
Tim Radford obituary
Tim, who has died aged 84, was not the Guardian's first specialist science correspondent and indeed he was appointed after working in several unconnected previous editorial roles and despite having no academic scientific training, but he made the role his own. He was awarded science writer of the year four times by the Association of British Science Writers, which in 2004 gave him its first life achievement award.
He could make complex subjects, whether the Large Hadron Collider, the Voyager space mission or indeed climate breakdown, his particular and growing interest, intelligible and thrilling, even to a non-specialist readership.
Roger Highfield, the association's honorary president, wrote that Tim was regarded as one of the great science journalists of his generation: 'He was as at ease interviewing a Nobel laureate for literature as he was gossiping with the Nobel prizewinner for physics. Tim was living proof that, armed with enough curiosity and a great turn of phrase, you can be a brilliant populariser even without a degree in science.'
Tim told an interviewer for the Australian Broadcasting Company in 2019: 'You just ask questions. If you can't ask an intelligent question, ask a stupid one. You still get a good answer. Journalism is an ongoing university course that will last you a lifetime. Our papers are marked not only by the people who gave us the information but by 500,000 other readers as well, so there is an incentive to get on top of the subject.'
What his colleagues recollected, however, even more than his journalism, was his sheer kindness, geniality and equanimity – not necessarily overwhelmingly common attributes in a competitive profession, especially as deadlines approach. Chris Mihill, who sat at the neighbouring desk for 10 years, spoke for many when he wrote: 'I thought he was the cleverest, kindest, most decent journalist I have ever met. A total polymath, who made light of all his skills. And he seemed to know so much about everything. He could write beautifully, and could make the most obscure subjects seem interesting.'
Tim was born in Rawene, at the tip of New Zealand's North Island, the eldest of four children of Keith Radford, a geography teacher, and his wife, Agnes, a nurse. When he was seven, the family moved to Devonport, a suburb of Auckland. He was educated, as he wrote with characteristic good humour for the paper in 1988, by the Marist monks at the city's Sacred Heart college, who frequently resorted to corporal punishment and may well have turned him off religion for life.
Tim left school at 16 for a job as a junior reporter on the New Zealand Herald where, he was proud to relate, one of his first stories was to report on the flight of Sputnik One – the first satellite, launched by the Soviets in October 1957 – as it flew over New Zealand. 'My first science story – after that you can't not be absolutely riveted by what happened,' he recalled.
By the age of 20 he had decided that New Zealand was the end of the world and real life was happening elsewhere, so he caught an Italian steamer meandering its way to England. After 65 years in Britain, what remained was a trace of a gentle New Zealand accent and, although he had no interest in the All Blacks, a penchant for wearing black shirts.
In London, his first job was on Fishing News, the fishing industry newspaper, followed by a reporting job in East Yorkshire, on the Hull Daily Mail, and then subediting at the Dover Express in Kent for three years. After that he spent five years as a civil servant working for the Central Office of Information until, in 1973, he got a job as a subeditor on the Guardian.
Initially, his career was in the features department, still characterised by a certain Guardianesque chaotic eccentricity and indeed amateurism, until it was professionalised by the paper's new features editor, later editor, Peter Preston. Tim was made letters editor in 1975 and two years later arts editor, followed by eight years as deputy features editor and three more as literary editor. These were cultural areas close to his heart: no one could spend much time with Tim without learning about his deep love for writers such as Dickens.
One cherished memory was his role in producing the Guardian's famous San Serriffe 1 April supplement in 1977, a spoof about a mythical island composed entirely of printing terms, which appealed to his sense of humour. There were more mundane matters, such as surviving an annual five-hour boozy lunch with the writer John Arlott who, perennially convinced that he was about to be sacked, sought to stave off the imagined evil day by suborning the features editors. They could talk wine, if not cricket.
