Free dinosaur workshop for children at garden centre
The event will take place at Dobbies' Cadnam store on August 3, as part of the garden centre's monthly Little Seedlings Club.
Aimed at children aged four to 10, the session will introduce young explorers to dinosaurs, ancient plants, and hands-on activities, including making their own fossil to take home.
Spaces can be booked at dobbies.com.
Ayesha Nickson, events programme manager at Dobbies, said: "Our Prehistoric Plants workshop is a very exciting opportunity for children to show and share their love for dinosaurs while learning more about plants.
READ MORE: New festive experience to be launched in the New Forest this Christmas
"The activities that the children can take part in are a great way to discover and explore the world of prehistoric plants, and the crafts allow the fun to carry on at home."
She added that Dobbies is a welcoming space for families to enjoy learning, play, and dining together.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
When will the next total solar eclipse be visible in the UK?
The sky goes dark, birds fall silent, and a chill comes to the air - there's no question total solar eclipses are the most spectacular event in the celestial calendar. On 2 August, 2027, parts of southern Europe will see a total solar eclipse. It won;t be quite as spectacular in the UK. Londoners will experience a 42% eclipse - with the sun appearing as a crescent. People in the Scilly Isles will see a partial eclipse of 48%, while those in the Shetlands will see a 13% eclipse. In a partial eclipse, the sky will not go dark, but shadows might look different, and the sun is visibly 'blocked' by the moon - while a total eclipse offers a few minutes of darkness which often provokes audible gasps. The total eclipse will see areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar, North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with up to six minutes, 23 seconds of 'totality'. Luxor in Egypt and Mecca in Saudi Arabia are among the areas on the path of totality, according to Sky at Night magazine. Despite online reports this week, which possibly mixed up the events in 2027, there is most definitely no eclipse in August 2025 - the only eclipse this year came earlier, when the UK saw a partial eclipse with up to 30% eclipse on 29 March 2025. When will the next total solar eclipse be in the UK? Next year will see a partial eclipse on 12 August, 2026, with the eclipse peaking at 96% in the Scilly Isles. Most areas in the UK will see an 89% eclipsed sun. But if you're waiting for a proper total solar eclipse in the UK, you're in for rather a long wait (and it will also help to be young at this point) as the next one will not be until 23 September, 2090, when it will be visible from southern England and southern Ireland. What happens during a total solar eclipse? Total solar eclipses happen when the moon completely covers the sun, and is only visible from a certain area (known as 'the path of totality'). Areas nearby witness a partial eclipse instead. The reason it happens is that the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, and also 400 times closer to us than the Sun (by complete coincidence), so that they appear 'the same size' at the time of an eclipse. In the darkest part of the shadow, the Sun's light is almost completely blocked out. NASA says, 'People viewing the eclipse from locations where the Moon's shadow completely covers the Sun – known as the path of totality – will experience a total solar eclipse. The sky will become dark, as if it were dawn or dusk. 'Weather permitting, people along the path of totality will see the Sun's corona, or outer atmosphere, which is usually obscured by the bright face of the Sun.' Some observers report feeling a chill, and birds stopping singing because they think it's night time. The last total solar eclipse in the UK was in 1999, although it was only visible from Cornwall and the Scilly isles, according to the Royal Observatory. Patchy weather meant that only some eclipse-watchers got a good sight of the eclipse (and some were soaked with rain instead). The Guardian describes how 'gasps of amazement' rang out in Penzance as totality descended for two minutes and six seconds.
