Saturday, June 28, 2025

  UK

MPs raise concerns about Labour’s plan to proscribe Palestine Action as terror group

23 June, 2025 

‘Such a move would be completely non-proportional and a hugely worrying restriction on the right to peaceful protest’



MPs have voiced concern as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said the government plans to proscribe Palestine Action under terrorism laws after they targeted an RAF base last week.

A draft proscription order will be presented to Parliament next Monday, and if passed, will make it illegal to be part of or “invite support for” the pro-Palestinian protest network under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In a written statement to Parliament today, Cooper said that since it was formed in 2020, “Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions”.

On Friday morning, activists from Palestine Action, which uses direct action tactics to disrupt the UK arms industry, broke into RAF Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire and spray painted two military planes.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the actions, calling them “disgraceful” and “an act of vandalism”.

Today, Palestine Action are protesting outside Parliament about the ongoing genocide in Gaza.



Left MPs have warned that proscribing the group represents a misuse of anti-terrorism powers, and threatens the right to peaceful protest.

Labour MP Nadia Whittome said in a post on X: “Targeting non-violent protesters in this way is a misuse of terrorism-related powers.

“It sets a dangerous precedent, which governments in future could further use against their critics,” adding that “we should all be concerned” about the Home Secretary’s plan.

Ellie Chowns, a Green MP, wrote on X that she was “deeply concerned” about the announcement. She said: “This is a shocking overreaction to a couple of protestors using paint.

“Such a move would be completely non-proportional and a hugely worrying restriction on the right to peaceful protest which is a cornerstone of democracy.”

Irish novelist Sally Rooney has written about the government’s plan to proscribe Palestine Action in the Guardian today.

While the Home Secretary has broad powers to proscribe any organisation “concerned in terrorism”, Rooney points out that this process has previously only been used against militant groups involved in or advocating for violent armed struggle.

Rooney warned: “If the government proceeds down this path, any ordinary person in the UK could in theory be sent to prison simply for expressing verbal support for non-violent activism.”

She added that: “Palestine Action is not an armed group. It has never been responsible for any fatalities and does not pose any risk to the public.”

The bestselling author said she supports Palestine Action wholeheartedly and added that she “will continue to, whether that becomes a terrorist offence or not”.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Palestine Action – what will you do?

JUNE 26, 2025

By David Renton

On Monday, the House of Commons will vote for the proscription of Palestine Action. The House of Lords will follow later in the week. By July 4th, the group will be named on the list of proscribed organisations, alongside Al Qa’ida, Hamas and Hizballah.

Once a group has been added to the list, the police can do what they like: suspected members may be searched and fingerprinted without their consent, their property seized, they cannot open a bank account. The British state has gathered in its hands so many emergency laws it can used against suspected terrorists. I represented a client who had been put on trial and found not guilty of supporting a terrorist group. As punishment for his innocence, the government subjected him to “terrorism prevention and investigation measures”, under which he had to leave his home, travel 200 miles, abandon his family. He was subject to five years’ house arrest – no mobile, no computers. The only softening of the regime was that he was permitted to leave the building for 30 minutes a day for exercise. Even that concession depended on him not being caught covertly phoning his lonely child.

This is the first time that the British government has sought to add a group to the list which does not use violence against people. A typical action of theirs involves going into an arms factory, breaking one or another machine, then climbing to the roof where they hope people will see them. It is an organization without guile or guilt, without blood on its hands. Its activities do not scare anyone, it makes no-one afraid. Its members are not, no matter how far you stretch the meaning of the word, terrorists.

Once the proscription takes effect, those who remain members of the group will face jail : two to three years for the majority of those prosecuted, up to 14 years for the leaders. By adding Palestine Action to the list, Keir Starmer is saying that Labour would have imprisoned Nelson Mandela. It would, like the bigots of imperial Britain, place iron chains around Mahatma Gandhi’s wrists.

While, as for Martin Luther King, this is what he said about those who damaged property in protest against racism: “Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man.” Under cop-king Keir Starmer, that will be a breach of section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000: “A person commits an offence if the person expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organization.” In two weeks, quoting King’s words in support of Palestine Action will earn you two years in prison, with 14 years again as the maximum.

