danger

China was the power that launched drones. Now he has realized his danger with a decision: close the sky to them

by

Exactly 10 years ago an unprecedented event occurred. A small drone landed without authorization in the White House garden after its operator loses control. It didn’t have explosives or sophisticated cameras, but it was enough to activate a complete security protocol and put the authorities on alert for hours. That apparently trivial incident was an announcement to sailors. The drone empire closes its sky. It remains a paradox that China, the great dominatrix of the global drone market with millions of devices in circulation and leading companies like DJI, be the same power that has started to drastically restrict its use within its borders. Yes, I counted a few days ago the new york times that the new rules require register each device with real identity, link it to personal data and transmit real-time flight information to the government. Flying without authorization can lead to fines, confiscations and even prison sentences, and in cities like Beijing the ban is almost total, to the point of preventing the sale or entry of drones into the capital. Total control of airspace. Thus, the regulatory tightening It has turned what was once a recreational or professional activity into a terrain full of obstacles. In practice, much of the urban space is left out of use, with permits having to be requested in advance and rarely granted. In fact, users throughout the country have denounced interrogations, sanctions and confiscations even on flights that they consider legal, while some claim to receive calls from the police as soon as they turn on their devices. The result is a paralyzing effect: the sky is still full of drones in theory, but in practice fewer and fewer take off. Security, fear and Ukraine and Iran. Behind this shift is an easy-to-understand key factor: modern warfare. has shown that drones are no longer toys, but combat actors of first order. Recent conflicts have made it clear that even cheap models can monitor, attack or alter critical infrastructuresomething that especially worries Beijing in terms of internal security. The possibility of these devices being used against sensitive infrastructure or even political leaders has accelerated a response that seeks to eliminate any margin for improvisation in the air. The economics of low altitude. Paradoxically, the Times said that the tightening comes just when China wants to expand the commercial use of drones in what it calls “low altitude economy”. The objective is to turn them into key tools for logistics, agriculture, industrial inspection or light transportation. But to achieve this, the government considers it essential to first impose absolute control of airspace, like someone reorganizing a city before opening it to mass traffic. The problem: that this previous order is suffocating the ecosystem that it aims to promote. The final dilemma. If you like, the result is a contradiction that is difficult to resolve in Beijing: the nation that raised and built the global drone industry is limiting its use by the danger they perceive to the point of stopping innovation, business and adoption. Companies see sales fall, the second-hand market grows and entrepreneurs abandon projects due to the impossibility of operating. Meanwhile, some experts warn of another unexpected consequence: restricting access too much may prevent training future operators, just when the world is heading towards wars and economies where knowing how to handle a drone will be a strategic skill. Image | Infinity 0 In Xataka | China just showed the world what comes after the combat drone: 96 drones with a science fiction launch In Xataka | 200 drones in the hands of a single soldier: China is advancing very quickly in a type of war that seemed like science fiction

Apple is dying of success with the MacBook Neo. So much so that its manufacturing is in danger

by

Apple has a problem with MacBook Neo: You are selling it too much. The first Mac with an iPhone processor is being an overwhelming success, and it hits the keys that mobilize the average user: it is cheap, it can be used for practically all uses and… it is a Mac. The problem? That this laptop has the Apple A18 Pro It is no coincidence, and that it is selling so much is a problem for the supply chain. Why the A18 Pro. Apple is not manufacturing new A18 Pro chips for its MacBook Neo, it is recycling processors from the original production. If we look at its technical details, the MacBook Neo incorporates a five-core GPU and not six. When processors are manufactured in batches, not all of them work perfectly. Some may have specific failures in one of the CPU or GPU cores. Instead of throwing them away, Apple deactivates that defective core and can sell a trimmed version of it. This allowed Apple to create a laptop whose processor was practically at zero costa pillar for the profitability of the product. The problem. The demand for the MacBook Neo is exceeding Apple’s expectationsand the stock of the A18 Pro is starting to come to an end. According to Tim Culpan, production of this device is divided equally between Quanta and Foxconn, with an initial plan to produce about six million units. As of today, suppliers are not clear about being able to produce more MacBook Neo with the stock of A18 Pro processors. The dilemma. The Apple A18 Pro is manufactured in TSMC’s N3E process, three-nanometer technology, a chip whose production capacity is practically exhausted. Among Apple’s options would be to pay a premium to order urgent batches from TSMC, something that would allow production to resume but would end the key to the Neo: manufacturing an economical product with a profit margin. The second plan involves reallocating the wafers that Apple uses for other devices to the production of the Neo, another solution that does not seem ideal. If we add to this the current storage and RAM costs, the production of the Neo becomes complicated. No solution in sight. If demand for the MacBook Neo remains above expectations, Apple will have a decision to make. Raise Neo prices? Eliminate the budget 256 GB option? Offer new colors to revitalize the product? Be that as it may, the Neo makes one thing clear: the strategy of selling MacBooks at the lowest possible price works. And even more so when we are at that point where a mobile processor is, literally, a PC processor. In Xataka | The MacBook Neo is the biggest existential threat to the Windows laptop market. And the manufacturers have no answer

