Heading into a second pregnancy can be daunting, especially if you didn’t have a particularly great experience the first time around. Will the sickness return? Will the first trimester be as challenging as it was last time?

However, according to new research from Amsterdam University Medical Center, second pregnancies can have significantly different impacts on the brain. In fact, Building on earlier work showing that a first pregnancy reshapes the brain, the researchers found that each pregnancy leaves its own unique imprint on the maternal brain.

The researchers explain: “It appears that during a second pregnancy, the brain is more strongly altered in networks involved in reacting to sensory cues and in controlling your attention,

“These processes may be beneficial when caring for multiple children.”

Interestingly, the study also identified a relationship between pregnancy related brain changes and the emotional bond between mother and child. This connection was stronger after a first pregnancy than after a second.

The researchers also observed links between structural brain changes and peripartum depression, both during a first and a second pregnancy.

Researchers say: “This provides the first evidence that the changes that occur in a woman’s cerebral cortex during pregnancy are related to depression. In women who became mothers for the first time, this was particularly noticeable after giving birth.

“In women who had their second child, this was the case during pregnancy. This knowledge can help us to better recognise and understand mental health issues in mothers. We must understand how the brain adapts to motherhood.’”

Of course, to many mothers, this will not be news. In fact, according to The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), in pregnancy, depression and anxiety are the most common mental health problems, affecting around 12% and 13% of women, respectively.

In the first year after birth, around 15–20% of women experience depression and anxiety.

NICE also highlights that there is evidence to suggest that perinatal depression may be commonly missed or undertreated in general practice.

Let’s hope this new research leads to meaningful change and support for mothers.

Have you ever watched a horror film that features, say, innocent young children and found yourself freaked out by how they smile? Me too.

It’s so strange. Of course, the best horrors are ones that intimidate and scare you. Ones that keep you on your toes and unable to trust any character but at the end of the day, you’re scared of the way a child is smiling and that is weird, right?

Well, it turns out, there is some real science behind why we are a bit freaked out and thankfully, we’re not bad people. Just easily swayed by certain filmmaking choices! That is not a crime!

A new study published in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology has found that scary music can alter how people interpret human facial expressions, making even the sweet faces of children seem sinister.

PsyPost explains: “Human interaction relies heavily on reading facial expressions to evaluate whether someone poses a threat or offers safety. Background sounds often establish an emotional context that influences how subsequent information is processed, a phenomenon known as affective priming…

“Horror film soundtracks are constructed to evoke anxiety through rapid volume changes, jarring pitches, and acoustic patterns that mimic human cries. These fear-inducing sounds tend to trigger subcortical brain regions that monitor the environment for danger.”

The Kennedy Center explains how rhythm can mimic perceived threats to build tension in films, saying: “A heartbeat, ticking clock, footsteps, a galloping horse—these are familiar sounds a composer may echo in the beat of a song. By changing the pace—speeding up the rhythm or slowing it down—the composer sends a signal that can put listeners on the edge of their seats.

“Accelerating tempo (speed of music) might suggest a chase or the heavy breathing of a frightened character. Slowing down the beat might indicate lurking evil or a fading heartbeat. Using an unsteady beat often hints that something is out of whack or out of control. Bringing back a steady rhythm helps ease the tension.”

It makes sense, doesn’t it? For those of us that regularly watch horror films, we’ll recognise the feelings of threat, goosebumps and even our heartbeat racing as the sound gradually builds. In fact, I have experienced this so vividly that I now can’t watch horrors in the cinema because it’s a little too intense for me.

Brown Hooper, podcast editor at New Scientist said to the BBC back in 2016: “The music in horror movies reminds us subconsciously of primordial times,
“Non-linear sounds like Psycho’s violin ‘stingers’ mimic the sound of animals in distress; they trigger our fear of being chased by dangerous predators. Things that feel harsh and unfamiliar manipulate us emotionally.”

It’s been five years since Daniel Craig’s last James Bond film, No Time To Die – and fans are no closer to working out who might replace the actor, despite the show’s bosses saying in mid-May that the “search for the next James Bond” was officially underway.

And speaking to Deadline, producer Amy Pascal shared the qualities she’s looking for in the next Bond.

(Amy and David Heyman have taken over from long-time 007 bosses Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli after Amazon MGM Studios took over creative control of the franchise last year.)

Speaking to the publication, she said: “Having worked with Barbara Broccoli at the studio – I mean, Daniel Craig is a hard act to follow.

“And it’s got to be something really different that is… stirring and exciting and different.”

Pascal also gave a timeline for when we might expect the next Bind star to be named: “I would say the end of the year is a good bet. We are being really, really methodical,” she stated.

Former Bond star Pierce Brosnan has previously shared his thoughts on who he feels should take the part next.

In a 2025 interview, he said it should be a “given” that Craig’s successor not be American.

The actor has previously endorsed Aaron Taylor-Johnson for the role.

George Clooney, meanwhile, is team Callum Turner.

He said, “I hope Callum ends up being the next Bond. I think he would be a great Bond.

“He’s tall and handsome and charming and British, so he’s the perfect guy to do it.”

Only time will tell who will really star in the upcoming spy flick, directed by Dune’s Denis Villeneuve and written by Peaky Blinders creator Steven Knight.

Game Of Thrones creator George R R Martin has updated his personal blog, named Not A Blog, after months without posting.

The emotional entry – his first since February 19 – begins, “This year has been… stressful, to say the least. So much has been happening, it’s been overwhelming.

“Some great things, exciting things. Dreams coming true. But there have been nightmares too. I have lost friends. Battled sadness and depression.”

The writer, who turned 77 last year, added that “getting old is no fun” despite “amazing” times.

Still, George called Knight of the Seven Kingdoms’ nine Emmy nominations a “highlight” (the HBO show is based on Martin’s trilogy by the same name: he’s an executive producer on it).

Adding that he hopes to attend the ceremony, George said that his attendance depends on “a few things” and added, “I am proud of our team, and hope we take home a few of the statues, but I will confess that I was hoping we’d get a few of the acting nominations as well.

“But there’s always next year.”

Overall, the author said, while he has “so much to post about,” his upcoming entries are likely to be “short and rushed”.

The writer has had the blog since 2005.

While he seemed excited for The Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, he didn’t mention other hit show House Of The Dragon, the season finale of which is due out in days. (Though, to be fair, its third season isn’t eligible for Emmy consideration yet).

Martin has previously aired his grievances with House of the Dragon showrunner Ryan Condal, who he said “basically stopped listening” to him by the show’s second season.

“Sometimes he would explain why he wasn’t doing it. Other times, he would tell me, ‘Oh, OK, yeah, I’ll think about that.’ It got worse and worse, and I began to get more and more annoyed,’ he alleged.

“Finally, it got to a point where I was told by HBO that I should submit all my notes to them and they would give Ryan our combined notes,” he added.

For his part, Condal claimed he “made every effort to include George in the adaptation process” but that the author was “unwilling to acknowledge” the practical issues of adapting the work for the screen.

If you’ve always wondered how restaurants make such perfect chips, mash, soup, and even poached eggs, we’ve got your back.

Chefs have kindly shared their secrets to achieving those pro-level dishes at home.

But what about ice? How come that’s so much clearer – and even seems to last longer – than the stuff you make up in an ice tray at home?

Well, apparently, the difference isn’t just in your head. Industrial ice really isn’t made in the same way.

Ice manufacturing company Memphis Ice said the cloudy, white-ish colour we associate with homemade ice is actually thanks to the air trapped in the frozen water.

But specific ice machines, which suppliers to restaurants often use, offer something called “directional” or “top down” freezing, which means air bubbles settle at the bottom of the tray.

They also use filtered water, with few impurities (another cause of cloudiness).

And because professional ice machines constantly circulate the water they use for ice, there’s less chance for air bubbles to form in the first place.

Lastly, the ice company shared, ice machines freeze water at a slower rate than our freezers do.

That promotes the growth of big ice crystals, which are smoother and clearer, and prevents temperature fluctuations that could lead to either cracks or the cloudiness that comes with melting and re-forming ice.

Not only does this mean the ice is clearer, but it’s also denser thanks to the lack of non-water substances getting in the way – so it looks better and melts more slowly.

