❌

Normal view

Wildfire near Sizewell nuclear plant causes ‘total devastation’ to Suffolk landscape

Emergency crews say situation remains ‘dynamic’ as more than 100 firefighters battle Dunwich Heath blaze

A wildfire near Britain’s biggest nuclear power station has caused “total devastation” to one of the UK’s most important landscapes, as fire crews said the situation remained “dynamic”.

More than 100 firefighters have been battling the blaze on Dunwich Heath, near Leiston, on the Suffolk coast since Wednesday evening. The fire service said on Friday afternoon the situation was stabilising but remained a “major incident” that was “dynamic and potentially changeable”.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Humphrey Nemar/PA

© Photograph: Humphrey Nemar/PA

© Photograph: Humphrey Nemar/PA

Britain’s Power Grid Has a Blind Spot for Extreme Solar Storms, New Research Reveals

30 July 2026 at 19:13

In May 2024, the strongest geomagnetic storm in two decades pushed the Northern Lights far enough south to become visible across much of the UK and beyond. Now, a study that appeared in Royal Society Open Science reveals that the incident also exposed important gaps in how the UK monitors and prepares its power grid, satellites, and aviation for future extreme space weather.

The storm reached a G5 rating, which is the highest level on the geomagnetic storm scale used by NOAA, as a result of five coronal mass ejections reaching Earth within a period of two days. Researchers with the Space Environment Impacts Expert Group (SEIEG) stated that although the storm caused only relatively minor disruption, it revealed shortcomings in the UK’s capacity to monitor and prepare for more severe space weather events.

The SEIEG then made 14 recommendations to the UK government addressing matters such as grid monitoring, satellite operations, and space weather forecasting. Richard Horne, chair of SEIEG and head of space weather at the British Antarctic Survey, recently gave a presentation on the findings at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Birmingham.

A Storm That Tested the Limits

Researchers estimate that the May 2024 storm was a one-in-13-year event. By contrast, a Carrington-class storm, like the 1859 event that defines the standard for extreme space weather, has about a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. This means that a much more disruptive storm is still possible. The SEIEG report uses the 2024 storm as a practical example to assess how prepared the UK is for a more severe event.

“The Northern Lights were the most visible sign of the May 2024 storm, but they were only one part of a much broader space weather event that tested the UK’s critical infrastructure. The storm highlighted where we need better monitoring, better forecasting and more research so we’re prepared for a more severe event in the future,” Horne said.

The Blind Spot in Britain’s Power Grid

Geomagnetic storms create electric fields at Earth’s surface that can drive geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) through long conductive systems, including power transmission networks. High levels of GICs can overheat transformers, disrupt their normal function, and in severe cases cause damage that may lead to failures across parts of the power grid.

Currently, there are no GIC monitors in operation in England or Wales. The SEIEG report recommends establishing a network of monitors to assess how much current various transformer designs can tolerate before sustaining damage.

New Zealand as the Model

The report cites New Zealand as an example of effective monitoring. Since it is at a similar geomagnetic latitude, the country faces similar space weather risks, and its grid operators monitor around 93 transformers across 28 substations. Unlike in England and Wales, where monitoring is absent, these operators have verified their models using actual measurements and implemented operational mitigation procedures during the May 2024 storm.

Crowded Skies, Rising Risk

The storm also affected satellites in orbit. Almost 5,000 satellites adjusted their orbits during the storm. Satellites licensed in the UK saw their number of collision warnings rise by 35%. Since there are now so many objects in low-Earth orbit, a serious storm could raise the risk of collisions, possibly resulting in debris and causing additional incidents.

Preparing for Future Storms

SEIEG also recommends improving forecasts of coronal mass ejections and solar energetic particle events to provide two to three hours of warning before severe geomagnetic storms reach Earth. Improved forecasts could allow grid operators, satellite controllers, and airlines to take protective measures before severe geomagnetic storms arrive. 

“One of the biggest lessons from the May 2024 storm is that we still have important gaps in our monitoring and understanding of how severe space weather could affect UK infrastructure,” said Horne. “We were fortunate that this was not a one-in-100-year event. We now have an opportunity to strengthen our monitoring, improve our forecasts and make sure the UK is better prepared before a much larger storm occurs.”

