The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Infants and Digital Screens -- A Shocking Report

Episode Date: May 6, 2026

It's an end bits Wednesday special and the lead item really is shocking. A new study shows that some infants are using screens up to eight hours a day. Experts say this could be disastrous for their development. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. How about this headline? More than two-thirds of children under two use screens, some for up to eight hours a day. That's shocking. We'll talk about it on this end. It's Wednesday special. Coming right up.

And hello there. Welcome to Wednesday. Welcome to the hump day of this week. Rained to May. we are really into May does the weather look like it where you live I hope so all right it's Wednesday

and you know Wednesdays either mean a encore edition or we have some end bits and we still have lots of end bits so let's get at it this first story and I headlined it a few minutes ago came from Sky News in Britain

So this is a British study. But something tells me it probably would come up with somewhat similar findings here in the new world. All right. So let's listen to some of this story. The headline was, as I mentioned earlier, more than two-thirds of children under two use screens, some for up to eight hours a day. Children under two are using screens far more than experts advise with a third of newborns. newborns, watching for over three hours a day.

Come on. How can that be true? Well, not only is it true, but at least they seem to have the evidence in this study. So let's read on a little bit. In fact, I'll probably read this whole story. It's not that long, but it is shocking. More than two-thirds of children under the age of two,

screen some watching devices for up to eight hours a day, researchers warned. Despite recent government guidelines that parents should avoid screen time for kids under two, new research found that one in ten babies now regularly fall asleep with a screen. Almost a third of newborns watch screens for more than three hours a day, while nearly 20% of infants age four to 11 months watch screens for over an hour a day. a new study found. Babies and toddlers under two are now using screens at levels that far exceed health advice. With experts warning, this amount of device use could negatively impact how children develop.

Scientists say the basis of future health and brain development is laid down in the time from pregnancy to the age of two. The researchers reviewed thousands of studies finding growing evidence linking higher screen use in babies to poorer development. These include increased risk of obesity and short-sightedness, sleep problems, behavioral difficulties, language delay, and later challenges forming friendships can develop. Once again, this is a UK study, but as I suggested earlier, we could probably find similar studies here.

Almost two-thirds of the parents in the survey were worried about their own screen use and over half saw their baby's screen use as problematic. Despite the clear concern from parents, 85% said they were given no information or advice about screen time

from health workers, midwives, GPs, or teachers. The research commissioned commissioned by the 1001 Critical Days Foundation and conducted by the iatic research group from four UK universities investigated how children's early years are shifting from communicating with adults and other children to more digital interactions. The researchers reviewed thousands of studies finding growing evidence linking higher screen use in babies to poor development. The researchers also surveyed parents and carers with children under the age of two.

Former conservative minister, Dame Andrea Ledson, who founded the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, said the findings were shocking and can't disagree on that. She said, screens are the challenge of our time, and this research demonstrates a critical area where parents urgently need more support. It's joyful, but hard work having a small baby, and we should be doing everything possible to make it easier, not harder. You know, this is really interesting. This comes at a time where Canada is trying to decide,

not toddlers, trying to decide whether to take phones or take social media out of the hands of young teenagers, putting in an age restriction, like Australia has done. I'll see how that works. But carrying on with this piece, Will Quince, it's almost over here.

Will Quince, former Education and Health Minister, now the chief executive of the foundation, added, The burden of screen time cannot fall solely on parents. Tech companies must wake up to the realities of the impact of screen time on babies. Content ratings are currently misleading parents, rating content is suitable for all,

ages or suitable for zero plus. We are calling on major tech companies to urgently review these standards. Parents said they are often offering screens to their babies and toddlers to help manage the stress of daily life and coping with exhaustion. One parent described their baby screen time as a survival skill in my house. A government spokesperson told Sky News, parents told us they want clear, and non-judgmental advice on-screen use for under-fives. And we worked hand in hand with them to develop our first-of-its-kind guidance.

This research is a reminder of the pressure so many parents face, and our guidance is designed to offer realistic, evidence-informed advice that reflects the demands of family life not to be a rulebook that adds to the pressure. You know, that, you know, shocking is clearly the word. to use to describe this. It's, this is not good. I mean, think about it.

You get a puppy or a kitten. You don't give it a screen. You give it things to play with that help it develop, right? We've got a puppy that works a skills-based toy. You kind of hide treats under different, you know, kind of little box things.

and it has to learn how to get the treat out. And it's brainpower. You know, like that's what it is. You don't park it in front of a television set or, you know, some kind of a digital screen. Okay, let's move on. That was our opening story for today's N-Bit special. That was from Sky News.

