you get on and what you prefer: personally, we love it if we’re headed to the beach and know there’ll be some splashes!

How to remove waterproof mascara

International makeup artist and content creator Sophia Brad says that a cleansing balm or oil-based cleanser is the best way to remove waterproof mascara.

“Gently massage your closed eyes, feeling how the mascara is dissolving and then rinse it off with warm water or a wipe with a damp cloth,” she says.

“I often double cleanse either with a gel or mousse cleanser or micellar water. Keep in mind that any waterproof product takes a bit longer to remove, so be patient. Needless to say as you’re dealing with your eye area it’s important to be gentle.”

What to look for in a waterproof mascara

“One thing to look for is the word ‘waterproof’ rather than ‘water-resistant’, explains Sophia.

“Just like any other mascara it’s down to the effect you want it to have on your lashes, may it be volume, length, curl, etc.

“Waterproof mascaras tend to feel less wet at application as they contain waxes and some of them contain traces of alcohol, and therefore will dry quicker which also means that after using it for a couple of months some of them can start to crumble a few hours into wearing them. So if you’re a contact lens wearer this might cause you some mild irritation.

“This will be your sign to replace your waterproof mascara – probably sooner than your regular mascara.”

How to stop waterproof mascara from smudging

There is in fact a nifty card trick you can try to neaten up your mascara application.

“Position a business card or bank card on your moving eyelid, apply your mascara and any smudges will end up on the card rather than your eyelid,” says Sophia.

“The rule with any fresh mascara smudges is to let them dry and then remove them with a cotton bud.”



Source link

I tested three lightweight sun creams that are perfect for summer

I’M often asked for my top SPF picks now we’re heading into summer.

Here are three of my favourites that prove you can get a lightweight sun cream that isn’t greasy.

Budget

Bondi Sands SPF 50+ fragrance-free face sunscreen fluid.

4

Bondi Sands Everyday Non Tinted Face Fluid SPF50+ is my top pick

Bondi Sands Everyday Non Tinted Face Fluid SPF50+, £7.99 for 50ml, boots.com

Better known as a fake tan brand, it also has a cracking skincare range, with more than 20 sunscreens to choose from.

This is my top pick – not least because it’s great value for money.

It’s lightweight and sinks into skin quickly and leaves a semi-matte finish that’s not at all sticky.

It also layers well when it comes to reapplication and doesn’t pill.

There’s no added fragrance, but it has the classic sun cream scent so I tend to use it on holiday rather than every day.

Mid-range

Bioderma Photoderm XDefense Ultra-Fluid SPF 50+ sunscreen bottle.

4

The Bioderma formula is extremely thin, so it doesn’t feel cloying or oily on skin

Bioderma XDefense Ultra Fluid SPF50+ Invisible, £19, 40ml, lookfantastic.com

The formula is extremely thin, so it doesn’t feel cloying or oily on skin, and it absorbs in a matter of seconds so it’s great for wearing under make-up as you don’t have to wait for it to dry down.

I have super sensitive eyes which are easily irritated by sunscreen and this doesn’t cause me any problems even though it’s lightly fragranced.

It’s also non-comedogenic so won’t cause spots, which is a godsend as I just have to glance at the wrong product and I’ll break out.

Can coloured mascaras help turn back the clock?

It’s a great middle of the road SPF that’s suitable for all skin types.

Luxury

Trinny London See The Light SPF 50+ moisturiser.

4

Trinny London See The Light SPF 50+ Moisturiser has been my go-to everyday sunscreen

Trinny London See The Light SPF 50+ Moisturiser, £46 for 50ml, trinnylondon.com

Since this launched two summers ago, it has been my go-to everyday sunscreen.

It took three years to get the formula right, but it was worth the wait. It feels more like a moisturiser than an SPF.

The packaging looks more like premium skincare than sun protection, as well as PA++++ UVA protection ( the highest level of UVA protection in sunscreens) and SPF50 UVB.

You certainly get what you pay for with this one.

Pick of the week

Two Utan undertone spray bottles and boxes.

4

Instant tan has had a serious glow up this year

INSTANT tan has had a serious glow up this year.

Utan Instant Tan, £17.99, comes in two versions – cool and warm – with a shade tailored to the hue of your skin for a natural sun-kissed look.

If you’re not sure of your undertones – look at your jewellery; silver tends to suit cool best, whereas gold flatters warm.

The air-brush mist dries in 30 seconds, and washes off with soapy-water.

Stock up at utan.co.uk.

Source link