Using filtered or double-boiled water to produce clear ice at home is a myth, cocktail experts at Dramson said (though filtered water will have fewer salts and other impurities, it’ll likely have just as much air).

They recommend freezing a small cooler container filled with water; after about 24 hours, they say, the top few centimetres will be frozen while “all the air and impurities will be in the unfrozen water, leaving crystal-clear ice cubes”.

Though the method is annoying, as you’ll have to carve ice to get cubes (which are unlikely to be even), it’ll still provide the clarity and longevity of commercial kinds.

Otherwise, investing in an ice machine or buying manufactured ice are your only options.

But recently, I’ve been wondering about what I always saw as a baffling on-board artefact: aeroplane ashtrays.

Even though the UK has banned smoking on flights since 1997, it’s not uncommon to find a metal ashtray in the loo of your plane.

In fact, regulators like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) require an ashtray on board. And in 2009, a British Airways flight was reportedly delayed because staff couldn’t replace a missing ashtray ― years after the smoking ban.

I reckon teachers, nurses, retail workers, and anyone who deals with the public at large will already know the answer: people love to break rules.

Robert Joslin, an associate professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s College of Aviation, told The Washington Post that “Smoking’s not allowed, but we know it’s happening” on board.

In Japan, the publication added, there were 429 reports of in-flight smoking in 2025.

After the 2009 delay, a British Airways spokesperson said: “It is a legal requirement, under air navigation orders, to have ashtrays because while smoking is not permitted on flights, if someone were to light a cigarette on board there must be somewhere to safely extinguish it”.

This is still the rule with some regulatory bodies. But even those who have changed policy might not have changed the layout of many planes.

But they added that “most large aircrafts flying today were certified under earlier rules which still require an ashtray”.

Getting rid of it would count as a design change, they continued, which would need formal approval.

So while some new planes don’t have to have ashtrays, those which already do (and most do) can’t get rid of them without some hassle.

A fire on a 1973 flight tragically led to the deaths of 123 passengers; later investigations found the source was likely a discarded cigarette butt.

And in 1983, 23 passengers died due to a fire in the toilet of another plane. Investigations didn’t prove for sure what caused the disaster, but one of the possible reasons cited was a cigarette in the bathroom.

After that, Simple Flying shared, rules regarding things like flame-proof bins, smoke alarms, and ashtrays changed.

When filmed right, a sex scene can be incredibly steamy and really enhance the viewing experience, especially if you’re already heavily invested in the characters.

For example, is there anything better in a romcom than the will-they-won’t-they couple finally coming to their senses and racing to the bedroom for a passionate evening in the sheets? I think not.

In fact, these scenes can be so believable that it’s hard to believe that the actors aren’t actually going at it. How do you stay un-aroused while filming these scenes? How do you go back to talking normally to the co-star once the scene is complete?

Well, there’s a lot to it.

While these scenes are hot as hell to us, the behind-the-scenes filming is… not so much. According to Backstage, there are a number of measures in place to ensure the safety and comfort of the actors, as well as choreography.

Basically, the scenes may SEEM very real to us but there is so much that goes into making them happen that they’re anything but.

Before the scene is even staged, the parties involved in a sex scene will meet with an intimacy coordinator one-on-one to ensure that the actor feels safe in the scene, discuss any boundaries and any other concerns that they may have.

From there, the intimacy coordinator works with a choreographer to discuss what can and cannot happen in the scene, which areas of the body the actors are comfortable with displaying and being touched and the boundaries the actors have when it comes to filming a sex scene.

Then there are the modesty garments. Backstage explains: “Modesty garments are coverings or full-body makeup can shield certain body parts from the camera and prevent genital-on-genital contact, which is strictly prohibited on union sets. ”

Shibues and hibues—strapless thongs—are a popular form of modesty patch. These stick directly to the body and give the illusion of nudity without actually revealing an actor’s genitals. While the adhesive is pretty strong, these can be removed with baby oil.

Speaking to Backstage, Alicia Rodis, an intimacy coordinator said that she keeps these in a variety of hues on set, adding: “We take a shibue, open it up, and put a silicone guard underneath so everyone becomes like a Barbie doll.”

Though people with penises may opt to wear a “sock”, which is a drawstring skin-coloured pouch that holds the penis and testicles, instead. For those with breasts, they can wear pasties over their nipples.

