The Conversation – UK – Page 31 – MIL Submissions Engine

October 30, 2025

Dam disasters of the 1920s made reservoirs safer – now the climate crisis is increasing risk again

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jamie Woodward, Professor of Physical Geography, University of Manchester

One hundred years ago, a catastrophic flood carrying enormous boulders swept through part of Dolgarrog village, north Wales, destroying several homes, a bridge and the local chapel. Ten adults and six children lost their lives. The tragedy was widely reported and King George V sent a message of condolence.

This was not a natural flood. It was caused by the failure of two dams impounding the Eigiau and Coedty reservoirs on the Carneddau plateau, high above Dolgarrog, following a wet October. Overtopped by inflow from the Eigiau breach, the Coedty dam failed catastrophically, unleashing a flood of some 1.7 million cubic metres. There was no time to warn the village.

The Dolgarrog disaster followed a reservoir failure at Skelmorlie, Scotland, in April 1925. Both brought attention to poor dam construction and inadequate maintenance practices, and led directly to the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act of 1930.

The act sought to ensure the structural safety of large reservoirs by introducing legal requirements for regular inspection and certification by qualified engineers. It was the first attempt in the UK to regulate the design, construction, and maintenance of reservoirs through statutory safety measures.

Since Dolgarrog, the UK has had an excellent reservoir safety record. But in late July 2019, the evacuation of more than 1,500 residents from Whaley Bridge downstream of Toddbrook reservoir in Derbyshire, England, was ordered. Toddbrook had received a month’s rain in just two days.

Swollen inflows overtopped the dam’s emergency spillway, undermining its concrete slabs. A large cavity appeared on the spillway, exposing the dam’s core, raising fears of a breach.

A Chinook helicopter dropped 400 tonnes of aggregate on the Toddbrook spillway to reinforce the damaged section, while fire services used high-capacity pumps to lower the water level and reduce pressure on the dam. After several days, engineers declared the Toddbrook dam stable enough to lift the evacuation order.

The Toddbrook incident was one of the most serious near failures of a dam in recent UK history. It showed how extreme rainfall events can threaten dam safety and communities living downstream. Gavin Tomlinson, the fire incident commander, said: “We were in a situation where we had five times as much water going in than we could take out. We absolutely thought it could fail. It was a very, very tense night.”

Following this scare, in April 2021, the UK government commissioned an independent review into reservoir safety. A ministerial direction was issued to owners of all large, raised reservoirs, making the formulation of emergency flood plans a legal requirement to ensure that they are prepared for an eventuality that could result in an uncontrolled release of water.

The threat from climate change

As geomorphologists who work on river processes and landforms, we are researching the landscape-changing effects of such dam breach floods, but also how topography can amplify the hazard to communities.

As the Dolgarrog disaster showed so graphically, reservoirs that drain into steep and narrow upland valleys present a particular hazard, especially where flows increase in speed and pick up destructive boulders. All aspects of the landscape setting should be part of flood emergency planning.

While the Toddbrook reservoir was compliant with existing legislation and had been recently inspected, it suffered “unforeseen and potentially critical damage that could have led to a catastrophe.” Questions were raised by local residents about how well it had been maintained. Repairs were nearing completion in late 2025.

Most reservoirs in upland Britain were constructed in the 19th century under hydrological conditions that no longer hold. Embankment dams and older masonry dams can be especially vulnerable to erosion, seepage, slope instability or overtopping.

The most common cause of dam failures is overtopping where the spillway cannot cope with floodwaters. Reservoir safety may also be challenged by rapid or sustained water level lowering during droughts. As pore pressures change, and soils dry out and crack, embankment stability can be compromised.

Climate change is increasing both storm and drought intensity in many parts of the UK posing a threat to reservoir safety. Climate models tell us that intense rainstorms that cause flash flooding will be five times more likely by 2080. Steep upland catchments in hard impermeable rocks are especially vulnerable to flash flooding, and this is where much of the UK’s water storage infrastructure is located.

The Dolgarrog disaster was the last time anyone was killed in the UK by a dam failure. But if intense storms and prolonged droughts are the new normal for our climate, the risk to ageing upland water storage infrastructure will likely increase.

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.

Jamie Woodward has received funding from research councils in the UK and Australia.

Jeff Warburton has received funding from UK research councils.

Stephen Tooth has received research funding from various sources, including charitable and non-charitable sources in the UK, Australia, South Africa, and USA.

– ref. Dam disasters of the 1920s made reservoirs safer – now the climate crisis is increasing risk again – https://theconversation.com/dam-disasters-of-the-1920s-made-reservoirs-safer-now-the-climate-crisis-is-increasing-risk-again-267449

October 30, 2025

Witch memorials are quietly spreading across Europe

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jan Machielsen, Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History, History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University

Across Europe, campaigns for national witch memorials are gathering pace. In the Netherlands, a charity recently announced it had selected the design for a monument in Roermond, the site of the country’s worst witch-hunt.

In Scotland, campaigners Claire Mitchell and Zoe Venditozzi published a manifesto, How To Kill A Witch, to continue pressure on the Scottish government for a state-funded monument. Their Witches of Scotland campaign had won an early victory in 2022 when first minister Nicola Sturgeon issued an official apology.

Across early modern Europe (1450-1750), between 40,000 and 50,000 people were executed as witches. Though the age and gender of the accused varied from place to place, roughly 75% to 80% of all victims were women.

Within Britain and Ireland, Scotland saw some of the fiercest witch-hunting. Historians have identified more than 3,800 accusations (84% women), leading to perhaps as many as 2,500 executions.

