world

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was assassinated using a rare and highly lethal toxin derived from the skin of poison dart frogs, according to a joint statement released Saturday by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

The announcement, made at the Munich Security Conference, alleges the Kremlin’s direct involvement in Navalny’s death, which occurred at a Siberian penal colony two years ago. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper stated that only the Russian government possessed the “means, motive and opportunity” to deploy the toxin, identified as epibatidine.

“Russia saw Navalny as a threat,” Cooper said. “By using this form of poison the Russian state demonstrated the despicable tools it has at its disposal and the overwhelming fear it has of political opposition.”

The five European nations affirmed that epibatidine is not naturally found in Russia, and that its presence in Navalny’s body has no innocent explanation. The toxin originates from poison dart frogs native to South America. The countries have reported the alleged poisoning to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, citing Russia’s repeated disregard for international law.

Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, delivered a press statement on the circumstances of her husband’s death at the Munich Security Conference, following the announcement of the findings.

The Kremlin has dismissed the accusations as propaganda, according to the TASS news agency. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated that Moscow would comment further only after the test results and chemical formulas are disclosed, describing the current claims as an attempt to divert attention from “pressing Western issues.” TASS also reported Zakharova referred to Navalny as a “blogger officially designated as a terrorist and extremist in Russia.”

The UK’s Foreign Office confirmed that the findings are the result of analysis of material samples taken from Navalny’s body. The statement released by the allied nations asserts that Russia is responsible for Navalny’s death.

For centuries, the Great Wall of China has been touted as one of the few man-made structures visible from space. This enduring myth, fueled by its immense length – approximately 8,851.8 kilometers according to official measurements – has captured the imagination of people worldwide. But, the reality is far more surprising and points to a very different landmark as the truly visible human creation from orbit. The structure isn’t a historical wonder in Asia, but a sprawling agricultural project in Europe.

The persistent belief in the Great Wall’s visibility stems from a historical misunderstanding. Whereas the wall is an impressive feat of engineering, its construction materials and integration with the surrounding landscape build it remarkably difficult to discern from above. Built primarily from locally sourced stone, the wall often blends seamlessly with the mountains and terrain it traverses. Over 2,000 kilometers of the wall follow natural features like rivers and mountains, and approximately 360 kilometers consist of trenches rather than actual walls, further diminishing its visual prominence.

The origin of the myth can be traced back to a 1754 letter from English physician and antiquarian William Stukeley, who suggested the wall *could* be seen from the moon. This claim, lacking scientific basis, gained traction over time. Even astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, confirmed that the Great Wall was not discernible from lunar orbit, and remains difficult to spot even from low Earth orbit at altitudes as low as 100 kilometers. As El Diario reports, the idea has persisted despite a lack of evidence.

The “Plastic Sea” of Almería

The true champion of visibility from space isn’t ancient history, but a modern agricultural phenomenon: the greenhouses of Almería, Spain. According to Pedro Duque, the first Spanish astronaut and veteran of the International Space Station (ISS), the extensive network of plastic-covered greenhouses stands out dramatically due to the sunlight reflecting off their white plastic roofs. This “plastic sea,” as it’s often called, covers more than 40,000 hectares – an area larger than many cities.

The sheer scale of the greenhouse complex, combined with the high reflectivity of the plastic, makes it easily visible from altitudes far beyond Earth’s atmosphere. The contrast between the bright white greenhouses and the surrounding natural landscape creates a striking visual marker for astronauts and orbiting equipment. This phenomenon was highlighted in a Facebook video by William Ramos TV, debunking the myth of the Great Wall’s visibility.

Environmental Costs of Visibility

While the greenhouses of Almería are a remarkable sight from space, their impact on the environment is a growing concern. The intensive agricultural practices and widespread use of plastic have significant ecological consequences. Greenpeace Spain warns that both the production and disposal of these plastics negatively affect the local flora and fauna.

The reliance on this model of intensive agriculture also presents a broader European dilemma. Countries like France and other members of the European Union depend heavily on the produce from Almería to meet their food demands, making a transition to more sustainable alternatives a complex challenge. Finding solutions that balance food security with environmental protection is a critical priority.

Beyond Myths: A Call for Critical Thinking

The revelation about the true visibility from space serves as a potent reminder to question long-held beliefs and to examine the often-unseen consequences of human activity. The story of the Great Wall and the greenhouses of Almería highlights the importance of evidence-based understanding and critical thinking. The visible footprint of the Almería greenhouses – a vast expanse of plastic – underscores the impact of our choices and production models, both on the Earth and as observed from above.

As we continue to explore and observe our planet from space, it’s crucial to move beyond ingrained assumptions and embrace a more nuanced understanding of the world around us. The future will likely bring further challenges to sustainable practices, and a willingness to re-evaluate established norms will be essential.

What other commonly held beliefs about our planet might be based on myth rather than fact? Share your thoughts in the comments below.