What happens when you bomb a uranium enrichment site?

BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

At Bright Horizons, infants discover first steps, toddlers discover independence, and preschoolers discover bold ideas.

Our dedicated teachers and discovery-driven curriculum nurture curiosity, inspire creativity, and build lasting confidence so your child is ready to take on the world.

Come visit one of our Bright Horizons centers in the Bay Area and see for yourself how we turn wonder into wisdom.

Schedule your visit today at brighthorizons.com.

My POV?

Veterans like me should join a company that has their back.

That's why I joined Verizon.

Here, exciting benefits like tuition assistance help me stay focused on my broad career, not stressing about the costs.

Now I use my master's in global security for a role I love as an equipment engineer.

That's life in the V-team life.

Head to mycareer.verizon.com to explore opportunities to join a team that supports your development.

This is the podcast of BBC Inside Science, first broadcast on the 26th of June, 2025.

Hello.

What happens when you bomb a nuclear site?

We'll be digging into the science behind the news.

Plus, I meet a new species of dinosaur and several million new galaxies.

Chris Lintott joins joins us to talk about the first findings from the most advanced telescope on the planet.

And joining me in the studio to present the best of this week's newest science in tapas form is BBC science journalist Caroline Steele.

Hello, Caroline.

Hi, Timani.

Thanks for having me on.

Pleasure, pleasure.

Do you want to give us an appetizer of what's coming up?

Yeah, so I'm going to chat about mice with two dads that have had babies of their own,

how to turn plastic bottles into paracetamol, and garden snails are now venomous.

Great.

First, though, all eyes are on the nuclear sites in Iran hit by US airstrikes earlier in the week as the world tries to work out what damage has been done.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said the attacks were deeply concerning.

Concerning in what way, though?

What actually happens when you bomb a uranium enrichment site?

Professor Simon Middleborough is a nuclear materials scientist at the Nuclear Futures Institute at Bangor University.

Hello, Simon.

Hello there.

So first off, what did the US bomb in Iran?

So they bombed enrichment sites and uranium conversion facilities.

Now uranium conversion facilities are where they take uranium containing rocks and convert them into something that can be enriched, normally uranium hexafluoride.

What is enrichment?

So uranium is made out of a number of different isotopes.

Isotopes are just different atoms with different masses.

So there's two major isotopes of uranium.

That's uranium-235 and uranium-238.

And uranium-235 is the one that fissions.

It's the one if you hit it with a neutron, it splits and it makes energy.

And the other one doesn't.

The other one doesn't do anything.

So you typically want to enrich it for a nuclear reactor to make it make energy.

You want to make the 235 number go up.

And that's what you do in an enrichment facility.

They can do that in a number of ways.

But the way that it's normally done is via a centrifuge, which spins it round and round and round, like a merry-go-round.

Okay, and this enriched uranium, what can you use it for?

Normally we use enriched uranium for nuclear power, typically around about 5% uranium-225.

We've enriched it from around about 0.7%, so we've increased it by a factor of 5 or so.

And that's what we use for power stations.

We can actually use up to sort of 7% in ordinary power stations.

And then in some research reactors, we go up to 20%.

Above 20%,

there are some reactors in the world that use above that 20%, but it's not very common and there's no reason to do so anymore.

Beyond that 20% is where you start getting into sticky territory because you're approaching that 90%, which can be used for a nuclear weapon.

Okay, so beyond 20%, that's when enriching uranium becomes dangerous.

It's not dangerous at 20%.

It's just much easier to go from 20% to 90%.

It's a matter of ratios.

So going from 0.7 to 5%

requires the same amount of effort to go from 20 to sort of 100 or so percent.

So once you're at that 20%, the process is it quite quick to take it up to the weapons grade levels, which is the problem.

So we typically have international sort of standards.

The IEA really stops us going to highly enriched uranium, which is anything above 20%.

And that appears to be what the Iranians were doing.

So these US strikes on the uranium enrichment facilities,

have they caused problems?

Is this going to be an environmental disaster?

I don't think it's going to be an environmental disaster on the same scale as what we saw with Chernobyl and Fukushima.

And there's a real good reason for that.

So enrichment facilities are just enriching uranium.

They're not doing any nuclear reactions in there.

So the real radioactive stuff, the nuclear waste, comes from when you start splitting uranium within a fission reactor.

