Ah, good old Panorama, now more sensationalist and less reliable than your average blog.
For what it's worth, I also made a complaint about that episode to Ofcom; they claimed that it was outside their remit* and referred me to the BBC Trust. I didn't pursue it any further. I read this somewhere shortly after that episode was broadcast, it sums up the episode perfectly: Wifi uses frequencies of 2.5 GHz to 5 GHz, and power levels of transmissions are typically around 1 W. However there is another technology also used in schools that emits electromagnetic radiation and is potentially more dangerous, because: 1. this other technology emits radiation in the range of 450-750 THz, i.e. 100,000 times the frequency of Wifi; which means that each electromagnetic particle (or "photon") will carry 100,000 times more energy and is therefore 100,000 times as potentially damaging. Furthermore there are structures near thr human brain which nave been scientifically demonstrated to be especially sensitive to radiation of these frequencies. 2. this other technology uses more powerful transmitters that typically emit 60-100 W. Furthermore, these transmitters are typically kept on all the time (unlike wifi which transmits in bursts), which increases the total amount of energy radiated over a given time. These facts suggest to me that this other technology is potentially a lot more harmful to health than wifi might be (although having said that it is entirely possible that neither technology poses a significant harm to health), and that consequently if wifi is to be investigated as a risk to health, this other technology should be investigated much more rigorously. The name of this other technology? light bulbs. And that's why I don't trust Panorama any more; they subtlety altered the actual facts in ways that the layman wouldn't notice. And as far as I can tell, they do it solely to create a scare stories. Now that they've done it in an area where I have a little knowledge, how can I be sure that they aren't doing it elsewhere? Vijay. *After reading the OfCom guidelines I was sure my complaint fell within them, and it's my personal belief that the regulatory functions of the BBC trust should be handed to OfCom anyway; with any luck we could abolish the trust and put the money saved directly into program making. On 30/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good news everybody, it's Doctor Nick! > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2007/11/30/51156.shtml > > > > > More information... > > > *Panorama: Wi-Fi - A Warning Signal, BBC1, 21 May 2007* > > Thank you for your e-mail of 19 June. I'm sorry you feel the responses > you've had to your complaint so far have been unsatisfactory, and I hope I > can address your concerns here. > > I have now had the opportunity to watch the programme and discuss the > points you make with the producer and the Deputy Editor of* Panorama*. As > you may be aware, it is the role of the Editorial Complaints Unit to > investigate complaints and determine whether there has been a serious breach > of the standards expressed in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines. You can see > them in full at *www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines > *<http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines>. > In looking at this matter I have taken the relevant Editorial Guidelines to > be those dealing with Accuracy and Impartiality. > > Before I address your specific complaints, I think it might be helpful to > explain that* Panorama* decided to investigate this particular subject > because Sir William Stewart, the head of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), > said he was concerned about the safety of using Wi-Fi equipment, especially > in schools. The programme-makers felt such comments about an issue of > public health from an eminent and respected scientist, entrusted by > successive Governments with leading on such matters, justified further > investigation. > > You have raised a number of specific points, so I hope it will be helpful > if I take them in turn. I have attempted to summarise each aspect of your > complaint and I hope I have done so accurately. > > 1. *The programme failed to point out to the viewer the nature of > radio signals – saying a signal was "three time stronger" whilst playing > down the inverse-exponential nature of the measurement was > extraordinary. > * > > We have spoken to the programme-makers and discussed your concerns about > the way the level of radiation from the mobile phone mast and the Wi-Fi > equipment were compared. As you know, one of the recommendations of Sir > William Stewart's group was that the beam of greatest intensity from a > mobile phone mast should not fall on any part of a school's grounds. Sir > William said he was concerned about radio frequency radiation from phone > masts and has now said he is also concerned about similar radiation from > Wi-Fi. * Panorama*'s simple test was to compare the levels of radiation > from a mobile phone mast at the point where the beam of highest radiation > hits the ground (the point where Sir William says children should not be > exposed) with the levels of radiation from Wi-Fi equipment in a