I doubt the Labour MPs who vote for this legislation will understand the line they are crossing; how the police will use this precedent, or how they are making everyone in Britain who stands for the survival of people and the planet into their enemy. I doubt their reasoning will go further than that banning Palestine Action is a chance to kick all those protesters who stand outside their MP’s offices with placards saying that those inside, by continuing to sell arms to Israel, are guilty of genocide. Jail us all, remove our banners, and maybe Emily Thornberry will sleep easier at night.

And if the next Reform government, whose path Labour is so desperate to ease, should extend this proscription to Stop the War, to the unions, to every cause which has funded Labour through good times and bad – don’t expect any contrition from those MPs.

So what are you going to do about proscription: will you support the fund for its legal campaign? Or will you do what the usual suspects are demanding of the British left, that we condemn the group and its activities – even as we make some muted pleas for its de-proscription? Will you talk about Palestine Action in such vague and general terms that you protect yourself from prosecution, while doing nothing of any use to guard those facing jail?

What the group need is people speaking out with such a loud, shared, voice that the state does not dare use the powers it has taken. Will you say it with me? *I am Palestine Action, I am a member of the group. I am its supporter. I want other people to support Palestine Action alongside me.*

No matter how many prisons Labour builds, there will never be space for us all.

David Renton is a barrister and the author of Against the Law: Why Justice Requires Fewer Laws and a Smaller State, which was published by Repeater in 2022 and of Horatio Bottomley and the Far Right Before Fascism, which was published by Routledge in November 2022. This article was taken from his blog Lives; Running and was originally published here.

Image: c/o Labour Hub.


“We must not let these fearmongering laws deter us”

JUNE 27, 2025

A statement from South Asia Solidarity Group in solidarity with Palestine Action.

South Asia Solidarity Group stands firmly in solidarity with direct action group Palestine Action, which the UK government has announced its intention to proscribe as a terrorist organisation. We condemn this outrageous attack on anti-colonial and anti-imperialist organising, protest and dissent.

This is not the first time in recent months that the British state has clamped down on Palestine solidarity organising. The government has previously reportedly shared contact details of counter-terrorism police and prosecutors with the Israeli embassy during an investigation into a previous action by Palestine Action, as well as using terror laws to enable surveillance and detainment of Palestine activists such as the Filton 18. This group of activists are currently incarcerated while awaiting trial for their action targeting weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems, in which they destroyed weapons including drones being used to commit genocide in Gaza.

The restrictions on organising extend well beyond direct action. Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Police announced that it is not acceptable to protest over Palestine anywhere in the general vicinity of a synagogue at any time on a Saturday, claiming that it presents a threat to the Jewish community. In April, the government introduced amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill restricting rights to protest which was challenged by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The proscription of Palestine Action will be used to justify further repressive policing of protests. The acute violence of the Met Police at the protest against the proscription on 23rd June 2025 shows that this impact is already starting to take effect. The message that protests and action in solidarity with the Palestinian people are ‘terrorism’ will also embolden Zionists, the far-right and racists to intensify their physical attacks on  pro-Palestine protests and actions.

The UK is far from unique in such legislation. Cases like that of protestor Mahmoud Khalil in the US – a Palestinian student at Columbia University who was detained in March and is still facing the threat of deportation – are part of the same attempts at collective silencing by imperialist states in the Global North of any pro-Palestine resistance.

The proscribing of organisations supporting Palestine and providing solidarity includes the listing of Samidoun Prisoner Solidarity Network as a terrorist entity by the governments of Germany, the Netherlands and Canada. Addameer Prisoner Support – which has advocated for Palestinians imprisoned without evidence in Israeli prisons for over 30 years – was also recently placed on the US’ Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SGDT) list.

The persecution of those who speak or take action against the Gaza genocide is also being pursued by Zionist allies like the Modi government in India, where expressions of solidarity with Palestine of all kinds have been violently suppressed.

Of course, the British state not only hosts but is intimately tied to the weapons manufacturers whose weapons it exports to be used in Israel’s genocide. Declassified recently reported that Elbit Systems lobbied the Home Office for a retrial after criminal charges against Palestine Action’s co-founders were dismissed in December 2023.

It is clear by now that the UK establishment – along with those of other European countries and the US – are deeply threatened by the power of all pro-Palestine organising, from supporting Palestinian prisoners to directly disrupting the supply chains fuelling Israel’s genocide. Direct action works. Solidarity and advocacy further resistance. In the current climate, being proscribed means you are having an impact.

