I can’t say I’m exactly an expert in these fields and am certainly not professional scientist – hence limiting my complaint to what I felt were issues of lack of balance and inadequate contextualisation. I do feel a little silly for the slip up of mis-attributing a claim that we need to “prove wifi is safe” to Panorama, when it was actually William Stuart about 3/4 of the way through.

Looking at the style of their response (and perhaps the flaw in my line of criticism) it feels like Panorama basically tries to justify the programme style and approach by saying “we’re reporting the controversy” (sigh!)

—My reply—-

This is a followup to the response given to my original complaint
(>) – the response did not address several of
the concerns I specifically raised:

Thank you for your swift reply to my complaint; however I believe you
have misunderstood my complaint and failed to address the specific
issues I raised concern about; in particular:

* Despite your stated intention to avoid “scare-mongering” – there was
inadequate contextualisation of the strengths of the signals against
some common reference points that non-expert members of the public could
relate to – such as mobile phone *use*; broadcast signals etc…

* You did not address my concerns regarding the inclusion of coverage of
electro-sensitivity.

* You did not address my concern that interviewees speaking in favour of
the programme’s premise were not adequately challenged – particularly
with respect to the “balance of weight of evidence” argument.

* You did not address my concern about making illogical
recommendations/assertions.

More generally, you failed to recognise my concern (which I perhaps
could have stated more explicitly)that a scientific issue (with public
health implications) was being investigated and assessed on the basis of
contrasting viewpoints, rather than by applying scientific literacy and
educating the audience.

I am concerned that Panorama did not seek adequate third party
assistance in understanding the nature of a scientific debate such as
this; enabling the panorama team to be able to properly assess the
quality of the evidence and arguments involved.

Many thanks,

—– the response —–

From: info@bbc.co.uk
Subject: BBC Panorama

Dear >

Thank you for your further e-mail.

I’ve spoken directly to the programme’s Deputy Editor on your behalf and
enclose his response to your ongoing concerns:

“Thank you for your e-mails following the recent Panorama programme “Wi-Fi
- A Warning Signal.” I will try and address your concerns point by point

* Regarding our use of the term “radiation”. We did not feel that the term
“radio waves” was a fair reflection of the step change to microwave
frequencies which some scientists believe can have a biological effect on
human cells. Like it or not “radiation” is the term that has become common
currency in the debate on mobile phone masts and now Wi-Fi. However, at the
opening of the programme we made it crystal clear in the commentary that we
were talking about “radio frequency radiation” and we used the word
“signal” in the title and wherever possible throughout the programme to
keep alive the idea to that what we were dealing with was an inevitable
by-product of active Wi-Fi communication and downloads.

* Regarding “viewpoints supportive of the prevailing mainstream scientific
view.” This is not an issue which I believe is best approached with a stop
watch. We did reflect the fact that Dr Repacholi (the architect of the
current safety limits), the British Government and the World Health
Organisation all fall in behind the WHO statement that Wi-Fi use has no
“adverse health effects.” However, we would not have entertained making the
programme if there was not a credible cast of characters calling for more
research in this area and questioning the whole basis of the “thermal
effect” approach to safety limits.

* There is a well worn knock for knock debate on signal strength, emissions
and rates of power absorbed from the use of this kind of technology
compared with a range of other home electrical devices. However, I’m not
sure what value this sort of comparison would have had — given that each
side disputes much of what the other says. Panorama made plain (by way of
contextualisation) that all the exposure rates we found were comfortably
within current safety limits, and in the school we specifically stated the
measurements were six hundred times beneath those limits.

* We were clear in all our references to electro-hypersensitives that this
was a “possible” biological effect and kept that doubt alive with
commentary lines such as “if genuinely effected” and “if the symptoms are
because of radiation.” We reported (as you acknowledge) that Sylvia’s tests
results had been inconclusive. When you say that “undue weight was given to
Government policies” you are dismissing a key element of Panorama’s
interest in the subject. When we asked for a Government Minster to talk on
these issues we were directed to the HPA and the interview with Sir William
Stewart was instrumental in shaping our approach to the subject. The fact
that there are growing calls for the Government to review its policy on the
roll out of Wi-Fi in schools (from a credible cast of characters) is what
makes this a Panorama project and not one that can be judged wholly using a
Horizon style science template.

* It would not have been possible for our programme to reflect the body of
scientific evidence available in the detail you suggest in the time
available to us. However, by using Prof. Lai and Dr Repacholi we were
hopping to show that there is a genuine and growing world-wide debate
around this issue that may eventually change public policy. There are many
scientists who I am sure you are aware would dispute your assertion that
the studies that run counter to the status quo are flawed.

* The quote you refer to does not appear in the programme commentary.”