classroom. > > The reporter, Paul Kenyon, explained the test in the following terms: > > *Paul Kenyon: The government knows Sir William has concerns about > siting masts near schools. Why then are we now placing them inside > classrooms in the form of Wi-Fi mini masts? They emit the same sort of > radiation, so what's its potential impact in the classroom? We went to a > school in Norwich to find out. The idea to compare the level of radiation > from a typical mobile phone mast with that of a Wi-Fi enabled laptop in the > classroom. * > > *We're about 100 metres away from the mast here. The man who'll > take the readings is an electrical engineer called Alasdair Philips. He > runs a lobby group called Powerwatch which raises awareness of > electromagnetic smog, but he's also taken measurements for industry and > helped advise the Government. * > > *So we're in the main beam, this is sort of highest radiation, is > it? * > > *Alasdair Philips: Yes, it's where the main beam of radiation comes > down to ground, so basically the highest point of the signals, yeah. > * > > I think this made clear that the programme wasn't saying the Wi-Fi signal > was three times stronger, but simply comparing the levels of radiation at > the points where children might encounter it. I accept that this wasn't a > particularly sophisticated test but I agree with the programme-makers that > it was a simple way to make a simple point. * Panorama* asked three > scientists (Dr Alan Preece at Bristol University, Dr Richard Towser at the > University of Sheffield and Dr Mike Clarke at the Health Protection Agency) > to take a view on the validity of the test, and they agreed the comparison > was valid. In any event the reporter, Paul Kenyon, after reiterating the > basis for the test, made clear that it wasn't definitive: > > *So we took the first measurement here in what's called the beam of > greatest intensity from the mast. The advice from Sir William Stewart to > the Government was that this beam shouldn't fall on any part of a school's > grounds, unless the school and the parents agreed. But the levels of > radiation inside the classroom were far higher, three times the strength of > the nearby mast - not continuously but during downloads. These are > controversial findings that must be repeated and verified. * > > I would like to take your next two points together. > > *2. The programme conflated Wi-Fi signals and GSM mobile phone > signals, which is as valid as comparing light and heat.* > > *3. The only effect that has ever been seen from the vibrating > air molecules that provide radio signals used for Wi-Fi is a heating > effect, > but the programme made no attempt to explain this or measure it. * > > Rather than exploring the detailed science behind these points, we have > taken them as instances representing an overall concern that the programme > gave a misleading impression of the balance of scientific opinion on the > possible danger of radiation from Wi-Fi signals. In a self-contained > programme such as this, I think there is a responsibility on the > programme-makers to make sure it gives a fair representation of the range of > opinion, even if it sets out primarily to explore the concerns raised by a > particularly distinguished scientist. The section of the BBC's Editorial > Guidelines on Achieving Impartiality sets out what's required: > > *Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our > approach to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the > subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent > to which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences. * > > *Impartiality is described in the Agreement as "due impartiality". > It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and > weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed > in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of > every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal > division of time for each view. * > > I think the programme failed to meet these requirements in a number of > ways. Firstly, the fact that there were many more contributors speaking > about the potential dangers of Wi-Fi would have tended to suggest that the > balance of informed opinion was strongly in Sir William's favour. As far as > we have been able to establish, however, his is still a minority view. In > fairness to the programme-makers, I should mention that they contest this > assessment. But, at a minimum, there is a substantial body of scientific > opinion which differs from Sir Willam's view, and I don't think that's the > impression which viewers would have formed. > > Secondly, I think a greater degree of scepticism was necessary in the way > the scientists who expressed concerns about Wi-Fi were presented. They were > allowed to put forward their views without being challenged and were > consistently portrayed in a positive fashion. > > Additionally, the BBC guidelines say programme-makers should be* "objective > and even handed"* but I think the approach taken to contributors in this > instance was inconsistent. The only scientist interviewed putting a > different view, Dr Michael Repacholi, was introduced as * "a controversial > character"* who had previously