As activists focused on solidarity with people’s movements in South Asia, we recognise all too well the clampdown on the right to protest as a key aspect of a descent into fascism. We have long been exposing and highlighting the British state’s complicity in Israeli apartheid and genocide and the proscription of Palestine Action is another reminder of this. We must not let these fearmongering laws deter us but must come out stronger than ever in solidarity with Palestinians and all those fighting for a free Palestine.


  • SIGN THE PETITION: Defend the right to protest: no proscription of Palestine Action here.

Image: c/l Labour Hub.



 UK

Co-op joins growing list of brands boycotting Israel

JUNE 28, 2025


The decision follows an earlier move in to stop selling Russian products after the invasion of Ukraine.

The Co-op has officially joined a number of global brands boycotting Israel, following a vote by its members calling for the supermarket to demonstrate “moral courage and leadership” by removing Israeli goods from its shelves. The Co-op Group board approved a policy banning the sourcing of products from 15 countries, including Israel, Iran, Russia, Syria, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Belarus, nations it says are responsible for “internationally recognised” human rights violations and breaches of international law.

This decision follows a move in March 2022 to stop selling Russian products after the invasion of Ukraine.

Known for its commitment to ethical business practices, including supporting Fairtrade and local community initiatives, the Co-op stated that the new policy will apply both to whole products and to ingredients used in its own-brand lines. The financial impact is expected to be minimal, as the vast majority of the Co-op’s supply chain is based in Western Europe.

Debbie White, chair of the Co-op Group board, described the move as “a clear demonstration of our co-operative values in action, where the voices of our members have been listened to and then acted upon.”

“We are committed, where we can, to removing products and ingredients from our shelves which are sourced from those countries where the international consensus demonstrates there is not alignment with what happens in those countries and our co-operative values and principles,” she said.

Other major brands taking similar action

The Co-op joins a growing number of global brands distancing themselves from Israel over its treatment of Palestinians and the ongoing conflict.

Orange

In 2015, French telecom giant Orange cut ties with Partner, its Israeli licensee, after concerns over its presence in illegal settlements. Partner had installed more than 100 telecommunications antennas on confiscated Palestinian land and operated stores within Israeli settlements.

Veolia

Also in 2015, French utilities company Veolia divested from all Israeli operations, including the controversial Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), which facilitates the expansion of settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. Veolia sold its stake in the JLR and exited the Israeli market entirely.

Itochu Corporation


In February 2024, Japan’s Itochu Corporation ended its strategic partnership with Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems. The move followed the ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza and better protect civilians.

Shein


In May 2024, the Chinese fast fashion retailer Shein displayed a Palestinian flag on its website in a gesture of solidarity. The move sparked backlash in Israel, leading to a boycott of the platform and the subsequent suspension of free shipping to the country.

BDS movement gains momentum


Meanwhile, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which was launched in 2005 by over 170 Palestinian civil society organisations, continues to gain momentum. It calls for economic and cultural pressure on Israel to end what it describes as apartheid, military occupation, and settler-colonialism.

In the UK, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) runs the ‘Boycott Barclays’ campaign, which calls on customers to close their accounts in protest of the bank’s investments in arms companies supplying weapons to Israel.

Another initiative, ‘Don’t Buy Apartheid,’ urges consumers, businesses, cafés, and restaurants to avoid purchasing Israeli produce and to boycott companies like Coca-Cola, which BDS claims are linked to the occupation.

The movement also targets several multinational corporations for their alleged complicity. These include Hewlett-Packard (HP), which provides technology services to Israeli prisons accused of detaining Palestinians in inhumane conditions; AXA, an insurance company with financial ties to Israeli banks involved in illegal settlement construction; AHAVA, a cosmetics brand operating from an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank; Sabra, a food company partially owned by an Israeli firm that supports the Israeli military; and McDonald’s, whose Israeli franchise has reportedly provided free meals to Israeli soldiers.