I trust this reassures you although if you do wish to pursue this complaint
further, you can now contact the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit who will
independently investigate your complaint. You can write to them at the
following address:

Editorial Complaints Unit
BBC
Media Centre
MC4C6 Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TQ

Alternatively you can email the Unit at the address: ecu@bbc.co.uk

Please note that any complaints submitted via email must include your
postal address as all responses will continue to be issued via letter.

Thank you again for contacting the BBC.

Logically, it would be taken as such anyway, as the latest programme. But if I take out the programme name and put in the world “radiation” instead? (I.e., “blah blah blah blah radiation complete load of bollocks”.)

BT has a big wi-fi business. BT should sue and complain and get an apology broadcast and the BBC should pay for computer connections in schools.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/05/wi-fi-quackery-and-parliament.html
http://www.holfordwatch.info/2007/05/holford-jumps-on-wi-fi-broadband-waggon.html

Liars. The Swedish government backtracked that view after a year.

Further to my previous complaint regarding this programme, I have specific complaints regarding this programme and its wanton disregard for objective reporting. I feel that if you are going to make a programme on such a controversial topic, then you should at least do a minimum of research. You should at least use google for to research your contributers and basic facts. Here are points on which I demand a detailed answer:

1. You present Alisdair Philips as a suitable expert to take measurements of “electrosmog”. You make no mention of the fact that Alisdair Philips makes his money selling the various tin-foil contraptions that people who believe themselves to be “electrosensitive”. He is not an impartial observer and is widely discredited in the scientific community.

2. You present Professor Henry Lai as an expert in the biological effects of electromagnetics. Professor Henry Lai does indeed possess a doctorate, but it is in the field of Psychology and not Biology nor Electromagnetics. It is difficult to believe that there were not more reputable people with whom you could speak. Professor Henry Lai is also a deeply controversial individual, who has made claims regarding his research that even his co-authors dispute! (Don’t take my word for it, contact Bill Guy, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington)

3. You suggested that the thickness of children’s skulls was in some way relevant to the wifi debate. The difference in thickness of adults’ and children’s skulls relates to mobile phone usage. Not mobile phone masts, and certainly not to wifi. This point just further shows the wilful ignorance undertaken by the programme makers.

4. You took the word of Olle Johansson, an utterly discredited individual in his native Sweden, where he has won the coveted title of “Misleader of the Year 2004″.

5. Where do you get your claim that the Swedish government “recognises electrosensitivity as a disability”.

And frankly, even if we did find incontrovertible evidence that “electrosensitivity” is as classifiable as pollen sensitivity, what then?

There’s not the slightest doubt about pollen sensitivity. The symptoms can be disabling, requiring medication to allow the victim to go out of doors, even in the city…and yet nobody says: “Destroy all grasses! They are merely making money for the big baking combines.”

http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/

As suggested, would like to add this link from the Handheld Learning community:

http://www.handheldlearning.co.uk/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,54/topic,807.0

All the best!

How can one apply the “precautionary principle” here? If we don’t have a mass rollout, then there’s no way for us to test the long-term effects. So the “precautionary principle” becomes not having it all, ever.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-9.pdf

We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms. We realise the inconvenience but hope you will understand that this helps us handle the many emails we receive every day more efficiently and makes best use of your licence fee.

The reply you have just provided I have already seen as has been posted on the Internet some days ago.

http://www.badscience.net/?p=415

Please will you read MY complaint please and respond to the the points I raised in MY complaint and respond to queries that I made?

I feel that you have not taken any notice of my complaint and have simply responded with a boilerplate letter that you prepared before you transmitted the programme in the first place.

If you are unable to do this I will be forced to take this to the BBC Trust.

Brian Butterworth
http://www.ukfree.tv

> —–Original Message—–
> From: info@bbc.co.uk [mailto:info@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: 25 May 2007 07:24

