Stony Stevenson writes "A Panorama programme claiming that Wi-Fi creates three times as much radiation as mobile phone masts was 'misleading', an official BBC complaints ruling has found. The team involved in the research came under fire from the school where the 'investigations' were held for scaremongering, but now the BBC has come out with an official ruling. 'The programme included only one contributor (Professor Repacholi) who disagreed with Sir William, compared with three scientists and a number of other speakers (one of whom was introduced as a former cancer specialist) who seconded his concerns.'"
So this article in tandem with this one [slashdot.org], has given me hope. For I have a dream that one day all of our children will be able to sit down at the radioactive table of brotherhood. They will be able to enjoy the pleasures of uranium chip flavored ice cream and sleep on beds made of the finest plutonium. I welcome the day when all of our children will have the opportunity to be exposed to the now safer than ever blessing of radiation. I have a dream that one day the alarmist fear mongering about radiation poiso [wikipedia.org]
You do know that ionizing radiation (e.g. alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays from nuclear decay) has absolutely nothing to do with non-ionizing (e.g. radio, microwave, etc) EM radiation. Confusing the two, even in jest, doesn't help the situation.
You do know that ionizing radiation (e.g. alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays from nuclear decay) has absolutely nothing to do with non-ionizing (e.g. radio, microwave, etc) EM radiation.
Gamma rays [wikipedia.org] are a form of EM radiation... so they are related (though given that they have a much higher energy I agree that it's not that helpful to compare them in this instance).
Glory be to the Bomb, and to the Holy Fallout. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. World without end. Amen.
May the Blessings of the Bomb Almighty, and the Fellowship of the Holy Fallout, descend upon us all. This day and forever more.
Amen!
The programme included only one contributor (Professor Repacholi) who disagreed with Sir William
Peter Griffin: We'll move to England, huh? Worst they got there is, you know, drive-by... arguments...
[Meanwhile, in England]
Englishman: I say, Jeremy, isn't that Reginald B. Stifworth, the young upstart chap who's been touting the merits of a united European commonwealth?
Jeremy: Why yes, I daresay it is.
Englishman: Oh, let's get him.
[They drive up]
Englishman: Oh Reginald... I disagree.
[drives off]
I am sick and tired of hearing voodoo science scaremongers. So here we go.
As far as possible interactions with the human body go, the 900 MHz to 1900 MHz spectrum is roughly the same. Both WiFi and cell phones use bursts of transmissions with approximately the same spectral characteristics. So we can simplify the problem and focus only on intensity.
A cell phone that is far from the nearest tower can transmit up to one watt. A typical home router transmits 100 mW (one tenth of a cell phone). A very powerful cell tower transmits 1000 W. However, signal intensity per surface unit decreases as the square of the distance. So if you are 100 meters (300 feet, one-half furlong for our US friends) from a 1-kW cell tower, you get the same exposure as if you are one metter (0.005 furlong, 3 ft) from a wifi router. And of course, all of this is dwarfed by the intensity of signal you get a few centimeters away from a 1-W cell phone.
So test cell phones. If they don't fry your brain, forget about wifi routers and towers, their effect is negligeable next to a cell phone's signal flux. And cell phones were innocented by several studies.
Attention journalists: When you cover technology, either learn the basics of what you're talking about or go back to freelancing for people rags.
I'll see your facts and figures and raise you an anecdote. Many moons ago, in an old programming job, I was chatting with the boss. I'd been working there three weeks, and this was the first time I'd ever seen him; the place was a small tech support company. Anyway, he talked for a while and then eventually pointed to a sizable scar just above his right temple and said "You're probably wondering what this is".
Turns out he was six weeks out of a brain surgery operation to remove a tumour the size of a golf ba
I see your anecdote and raise you another anecdote. My family and I have been huge tech users for a while now, we've all had cell phones for 10 years, our landline phones use the 2.4 GHz spectrum to tranmit to each other wirelessly, and we have a powerful G router, and have had a wireless router for 5+ years now. None of us have ever been diagnosed with any cancer, nor any ailments worse than some bone issues due to running. In fact, the only person in my family who has even been affected by cancer was a bit of an oldtimer, having neither a cellphone nor a wireless router and living far from any sort of tower (didn't get any bars at his house).
