I’m not an anxious flyer, but even I have to admit that the idea of a plane being struck by lightning mid-air terrifies me.

Perhaps it shouldn’t – after all, the National Weather Service of America said most commercial planes “are hit by lightning an average of one or two times a year.”

But why does it happen, and is it even dangerous for the passengers and crew inside?

Most lightning strikes to planes occur at altitudes between 5,000 and 15,000 feet, Simple Flying shared. That’s because takeoff and landing is when the vehicles pass through clouds, which are electrically charged.

Edward Rupke, senior engineer at Lightning Technologies, Inc. told Scientific American that planes actually trigger lightning strikes as they pass through non-striking, but electrically-charged, clouds.

“Actually, aircraft often initiate the strike because their presence enhances the ambient electric fields typical for thunderstorms and facilitates electrical breakdown through air,” the US National Weather Service explained.

The strike attaches itself to an extremity like the nose or tip of the plane first. Then, the electricity moves along the outer “skin” of the plane as it flies through the strike, eventually leaving the body of the plane when it leaves the polarity.

It used to be. 1967 was the last noted commercial plane crash due to a lightning strike – the contact caused the fuel tank to explode.

Nowadays, however, planes are made from seamless aluminium or even more advanced composite materials that conduct electricity well enough to keep them away from the sensitive parts of the plane.

Occasionally, pilots might notice flickering lights or very brief interference.

“When it is suspected that a plane was hit by lightning, there is a mandatory inspection for damage, which can delay flights and be quite expensive,” the US National Weather Service revealed.

So, for that reason, pilots try to steer clear of thunderstorms.

Children’s screen time has (rightly) received plenty of scrutiny of late.

We know that excessive use of screens can impact concentration levels and negatively impact academic outcomes. Studies have also linked it to poor language development, as well as problems with development, including obesity, sleep disturbances, depression, and anxiety.

But what about the impact on brain function? Well, a new study from Finland found kids who had higher amounts of screen time during childhood ended up with better cognitive processing in their teen years.

Cognitive processing refers to the mental functions which are linked to thinking, learning, memory and executive function.

Researchers said the findings suggest screen time can support children’s and adolescents’ cognitive processing. But they stressed a key consideration here is what kind of things children do during their screen time.

The findings are based on an eight-year follow-up of the PANIC study on children’s physical activity and nutrition. The study involved 124 girls and 136 boys, whose average age was 15.

Physical activity and sedentary behaviour were measured by a device that combined heart rate and movement measurements and also by a survey questionnaire, while learning, attention and working memory were also assessed.

Doctoral researcher Petri Jalanko, from the University of Jyväskylä, said children should be encouraged to use screens in ways that promote active thinking, problem-solving, creativity and learning.

Parents shouldn’t just see screen time as harmful, he added, but should seek balance between physical activity and screen time that promotes active thinking.

The research tracks with previous research on brain function and screen time. A 2023 study of nearly 12,000 children in the United States found no evidence that screen time impacted brain function or wellbeing.

A study in older adults, meanwhile, found active screen use was generally associated with better cognitive outcomes, particularly in memory, executive function, and attention.

Passive screen use, on the other hand, was linked to poorer outcomes, including verbal memory and global cognition declines.

The latest findings come after a survey found almost one-quarter (24%) of parents of three‑ to five‑year‑olds find it hard to control their child’s screen time, and 98% of two‑year‑olds watch screens every day.

In the UK, the government has issued guidance on screen time for under-fives, suggesting under twos should avoid screen time other than for shared activities that encourage bonding, interaction and conversation (ie. FaceTiming family).

Meanwhile two- to five-year-olds should stick to no more than one hour of screen time a day, and screen time should be avoided at mealtimes and in the hour before bed, so as not to disrupt sleep.

Watching screens with an engaged adult where parents talk and ask questions has been linked to better cognitive development than solo use.

Slow-paced content is also considered far better for development than fast-paced social media-style videos.

Paediatrician Dr Joel Warsh, aka Dr Gator on social media, previously shared in his newsletter that he tells parents to ask four questions when it comes to the impact of screen time on their kids.

• Is my child sleeping well?
• Are they able to focus without screens?
• Do they play independently?
• And how do they behave when the screen is taken away?

If their sleep, focus and ability to play independently is on track, and they don’t have meltdowns or angry outbursts when screens are taken away, this is a positive sign.

The paediatrician noted that “sometimes it’s not about the number of hours” but rather the effect of screen time on our kids that we should pay attention to.

A top aide to Vladimir Putin has bizarrely declared he “feels sorry” for the UK after Britain was threatened by the Russian Embassy in London over its support for Ukraine.