One hundred years of the Woodcraft Folk Co-op

JUNE 28, 2025

By Sally Hobbs              

This year is the 100th anniversary of the Woodcraft Folk (WCF) and the Co-op have just published a special edition of their newsletter with articles about its history and ethos and the experiences of young people who have been members. So, writing this piece is by way of personal recollections about the learning and experiences I have had and some reflections on it…

My children grew up in the 1990s, in an area denuded of all resources by years of Tory government with struggling schools and services. The inner city area where I live in Manchester has always been one with a wide mixture of people, at one time with the highest proportion of Irish people in any ward outside two in London. Now it has a high proportion of Muslims with Pakistani/Bangladeshi and Middle Eastern heritages, refugees, students and workers from around the world. Many students like me, rented, then settled here when we could buy houses cheaply.

At that time, after-school clubs, activities and organisations for children were non-existent. More affluent areas ran Brownies, Guides and Scout groups; in our area there was the Army Cadets. Talking to other parents locally we found an organisation we thought could help: one with its roots in cooperation, anti- imperialism and socialism. It was one we would have to set up and learn to run ourselves as parents and volunteers, but with an opportunity to get funding for basics like room hire from the Co-op.

With the help of leaders from more experienced groups in Manchester, Levenshulme Woodcraft Folk group started with a dozen or so parents and children from the local primary, aged six or more in 1990. We organised trips to small hostels and campsites in the summer, and my six-year old daughter and two smaller children went with us to our first International camp in the New Forest in 1993.

With very young children, I found it too large to enjoy but the way quite young teenagers and older ones were so much part of the running, decision making and leadership was obvious and powerful. On that camp, some Manchester techs spent the week working with young Woodcrafters in 100 degree-plus with a new phenomenon – the internet – excited by its world-shrinking potential for equalising world communications between ordinary people. At the nightly ‘news’ session, presented to all the kids on the camp by older WCF teenagers (the District Fellows, 16-20 year olds), one item was shown from Blue Peter, presenting that they had just received ‘a new message called an email’ from the Woodcraft Folk camp.

From small beginnings, Levenshulme group grew to over 70 children and young people with helpers and parents running weekly group nights, and we organised annual camps of 100-plus. With the cost and problems of time off work, these trips became a regular feature of my annual holidays with our children, and enabled us all to spend time with adult friends when we were not running activities and our kids had activities, friendships and freedoms many didn’t experience in daily life.

Internationalism was always at the heart of our perspective and Woodcraft enabled our older children and young adults to become organisers, activists, to travel and advocate for others. In 1995, our local group hosted a group of about 20 Western Saharan children with two leaders from the refugee camps in  the desert of Algeria, driven out of their homeland when Morocco invaded it in the 1970s and still living in camps in the harshest environment imaginable. They lived with us, featured in local newspapers swimming at the baths and meeting Gerald Kaufmann MP, who pledged his support for their cause and we went on our annual camp to Anglesey with them.

For our children, such close ties became a window on the lives of others and in particular on injustice and the fight for rights. Levenshulme WCF hosted Saharawi again twice in 1998 and 2000. Continuing the contact, through founding the Western Sahara Support Group locally has led to even greater connections. One of those Saharawi girls who came as a child is now grown up with two children of her own and has led an incredible project, creating sustainable vegetable growing in the Sahara desert camps. The early links with her and our long association has led to the foundation of a charitable trust in Levenshulme and more widely: Grow Hope Saharawi, with funds raised going to planting trees and infrastructure projects to support further development of food production.

Woodcraft Folk groups and the national organisation continue to have and have always had differences in political philosophies as a socialist organisation which can be quite fundamental.  It has roots in close ties to the Communist Party, and some groups were more tightly controlled by adults in their approach to the ethos of the group. We have shared our village on international camps with Lithuanians and Austrian Red Falcons, and others have camped in quite luxurious camp grounds in former Eastern bloc European countries.  

Local democracy and autonomy, though, is always substantial and it is hard to contain and marshall the views and attitudes of the hundreds of young leaders who are passionate about world change. Activists in WCF from young teenagers to the District Fellows who are the backbone of youth -ed democracy and who organise camps, national and international activities, ensure that campaigns such as the Free Tibet movement, together with  support for Ukraine and against the actions of Israel are central.    

The ethos of WCF as a socialist, democratic and egalitarian organisation gave us enough latitude to do things the way we wanted to locally –  and nationally it is the leadership of youth which enables it to continue to be a learning and dynamic organisation.