If you think that renovating your house is urgent, think about this building in Ukraine. Its hole is so big that it is a danger for Europe

by

He Chernobyl accident released so much radiation that some areas they remain uninhabitable almost four decades later. In fact, the plant continues to house materials capable of remaining dangerous for thousands of years. Therefore, keeping them under control is one of the greatest engineering challenges ever faced in Europe. A challenge that a drone has put to the test. It was to last a century. The story we tell it a few months ago. The gigantic steel arch built over Chernobyl reactor 4 was conceived as a definitive solution to contain the worst nuclear accident in history for at least a hundred years, a colossal structure designed to isolate the ancient “sarcophagus” and buy humanity time. More than 100 meters high and capable of housing entire monuments inside, this system had to resist extreme conditions and allow the safe decommissioning of the reactor, encapsulating hundreds of tons of radioactive material that remain active decades after the disaster. The impact that changed everything. But everything changed in February 2025when a drone attack in the middle of the night pierced that shell seemingly invulnerable, opening a breach in the structure and exposing a system that was never designed to operate in a war environment. Although there were no immediate leaks or casualties, the damage compromised critical functionsespecially ventilation that controls humidity and prevents corrosion, introducing a silent but growing risk that could degrade the structure in a few years. What is still hidden under the steel. Under the damaged arch remains an environment extremely unstable: remains of the reactor, tons of nuclear fuel and melts of highly radioactive materials that continue to react slowly. The old “sarcophagus,” hastily built in 1986, was never structurally reliableand is actually completely dependent on the new cover to maintain the insulation. In other words, if that balance fails, the risk is not immediate, but potentially devastating, with the possibility of release radioactive dust that the wind could disperse throughout Europe. A “reform” as expensive as it is complex. System restore will not be neither quick nor easysince it involves working in conditions of high radiation, with strict limitations on time and exposure for operators. Temporary solutions barely contain the most urgent damage, while full restoration will require rebuilding highly specialized internal layers within a structure designed as a technical “sandwich”. We are talking about an estimated cost that exceeds 500 million of euros, a figure that reflects both the technical complexity and the hostile environment in which repairs must be carried out. The war enters Europe’s greatest nuclear risk. If you like, the incident it is not isolatedbut part of a context in which nuclear infrastructure have become exposed elements within an active conflict. Paradoxically, the Chernobyl exclusion zone that we had to protect from any danger has been the scene of military operationstroop movements and constant overflights of missiles and drones, which multiplies the risk of new impacts, whether accidental or intentional. In that scenario, even a technical failure or trajectory error could trigger consequences continental in scope. A reminder of what never ended. They remembered in a special from the Financial Times this week that, decades after the accident, Chernobyl remains the same latent threat, one that requires constant vigilance and international cooperation, and the drone impact has revealed the fragility of the systems designed to contain it. The infrastructure that was to definitively close the disastrous episode of 1986 now faces a new type of risk, thus demonstrating that nuclear safety depends not only on engineering, but also of geopolitical stabilitya (and common sense). In that delicate balance, each crack is not just a structural failure, but a warning about the limits of our ability to control the consequences of our own creations. Image | EBRD In Xataka | Drones in Ukraine have mutated into a system reminiscent of the Alien universe: an exoskeleton turns troops into super soldiers In Xataka | Iran is exploiting the US’s weak point: it is not its F-35s or its Patriot missiles, it is the bill every time they take off