been employed by the mobile phone industry, > with the implication that his opinions might be coloured as a result. He > was also challenged in the course of the interview in a way the other > contributors were not. > > I was also concerned about the terms in which the programme addressed the > particular question of the safety limits set by ICNIRP (which, as I expect > you know, are based on thermal effects). It said: > > *It's unlikely you'll have heard of ICNIRP but it's an international > group of scientist which our government relies on to set our radiation > limits. But here's the problem, it doesn't recognise any biological effects > so it bases our exposure limits on a thermal effect. In other words, the > radiation has to be so strong it heats up your organs before it's > restricted. That's why our safety limits are so high. * > > The tone of this (with phrases such as* "Here's the problem"*) is > implicitly critical of the ICNRIP position - and the impression was > reinforced by the interviews that followed with Professor Henry Lai and > Professor Olle Johansson in which both accused ICNIRP of being > irresponsible. It seems to me that this line of criticism pre-supposes what > is in fact a matter of disagreement - that Wi-Fi radiation has biological, > as well as thermal, effects. > > I am therefore upholding this aspect of your complaint. > > *4. To claim that the signal from Wi-Fi equipment is "pulsing" > is a gross misrepresentation of the technology.* > > Firstly I'd like to thank you for your e-mail clarifying this particular > point. I think it demonstrates that this is a somewhat complex matter. The > challenge for programmes like* Panorama* when dealing with complicated > science is to present it in terms comprehensible to a lay audience. I don't > believe that * Panorama* can be expected to provide the kind of detailed > analysis you might expect in a dedicated science programme. In this case, > the programme drew the simple parallel between the signal emitted from > mobile phones and masts and that from Wi-Fi equipment, something I addressed > in relation to Point 2. The only use of * "pulsing"* was in this brief > portion of the script: > > *It's the new hi-tech way of connecting to the internet. No wires, > no modem, just radio waves, pulsing information through a network of mini > masts. E-mails, websites, films, crackling through the skies. * > > In the context, I think viewers would have understood* "pulsing"* in a > figurative sense (much as they would have understood * "crackling"*), > rather than as a technical description of the technology, and I don't feel > able to support this aspect of your complaint. > > *5. The responses of the electro-sensitive woman were > statistically misrepresented.* > > *Panorama* was careful to point out that the research into > electro-hyper-sensitivity was still in its infancy and I think there was a > suitable note of caution throughout. Sylvia Wilson was described as a * > "possible"* electro-sensitive and Paul Kenyon explained that the tests in > which she had taken part were neither completely analysed nor definitive: > > *So what about the lab tests? Well they've only just finished. They > were independently funded and carried out by the University of Essex. > Participants who were exposed to the levels of radiation typically emitted > by phone masts which, as we've seen, can be far lower than Wi-Fi. Sylvia > could tell when the mast was on or off two thirds of the time. The rest of > the participants' results are still being analysed. * > > He concluded: > > *The evidence is still unclear when it comes to Sylvia's results.* > > This seems to me to present the matter fairly, albeit in simple terms, and > not in a manner likely to suggest to viewers that the evidence for such a > phenomenon as electro-sensitivity is stronger than it in fact is. > > *6. Who in the programme production and management chain have > the correct scientific education, experience or qualifications?* > > I understand why you feel it important to raise this question, but my > remit is confined to such questions as are directly relevant to whether or > not there has been a breach of editorial standards. It is possible for > programme-makers without scientific qualifications to deal with scientific > topics in a way which accords with the BBC's editorial standards, just as it > is possible for scientifically-qualified programme-makers to breach those > standards, so the question you pose doesn't arise in relation to my > investigation in this instance. However, it may be helpful if I make the > general point that issues relating to the treatment of scientific topics by > non-specialist journalists are currently under consideration in the BBC. > > In conclusion, and despite my reservations on some of your points, I do > think you have done us a service in calling attention to the issue of due > impartiality. A summary of my conclusion, with a note of the action taken as > a result, will be published in the complaints section of the BBC website, > bbc.co.uk. I will, of course, send you a copy when it has been posted. > Meanwhile, I hope you will accept my apologies on behalf of the BBC for the > lapses you have helped us to identify. >