So that's 5 anecdotes to your one, take it as you will. Brain tumors have been around for far longer than wireless transmissions, as has almost all types of cancer. Perhaps there is a statistical significance, but anecdotes can't prove that.
You are correct however older analog cell phones did put out a lot more radiation than modern cell phones. Enough to cause cancer even in the earliest models. I'll agree everything we use now is perfectly harmless though.
A cell phone that is far from the nearest tower can transmit up to one watt.
Hmmm. I remember reading, while non-typical, max output from a cell phone (model dependent, more so on select GSM phones) can be up to 3 watts. Typical usage is far less than one watt.
"A cell phone that is far from the nearest tower can transmit up to one watt. A typical home router transmits 100 mW (one tenth of a cell phone). A very powerful cell tower transmits 1000 W."... Um, not anywhere on planet earth. Typical output power from the final amplifier stage of an 800MHz cell amplifier is nowhere above 25-30w at the very most. 1900MHz CDMA cells average between 4w and 15w max output at those frequencies. If you can provide data on any cell tower with final amplifier output in even t
So what about the 2.4 GHz spectrum that is used by WiFi?
Generally speaking, the higher the frequency the more is absorbed by air. So higher frequencies are actually _less_ dangerous.
Note that that's also why so many businesses are interested in the 700 MHz spectrum licenses for sale over at your side of the great pond. Less absorption means less base stations, repeaters and transmission power needed.
Microwave ovens run at a frequency of 2450MHz (2.45GHz) and interact quite well with water, of which the majority of the human body is composed. The lowest power microwave I have seen, however, is 600W, which is a good two orders of magnitude more than the average WiFi adaptor. The energy from a microwave is also much more focussed[1] than a WiFi antenna, which radiates in all directions unless it's being used for point-to-point fixed-topology communication.
[1] For a good demo of this, put a lump of refrigerated butter in the microwave for 30 seconds without the plate spinning. When you take it out, it will be melted (and possibly under quite high pressure) in the middle, but still cold on the outside. Note that this will only work with microwaves where the food is rotated, not those where the magnetron moves.
My microwave melts butter at 10s, and that's the outside. I've cut through it and it isn't melted on the inside, though it is soft all the way through. I used to be scared microwaves were poisoning the food. Then I learned in chemistry what was actually going on (it was causing water molecules to vibrate, which generates friction with other molecules, which turns into heat.)
Laugh? I heard a guy on the radio not a year ago doing scare mongering as to what microwaves were doing to your food (and why you sho
and interact quite well with water, of which the majority of the human body is composed.
During WWII, both British and American radar operators would get warm by standing in front of their radar beams. They didn't realize they were frying their future kids.
So higher frequencies are actually _less_ dangerous.
Quite wrong!
As a ham radio operator I have to point out that RF radiation exposure limits are a function of frequency and time, and the higher the frequency you deal with the less time you should be exposed to it!
It's been obvious that the BBC's standards have been gradually eroding for about 20 years. It probably hasn't reached bottom yet. Biased tabloid journalism, and product placement to get round the no advertising rules, are the daily norm, not the exception nowadays.
Focus groups lead to mediocrity and bias. A similar thing is happening to the UK in many other areas too. If you have an IQ over 95 you're a statistical outlier, and are no longer catered to by corporta
If the BBC shows a rerun of Sesame Street that claims that 1 + 1 = 2, do they have to give equal time to mathematicians who claim that it isn't? (Where would they find them?)
If the program was wrong, it wasn't wrong because they had the wrong number of scientists on each side.
If the BBC shows a rerun of Sesame Street that claims that 1 + 1 = 2, do they have to give equal time to mathematicians who claim that it isn't? (Where would they find them?)
Well, as the slashdot sig goes, There are 10 types of mathematician - those that understand binary and those that don't.