A Brazilian has shown that having Internet in mid-flight is possible with Starlink. It has also shown that it is a real danger

by

If the Internet does not reach the plane, let the plane reach the Internet. One of the Azul Linhas Aereas travelers must have thought something like this, who along with another hundred passengers began to discount the first minutes of their flight. A flight that began on the ground but has not yet ended. And our protagonist tried to connect to the Internet during takeoff using a Starlink antenna and a battery that far exceeded the maximum allowed capacity. The flight has landed but is not over. And the company is now investigating what happened. On Instagram. It’s where the Azul Linhas Aereas traveler has published his invention with the following text: “Who hasn’t suffered the frustration of getting on a four-hour flight and not having Internet? When you get on the plane and the WiFi doesn’t work… Your problems are over.” The video briefly shows how the passenger places the Starlink antenna on the window and hooks it to the window blind. From it, a cable hooks up to a large battery stored in the pocket of the front seat. Click on the image to go to the original post What is Starlink? Starlink is a internet service through satellite connection designed by SpaceX, Elon Musk’s company. The system is simple, with thousands of satellites orbiting around the earth, the service seeks to ensure that a small antenna can provide Internet to anyone anywhere in the world, no matter how remote it may be. To do this, the customer mounts the antenna and points it towards the sky. From there a signal arrives that is interpreted by a router included in the pack to, in turn, multiply the signal so that we can connect to the network. Its latency is high compared to fiber optics, so it is not a system to compete with home connections, it is designed to provide Internet to areas without 4G or 5G coverage. And does it work on a plane? Of course, the operation is exactly the same as if we placed the antenna on the ground. In this case, what the airline passenger did was put the antenna in the window pointing outside to improve signal reception. For the rest, it works exactly the same as if we contracted Starlink to have Internet at home. In fact, Starlink service is being offered to airlines. And although it has been the trigger between the latest tantrum between Elon Musk and Michael O’Leary (CEO of Ryanair), the truth is that Starlink will be offered this year on Iberia, British Airways or Vueling flights. And the first tests with United Airlines They were already very satisfactory. Starlink improves what is already known because, although a plane also connects via satellite to offer Internet on its flights, the bandwidths that customers demand and its applications are increasing, which has been reducing the speed of data transfer that each device on board can enjoy. But it’s a danger. However, what this passenger has done is a real danger that is being investigated by the airline. In the Brazilian State Post Office They explain that the Starlink antenna was powered by a 60,000 mAh portable battery. Its 222 Wh capacity is far from the 100 Wh maximum that can be carried on board a plane according to Brazilian aviation regulators. Large power banks can be a danger on board, so Aeronautical authorities limit them in size and number. And it is that batteries can self-combust if a thermal leak occurs, which may be caused by overheating or a blow that results in a short circuit. The problem is already huge if we are on land But it can be much more serious if the plane is fully operational because lithium ion batteries are very difficult to turn off and, in addition, they release gases that are harmful to our health. That is why the size of the battery is limited and if an incident occurs, it is manageable by the crew. Photo | Wikimedia and Fallon Micheal In Xataka | Airlines are beginning to regulate and restrict the use of power banks on airplanes: South Korea leads the way

Relying on US AI is a strategic danger

by

When DeepSeek R1 It was presented a year ago now, caused a real earthquake in the technological world. What was surprising was not its capabilities, but that China had managed to reach that level despite the blockades and setbacks of the United States. DeepSeek was proof that AI can be done without the United States and now it is Europe that needs to replicate this success. Tensions and dependence. Relations between the United States and Europe they are going through their worst moment. Trump’s obsession with take control of Greenland and the response of several European countries that They have sent their troops to the region have caused an unprecedented clash. Amid the threats of invasion, the deployment of troops and tariffs, there is also the issue of technological war, a war in which Europe is in a position of strong disengagement from the US. The US executed and Europe regulated. Far behind. If China lags behind the US in AI, Europe is light years away. While American companies were developing the models and infrastructure to train their AI models, in Europe regulation was reinforced with the AI Act. The European Union itself understood that this approach was leaving them behind in the AI ​​race and recently They greatly simplified the rules. It was late, the technological gap was already enormous. Dependence. The United States not only controls the language models, it also controls the chips to train them, the data centers and, above all, the investment to get all this going. Miguel De Bruycker, head of the Brussels Cybersecurity Center, is very forceful: “Europe has lost the internet (…) If I want my information to be 100% in the EU… keep dreaming,” he told the Financial Times. In the current context, this dependency puts Europe in a very vulnerable position and becomes a major strategic risk. The US could use its dominance as a pressure point in negotiations or, in the worst case, restrict access to its services. A sovereign AI. They count in Wired that the concern to create a European AI is growing and there are already several projects underway to achieve it. The best known model is the French one Mistralbut there are others like Apertus in Switzerland or ALIA in Spain. In Germany they are developing SOOFIa project that aims to launch an open source language model with 100 billion parameters designed specifically to reduce European dependence on the US. Chinese inspiration. The US seemed unattainable, but DeepSeek showed that it was possible to achieve competitive results without having the best GPUs or the largest data centers. The fact of bet on open source It also gives an advantage since it allows creating a larger user base in less time, in addition to more actors can participate in the developments. There is also talk that Europe could encourage its companies to use its own AI, a strategy similar to that followed by China with the use of national chips. Image | Karola G, Pexels. Engin Akyurt, Unsplash In Xataka | The ASML-Mistral alliance reveals the European plan B: if we cannot manufacture chips, at least we will control how they are manufactured

In January a SpaceX rocket exploded. Today we know the danger that an Iberia plane was in with 450 passengers in the air

by

On January 16, while air traffic in the Caribbean continued its usual routine, three commercial airliners were thrust into a situation that until recently belonged more to science fiction than civil aviation: passing through a possible cloud of rocket debris in mid-flight. Iberia under a space rain. It was a JetBlue plane heading to San Juan, another Iberia plane and a private jet that ended up declaring fuel emergencies and crossing a temporary exclusion zone hastily activated after the Starship explosion from SpaceX a few minutes after taking off. Altogether, about 450 people were traveling on those planes, which ultimately landed without incident, but internal documents of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reveal that the real risk was much higher than what was publicly known at that time. When the protocol is behind. The Starship explosion caused almost 50 minutes a rain of incandescent fragments over large areas of the Caribbean, a scenario in which the impact of a single piece of debris against an airplane could have had catastrophic consequences. However, the warning chain did not work as planned: SpaceX did not immediately report the failure through the official hotline, and some controllers learned of the incident because the pilots themselves they started reporting “intense fire and fragments” visible from the cabin. The exclusion zones were activated late and, furthermore, only covered US airspace with radar, leaving out pockets of international space where, in theory, flying could continue despite the risk. The result was a extreme workload for controllers and situations of added danger, such as excessive proximity between aircraft that forced intervention to avoid a collision. Impossible decisions at 10,000 meters. In the air, theory became a practical dilemma. The pilots were raised a choice that no manual comfortably contemplates: deviate and take risks to run out of fuel over the ocean or continue through an area where space debris could fall. In at least two cases, the only way out was declare emergency to be able to land. Iberia later maintained that its plane crossed the area when debris was no longer falling, and JetBlue assured that its flights avoided the points where debris was detected, but FAA records describe a tense situation in which decisions were made with incomplete information and under extreme pressure. A structural problem. The incident set off alarms both in the airline industry and in the US Government itself, not only because of what happened in January, but because of what comes next. The FAA plans to go from a historical average of about two dozen launches and reentries annually to managing between 200 and 400 every year for the foreseeable future. A good part of this increase goes through Starship, the most powerful system ever developed, with more than 120 meters high and trajectories that, in future missions, will fly over busy air routes in the North Atlantic, Florida or Mexico. The industry’s own history reminds us that the development of new rockets involves failures: approximately one third of launchers active since 2000 failed on their first flight. Half review. After the explosion January, the FAA convened a panel of experts to review protocols for failed launch debris, an initiative that took on even more urgency after another Starship that exploded in March. That second incident was managed better from the aerial point of view, closing loopholes in exclusion zones and avoiding fuel emergencies, and the panel came to identify high risks for aviation safety, such as forced diversions or overloading of controllers. However, in August the agency suspended unexpectedly that internal review, claiming that many recommendations were already being implemented and that the issue would be addressed at another regulatory level, a decision that surprised even some group participants. The defense of SpaceX. SpaceX responded calling the published information misleading and reiterating that public safety is always its priority, ensuring that no plane was really in danger. Your address insist in which the collaboration with the FAA is close and proposes solutions such as real-time monitoring of vehicles and possible debris, so that a problematic launch can be managed almost like a meteorological phenomenon. Meanwhile, the company has moved forward with new evidence of Starship, some longer before disintegrating and others staying within the planned profile, and preparing an even more powerful version for next year. As recognized Its CEO, Elon Musk, is a radical design that will likely have “growing pains.” A warning from heaven. What happened in January was not only a specific scarebut an early warning of a problem that is barely starts to take shape: the increasingly closer coexistence between commercial aviation and a rapidly accelerating space industry. The night when pilots tthey had to choose between the fuel and a rain of space debris showed that current protocols are not fully prepared for this new scenario. The challenge is no longer just to launch bigger rockets more often, but to ensure that the price of that progress is not paid at 10,000 meters above sea level, with hundreds of passengers trapped between the sky and the sea. Image | Adam Moreira (AEMoreira042281), NARA In Xataka | China is launching more rockets into space than ever before. And the reason is very simple: not to depend on Starlink In Xataka | Google doesn’t have rockets, but it is going to install data centers in space. SpaceX and Blue Origin rub their hands