In 1992, Preston made Tim the paper's science editor. It proved to be an inspired move. Alex Kirby, the BBC's then environment correspondent and a friend, recalled that Tim knew very little about science but settled down to mug up the subject with meticulous care until he became the go-to person to explain its complexities. He once admitted to having impostor syndrome to Kirby, who said: 'Huh! He was the unlikeliest impostor in the Street – a living reproach to colleagues who really did con their way to fame, wealth and stardom.'
David McKie, the paper's former deputy editor, said Tim was the only person on the staff who could be trusted to write an accurate science story: the Guardian's attitude had been summed up by its former northern editor Brian Redhead, later of the BBC's Today programme, a man never reticent about expressing his opinions, who had declared that science was boring and should be completely ignored.
As Tim said in his ABC interview: 'When I started reporting on science, the idea that a scientific discovery, no matter how momentous, would actually make the front page was near zero. News desks thought that science was something you did in the silly season when you were desperate for stories and nothing else was around – then you could always have a wacky science story.' Tim could write those, too.
After 32 years on the Guardian, Tim retired in 2005, but continued to contribute to the paper's Weatherwatch column – often referring to what famous authors, including Byron, Shelley, Carlo Levi and Proust, had written or experienced – and to the Climate News Network website. This, which Tim set up with Kirby and the Guardian's former environment correspondent Paul Brown, ran for 10 years until 2021.
Tim was a frequent lecturer and debater at conferences in Britain and abroad and wrote three books: The Crisis of Life on Earth (1990), The Address Book (2011) and The Consolations of Physics (2018).
He married Maureen Coveney, a special educational needs primary teacher, in 1964 and nursed her devotedly through a prolonged final illness before her death last year. He is survived by their two children, William and Stella, a granddaughter and great-granddaughter, and a brother and sister in New Zealand.
In a characteristically self-deprecating email a few days before his death, he wrote to a former colleague, John Carvel: 'I like to think I'm still more mesmerised by the unbelievable state of things in Washington than by, for instance, my own mortality. So I'm still a newsman.'
Timothy Robin Radford, journalist, born 9 October 1940; died 10 February 2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
5 days ago
- The Guardian
‘Alarmingly high' levels of forever chemicals found at airports in England, investigation reveals
'Alarmingly high' levels of toxic forever chemicals have been detected at English airports – in some cases thousands of times higher than proposed EU safe levels – with experts raising concerns over the potential impact on drinking water sources. Seventeen airports recorded elevated levels of Pfas in the ground and surface water sample on their sites, according to unpublished Environment Agency documents, obtained exclusively by the Ends Report and the Guardian via an environmental information request. Pfas, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a family of about 10,000 chemicals which persist in the environment and have been linked to a range of serious illnesses. They are used in many consumer products, from frying pans to waterproof coats, but one of their most common uses is in firefighting foams. The largest Pfas total recorded was at London Luton airport, with total Pfas in one groundwater sample, taken at a location described as 'fire training lagoon two', of 36,084 nanograms per litre. There is no regulatory limit for Pfas in ground or surface water in the UK, but in the EU a proposed threshold is being considered of 4.4ng/l. While Luton tested for twice the number of Pfas than that included in the EU threshold, the airport's highest total Pfas level was 8,000 times higher than the draft limit. Among the specific Pfas detected at these 17 airports were PFOS and PFOA – two banned and toxic chemicals which, respectively, are suspected and known carcinogens. One sample taken from 'borehole four' at London Luton contained 2,555ng/l of Pfas, with 24ng/l of PFOS and 39ng/l of PFOA. This total Pfas level is more than 500 times higher than the EU's proposed threshold. A London Luton airport spokesperson said: 'Like many airports and other industries in the UK and around the world, we are investing in and working closely with relevant agencies to assess and monitor Pfas.' They added that the data obtained by this investigation was from preliminary screening and should not be considered statistically representative, as a long-term monitoring programme was still under way. Of the airports sampled, Ends Report's analysis has revealed