Moscow’s representatives in the UK warned of the “consequences” following confirmation that British-made drones had been used in recent Ukrainian attacks in Russia.

The embassy claimed Britain was “deliberately opting for an escalation of the Ukraine crisis,” and said the “deeper its involvement in the conflict… the higher the price it will pay”.

UK prime minister Andy Burnham remained unperturbed by the threats on Tuesday, telling reporters that the UK was “providing support so that Ukraine can defend itself and that’s been the British position all the way through this conflict, by previous prime ministers – it remains the case with me”.

Asked about the spat with the UK on Wednesday, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov tried to deliver yet another threat as he again suggested Britain is directly involved in the war.

He told the media: “I feel sorry for the United Kingdom, if it is going to stand with Ukraine until the very end.

“As for the substance of our Embassy’s comment, it means only one thing: President Vladimir Putin has warned of our right to act in any area of the world’s oceans, should anyone encroach on our interests or our property.

“We have exactly the same right to regard the proudly announced direct involvement of British missile forces in strikes against the Russian Federation as participation in the war. With all the consequences that entails.”

His remarks come after a former deputy foreign minister of Russia told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that many in Moscow interpret the recent strikes from Ukraine as proof the UK is “part of the war”.

“The situation now is very dangerous, because the tension of conflict in Ukraine really is increasing,” Andrei Federov added. “The coming couple of months will face this tension, this escalation which can bring us to totally different situation unlike ever before.”

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

A documentary questioning whether attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a genuine condition or a social construct has aired on Channel 4 – and it’s proven predictably divisive.

The show, titled The Great ADHD Myth?, has prompted a wave of responses online from doctors, charities and people with the disorder who are concerned it will contribute to stigma surrounding the condition.

A reactionary survey by the charity ADHD UK in the wake of the documentary revealed that (at the time of writing), of 1,566 people who watched the show, 92% believe it has increased stigma surrounding ADHD, while 93% do not believe the show was fair in its representation of the condition.

ADHD UK’s CEO and co-founder, Henry Shelford, told HuffPost UK: “We are shocked by this programme. The fact it got commissioned at all speaks to the stigma around ADHD – a stigma that is now likely to get worse because of this show.”

The charity had previously penned an open letter to Channel 4 urging it to make a series of changes to the documentary before its release, including a review of the title and for the broadcaster to “make clear on screen where contributors’ views sit relative to mainstream clinical consensus”.

The documentary followed NHS psychiatrist and Daily Mail columnist, Dr Max Pemberton, as he spoke to medical experts who questioned the conventional narrative around ADHD.

One such expert, Dr Iona Heath, the former president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said: “It’s certainly not a medical condition as far as I’m concerned.” Another child psychiatrist said: “In 100 years’ time people are going to wonder, ‘How could we be so gullible?’”

The show posed a number of questions including whether ADHD is a disorder or social construct, how it should be treated (including whether diet and lifestyle changes could help), whether medication is the right approach and who benefits from increasing diagnoses.

Dr Pemberton – who remains certain he doesn’t have ADHD – underwent a private assessment (costing £1,200) and was diagnosed with combined ADHD and a prescription for medication.

The documentary also followed a family who wanted to see whether holistic lifestyle changes could eliminate their 10-year-old son’s use of ADHD medication. The pills “take my fun-ness away”, he said, however the programme noted at the end he did go back on them.

ADHD UK’s survey found 80% of those surveyed said it wasn’t “responsible” for a broadcaster to film a 10-year-old stopping his ADHD medication for television.

In response, Channel 4 told HuffPost UK: “The welfare of the boy and his family were of paramount importance both before, during and after the production process. An independent doctor, his GP, and a health and safety company were consulted.

“Advice was also taken from three independent psychiatrists on the medication break. This programme was produced in compliance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.”

The Times’ review of the show called its arguments “convincing, or at least the start of a necessary discussion”, although they did note “there was no real counter-argument offered to the idea of ADHD as a ‘myth’”.

Meanwhile the Guardian said Dr Pemberton “answers his questions convincingly”, highlighting the remedies proposed at the end, such as changing diet, screen and activity levels first, adapting schools to children’s needs, and making medication the last resort “seem neither radical nor uncompassionate”.

Both publications gave the doc four stars.

The NHS says ADHD is a “complex neurodevelopmental disorder, which starts in childhood and often persists into adulthood” and “is associated with significant impairment”. It’s also recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

It is marked by a persistent pattern (at least six months) of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that has a direct negative impact in more than one setting – ie. home, school, work – on academic, occupational, or social functioning. Research suggests 3-5% of the population are impacted.