In 2013 London announced its most impressive skyscraper. Back then, no one could imagine the danger that their crystals had.

by

There are many stories of skyscrapers with very different endings than those on the plans, some terriblebut in the city of London one is still remembered for its closeness and chaos generated. The history of the so-called like walkie talkie (20 Fenchurch Street) is that of a building that was born wrapped in promises of modernity and ended up exhibiting one of the most unusual and dangerous design flaws in contemporary architecture. An experiment turned into risk. In the summer of 2013, when its glass façade was almost finished, London discovered to its shock that the skyscraper it had so much promoted had a big problem: acted like a gigantic parabolic lens, concentrating sunlight on a narrow strip of Eastcheap capable of melting plastic, deform metal and produce temperatures higher than those of a domestic oven. It was no joke. Parked cars, like the story that went viral Martin Lindsay’s Jaguarsuffered palpable damage, everyday objects began to melt, passersby spoke of softened shoe soles or feeling burns on their skin. You have to give it a name. The phenomenon was such that it ended up being baptized like death rayand it was not an exaggeration: the reflections generated up to 72 degrees Celsius on the street, creating a real danger for anyone passing by. The press documented the episode with fascination and alarmimmediately turning it into a media attraction that placed the building at the center of unprecedented scrutiny. The Walkie-Talkie (20 Fenchurch Street) A failure announced. Far from being an unforeseeable accident, Walkie Talkie It had been conceived with a concave curvature that any student of elementary physics would have pointed out as capable of concentrating light. Its architect, Rafael Viñoly, recognized shortly after the building had initially been designed with horizontal slats to avoid precisely that effect, but they were removed for budgetary reasons. Viñoly admitted also that the team did not have the appropriate tools to model the phenomenon accurately, limiting itself to approximate calculations who predicted a lower risk. The reality was very different, aggravated by the increase in solar radiation in London in recent years. In fact, the problem It was not unprecedented for the architect: already in Las Vegas his Vdara hotel had been accused to concentrate light until they burn the bathers. The skyscraper under construction And more. But in London the error acquired a incomparable public dimensionbecause it affected not a private complex but one of the busiest streets in the City. The urgent installation of a temporary mesh and the subsequent placement of slats on the facade They solved the problem, but they did not avoid the perception that it was a systemic failure, the result of a design process that had privileged aesthetics and costs over urban safety. The Sky Garden Emblem of a city in transformation. Even before the death ray episode, the Walkie Talkie was subject of criticism. Its silhouette, disproportionate and widened upward to maximize profitable views, stood like a sort of “sore thumb” outside the financial cluster, generating a visual impact that the own urban report had described as “significant damage.” However, the real controversy came after its famous Sky Garden: presented as a public contribution comparable to a vertical park. open to all, it ended up being more of a panoramic restaurant complex with controlled access and mandatory reservations. For many Londoners, it represented a symbol of the privatization drift of urban spaces: a supposed “public garden” that responded more to the logic of corporate luxury than to that of the common good. The complaints were so intense that the City even raised a structural reform of space to bring it closer to what was initially promised. A razzie. In 2015, amidst the accumulation of controversies, the building received the Carbuncle Cup for ugliest building of the year in the United Kingdom, a satirical recognition that underlined the extent to which it had become object of rejection collective. Even Sky News tried to fry an egg under his facade and his name mutated into a meme: Scorchie walkie. Over time, its image became associated not only with an aesthetic problem, but with a chain of opaque decisions and urban planning concessions that many consider a paradigmatic example of how not to manage the integration of a skyscraper into the historical fabric of London. The work of the Imperial The rebirth. Despite its rugged origins, Walkie Talkie has undergone a surprising public rehabilitation. In 2025, twelve years after the incident, visitors are lining up to enjoy from the Sky Gardennow fully integrated into the city’s tourist circuit. But beneath that normalization lies a story that could have been tragic. Later studies from Imperial College showed that, in a different meteorological scenario, the death ray could have cause serious injuryfires in nearby homes and even permanent damage to the skin and eyes. Only the chance combination of clouds and the orientation of the beam (which did not fall at its maximum point at street level) prevented major consequences. A reminder. The architecture was a warning about the critical role of climate modeling, professional responsibility, and the need to subject bolder architectural forms to much more rigorous evaluations. If today the majority of tourists who sgo to the Sky Garden They ignore that the building was about to become an icon of the disaster, it is because the city acted quickly and because luck intervened at the right time. In any case, the technical memory persists: Walkie Talkie remains a reminder that, in a dense, vertical metropolis, a miscalculation can become a massive riskand that contemporary architecture (when its interaction with the environment is neglected) can produce both wonders and invisible dangers. An uncomfortable legacy. In retrospect, the Walkie Talkie has ended up occupying a peculiar place in London’s recent history: it is simultaneously a tourist success, a design failurea case study in urban security and an example of the tensions between public interest and the imperatives of the real estate market. Its trajectory shows that a … Read more