The Sky News competitor in the UK, is BBC news, obviously, and the BBC is being there like forever. Well before even I was born. So the headline in this BBC story is why AI companies want you to be afraid of them. That's right. Why they want you to be afraid of them. Now, this is a long piece, and you're going to find it on the BBC. It's written by a fellow by the name of Thomas Germain.

And it came out last week. but I'll read a bit of it because, you know, AI is the thing. We're all talking AI. And some of us are amazed at the possibilities as a result of AI. Some of us are scared stiff of the possibilities of AI and what it could do to our society, what it could do to our jobs. Well, this article is basically saying, hey, that's what they want you to be.

They want you to be scared. So let's try and understand that one. So here's the article. They built it. They're scared of it. They're selling it anyway. Stop me if you've heard this one before. A tech company says it's built a new AI that's so powerful.

It's scary. Apparently, it's too dangerous to release into the world. The consequences would be catastrophic. Luckily for us, they're keeping it locked up for now. They just wanted you to know. Well, that's exactly what AI company Anthropic is telling us about its latest model, Claude Mythos. The company says Mithos ability to find cybersecurity bugs

far surpasses human experts, and it could have world-altering consequences if similar technology lands in the wrong hands. The fallout for economies, public safety and national security could be severe, Anthropics said in an early April blog post. Some breathless observers warn that mythos will soon force you to replace every piece of technology in your life, down to your Wi-Fi-enabled microwave to protect from the digital madness.

You scared yet? Some security experts doubt these claims, but let's set that aside. This isn't you. Executives at leading AI providers regularly issue warnings about how their industry's products may destroy humanity. Why do AI companies want us to be afraid of them? It's a strange way for any company to talk about its own work. You don't hear McDonald's announcing that it's created a bird. burger so terrifyingly delicious that it would be unethical to grill it for the public.

Here's one theory. According to critics, it benefits AI companies to keep you fixated on apocalypse because it distracts from the very real damage they're already doing to the world. Tech leaders say they're just warning us about an inevitable future, and safety is a top priority, whether it's now or later. But others argue what we're actually seeing is fear-mongering, which exaggerates the potential of the technology and serves to boost stock prices.

And it encourages a narrative that regulators must stand aside because these AI companies are the only ones who can stop the bad guys and build this technology responsibly. If you portray these technologies as somehow almost supernatural in their danger, It makes us feel like we are powerless, like we are outmatched, said Shannon Valor, a professor of the ethics of data and artificial intelligence at the University of Edinburgh in the UK, in Scotland, of course, as if the only people we could possibly look to would be the companies themselves. I'm going to have to remember her name because I'd love to talk to her.

Maybe we'll get her on the program at some point, because I'll be in Scotland, in a matter of hours, actually. Let me just read the very end of this piece. As I said, it's a long piece. You can find it on the BBC website. The title, or the author is Thomas Germain, and the title is why AI companies want you to be afraid of them. But listen to this ending. It's kind of neat. Let's be clear.

It is theoretically possible. that AI will take over the world. I'm no fortune teller, but ask yourself, does that idea sound similar to other stories you've heard out of Silicon Valley in the past? Weren't we all supposed to be living in Mark Zuckerberg's metaverse by now? Wasn't Bitcoin going to replace all the world's currency?

Remember back in the 2010s when we heard about how social media would save democracy? see, all of these things could still happen, or maybe they won't. That was story number two. Here's the headline on our next story. Our third one for today and our last one before we take our break. Excuse me, and this is about cars and the technology that's going into cars now.

and it is from the Yahoo News, the auto wire. It's one of their regular features. Here's the headline. Every new car could become a surveillance machine by 2027. That's, you know, not far away. And it may decide if you can drive. Okay, the new machinery they're going to put in cars will decide whether you can drive. So this is how this story starts.

This isn't some distant concept or experimental feature that might show up years from now. By 2027, next year, every new car sold in the United States could be required to actively monitor the person behind the wheel. Now, there's already some of that now. like I'd be driving on the 401 from Toronto to Stratford or going back the other way and if you know if I'd have a you know if I do some sudden braking or if I you know increase my speed or decrease my speed

or veer one way or the other to miss you know a pothole in the road a thing pops up on my screen says perhaps you should take a rest break, right? It had decided the machinery in the car decided. Oh, that's not normal. He swerved. Or he braked. Maybe he's falling asleep.

