Three ships allegedly on fire near Strait of Hormuz based on satellite heat signatures: see photos
Satellite imagery shows heat signatures, no official fire confirmation
Several social media users posted images claiming three ships were on fire in the
Gulf of Oman
, close to the
Strait of Hormuz
, as President Donald Trump returned from the G7 summit. Users noted that NASA's Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) map displayed three red blots approximately matching the location of the alleged fires
However, these thermal anomalies identified by FIRMS cannot confirm actual fires aboard vessels. The system detects
heat signatures
, such as wildfires, gas flares, or even cooking fires, but does not distinguish sources. Without independent verification from maritime or government authorities, it remains unclear whether the blots represent shipboard fires.
— sentdefender (@sentdefender)
Also read:
Israel-Iran war looming? US evacuates non-essential staff from middle-east, UK cautions ships in Gulf
Ambrey aware of incident, says not security-related
British
maritime security
firm Ambrey reported awareness of 'an incident' approximately 22 nautical miles east of Khor Fakkan, in the United Arab Emirates, near the Strait of Hormuz.
The company noted it was not 'security-related' and did not offer further details on its nature or cause.
Live Events
Local Iranian media suggested a collision between vessels, though this has not been independently confirmed.
Ambrey did not indicate whether the incident involved fire or damage. As of now, no official maritime authority or government agency has reported confirmed vessel fires in the region.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
IAEA says Israeli strikes had 'direct impacts' on Natanz underground centrifuge halls
The International Atomic Energy Agency said on Tuesday (June 17, 2025) that it now believes Israeli airstrikes on Iran's Natanz enrichment site had 'direct impacts' on the facility's underground centrifuge halls. Follow the Israel-Iran conflict LIVE updates This marks the first time the United Nations' nuclear watchdog has assessed damage from the strikes in the underground parts of Natanz, which is the main enrichment facility of Iran's nuclear programme. 'Based on continued analysis of high-resolution satellite imagery collected after Friday's attacks, the IAEA has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz," the agency said. Already, an above-ground enrichment hall had been destroyed, as well as electrical equipment that powered the facility.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
European Satellites Create First Artificial Solar Eclipse
Cape Canaveral: A pair of European satellites have created the first artificial solar eclipses by flying in precise and fancy formation, providing hours of on-demand totality for scientists. The European Space Agency released the eclipse pictures at the Paris Air Show on Monday. Launched late last year, the orbiting duo have churned out simulated solar eclipses since March while zooming tens of thousands of miles (kilometers) above Earth. Flying 492 feet (150 meters) apart, one satellite blocks the sun like the moon does during a natural total solar eclipse as the other aims its telescope at the corona, the sun's outer atmosphere that forms a crown or halo of light. It's an intricate, prolonged dance requiring extreme precision by the cube-shaped spacecraft, less than 5 feet (1.5 meters) in size. Their flying accuracy needs to be within a mere millimeter, the thickness of a fingernail. This meticulous positioning is achieved autonomously through GPS navigation, star trackers, lasers and radio links. Dubbed Proba-3, the $210 million mission has generated 10 successful solar eclipses so far during the ongoing checkout phase. The longest eclipse lasted five hours, said the Royal Observatory of Belgium's Andrei Zhukov, the lead scientist for the orbiting corona-observing telescope. He and his team are aiming for a wondrous six hours of totality per eclipse once scientific observations begin in July. Scientists already are thrilled by the preliminary results that show the corona without the need for any special image processing, said Zhukov. "We almost couldn't believe our eyes," Zhukov said in an email. "This was the first try, and it worked. It was so incredible." Zhukov anticipates an average of two solar eclipses per week being produced for a total of nearly 200 during the two-year mission, yielding more than 1,000 hours of totality. That will be a scientific bonanza since full solar eclipses produce just a few minutes of totality when the moon lines up perfectly between Earth and the sun - on average just once every 18 months. The sun continues to mystify scientists, especially its corona, which is hotter than the solar surface. Coronal mass ejections result in billions of tons of plasma and magnetic fields being hurled out into space. Geomagnetic storms can result, disrupting power and communication while lighting up the night sky with auroras in unexpected locales. While previous satellites have generated imitation solar eclipses - including the European Space Agency and NASA's Solar Orbiter and Soho observatory - the sun-blocking disk was always on the same spacecraft as the corona-observing telescope. What makes this mission unique, Zhukov said, is that the sun-shrouding disk and telescope are on two different satellites and therefore far apart. The distance between these two satellites will give scientists a better look at the part of the corona closest to the limb of the sun. "We are extremely satisfied by the quality of these images, and again this is really thanks to formation flying" with unprecedented accuracy, ESA's mission manager Damien Galano said from the Paris Air Show.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
All you need to know about: clinical trials