The danger is not when, it is the Arctic

by

The recent crossing of threats between Putin and Trump has revived a tension that seemed buried from the hardest years of the cold war. The Russian president ordered his senior commanders to prepare plans to resume nuclear tests after Trump’s statements on social networks, in which he announced that the United States would resume its tests “immediately.” If so, nuclear weapons experts are clear about how long it would take for Russia to carry out a “real” test. The nuclear ghost. Although the intention of the North American president seemed more political than technical (referring to tests of launch systems and not to real detonations), in Moscow the interpretation it was another: The Ministry of Defense assumed that Washington seeks to reopen the nuclear race and recommended Putin to be ready for “full tests” in the Arctic field of Novaya Zemlya. It we count: that gesture, accompanied by recent demonstrations of the Russian arsenal (since the Burevestnik missile nuclear propulsion to intercontinental torpedo Poseidon), symbolizes the disappearance of the last brakes in the atomic dialectic between the two powers. The end of the agreements. The current climate is the result of years of system erosion of gun control. Russia suspended its participation in the New START treaty in 2023, while the historic INF agreement, which banned intermediate-range missiles, had already been abandoned by both countries in 2019. Despite maintaining some technical respect for launch limits, the absence of verification and transparency has turned the arsenals of Washington and Moscow (5,177 and 5,459 warheads, respectively) in a field of permanent suspicion. The Putin’s orderMore than a technical step, it represents a political message: that Russia will not allow the United States to monopolize the symbolic gesture of resuming tests that, if carried out, would break the taboo in force since 1990 and the spirit of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Kremlin itself seems to have assumed that the return to “eye for an eye” logic It is part of the new post-Ukraine order, where shows of force count as much as victories on the battlefield. Satellite image showing tunnel construction at the Novaya Zemlya nuclear weapons test site in Russia. Russian viability: the Arctic. To the big question, nuclear security experts agree that Russia could carry out a real test within a margin of weeks or monthsdepending on the degree of instrumentation and preparation desired. Hans Kristensenof the Federation of American Scientistsestimates that an improvised detonation (without complex data collection) could be carried out quickly, although without significant scientific or military value. On the contrary, a complete, “real” test, with sealed tunnels, sensors and wiring, would require at least half a year of jobs in Novaya Zemlyawhere underground works have continued discreetly for years. Jon Wolfsthalfrom the American Federation of Scientists, gives the key: seasonal limitations, since the extreme arctic weather would allow trials of this caliber only in summer or early fall. However, both he and other analysts agree that the purpose would be mainly political (show parity with Washington) more than scientific. The great uncertainty. Most experts consulted on TWZ He stressed that neither Russia nor the United States have a technical or military need to resume nuclear testing. Both have extensive arsenals and advanced simulation programs that guarantee the reliability of their weapons without resorting to detonations. Daryl Kimballof the Arms Control Associationremember that Washington has made 1,030 historical tests and Moscow 715and that any new trial would be “purely for show,” an irresponsible act with no tangible benefit. Stephen Schwartz added that the United States maintains a structural advantage thanks to its arsenal maintenance program, valued in 345,000 million of dollars, and that Russia, although it could act with fewer environmental or political obstacles, would gain nothing beyond fueling the spiral of distrust. Still, Russian infrastructure on Novaya Zemlya, modernized in recent years, demonstrates a capacity to respond quickly if tension turns into action. A new deterrent. Beyond of personal confrontation between Putin and Trump, the real risk lies in precedent. A single test (even if it is underground and of low power) would be enough to break three decades of tacit consensus and open the door to new tests by, for example, China, North Korea or other actors seeking to legitimize themselves as nuclear powers. The gesture would have a huge symbolic power: demonstrate that powers can rewrite the rules of nuclear balance when they consider it necessary. In that sense, the experts’ warnings are clear: what is a rhetorical escalation today could become a tangible competition tomorrow, with unforeseeable global consequences. As Wolfsthal pointed out“this is what an arms race looks like: action, reaction, and a slope that costs much more to go down than to go up.” Echoes of the Cold War. The exchange between Moscow and Washington Not only does it resurrect the shadow of the nuclear confrontation, but it redefines its scenario: it is no longer fought in secret offices or under the logic of the balance of terror, but in televised broadcasts and social media posts. The threat of detonating atomic bombs again in the 21st century reveals a dangerous mix of geopolitical nostalgia and spectacle politics. Deep down, both know that no country can “win” a nuclear race. And yet, the temptation to show power, to regain influence and to project invulnerability to their respective audiences could be enough to reignite the powder keg. most feared on the planet. The silence of thirty years underground could be broken by a simple click on a social network. Image | Ministry of Defense of Russia In Xataka | The US and Russia have agreed on nuclear weapons: the time has come to take them out and see if they work In Xataka | In 1950 two scientists wondered if a 10 gigaton nuclear bomb was possible. Your results are hidden under lock and key

