Richard Garwin, designer of the first hydrogen bomb, dies aged 97
At just 23 years old, Garwin designed the first hydrogen bomb, tested on November 1, 1952, in the Marshall Islands. He later became a leading figure in nuclear arms control and a vocal proponent of disarmament, notably alongside the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which bring together scientists worldwide to reduce the risks of armed conflict.
Described by his biographer, Joel Shurkin, as "the most influential scientist you've never heard of," Garwin long remained discreet – even with those closest to him – about his role as adviser to US presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama, and his involvement in developing the hydrogen bomb. His role was only revealed in 2001, following testamentary statements by Edward Teller (1908–2003), who had been tasked by President Harry Truman with building such a weapon. In a 2024 interview with Spectrum, the magazine of the IEEE, the world's largest engineering professional society, Garwin said the mission he was given felt more like a challenge than a sign of trust.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Film of the Week: 'Jurassic World Rebirth' – A dino-mite reboot?
While the last few years have been characterised by movie lovers rightfully moaning about superhero fatigue, there is another cinematic ailment that has also taken hold: dino-fatigue. Symptoms include dejected sighs triggered by recalling the lucrative but utterly pants 2015 – 2022 Jurassic World trilogy; the sudden urge to curse Colin Trevorrow's name; and wanting to punch Chris Pratt in his perfect face every time you remember scenes of him holding up the palm of his hand to somehow communicate with raptors. It was high time for someone to step in and give the series the much-needed renaissance it deserved. Enter: Gareth Edwards, whose arresting debut Monsters, ambitious 2014 reboot of the Godzilla franchise and excellent Star Wars prequel Rogue One proved the British filmmaker has the chops to orchestrate a tense thrill ride. More than that, he's not a director who bends under the weight of an existing IP and its accompanying high expectations. Except, in the case of this seventh dinosaur instalment, he stumbles by only delivering everything you'd expect. And not a hell of a lot else. Jurassic World Rebirth picks up after the events of 2022's Jurassic World Dominion. Humans have been forced to co-exist with dinosaurs, and after a few years, everyone's also experiencing dino-fatigue. We see this early on when a billboard depicting T-Rexes gets painted over – a plot point, but also an apt metaphor for the Jurassic franchise as a whole. We meet Martin Krebs (Ruper Friend), a slimy Big Pharma bugger who enlists the services of Special Ops expert Zora Bennett (Scarlett Johansson), soldier of fortune Duncan Kincaid (Mahershala Ali) and palaeontologist Henry Loomis (Jonathan Bailey). They are tasked with retrieving biomaterial samples from the three largest remaining dinosaurs: the aquatic Mosasaurus, the avian Quetzalcoatlus, and the land-locked Titanosaurus. Krebs believes that their DNA holds the key to the development of a medical drug capable of curing cardiac disease. How that works, we have no idea. Something about haemoglobin needing to be extracted from living dinos. Anyway, it's going to make him and his company millions. The snag is that these creatures have struggled with the climate and now reside near the equator line, in remote locales reminiscent of the environments where they flourished during the Mesozoic era. So it's off to the dangerous Ile Saint-Hubert they go – where they'll also rescue the shipwrecked Delgado family, whose boat came under attack from a pack of pesky Mosasaures. Despite Gareth Edwards excellent direction, some nifty staging of CG set pieces and a handful of spectacular sequences – chiefly the riverbed encounter with a dozing T-Rex – Jurassic World Rebirth comes off as more of a nostalgic legacyquel than a rejuvenating fresh start. There's nothing wrong with loving Steven Spielberg's 1993 original, but when your reboot feels like a greatest hits compilation rather than its own thing, something's gone wrong somewhere. Worse, original Jurassic Park screenwriter David Koepp – who wowed us this year with Presence and Black Bag – returns to tick off all the staples expected from a dino romp (breathless chases, nail-biting close calls) but also lumbers his script with eye-rollingly poor exposition, ear-scraping dialogue, a lunatic focus on candy (don't ask), and some very generic characters that only serve as dinosaur fodder. It's genuinely baffling how this feels like a first draft treatment rather than a fully formed ready-to-shoot script – one which should have relegated the Delgado family plotline to the cutting-room floor. Granted, the addition of audience surrogates makes sense, but the hapless family just slows down what should have been a down-to-basics three-part quest. In Jurassic World Rebirth's defence, the obviously rushed production schedule probably didn't help. But much like our qualms with F1® The Movie, everything has to start with a decent script. Had the studio spent a bit more time polishing the screenplay instead of securing an admittedly impressive all-star cast and pushing for a Summer 2024 release slot, this could have been dino-mite. As it stands, Jurassic World Rebirth honours the magic of Spielberg's gamechanging blockbuster but downgrades what could have been a daring revival to a passably entertaining regurgitation. Jurassic World Rebirth is out in cinemas now.