Despite these stark figures, there are still no official national witch memorials anywhere in Europe, although the Steilneset memorial in northern Norway, created in 2011, comes close.

The lack of such national memorials does not mean the witch hunt has been forgotten. Its memory has long offered moral lessons for the present.

On the other side of the Atlantic, descendants of those caught up in the infamous 1692 Salem witch trials were among the earliest to commemorate the victims. A cenotaph erected in 1885 by descendants of Rebecca Nurse, one of the Salem accused, may well have been the first.

In Europe, there are similar local memorials. A witches’ well installed outside Edinburgh Castle in 1894 was probably the earliest such memorial in Europe, but most local attempts at memorialisation have been much more recent.

Our project – supported by Cardiff University’s On Campus student internship scheme – mapped memorials around the world and created an inventory of 134 plaques, memorials, sites and museums, which skews heavily towards the 21st century. Of the sites that can be securely dated, nearly half were unveiled during the past decade.

#MeToo, politics and wartime bears

This growth in grassroots interest has several origins. It partly stems from renewed concern at present-day violence, both against women in general but also against suspected witches in the global south. Our research threw up one memorial in the Indian state of Odisha to deter modern vigilantism.

It also coincides with the popularisation of witch-hunting as a political metaphor and the #MeToo movement. The latter not only encouraged women to call out misogyny, in the process it also highlighted how few statues of non-royal women exist.

It was the sight of a statue of Wojtek, a Polish bear and second world war mascot in Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens, that inspired one of the Witches of Scotland campaigners. If a bear could be commemorated, why not any of the thousands of women executed as witches?

Overlaying witch memorials with the geography of the early modern witch-hunt reveals further striking patterns. With 29 local memorials, Scotland accounts for the largest share, followed by Germany with 24 – both epicentres of the early modern witch-hunt.

By contrast, France is virtually absent from our data. There is no memorial in the former Duchy of Lorraine, another notable witch-hunting hotspot, nor any marker in Paris of the sensational and infamous “affair of the poisons” that shook Louis XIV’s court.

Whether to remember is also a political choice. Memorials in the Basque country present witch-hunting as foreign (French and Spanish) impositions, while glossing over the role played by local officials and folkloric beliefs.

Catalonia saw relatively few trials but its nationalist politicians have spearheaded motions labelling the witch-hunt “institutionalised femicide”. In this way, calls for a memorial have become something of a vehicle for progressive nationalism.

How to remember can be fraught. Accusations of kitsch, commercialism and profit haunt museums in particular. Salem’s Witch Museum was once named the world’s second biggest tourist trap.

Perhaps for this reason, many communities have settled for straightforward plaques listing those executed for alleged witchcraft. In a similar spirit, streets in Catalonia and Scotland have been renamed in their memory as well.

Going further raises thorny questions of artistic licence and historical representation. Visual depictions risk perpetuating stereotypes about warts, noses and pointy hats.

On the other hand, portraying witches as alluring ignores a substantial body of research linking witchcraft fears to young mothers’ anxieties about the postmenopausal body. For those reasons, a monument on a Belgian roundabout of a naked witch “flying to freedom” on her broomstick surrounded by traffic sparked much debate among our project team.

Acts of remembering inevitably entail acts of forgetting, and there are pitfalls here to be avoided. Stronger, more centralised states saw less witch-hunting, not more. State and church-issued pardons and apologies may thus downplay the role that communities played in witch persecutions, including other women.

Remembering is never simple. Yet, as one of history’s most infamous forms of demonisation, the early modern witch-hunt will always teach us how easy it is to blame, and how difficult it is to understand.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

This project was supported by Cardiff University’s On Campus internship scheme. The authors would like to thank student interns Abigail Heneghan and Gabriel Hyde for creating the memorial database and for their thoughtful comments on this article.

Paul Webster 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. Witch memorials are quietly spreading across Europe – https://theconversation.com/witch-memorials-are-quietly-spreading-across-europe-265506

October 30, 2025

What will Trump’s deal with Xi mean for the US economy and relations with China? Expert Q&A

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Harper, Lecturer in International Relations, University of East London

It was 12 out of ten, said US president Donald Trump when reporting back on his meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. The two men met in the South Korean city of Busan on October 30, the first time they have come together face to face since 2019.

That, in itself, must be seen as progress after months of rising tensions. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the world’s two biggest powers have squared off in what has threatened to become an increasingly damaging trade war.

Their meeting by no means resulted in a trade deal – that will need to be agreed in coming months, if at all. But there is definitely a sense that a truce has been agreed by Xi and Trump, which will lower the temperature considerably and bring a sense of calm to relations between the two countries.

We asked Tom Harper, an expert in Chinese foreign policy at the University of East London, for his initial reaction to the messages emerging from the talks.

Who comes away from the meeting happier – Xi or Trump?

Both leaders will be happy at the outcomes from this meeting. Donald Trump is famously transactional in his approach to foreign policy, and he comes away from the meeting able to trumpet a “win” for the US.

China will be buying American soybeans, Xi has promised to help deal with the fentanyl issue and his threat to restrict China’s exports of the all-important rare earth minerals will not come into force. For 12 months, at least.

However, it’s important to note that there was no agreement from China to relax restrictions it imposed in April on exports of some critical minerals. Xi will want to prevent the US from building stockpiles of some key rare earth elements.

Restoring some trade between the two countries will also help ease the strain on US consumers. They are currently having to shoulder higher prices for everyday items, caused by the tariffs. Given Trump pledged to bring down prices in his presidential campaign, he may be able to frame this as a political victory with American voters.

China will benefit from lower US tariffs on many of its exports and Trump will suspend plans to expand trade restrictions to companies on what is known as the “entity list”. This is something China has been pushing for as it affects many of its companies. But of course, as we know, all of this could easily change.