For more on this, catch up with these articles, emailed to me via a local WCF leader, from Dr Anita Mangan, Editor of the Journal of Co-operative Studies. The Special Issue has just gone live: the Journal of Co-operative Studies | UK Society for Co-operative Studies takes you to the main landing page which has a blurb about the issue. The Journal of Co-operative Studies, Vol 58 No 1 | UK Society for Co-operative Studies takes you to the issue itself. 

Sally Hobbs is a Palestine supporter and activist in Manchester.

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eisfrei/6059557436/ Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic CC BY-NC 2.0 Deed

 UK

Windrush victims: the injustice continues

JUNE 28, 2025

A new report has found that Windrush scandal victims got less compensation due to a lack of legal advice funding. Dr Jo Wilding, who led the report, explores why.

“All I can say, and say very strongly, is that people need help. They need legal help. This is not an exercise that an ordinary man on the street, after being traumatised and having to go through what they’ve gone through in their personal lives can get their head around, filling in forms, and then the bureaucracy… and the fact for me, the fact that they don’t talk to you.” – Sonia, Windrush claimant

Sonia’s words, “People need legal help” neatly sum up the findings of a research report on the need for legal representation in the Windrush Compensation Scheme. The research was a collaboration between the charity JUSTICE, solicitors’ firm Dechert LLP, and me at the University of Sussex.

The research team reviewed 17 case files – ten from claimants who initially applied alone and were later represented by a lawyer; seven from claimants who, because of mental or physical health conditions, dementia or street homelessness, could never have applied alone. We also interviewed the lawyer and, where possible, the claimant in each case, to understand exactly what a lawyer does in these cases that makes a difference.

The average compensation offer without a lawyer was £11,400. With a lawyer, the same claimants received an average of £83,200 – more than a seven-fold increase. The largest single increase was from zero to £295,000. Yet every one of the claimants in our study received legal representation only as an act of charity, either from a private law firm running a pro bono service with law centre supervision, a student law clinic or a law centre doing the work either free or with philanthropic funding.

Other compensation schemes, like the Infected Blood Scheme, Lambeth Children’s Home Redress Scheme and the Post Office Horizon Shortfall Compensation Scheme, include some funded legal representation. The (previous) government argued that legal representation was unnecessary because the scheme was designed to be “as clear and simple as possible”. But the claim form alone is 44 pages long (compared with eight and ten pages, respectively, for the Horizon and Lambeth schemes). The Scheme Rules occupy another 52 pages and the current (18th) version of the Guidance runs to 105 pages.

For some claimants, the claim could only progress with specifically an immigration lawyer. Sonia and Andre were refused compensation on the grounds that they were not, in fact, entitled to live, work and access health care in the UK at the relevant time. They had to sell their house and leave the UK because of the denial of the right to work, and were repeatedly given six-month visitor stamps at the airport, instead of being admitted as returning residents. Since there was no application form for returning resident status, only a conversation at the airport on arrival, there was no record of their asking to be readmitted. Sonia had to repeatedly fly to and from the UK during her children’s education, at enormous expense, to avoid breaching her ‘visit’ restrictions.

Their lawyer, an immigration specialist, had to set out in detail the legislation in place at different times in their lives, their place of residence at those times, and the status which they should, therefore, have been recognised with at each point. Likewise Patricia was originally denied compensation because the Home Office misunderstood its own rules and believed she was not ‘lawfully resident’ at a time when in fact she had the right to be in the UK.

The Home Office has commented, in response to the report, that it provided £1.5 million funding for community groups to provide advocacy support for claimants. The Working Group wholeheartedly supports that provision, but our research shows that advocacy support can only complement, not replace legal representation. No amount of community group advocacy can resolve those legal issues around immigration status and eligibility.

The scheme is fundamentally evidence-based. Claimants have to prove that (1) they had the right to be in the UK and the relevant time but (2) they were unable to prove that right and (3) they suffered some financial or other loss which was caused by that inability to prove their status. No provable loss and causation – no compensation. But those chains of historic events can be difficult to evidence.