> Subject: BBC Information [T2007052300H3S010Z2321070]
>
> Dear Mr Butterworth
>
> Thank you for your e-mail regarding Panorama – Wi-fi: a
> Warning Signal’.
>
> I understand you had concerns regarding the programmes
> impartiality. Unfortunately, the truth is that as things
> stand, there is no hard evidence regarding the effects of
> long term exposure to Wi-Fi which is why we made the programme.
>
> Wi-Fi is being rolled out into classrooms around the country
> by the Government contrary to the precautionary approach
> recommended by the head of its own advisory body Sir William
> Stewart – chair of the Health Protection Agency. As you will
> have seen in the programme, he believes that where radiation
> is concerned we should base policy on the precautionary
> principle particularly when it comes to children. This
> therefore raises questions as to whether Wi-Fi should be
> rolled out into the classroom without any long term health
> research being carried out.
>
> Many scientists criticise the way in which the radiation
> exposure limits are set in this country. The programme
> featured both the WHO position and ICNIRP who base their
> limits on what they term a “thermal effect”. It is this view
> that courts criticism from some scientists, including those
> featured in our programme, because the safety limits do not
> take into account a biological effect which some scientists
> say they have found evidence of. The reason why these
> positions were not represented by different people is that Dr
> Michael Repacholi is perhaps the most qualified person to
> answer such questions given that he was the founding chair of
> ICNIRP (and continues to be Emeritus Chairman) and because he
> set up and headed the WHO EMF project for ten years.
> However, he was given the opportunity to make his position
> clear in the programme.
>
> The other scientists in the film are all experts in their
> fields who have concerns that we are rushing forward into
> something before it’s been around long enough to know what
> the long term effects could be.
>
> The fact that the Swedish government recognises radiation
> sensitivity as a disability that affects 3% of the population
> was, we felt, of interest given our Government’s publicly
> stated view that this condition does not exist.
>
> The programme attempted to raise concern without causing
> alarm – always a difficult balance to strike but one which we
> believe we achieved.
>
> Nevertheless, please be assured I have registered your
> comments regarding this issue and have made them available to
> the ‘Panorama’ production team and the senior BBC management.
> Feedback of this nature helps us when making decisions about
> future BBC programmes and your comment will play a part in
> this process.
>
> Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.
>
> Regards
>
> Adam Sims
> BBC Information
> __________________________________________
> Would you like FREE tickets for BBC TV and Radio shows,
> including the hit Radio 2 series ‘Jammin” ? Call us on 0870
> 901 1227 or visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/tickets
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
>
> >{Title:} Mr
> >{First Name:} -
> >{Last Name:} -
> >
> >

> >{Country:} England
> >
> >{About:} General
> >{Network:} BBC1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >{Programme Name:} Panorama
> >{Transmission Date:}21 – 05 – 07
> >
> >{Comments:}
> >The Panorama on “electric smog” was a travesty of scientific
> reporting. I was appalled by the whole programme.
> >
> >The tone of the programme was “we are being deceived” but it
> failed to grasp the most obvious basic scientific facts.
> >
> >For example, there should be no surprise whatsoever that a
> radio receiver can pick up the radio signals from a radio transmitter!
> >
> >It failed to point out to the viewer the nature of radio
> signals. For example, the “one over distance squared”
> nature, which results in an exponential drop-off in signal
> strength. So saying that a signal is “three times stronger”
> whilst downplaying the inverse-exponential nature of the
> measurement was extraordinary. Is this too complicated for a
> BBC One audience?
> >
> >The programme conflated Wifi signals (at around 2.5 GHz) and
> GSM mobile phone signals, which is as valid as comparing
> light and heat, for example.
> >
> >No-one pointed out that the BBC used the GSM mobile phone
> frequencies to broadcast 405-line black and white television
> from November 1936 to January 1985. If it was OK for the
> BBC to do this for fifty years without causing harm it is
> offensive for the BBC to suggest that other companies using
> the same signals is a problem.
> >
> >The only effect that has ever been seen from the vibrating
> air molecules that provide the radio signals used for Wifi is
> a heating effect, but the programme made no attempt to
> explain this or measure it. It is deeply unscientific to say
> “children’s skulls are thinner” without any quantification of
> this, and without demonstration that the radio signals would
> pass though and cause any measurable effect. At CERN they
> can detect single subatomic particles which demonstrates how
> Panorama misrepresented the ability of any competent
> scientist to detect radio waves though a skull.
> >
> >There is also the nature of digital signal transmission, in
> particular the “encoding systems” that ensure that the
> signal’s “analogue” profile has certain properties which the
> programme misrepresented.
> >
> >It is also offensive to suggest that these transmission
> systems have been designed without the consideration for
> human safety. Signal implementers and technicians are human too!
> >
> >It is a basic principle of scientific enquiry that a theory
> can be proven or disproved by experiments, not just some
> bloke waving around a probe connected to a signal analyser.
> >
> >The “electro-sensitive” woman was unable to actually detect
> the signal Â- her responses were no better than “chance” but
> this statistic was misrepresented. If she had performed as
> well at something like “ESP”, Panorama would have rubbished her.
> >
> >It is my opinion that the BBC should get smart in the
> science field. You removed the weekly “Tomorrows World”
> show, “Horizon” is now “dumbed down” beyond belief.
> >
> >The BBC needs to restore the profile of science that it had
> in the 1980s where it was able to run plenty of proper
> science shows and also managed to have its own microcomputer!
> >
> >I did ask several years ago how many members of the BBC
> management were scientifically qualified and I was told by
> the BBC it was irrelevant.
> >
> >I hope you can now begin to understand how important it is
> to approach science with the correct principles, so I need to
> ask again who in the programme production and management
> chain have the correct scientific education, experience or
> qualifications?
> >
> >Please have a proper investigation into your failings on
> this programme and provide a public apology as soon as possible.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may
> contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC
> unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor
> act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.