Science says the real danger is in how we do it

by

A very typical gesture in our daily lives is to reuse the bottles we use to drink water or any other beverage. Something that is usually done to reduce the carbon footprint that can be caused by using a bottle only once and throwing it away. But at a time when microplastics are the order of the day, the truth is that it makes us think If reusing a bottle is harmful to us. But we are not only talking about the plastic bottles that we buy in the supermarket with water or any other liquid such as a soft drink, but also the classic bottles that we are used to seeing in many places that They promise to keep you warm or cold inside.. Its plastic construction can set off alarm bells after seeing how microplastics have been found in the testiclesthe breast milk and other parts of the bodyit is logical to think that if we use the same bottle twenty or thirty times in the end we are consuming this type of substance. The fear of microplastics. Little by little they get to know each other details about the effect that the consumption of microplastics has about our health, especially fertility. This means that we basically have to question the containers from which we consume food in order to ‘protect ourselves’ from its bad effects, as can occur in these bottles in container containers. The problem. Popular belief states that reusing bottles could pose a significant risk due to the alleged accumulation of bisphenol A (BPA) and the proliferation of dangerous bacteria if they are not cleaned daily. However, current scientific evidence intensely qualifies these statements, distinguishing between real risk factors and unfounded precautions. The release of bisphenols. Several studies have evaluated the migration of BPA and phthalates from reused bottles. under real use conditions. A recent experiment from 2021 simulating daily use in more than 20 types of bottles concluded that no migration of bisphenol A was detected in the stored water, even after several weeks of reasonable reuse. And the most interesting thing is that the classic aluminum bottles used as thermoses were also included. Other scientific articles agree: the release of BPA depends fundamentally on the type of material, exposure to high temperatures and extreme wear, not on the mere fact of filling them with tap or refrigerator water. Bottles suitable for food use, well maintained and not subjected to excessive heatdo not dangerously increase exposure to BPA. This logically changes radically if liquids are poured at high temperatures, which can cause more microplastics to be released. This is why you must always take into account the temperature of the liquids that are stored, so that it is the same as the original liquid that was stored. But there are also different opinions. In this case, food technologist Luis Ribera, director of the Saia food safety consultancy, has warned of the risk of reusing bottles manufactured for single use, as reported by El Confidencial. ​Although he goes further by stating that the real danger lies in the microorganisms that can appear in these bottles. Bacteria and bottles. Precisely, it is also a recurring theme, since logically on the surface of the bottle you can accumulate different common microorganisms like for example Escherichia coli either Staphylococcus. This is something that can be common, especially when a sugary drink has been stored, which leaves a substrate on the plastic walls, as if it were a Petri dish. But the key in this case to avoid the accumulation of bacteria logically lies in hygiene. Recent studies show that regular cleaning Soap and water is enough to keep the bottles safe. In cases in which high levels of bacteria have been reported, the analyzes always point to the lack of frequent washing or the use of cracked containers, rather than the rational reuse for drinking water as many of us do at home to avoid having to buy more bottles. Is it dangerous to reuse bottles? With this evidence, we can have several clear conclusions. The first of them is that there is no health prohibition when it comes to using bottles that are reusable and that have been manufactured to contain water. The second is that the associated health risks are almost exclusively due to poor hygiene habits or extreme wear and tear of the packaging. And the third is that if a bottle has not been manufactured to give it more than one use, Yes, we must be careful with its reuse.. In this way, neither the migration of bisphenol A nor the “bacteriological danger” justify throwing away your bottle after a single use, as long as it is used sensibly and basic hygiene is maintained. Science supports responsible use and regular cleaning, debunking some of the alarmist discourse around reusing plastic bottles for tap water. Images | charlesdeluvio Nigel Msipa In Xataka | The true size of the microplastics that populate our lives, exposed in this disturbing graph ​