Let's warn him. And that's when it pops up. Perhaps you should take a break. But this story that I'm reading is, goes much beyond. then. It means that watching your eyes, tracking your behavior, and constantly evaluating whether you're alert enough to drive. For a lot of drivers, that starts to feel less like safety and more like surveillance. And the part that's catching people off guard is how much control these systems could actually have. Tucked into a broader federal safety initiative is a requirement

for impaired driving detection technology and all new vehicles, and good for that. The goal sounds simple enough, reduced crashes caused by drunk or fatigue drivers. It's a problem that has been around for decades, and lawmakers are trying to address it with new technology. To do that, automakers will need to install systems that monitor drivers in real time. These systems rely on cameras and sensors that track things like eye movement, head position, and overall attentiveness. It's not just observing, it's constantly analyzing

what the driver is doing. So that's all okay, but the next step is when the car starts making decisions for you. And this is where the conversation starts to shift. If the system detects what it believes is impairment, it doesn't just issue a warning and move on. In some cases, it could prevent the car from starting

or limit how it operates once you're already driving. That means the car itself becomes the decision maker, not the person in the driver's seat. For many drivers, that raises immediate concerns. It introduces a scenario where a machine decides whether you're allowed to use something you own based on its interpretation of your behavior. No system's perfect, and that's part of the problem. Fatigue, distract,

or even normal driving habits could potentially be misread by these systems. Something as simple as looking away for a moment, or driving late at night could be flagged as a concern, depending on how the system is calibrated. That creates the possibility of false positives that could prevent someone from driving when they're actually fine. Those edge cases are where the debate really starts to build, because once the car has the authority to act,

even small errors can turn into major frustrations. What's the data behind the surveillance? Beyond what the car does in the moment, there's a bigger issue sitting in the background. These systems don't just observe. They collect data. That includes how you drive, how often you appear distracted,

and how the system interprets your movements. So where does all this information and data go? Now, some of this has been around for a while, right? Like, I know what you can get, you can get cheaper car insurance from some insurance agents if you install in your car a monitoring device to track how you drive. So they get that and they look at that and they go, well, this guy's dangerous.

Or this woman makes too many bad decisions while she's driving. And therefore, we should bump her rates up. So that's kind of already out there. But this is talking about doing it on a much more widespread level. There's lots more to this article. And I'm sure some of you may want to read it. So let me tell you where you find it. autos

dot yahoo.com and look for this article every new car could become a surveillance machine by 2027 and it may decide if you can drive all right okay we've reached the the halfway point in today's Wednesday end bit special

hope you're enjoying it we got three more really good articles coming up and we'll get to those right after this. All right there. Nice little bridge music. I'm Peter Mansbridge. You're listening

to the bridge, the Wednesday episode, the hump day episode, and you're listening on Series XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, are on your favorite podcast platform. Glad to have you with us. This is probably a good time to remind you because you've only got a few hours left

to get your answers into the question of the week. and this one was suggested by one of our listeners, one of our loyal listeners. She's been with us for a number of years. Marilyn Sewell in Paris, Ontario. Marilyn's a volunteer, and she was one of those volunteers who celebrated National Volunteer Week just a couple of weeks ago. And so her idea when she wrote in a letter to me was, why don't you do something about volunteers?

Why don't you have it as a question? And I thought, why not? That's a good idea. So the question is, what's your experience in volunteering? Do you actually volunteer? Where do you volunteer? Why do you volunteer? Or have you relied on volunteers

yourself in some way in the past. So that's your question for this week. Volunteering. Do you volunteer? Where do you volunteer? What do you do? And have you benefited from volunteers? All right.

Now, there's a lot of questions there, but you only have one answer, and it's got to be under or fewer than 75 words. Okay? Send it into the Mansbridge podcast at Gmail. dot com. Have it in before 6 p.m. tonight. Eastern time.

Make sure you include your name and your full name and the location you're writing from. We need all that. You don't do those. You don't get in. All right. So look forward to seeing what you have to say. All right.

Our next story in this end bit special actually also comes from a reader. And so that's interesting. And I'm trying to find out where I put his name. Here we go. Sean Mooney in Saskatoon wrote this. It's another interesting BBC headline. The headline is, why is it impossible to measure England's coastline?