Meanwhile, you're not really suggesting that the media can't make any sort of judgement distinguish between genuine areas of scientific disagreement and fringe quackery, are you? Gosh, that's almost like suggesting
The headcount was wrong. It should've had a few hundred to a thousand scientists elaborating on the theme of "this is bullshit" for every quack who appeared onscreen saying "please buy my expensive anti-EMF hat, from myself, a douchebag who managed to get the idiots at Panorama to give me free advertising".
This reminds me of when a reporter of BBC World covered a story about copy-protected "CD"s. On one side there was a Big Label (Universal I think) rep that lied through his teeth saying that the silvery disk is a CD, while on the other side there was a techy guy who explained how these disks don't adhere to the CD standards and have (most of) the loss-correcction rendundant bits removed. And the BBC journalist, in the conclusion remarks said "as always, the truth is somewhre in between". WTF? Truth is usuall
I've noticed a slow decline in panorama's technological and socio-political programs (pretty much everything). Dispatches, and that program on unreported news on More4 (the name of which escapes me) are farbetter and less "pimped". It's not just mistakes I have a problem with, it's the tabloid attitude the show's taken to; frighteningly reminiscent of Fox News.
I love my BBC but when I have to step back and become objective, not because of the topic, but because of the way information is inappropriately portrayed, I'm a little sad inside.
According to the BBC complaints ruling "two viewers complained". Assuming that one of them was Prof. Repacholi, I must be the other. But then again, I'm probably Spartacus as well.
Since this report was published Panorama was broadcast as usual on Monday night. There was no trailing "we got the wifi program badly wrong" apology, so I've complained again about that - we'll see what happens.
It's worth mentioning that the BBC is going through a sustained period of navel-gazing at the moment, ever since the Hutton Report. Among the items for consideration have been such earth-shattering topics such as the name of the Blue Peter cat http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/09/it_fair_knocks_your_socks.html [guardian.co.uk] and whether two pieces of film about an unelected German woman had been reversed between the programme and the trail http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7079070.stm [bbc.co.uk]. In among this, ensuring basic scientific accuracy in a flagship current-affairs program clearly isn't very important.
In that case I don't know where my complaint went. I suspect that their complaints stats are plain wrong or their customer service department is just >/dev/null.
Two complaints my arse.
They where trying to build a chemical factory and some people where scared of it. Both the MP and his civil servent had no idea if it was safe of not because they didn't know any science. "Minister I have a classical eduction. I don't know any science."
Idiot. What makes you think scientists were behind this? Reporters were behind this. They have monetary reasons for scaremongering. What hidden agendas can you even think up that might prompt scientists to falsify results?
One sure sign of a crackpot is that he takes every chance he can get to insult and demean the scientific establishment. That shit won't fly here. It does not make you seem smart or wise in anyone's eyes. It just points out to all the smart folks here that you are an anti-intellectual dolt.
Lemme guess - there was an "overwhelming consensus" that WIFI was gonna cook all of our children's brains
Actually, no. Quite the contrary; there's about a half-dozen cranks who say that, yet who get a quite astonishing amount of media attention for their pains. Analogies to other fields of research are left to the reader.
Notice how they refer to it as 'radiation', because radiation is clearly a *bad thing*. It killed all those people in Hiroshima didn't it? Nasty.
Well, never mind that 1W of radiation coming out of your phone or Wifi router. There's maybe 100W coming out of your light bulbs (or less if you have Al Gore-compliant lightbulbs). And what's more, that radiation doesn't pass straight through you, a lot of it is intercepted by the body! I think we need a campaign to stop radiation in the 400nm to 700nm wavelength range from infecting our children! Ban it now! That, and Dihydrogen Monoxide...
Bad Science [badscience.net] has lots of info on this and other science quackery.
Notice how they refer to it as 'radiation', because radiation is clearly a *bad thing*. It killed all those people in Hiroshima didn't it? Nasty.
It didn't even necessarily kill all those people [slashdot.org]. Radiation was just set up as a boogeyman because it's invisible and really easy to be scared of. I'm not saying it's not dangerous, I'm saying that policy makers and other people that communicate to the public don't have the requisite experience or knowledge to adequately judge it.