With all of these measures in place, it’s hard to imagine getting aroused but according to David Thackeray, an intimacy coordinator for studios like Netflix, Warner Bros, Apple TV, BBC, and HBO, it’s perfectly normal.

Speaking to Business Insider, Thackery said that during the filming of sex scenes, actors “are going through the physical and the mind, so yeah, it happens.”

When it does happen, the production immediately pauses. Thackery said: “We just make it really clear that’s normal and that the worst thing you can do is carry on, so we call that a time-out. Give them five minutes then I come in and check in … Then we come back into it when they’re ready.”

Thackery added that actors are warned that this can happen beforehand and intimacy coordinators work hard to ensure the entire team knows that this is normal, saying: “The worst thing we can do is gawk or make it a massive deal. I will say for the crew as well, making sure they’re aware of what scene is being shot, what nudity is going to be seen. You don’t want them to be surprised.”

Thackery also added that the crew can also call a time-out during the filming of these scenes.

Did you know that some people can smell ants?

Yup – scientists have found that ants release a scent when they’re distressed or have passed away. The smell is different for various species, and some of us are more sensitive to it than others (probably due to genes).

And if you swear you can smell rain before it falls, it looks like science is on your side for that, too.

Scientific American explained that storms and other rainy events can bring ozone down from higher up in the atmosphere to “nose level”.

This happens before the precipitation actually falls.

Ozone, a type of oxygen whose name derives from the Ancient Greek meaning “to smell,” has a fresh, clean scent that reminds some of chlorine and can linger for hours after a storm ends.

Per The Times, some people can smell ozone at concentrations as low as 10 parts per billion.

The Times added that humidity often hits the ground before rain does.

After a dry spell, Streptomyces bacteria in the ground grow spores.

But when humidity, which often arrives before rain, hits the ground again, “the spores are shot into the air and people with a sensitive nose can pick up the smell” of the resulting pre-preciptiation geosmin.

The sum of all the smells created by rain’s interaction with the environment is called “petrichor” (one of my favourite words).

“Petrichor” is usually strongest after rainfall. It can be created by the aforementioned ozone and geosmin, as well as the volatile plant oils let loose in the air.

It is especially strong if rain falls after a dry spell.

Humans are unbelievably sensitive to the smell of petrichor – we can perceive geosmin, for instance, at concentrations of 10 parts per trillion.

The charity ADHD UK has penned an open letter to Channel 4 after it shared a new documentary will be aired dubbed ‘The Great ADHD Myth?’, HuffPost UK can exclusively reveal.

The TV channel said the show “seeks to determine whether ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] is a genuine neurodevelopmental disorder, or a social construct”.

The show will follow NHS psychiatrist Dr Max Pemberton as he speaks to “a growing number of medical experts who are questioning the conventional narrative around ADHD”.

According to Channel 4’s release, these experts “discuss whether the real problem is the environments in which young people are growing up, as well as the current health and schooling systems not being flexible enough to cater for a wide enough range of personalities and behaviours among children”.

It will also follow a family who “want to see whether holistic lifestyle changes can eliminate one boy’s use of ADHD medication”, a press release seen by HuffPost UK reads.

Dr Max Pemberton, who features in the documentary, said: “As a psychiatrist, I’ve watched ADHD go from a diagnosis that was only occasionally made and after careful assessment, to one that is increasingly demanded and dispensed, and I wanted to understand why.

“There’s no doubt that the people seeking these diagnoses are genuinely struggling; that isn’t in question. What the film asks is whether ADHD is really the best explanation for that struggle and my hope is that we come away with permission to ask better questions about what modern life is doing to all of us.”

Since information about the documentary was publicly shared, some people with ADHD as well as mental health experts have revealed their disappointment over the framing of the show – especially the title.

An open letter to the channel from the CEO and co-founder of ADHD UK, Henry Shelford, seen by HuffPost UK, points out that “the damage of a title like this is done in the listings, in the commentary, before a single frame is broadcast”.

After the documentary details were shared on 29 July, Dr Chris Abbott, chief medical officer at Care ADHD, shared in an email: “Presenting ADHD as potentially no more than a ‘social construct’ is scientifically misleading and risks causing real harm to children, adults and families.”