that four of the 17 are located within protected drinking water safeguard zones. These are designated areas set up around public water supplies where additional pollution control measures are needed. One sample taken at Farnborough airport, Hampshire, located in a drinking water safeguard zone, contained 180ng/l of PFOS. The Drinking Water Inspectorate has set a guideline safe level of 100ng/l for the total levels of 48 named Pfas. If test results in drinking water come close to this threshold, then the inspectorate states that precautions should be taken. The presence of elevated Pfas in the sample does not necessarily mean that drinking water is being contaminated by the airport's Pfas pollution. Experts say that for this to happen, pathways would need to exist to enable Pfas to enter drinking water sources. Dr Patrick Byrne, a reader in hydrology and environmental pollution at Liverpool John Moores University, said: 'The risk, if any, to downstream receptors like drinking water sources and ecosystems is unclear. To understand the risk, we need to establish if there is a transport pathway between the source and the receptor. If there is no transport pathway, there is a very low risk.' However, for Dr Shubhi Sharma, from the charity Chem Trust, the high levels of Pfas detected at airports are 'extremely worrying as some of these Pfas have been established as carcinogenic by the World Health Organization'. Dr Rob Collins, director of policy and science at the Rivers Trust, described the Pfas concentrations at UK airports as 'alarmingly high'. While uncertainty remains over the potential risk these may pose, Pfas contamination of drinking water from airports has previously been confirmed close to home. In Jersey, residents have been recommended bloodletting to reduce high concentrations of Pfas in their blood after private drinking water supplies were polluted by the use of Pfas in firefighting foams at the island's airport. In France, one region had to take whole drinking water supplies out of use due to Pfas contamination from an airport. A spokesperson for the trade association AirportsUK said: 'This year UK airports are spending around £5m in investigating the sources and nature of Pfas issues on their sites – it is this industry work that this data comes from. 'This work is being done with a view to identifying specific source locations so that appropriate actions can be assessed. Airports are working closely with the Environment Agency and local communities to ensure that they do not make their way into watercourses and food chains.' A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: 'We are reshaping the UK Reach [chemicals regulation] work programme to deliver stronger protections and are currently considering the best approach to chemicals regulation in the UK, including the development of a restriction dossier on Pfas in firefighting foams'.


New Statesman
11-08-2025
- New Statesman
The history of nuclear science
Photo byThe detonation of the first atomic bombs exactly 80 years ago sparked the formation of one of the largest political movements of scientists in history. 'The profession of science, due to the special importance of the consequences of its good or bad use, carries with it special responsibilities over and above those of the ordinary duties of citizenship,' proclaimed the 1948 charter of the World Federation of Scientific Workers, led by the Nobel laureate and communist Frédéric Joliot-Curie. These responsibilities were not merely ethical but political: they obliged scientists actively to 'work against the diversion of scientific effort to war preparations' and 'to resist movements inspired by anti-scientific ideas', including 'racial inequality and the glorification of force'. In 1946, the Federation of American Scientists, founded by former Manhattan Project workers and like-minded physicists, released a book and an accompanying short film entitled One World or None, which argued for the necessity of world government to 'abolish war' and prevent the repetition of the atrocities their research had enabled. The aims of nuclear scientists addressing the public today may be considerably more modest. A pair of new books, by the particle physicist Frank Close and the nuclear chemist Tim Gregory, present the story of atomic power as one of heroic discovery, guided by an implacable desire to unravel the most profound mysteries of the material world, which happened to give the rest of humanity knowledge it could decide to wield for good or for evil. Scientists did their part, and they can't really be blamed for having done so. Now it's up to the rest of us. This is an apologetic narrative, ultimately, whether it emphasises the innocence of scientific work completed before awareness of its perils dawned – as in Close's Destroyer of Worlds: The Deep History of the Nuclear Age 1895-1965 – or nuclear energy, whose potentially utopian rewards might outweigh