Your blood stream has a natural lithium content and it plays a role in the balancing of your brain activities.
No it hasn't. Lithium in the body is normally under the "trace" level. Unless you're on meds. In fact Lithium is highly toxic, and the therapeutic margin (doses at which it can be used in meds without causing the toxic effect) is pretty narrow. That's why it is forbidden in product that will be consumed by humans.
Also I have some doubt about 30-to-60T and 60Hz being the correct parameters needed, and I have also serious doubt the 60Hz AC current found in houses generates a strong enough emission to have an impact on lithium. But I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
When artificially excited, lithium ions cross the blood brain barrier more readily and brain chemistry is altered.
WTF ? Lithium - as a ion - is charged, whereas the blood-brain barrier is hydrophobic. Moving the ion around won't make it cross the barrier, it would just get stuck against it and refuse to move further (the size orders aren't the same : the lithium would have to cross a width several order of magnitude it's own radius. And path has defavorable properties on its whole length).
What you need is either: - changing the properties of the barrier (for an example see how electric fields are used to transfer transgenes inside bio-engineered cells. It's not used because it makes the genes move (like in a electrophoresis gel) but because it makes the properties of the cell surface change and it becomes transiently permeable to the gene. Similarly ultrasounds are used in needle-less injectors to make the skin permeable to the drug) or - special transporter (that what may be the case with lithium, because it mimics closely enough Sodium, and may sometimes be using the same channels).
In fact the "get stuck against the barrier instead of forcibily crossing it" effect is used in some medical NMR image techniques like tractography (imagery of nervous fibres inside the brain). To explain it in a simple way : you make the water vibrate along a specific direction, if there's room for the water to move, you'll get a signal, if the water encounters a barrier, you get none. Thus you can know if the fibres are oriented in the same direction (because water can move along them) or not (because water can't easily cross their borders). Do it for a lot of different directions and you can get a nice map of the overall fibers directions in the whole brain. There's no water leakage produced by this method with water forcibly crossing the nervous cell membrane (for that you would need to change their surface properties, or change the amount of water channels on the surface like killing-white-cells do).
Many anti-depressant drugs use lithium as their active ingredient,
FYI, your confusing with mania & bipolar drugs, which may be based on lithium. Depression drugs are mostly organic compounds that interfere the metabolism of monoamines (mostly serotonin in most recent product like fluoxetine/Prozac, or mostly dopamine and nor-adrenaline in other drugs).
the logic being that increasing the amount of lithium in the blood raises the number of blood brain barrier crossing instances under normal conditions.
No. Although, not all the details of the Lithium effect are known in details, the logic of lithium is putting in a substance that was never meant to be here in the first place and thus can interfere by several mean: - concurrence with sodium : it may replace it in some circumstance, but not be processed in the same way by all ionic pumps. Most of the toxicity also comes because of Lithium replacing Sodium. OR MAYBE - interfere with the expression of some genes. OR EITHER - interfere with the function of some enzymes.
When specifically energized, however, the natural quantity can have a medicinal effect.
No it hasn't. Lithium in the body is normally under the "trace" level. Unless you're on meds.
A trace quantity was the level being discussed. --Here's a the relevant excerpt from the referenced study [geocities.com] taken from this book. [amazon.com]
But please do me a favor: stop trusting random snake-oil vending charlatan's crackpot theories just because they use nice buzzwords like "natural" and "energize" and try to sell you a "natural magnetic therapy cyclotonic machine".
Ouch. --Do me a favor please and don't make such bold assum
What is it with the climate change trolls on tech boards lately? I've been seeing a comment, totally off topic, trying to make the case that human-caused climate change (global warming) is bas science, will be proven wrong, makes no sense, and so forth. Is this some sort of bizarre astroturfing campaign, some joke that I missed, or what?
I like to group them all together into one cathegory I refer to as "morons". It doesn't matter if you are dealing with neo-cons, green peace, ID promoters... It is all the same and it goes:
1)I think A 2)People with better qualifications say A is a bad idea 3)People with better qualifications have been wrong before 4)Therefore they are wrong now. 5)Thus A is a good idea. 6)People who don't want A are opposed to good ideas, so they must be evil. 7)It is all a conspiracy to tax/ruin our morals/benefit coorporations/steal your freedom/eat babies...