Euronews
10 hours ago
- Euronews
US agencies altered health datasets in ‘gender ideology' crackdown
The Trump administration quietly altered massive US health datasets to remove any mention of gender, according to a new analysis. Scientists around the world rely on health data from US government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But since President Donald Trump took office in January, these agencies have been altering data labels, mostly without disclosure, according to the investigation published in The Lancet, a leading medical journal. The authors argue that the 'hidden' changes could cast doubt on the integrity of American science. The database edits 'might be politically motivated and [are] not transparent,' Dr Aaron Kesselheim, a professor at Harvard Medical School, and Janet Freilich, a law professor at Boston University, said in the paper. Their analysis included 232 US health datasets that were edited from late January to late March, covering veterans' health care use, global tobacco consumption, stroke deaths, nutrition, exercise, and obesity. It did not include datasets that are updated on a regular basis. About half of these datasets were 'substantially altered' during the two-month period, but only 15 acknowledged that changes had been made, the study found. The parts of the datasets meant for these disclosures remained empty as of early May, the researchers said. In most of the edited datasets – 106 of them – the word 'gender' was swapped out for 'sex'. US agencies have not confirmed or explained the changes, but Freilich and Kesselheim suspect they were made to comply with a Trump order to remove 'messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology'. The executive order, issued on Trump's first day in office, said it aimed to restore 'biological truth' to US agencies, and set a national policy 'to recognise two sexes, male and female,' they said. It was part of a flurry of activity to clamp down on LGBTQ protections. Some data was initially removed from federal websites, but was largely restored due to a court order. The Lancet analysis indicates that not all changes were reversed. It is not clear if the actual numbers were altered, or only the labels about gender or sex. But Freilich and Kesselheim said the distinction is important because some people will respond to surveys differently based on each term. That can undermine the quality of the data and lead researchers to draw inaccurate conclusions, they said. They described the undisclosed changes as a 'crisis' that could make US data 'untrustworthy and unusable'. They called on governments elsewhere in the world to invest in other data sources.
LeMonde
12 hours ago
- LeMonde
Trump flexes political muscle with passage of ‘big and beautiful' budget
Donald Trump is experiencing a rare moment of political triumph. Aside from a handful of federal judges, no one appeared strong or daring enough to oppose the American president, who has sought to reshape the balance of institutions to his own advantage, weaken social protections and designate migrants as domestic enemies. On Thursday, July 3, in line with the timeline imposed by the real-estate magnate, the House of Representatives passed the key piece of legislation for this term: the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' (OBBB). Expensive, risky, confusing and fraught with threats for the most vulnerable, the bill passed by a narrow margin (218 votes to 214) and was met with chants of "USA!" from Republicans, after being amended by the Senate on July 1. Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill into law on Friday, just in time for the national holiday weekend – a celebration that, this year, will be his own, as he stands at the peak of his power. This successful gamble underscored Donald Trump's total dominance over the Republican Party and the fervent, sometimes humiliating submission of its elected officials, often in contradiction with their personal convictions. Their narrow majority in the House and internal divisions had suggested the possibility of a rebellion. As usual, that did not happen. Only two representatives, Thomas Massie (Kentucky) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania), voted against it. For six months, Republicans had accepted the White House overruling the prerogatives of Congress, bypassing it with a barrage of executive orders, nominating unfit and extremist candidates to sensitive administration positions and forcing a rushed review of the OBBB.