And you figure, come on, you've got to be all to measure a coastline. It's not that hard. It's not like we're still drawing. maps. Okay, this is a long piece. I'm not going to read at all, but I will read a little bit because I found it intriguing. I mean, I live on the coastline of the UK, like being in Scotland, but this is very specific. Why is it impossible to measure England's coastline? So here we go. And you hiking trail will soon allow travelers to walk around England's

entire coast, but a strange paradox means. means no one knows exactly how long that coast is. Last month, King Charles III inaugurated a new hiking path that will soon stretch around the entire coast of England. The project is roughly 80% complete. And when it fully opens later this year, the King Charles III, England Coast Path, will become the longest managed coastal walking path in the world. Well, good for you. We have a national path, but it's not a coastal path.

But I'm sure ours is longer than their coastal path, but nevertheless. Keep focus, Peter. The 2,689 mile long, or 4237 clicks, the ramble connects the granite cliffs connects the granite cliffs of Cornwall with the rolling sand dunes of Northumberland and East Sussex, Ico, iconic white chalk cliffs, allowing travelers to explore England's extensive shorelines step by step. But while the length of the newly designed path is easily measurable, the coastline that it follows is not. England's coast is often measured as part of the UK's, but look up how long that is and you'll get wildly different answers from various reputable organizations. The CIA World Factbook lists the UK's coastline is 723 miles,

while the World Resources Institute measures it at 12,251 miles, the discrepancy of more than 4,500 miles. Is this getting a little too nerdy for you? It's starting to feel a little that way to me. The thing is no one really knows exactly how long. England's coastline is, or the United Kingdoms, or most coastlines around the world, for that matter, said Victoria Broswell, a researcher and member of the Royal Geographic Society. It's all in how you measure it. Yeah. Search for a larger territory like the United States. Why not say Canada? It's like much bigger.

And this disparity grows even further from 12,380 miles, according to the United States. the CIA World Fact Book, to 84,000 miles, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to an astonishing 95,471 miles, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency responsible for mapping the U.S. is coastline. I want to assume they probably get it right. one reason why these measurements vary so greatly and why none is technically wrong goes back to a curious discovery made by a British pacifist

who was trying to understand war and it's pitted nations against each other I knew there was not going to be an easy answer to this question should we get a hint of who this pacifist was and why it's important in this debate well let's try but I'm not going to read too much long. I promise. In 1921, a Quaker mathematician and physicist named Lewis Fry Richardson

wondered whether nations with longer shared borders were more likely to go to war. During his investigations, he noticed something peculiar. Spain reported its border with Portugal as 987 clicks, while Portugal measured it as 1,214 clicks. Belgium and the Netherlands also had a 69 kilometer disparity, and countries across the continent had similar disagreements. Hey, we're like the ones with the longest border. Wonder what our disagreements are on the length of that border. Anyway, since these measurements were vitally important for a nation's sovereignty,

Richardson wondered why the differences were so widespread. At the time, most countries measured their borders and coastlines by examining a map and placing rulers of equal length along their boundaries, so that one end of the ruler was always touching the other. Excuse me? But since almost no borders or coastlines are perfectly straight, Richardson realized that the smaller the ruler, the more curves it captured, and the longer the total measurement became. I'm already lost.

This guy must have been a great dinner date. This phenomenon became known as the coastline paradox, and it applies to virtually all borders, boundaries, and coastlines with especially jagged twisting lines like England's. Okay, I can't take any more of this. but it goes on. If you're into this, there's lots there. Does I bring out an expert who then shows you exactly how difficult it is

to nail this number down? Elliot Stein is the writer for this piece. Why it's impossible to measure England's coastline. It's from the BBC. Okay? Now, if you've listened to Wednesdays when we've done

an in-bit special over the last what year that we started doing end-bit specials? You've probably heard me talk about sleep. How much you should get, how to get more of it? Well, this piece in science alert dot com

that's an intriguing headline scientists reveal the optimal amount of sleep to lower the risk of dementia. This just came out a couple of days ago. You can find it, too, by going to Science Alert.com. It's written by a fellow

by the name of David Neald, N-I-E-L-D. So let me read a little bit of this. A lack of good quality sleep has long been linked to an increased risk of developing dementia, but new research goes further, giving us an optimal amount of overnight slumber

to minimize dementia risk later in life. Using data gathered and pooled from 69 previous studies, a team from York University in Canada ran a statistical analysis to look for associations with dementia for three different factors, physical activity, time spent sitting, and sleep duration. These are all variables we can control ourselves, up to a point, and the number crunching showed that between seven and eight hours of slumber each night, was the sweet spot when it came to minimizing dementia risk.

