The response to my complaint about Newsnight’s exclusive claim an lack of acknowledgement of published sources!

Dear Mr Jeffreys

Thank you for your recent e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.

We forwarded your complaint to ‘Newsnight’ Editors and Meirion Jones who explained in response that:

“We first published our exclusive report at 14.00 on Friday January 22nd with an article by Meirion Jones and Caroline Hawley and a video clip of the Cambridge Computer Lab computer lab test.

In that article we went out of our way to explain the history of this and that concerns had gone back to 1995 and indeed that James Randi had been the first to express them. Although such concerns had been raised for many years the Iraqi authorities were not acting on those concerns because they said there was no proof that the detectors did not work. What was exclusive was that we proved beyond doubt that the devices being used in Baghdad could not work which forced the British government to immediately bring in an export ban.

This is the relevant part of the article where we talk about the history:

14.00 22 JANUARY BBC ONLINE

“Concern over the use of dowsing rods to detect bombs was first raised by American sceptic, James Randi. Mr Randi has confirmed to the BBC that he is still offering Mr McCormick $1m if he can prove that the ADE-651 works. In 1995, the Sandia national labs and the FBI raised the alarm over a dowsing rod device called the Quadro Tracker which they described as “a fraud” and the FBI warned: “All agencies should immediately cease using the device.
“In 1999, the FBI put out another alert: “Warning. Do not use bogus explosives detection devices.” In 2002, a test by Sandia labs in the US found that a similar dowsing rod device, called the Mole detector, did not work and performed “no better than a random selection process”. They concluded that it did not work and that it looked “nearly identical” to the Quadro Tracker. Last month, a senior Iraqi officer involved in bomb-prevention defended the ADE-651. Major General Jehad al-Jabiri, who appeared at a press conference with Mr McCormick following the December explosions, said he did not “care about Sandia” and knew more about bombs than the Americans: “Whether it’s magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,” he said.”

The history section in the film broadcast on Newsnight was more brief but again made the point that concerns had been repeatedly expressed since 1995, an excerpt from the programme below:

22.30 22 JANUARY BBC NEWSNIGHT

“Since the mid-1990s, a succession of dowsing-type detectors — like the
ADE-651 — have come onto the market. In 1995, the FBI tested a device called the Quadro Tracker. It warned: The Quadro Tracker is a fraud. All agencies should immediately cease using the device.” Another warning about “modern dowsers” followed in 1999. “WARNING: DO NOT BUY BOGUS EXPLOSIVES DETECTION EQUIPMENT”. In 2002, a test by Sandia national labs in the US found that a similar device, the Mole Detector, didn’t work and performed:
“… no better than a random selection process.”

I had been vaguely aware of bogus dowsing devices being sold as drug and bomb detectors over the years. I’ve interviewed James Randi in the past and I’ve produced pieces which investigate bogus claims. For instance my investigation of homeopathic cures for malaria has led to disciplinary hearings at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society for the pharmacists who prescribed them. However it was not until Rod Nordland’s piece in the New York Times on November 3rd 2009 that I realised that dowsing devices were being used on checkpoints as the primary protection against car bombs in Baghdad. Like most people I assumed that something would be quickly done – it was only after the December 8 carbombs that Caroline Hawley and myself realized that nothing had changed and that unless we could prove beyond doubt that the ADE651 and GT200 were incapable of detecting bombs they would continue being exported from Britain and used in Iraq.

We tested the ‘programmed substance detection cards’ for the ADE651 and scientifically proved in a laboratory that the claims made for them could not be true and that it could not detect explosives or anything else. We obtained a GT200/Mole and opened it up showing that there were no working parts in it that could possibly detect anything.

We then told the Government about our evidence and they rushed in a ban on exports to Iraq and Afghanistan because of the risk that the so-called bomb detectors posed to British and allied troops. And on Tuesday 16th Feb the Thai PM banned the purchase of any more GT200s following tests as a result of our report.”

I hope this has gone some way toward addressing your concerns.
Nevertheless, I fully appreciate that you feel strongly about this matter.
Therefore I would like to assure you that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.

Regards

Paul Hunter
BBC Complaints
__________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

—–Original Message—–

{Complaint:} An “exclusive” report on the use of wand detection of explosives was labelled exclusive and completely failed to acknowledge the

media reports on the same subject report in the Guardian on the 7th November which in itself was a report following revalations in the New York Times and James Randi !!

Poor tabloid Journalism for such a serious subject.

By REUTERS
Published: January 24, 2010
Filed at 1:28 p.m. ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Iraq’s interior ministry was told two years ago not to buy an explosives detector that Britain says does not work, and the purchase of the sensors was tainted by suspected fraud, a senior official said on Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/01/24/world/international-uk-iraq-britain-explosives.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00q9hx6/Newsnight_22_01_2010/

At least the government has banned export to Iraq and Afghanistan. Better than nothing, but not as good as putting McCormick in jail where he belongs.

Maybe he’ll get there now:

Head of ATSC ‘bomb detector’ company arrested on suspicion of fraud
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6997859.ece

Why did it take Newsnight to report on this before anything was done?
It is being reported on various online news sites that McCormick has been arrested tonight.

November 20, 2009 at 1:39 am

Ok, classic pseudoscience mumbo-jibbles. There is no evidence that dowsing works and it *has* been tested. My particular favourite study can be found here

http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm

(a similar experiment was broadcast on British TV a few years back, but I can’t remember as part of what programme)

and if a single trial isn’t enough for you, try:
Randi.org or Randi.org

Sure it’s pseudo-science but it’s not the kind like homoeopathy where the practitioner believes themselves to be doing good. This is blatent fraud. If I was a betting man I’d presume the deal works like this.