In theory, of course a claimant or a community group could request files from a local authority to show that they were refused housing assistance, or from the Department for Work and Pensions to show that they were denied a social security benefit – and indeed one of our participants had made his own Subject Access Requests – but receiving the file is only the first step, as one of the lawyers explained:

“That housing file, you get hundreds of disclosures. And when you’re looking at housing files from 2003, 2002, they have very sort of basic IT systems. So there’s a lot of inference… But I found that having sort of a good understanding of housing or homelessness law because of the Law Centre, and that’s our bread and butter, we knew what we were looking for in terms of specific language. So, anything to do with ‘Part 7’, we know that’s a homelessness application. So, the initialisms or acronyms they were using, we know what they mean in a lot of these spots where they just come across as Gobbledygook.”

That interpretation of evidence and its significance was one of the most important roles lawyers played. Similarly, it took a lawyer to recognise that the disclosure files were often incomplete, and to go back to the public authority several times, in some cases, until they had the full file.

Often, though, the file no longer existed because of the passage of time. One claimant, Chioma, was refused compensation for the denial of housing assistance because the Home Office found ‘no evidence’ that she made a housing application 20 years earlier. The lawyer had to contact the local authority to ask how long they retained housing application files; the answer was 12 years. The lawyer eventually obtained evidence about the housing difficulties from a previous solicitor (which the Home Office had never looked for) and argued, on the balance of probabilities, that Chioma had most likely been refused housing assistance because of her (misunderstood) immigration status.

Funding needs to cover both representation and the costs of obtaining evidence. Although the scheme guidance says that medical evidence should not routinely be required, it was relevant in ten of the cases we reviewed. One claimant, Jason, paid £1,500 out of his interim compensation to obtain a psychiatric report, which contributed to an increase of almost £100,000 on the initial award, but for which he was not reimbursed. Other claimants had their decisions made without medical evidence because they could not afford it, even where the decision-maker had indicated that medical evidence was desirable, but where the Home Office had declined to commission and fund medical evidence itself (despite the Scheme rules allowing it to do so).

The research offered a unique opportunity to compare the same case with and without a lawyer, when the questions for the decision-maker were identical – as opposed to different but similar cases, or the same case on application and appeal. That meant we could draw clear conclusions about what lawyers do on cases that makes a difference both to the client’s experience and to the outcome of the case – with some wider relevance for understanding the importance of legal representation beyond just the compensation scheme.

For some of our claimants, though, there was never any possibility of their claiming without a lawyer. Ravi and Sheldon were both identified as needing their immigration status resolved via the Windrush scheme while they were in hospital with serious Covid complications, and unable to be released because they were homeless. The Law Centre lawyer who helped with that then also made their compensation claims. For Ravi, the lawyer even had to help him to set up a bank account to receive the compensation payment. Clive and Marcus had also been street homeless at times, while Marcus also had dementia, as did Winston.

Yet funded representation does not exist even for this group, who desperately needed the compensation money they received to be able to live the rest of their lives with dignity and care. We do not know how many more elderly and vulnerable Windrush survivors are still unrepresented and not receiving compensation.

We end with just one recommendation: implement funded legal advice for the Windrush Compensation Scheme, to cover both the legal representation and the sourcing of evidence like medical reports.

To that end, we encourage MPs to put forward questions in Parliament, to put down an Early Day Motion, and to meet with the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Treasury to push this forward. With the long overdue appointment of a Windrush Commissioner, Reverend Clive Foster, this is a moment of opportunity.

The report People need legal help: The value of legal representation in the Windrush Compensation Scheme is available here.

Dr Jo Wilding is Associate Professor in public and migration law st Sussex University and a barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

Infographic images (Dechert’s design team) c/o author

 

Researchers uncover cause of uranium groundwater contamination



The research reveals how geological conditions lead to toxic uranium in drinking water—with implications for global groundwater management




Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health






A new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology and led by researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health identifies the hidden geological mechanisms behind widespread uranium contamination in Eastern Karnataka, India, where 78 percent of tested groundwater exceeds safe drinking limits for uranium, and some groundwater uranium contamination reaches levels 75 times the U.S. EPA limit. Uranium exposure can affect kidneys, bones, and the liver, yet contamination often goes undetected.

The researchers discovered that uranium becomes dangerously mobile in specific underground environments—a finding that could help local communities monitor and manage this health threat. With over 25 million people in the region relying on groundwater for more than 70 percent of their drinking water, these insights could lead to targeted solutions, such as where to site wells and localized treatment at affected well-heads.