Really, from Homeopaths to Inteligent Designers, it is always the same. "Qualified people are sometimes wrong, so you should listen to my wacky idea instead." It is usually commbined with some conspiracy theory or general criticism of the scientific method interspersed with emotional or irrelevant arguments "Al gore is wasteful and just want to STEAL your tax dollars, hence GW isn't real." etc...
Signal to Noise Ratio. The better the SNR is on analogue, the better the sound, the easier it is to understand somebody. The old analogue phones freqently transmitted on maximum power all the time, for best quality(and cheaper construction cost).
On digital, the SNR only has to be sufficient to be able to reconstruct the signal*, so you have much more in the way of reducing transmission power when the SNR is good. Most modern digital phones, for example, transmit at a quarter or less of what the old analogu
Says you! I can see fire, I can't see cell phone waves. They must be dangerous, they work like magic!
I think that's a lot of the problem... people haven't figured out that cell phones and wireless transmissions AREN'T magic. Hell, I didn't even get into wave physics until my second year in college, and that was at an engineering school... what chance does a liberal arts major or high-school dropout have of understanding it?
There are around 49 freely availiable digital channels and 5 analog channels in the uk, all of which can be seen if you buy a £20 digibox (or freeview box whatever itsa called) if you get sky theres probably somewhere in the region 200-300 channels. The analog channels are BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. ITV pretty much has GMTV news a painfully dumbed down breakfast news with bad reporting, Pop Idol (or whatever), trisha, and correnation street a soap. Channel 4 tends to have more varied programming but concentrates on stuff like Big Brother (tv reality shows) and american shows (friends, scrubs etc...) The freeview channels don't tend to have much to offer although Dave has recently burst onto the seen and seems to be popular with blokes. We have a Sci-Fi channel which sucks, Sky One which gets all the american tv series first and has done some interesting stuff (brainics for instance) along with UK living, discovery, etc...
The problem is the BBC used to offer alot of quality shows and things like Panorama and Eqinox (channel 4) used to be great for those intereting in technical things. Unfortunatly the BBC seems to be slowly deciding to cater to the lowest common denominator, so shows like Panarama have turned into complete rubbish and it seems every new BBC documentary has to repeat itself every ten minutes with flashy graphics. Its not that people want this. Heck recently the BBC editors blog asked what things he should think about when he went off to meet other TV producers at some conference. The 600/700 replies all asked for the BBC to go back to producing challenging and inteligent shows and to get rid of stupid reality tv shows.
The BBC isn't the only channel we get in the UK but it tends to be the best with the most varied tv and inteligent, when you've got the BBC producing the Planet Earth documentary compared to Channel 4's chantelle's throwing a tantrum in the recent big brother, or some old woman killing someone in corrie on ITV what do you think is going to get reported.
BTW the TV channels over here keep being hit by various scandals (From the Blue Peter people choosing anouther rabbits name and not the one people voted for, to various phone in competitions being rigged.)
The first five of those are available analogue (which is currently being phased out); everything is available on a series of digital multiplexes which may or may not be available depending on where you live. If you follow the website links from the Digitalspy page you should be able to get to "who owns what", but in brief the BBC is publicly owned and licence-fee supported, ITV is a standalone company,
I'm an American, here's what I know about it. So, I may be a bit wrong for a few things.
When TV got started in the UK, there was the BBC and only the BBC and it was good. This is also the source of the TV tax in the UK. Where as in the US, we had CBS, NBC and ABC. PBS in the US was not established until 1969. In the UK, it was THE station at the beginning. Another difference, the BBC gets most (all?) of it's funding from the TV tax. The PBS stations get over 85% of it's funding from donations. The
I have a dream! (Score:2)
Re:I have a dream! (Score:5, Funny)
Nice warm bed to get into every night? Yes please!
Parent
Re:I have a dream! (Score:4, Funny)
Nice warm bed to get into every night? Yes please!