The 14 recommendations are now under review by the UK government. Whether these steps will be taken before a Carrington-scale storm occurs remains uncertain. With this extreme class of storms remaining a realistic possibility, the researchers argue that improving monitoring and forecasting now could reduce the impact of a future extreme event.

Austin Burgess is a writer and researcher with a background in sales, marketing, and data analytics. He holds an MBA, a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and a data analytics certification. His work focuses on breaking scientific developments, with an emphasis on emerging biology, cognitive neuroscience, and archaeological discoveries.

Hidden Gambling Apps in Brazilian App Store

29 July 2026 at 21:45

Marcus Mendes:

Last April, Brazilian officials notified Apple and Google over an alleged lack of age controls in betting apps on their respective app stores.

9to5Mac:

Brazilian users browsing the App Store rankings in categories such as Navigation, Travel, and Weather have noticed a growing number of poorly made games appearing among the top results, many of them featuring AI-generated illustrations of animals as their app icons. Many carry an AL age rating, making them available to users of all ages, including children.

As it turns out, these are so-called jacket apps, which are just a front for hidden betting and gambling apps.

[…]

The repository also includes explicit instructions intended to prevent the apps from being flagged as suspicious during App Store review. These include giving each app uniquely named startup and remote-configuration codes, making it harder for reviewers to identify them as part of the same group.

Ironically, the App Store’s own recommendation system appears to have little trouble grouping the apps together, as the “You Might Also Like” section on several of these apps points users toward other suspicious apps more frequently than they point to genuine apps.

John Gruber (Mastodon):

Obviously the main problem is that these apps disguise themselves Trojan Horse-style, and slip through App Store review undetected. I don’t think it’s reasonable to think App Store review could catch every attempt at this sort of thing though — if the horses are disguised well-enough, some of them are going to slip through. That’s actually fine.

I agree that it’s unreasonable to expect App Review to catch all those, but then Apple should not be pretending that it can. This was all obvious from day one. The public perception of App Review is completely at odds with what it actually can and does do.

But the first example 9to5Mac cites isn’t well disguised at all. What sense does it make that “PotatoPlot Puzzle” — a game featuring a rabbit potato farmer — is a weather app? How is that not a red flag right there?

[…]

I always mention that the point of such a squad shouldn’t be to make the App Store 100 percent scammer-free — which I believe is an impossible goal that would set the team up for failure. The point should be only to make the App Store free of successful scams. Focus on the most popular apps and the most lucrative apps.

The App Store is more than 18 years old. The idea of patrolling the top charts probably occurred to Apple before it even shipped. They just don’t want to do it.

Nick Lockwood:

Apple only took 24 hours to approve my iOS app update that crashed instantly on launch. Such a blessing to have that extra level of reliability and security that only a manual review process can provide 🙏

Incidentally, the crash was due to a missing dylib - something that could easily have been detected by the automated scan process, if only that scan were designed to protect users’ and developers’ interests instead of Apple’s.

Kyle Hughes:

There is simply no other way to maintain a modern, healthy software ecosystem without making sure that apps that have been around for 7 years and 20 major versions can’t get a build looked at within 48 hours. There’s no other way. Probably needs to be longer, honestly.

I had to file an Expedited Review Request because this update is a legitimate emergency. Four hours later, App Review rejected the build because they didn’t follow the first sentence of the testing instructions (which haven’t changed in 7 years). Back to Waiting for Review! There’s no other way.

Previously:

Update (2026-07-30): Kyle Hughes:

We got rejected in the Expedited Review again, this time for not having an account deletion feature. Except we do, and it’s one button press away from the screen that the reviewer was on. And it has always existed. Is this how the expedited review works? Malicious incompetence?

Update (2026-07-31): Kyle Hughes:

If you were wondering how long one of the “you can ask us to approve this build and can fix this issue in the next release” App Review errors takes to resolve when you’re in the Expedited Review Queue… me too! So far, 18 hours. (Ignoring the fact that we have the feature the rejection was for.)

Kyle Hughes:

Certainly it means “within a week,” right? “Within a month,” please? “In your lifetime,” I can only hope.

❌