Concorde: supersonic aircraft declared a French national treasure
More than 20 years since the last flight of Concorde, the pioneering supersonic airliner has been elevated to a French national treasure, and one of the surviving aircraft has been classified as a national monument.
Concorde No. 1, the first production model of the Franco-British airliner, which flew from 1973 to 1985 and is in a Toulouse museum, was chosen by the culture ministry as the exemplar of French engineering prowess of the era, to be protected by the state.
Rachida Dati, the culture minister, said: 'This plane embodies France's innovation and industrial strength in the aviation sector. Its preservation will provide future generations with an example of our aeronautical expertise and futuristic vision.'
Dati gave a nod to Britain's 50 per cent share in
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Librarians breathe easy as tool spots toxic book pigment
In The Name of the Rose, a poisonous book was used to murder several monks in a 14th century abbey. Far-fetched, one might think — but toxic books are a real problem for those handling historic works. Now scientists have devised a tool to identify hazardous books with green bindings which contain arsenic. While exposure is unlikely to lead to horrific deaths with blackened fingers and tongues, as in the novel by Umberto Eco and the film of the same name starring Sean Connery, the toxic pigment can be harmful. Publishers used arsenic to create a vibrant colour known as emerald green. Academics say that the risk to the public is low but frequent handling of the books can lead to health problems, including irritation of the eyes, nose and through — and potentially more serious effects. Libraries and collections around the world have prevented access to parts of their book collections, including the French National Library last year. Many institutions have forbidden access to all suspect green books from their collections as a precaution. Last year Bielefeld University isolated about 60,000 books, with other German universities following suit. The University of St Andrews, which has developed the tool, said that testing had until now been a specialised, costly and time-consuming process, leading institutions to isolate swathes of books. The device, developed in collaboration between the university's libraries and museums and its physics department, can quickly and cheaply detect the presence of toxic pigment in book bindings. It said that this would make it easier to distinguish hazardous books from those which are safe to handle and display. Dr Graham Bruce and Dr Morgan Facchin, from the physics department, developed a portable tool to identify the poisonous books. It shines different colours of light onto the book, and analyses how much is reflected to provide a 'fingerprint' of pigments. Bruce said: 'It is handheld and allows us to screen an individual book for the presence of emerald green pigment in a fraction of a second. It has been exciting to see it being used in libraries and collections across Scotland. Our team has been asked to look at thousands of books, of which over 100 have been identified as containing emerald green pigment.' Historic wallpaper and textiles coloured green may also contain arsenic. Dr Pilar Gil, a heritage scientist who led the research, said the starting point was a device used to detect minerals in rocks and the 'eureka moment' was discovering the unique reflective pattern from emerald green pigment. Dr Jessica Burdge, assistant director of libraries and museums at St Andrews, said: 'This work is a brilliant example of how universities and research can solve real problems. The emerald green detection tool is the result of a collaboration that plays to the strengths of different expertise across the university.' An exhibition, titled Poisonous Books, Dangers from the Past, which explores the project has opened at the Wardlaw Museum in St Andrews. Mark Lorch, professor of public engagement and science communication at the University of Hull, wrote recently: 'During the 19th century, as books began to be mass produced, bookbinders transitioned from using expensive leather covers to more affordable cloth items. To attract readers, these cloth covers were often dyed in bright, eye-catching colours.' Dyes quickly adopted for use in various items, including book covers, clothing, candles and wallpaper had a significant drawback, he said. 'They degraded easily, releasing poisonous and carcinogenic arsenic. The frequent reports of green candles poisoning children at Christmas parties, factory workers tasked with applying paint to ornaments convulsing and vomiting green water and warnings of poisonous ball dresses raised serious concerns.'
