Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

From warming winter teas to zesty stir-fries, ginger (Zingiber officinale) has long been a kitchen staple. But beyond its culinary charm, this spicy root has a rich history in traditional medicine – and modern science is catching up. Studies now show that ginger may offer a wide range of health benefits, from easing nausea and relieving colds to reducing inflammation and supporting heart health.

Here’s what you need to know:

1. Nausea relief

Multiple clinical trials have shown consistent evidence that ginger can reduce nausea and vomiting, particularly when compared to a placebo. The NHS even recommends ginger-containing foods or teas for easing nausea.

Ginger seems especially effective for nausea during pregnancy. In small doses, it’s considered a safe and effective option for people who don’t respond well to standard anti-nausea treatments.

There’s also promising evidence that ginger can help with chemotherapy-induced nausea, though results are mixed when it comes to motion sickness and post-surgery nausea.

Researchers believe ginger’s anti-nausea effects may work by blocking serotonin receptors and acting on both the gut and brain. It may also help by reducing gas and bloating in the digestive tract.

2. Anti-inflammatory benefits

Ginger is rich in bioactive compounds, such as gingerol and shogaol, which have strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

Recent research suggests ginger supplements may help regulate inflammation, especially in autoimmune conditions. One study found that ginger reduced the activity of neutrophils — white blood cells that often become overactive in diseases like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and antiphospholipid syndrome.

Neutrophils produce extracellular traps (NETs), which are web-like structures used to trap and kill pathogens. But when NETs form excessively, they can fuel autoimmune diseases. In the study, taking ginger daily for one week significantly reduced NET formation.

While this study used ginger supplements, it’s unclear whether fresh ginger or tea has the same effect. Still, the findings suggest ginger may be a helpful, natural option for people with certain autoimmune conditions – though more research is needed.

Ginger also has antimicrobial properties, meaning it can help combat bacteria, viruses and other harmful microbes. Combined with its anti-inflammatory effects, this makes ginger a popular remedy for easing cold and flu symptoms like sore throats.

3. Pain management

When it comes to pain, the research on ginger is encouraging – though not conclusive. Some studies show that ginger extract can reduce knee pain and stiffness in people with osteoarthritis, especially during the early stages of treatment. However, results vary, and not everyone experiences the same level of relief.

For muscle pain, one study found that taking two grams of ginger daily for 11 days reduced soreness after exercise.

Ginger may also ease menstrual pain. In fact, some studies suggest its effectiveness rivals that of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen.

Researchers believe ginger works by activating pathways in the nervous system that dampen pain signals. It may also inhibit inflammatory chemicals like prostaglandins and leukotrienes.

4. Heart health and diabetes support

High blood pressure, high blood sugar and elevated “bad” cholesterol (low-density lipoprotein or LDL cholesterol) are all risk factors for heart disease. Ginger may help with all three.

A 2022 review of 26 clinical trials found that ginger supplementation can significantly improve cholesterol levels — lowering triglycerides, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, while raising HDL (“good”) cholesterol. It may also lower blood pressure.

For people with type 2 diabetes, ginger could offer additional benefits. A review of ten studies found that taking one to three grams of ginger daily for four to 12 weeks helped improve both cholesterol levels and blood sugar control.

These benefits appear to come from multiple mechanisms, including improved insulin sensitivity, enhanced glucose uptake in cells, and reduced oxidative stress. Ginger’s anti-inflammatory actions may also contribute to its heart-protective effects.

Some early research suggests that ginger may also offer benefits for sexual health, though evidence in humans is still limited. Animal studies have found that ginger can boost testosterone levels, improve blood flow, and enhance sexual behaviour. In traditional medicine systems, it has long been used as an aphrodisiac. While there’s not yet strong clinical evidence to confirm a direct impact on libido, ginger’s anti-inflammatory, circulatory and hormonal effects could play a supportive role, particularly for people managing conditions like diabetes or oxidative stress.

5. Brain health and cancer research

Emerging evidence suggests ginger may also offer neuroprotective and anti-cancer benefits. Lab-based studies show that ginger compounds can help protect brain cells from oxidative damage – a key factor in neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s.

Other in-vitro research has found that ginger can slow the growth of some cancer cells. However, these findings are still in early stages and more research is needed to confirm their relevance in humans.

Ginger is generally safe when consumed in food or tea. But like any supplement, it should be used in moderation.

Doses above four grams a day may cause side effects such as heartburn, bloating, diarrhoea or mouth irritation. These are usually mild and temporary.

Certain groups should use caution with high doses. Ginger may increase bleeding risk in people on blood thinners (like warfarin, aspirin or clopidogrel), and it can enhance the effects of diabetes or blood pressure medications, potentially leading to low blood sugar or blood pressure. Pregnant women should also consult a doctor before using high doses.

So ginger isn’t just a fragrant kitchen spice – it’s a natural remedy with growing scientific support. For most people, enjoying ginger in food or tea is a safe and effective way to tap into its therapeutic potential. If you’re considering taking supplements, it’s always best to speak with your doctor or pharmacist first, especially if you’re managing a medical condition or taking medication.

Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. From arthritis to nausea: five ways ginger could benefit your health – https://theconversation.com/from-arthritis-to-nausea-five-ways-ginger-could-benefit-your-health-261506

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Samuel Walker, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, Zooarchaeology, Bournemouth University

As the Arctic warms faster than anywhere else on Earth, animals that have evolved to survive the cold face unprecedented challenges. While scientists are learning more about how modern wildlife responds to environmental change, we still know little about how species coped in the past.

Our new study investigates the oldest-known diverse animal community from the European Arctic, dating back 75,000 years. Preserved deep inside a cave in northern Norway, it offers a rare insight into how Arctic ecosystems functioned during a slightly warmer phase of the last ice age.

The Arctic region underwent repeated advances and retreats of glacial ice throughout the last ice age (118,000-11,000 years ago) – a sequence of colder full-glacial conditions (stadials) and warmer phases (interstadials), during which the glaciers retreated to higher elevations. These fluctuating conditions resulted in successive migrations and retractions of animals and plants, eventually shaping the animal communities we see today.

A consequence of being in a glacially active area is that sediment deposits are easily destroyed, as glaciers carve across the landscape and meltwater flushes the caves bare. This has left very few records of the animals and ecosystems prior to the end of the last ice age, around 11,000 years ago.

But remarkably, one sediment deposit has survived intact for more than 75,000 years within Arne Qvamgrotta, a branch off the larger Storsteinhola karst cave system in Norway.

This cave is tucked just within the Arctic Circle in the shadow of Norway’s national mountain, Stetind, on the outskirts of the small coastal town of Kjøpsvik, Nordland. The region is home to thousands of karst caves formed through water dissolving the underlying bedrock, resulting in a dramatic and breathtaking landscapes both above and below ground.

The intact sediment deposit with preserved bones in Arne Qvamgrotta was first discovered in the early 1990s, during industrial mining activity for limestone. In 2021 and 2022, our team – led by the University of Oslo – returned to the cave to explore these sediments and excavate and recover bone material, to better understand the species diversity in this unusual deposit. Our analyses provide a rare ecological snapshot of the last ice age.

We recovered more than 6,000 bone fragments, on which we used comparative osteology (comparing bone shape and structure to identify species) and ancient-DNA metabarcoding (identifying fragmented bones by analysing DNA strands and matching them to a database of species). Using these techniques, we identified 46 different kinds of animal (to family, genus and species levels) including mammals, birds and fish living both on land and in the sea.

These species include the third-oldest polar bear ever discovered, plus walrus, bowhead whale and seabirds such as king eider and puffin. We found fish including the Arctic grayling and Atlantic cod. One of the most important finds is the now-regionally extinct collared lemming, an animal not previously been identified in Scandinavia.

We used various dating techniques that show the bones are around 75,000 years old – dating back to a slightly warmer (interstadial) phase of the last ice age.

The animals we found show that, during this time in this part of Norway, the coastal land was ice-free – enabling the easy northward movement of migratory reindeer and freshwater fish, for example. We also found a rich mix of marine and coastal animals that support the presence of seasonal sea ice.

This animal community is distinctly different from the most commonly found ice-age megafauna. These include the woolly mammoth and musk ox that are typically associated with the mammoth steppe – the cold, dry grasslands that stretched across much of Europe, North America and northern Asia during the last ice age.

This difference probably reflects the unique coastal setting and landscape surrounding Arne Qvamgrotta, which would have supported a different kind of ecosystem.

Further ancient-DNA analyses from some of the bones reveal that the lineages of the polar bear, collared lemming and Arctic fox from this time and place are now extinct. This suggests these animals could not follow the changing habitats or find refuge during later cold periods of the last ice age – highlighting how vulnerable nature can be under changing climate conditions.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Samuel Walker receives funding from the British Academy.

Sanne Boessenkool receives funding from The Research Council of Norway.

– ref. Our DNA analysis of 75,000-year-old bones in Arctic caves reveals how animals responded to changing climates – https://theconversation.com/our-dna-analysis-of-75-000-year-old-bones-in-arctic-caves-reveals-how-animals-responded-to-changing-climates-261409

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew B Avison, Professor of Molecular Bacteriology, University of Bristol

Bagging up and disposing of your pet’s poo is a necessary, albeit unpleasant, part of responsible pet ownership. But a new UK government initiative will be asking people to send them their pets’ poo instead of throwing it away.

As strange as that might sound, the aim of this initiative is to test for antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

A growing number of bacterial species are evolving resistance to the antibiotics designed to kill them. This means that many common infections which were once easily treated are now becoming harder to get rid of.

The World Health Organization lists antimicrobial resistance as one of the top global public health threats, given estimates that antibiotic resistant bacteria were directly responsible for 1.27 million deaths worldwide in 2019.

Antibiotic-resistant superbugs are all around us. We even carry them on our skin and in our gut. You mainly pick antibiotic resistant bugs up from other people – but you can also pick them up from food, or by accidentally swallowing them if they get on your fingers and you haven’t washed your hands before touching your mouth.