Shelford, who has ADHD, said the latest Channel 4 documentary “is a travesty in its missed opportunity to help slay myths around ADHD; instead, it has added to them”.

He said ADHD “can be extraordinarily tough” and pointed to UCL-led research which showed UK 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 nine years, and between 6.5 and 11 years for women.

“Our failure to support people with ADHD should be a national scandal – instead we’re getting TV shows undermining the disorder,” he said.

“We have already complained to Ofcom and will be following up with a more detailed complaint.” The charity has also encouraged others to make complaints to the regulator.

“We are worried that this will cost lives by putting people in need off getting an ADHD assessment and from getting support,” added Shelford.

Others were quick to share their thoughts on the controversial documentary on social media after it aired.

Clinical psychologist Dr Emily Compton-Smith wrote on Instagram: “We should absolutely be able to discuss diagnosis, and where things could be improved.”

That said, she was “troubled” by “how one-sided the programme felt,” she continued, adding that “what felt missing … was the voice of the people actually living it”.

She also aired concerns that “many people will watch it and come away more sceptical of ADHD, while people with ADHD will once again be left feeling like they need to justify themselves”.

Adam Dance, the Liberal Democrat MP for Yeovil, who also has ADHD, shared a cross-party letter which he’d sent to Channel 4, saying he is “deeply concerned by the framing and language used to promote the documentary and by the potential consequences for people with ADHD and their families”.

Meanwhile others praised the show as “fantastic” and “inspirational”.

One in five (20%) people who watched the show and responded to ADHD UK’s survey said the programme had caused them ‘severe’ distress, with 38% saying it caused ‘significant’ distress.

In a statement, Professor Subodh Dave, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, commented: “The way we speak about neurodevelopmental conditions really matters. It can fuel harmful stigma experienced by people living with the condition and risk discouraging people from seeking the support and treatment they need.”

Off the back of the documentary, the expert called for greater scrutiny of the quality of assessment patients are receiving, and whether people are able to access the right support at the right time.

He added: “The focus should be on improving access to high-quality assessments and care by addressing waiting lists that leave many people without vital support for years at a time, not questioning the legitimacy of a well-established neurodevelopmental disorder.”

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are reportedly moving back to the United Kingdom later this month, according to The Telegraph and The Sun.

The couple and their children will move to a private, non-royal residence outside of London after living in the US since 2020. Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5, are set to attend a British school beginning in September.

Their move to the US came amid feuds with members of the royal family and the British press. Harry and Meghan are not set to resume any royal duties.

The planned move comes after the Duke and Duchess took a trip to the UK last month, marking the first time Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet had seen their grandfather King Charles III since 2022.

Charles, however, did not learn of the move until Sunday, according to the British outlets.

Harry has repeatedly said Buckingham Palace prevented the safe return of him and his family because it refused to provide security. It’s unclear what security arrangements the family will have now that they are moving back.

A UK Home Office spokesperson told NBC News, “It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”

Harry, Meghan and their children have been living in Montecito, California. They also have property in Portugal.

Harry and his brother, Prince William, remain estranged. William was apparently “blindsided” about the move, according to Cosmopolitan.

HuffPost reached out to the UK Home Office, Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, and Harry and Meghan’s organisation for additional comment.

President Donald Trump’s lengthy social media rant threatening an “ECONOMIC D-DAY” over Iran on Wednesday was ripped apart by critics who seemed to see right through his rhetoric.

Mere hours after bragging that the situation was “so good” with Iran, Trump promised the country would experience “Economic Warfare and Isolation on an unprecedented scale.” He also noted that any country that “allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences.”

“You know who you are,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “This will be an ECONOMIC D-DAY, and we need all of our Allies to stand with the United States of America to isolate, and defeat, the Iran threat.”

Critics were quick to point out that the countries aiding Iran during the conflict were the same ones Trump often praises, including Russia. This would make it improbable that Trump would follow through with his ultimatum, thus continuing his pattern of walking back economic and military threats against Iran.

According to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Iran has been under international economic sanctions for decades, and there were few measures the US could take outside of sanctioning or cutting off relations with Tehran’s largest trading partners.

“Iran’s largest trading partner is China; its second largest trading partner, I believe, is Russia. It also trades with North Korea, a little bit with India. These are not countries that the Trump administration has that much influence over,” Zakaria said on Wednesday’s edition of “Anderson Cooper 360°.”

Zakaria added that it was a dubious proposition for the US to cut off trade with China over the issue of Iran.

“We’ve already seen how that would work ’cause the Chinese would cut off their exports of rare earth, and all kinds of crucial things that the United States depends on. So it seems unlikely that you’re actually gonna get at the core problem,” Zakaria said.

Read more reactions to Trump’s post here: