Rukmini Iyer's quick and easy recipe for cashew rice bowls with stir-fried tofu, broccoli and kimchi
Kimchi brings a lovely contrast, so if you have or can get some, do add it.
Prep 15 min
Cook 20 min
Serves 4
200g white or basmati rice4 garlic cloves, peeled, 3 finely grated, 1 left whole
75g cashew nuts2 tbsp sesame oil 7-8cm piece fresh ginger, peeled and finely grated2 spring onions, trimmed and finely sliced1 small head broccoli, roughly chopped into 1cm pieces280g firm tofu, roughly chopped into 1cm cubes1 tsp flaky sea salt½ tsp turmeric Juice of 1 lime
To serveKimchiSliced red chilli (optional)
First, cook the rice, and this is my magic microwave method: you'll need a large Pyrex bowl and a plate that will neatly cover the top and act as a lid. Put the rice, 400ml just-boiled water and the whole garlic clove in the bowl, cover with the plate and cook on medium (that is, if your microwave's maximum power setting is 1,000W, you want to cook it at 800W) for 11 minutes. Then leave to stand, still covered, for 10 minutes.
Meanwhile, put a large frying pan or wok on a medium heat and toast the cashews, shaking the pan frequently, for four to five minutes, until evenly golden brown. Tip into a small bowl.
Return the pan to the heat, add the oil, then fry the grated garlic and ginger and the sliced spring onions for 30 seconds. Add the broccoli and tofu, stir-fry on a high heat for four to five minutes, until the broccoli is just cooked through. Turn down the heat, add the salt and turmeric, and stir-fry for a further minute. Season with the lime juice, then taste and adjust the salt as needed.
Divide the rice between four bowls, and top one half of each serving with the stir-fried tofu mix. Top another third of the remaining exposed rice with kimchi and another with the cashews, scatter over the sliced red chilli, if using, and serve hot.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
Could giving this pod of dolphins the same legal rights as humans help keep them safe?
It is a beautiful sunny day on the island of Jeju in South Korea and as the boat cuts through the water all seems calm and clear. Then they start to appear – one telltale fin and then another. Soon, a pod of eight or nine dolphins can be seen moving through the sea, seemingly following the path of the boat. But as they start to jump and dive, fins cutting through the air, it becomes apparent that one dolphin is missing the appendage, his body breaking the surface but without the telltale profile of his companions. His name, given to him by a local environmental group, is Orae, which literally translates as 'long', but in this context means 'wishing him a long life'. Orae is one of about 130 Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins living in the waters surrounding Jeju. Many display scars of the increasingly dangerous lives they lead after coming into contact with discarded fishing gear that entangles and cuts into them, or through close encounters with boats or jetskis operating around the island. Piloting the boat is someone known on the island as 'Dolphin Man', AKA Jeongjoon Lee, a Korean director known for his work on documenting and helping the bottlenose population. 'Because the dolphins cannot cut the fishing lines themselves, we decided to cut them for them,' he says. 'In one case, we had to cut wire from two different places, one was going in through the dolphin's face to its body, and another from around its tail where it had become tangled.' Now, a coalition of campaigners and environmentalists want to take things further. They are hoping to have the bottlenose population recognised as a 'legal person', which would give them additional rights and make it easier to protect them. The idea is part of a growing movement to recognise rights in law of nonhuman species and places, and is the first attempt in Korea to give such status to an animal. 'The idea is that if an individual or a company threatens their livelihood, then we could act on behalf of the dolphins to sue them or to take action in another way,' says Miyeon Kim, who works at Marine Animal Research and Conservation (Marc), the local NGO responsible for naming the dolphins. 'Different organisations that work with the dolphins have been pushing for this for two years now, but it's very complicated and you have to get the Korean government, as well as the citizens of Jeju, to back such a move.' The dolphins are officially listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as 'near threatened' rather than threatened, but the IUCN states that a lack of data on the dolphins makes it difficult to assess whether this status is accurate. Some subpopulations – there are pods throughout the Indian Ocean, south-east Asia and Australia – probably face much greater threats, it says, particularly those that live close to islands. Around Jeju these threats come from discarded fishing gear, dive and tourist boats that get too close, construction noise that affects the dolphin's use of sonar, and pollution and runoff from the island's many fish farms. The latest concern is the construction of the largest windfarm in Korea, and one of the biggest in the world, off the coast of Jeju. Kim says part of Marc's strategy is to personalise the dolphins in an effort to get local people to relate to them better. The group has produced a booklet with each dolphin's name against a picture of their dorsal fin. 'It's important for us to be able to identify individual dolphins to be able to record scientific facts but it's also important for the islanders. People have to understand and really relate to endangered species in order for these kind of things [establishing legal personhood] to work.' In April, there was a small but significant victory with the designation of a marine protected area (MPA) on the west side of the island, with the specific remit of protecting the bottlenose dolphins. At the moment the rules that govern the area include things such as preventing arbitrary development in it – but these need to be tightened further, says Kim. 'The law bans more than two recreation boats coming within a 100-metre radius of the dolphins but there are a lot of different boats in that area including fishing boats, and at the moment we can't do anything about those.' For Dolphin Man, who has dedicated so much of his time to swimming with, filming and helping the dolphins, any extra help to conserve the animals cannot come soon enough. 'Sometimes I see so many boats surrounding the dolphins all watching them and chasing them around,' he says. 'It is good that we now have a small space to begin to protect them more, but really we need to designate that whole side of the island as a protected area in order to keep them safe for the future.' This article was supported by the Bloomberg Ocean Fund and Oceans5
The Independent
11 hours ago
- The Independent
The unanswered questions about Air India crash after preliminary report published