the harm of the bomb, as in Gregory's Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World. While their most admirable predecessors in nuclear science understood that they would need to change the world if they were to regain pride in their scientific achievements, today's atomic ambassadors seem determined to insist that whatever destructive forces their field has unleashed are ultimately someone else's problem. Destroyer of Worlds has at least the virtue of sobriety. As his book's title suggests, Close does not mince words about the threat of nuclear weapons, nor does he attempt to sequester the history of nuclear physics from its catastrophic military applications. Because Close never forgets that his story ends with hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians killed and the survival of the planet in jeopardy, he narrates the key scientific achievements surveyed in the book without the sensationalism or sentimentality so often found in popular histories of science. His respect for his readers' intelligence is uncommonly clear. It is less clear what exactly Close believes to be the implications of the fact that his tale of discovery culminates in profound human tragedy. For the most part, he seems to feel that it was basically an accident. 'Pursuit of this hidden power source began innocently and collaboratively only to be taken by world events in the 1930s as the spectre of fascism loomed,' he writes early on. Close reprises the refrain near the end of the book: 'Had it not been for the unfortunate collapse of society to fascism, nuclear power rather than nuclear weapons would have led the way.' Between these bookends, however, Close's scrupulous research piles up evidence that this judgement is far too simple. HG Wells, he notes, coined the phrase 'atomic bomb' in a 1914 novel, based on his amateur reading of early research reports on radioactivity. The New Zealand-born British physicist Ernest Rutherford almost immediately recognised the disturbing implications of his discovery that each atom's positive charge is concentrated in an extremely small and energetically potent nucleus. 'At the present time we have not found a method of dealing with these forces and personally I am very hopeful we should not discover it until man is living at peace with his neighbours,' Rutherford warned in 1916, when Hitler was still an infantryman in the Royal Bavarian Army. The idea that scientists toiled in unspoiled innocence before the rise of fascism would have come as news to anyone slain by machine guns or tanks or poison gas on the battlefields of the Great War. Nor is it the case that all nuclear scientists merely reacted to the advance of fascism from the outside, as it were. Close tends to downplay the actions of scientists who did collaborate actively with fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. Least excusable is Close's refusal to acknowledge the well-documented fascist and anti-Semitic convictions of Ettore Majorana, a theoretical physicist who collaborated with Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi. Close is enchanted by tales of the enigmatic Majorana's superlative genius, despite his sparse publication record, as well as the mystery of his unsolved disappearance in 1938. He suggests that while visiting Werner Heisenberg in Germany in 1933, Majorana 'had a political awakening as he experienced with horror the Nazis seizing power'. There is no citation for this claim, and I doubt that one could be provided. Majorana did write to his mother from Germany describing the Nazi persecution of communists and Jews, but he argued that this policy 'responds to a historical necessity'. He joined the Italian fascist party after his return from Germany and wrote positively about Hitler to the son of the Italian fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile. Fermi, whose wife was Jewish, did eventually leave fascist Italy after Mussolini officially allied with Nazi Germany and enacted a state policy of anti-Semitism. He was one of many refugees from the fascist nations who eventually joined the Manhattan Project, a fact that Close underscores many times. 'It is ironic that Hitler's actions were providing the Allies with the very scientists who would help defeat the Axis powers,' Close remarks. 'Having fled fascism, they would later play central scientific roles in plotting its downfall,' he writes elsewhere. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This would indeed be a pleasing irony if it were true, but it isn't. The Manhattan Project self-evidently played no role whatsoever in the defeat of Hitler. The atomic bomb did, of course, bring the fight against Japan to an end, but even those who defend the decision to use the bomb would concede that the ultimate outcome of the war was by that time no longer in doubt. While one might sympathise with the scientists who initially joined the Manhattan Project because they believed it was essential to beat Hitler to the bomb, it was already obvious by the end of 1944 – many months before the Trinity nuclear test detonation – that even if the Nazis had managed to figure out a functional design, there was no way they could possibly enrich enough uranium to construct a bomb before their inevitable defeat. At that point, however, only a single scientist left the Manhattan Project: Joseph Rotblat, who later won the Nobel Peace Prize for his disarmament work. Close discusses Rotblat's advocacy in a brief postscript, along with the work of Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, who helped the Soviet Union develop a hydrogen bomb but later also won a Nobel prize for his peace activism. (The postscript also includes, for some reason, the German chemist Otto Hahn, whose failed work for Hitler's nuclear programme during the war did not manage to win him a Nobel Peace Prize.) Close is correct that Rotblat and Sakharov are inspiring. But they are more than that: they exemplify the obligations of any scientist who helps create world-destroying technology. By entering the political fray, they were not going above and beyond the call of duty, helping the public clean up the mess it had made of their discoveries. They were atoning. Tim Gregory, for his part, thinks that nuclear science has precious little to atone for. He begins with a much breezier tour of the same scientific history that Close recounts, before reaching a similar conclusion: 'It just so happened that nuclear physics reached the brink of Promethean knowledge as war broke out in Europe.' For this reason, he feels, it is a bit unfair that nuclear weapons get brought up so often in discussions about what he really wants to celebrate, which is nuclear energy ('not the same thing'). Gregory does concede that nuclear bombs are unpleasant and that it would be quite unfortunate if the world's superpowers began to lob them at each other, but he has no doubt that 'developing the atomic bomb in the first place was necessary', since it was a 'race between the USA and Nazi Germany' and we can be 'glad the Americans won'. In fact, the Americans did no such thing. By the time of the Trinity test, the race really was over; Hitler's nuclear scientists had been in Allied captivity for over two months. Gregory hails the cessation of atmospheric nuclear testing in the early 1960s, although it is not entirely clear why, since he claims that the 'increase in background radiation' wrought by nuclear fallout around the globe was 'harmless'. This verdict is consistent with Gregory's overall position that radioactivity is generally much less hazardous to human health than we ordinarily suppose – a claim whose denial Gregory christens 'radiophobia'. In reality, there is expert consensus that atmospheric nuclear testing was responsible for, at minimum, tens of thousands of cancer cases in the US alone, since fallout did not merely settle in an innocuous even layer around the globe; it was more acutely concentrated in communities near testing sites. This omission makes it more difficult to marvel along with Gregory at the way the chemical signature of the spike and slow decline of radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere in the second half of the 20th century 'helps in the fight against wine forgeries'. Stories about such creative applications of nuclear technology – some of which, especially in medicine, really are astounding in their ingenuity and lifesaving potential – fill the last chapters of Going Nuclear. But most of the book is dedicated to Gregory's case for why nuclear energy, and only nuclear energy, can solve climate change. Gregory hits all the standard pro-nuclear talking points: renewable sources simply can't meet the world's energy needs, especially if the economic development of the Global South is to continue; safety concerns are overblown and rely on isolated horror stories, like Chernobyl, that don't reflect the industry's current standards and track record; if there were only the political will, we could adopt new technology that enables the recycling of nuclear fuel on a widespread scale, obviating worries about uranium scarcity. 'The hysterical opposition to nuclear power,' Gregory concludes, 'ruins our best shot at renouncing fossil fuels before 2050.' Gregory does himself a rhetorical disservice with this tone. Nuclear energy sceptics, many of them both thoughtful and highly credentialed, have replied cogently to previous iterations of all these assertions. Rather than engaging with their claims seriously, even if to ultimately reject them, Gregory instead dismisses nearly everyone who disagrees with him as stupid, mendacious, or simply deranged by 'radiophobia'. At other points it feels like he is trying to conceal the gaps in his arguments by bombarding readers with a flurry of facts and figures. He performs a series of calculations showing that the world's known reserves of uranium could power the planet entirely on nuclear energy, using conventional reactors, for about eight years. State-of-the-art technology mainly in operation today in France could stretch us to a decade, and new 'fast reactors' would make the supply last for 440 years. But the latter technology, by Gregory's own admission, 'never truly made it beyond the prototype phase' until recently. In other words, the hope of powering the entire world on nuclear energy sustainably rests on nascent technology that has never been commercialised on a large scale. The reason it hasn't is not especially mysterious. 