There are plenty of documented examples of superbugs being passed from pet to person, as well.

Superbugs find their way into our pets’ bodies through similar means. Our pets swallow them either when eating, drinking, licking or chewing contaminated objects. Once swallowed, they enter the animal’s gut and multiply – then get passed out in its poo.

It then only takes a tiny amount of your pet’s poo to be accidentally swallowed by you for the bacteria to end up in your gut. This could happen during routine moments with your pet – such as when it licks your face, or if you forget to wash your hands after cleaning up after them.

Bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella and Enterococci can be found in pet and human poo, and can cause infections in both.

These bacteria are normally harmless when present in the gut, but problems occur when, by chance, they get into places they don’t belong – such as the urinary tract, a wound or the bloodstream. The bacteria can then cause what’s known as an “opportunistic infection”.

Such infections are a particular risk for people whose immune systems are not functioning very well, and can be serious. Opportunistic infections kill over a million people globally each year.

We use antibiotics to treat opportunistic infections. But if the causative bacterium is a superbug that has evolved resistance to the antibiotic, this makes infections longer-lasting, more serious and more likely to kill.

Clues in poo

Because pet owners pick up some of their gut bacteria from their pets, this is why it’s useful to know whether the bacteria in a pet’s poo are antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

The UK initiative is the first formalised, nationwide attempt to monitor for antibiotic resistant bacteria in pets’ poo. However, it isn’t the first time researchers have studied pet poo to understand antibiotic resistance.

For example, my team recruited 600 adult dogs and almost 250 16 week-old puppies for a series of studies looking at the levels of antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli in their poo. We found them in almost every poo sample we analysed.

One benefit of measuring the levels of superbugs in pet poo is that it can help you figure out probable risk factors. Understanding where pets might have picked up these superbugs can potentially help reduce their risk of picking up more in future.

The new UK initiative may also help researchers identify which bacterial species are resistant to antibiotics, and pinpoint how many antibiotics a specific bacterium is resistant to.

Studies from my research group and others have demonstrated that the biggest risk factor associated with dogs having antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli superbugs in their poo is that they’re fed raw meat.

This is because resistant Escherichia coli can also be found in the poo of farm animals. Meat can become contaminated with these bacteria at slaughter. Cooking kills the bacteria – but if a pet eats the meat raw, these farm-origin superbugs can get into its gut.

The new monitoring study will work out how best to measure superbug levels, and will monitor levels for up to four years to see if they’re changing. The results might help us work out how to make superbugs go away.

How to reduce your risk

Even without waiting for its findings, there are things you can do if you want to reduce your risk of picking up superbugs from your pet.

Take hygiene seriously when cleaning up or after touching your pet. It’s highly likely your pet’s poo contains antibiotic-resistant superbugs. So make sure to wash your hands after cleaning up after or touching your pet. And don’t let your pet lick your face.

Minimise known risk factors. Since raw meat feeding can increase a pet’s likelihood of picking up superbugs, feed them cooked meat or kibble. Never feed cooked meat that has bones because cooking can make the bones break during chewing, which can cause serious harm.

Finally, follow your vet’s advice when your pet gets sick. If your pet is prescribed antibiotics, follow their advice to ensure your pet is properly treated.

Only a small proportion of the superbugs in your pet’s gut (and poo) will ever be picked up by you. Most of the superbugs that find their way in your gut will come from other people. So don’t put your pet in the dog house.

Matthew B Avison receives funding from UK Research and Innovation; National Institute for Health and Social Care Research; Welsh Government; Medical Research Foundation

– ref. What your pet’s poo can reveal about the spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs – https://theconversation.com/what-your-pets-poo-can-reveal-about-the-spread-of-antibiotic-resistant-superbugs-262397

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Trang Chu, Associate Fellow, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford

What turns a democratically elected leader into an authoritarian? The process is rarely abrupt. It unfolds gradually and is often justified as a necessary reform. It is framed as what the people wanted. All this makes it difficult for citizens to recognise what is happening until it’s too late.

Consider Viktor Orbán’s transformation in Hungary. Once celebrated as a liberal democrat who challenged communist rule, Orbán now controls 90% of the Hungarian media and has systematically packed the country’s constitutional court. His trajectory is now widely recognised as a textbook case of democratic backsliding.

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was initially praised for showing that democracy and Islamic governance could coexist. In early reforms, he lifted millions from poverty by challenging Turkey’s secular establishment – a feat that required exceptional confidence and a bold vision. Now, a decade on, Erdoğan has turned Turkey into what political scientists call a competitive authoritarian regime.

In the US, Donald Trump rose to power promising to “drain the swamp”. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro campaigned as an anti-corruption crusader who would restore the country’s moral foundations. Both have since weaponised democratic institutions to consolidate their own power.

Part of this shift is a psychological process we term the hubris arc. This sees a visionary leader become increasingly myopic once in office. Their early successes bolster their belief in their transformative capabilities, which gradually diminishes their capacity for self-criticism.