With collaborators from the Divecha Centre for Climate Change, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, and Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur, the team undertook forensic work to shed light on the conditions responsible for releasing uranium into groundwater. They employed advanced isotopic analysis, which measures tiny variations in atoms called isotopes to trace the origin of a substance like uranium and its movement through the environment in aquifers found in hard rock. They mapped distinct subsurface conditions governing uranium behavior. The highest contamination occurs in “oxidizing environments,” where underground conditions dissolve uranium into water, while “reducing zones” naturally trap it, preventing it from contaminating drinking water supplies.

 “We’re moving beyond simply detecting uranium to understanding its origin, movement, and long-term behavior. These insights can guide interventions to protect millions of people,” says lead author Arijeet Mitra, PhD, a postdoctoral scientist in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia Mailman School.

The study’s framework, adapted from Columbia’s Northern Plains Superfund Research Program, is applicable to other regions dealing with naturally occurring uranium contamination, including several states in the western and midwestern U.S. The research underscores the urgent need for a more robust and long-term monitoring network to track uranium levels and environmental changes.

“How uranium moves in groundwater depends on how oxidizing the water is,” says the study’s senior author, Anirban Basu, PhD, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. “When there is plenty of oxygen, uranium stays dissolved and flows with the water. But when there is no oxygen—like in deeper layers where certain bacteria break down iron oxides—uranium changes into a form that does not dissolve and settles out as a solid. The proportion of uranium isotopes in the water works like a fingerprint. It helps us track where uranium enters and leaves the water and whether it comes from a nearby or far-away source.”

The study is titled "Isotopic Insights into Redox Processes Driving Uranium Distribution in Eastern Karnataka Groundwater.” Additional co-authors include Kathrin Schilling at Columbia Mailman; S. A. Pandit and R. Srinivasan, Divecha Centre for Climate Change, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India; Shams Azad, Columbia Climate School; Alex N. Halliday, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University; and  Manoj K. Jindal, Center for Sustainable Drinking Water, Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences-funded Columbia University Northern Plains Superfund Research program (P42ES033719).

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

 

People make riskier choices when stressed, and here’s why



University of Arkansas
Zach Gray and Grant Shields 

image: 

Psychology doctoral student Zach Gray (left) and assistant professor of psychology Grant Shields (right).

view more 

Credit: Russell Cothern





When people are stressed, they make riskier decisions. The biggest factor behind this change in behavior is a decrease in “loss aversion,” according to a recent study from University of Arkansas researchers published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology. Loss aversion is the human tendency to be more affected by loss than gain. In other words, the pain of losing $100 is greater than the joy of winning $100.

The researchers also discovered that the effects of stress are different for men and women. In general, stress has a greater impact on men’s decision making. Under stress women are also better at predicting the outcome of a decision, while men have a better grasp of consequences of that outcome.

“In my own life, if I’m stressed, I’ll wait to make a decision that could have potential loss implications,” said Grant Shields, assistant professor of psychological science and the study’s lead author.

Zach Gray, a doctoral student in psychology, and Trey Malone, a former U of A agricultural economist now at Purdue University, are also authors on the paper.

In the study, 147 participants were placed under stress and asked to make hypothetical financial decisions.

“Financial risk is easy to assess, because people have a pretty good idea about what they would do with their own money,” Shields said.

“My research was aimed at understanding these component processes that go into that calculus,” Shields said.

The participants’ decisions were analyzed using cumulative prospect theory, which proposes that decisions are driven by four factors: loss aversion, risk aversion, randomness — or stochasticity — in choices, and probability distortion, which is the tendency to overweight unlikely outcomes and underweight likely outcomes. For example, probability distortion explains why people who buy lottery tickets focus on the small chance of winning rather than the greater likelihood of losing.

Cumulative prospect theory is widely used by behavioral economists, but fewer studies have looked at how stress affects these decision making factors.

In today’s world, taking greater risks when stressed is probably not a good strategy. But Shields speculates there may be an evolutionary explanation for the behavior.

“If you’re an organism that’s being hunted or chased by another, then it makes sense to do stuff that you wouldn’t otherwise. Perhaps making a risky decision is better than staying put,” he said.