This is the “danger zone” we enter after the massive death of corals

by

The Earth has officially entered a grim new era. climate reality. According to a shocking new reportthe incessant increase in heat in the oceans has pushed the corals from around the world beyond its limit, causing a unprecedented large reef mortality because of this climate change. Something that is not good news at all. This event, according to scientists, marks the first climate tipping point we have passed as a planet, directly threatening the livelihoods of nearly a billion people. The report. This data has been collected in the “Global Tipping Points Report 2025”, prepared by an international consortium of more than 200 researchers. And the truth is that they are not at all positive, since they suggest that even in the most optimistic scenario, where global warming does not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, practically all warm-water coral reefs will exceed a point of no return. This makes their loss “one of the most pressing ecological losses facing humanity,” although the disappearance of corals is only the tip of the iceberg. Experts point out that since 2023 we have witnessed how the temperature has increased more than 1.5 °C compared to the pre-industrial average. In this way, exceeding the 1.5 °C limit now seems quite inevitable and could occur around 2030, something that puts our planet on the brink of an abyss. What are ‘turning points’. These points are nothing more than critical thresholds. Once crossed, the climate system is pushed into a new paradigm, triggering effects that will go on in a chain. Specifically, we talk about events such as widespread death of the Amazon rainforestthe collapse of the Greenland ice sheets or the collapse of the circulation of Atlantic southern overturn (AMOC). The Amazon, in particular, is in a critical situation. The report warns that not only warming threatens the forest, but also the combination of this with deforestation. With 1.5°C warming, only 22% deforestation would be enough to reach its point of no return. The current figure is already at an alarming 17%. All is not lost. Despite the bleak outlook, the report identifies a silver lining, which is nothing more than a paradigm shift that, unlike the negative ones, triggers a cascade of beneficial changes. Since 2023, the world has seen very rapid progress in the adoption of clean technologies, especially in two key areas: velectric vehicles and photovoltaic solar energy. Accompanied by a drastic drop in battery prices, these factors are beginning to reinforce each other, accelerating the energy transition in a way that few anticipated. The problem. According to the report’s authors, it lies in governance systems. From national policies to multinational agreements, such as the from Pariswere not designed to address turning points. They are designed to manage gradual, linear changes, not abrupt, cascading collapses on multiple fronts at once. But these turning points are really threatening, so they point to a series of immediate actions to be taken in all countries to avoid a catastrophic situation. In this case they point to the following: Reduce emissions of short-lived pollutants such as methane and black carbon. Accelerate efforts to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Making global supply chains sustainable. Develop mitigation strategies for climate impacts. The message is clear and forceful: what we have done so far is not enough. Researchers urge not to look away. As Milkoreit concludes, “even having a reader have the courage to stay with the problem is work, and I want to recognize that work.” Images | quinguyen Chris LeBoutillier In Xataka | In the fight against climate change, we have developed the air conditioning revolution: ionocaloric cooling

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.