The visionary stage typically coincides with systemic failure. When established institutions prove inadequate for addressing public grievances, it provides fertile ground for leaders with exceptional self-confidence to emerge. These outsiders succeed precisely because they possess the psychological conviction that they can challenge entrenched systems and mobilise mass support through bold, unconventional approaches.

Such leaders excel at crafting compelling narratives that enable them to to transform public frustration into electoral momentum. They offer simplified solutions to complex problems, providing certainty where establishment politicians offer only incrementalism and compromise.

Losing perspective

But as visionary capacity increases, so too does myopia. Seeing a singular path with exceptional clarity necessitates narrowing one’s perceptual field.

These leaders initially succeed because their heightened focus cuts through the paralysis of nuanced thinking. But they quickly reach an inflection point where they face a fundamental choice: accept institutional constraints as necessary feedback mechanisms or redefine them as obstacles to their vision.

Those who maintain a productive vision actively build systems for honest feedback. They allow formal channels for dissent to continue and construct diverse advisory teams.

Where strong democratic institutions endure – independent media, empowered legislatures, autonomous courts – leaders must continue negotiating and compromising. This tends to keep their confidence grounded. Some leaders successfully work within these constraints, which proves that the descent into myopia is actually more a reflection of institutional weakness than psychological destiny.

Where institutions lack strength or leaders resist self-discipline, electoral success may embolden rather than restrain authoritarian tendencies. As leaders become increasingly convinced of their transformative vision, their ability to perceive alternatives diminishes.

This psychological narrowing manifests in predictable behaviours, notably eliminating dissenting voices. With every election victory, Orbán has replaced independent-minded allies with loyalists. Trump’s first presidency featured constant turnover among advisers who challenged him. His second is populated by people who can be trusted to toe the line.

Myopic decline follows when hubris reaches saturation. Once leaders systematically eliminate feedback mechanisms, they lose all capacity for self-correction. As their ability to process contradictory information deteriorates, they may increasingly conflate personal power with national interest.

This conflation appears most pronounced in cases where leaders have systematically weakened independent media and judicial oversight.

When leaders achieve complete institutional capture, this self-conception becomes institutionalised. Orbán’s declaration, “We have replaced a shipwrecked liberal democracy with a 21st-century Christian democracy,” reveals how personal vision becomes indistinguishable from national transformation.

Institutional capture occurs through different methods but serves similar purposes. Orbán’s control of the media and courts means he has created parallel institutions that exist solely to validate his vision. Erdoğan used emergency powers after a 2016 coup attempt to instigate mass purges.

In both cases, motivated reasoning becomes institutionalised: leaders come to control the institutions that usually determine what information is legitimate and enable forms of dissent.

The endpoint is a transformation in which opposition becomes an existential threat to the nation. When Orbán positions himself as defender of “illiberal democracy” against EU values, or when Erdoğan arrests his rivals, they frame dissent as treason.

Opposition is a threat not just to their power but to the nation’s essence. Maximum vision has produced maximum blindness. Institutions have been redesigned to perpetuate rather than puncture the delusion.

Resisting the decline

The robustness of democratic institutions is decisive in determining whether hubristic tendencies can be contained within democratic bounds or whether they culminate in authoritarian consolidation.

Hungary and Turkey display a more linear model of democratic erosion. Both Orbán and Erdoğan leveraged initial electoral mandates to systematically capture state institutions. Their hubris evolved from a tool for challenging establishments into a self-reinforcing system in which the regime’s vast sway over state institutions eliminated feedback mechanisms.

Bolsonaro’s slide toward authoritarianism – denying COVID science, attacking electoral systems, attempting to overturn his 2022 defeat – triggered immediate institutional pushback. Unlike Hungary or Turkey, where courts and civil society gradually bent to executive pressure, Brazilian institutions held firm.

Bolsonaro’s trajectory from populist outsider to authoritarian to electoral defeat and institutional rejection suggests that robust federal structures and an independent judiciary can function as circuit breakers. They can prevent permanent democratic capture.

The American experience presents a third model: democratic resilience under stress. Unlike Hungary and Turkey, where institutional capture succeeded, Trump’s first presidency tested whether these patterns could emerge in a system with deeper democratic roots and stronger institutional checks.

While his efforts to pressure state election officials and weaponise federal agencies followed recognisable authoritarian scripts, American institutions proved more resistant than their Hungarian or Turkish counterparts. Courts blocked key initiatives, state officials refused to “find votes,” and congressional oversight continued despite partisan pressures.

Yet even this institutional resistance came under severe strain, suggesting that democratic durability may depend more on specific design features and timing than general democratic culture.

The Trump stress test has revealed vulnerabilities. The erosion of democratic norms – when parties prioritise loyalty over constitutional obligations – creates openings for future exploitation.

The second Trump term could systematically target the weaknesses identified during his first: expanded emergency powers, strategic appointments to undermine the administrative state, and novel statutory interpretations to bypass Congress. The critical question is whether American institutions retain sufficient strength to again disrupt Trump’s trajectory.

The hubris arc appears inherent in populist psychology, underscoring why constitutional constraints and institutional checks are indispensable. Democracies survive not by finding perfect leaders but by constraining imperfect ones.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The hubris arc: how visionary politicians turn into authoritarians – https://theconversation.com/the-hubris-arc-how-visionary-politicians-turn-into-authoritarians-262562

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicholas John Wheeler, Professor of International Relations, Department of Political Science and International Studies and Non-Resident Senior Fellow at BASIC, University of Birmingham

The world entered its nuclear epoch 80 years ago on August 6 1945. The US dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, killing between 70,000 and 140,000 civilians by the end of that year.

A stark reminder of this immense destructive power came recently. On August 1, US president Donald Trump announced the redeployment of two submarines – presumably Ohio-class subs carrying ballistic missiles – in response to what he called “highly provocative statements” by Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev.

It may have been empty posturing by Trump. But one Ohio-class submarine (the US Navy has 14 in its fleet) carries approximately 90 warheads, each with destructive power many times greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki.

As the world remembers the devastation wrought by these bombings, the threat of nuclear conflict remains a persistent threat to humanity.

Frisch-Peierls memorandum

For many years it was believed that building an atomic weapon was not feasible given the amount of uranium-235 required for a bomb. This assumption changed in March 1940 when two refugee physicists – Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch, who both worked at the University of Birmingham – produced in secret what became known as the Frisch-Peierls memorandum.

Their memorandum showed that a powerful atomic bomb could be built using only a small amount of uranium-235. What drove Frisch and Peierls was fear that Nazi Germany might build the bomb first.

They wrote: “If one works on the assumption that Germany is, or will be, in the possession of this weapon … The most effective reply would be a counter-threat with a similar bomb. It would obviously be too late to start production when such a bomb is known to be in the hands of Germany, and the matter seems, therefore, very urgent.”

The Frisch-Peierls memorandum was submitted to the British government as a warning. Prime Minister Winston Churchill heeded the message, establishing the Maud committee a month later to investigate the military potential of atomic energy.

It reported in secret in July 1941, urging production of a bomb and Britain’s cooperation with the US in this endeavour. In a now-famous line, the committee said: “No nation would care to risk being caught without a weapon of such decisive possibilities.”

The demonstration of what the atomic bomb was capable of at Hiroshima, and then at Nagasaki, spurred others to follow the committee’s logic. The Soviet Union, fearing a US atomic monopoly, tested its first bomb in 1949. Britain joined the nuclear club in 1952, followed by France in 1960 and China in 1964.

It is widely accepted that Israel had developed nuclear capability by the early 1970s, though it has maintained a position of ambiguity. India and Pakistan became declared nuclear powers in 1998 and North Korea followed in 2006.

While factors such as national ambition and status played a role in proliferation, a key driving force was fear, fear of adversaries achieving a lasting strategic advantage and, in the case of North Korea, an external attack.

Fear’s centrality to the nuclear story is not only in relation to its role as a driver of proliferation. Nuclear fear has also been a key source of restraint. The most dramatic manifestation of this was the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

As I have argued elsewhere, shared fear of nuclear catastrophe led the then US president, John F. Kennedy, and his Soviet counterpart Nikita Khrushchev to develop empathy and trust. This was a key factor in the peaceful resolution of the crisis.

However, nuclear fear – and the deterrence it makes possible – is a fragile basis on which to safeguard humanity’s future. The world may have avoided the use of nuclear weapons since August 1945 through a combination of prudent statecraft and good luck. But how long is it before some combination of bad luck and reckless risk-taking leads to the use of nuclear weapons once again?

Russian nuclear sabre-rattling over Ukraine and the May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan, unleashing military force between two nuclear-armed states, are warnings that the ever-present threat of nuclear weapons still hangs over humanity.

In the cold war’s climate of deep distrust and nuclear fear, the US and Soviet Union at least had some shared guardrails and channels of communication. Arms control agreements agreed after the Cuban missile crisis limited superpower competition through the 1960s and 1970s. They continued to restrain US-Soviet competition in the early 1980s.

Nowadays, however, arms control has all but collapsed while reliable and trusted channels of communication between major nuclear adversaries are virtually non-existent. The prospects for regulating the nuclear arms competition between Russia, the US and China are bleak.

Replacing fear with trust

To mark the 80th anniversary of the advent of the nuclear epoch, the Nobel Laureate Assembly – a gathering of Nobel laureates and nuclear experts at the University of Chicago – warned in its 2025 Declaration for the Prevention of Nuclear War that: “Ultimately, security cannot be built on fear.”

If the bomb was born out of fear, then ensuring it is never used again requires replacing fear with trust. Ten years into the nuclear epoch, Albert Einstein and philosopher Bertrand Russell issued a manifesto signed by 11 signatories. It was created principally as a trust-building project between the east and west.

The manifesto concluded: “We appeal as human beings to human beings: remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

We now face the same choice the manifesto laid bare. One path leads to annihilation, the other to survival through a recognition of our common humanity.

Japan gives expression to that common humanity every August when Hiroshima and Nagasaki hold their peace memorial ceremonies. Remembering the victims and those who continue to suffer from the effects of the atomic bombings, these memorials look to a future where nuclear weapons no longer exist.

The nuclear bomb may have been born in fear. But only the building of trust, which may spring from that fear, can ensure it is never used again.

I have received past funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Open Society Foundations.

– ref. Fear built the nuclear bomb – only trust can ensure it is never used again – https://theconversation.com/fear-built-the-nuclear-bomb-only-trust-can-ensure-it-is-never-used-again-262637

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cat Acheson, Research Associate, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh

Plastics are everywhere – they’re even in you right now – and are making many of us sick. Now, global negotiators are fighting over whether that matters.

As 180 countries meet in Geneva to seek agreement on a global treaty on plastic pollution, a landmark review published in medical journal The Lancet has made the stakes clear. Plastics, the evidence shows, are a threat to human health – from womb to grave.

They’re linked to miscarriages, birth defects, heart disease and cancer. Plastics are harming people at every stage of the plastics lifecycle – from initial oil extraction to the production and use of plastic products, and their eventual disposal via landfill, incinerator or just being left in the environment.

Yet the possibility of a strong, health-centred treaty hangs in the balance. Campaigners, scientists and healthcare groups are pushing for strong measures to cap production and ban hazardous chemicals. But petrochemical producers and industry lobbyists are pushing back – arguing, against mounting evidence, that plastics are essential to saving lives.

The UN meeting in Geneva is the culmination of several years of negotiating. In theory, delegates will agree on a global treaty by August 15.

The current draft text, which will be the basis for these negotiations, contains provisional elements which could make a real difference. These include cutting plastic production (Article 6), banning plastic products and chemicals that are hazardous to humans or the environment (Article 3), and a section dedicated to protecting human health (Article 19).

But some negotiators oppose these elements, and there is a risk they will be watered down or scrapped entirely in the final treaty.

The so-called Like-Minded Group of countries – many of whose members are petrochemical producers including Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and Russia – has led the opposition to a health-centred treaty. They have done so by arguing that plastics are in fact essential for protecting health, due to the role of single-use plastic in modern medicine.

For example, Kuwait’s submission to the previous negotiating round in Busan, South Korea, last year called concerns about plastic “not inclusive”, and cited medical devices as proof that plastic saves lives. Saudi Arabia has opposed the inclusion of a dedicated article on health, arguing that this would divert the treaty away from its core purpose of managing plastic waste.

Since almost all plastic is made from oil or gas, these petrostates have a clear incentive to maintain the status quo of plastic production and dependency. No wonder they want to focus on managing waste, rather than making less in the first place.

Plastics industry lobbyists have also been accused of “infiltrating” the negotiations and wielding outsized influence. They too have pushed the narrative that plastics are essential for human health – for example, with posters displayed in Busan which claimed “plastics save lives”.

These lobby groups are pushing for healthcare plastics to be exempted from the treaty entirely, which would provide a significant loophole for plastic producers.

As evidence grows of the ways plastics are harming humans, claims they are necessary to safeguard our health are looking increasingly far-fetched. Of course, plastics are everywhere in modern healthcare. But in most cases, and especially with single-use plastics, they can and should be replaced with a less harmful alternative.

Civil society groups, scientists and healthcare professionals are building momentum for a strong health-centred treaty. The international nongovernmental organization Health Care Without Harm has coordinated an open letter rejecting exemptions for the health sector. Signed by 65 organisations representing 48 million health workers across 88 countries, it calls for a treaty that tackles the full plastics lifecycle – and says cutting unnecessary plastic in healthcare is both possible and necessary to protect patients.

The Scientists’ Coalition, made up of independent experts, has been instrumental in bringing evidence of plastics’ health effects into the debate, while groups like the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives have been pushing for the treaty to recognise that plastics, and especially their disposal, affect marginalised populations hardest. They argue that justice for the most affected people and places should be at the heart of the treaty.

The global plastics treaty is an unprecedented opportunity to take decisive, coordinated action to tackle one of the planet’s biggest threats. At stake in Geneva is whether health will stay at the heart of this treaty – or be sacrificed under pressure from industry and petrostates.

Cat Acheson receives funding from The Wellcome Trust for a project which partners with Health Care Without Harm.

Alice Street received a Wellcome Discovery Award for the project: ‘After the Single Use: Rethinking Medical Devices for Reuse, Resilience and Renewal’, which partners with Health Care Without Harm.

Rob Ralston is a member of Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Treaty.

– ref. Plastics and human health: what’s at stake in the global treaty talks in Geneva – https://theconversation.com/plastics-and-human-health-whats-at-stake-in-the-global-treaty-talks-in-geneva-262593

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol

Does anyone else think we’ve all become a bit too protein-obsessed? Once upon a time, we got our protein from meat, fish, dairy and pulses. Now it seems like every consumable product comes loaded with it — from energy bars to protein-packed cereals and baked goods.

I’m surprised no one’s thought of stirring it into their tea for a boost. Oh wait, they have.

That’s not to say I’m anti-protein. Far from it. Protein plays an essential role in body functions such as growth, immunity and digestion. It’s important that we get enough of it each day.

But the million-dollar questions we should be asking are: how much do we actually need? When is it too much, or too little? And where should we be getting it from?

Protein is one of the three macronutrients we need in the largest amounts – the others being carbohydrates and fats. Micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals are important too, but they’re needed in much smaller quantities — typically milligrams, or even micrograms.

Protein is involved in a huge range of physiological processes. It’s of course crucial for muscle growth and repair. Bodybuilders looking for an Adonis (or Amazonian) physique often consume large amounts alongside strength training. But protein isn’t just about muscles – it’s a core structural material for bone, skin, hair and nails too.

It also plays vital roles inside the body. It allows muscles to contract, makes up digestive and metabolic enzymes, and is a key component of haemoglobin (which carries oxygen), ferritin (which stores iron) and antibodies (which fight infection).

But remember: protein doesn’t work in isolation. Our bodies also rely on carbohydrates and fats — providing short and long-term energy sources that are just as important.

Carbohydrates provide four calories of energy per gram, and fats proide nine calories per gram. While protein can also be used as an energy source – also producing four calories per gram – carbs are more accessible for tissues to use rapidly. And crucially, building muscle also requires fuel. So, if your diet is too low in carbohydrates, your muscle gains may stall and you may find yourself depleted of energy.

In general, protein is filling and can help reduce snacking. And too little protein can be harmful. Protein deficiency can occur due to inadequate diet, eating disorders, or conditions such as cancer, Crohn’s, or liver disease. Symptoms include fatigue, muscle wasting and a weakened immune system.

Because protein also helps regulate fluid balance in the body, a deficiency can lead to swelling or oedema. In severe cases, as seen in some developing countries, the condition kwashiorkor — marked by a swollen belly — can result from inadequate protein intake.

How much?

It can sometimes be difficult to work out how much protein you should be eating each day, especially when different sources give variable advice.

A good starting point is to consider your overall energy requirements. Government recommendations suggest that up to 35% of your daily calories should come from fat, and up to 50% from carbohydrates. That leaves a minimum of 15% for protein — which for someone on a 2,500-calorie diet works out to about 95g of protein per day.

Another calculation accounts for your body size too, giving a value more specific to the individual. Around 0.8g protein per kilogram of body weight for a sedentary adult is advised.

For athletes and bodybuilders – who often aim for around 2g per kilogram — this can mean as much as 200g of protein a day. And that’s hard to achieve through regular food alone. For context, 30 eggs contain 200g of protein, as does 2.5kg of cooked beans. Certain foods have more protein (like the go-to chicken breast), though the overall volume of food required can still be high.

That’s where protein powder often comes in — usually offering 20g–30g of protein per scoop – as supplementation. It’s absolutely fine to incorporate some powder or shakes into a healthy diet alongside wholefoods, which are the best protein sources. But it’s important to set limits – and avoid the temptation to go overboard.

Too much

Is it possible to be taking on too much protein? The answer is yes, if you’re regularly consuming more than your body needs.

Excess protein is broken down and excreted through the kidneys, which may cause dehydration and place additional strain on renal function. Unused protein can also be converted into fat, potentially leading to weight gain. High-protein diets are sometimes associated with gastrointestinal side effects such as bloating, diarrhoea and bad breath.

And while many high-protein foods are healthier, others (such as red or processed meats) may also be high in saturated fat, which can increase the risk of serious conditions like heart disease.

So yes — protein is essential, but balance is key. Your daily needs depend on your body size, activity levels and general health. Consider your goals: are you aiming to maintain a certain weight, or looking to lose fat or gain muscle? Some starting points are:

• aim for at least 0.8g protein per kilogram of body mass daily
• balance it with adequate carbs and fats
• prioritise wholefood sources over protein supplements where possible
• increase your intake responsibly if you’re training hard or trying to gain muscle
• but be cautious with too high, sustained intakes — these may do more harm than good.

As someone who could do with a wee bit more in his own diet, I’m off to try that protein-in-my-tea trick. Wish me luck.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Dan Baumgardt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How much protein do you really need? Too much or too little can be harmful – https://theconversation.com/how-much-protein-do-you-really-need-too-much-or-too-little-can-be-harmful-261211

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James O’Donoghue, Research Associate Professor in Planetary Astronomy, Meteorology, University of Reading

Earth will complete a rotation 1.33 milliseconds earlier than usual on Tuesday, August 5. That makes it one of the shortest days of 2025 at 86,399.99867 seconds long. How that happens, and how we can even measure it with such precision, might make your head spin faster too.

On average, Earth physically rotates in 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds and 90.5 milliseconds – this is called a sidereal day. It is Earth’s “true” rotation relative to distant objects in deep space, like stars.

However, the kind of day most people go by is 24 hours long and that is called a solar day – it’s the time between two sunrises, or consecutive noons. The extra 4 minutes comes from the fact that Earth has to rotate 1 more degree, to 361 degrees, for the Sun to appear in the same place again.

Both kinds of day are slightly shorter on August 5 2025, largely due to what is happening with winds in Earth’s atmosphere, fluid circulation in the ocean and magma – and even the Moon’s gravitational pull.

Deviations from 24 hours have been accurately measured since the 1970s using atomic clocks and astronomy. Over the course of a year, these changes build up: in 1973, for example, the sum of deviations added up to +1,106 milliseconds, meaning that the Earth lagged behind in its rotation by just over a second. Leap seconds were introduced in the same year to correct for this, with one second added to the clock at the end of the day – 23:59:60.

Absurd levels of accuracy are needed in time-keeping. Global positioning systems (more commonly called GPS) can pinpoint where you are in space, that’s no problem. But if the planetary surface you are on has physically spun slightly faster or slower than expected that day, an uncorrected GPS won’t know that, and your position won’t match with your map.

A 1.33 millisecond deviation translates to a position error of about 62 cm at the equator, so 1973’s cumulative drift would have caused GPS errors of around half a kilometre if left uncorrected over the year.

Why doesn’t the Earth stay still?

To find out how fast the Earth is spinning at all, you need to find a reference frame in which, ideally, nothing is moving. Everything in space moves relative to everything else, but the farther we look, the more still things seem; just as distant hills appear to move slower while you’re on a train, and nearby farms rush by.

Luckily, there are objects so magnificently bright that they outshine entire galaxies. These are quasars, and they are visible across the universe from billions of light years away.

Quasars are supermassive blackholes up to billions of times the mass of our Sun, which emit between 100 and 10,000 times more light than our entire galaxy, the Milky Way. Quasars are detectable from billions of light years across the universe, where things are essentially stationary, so they act as cosmic beacons.

Radio telescopes measure our position relative to these, yielding values of Earth’s true rotation period to sub-millisecond accuracy.

Those ultra‑precise observations are also the starting point for computer models which include movements of the atmosphere, oceans, celestial motions and more to predict the length of day. This is how we know, in advance, when a day is shorter, and how to correct GPS as a result.

Winds in Earth’s atmosphere are the biggest influence on the length of each day as a result of their collisions with the land surface, particularly when they hit mountain ranges. Incredible as it may sound, wind actually slows the spin of the Earth this way.

Earth’s prevailing winds are fastest in the northern hemisphere winter, but slowest from June to August, so the summer months always bring the shortest days of the year (even though we tend to say these are the “longest” days in the northern hemisphere, because of their greater daylight duration).

These daily and seasonal changes are just short‑lived blips atop broader slowdowns. Over decades, the melting of the polar ice caps has been slowing the Earth’s rotation. To understand why, consider a spinning ballerina retracting their outstretched arms – they begin to spin much faster. A spinning ball, like Earth, is no different.

Earth is oblate, meaning the surface at the equator is 21.5 km farther from the centre of the planet than the surface at the poles. As climate change melts the polar ice caps, meltwater moves from the poles to the equator via the ocean. Rising sea levels mean water is farther from the surface, and just like the ballerina moving their arms back out, it aids Earth’s slowdown. Redistribution of Earth’s mass changes our rotation in similar ways, including by earthquakes.

The Moon, while beautiful, can be a huge drag over billions of years. Earth’s oceans are raised by the Moon’s gravity, but as the Earth rotates, the raised oceans are carried slightly ahead of the Moon in its orbit. But the Moon continues pulling on those oceans, dragging them backwards against the Earth’s anticlockwise rotation, which slows us down.

Earth’s rotational energy isn’t lost, it’s transferred to the Moon, which gains orbital speed and causes it to escape Earth’s gravity a little better – this is why it’s moving away from us at 3.8 cm a year. Our length of day has increased from 17 hours 2.5 billion years ago largely due to the Moon sapping Earth’s angular momentum over the eons.

Earth’s rotation has slowed every year from 1973 to 2020 (where precise measurements exist), with each year accumulating hundreds of milliseconds of lag, which has already been accounted for by adding 27 leap seconds. Things changed from 2020 – the Earth started spinning faster instead of slower every year, probably the result of angular momentum exchange between the Earth’s core and mantle, but modulated by the numerous other motions we’ve explored.

July 5, July 22 and August 5 were singled out as some of this year’s fastest days far in advance, because on top of the Earth’s internal motions and seasonal quirks in atmospheric winds, the Moon’s position in orbit also slows the Earth twice per orbit (every two weeks). This is because when the Moon is directly above the equator, all of its tidal drag acts east to west, but on these dates, it is positioned farthest north and south, weakening that effect.

You won’t notice the sunrise arrive 1.33 milliseconds sooner, but to precision atomic clocks, quasar‐referenced astronomical measurements, it will be obvious.

James O’Donoghue receives funding from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).

– ref. Why on Earth is the planet’s day getting shorter? – https://theconversation.com/why-on-earth-is-the-planets-day-getting-shorter-260946