What does this meeting tell us about the two countries’ priorities?

What’s very evident from the language used by the Chinese foreign ministry’s report of the meeting when compared to the US president’s comments on social media and elsewhere is the different sense of timing between the two cultures.

China’s analysis stressed that this was all at one with the country’s long-term strategy, developed “from generation to generation”. It spoke in terms of a broad sweep of development: “Our focus has always been on managing China’s own affairs well, improving ourselves, and sharing development opportunities with all countries across the world.”

Trump’s post on Truth Social focused squarely on the deals done: the soybeans, rare earths and cooperation over fentanyl. He’s clearly looking ahead to the midterm elections, which take place next November. This electoral test of what Americans think of the first 18 months of Trump’s second term is looming ever larger.

On the one hand, his administration is trying to enhance its prospects by tinkering with the voting system in the US. On the other hand, the US president clearly sees foreign policy “wins” as being important when it comes to improving his approval rating with the US public.

A rare earth production facility in China. — A rare earth production facility in the Jiangxi province of central China.
humphery / Shutterstock

What are the main areas of tension between the two countries now?

Tech issues will undoubtedly continue to cause tensions between Beijing and Washington. The US currently blocks Chinese access to much of the advanced tech that Beijing needs to fulfil its desire to become the world’s leader in AI.

And, despite Trump’s suggestion that he and Xi discussed China purchasing some chips from US firms, Chinese access to such advanced tech looks like it will remain heavily restricted.

Trump has said that any trade deal with China will not involve the export of Blackwell, the most advanced AI chip produced by US firm Nvidia. US lawmakers have previously raised concerns about allowing China to obtain the chip, suggesting it could bolster China’s AI industry and weaken the US’s tech edge.

Where was the regular US lecture on human rights? And was Taiwan discussed at all?

Taiwan doesn’t appear to have been on the agenda, from what both sides have said. Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, took the opportunity of hosting delegates from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group this week.

He talked about nurturing “closer Taiwan-US-Israel cooperation on security, trade and beyond, promoting peace across the Taiwan Strait”. But it’s far from clear that this is at the front of Trump’s mind.

Before the trip, it was reported that Trump’s advisers had been concerned that the US president might come away from the meeting with Xi having in some way changed the language over China’s relationship with Taiwan.

There has also been talk in recent months that the US position might shift from “not supporting” Taiwanese independence to “opposing it”. However, when he was asked about this after his meeting with Xi, the US president said they hadn’t discussed it.

Human rights, on the agenda at just about every meeting between a US president and a Chinese leader for as long as anyone can remember, appears not to have featured in the two men’s discussion either.

Tom Harper 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. What will Trump’s deal with Xi mean for the US economy and relations with China? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/what-will-trumps-deal-with-xi-mean-for-the-us-economy-and-relations-with-china-expert-qanda-268688

October 30, 2025

When the dam broke: the 1925 disaster that reshaped a Welsh community and a country’s safety laws

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lynda Yorke, Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer) in Critical Physical Geography, Bangor University

Nestled between the Caerneddau mountains and the Afon (River) Conwy, the small village of Dolgarrog in north Wales looks peaceful. But the huge hydro-electric pipes that run down the hillside are a constant reminder of the village’s history, and of how the same source of power that once brought prosperity also unleashed disaster.

On November 2 1925, the dam at Llyn Eigiau burst. A torrent of water and boulders thundered down the valley, sweeping through the northern part of Dolgarrog and destroying the small settlement of Porth Llŵyd. Sixteen people were killed.

One hundred years later, Dolgarrog’s story is not just one of tragedy. The village has become what its residents call a living memorial. It’s a place where disaster is not only remembered, but woven into the landscape, the law and the community’s sense of itself.

At 8pm on that night, the inhabitants of Dolgarrog felt the force of a catastrophic sequential engineering failure in the mountains above.

Two reservoirs, Llyn Eigiau and lower Coedty, supplied electricity to the local aluminium works, an industry that sustained the village. But the upper dam at Eigiau had been built on a foundation of glacial clay and boulders. After a dry summer, the clay had cracked. When autumn rains came, water seeped through. The dam wall gave way, unleashing a surge down the afon Porth Llŵyd.

This flood rapidly reached the lower Coedty dam, overwhelming its embankment. As the second dam failed, the water rushed like a massive tsunami wave down the steep gorge of afon Porth Llŵyd. Ripping out the hydro-electric pipeline, it created a deadly flow of water, debris and boulders that destroyed homes, and swept villagers into the afon Conwy.

Newsreel footage depicting the aftermath of the Dolgarrog dam disaster.

From local tragedy to national protection

The Dolgarrog disaster was not the first dam failure in the UK, but it was the one that forced government action. Public outrage over the deaths of 16 villagers led directly to the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930, the first law in the UK to regulate dam safety.

For the first time, large reservoirs had to be inspected and supervised by qualified, independent engineers. This ended the era when private companies could self-regulate. It marked a major shift in how the UK governed risk and infrastructure.

The event was codified into national law and updated in 1975. It created an invisible, yet mandatory, safety structure that continues to protect people today.

If the law is an unseen memorial, the land around Dolgarrog is a visible one. The remnants of the Llyn Eigiau dam wall still stand, a stark reminder of the engineering flaws that caused the disaster.

Downstream toward the Coedty dam, the torn-up peat moorland is barely visible. But the afon Porth Llŵyd gorge still shows the impact of the powerful flood, constrained by its bedrock walls. As the flood waters thundered down the gorge, they shattered, split and tore at the bedrock walls, ripping huge boulders from their rest.