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
The winners and losers in Rachel Reeves's spending review
"It's a big deal for this government," says Simon Case. "It's the clearest indication yet of what they plan to do between now and the general election, a translation of their manifesto. "This is where you should expect the chancellor to say, on behalf of the government: 'This is what we're about'." As the former cabinet secretary, Mr Case was the man in charge of the civil service during the last spending review, in 2021. On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will unveil the Labour government's priorities for the next three years. But it's unclear whether it will provide all that much of an answer about what it's really about. Unlike the Autumn budget, when the chancellor announced her plans on where to tax and borrow to fund overall levels of spending, the spending review will set out exactly how that money is divided up between the different government departments. Since the start of the process in December those departments have been bidding for their share of the cash - setting out their proposed budgets in a negotiation which looks set to continue right up to the wire. This review is being conducted in an usual level of detail, with every single line of spending assessed, according to the chancellor, on whether it represents value for money and meets the government's priorities. Budget proposals have been scrutinised by so called "challenge panels" of independent experts. It's clear that health and defence will be winners in this process given pre-existing commitments to prioritise the NHS - with a boost of up to £30bn expected - and to increase defence spending. On Sunday morning, the government press release trumpeted an impressive-sounding "£86bn boost" to research and development (R&D), with the Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle sent out on the morning media round to celebrate as record levels of investment. 14:18 We're told this increased spending on the life sciences, advanced manufacturing and defence will lead to jobs and growth across the country, with every £1 in investment set to lead to a £7 economic return. But the headline figure is misleading. It's not £86bn in new funding. That £86bn has been calculated by adding together all R&D investment across government for the next three years, which will reach an annual figure of £22.5bn by 2029-30. The figure for this year was already set to be £20.4bn; so while it's a definite uplift, much of that money was already allocated. Peter Kyle also highlighted plans for "the most we've ever spent per pupil in our school system". I understand the schools budget is to be boosted by £4.5bn. Again, this is clearly an uplift - but over a three-year period, that equates to just £1.5bn a year (compared with an existing budget of £63.7bn). It also has to cover the cost of extending free school meals, and the promised uplift in teachers' pay. In any process of prioritisation there are losers as well as winners. We already know about planned cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions - but other unprotected departments like the Home Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government are braced for a real spending squeeze. We've heard dire warnings about austerity 2.0, and the impact that would have on the government's crime and policing priorities, its promises around housing and immigration, and on the budgets for cash-strapped local councils. The chancellor wants to make it clear to the markets she's sticking to her fiscal rules on balancing the books for day-to-day spending. But the decision to loosen the rules around borrowing to fund capital investment have given her greater room to manoeuvre in funding long-term infrastructure projects. That's why we've seen her travelling around the country this week to promote the £15.6bn she's spending on regional transport projects. The Treasury team clearly wants to focus on promoting the generosity of these kind of investments, and we'll hear more in the coming days. But there's a real risk the story of this spending review will be about the departments which have lost out - and the promises which could slip as a result.
Sky News
5 hours ago
- Sky News
Real risk Rachel Reeves's spending review will be about the departments that have lost out
"It's a big deal for this government," says Simon Case. "It's the clearest indication yet of what they plan to do between now and the general election, a translation of their manifesto. "This is where you should expect the chancellor to say, on behalf of the government: 'This is what we're about'." As the former cabinet secretary, Mr Case was the man in charge of the civil service during the last spending review, in 2021. On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will unveil the Labour government's priorities for the next three years. But it's unclear whether it will provide all that much of an answer about what it's really about. Unlike the Autumn budget, when the chancellor announced her plans on where to tax and borrow to fund overall levels of spending, the spending review will set out exactly how that money is divided up between the different government departments. Since the start of the process in December those departments have been bidding for their share of the cash - setting out their proposed budgets in a negotiation which looks set to continue right up to the wire. This review is being conducted in an usual level of detail, with every single line of spending assessed, according to the chancellor, on whether it represents value for money and meets the government's priorities. Budget proposals have been scrutinised by so called "challenge panels" of independent experts. It's clear that health and defence will be winners in this process given pre-existing commitments to prioritise the NHS - with a boost of up to £30bn expected - and to increase defence spending. On Sunday morning, the government press release trumpeted an impressive-sounding "£86bn boost" to research and development (R&D), with the Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle sent out on the morning media round to celebrate as record levels of investment. 14:18 We're told this increased spending on the life sciences, advanced manufacturing and defence will lead to jobs and growth across the country, with every £1 in investment set to lead to a £7 economic return. But the headline figure is misleading. It's not £86bn in new funding. That £86bn has been calculated by adding together all R&D investment across government for the next three years, which will reach an annual figure of £22.5bn by 2029-30. The figure for this year was already set to be £20.4bn; so while it's a definite uplift, much of that money was already allocated. Peter Kyle also highlighted plans for "the most we've ever spent per pupil in our school system". I understand the schools budget is to be boosted by £4.5bn. Again, this is clearly an uplift - but over a three-year period, that equates to just £1.5bn a year (compared with an existing budget of £63.7bn). It also has to cover the cost of extending free school meals, and the promised uplift in teachers' pay. In any process of prioritisation there are losers as well as winners. We already know about planned cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions - but other unprotected departments like the Home Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government are braced for a real spending squeeze. We've heard dire warnings about austerity 2.0, and the impact that would have on the government's crime and policing priorities, its promises around housing and immigration, and on the budgets for cash-strapped local councils. The chancellor wants to make it clear to the markets she's sticking to her fiscal rules on balancing the books for day-to-day spending. But the decision to loosen the rules around borrowing to fund capital investment have given her greater room to manoeuvre in funding long-term infrastructure projects. That's why we've seen her travelling around the country this week to promote the £15.6bn she's spending on regional transport projects. The Treasury team clearly wants to focus on promoting the generosity of these kind of investments, and we'll hear more in the coming days. But there's a real risk the story of this spending review will be about the departments which have lost out - and the promises which could slip as a result.