A sailor's experiment In 1747, Scottish naval surgeon James Lind conducted what is now considered the world's first controlled clinical trial aboard HMS Salisbury. Scurvy, a deadly disease causing bleeding gums and fatigue, was devastating for sailors. Unaware of vitamins, at that stage, Lind divided 12 affected sailors into six pairs, each receiving a different treatment. Only those given oranges and lemons recovered. Though vitamin C wouldn't be identified for another century, Lind's use of comparison and observation led to a medical breakthrough. His experiment laid the foundation for modern clinical trials—structured studies on humans to assess the safety and effectiveness of treatments, vaccines, or preventive interventions. What is a trial? A clinical trial begins with a question and ends with a verdict— the outcome is effectiveness or failure. A clinical trial is an organised method of determining whether one approach to treatment is better than another. These trials evolved greatly during the 20th century. In 1948, British epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill introduced the randomised controlled trial, testing the efficacy of streptomycin in pulmonary tuberculosis. Randomising participants to different groups—one receiving the experimental drug and another a placebo—reduced bias and improved inference quality. Randomisation, blinding, and controlled comparisons became the cornerstones of modern clinical research. Also Read: ICMR signs MoAs to advance first-in-human clinical trials for four promising molecules Types and phases of clinical trials Clinical trials vary in design based on the research question. In a parallel trial, different groups receive different treatments throughout. In a crossover trial, each participant receives both treatments in sequence. Other designs include factorial trials, testing multiple interventions simultaneously, and cluster trials, randomising groups rather than individuals. Blinding and placebos help reduce bias and isolate true treatment effects. Before human testing, new drugs undergo preclinical studies in labs and animals. Phase 1 assesses safety in healthy volunteers through microdosing. Phase 2 evaluates early effectiveness in patients. Phase 3 compares with standard care in large, multi-centre trials. Phase 4, after approval, monitors long-term safety in real-world settings. These phases ensure scientific rigour and public safety at every step. Yet, for all the rigour in conducting these studies, a problem persisted: selective reporting. Often, only favourable results found their way into journals, while unfavourable or inconclusive trials were quietly buried. This distorted the evidence landscape, misled clinicians, and led to wastage of resources due to the repetition of unsuccessful and unpublished trials. To improve, the concept of clinical trial, registries was born. These registries act as public ledgers, documenting the intention to conduct a trial and the protocol, methods, and outcomes regardless of whether the study sees the light of publication. Inside a registry A clinical trial registry includes a wide range of information: the trial title, sponsor and funding details, scientific rationale, ethical approvals, inclusion and exclusion criteria, intervention and comparator arms, primary and secondary outcomes, recruitment status, expected start and end dates, and updates on results or termination. The most well-known global registry, was launched in 2000 by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. The broader movement for international harmonisation began with the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), established in 2006, which linked multiple national registries across the globe. The WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform is not for direct registration; researchers must register through one of 17 recognised primary registries globally. The goal was simple: anywhere in the world, any human clinical trial should be prospectively registered in a public database accessible to all for knowledge sharing and participation in trials. Rise of regulation Over the years, clinical trial registration became more than a best practice—it became mandatory. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced that no member journal would publish results of trials that weren't registered before patient enrolment. WHO formulated minimum dataset requirements for trial registries and called upon governments and institutions to make trial registration a legal obligation. Countries such as India responded swiftly. The Clinical Trials Registry – India (CTRI) was launched in July 2007 by the National Institute of Medical Statistics under the Indian Council of Medical Research. By 2009, it became mandatory to register all interventional trials conducted in India prospectively. Registering a trial in CTRI requires the investigator to create an account, fill out the structured trial registration data set online, attach relevant ethics committee approvals, and submit for verification. CTRI administrators review information, and a unique registration number is issued once it is accepted. WHO's 2025 update Despite these strides, gaps remained. A significant number of trials, even after registration, failed to report their results publicly. In April 2025, WHO released a long-awaited guidance document to plug this gap. The new guideline mandates that within 12 months of trial completion, summary results must be made available in the registry. The guidance identifies eight minimum elements to be reported: the final trial protocol and statistical analysis plan (including amendments), the completion status and whether the trial ended early, dates of reporting both in the registry and journals, participant flow across arms, baseline participant characteristics, detailed outcome results (including subgroup analyses and comparisons), harms or adverse events, and declarations of conflict of interest by the investigators. This new technical advisory draws inspiration from the CONSORT 2025 reporting standards used in academic publishing, bringing consistency between what is published in journals and what is recorded in registries. It also encourages using structured fields for reporting, which improves searchability, aggregation, and monitoring of global health research. WHO's platform is now working towards integrating these updates into a combined 'Registration and Results Data Set.' This change reflects a profound ethical principle: every trial must contribute to scientific knowledge, even if the result is inconclusive, unfavourable, or abandoned midway. Trials are no longer seen as closed academic exercises but as public goods. A failed trial, transparently reported, is as valuable as a successful one—it prevents duplication, protects patients, and refines research. Like silent archivists, registries ensure every data point finds a place in history and that every participant's contribution is fully acknowledged. The registry is a quiet custodian of truth in a world grappling with medical misinformation and hurried innovations. (Dr. C. Aravinda is an academic and public health physician. The views expressed are personal. aravindaaiimsjr10@