The boulders dumped at the gorge’s outlet, formed a huge fan of rock debris still visible at the roadside – a chilling, preserved record of the suffering.

That landscape tells a story, not just of destruction but of recovery. The village’s memorial walk, created in 2004 around the boulder field, traces the path of the flood and symbolises the community’s ability to reclaim the space. It is both a site of reflection and an everyday walking route. This is cultural resilience and proof that remembrance and daily life coexist.

Disasters are not just events of the past: shape how we individually and collectively experience places, politics and society. Dolgarrog’s residents are marking the centenary with a programme of events under the banner “Dolgarrog Past, Present and Future”. These include commissioned art, musical performances, history projects and a lantern parade – acts of remembrance that also look forward.

Lessons for today

The lessons of Dolgarrog are as urgent now as they were a century ago. In an age of climate change, when extreme rainfall and flood risks are rising, the need for strong safety standards and accountable infrastructure has never been greater.

The 1925 disaster shows why state oversight of private infrastructure is vital when public lives depend on it. It also offers a model of resilience, one that is legislative as well as communal.

A hundred years on, the memory of the 16 villagers who died is not only preserved in stone and ceremony, but in the law itself, and in the ongoing safety of every major reservoir across the UK. Dolgarrog remains a living memorial to both the dangers of neglect and the power of collective renewal.

Lynda Yorke receives funding from NERC, British Council and Learned Society of Wales.

Giuseppe Forino has received funding from NERC, British Council and Learned Society of Wales.

– ref. When the dam broke: the 1925 disaster that reshaped a Welsh community and a country’s safety laws – https://theconversation.com/when-the-dam-broke-the-1925-disaster-that-reshaped-a-welsh-community-and-a-countrys-safety-laws-267701

October 30, 2025

Sharia law isn’t taking over Britain – it’s an inevitable legacy of its colonial legal history

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Femi Owolade, Research Associate, Sheffield Hallam University

Every few years, a familiar anxiety resurfaces in British public discourse: that sharia law is establishing a parallel legal system and threatening the sovereignty of English law. Those fears were reignited following Donald Trump’s recent speech to the UN, where he claimed that London wants “to go to sharia law”.

Such claims ignore two realities. First, that the English legal system is adaptive and capable of accommodating diversity. And second, that having multiple legal systems is – far from undermining British law – an inevitable legacy of Britain’s colonial history. Looking to that history, it should be no surprise that it is a feature of modern, multicultural Britain.

My research shows how British colonial administrators deliberately designed plural legal systems to sustain imperial rule. The colonial state recognised that it could not rule diverse populations by imposing English law on multicultural societies.

In northern Nigeria, this approach became a defining feature of colonial governance. English law operated alongside Islamic courts, which handled family disputes and aspects of land tenure. Allowing limited autonomy for Africans under sharia was both a pragmatic and political strategy. It maintained local legitimacy while ensuring that English law remained supreme in cases of conflict.

A similar arrangement existed in British India. This legacy continues to shape how law functions in postcolonial, multicultural Britain today.

How sharia operates in Britain today

There is no separate sharia legal system in the UK. What exist are sharia councils and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. The sharia councils have no statutory authority under English law. They may be used to resolve personal disputes such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, in existence since the early 2000s, operates under the Arbitration Act 1996. This law allows private arbitration between consenting adults in civil disputes. But such tribunals must operate within the boundaries of English law.

Sharia councils have a slightly longer history, dating back to the 1980s. Their number and activities are difficult to track: in 2009, rightwing thinktank Civitas approximated at least 85, while a 2012 study by a researcher at the University of Reading identified 30.

No comprehensive survey has been conducted since, leaving the exact number uncertain. This lack of official oversight fuels the perception that the councils pose a challenge to Britain’s legal sovereignty.

But, as a 2018 Home Office review confirmed, sharia councils hold no legal jurisdiction in England and Wales.

The review did acknowledge concerns raised by women’s rights groups about gender inequality and lack of representation of women in some councils. It concluded that these issues called for better regulation and oversight, and that the “state would be justified in intervening” in bad practices by sharia councils that disadvantage women.

It also found that public fears are fuelled by misleading terms, used in both the media and sometimes by councils themselves. For example, referring to the councils as “courts” and their members as “judges” reinforces misconceptions about the existence of a parallel legal system.

Multifaith Britain and the law

English law is capable of accommodating and regulating diverse legal practices without losing its sovereignty. Besides sharia councils, other faith-based arbitration bodies exist in Britain.

The Beth Din courts, for example, serve the Jewish community, offering guidance on issues of marriage and divorce. While they cannot compel a divorce, they can encourage or persuade a husband to grant a religious divorce certificate.

The Roman Catholic Church, which complies with the Marriage Act 1949, operates its own tribunals to consider annulments under canon law. None of these institutions undermine the authority of English courts.

The same applies to sharia councils. Participation is voluntary: individuals choose to use these forums, often to resolve family or inheritance matters in line with their faith. English civil courts remain fully available to them.

Following concerns about the protection of women’s rights in the councils, the 2018 Home Office review recommended stronger safeguards. These include requiring civil registration of marriages, greater transparency in decision-making, and education about legal rights.

The review found that nearly all users of the sharia councils were women, with over 90% seeking an Islamic divorce. Many were unable to obtain a civil divorce because their marriages had never been registered under English law, leaving them without legal recourse in the civil legal system.

The review stressed that its proposed safeguards were designed to protect vulnerable women, rather than suppress or prohibit sharia councils from operating. This recognises that the demand for religious divorce will continue regardless of sharia prohibition.

The UK government accepted the review’s findings but has not established a regulatory body. This suggests that most safeguards are currently dependent on voluntary good practice within the councils.

Postcolonial legal pluralism

In a postcolonial, multifaith society like Britain, legal pluralism is not a sign of a fragmented legal sovereignty – it’s an acknowledgement of social reality. The persistence of sharia in modern Britain reflects a society still negotiating how to govern cultural and religious difference through law, as the empire once did.

Other postcolonial societies have accepted this. In India, different personal law systems for Hindus, Muslims and Christians coexist under one constitution. There is an ongoing debate in the country about how to balance faith-based identity with the rights guaranteed by the secular state.

The same question now faces Britain. The challenge is not whether to recognise the arbitrating powers of sharia councils, but how to regulate them fairly – ensuring that every citizen, regardless of faith, can exercise their rights within the boundaries of English law.

Femi Owolade 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. Sharia law isn’t taking over Britain – it’s an inevitable legacy of its colonial legal history – https://theconversation.com/sharia-law-isnt-taking-over-britain-its-an-inevitable-legacy-of-its-colonial-legal-history-267262

October 30, 2025

New ‘miniature T rex’ rewrites the history of the world’s largest predator

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Abi Crane, Postgraduate Researcher in Palaeontology, University of Southampton

A pack of Nanotyrannus attacks a juvenile T. rex Anthony Hutchings, CC BY-NC-ND

A new specimen of one of the most controversial species of dinosaur has the
potential to overturn decades of research on the T rex.

Nanotyrannus, the “miniature T rex”, has been the centre of one of the fiercest debates in palaeontology. Scientists have long argued over whether the Nanotyrannus is a separate species or just a young T rex.

The controversy was ignited in 1999 when the only known fossil of a Nanotyrannus was found to belong to a juvenile. More complete fossils have since failed to produce any conclusive answers because they were all also found to be juvenile.

But the debate surrounding the identity of Nanotyrannus may finally be settled. A new fossil specimen, described in the journal Nature, is the smoking gun researchers have been looking for: an adult Nanotyrannus.

Woman sitting on large dinosaur fossil — Lindsay Zanno, associate research professor at North Carolina State University, with the dueling dinosaurs fossil.
N.C. State University, CC BY-NC-ND

Known as the duelling dinosaurs, this fossil preserves an almost-complete
Nanotyrannus and Triceratops entombed together. They seem frozen in combat (whether they were actually fighting when they became buried in the Earth’s sediment remains to be tested). Although the fossil was discovered in Montana, US back in 2006, it was under private ownership until the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences purchased it in 2020. Now accessible to scientists, the true nature of this remarkable fossil can be revealed for the first time.

The researchers have confirmed that Nanotyrannus is a separate miniature type of tyrannosaur by demonstrating this specimen belonged to a near fully-grown adult. The age and maturity of dinosaurs can be assessed by looking at the inside of their bones. Dinosaurs grew in cycles of faster and slower growth which produced distinct layers of bone. When cut open and examined under a microscope, these marks can be counted like rings in a tree.

Using this method, the researchers could determine that the Nanotyrannus in the duelling dinosaurs was at least 14 years old when it died. The researchers also found its rate of growth had slowed significantly in its final years, indicating that this individual was nearly at full body size.

So just how small was this miniature T rex? Nanotyrannus is only around one tenth of the size of a fully grown T rex. Being one of the largest predators to ever walk the Earth, however, T rex would make most animals look small. The duelling dinosaurs Nanotyrannus is over four metres long and estimated to have weighed over 700kg – that’s as heavy as some of the very largest polar bears.

Other specimens of Nanotyrannus are even bigger. The almost complete skeleton known as Jane, discovered in 2001 also in Montana, is estimated at over a ton, larger than any land predator alive today.

Fossil dinosaur skull — Nanotyrannus lancensis skull shows its teeth are not serrated.
N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, CC BY-NC-ND

The researchers have found enough differences in the shape of bones in the skulls of the duelling dinosaurs fossil and the larger Jane to separate them into two different species; Nanotyrannus lancensis and the newly-named Nanotyrannus lethaeus.

Other than small size, another feature that the researchers have used to distinguish Nanotyrannus from T rex is the number of teeth. Despite its much smaller mouth, Nanotyrannus could no doubt pack a powerful bite with its over 60 teeth. T rex had 40-50 teeth in its jaws.

The teeth themselves are also different. Nicknamed “lethal bananas”, the teeth of T rex are curved and serrated like steak knives. These unique teeth are perfect for slicing into flesh and could crush bone. By contrast, some of the teeth of Nanotyrannus are straight, chisel-like and without serrations, more closely resembling those of other types of carnivorous dinosaur.

T rex had famously tiny arms, the source of many jokes and dinosaur impressions. Nanotyrannus does not

– ref. New ‘miniature T rex’ rewrites the history of the world’s largest predator – https://theconversation.com/new-miniature-t-rex-rewrites-the-history-of-the-worlds-largest-predator-268678

October 30, 2025

Latin America is reviving the ‘iron fist’ approach to law enforcement

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adriana Marin, Lecturer in International Relations, Coventry University

A massive anti-drug raid in Rio de Janeiro left 132 people dead in the early hours of October 28 as Brazil’s security forces confronted one of the country’s biggest crime gangs. It was one of the deadliest security operations in modern Brazilian history.

Around 2,500 officers descended on the favelas of Complexo do Alemão and Complexo da Penha, strongholds of Brazil’s oldest criminal group, Comando Vermelho. There were more than 80 arrests.

Authorities described the operation as the country’s “biggest gang raid in history”. Human Rights Watch in Brazil called the episode “a huge tragedy”.

Beyond the immediate shock, the operation raises deeper questions about the resurgence of militarised policing models across Latin America. These are often labelled under the banner of mano dura – the “iron-fist” approach.

Mano dura policies prioritise forceful state intervention, military-style policing and mass incarceration as mechanisms to reassert territorial control and deter organised crime. These strategies have a long history in Latin America, particularly in central America during the early 2000s, when governments in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala adopted militarised responses in the face of rising gang violence.

What distinguishes the current wave is its intensity and the geopolitical narratives that accompany it. Rather than being seen as exceptional, mano dura is increasingly treated as a legitimate and even necessary model of governance in the face of criminal insurgency and institutional fragility.

The Rio raid appears to be part of this broader shift. Brazil has long grappled with powerful criminal factions. The gangs control territory, levy taxes and provide informal governance in the favelas and prison systems of Rio.

As fears of gang power have risen, so has support for militarised intervention. Many see a hardline approach as the only viable means of restoring order. The electoral success of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018, built on promises of aggressive policing and the expansion of military influence in civilian affairs, reflected this sentiment.

The current president, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, has positioned himself as a moderate alternative. But this week’s raid suggests that the structural pressures driving mano dura politics persist across administrations, regardless of their ideology.

International political dynamics have played a significant role in the resurgence of militarised security strategies. The rhetoric of “law and order” popularised globally by figures such as Donald Trump has reframed domestic security – not as a social or economic challenge, but as a war requiring overwhelming force.

Trump’s statements praising extrajudicial killings of drug traffickers and his advocacy for deploying the military to “take back” American cities have resonated beyond the US.

It would be inaccurate to claim that US politics directly cause security crackdowns in Latin America. But it contributes to a widely accepted narrative which frames displays of state violence as decisive leadership rather than as democratic backsliding.

Militarised policing

This phenomenon aligns with a broader global trend in which states use militarised policing as a tool of political legitimacy. In Latin America, leaders across the political spectrum have capitalised on public fear of crime to justify extraordinary security measures.

Nayib Bukele, El Salvador’s strongman leader, has achieved record approval ratings after implementing mass detentions and militarised crackdowns on gangs. In Brazil, the Rio raid may be interpreted in this light. It was a demonstration of state authority designed to reassure voters that the government is willing to use force to restore order.

But there are significant risks to this approach. Historical evidence from Latin America indicates that mano dura policies often deliver only temporary reductions in violence. Meanwhile they tend to undermine institutional legitimacy in the long term.

Mass raids and lethal confrontations can fragment criminal organisations, leading to splinter groups that generate further instability. Militarised policing can deepen mistrust between communities and the state.

This is particularly the case in marginalised areas where residents already feel excluded from formal institutions. Excessive use of force without due process risks normalising extrajudicial killings and diminishing accountability, eroding democratic norms.

The Rio raid also reflects a changing power dynamic in the region. Criminal organisations such as Comando Vermelho have evolved beyond their drug-trafficking origins. They now operate as parallel governance systems.

They control territory and the provision of welfare. Many of these gangs wield considerable political influence.

In this context, mano dura is not only a security policy. It’s become more of a response to perceived challenges to the state’s power.

The use of large-scale force can be understood as a performative attempt to reassert territorial dominance. This aligns with what some scholars describe as the “punitive turn” in Latin America. Countries like Brazil increasingly use coercive power to demonstrate authority rather than to resolve underlying drivers of violence.

Cycles of violence

There is a broader question. Will this approach achieve lasting security or will it merely reproduce cycles of violence? In countries where judicial systems are weak and prisons are overcrowded, militarised operations often funnel recruits into criminal networks rather than dismantling them. Brazil’s own experience illustrates this.

Many of the country’s most powerful criminal factions, including Comando Vermelho itself, originated within the prison system during periods of mass incarceration.

It is also important to recognise that mano dura policies are often implemented in the absence of viable alternatives. Policymakers face immense pressure from citizens to deal with this security crisis. In some cases, communities themselves may call for military intervention, viewing it as the only way to dislodge criminal control.

This creates a security paradox. While forceful interventions may be politically popular, they can inadvertently reinforce the very conditions that allow criminal organisations to thrive.

The Rio raid therefore presents a critical moment for reassessing security governance in Latin America. It highlights the challenges governments face in balancing public demands for safety with the need to preserve democratic institutions and human rights. It also raises questions about the role of international influence in shaping security policy.

The global resurgence of punitive approaches, legitimised by leaders like Trump, has helped reshape the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in state responses to crime. As governments face growing security challenges, the appeal of mano dura will continue to grow.

Yet the question remains whether these tactics represent a solution to violence or a symptom of deeper institutional crisis.

Adriana Marin 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. Latin America is reviving the ‘iron fist’ approach to law enforcement – https://theconversation.com/latin-america-is-reviving-the-iron-fist-approach-to-law-enforcement-268596

October 30, 2025

Why ‘green’ finance isn’t always as sustainable as it seems

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maud Borie, Senior Lecturer in Environment, Science & Society, King’s College London

In the wake of the 2007-08 global financial crisis, green finance has been increasingly celebrated as a way to tackle environmental challenges. Banks, investment funds and insurers have rolled out a growing range of green products, from green bonds to sustainability-linked loans. This momentum is encouraged by international environmental efforts such as the Paris climate agreement.

By aligning financial flows with sustainability goals, the world can supposedly “green finance” its way into a sustainable future.

But beneath this green spectacle lies a more complicated reality. Green finance refers to a wide-ranging mix of private and public funds, products and practices. For example, there’s no consensus regarding what makes a bond green.

