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