No kidding. Isn't that what we've all grown up with? Being told, you've got to get seven to eight hours? And they have to do a new study for that? Aha. In addition, the researchers found that prolonged sitting more than eight hours a day and a lack of physical activity,

less than 150 minutes a week, were also linked to a significant increase in the chances of getting dementia. Now, I see that. Like, it's really important. We've talked about that a lot, right? Regular physical activity, less sedentary time, and appropriate nightly sleep, 7, 8 hours, may be associated with reduced risk of dementia

and are potentially modifiable factors in the prevention or delay of dementia. Write the researchers in their published paper. Getting less than seven hours of shut-eye night was linked to an 18% increase in dementia risk, while getting more than eight hours a night correlated to a 28% increase. What? So if you don't get enough, you have a risk of dementia. If you get too much, you have a risk of dementia.

You've got to find that sweet spot, seven to eight hours. Okay. Those findings align with previous studies. Getting too much sleep can be as harmful to our health as getting too little. If you want to target to aim for, then somewhere between seven and eight hours seems best. Okay, we get the picture. I'd love to get seven to eight hours.

Okay, here's the last story, fits the bill, right? What is it I'd like to hear about? Airline stories. This one's in the Daily Mail. You've probably seen the ads on the air for Emirates Airlines. They're very fancy. Middle Eastern Airlines, right? They have the big planes

and they have, you know, the big business class area seats. And the economy seats are pretty cushy too. They also have first class areas. And what do they call those? They don't call them seats. They call them cabins or en suites. And that's what the headline is here in the Daily Mail.

Ensoits in the skies. Emirates reveals plans for the world's first on-sweet bathrooms on planes. So that's exactly what it sounds like. You get your own bathroom. That's how much room there is in this onsuit. Should we read this? I mean, none of us are ever going to get this. This is as close as we're ever going to get it.

I mean, my God, it has everything. has a bathtub. It has a shower. Is that a bathtub? It might not be a bathtub. But the sink is big enough to be a bathtub. But it definitely has a shower. The UAE's national carrier is already known for luxurious interiors

and immaculate service with private cabins and high-end board dining, on-board dining. but it's about to kick things up a notch. Not just any kind of bathroom will be at it, though. The president of the airline, Tim Clark, said, I'm working on on-suit bathrooms in first-class suites. I want everyone to hear that, so everyone rushes out the door to find out how they can get bathrooms in first-class suites.

Speaking via video of the 26 Kappa Airline Leader Summit, in Berlin last week. He shared his plans for the latest upgrade to the aircraft. At the moment, no commercial airline currently provides private, onsuit bathrooms for all passengers traveling in first class. Emirates won the best international airline for the second year in a row last year. It's no surprise given the popularity of the carrier and its reputation for luxury, elegance, and high-quality service.

This is not an ad, though we're running here on the bridge. I'm fascinated by this. I mean, like, really, who gets a shower on the plane in your suite? Currently on board Emirates in first class, you can access fine dining at any time. Oh, you have to share the onboard shower. It's kind of a shower spa, they say, and the lounge bar. Really?

Paying all that money, you can't even get. get your own shower. Passengers can also indulge in an unlimited caviar, unlimited caviar, paired with don't pignon, vintage champagne. Meanwhile, Air New Zealand is about to offer economy class passengers access to bunk beds on board certain routes. I wonder what that's going to mean, you want a bunk bed? well then you have to take out your carry-on luggage from the overhead rack,

that's where you go. I don't know. But I bet you it's something like that. Okay, so we did a little research on this because we know that there's some pretty sophisticated bridge listeners out there who go, okay, man, which you're making a lot of fun of that. but hey, I want to travel that way.

So what would it cost? So the Crack Endbit's special research team went to work on this and a search on Amherit's website for a first class return ticket from Toronto to Dubai. Return. This is not just one way. This is both ways. Sounds like a bargain. A mere $21,316.

$144. Now, that's before you get your own bathroom. That's just the normal first-class ticket. But that comes with the caviar and the dompagnan, I think. So there you go. There's your airline story for the week. On this, the week that another airline bites the dust in Spirit Air, which is not a high-end cost airline.

All these bargain airlines, it's a challenge. and it's especially so right now with gas prices the way they are. Okay, that's going to do it for this Wednesday. I hope you've enjoyed our little show. Tomorrow we'll be back with your answers to that question about volunteering. I want to hear some answers there. Don't be shy. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com is where you're right.

Friday, of course, Bruce and Chantel will be here for good talk. That's going to do it for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. It's always been a treat to talk with you as we have done today. See you in less than 24 hours.