There is also little clarity around what current environmental, social, governance (ESG) frameworks – which encourage businesses and authorities to disclose and monitor their environmental and social performance – are truly achieving.

Ever wondered how to spend or invest your money in ways that actually benefit people and planet? Or are you curious about the connection between insurance and the climate crisis?

Green Your Money is a new series from the business and environment teams at The Conversation exploring how to make money really matter. Practical and accessible insights from financial experts in the know.

In 2015, the former Bank of England governor and current Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, insisted that finance can and must urgently account for climate risks. Meanwhile, Stuart Kirk, former global head of responsible investments at high street bank HSBC, argued that these risks were overstated and too far in the future to be material.

Environmental issues have become a concern for financiers, but not necessarily out of commitment to improving planetary health – rather due to reporting costs, transition risks and reputational pressure. High-profile greenwashing scandals, such as “green bonds” allegedly linked to deforestation in Sumatra, have further eroded trust. This raises questions about whether green finance is more a branding exercise than transformation.

ESG investing explained.

In the face of these ambiguities, the environmental sciences are involved in the expansion of green finance. As social scientists we have been following these developments, wondering whether they may help us pin down robust ways to develop green finance.

Some companies are now using science-based targets (emission reduction goals aligned with climate science), net zero transitions pathways or roadmaps, and high-integrity carbon credits (verified purchases of direct air capture credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions).

Most of these claim to rely on rigorous calculations. The language of science grants objectivity and legitimacy. At its most basic level, this “sciencewashing” uses the vocabulary and authority of science to claim sustainability outcomes.

Green finance also provides many employment opportunities for environmental scientists who can work as consultants, auditors and certifiers, to assess the quality of green claims. Many startups have emerged, offering a range of high-tech services to provide environmental data to companies. That includes monitoring deforestation through remote sensing or using sounds to analyse wildlife activity.

Green finance-related industries are flourishing and more and more environmental graduates are being recruited to quantify emissions, build risk metrics, monitor changes in biodiversity and verify credits.

Sciencewashing

Drawing on five years of research and combining data emerging from participation in green finance conferences and seminars, interviews and document analysis, our study warns against different forms of sciencewashing.

london city skyline with green trees — Financial centres, like London, thrive on green finance but beyond them the benefits are unclear.
Taljat David/Shutterstock

Mounting evidence suggests a gap between the suggested possibilities and the actual outcomes of green finance. Many green finance products appear to serve financial markets and the wealthiest investors more than nature or vulnerable communities.

Even more concerning are the unintended consequences. Far from levelling the playing field, green finance can exacerbate inequality. For example, communities have been displaced to make room for renewable energy projects or offset schemes.

This creates what are known as green sacrifice zones: areas where environmental harm or social costs are tolerated in the name of advancing “green” goals.

Poorer countries often face higher borrowing costs in the name of climate risk, while wealthy economies continue to access cheaper capital. Insurance premiums are also rising in climate-vulnerable regions, pricing out those least able to afford them. So green finance can make the situation for the most vulnerable populations worse.

In its current form, green finance will most likely sustain business as usual, leaving the causes of environmental crisis untouched.

For green finance to deliver the transformative change its advocates promise, it must address the deeper political and social issues, such as the role of public authorities in regulating finance, or the relationship between green investment and global inequality.

If green finance is to serve collective wellbeing rather than the interests of a privileged few, we need rigorous and proactive public regulations and better public debates on what green finance ought to account for.

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. Why ‘green’ finance isn’t always as sustainable as it seems – https://theconversation.com/why-green-finance-isnt-always-as-sustainable-as-it-seems-265240

October 30, 2025

How to green your money

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Turns, Senior Environment Editor, The Conversation

This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage was first published in our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter, Imagine.

Have you recycled today? Opted to walk or get public transport instead of taking the car? We all make dozens of small choices every day, each with environmental pros and cons. Very often, these choices come down to how and where we as consumers spend our money. But one thing we probably don’t think about much is what our cash is doing when we’re not spending it.

Everyday bank deposits by “ordinary” people are a quiet powerhouse of potential for environmental change. In the UK alone, billions of pounds are deposited every month. Most of this cash is swirling around in the global economy, supporting industry and innovation, as well as individuals. The uncomfortable truth, though, is that this investment might be pumped into environmentally or socially damaging sectors that we wouldn’t support in our day-to-day lives.

Ever wondered how to spend or invest your money in ways that actually benefit people and planet? Or are you curious about the connection between insurance and the climate crisis?

When it comes to shifts towards greener living, consumers wield huge amounts of power. After all, they can determine which companies – and cultures – thrive. But beyond consumer spaces like the supermarket or the car showroom, it’s banks that decide how and where much of the world’s money enters the economy and which sectors benefit.

Styliani Panetsidou and Angelos Synapis are finance experts at the Centre for Resilient Business and Society at Coventry University. They say that in this age of climate crisis, decisions on where banks lend our money are immensely powerful. “To put it simply,” they say, “lending for housing can expand the property market, financing renewable energy can support low-carbon infrastructure, while funding coal mines or oil and gas extraction may risk locking in future carbon emissions over decades.”

Banks want returns, though. Historically, oil and gas have provided these. But in this sector too, the power of the consumer is becoming more evident and transparency around investments is slowly improving. Panetsidou and Synapis add: “With this in mind, perhaps it is time to consider whether the bank we select could subtly influence environmental outcomes.”

Misplaced loyalty?

But still, investments in low-carbon energy companies fall short of those pumped into oil, gas and coal. There are banks out there that exclude fossil fuels from their loans and investments, but they’re not the default. Part of the problem could be that the consumer-bank relationship is often settled quite early in life. It’s even been said that we’re more likely to break up with our partner than with our bank.