'Most of the cost of nuclear electricity', as Gregory observes, comes from 'the up-front cost of building power stations', which is enormous. Gregory bemoans 'today's climate of short-sightedness', since 'epic nuclear programmes take time'. That is surely true. But short-sightedness is not just a mindset problem with which we happen to be afflicted right now; it is a structural feature of our political-economic order. Private capital has little incentive to shoulder colossal short-term costs in the hope – no more than that, since the technology involved is unproven – of long-term repayment, when so many opportunities for short-term profit, juicing share prices and financing executive bonuses, still abound. It is no coincidence that the few nations that Gregory celebrates for their adventurous nuclear programmes have a long history of state economic leadership, such as France, China and the Nordic social democracies. But Gregory prefers nuclear energy to renewables precisely because it seems better suited to preserving the economic status quo. He finds an elective affinity between enthusiasm for renewables and the desire to ''de-grow' our economies and debase our living standards in the name of environmental protection', a vision which he rejects unequivocally. Gregory, in contrast, sees nuclear energy as the heart of an environmentalism committed to the values of 'wealth, prosperity and energy abundance'. Empowering the state at the expense of capital need not spell an end to wealth and prosperity, but Gregory does not seem to recognise that actualising his nuclear dreams worldwide would require radical political-economic change. He asserts, for instance, that 'private sector entrepreneurship' will be essential to the widespread adoption of 'fast reactors'. From the Manhattan Project to the present, it is hard to think of a force that has contributed less to the development of nuclear power. The spectre of Christopher Nolan's 2023 blockbuster Oppenheimer haunts both Destroyer of Worlds and Going Nuclear. Close writes about Robert Oppenheimer's reputation as 'the father of the atomic bomb' with palpable frustration; he considers the moniker 'wrong on many fronts'. The first time he remarks on Oppenheimer's chain smoking it adds colour; the second time it feels petty. Gregory, for his part, frames his account of the history of nuclear science by repeating almost verbatim and without attribution the opening text of Nolan's film: 'Prometheus wrested fire from the Olympian gods and gave it to humankind.' He omits the next bit, about being punished for all eternity. It is easy to understand why nuclear scientists might regret that the most iconic image of their guild is now Cillian Murphy's dismayed face in close-up, contemplating the end of the world. But this image became iconic because the sight of a scientist displaying real moral and political seriousness, even in fictionalised form, has become all too rare. We hunger for scientists who recognise that they exist within the same webs of interdependent responsibility in which we are all enmeshed. 'I'm going back to the lab now,' Gregory writes at the end of Going Nuclear. 'Over to you.' Prometheus had more solidarity with the recipients of his ambiguous gifts. Erik Baker teaches the history of science at Harvard University and is the author of 'Make Your Own Job: How the Entrepreneurial Work Ethic Exhausted America' Going Nuclear Tim Gregory Bodley Head, 384pp, £25 Destroyer of Worlds Frank Close Allen Lane, £25, 336pp Purchasing a book may earn the NS a commission from who support independent bookshops [See also: Palestine Action and the distortion of terrorism] Related This article appears in the 07 Aug 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Special 2025


Economist
06-08-2025
- Economist
Astronomers cannot agree on how fast the universe is expanding
IT IS ONE of the biggest mysteries in cosmology—and getting bigger all the time. Ever since Edwin Hubble, an American astronomer, published observations of distant galaxies in 1929, scientists have known that the universe is expanding. For almost 30 years they have known that the expansion is accelerating (that discovery, made in 1998, was honoured with a Nobel prize in 2011). What they cannot agree on, though, is how fast it is currently growing.