On The Ground newsletter: Get a weekly dispatch from our international correspondents Get a weekly dispatch from our international correspondents Get a weekly international news dispatch Email * SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month's crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground. The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence. Here's what the report actually says, why we don't yet know what caused the crash, and why it's important not to speculate. What the preliminary report does say What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff. open image in gallery A crane retrieves part of the fuselage from the crash site ( Getty Images ) According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU). The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure. The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots. Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from 'run' to 'cutoff' three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to 'run'. The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn't restart in time. open image in gallery 260 people died in the crash ( Getty Images ) We don't know what the pilots did Flight data recorders don't capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they're an accurate representation of the pilot's actions in the cockpit. While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case. In my own work investigating safety incidents, I've seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action. We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don't know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to 'cutoff'. And we may never know. As we also don't have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots' actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by theaircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit. We don't have the full conversation between the pilots open image in gallery People light candles in a prayer ceremony for the victims of the crash ( AFP/Getty ) Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says: 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don't know who says what. Second, we don't know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don't know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased. Finally, we don't know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know. What's crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn't support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation. Air India flight 'was doomed' without sufficient power, explains Simon Calder We don't know if there was a mechanical failure The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine. This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that. What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world. This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened. Why we must resist premature conclusions In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers. It's also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It's based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace. The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement. This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast. Guido Carim Junior is a Senior Lecturer in Aviation at Griffith University This article was originally published by The Conversation and is republished under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article
The Independent
14 hours ago
- The Independent
What are fuel switches and why do they matter in the Air India crash?
The first clues from the investigation into the London Gatwick -bound Air India plane that crashed in India's Ahmedabad last month, killing 260 people, reveal that the aircraft's engine fuel cutoff switches shut off the fuel supply to the engines almost simultaneously, causing confusion among the pilots. According to the preliminary report by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), released early Saturday, the cockpit voice recorder captured one pilot asking the other why he had cut off the fuel in the final moments before the crash. The other pilot responded that he had not done so, the report revealed, raising fresh questions about the position of the critical engine fuel cutoff switches. The report from India's AAIB did not identify which remarks were made by the flight's captain and which by the first officer. It is also not immediately clear which pilot issued the 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday' call to air traffic control in Ahmedabad just before the crash. In what is the world's deadliest aviation accident in a decade, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner bound for London on 12 June from the western Indian city of Ahmedabad began losing thrust and started to descend shortly after takeoff. One of the closed-circuit TV footages captured the moment the plane lifted off the ground, followed by the deployment of a backup energy source called the ram air turbine (RAT). These early signs, even before the report, suggested that the high-end aircraft had lost power from both engines. New clues into the plane crash reveal that the fuel switches flipped almost simultaneously from 'run' to 'cutoff' just after takeoff. The preliminary report does not explain how the switches could have moved to the 'cutoff' position during the flight. At the crash site, both fuel switches were found in the 'run' position, and there were indications that both engines had begun relighting before the low-altitude crash, according to the report released around 1.30am IST on Saturday (2000 GMT on Friday). What are fuel cutoff switches? The fuel control switches, prominently located on the critical cockpit control panel, regulate the flow of fuel into each of the plane's two engines. Pilots flying the aircraft use fuel cutoff switches to start or shut down engines on the ground. In the event of an engine failure during a flight, the pilots can manually shut down or restart engines using these switches. They are centrally located on the pedestal between the two pilot seats, positioned just behind the throttle levers. These switches cannot be accidentally or gently moved by pilots operating a flight. The fuel cutoff switches are spring-loaded to remain firmly in place. They operate in two modes — 'CUTOFF' and 'RUN'. 'Cutoff' stops the fuel supply to the engine, while 'Run' allows fuel to flow. A pilot must first pull the switch up before moving it from the 'Run' to the 'Cutoff' position, or vice versa. Aviation experts have emphasised that these switches cannot be accidentally moved while operating the flight deck; if they are moved, the engine power would immediately be cut off. US aviation safety expert John Cox has said that the fuel cutoff switches and the fuel valves are two independent power systems, and that the valves are controlled by the switches. Why do they matter in the Air India crash? The fuel cutoff switches offer the first preliminary insight into the Air India plane crash. According to the report, there was no indication of an onboard emergency that would have required an engine cutoff. Switching to cutoff is typically done to shut down engines after a plane has reached the airport gate or in specific emergencies, such as an engine fire. No such situation was recorded in the report. A pilot would almost never turn the switches off mid-flight, especially during the initial climb, said US aviation expert John Nance. Additionally, the report notes, citing maintenance records, that the throttle control module on VT-ANB was replaced in 2019 and again in 2023. 'However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB,' it said. Aviation experts in India have urged caution in drawing final conclusions from the preliminary report on the Air India flight's crash, but said it is 'conclusive that the fuel to engines was cut'. 'Remember, a preliminary report lays out the facts of the case, not the why of the case. So, don't be quick to jump to conclusions. The only thing conclusive is that the fuel to engines was cut. The Why is the more mysterious question, one that will take time to establish,' said Ajay Awtaney, an Indian aviation journalist wrote on X.