What we've got at Fordo and the other enrichment site is just uranium hexafluoride being separated.

And the uranium is radioactive.

Of course, it's a little bit radioactive, but it's not very radioactive.

The fact that we can dig it out the ground because it's still there and not decayed away means that it's not actually that radioactive.

It's not something you want to breathe in.

It's actually quite toxic still.

Uranium is a bit like lead in that sense.

So we've got things to worry about there, but not to the same level as those big nuclear disasters that you read a lot about.

Okay, so can I contrast the levels of worry with the concern that there was about the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine?

There's a concern about it being hit by bombs or drones.

What's the difference between that and what was hit in Iran?

Okay, so the Zaporizhia plant is a fission plant.

So they're actively sort of splitting splitting those uranium atoms up inside that reactor to make energy.

I mean the Zaporizhia plant is actually quite a safe reactor.

It's a fairly modern reactor.

But what they're worried about there is if you hit it and if it stops cooling, if you don't have active cooling in there, the K in the plant will ultimately start getting too hot.

You'll start generating its own heat and it will start breaking down the reactor components and things like that.

And you'll get something...

potentially similar to what happened at Fukushima where it went pop.

And because inside the reactor core there, there, you have those fission products, things like radioactive cesium, iodine, xenon, and krypton, these fission products, they are relatively easy to disperse.

They're gaseous, they get into the water, and they move around like that.

And that's a big worry.

Whereas at the Fordo plant, it's just uranium.

And uranium, it won't go very far.

And the fluorine that's also there, so it's uranium hexafluoride is used.

So the fluorine, it's nasty.

If it comes in contact with water, it will make hydrofluoric acid, which is bone melting acid.

But it doesn't go far.

There's a cleanup that's required there if they've lost containment, but it's not even sort of close to being the same magnitude as what could happen at Zaporizhia and what happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Right.

Now, yesterday there was a special sitting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee where MPs had a chance to quiz experts on the science behind the US attacks.

And this is Professor Robin Grimes from Imperial College London, formerly Ministry of Defence Nuclear Chief Scientific Advisor.

He's talking about a trip he took to Tehran in 2019.

I was very impressed with the quality of the engineering that the Iranians had.

I also visited their nuclear university, and again, I was very impressed with the intellectual and engineering capabilities that the Iranians had.

Now, they've clearly got technologies from numbers of different countries.

They've been very good at getting supply chains set up from countries like Pakistan and so forth.

But we shouldn't underestimate their capability to carry out quite sophisticated engineering and science understanding themselves.

Simon, on hearing Robin say that,

what do we know about international concerns that Iran may be looking to develop nuclear weapons?

So I point out Robin's my old PhD supervisor, so I'll be careful to not say anything against what he said.

Robin's right.

They have got a very good active nuclear engineering community in Iran.

The fact that the IEA reported that they had enriched beyond 20% to 60% is a real concern.

The fact that they know how to do that and the fact that they didn't have any problems going ahead that way.

Yeah, it is a concern.

So I think that's a good question.

And just to reiterate, any enrichment beyond 20%,

there's no reason that they'd be doing that, apart from developing nuclear weapons.

There's no good civil reason to be enriching beyond 20%.

We've had lots of programs in the past.

The US led a few programs internationally to work out ways and means to run research reactors below 20% enrichment there is no good reason to enrich beyond that levels in all good faith thank you very much professor simon middleburgh and just a reminder that if you want to contact the show with comments or questions the email is insidescience at bbc.co.uk

at bright horizons infants discover first steps toddlers discover independence and preschoolers discover bold ideas.

Our dedicated teachers and discovery-driven curriculum nurture curiosity, inspire creativity, and build lasting confidence so your child is ready to take on the world.

Come visit one of our Bright Horizons centers in the Bay Area and see for yourself how we turn wonder into wisdom.

Schedule your visit today at BrightHorizons.com.

At the BBC, we go further so you see clearer.

With a subscription to BBC.com, you get unlimited articles and videos, hundreds of ad-free podcasts, and the BBC News channel streaming live 24-7.

From less than a dollar a week for your first year, read, watch and listen to trusted independent journalism and storytelling.

It all starts with a subscription to BBC.com.

Find out more at bbc.com slash unlimited.

Now, Christmas has come early for stargazers this week as the first images captured by the world's most powerful telescope have been released.

The opening of the telescope at the Vera C.

Rubin Observatory in Chile has been described as a once-in-a-generation moment for astronomy.

So, what have they found?

Sky at night presenter and friend of the show astronomer Chris Lintott joined me earlier to talk through the first new images and the vast amounts of them out earlier this week.

We're all a bit giddy, really, having finally seen images from this project that we've been working on for, oh, about 20 years in my case.

Yeah, I was going to say you've been looking forward to this for a very, very long time.

Yeah, almost every talk I've ever given to anyone in the last 15 years has ended with Rubin because it's a new kind of telescope.

So it's almost as big as the biggest telescopes in the world, but it's got a huge field of view.

So you could fit something like 40 full moons in the field of view.

So it scans the whole sky and produces these beautiful deep images that are unlike anything we've really had before.

Let's go back to that scale because obviously obviously I know that this isn't going to be one of those telescopes, brass thing that I can pick up and put my eye to one end.

How big are we talking?

So the mirror is eight and a half meters across,

which is the largest size that you can fit through a standard road tunnel in the United States.

So that's why it's not.

That's the limiting factor.

Exactly.

And then it has this, if you see a picture of it, it's this slightly strange shape.

It's a squat telescope.

It's got some clever optics so that it has this wide field of view with three mirrors.

It's a triple mirrored telescope.

And then the other bit of secret source is that it has the world's largest astronomical camera.

So this thing that slots into the end is a 3,200 megapixel camera, which you can invent strange analogies.

Like it would see a golf ball from 25 kilometers away.

But the point is that every pixel of this camera can record what's happening in the sky.

And then the telescope does an unusual thing as well.

So it's also built so it can move quickly around the sky.

And so it will scan roughly the whole sky every three nights.

And so we will build up image after image after image so we can get this deep image of the sky that shows all these wonderful faint objects.

But also a key point in the survey is we'll look for things that change or move.

So in the next year, for example, I think we'll find...

We're arguing about the numbers, but we think we'll find 3.7 million asteroids, which is more, it's about 10 times more than all of human history.

In the first month of the survey, which starts in the autumn, we'll have more supernovae, more exploding stars than in all of human history.

So it's both this deep image of the sky and this ability to track things that are changing that are exciting us.

That sounds like a lot more, Chris.

And I can see an obvious limiting factor, which is

number of people who can actually analyze this data.

That's right.

Yeah.

Sadly, the number of astronomers is roughly constant, even when we get a shiny new tool like this.

So a lot of work's been done to build that.

It's essentially, apart from anything else, there's a major software engineering project here.

So lots of my colleagues have spent a long time working to make sure that we can filter that data, that you can find what you want in this morass of data.

We've got some kind of machine learning working as well.

But one of the key points of the project, and something we in the UK are leading, is that we want everyone to get involved.

So there will be a whole host of projects where we need volunteers, citizen scientists online to help us sort through the data.

Now, we don't have the data for those yet.

The project released its first images to the public before giving us scientists our data.

That's coming in the next couple of weeks.

So we'll have a variety of projects going up on zooniverse.org in the next few weeks and months as we explore the data.

One I know we're going to want to run is to look at the galaxies that are in the images that were released.

So lots of them have features that show up in this imaging that we wouldn't see anywhere else.

For example, we can see the extended halo, what's called the low surface brightness features that surround galaxies.

We've never seen that in these details before.

So we're going to need people to help us sort through that and tell us what's happened to these galaxies.

You don't need any training.

You don't need to be an astronomer.

You just need a web browser and we'll do that.

We're also having people looking at asteroids to see how they might change over time.

Some of them, even though an asteroid is normally just a point of light moving across the sky, sometimes they become comet-like and grow tails.

And we don't understand how often that happens or why that happens.

And there'll be much more as well so so people really can get involved with these beautiful images we're used to hearing about ai taking our jobs why can't ai do this well it could do a lot of it and we do need to use machine learning to to sort through the vast amount of data a lot the last decade has been preparing for that but um a it's never completely accurate so we need training data and we need human input to guide the machine learning so that's one of the answers but i think the the more interesting answer is that one of the things i'm interested is finding the most unusual things in this vast library of the cosmos.

And it turns out that if you just say, find me the most unusual things, the machine can do fine.

But it finds you the boring unusual things, the places where there's a bright star or a satellite in the way or where the camera's malfunctioned.

What we want to do is find the interesting unusual things.

And determining what's interesting is a very human pursuit.

So we'll have a bunch of projects where people can help us find out what's interesting in these images and where we should direct our attention.

Are there any big questions that you're trying to answer with this data, Chris?

Yes, many.

One of the main reasons we built the telescope is that it will help with cosmology.

So, by studying these galaxies and by measuring the light from those supernovae, we'll hopefully contribute to the big mysteries of cosmology.

What is the universe made of?

What is this dark matter that we think makes up the universe?

And what is accelerating the expansion?

What is this dark energy?

So, there's cosmology in the solar system.

Putting together these asteroids will help us understand how the solar system formed and evolved, and how the early days of the solar system took place, and how we ended up with the nice stable place we live in today.

And then, in between, I think there's going to be a huge amount of work to try and understand our galaxy because we know that the Milky Way has had quite a chaotic history, it seems to have absorbed other galaxies over the course of the last 10 billion years or so.

And by looking at the stars in these images, we'll be able to piece back that history.

So on all scales, Rubin will make an enormous difference.

It does feel like there will have been astronomy before the Vera Rubin observatory era and astronomy after.

And

lots of us woke up on Monday and realised we've suddenly stepped from one era into another.

Thank you very much, Professor Chris Lintott.

Caroline Steele is with me in this studio.

Are you excited about these images, Fanny?

I'm so excited.

I've just been looking at the first image, which I'm sure you've seen as well, Marnie.

But just look at how beautiful

it is.

Pinky blob.

Pinky blob.

I love one person's nebula, it is another person's pinky blob.

But yeah, I'm really excited about these images.

I'm hoping they're going to solve the mystery of Planet 9.

You're going to have to explain the mystery of Planet 9.

So it's something I chatted about on Inside Science a few weeks ago.

Basically, there's some data based on the way some objects are moving in our solar system, which suggests there might be a big mass out there that we haven't yet discovered and that would be Planet 9.

It would be huge, much bigger than Earth, but we haven't seen it yet but some scientists are saying that if Planet 9 does exist it should be picked up by this telescope within a year so I'm very excited.

Thanks Caroline.

You're listening to Inside Science with me, Marnie Chesterton.

It's been more than a decade since London's Natural History Museum have had a new dinosaur to go on display and that's all changed.

Enigma cursor, meaning puzzling runner, is being unveiled to the public today and I went along for a sneak preview.

This week I've taken a slight detour on my way to the BBC studios because of an invite I just couldn't resist.

I'm at the Natural History Museum in London for the unveiling of their latest edition.

It's longer than me, it only comes up to, say, my thighs.

It's got a tiny head.

It's about the size of a dog.

Lizard-like in the artist's impressions.

But these fossil bones were once, about 145 million years ago, flesh, which makes this thing in front of me an actual Jurassic dinosaur.

I'm Professor Paul Barra.

I'm one of the dinosaur specialists here at the Natural History Museum and we've been working on this amazing new specimen for the past few months and during which we realised that actually we were dealing with a brand new species of dinosaur.

And And it's called Enigma cursor molly Borthwick.

I am Professor Susanna Maidmant and I'm a dinosaur paleontologist here at the Natural History Museum.

And what do we know?

Tell me about it.

Okay, so this is a dinosaur that's about a metre and a half long, so it's quite a small dinosaur.

It's a herbivore.

It's walked on two legs, so it had four limbs that it used probably for grasping vegetation.

And it's got incredibly long hind limbs with big feet, so probably quite a quick-moving dinosaur, fast runner.

It lived about 150 million years ago in what is now the western US.

So it ran around at the feet of giants like Diplodocus and Chimarosaurus and Brachiosaurus and Stegosaurus.

To me it's about the size of a labrator.

Yeah exactly.

I mean it probably could have curled up in your lap, couldn't it, quite happily?

It might have been a bit heavy, but yeah.

So what was your work on it?

Your lead author on the paper?

Yeah, so we just wanted to know what it was.

So when it came to us it had the name Nanosaurus and Nanosaurus is a kind of very tantalizing fragmentary dinosaur that is just known from a few bits of bone.

And so, the first thing that my colleague Paul and I did was we went to America about this time last year and we went to the collections that and the museums that actually hold the holotypes of those dinosaurs.

So, they're the specimens that hold the name of Nanosaurus and a whole bunch of others that have been named over the years from the Morrison formation, from the rocks that this dinosaur is from.

And we basically went with our description of this dinosaur to compare it to all of those to find out what it was.

And what we found was that all of those other dinosaurs actually, you you know, they were named about 150 years ago, and today they are not good enough to be recognised as species in their own right.

There's nothing distinct about them.

So, what we did was we first of all wiped the state clean, so we essentially made all of those harster names invalid, and then we were able to name our one as a new species, genus and species.

So, we were able to recognise features on this dinosaur that are totally unique and that are different from all of the other closely related dinosaurs that we know globally.

What's unique about this, though?

The most unique features in this dinosaur are in its hind limb and actually the upper limb bone, so the femur.

So we have a series of muscle attachments on there, which would have been for the big muscles that drive locomotion and drive the animal forwards.

And

the muscle attachments are sort of knobbles and bobbles, and it's the relative proportions and the different shapes of those that are totally different in this dinosaur than they are in some of its close relatives.

Now, that probably would have had a function, you know, probably would have meant that it moved slightly differently, but we don't really know what that means.

Can you tell me why it is that these bones bones inspire such fascination?

Well, you know, I think that it's just they're so dinosaurs are so different, aren't they, than anything that is alive today.

And I think it just is, you know, it really gives us this kind of window into an extinct world and into animals that are completely different than anything that we have alive today.

And I think that's just why dinosaurs really, you know, they're really a good way of engaging particularly children, but everyone really, into all sorts of ideas around extinction and global change and biodiversity change.

And yeah, that's why we love them.

Professor Maidman, speaking for the nation, who doesn't love a dinosaur?

I'm sure you're going to email me and tell me.

Caroline Steele is still with me in the studio, champing at the bit to share the best of the new scientific discoveries that you need to know about.

So, Caroline, we're kicking things off with some extraordinary mice.

Yes, so according to a study published in PNAS this week, mice with two fathers have had their own offspring, which is a first for mice with two fathers.

Okay, so this is a next generation.

Yes, so mice with two dads have been made and those mice have gone on to have healthy offspring themselves.

Okay, first off, how do you make a mouse with two fathers?

So you get two sperm cells and you put them inside an egg cell whose nucleus has been removed.

So it's essentially just a squishy case that has two sperm cells inside.

And then you do some genetic editing.

Well, it's actually technically epigenetic editing.

So these scientists edited the labels that turn genes on and off rather than the genes themselves.

And that allows the embryos to develop.

In this case, 259 embryos were created in this way, but only two of those embryos went on to produce healthy mice that lived into adulthood and have now gone on to have.

baby mice.

And can you do this with female mice?

Yes, it's actually much easier with two female mice rather than two males.

There's less genetic editing involved.

And actually the first fertile mouse with two mothers was born in 2004.

So this is like 21 years later for two male mice, right?

Okay, so they're playing catch-up.

They're playing catch-up massively, yeah.

Now obviously this is mice, but the question that this will make everyone think about is, is this possible for humans?

Is this the beginning of the end for human life needing to come from gametes from a man and a woman?

We can legally legally edit embryos in the UK as long as they're not being implanted.

You need to have a special license.

But, you know, it's completely illegal to implant a genetically edited embryo.

And I mean, if they were to, it would require a huge amount of eggs.

Yes.

So I mean, in this case, what was it?

259 embryos were created.

So if we had this level of success rate, you'd need, what, 250 willing surrogates.

You know, it just, the numbers at the moment don't add up because the success rates are so low.

And presumably, there's going to be a load of ethical constraints coming forward that

say a yay or nay on whether something like this will indeed be possible.

Yeah, and I mean, at the moment, we don't know: are there any off-target effects of this genetic editing?

You know, there is so much more research needed, but it is an interesting kind of proof of concept.

Thank you, Caroline.

That's not the last that we've heard from that corner of science by any means.

But moving on.

So, a paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry this week has shown that E.

coli can be used to turn plastic waste, specifically plastic bottles, into paracetamol.

And you're looking very excited, Monnie.

This is just one of those science stories that makes me love science.

It's so cool.

How do we normally make paracetamol?

So I didn't know this, but in looking into this, we make paracetamol from crude oil, right?

So it's already not a great process environmentally.

You know, we use crude oil to actually make the paracetamol, we then got to power the factories that make it, and we're obviously producing a lot of plastic waste.

So if we can produce less plastic waste because we're turning it into paracetamol, we can use less oil to make the paracetamol in the first place, this is a double win.

Also, the process is incredibly effective.

What the scientists have done is genetically modify E.

coli by inserting two genes, one from mushrooms, one from soil bacteria.

They then mix it with the plastic bottles, use a fermentation process that's very similar to brewing beer.

It's carried out at room temperature, and in under 24 hours, the yield from plastic bottles to paracetamol is up to 90%, and the emissions are incredibly low.

So it's sort of an exceptional chemical process.

That is impressive because so often with these things, the devil's in the detail, and you're like, this is possible, but only at minus 200 and something degrees or something.

This is room temperature.

This is sounding great.

I want to see ethical paracetamol turning up on my shelves soon.

And when you pop one for a headache, you know you're fighting the plastic waste headache as well.

Wouldn't that make you feel smug?

Yeah, fingers crossed.

I mean, so there needs to be a lot more further development before it can be sort of scaled up to commercial levels.

But the process itself is really exciting and quite convincing.

Caroline, garden snails are venomous.

Yes.

So a new study published this week in Trends in Ecology and Evolution has rewritten the definition of venom, meaning that tens of thousands of additional species could now be considered venomous, including the humble garden snail.

What's the new definition then?

So it's any species that manipulates the body of another organism by means of internally delivered toxins.

Okay, snails still aren't venomous to us.

What are they doing?

So they use toxins as part of sex.

Of course they do.

A little more detail, please.

I'll give you a quick rundown on how snail sex works.

Why not?

So because snails are mostly hermaphrodites so they have both male and female parts and during sex they're both trying to put their penises into each other and to increase the chance of one snail's sperm succeeding in another snail they fire a dart into the other snail covered in mucus which contains chemicals which makes the sperm more likely to survive inside the other snail and that basically comes down to the idea that sort of this snail sex is a bit of a battle where both snails are trying to be more father-like.

Because the mother has to go through the effort of growing the eggs.

Exactly.

So once the sperm enters a snail, that snail is sort of trying to fight off the sperm.

Meanwhile, the other snail is firing a dart to try and make their sperm more successful.

So yeah.

Okay, so that's snail sex.

Venom is part of snail sex, we've established.

But here's my problem with this.

If you change the definition of venomous, you potentially make it far less useful because venomous to us is synonymous with venomous to humans, which is a really good way of checking whether you should pick up a creature or not.

Yes, I mean I just completely agree with that point.

I'm not sure knowing that garden snails are technically venomous is super helpful, but the idea is that it might help scientists from sort of traditionally separate fields combine forces and accelerate the understanding of venom biology because there is a lot of overlap in these areas, which we sort of, because of the very human-centric definition, have treated quite separately.

Thank you very much, Caroline Steele, for a whistle-stop tour through this week's intriguing new science.

And sadly, that's all we have time for.

Next week, we're going to be bringing you a special episode of Inside Science from the Royal Society Summer Exhibition full of cutting-edge science from around the UK.

Victoria Gill and a certain Caroline Steele will be bringing you the best.

Until then, thanks for listening.

You've been listening to BBC Inside Science with me, Marnie Chesterton.

And her, Caroline Steele.

Say hello.

Hi.

Thanks for letting me join you, Marnie.

Pleasure, pleasure, anytime.

The producers were Dan Welsh, Jonathan Blackwell and Claire Salisbury.

Technical production was by Davan Rose and Bob Nettles.

This show was made in Cardiff by BBC Wales and West.

At Bright Horizons, infants discover first steps, toddlers discover independence, and preschoolers discover bold ideas.

Our dedicated teachers and discovery-driven curriculum nurture curiosity, inspire creativity, and build lasting confidence so your child is ready to take on the world.

Come visit one of our Bright Horizons centers in the Bay Area and see for yourself how we turn wonder into wisdom.

Schedule your visit today at BrightHorizons.com.

At the BBC, we go further so you see clearer.

With a subscription to BBC.com, you get unlimited articles and videos, hundreds of ad-free podcasts, and the BBC News Channel streaming live 24-7.

From less than a dollar a week for your first year, read, watch, and listen to trusted independent journalism and storytelling.

It all starts with a subscription to bbc.com.

Find out more at bbc.com/slash unlimited.