Comments on: BBC Editorial Complaints Unit debags the Panorama WiFi scare

By: Snuggie

Snuggie — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:48:43 +0000

Snuggie blanket Snuggie blanket blanket with sleeves blanket with sleeves

By: diudiu

diudiu — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:44:46 +0000

ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing ed hardy jeans ed hardy jeans christian audigier christian audigier ed hardy t shirts ed hardy t shirts ed hardy uk ed hardy uk ed hardy bags ed hardy bags ed hardy hoodies ed hardy hoodies ed hardy mens ed hardy mens ed hardy womens ed hardy womens ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

By: CILIPInfo

CILIPInfo — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:33:35 +0000

This story is back in the news again and people are going into libraries asking if the WiFi is harmful to their children.
I’ve just blogged about it here: http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/informationadvice/default.aspx

By: briantist

briantist — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:28:10 +0000

Bloody BBC are at it again!

The same rubbish scare story on BBC Radio 4 “Today” at 0655 on 6th October 2008.

Will they ever learn?

By: briantist

briantist — Wed, 28 May 2008 20:09:34 +0000

Update: They’re at it in New Mexico now… http://www.betanews.com/article/Electrically_allergic_group_seeks_a_ban_on_WiFi/1211996304

By: Harlequin

Harlequin — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:14:25 +0000

Mobile phone insomnia
22/01/2008

A study funded by mobile phone companies has suggested that radiation from handsets can cause insomnia, headaches and confusion in users.

http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=conWebDoc.17046

By: jeffers

jeffers — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:17:38 +0000

Electrosentivity: sceptics about this condition really need to come up with something better than some generalized psychological category to describe it: if it’s psychosomatic, why do rats, not noted (as far as I am aware) for their technophobia or susceptibility to psychosomatic disorders, display the same skin changes when exposed to electromagnetic fields as electrosensitives? In my view that most strange of strange claims, that the symptoms of electrosensitivity are not a reaction to exposure to electromagnetic fields, needs to respond to the one of the most important studies of the health effects of electromagnetic fields ever published, the Bioinitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org), especially section 8. This has been ignored by the media, Ben Goldacre included, and instead much attention has focused on the provocation studies. But many of these are much less objective than they might at first seem, and their methodologies are highly questionable. Actually, to anyone who has direct experience of the condition, many of them are absurd. A recent investigation of studies into the health effects of mobile phone use, again wholly ignored by the media, might help us to understand why this is the case: the study proves that there is a clear correlation between their sources of funding and their scientific findings (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9149/9149.html): the more funding that comes from the telecommunications industry, the more they are likely to tell us that mobile phones are safe. This is a wholly predictable outcome that confirms that much science in this area is subject to deep conflicts of interest. It places into some kind of context any condemnation of conflicts of interest among what Dr Goldacre likes to call “the electrosensitivity lobby”. The real story here is how the telecommunications industry are deliberately obscuring the issue from public view, alas with Dr Goldacre’s unwitting help.

By: jeffers

jeffers — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:59:07 +0000

Got the message, Ben. Free debate on your website when your own total lack of scientific objectivity is not exposed, right?

By: jeffers

jeffers — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:45:21 +0000

Everyone I think will applaud Ben Goldacre’s insistence that evidence on health matters receives a proper and objective airing in the media. So I was looking forward to a word or two from the good doctor on the Bio-initiative Report, launched in August 2007, undertaken by an international group of experts and including a contribution by the European Environmental Agency (http://www.bioinitiative.org/). This (over six-hundred page) report contains very convincing evidence for the seriously damaging health effects of electromagnetic fields, including those emitted by wi-fis. Naturally it has received little media coverage. Come on, Ben, instead of banging on about the Beeb, why don’t you do something useful for a change and let us see your page by page refutation of this report?

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:15:00 +0000

Only 2 complaints? That can’t be right… I know I submitted a complaint – and I’ll bet that many others who read this site did too

By: humber

humber — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:31:46 +0000

If only two complained, how many even noticed there was a problem
?
Almost every BBC news broadcast contains technical and logical errors, but it seems that the general public are quite satisfied. As such, the BBC can weather even the most damning criticism, and sail on.

By the way, am I the only person the think that John Sweeney’s outburst looked staged?

By: mikewhit

mikewhit — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:56:30 +0000

@raygirvan:
That blog posting you cite certainly puts a different interpretation on “BBC impartiality”:

“[the duty of due impartiality] applies to all areas only in the sense that no area of programming is exempt from it …”

By: briantist

briantist — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:33:28 +0000

Someone didn’t take no for an answer! Not just taking “I am therefore upholding this aspect of your complaint” as being enough.

By: mr e guest

mr e guest — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:21:21 +0000

Good news indeed. It is actually rather shamful that only two people complained though – possibly more immediate and authoritative complaints from the UK scientists involved in this issue would have been better.

Goes to show the importance of getting off your backside and putting pen to paper though. If you do complain about something, you may well be the only person in the country to do so!

By: raygirvan

raygirvan — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:03:44 +0000

This is fairly baffling. I have been in touch with the BBC editorial complaints unit in the past, and they have actively fobbed me off in relation to my complaints over balance on scientific opinion - see BBC Online and impartiality: update. WTF is going on?

By: marcdraco

marcdraco — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:09:23 +0000

At least John Sweeny losing his cool was, well, cool. I mean, it’s not like the guy hadn’t been roundly mistreated by a bunch of alien worshiping loonies.

OK, we should expect better than that, but it pales against this sort of bogus reporting that belongs in the Daily Mail (which in turn should be publicly flogged for misleading the public on a regular basis.)