While Dr Claudia Aymerich, consultant psychiatrist at Berkeley Psychiatrists, is also concerned by the framing, which she said “oversimplifies a far more complex issue and doesn’t reflect where the scientific evidence sits”.

In response to these concerns, a Channel 4 spokesperson told HuffPost UK: “This documentary does not deny the lived experience of those diagnosed with ADHD, but does present the view of an extensive range of senior medical experts – many of whom work or have worked with the NHS or have held presidential roles at professional membership bodies – who seek to question the conventional understanding of ADHD and if it is a neurodevelopmental condition.

“They also ask whether modern living has contributed to a rise in diagnoses, and whether there may be better alternatives for some children than medication.”

ADHD is recognised by the World Health Organization, the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Dr Aymerich said: “Studies consistently demonstrate differences in brain development and function, particularly in areas relating to attention, executive functioning and impulse control, alongside a strong genetic component.”

And “while modern environments, education systems, increased screen use and lifestyle factors can all influence how symptoms present or how significantly they affect someone’s daily life, they do not negate the existence of ADHD itself”, she added.

In its open letter, ADHD UK highlighted that “this is not a parlour debate. People die” and pointed to UCL-led research using UK health records which showed that adults with diagnosed ADHD have a shorter life expectancy. There was a reduction in life expectancy for men with diagnosed ADHD of between 4.5 and 9 years, and between 6.5 and 11 years for women.

“Having ADHD is tough. Undermining the condition just makes it tougher. When a national broadcaster invites millions to file all of this under ‘myth’, people cancel assessments, parents doubt their children, employers doubt their staff, and lives are put at risk,” said Henry Shelford, who has ADHD.

After a BBC Panorama programme investigating Private ADHD Clinics aired in 2023, ADHD UK surveyed more than 2,200 people with ADHD – 90% suggested stigma had increased because of the programme, and 84% believed it would stop people with symptoms from seeking an assessment.

Dr Aymerich is concerned about how the framing may impact those living with ADHD or currently seeking a diagnosis. “Many patients spend years being told they are lazy, disruptive, disorganised or simply not trying hard enough before finally understanding that there is a recognised medical explanation for the challenges they have experienced throughout their lives,” she said.

“Receiving a diagnosis can be genuinely life-changing because it allows people to access appropriate support and better understand themselves.”

She continued: “When public debate shifts toward questioning whether ADHD is ‘real’, it risks reigniting shame, self-doubt and stigma for those individuals.

“It may also discourage parents from seeking assessments for children who are struggling or make adults question whether they deserve support at all.”

Untreated ADHD is associated with consequences such as poorer educational outcomes, relationship difficulties, anxiety, depression, substance misuse and increased risk of accidental injury.

ADHD UK’s letter has called for a review of the title of the show and for the broadcaster to “make clear on screen where contributors’ views sit relative to mainstream clinical consensus”.

It also takes issue with a child being at the centre of an experiment involving replacing medication with lifestyle changes.

In response to this, Channel 4 said “the wellbeing of our contributors was of paramount importance throughout, and the observational study of one child’s medication break was undertaken in consultation with multiple psychiatrists, an independent doctor and the family’s GP”.

The open letter continues: “We are not asking Channel 4 to duck hard questions about ADHD. Waiting lists, service failure and the gulf between need and provision deserve every camera you can point at them. We are asking you to aim at the right target.”

All of the experts HuffPost UK spoke to stress that ADHD should be discussed in the media. Dr Abbott said: “There’s legitimate discussion to be had about the quality of assessments, inequalities in access, the careful use of medication and the need for holistic support.

“Diagnosis should always follow a comprehensive specialist assessment, and treatment should be individualised rather than reduced to medication alone. But questioning whether ADHD itself is ‘real’ is not a balanced contribution to that debate.”

Dr Aymerich added “there is an important distinction between asking whether we are diagnosing and treating ADHD as effectively as possible and questioning whether the condition itself exists”.

“The first is an essential scientific discussion,” she said. “The second risks undermining decades of clinical evidence and doing unnecessary harm to a patient group that already faces considerable misunderstanding and barriers to accessing care.”