Medscape
5 hours ago
- Medscape
The Ethical Minefield of Genetic Testing for All
Dr Arya Anthony Kamyab Imagine being able to screen an embryo's DNA and predict the likelihood of developing diseases such as diabetes or schizophrenia. DNA technology has been knocking on the door of health innovation for some time, and it looks as though it has finally arrived in the NHS. The government's 10 Year Health Plan for England aims to 'provide a genomic test for every newborn baby by 2035,' Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting confirmed to the House of Commons this month. This would require redesigning our current practice. At present, when babies are born, the heel-prick test screens for nine rare conditions using biochemical markers. The plan to introduce genetic testing will entail all newborns in England having DNA screening which, rather than looking for chemical markers, uses whole genome sequencing to look for changes in genes associated with more than 200 conditions that can be improved if identified early. Genetic screening is not intended to replace the heel-prick test, which will continue to be carried out regardless of whether parents decide to opt out of genomic screening. Genomics England is helping lead research. It's 100,000 Genomes Project has sequenced more than 85,000 participants' genomes, with 18.5% of data so far turned into actionable findings. The Generation Study from Genomics England plans to build on these foundations to sequence the genomes of a similar number of newborn babies. This genomics information will be interpreted through AI to help predict and avert genetic illness before the onset of symptoms. Predictive Power DNA is not a deterministic code with a unique ability to predict the future. Modern science has linked certain genetic variants to specific diseases. However, countless others — known as variants of uncertain significance — remain unclassified, their potential harmful, neutral, or beneficial. Some of these variants, which currently evade our 21st century understanding of genetics, will inevitably be associated with diseases. This project could undoubtably illuminate many of those missing gaps and transform our knowledge of inherited risk. So, what undermines DNA's predictive value in determining who we grow up to be? We can break the answer down into three reasons: incomplete penetrance, variable expressivity, and being heavily shaped by environment. Incomplete penetrance is a fancy term used by geneticists. It refers to a scenario in which individuals carry a specific genetic mutation but do not always express the associated disease or trait. We see this with the BRCA1 gene, which increases the risk for breast and ovarian cancer, but not all carriers develop these diseases. Then we have variable expressivity, which often gets confused for penetrance but is a distinct concept. Where penetrance concerns itself with whether the trait (or condition) will appear, expressivity describes its severity or types of symptoms once present. Finally, the interplay between genes and environment is vital for the presence of disease. But have you ever considered how the knowledge of genetic susceptibility may affect one's behaviour? If you were to know that your genes confer a greater risk for, say, diabetes, could that lead to behaviour modification? Fewer takeaways and more exercise? The Ethical Minefield Make no mistake, having access to genetic information will save lives and reduce suffering. It will further our understanding of genetics, a foundational pillar of medical science. This doesn't make the debate a foregone conclusion, however, as the ethical terrain is incredibly complex. The Generation Study is not sequencing parents' genes. However, it would mean universal screening of babies' genomes before they can consent. Few could argue that telling parents that their child has a noncurable condition will unleash significant anxiety and stress. Some may argue it is not worth the potential benefits, while others may prioritise the long-term gains in scientific advancement. Research published in the Nature journal European Journal of Human Genetics suggests that most parents would plan to tell their children their screening results in childhood, whilst some would postpone this news due to the potential negative impacts it may have on their self-esteem. Perhaps, then, this scheme should report only on a predefined panel of conditions where early treatment makes a significant impact on outcomes. What makes a disease "treatable" or not is also not black and white and will raise further difficult questions. But this is where we have to be careful. The argument against screening for diseases that are not treatable in 2025 overlooks the fact that such programmes generate valuable data, which can play a role in the development of future breakthroughs and therapies. Consider knowledge as a burden for a moment. We know of genetic variants that are associated with Alzheimer's disease. How are parents supposed to raise a child that they know has a genetically increased risk of developing Alzheimer's? For some, the answer is simple: Do nothing. The exact cause of Alzheimer's is not understood, which means there is no certain way to prevent it. But this reductionist approach of simply deciding to do nothing is much easier said than done. Regardless of whether you choose to report on only a predefined panel of conditions, patients will know that the data exist. Once the genome is sequenced, it cannot be unsequenced. Doctors, geneticists, and academics will have to carry the moral burden of knowing more than they can responsibly act on. And what about patients? If they know that the data exist but are withheld because conditions are deemed nonactionable, what will stop them demanding the information and paying a third party to interpret the results? If so, we risk creating a two-tier system where genomic knowledge is in the hands of the most affluent. The Slippery Slope to Discrimination The most common fear that populates headlines is the misuse of genetic data. A reference to George Orwell's 1984 is never too far when data acquisition for 'the greater good' is mentioned. Maybe we can begin a new movement, calling this Orwell's Law? But this concern deserves to be taken seriously. In philosophy, a slippery-slope argument is when a decision is rejected because the arguer believes it will lead to a chain reaction that results in an undesirable end. The issue with slippery-slope fallacies is that they are incredibly easy to make and the proponents often fail to do the hard work of logically connecting each step to show why one outcome would lead to the next. So, are the concerns legitimate? Genetic test results can affect insurance policies. In the UK, insurers cannot ask you to take a genetic test, but they can ask for results of a test if you have already taken one. If genetic testing becomes widespread, it may prove difficult to keep this information from insurers. Others may also want access. Genomic data are akin to your identity. The acquisition of this information creates a layer of vulnerability that understandably makes many nervous. Could employers make decisions on whether to hire someone with a predisposition to a mental illness, for instance? And yet despite all this, it would be terse to flat-out ignore what this technology may be able to bring. Identification of, say, spinal muscle atrophy at a presymptomatic stage can significantly improve outcomes and slow the progression of disease. This debate is complex but at the same time fascinating. We are remoulding healthcare and shifting the timescale for where medicine begins. But this comes with risk and ethical questions.
Medscape
7 hours ago
- Medscape
Safe to Skip Postop Radioiodine in Low-Risk Thyroid Cancers?
TOPLINE: A recent phase 3 trial found that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar among patients who did and did not receive postoperative radioiodine, indicating the treatment can be safely avoided in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer — specifically those with pT1, pT2, and N0 or Nx tumors who have no adverse features after total thyroidectomy. METHODOLOGY: Although now used less often, total thyroidectomy followed by radioiodine has traditionally been the standard of care for treating differentiated thyroid cancer. Observational studies and the ESTIMABL2 trial , published in 2022, suggested that patients with low-risk disease could safely skip radioiodine, but confirmatory evidence was still needed. The recent randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 IoN trial aimed to answer this question. The study involved patients at 33 cancer centers in the UK who underwent complete resection following total thyroidectomy and stage pT1, pT2, pT3, or pT3a disease. Researchers randomly assigned 504 patients (77% women) to receive (n = 253) or not receive (n = 251) postoperative radioiodine. Patients underwent neck ultrasound scans annually and serum thyroglobulin measurements every 6 months. The median follow-up was 6.7 years. The primary outcome was 5-year disease-free survival, defined as the absence of locoregional recurrent or residual structural disease, distant metastases, or death from thyroid cancer. Noninferiority was assessed with a margin of 5 percentage points. Overall, 47% of patients had pT1 tumors, 44% had pT2, and 9% had pT3 or pT3a; 91% of patients had N0 or Nx disease, and 9% had N1a disease. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 17 recurrences were reported — 8 in the no-radioiodine group and 9 in the radioiodine group. The 5-year recurrence-free rate was 97.9% in the no-radioiodine group vs 96.3% in the radioiodine group, with an absolute risk difference of 0.5 percentage points (P for noninferiority = .033), highlighting the noninferiority of omitting radioiodine. Higher recurrence rates were observed in patients with pT3 or pT3a tumors than in those with pT1 or pT2 tumors (9% vs 3%) and in patients with N1a tumors than in those with N0 or Nx tumors (13% vs 2%). Additionally, baseline postsurgical thyroglobulin levels ≥ 2 ng/mL were associated with a higher risk for recurrence (hazard ratio, 12.75; P < .0001). Adverse events were comparable between the no-radioiodine and radioiodine groups, with fatigue (25% vs 28%), lethargy (14% in both), and dry mouth (10% vs 9%) being the most common. No treatment-related deaths or deaths from thyroid cancer were reported. But a total of eight patients died — an equal number in both groups. In the no-radioiodine group, deaths were due to two new primary cancers, one myocardial infarction, and one liver failure. In the radioiodine group, one death was due to bowel cancer and three due to vascular or unknown causes. IN PRACTICE: IoN and ESTIMABL2 together 'offer strong and complementary evidence showing' that postoperative radioiodine can be avoided in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer — more specifically, pT1 or pT2 tumors with N0 nodal status and no other adverse features, the study authors concluded. Although the evidence for or against radioiodine in patients with pT3, pT3a, or N1a tumors was deemed 'insufficient,' the authors concluded that 'most patients worldwide with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer' can now safely avoid radioiodine. SOURCE: This study, led by Ujjal Mallick, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, was published online in The Lancet. LIMITATIONS: Patients had relatively few recurrences, and the findings may not be applicable to the youngest patients. Additionally, molecular data (eg, on BRAF and TERT mutations) were not routinely collected from patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK. One author reported receiving honoraria from Esai and the British Medical Ultrasound Society for presenting treatment options for differentiated thyroid cancer. Another author reported receiving honoraria from Esai for presenting treatment options for differentiated thyroid cancer. All other authors declared having no competing interests. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