The General has a budget to spend on anti-terrorist fortifications. He realises that if he spends this money on actual bomb-detection (e.g. dogs, training) he will not see a penny of this money back.

Alternatively if he spends his money on a product he knows to be worthless but has a near zero cost of construction he can demand a huge kickback – possibly in excess of 80% of his costs.

Meanwhile the guys who make bombs (Al-Queda in Iraq & pals) – remember that these guys know how to make bombs from household materials. Some of them may be fundamentalists but they are not stupid. They will have had volunteers smuggle small quantities of explosives past the ADE651 users and will know by now that they are utterly useless.

Any time they see one of these gizmos in action they know which checkpoint to use – it’s an indicator of inept security.

I should explain I’m overly skeptical about this kind of stuff because my father is now living in Australia peddling this stuff for a living (phials of coloured water with supposedly meaningful but pointless slogans on them “Yellow Infinity” is a favourite of mine for sheer awfulness).

I agree its also a prime example of a “brand” being hijacked by nutters. You have the “brand” of ‘Downsing’, it has connotations, almost everyone is aware of its existence, and the quacks tap into that by creating some nonsense and branding it ‘Dowsing’, essentially nicking the weight of that brand for whatever is lining their pockets this week.

I find that fascinating because it shows forethought and intelligent thinking, and makes me wonder how many the people who were putting hard work into marketing snake oil could actually be doing something much more important. That said, it only takes one person to have a bright idea and a hundred others to copy it to make it the standard.

The social implications of dowsing you mentioned in point 3 definitely gave me food for thought, I had not thought about it like that before. A little ‘Darwinism of ideas’, since successful or not in that case dowsing improves community function.

But back to topic, these are all interesting social, economics and scientific digressions; the fact is the ADE651 is absolutely criminal, and downright embarassing. By all means test dowsing (I would like to see some genuine testing of your idea, I would be intrigued by the results), by keep it in the realm of journals and scientific interest, don’t put peoples lives on the line. The price tag as well, beggars belief. No shame.

I came back at you because I really believe that waverers should be invited cordially to the cause of science. The opposite is achieved by combative comments and by self-congratulatory stuff that gets posted here. So, I played defensive waverer.

My (interim) view of dowsing, if it’s of interest:
1. The ADE651 has nothing to do with it. That’s entrepreneurs demonstrating free enterprise at its most spectacular.
2. A quick google shows thousands of sites willing to sell you a crystal, a bit of wood, a shell, or ivory, or anything. Hang this from a thread of – well – anything that you know is good (or they sell) to make a pendulum. Use it to find earth energies, or absolutely anything else that you just know gives energies.
The fact that, what the hell, it doesn’t really matter what you do, or what with, just confirms the obvious. This is New Age gobbledygook, plus a lot of hangers-on trying to cash in.
3. The old water dowser is such a markedly different case. With honest intent, he/she is strictly keeping a centuries-old tradition that is still alive and well. It is very specific about target, tool and method. Intriguing!
I am sceptical because its success is social more than technical. (1) Unless you are stupid enough to dig at the top of a steep ridge, or above a cliff, at least in Britain you will probably hit water. An eye on vegetation and landform helps aswell. (2) The dowser succeeds at a really useful social function. He stops dead all the village or family bickering about where somebody should and shouldn’t dig a well by a method that deprives them of a basis for reasonable challenge to his decision. (Well. It does around here.)

#71 bodenca

I apologise if you took my tone as combative or derogatory, I meant no offence. My point was I’ve seen enough pseudo-science smokescreens to spot one when I see one, and your prima facie hypothesis smells distinctly fishy.

However, in the world of evidence based science “smells a bit fishy” does not constitute evidence or a rebuttal, I’ll be the first to admit. My point was, this is not an untested area, and never has dowsing been shown to be effective.

I also accept that may be due to bad testing, I admit the testing method you chose to inspect is not ideal for your hypothesis, however if my skepticism about a technique utterly unsubstantiated by evidence is bad science, then I’m guilty as charged.

But by all means test your hypothesis, or find someone else who has, show me a little evidence and I’ll happily reconsider my position.

And perhaps my opener was a little more based on that “fishy smell” than proper consideration of the hypothesis and for that, again, you have my apology. I have nothing against you, and enjoy this blog and the comments, I hope we can both continue to do so, differences of opinion and all.

http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm

(a similar experiment was broadcast on British TV a few years back, but I can’t remember as part of what programme)

and if a single trial isn’t enough for you, try:

R. A. Foulkes (1971) “Dowsing experiments,” Nature, 229, pp.163-168); M. Martin (1983-1984). “A new controlled dowsing experiment.” Skeptical Inquirer. 8(2), 138-140; J. Randi(1979). “A controlled test of dowsing abilities.” Skeptical Inquirer. 4(1). 16-20; and D. Smith (1982). “Two tests of divining in Australia.” Skeptical Inquirer. 4(4). 34-37.

None found dowsing as any better than chance. Regardless of the mechanism, if it works, it should be evidenced.

I agree its always good to question our assumptions (which is why I assume most of these studies were carried out), but how much evidence is enough to start spending time on more worthwhile areas of science? As an intelligent person, I’m sure you have a significant contribution to make, my advice would be not to waste your time with dowsing.

Human Research?? Presumably none was detected on its own site!

To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. – Henry Poincare