This psychological inertia around banking has a strong grip, despite the potential for a simple switch to cut our environmental impact. Marcel Lukas, banking and finance expert at the University of St Andrews, says that despite systems that make changing banks easy and secure, it’s still not a transition that most consumers are likely to make. “The process works, but behaviour lags.”

He suggests three psychological hacks to rewire our preference for stability – and these behavioural changes can extend beyond banking. Lukas says they can “also shape decisions about savings products, energy tariffs and mobile contracts – choices that all come with environmental consequences”.

aerial shot of damaged houses on tropical island with palm trees — Hurricane damage on Jamaica in 2024.
Deron Levy/Shutterstock

Paying a premium

The intersection between climate and finance is rarely so evident as in the world of insurance. Extreme weather events aren’t just devastating for households and property owners, surging levels of weather-related claims are pushing the insurance industry to breaking point.

Repeated claims can leave homeowners sitting in a property that’s uninsurable and unmortgageable. The knock-on from this is falling house values, and a looming threat to the wider financial system worldwide.

Meilan Yan, financial economist, and water engineer Qiuhua Liang, of Loughborough University, say the clear warning signs aren’t being heeded. “Unless lenders adopt climate-adjusted risk models that integrate physical hazards such as flooding, storms and heatwaves,” they explain, “they risk underestimating the true exposure of their mortgage portfolios.”

The consequences go beyond the individual tragedy of a flood-ravaged home, while at the same time extreme weather events are no longer exceptional: “Traditional financial crises follow cycles of growth, downturn and recovery, but climate risk moves in only one direction.”

– ref. How to green your money – https://theconversation.com/how-to-green-your-money-268142

October 30, 2025

Why healthcare’s ‘do no harm’ ethic must include the planet

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Muireann McMahon, Associate Professor, School of Architecture & Product Design, University of Limerick

Every product we touch has a footprint. A phone, a fridge, a hospital syringe. Each begins and ends in the same place: the planet’s resources.

The EU’s recent ecodesign for sustainable products regulation aims to break the cycle of take, make, waste by forcing manufacturers to think circularly. Products will need to last longer, be easier to repair and feed back into the economy instead of the landfill.

It represents a major shift for most industries. But for healthcare, where safety and sterility come first, it could be revolutionary.

The healthcare industry is responsible for roughly 4.4% of global carbon emissions, with 71% coming from the production, provision, and disposal of medical technology (medtech) products and services.

In the UK alone, the NHS generates approximately 156,000 tonnes of waste each year from hospitals and specialist clinics, equivalent to more than 5,700 40ft containers. Up to 90% of such waste comes from single-use disposable products or components.

Although medical products are included under the ecodesign regulation, the rules will only apply where patient health and safety are not compromised. Products that pose a risk to patients, such as those where infection, contamination, or reduced effectiveness could occur, may be exempt.

But are considerations for human health and environmental protection really at odds with one another? Or can we expand the principle of “do no harm” to include the planet itself?

In the US, climate commitments are being rolled back. The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement has slowed progress toward a more sustainable medtech industry. Implementation of new emissions standards has also been delayed, including rules to reduce ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing chemical used to sterilise surgical kits and medical devices.

These setbacks stall innovation in cleaner, safer alternatives such as CO₂ and UV light sterilisation. This matters because reusing devices, when safely sterilised, could dramatically reduce waste and resource use.

Fortunately, many sustainability gains in medtech are already within reach. By examining the full lifecycle of devices, from production to disposal, it is possible to identify where the biggest improvements can be made.

Green public procurement policies can immediately encourage healthcare providers to make more sustainable purchasing choices. Smarter research and development decisions can improve repairability, reduce material use and waste, and simplify components for easier assembly and disassembly.

Standardisation also enables interchangeable parts across devices, as seen with consumer products’ universal power supplies. This approach extends product lifespans and allows parts to be recovered and reprocessed for use in future devices, provided they meet the necessary medical standards.

Using consistent materials across devices also ensures they are directed into the correct waste, recycling, or reuse streams rather than ending up in landfill. Even sterile packaging can be reimagined to minimise volume, avoid mixed materials, and favour fully recyclable mono-materials.

Some of the world’s leading medtech companies are already proving what is possible. Medtronic is aiming for net-zero emissions by 2030 through designing smaller, longer-lasting products, investing in new materials and enforcing responsible sourcing across its supply chain.

Johnson and Johnson is cutting waste by recycling and using closed-loop systems to recapture valuable materials from single-use devices. The company also measures and publicly shares the environmental footprint of its products.

Abbott, a global healthcare and medical devices company, has committed to a 90% reduction in waste across its product lifecycles, with a particular focus on minimising the environmental impact of packaging.

The path to a sustainable medtech industry is not without challenges, but it is achievable. As regulations advance, companies innovate and healthcare professionals push for change, the sector has an opportunity to redefine what innovation really means. It is no longer just about safer, more efficient care – it is about care that protects the planet too.

With the medtech industry valued at US$587 billion in the US (£459 billion) alone, and 8% of that investment directed toward research and development, the potential for transformation is enormous. Imagine the progress if even a fraction of that funding were channelled into responsible innovation – empowering every stakeholder through education, engagement and sustainable action.

By aligning environmental responsibility with patient safety, and investing in circular design, smarter procurement, connected infrastructures and genuine collaboration, medtech can show that health and sustainability are not competing priorities. They are, in fact, inseparable.

Muireann McMahon 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. Why healthcare’s ‘do no harm’ ethic must include the planet – https://theconversation.com/why-healthcares-do-no-harm-ethic-must-include-the-planet-262908