Parent
Re:I have a dream! (Score:4, Funny)
They don't stay warm for long...
Parent
Re:I have a dream! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gamma rays [wikipedia.org] are a form of EM radiation... so they are related (though given that they have a much higher energy I agree that it's not that helpful to compare them in this instance).
Re:I have a dream! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The BBC you say... (Score:5, Funny)
Peter Griffin: We'll move to England, huh? Worst they got there is, you know, drive-by... arguments...
[Meanwhile, in England]
Englishman: I say, Jeremy, isn't that Reginald B. Stifworth, the young upstart chap who's been touting the merits of a united European commonwealth?
Jeremy: Why yes, I daresay it is.
Englishman: Oh, let's get him.
[They drive up]
Englishman: Oh Reginald... I disagree.
[drives off]
Can't these people do maths?! (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as possible interactions with the human body go, the 900 MHz to 1900 MHz spectrum is roughly the same. Both WiFi and cell phones use bursts of transmissions with approximately the same spectral characteristics. So we can simplify the problem and focus only on intensity.
A cell phone that is far from the nearest tower can transmit up to one watt. A typical home router transmits 100 mW (one tenth of a cell phone). A very powerful cell tower transmits 1000 W. However, signal intensity per surface unit decreases as the square of the distance. So if you are 100 meters (300 feet, one-half furlong for our US friends) from a 1-kW cell tower, you get the same exposure as if you are one metter (0.005 furlong, 3 ft) from a wifi router. And of course, all of this is dwarfed by the intensity of signal you get a few centimeters away from a 1-W cell phone.
So test cell phones. If they don't fry your brain, forget about wifi routers and towers, their effect is negligeable next to a cell phone's signal flux. And cell phones were innocented by several studies.
Attention journalists: When you cover technology, either learn the basics of what you're talking about or go back to freelancing for people rags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many moons ago, in an old programming job, I was chatting with the boss. I'd been working there three weeks, and this was the first time I'd ever seen him; the place was a small tech support company. Anyway, he talked for a while and then eventually pointed to a sizable scar just above his right temple and said "You're probably wondering what this is".
Turns out he was six weeks out of a brain surgery operation to remove a tumour the size of a golf ba
Re:Can't these people do maths?! (Score:4, Interesting)
So that's 5 anecdotes to your one, take it as you will. Brain tumors have been around for far longer than wireless transmissions, as has almost all types of cancer. Perhaps there is a statistical significance, but anecdotes can't prove that.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. I remember reading, while non-typical, max output from a cell phone (model dependent, more so on select GSM phones) can be up to 3 watts. Typical usage is far less than one watt.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, not anywhere on planet earth. Typical output power from the final amplifier stage of an 800MHz cell amplifier is nowhere above 25-30w at the very most. 1900MHz CDMA cells average between 4w and 15w max output at those frequencies. If you can provide data on any cell tower with final amplifier output in even t
Re:Can't these people do maths?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Generally speaking, the higher the frequency the more is absorbed by air. So higher frequencies are actually _less_ dangerous.
Note that that's also why so many businesses are interested in the 700 MHz spectrum licenses for sale over at your side of the great pond. Less absorption means less base stations, repeaters and transmission power needed.
Parent
Re:Can't these people do maths?! (Score:4, Informative)
[1] For a good demo of this, put a lump of refrigerated butter in the microwave for 30 seconds without the plate spinning. When you take it out, it will be melted (and possibly under quite high pressure) in the middle, but still cold on the outside. Note that this will only work with microwaves where the food is rotated, not those where the magnetron moves.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to be scared microwaves were poisoning the food. Then I learned in chemistry what was actually going on (it was causing water molecules to vibrate, which generates friction with other molecules, which turns into heat.)
Laugh? I heard a guy on the radio not a year ago doing scare mongering as to what microwaves were doing to your food (and why you sho
Re: (Score:2)
During WWII, both British and American radar operators would get warm by standing in front of their radar beams. They didn't realize they were frying their future kids.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So higher frequencies are actually _less_ dangerous.
Quite wrong!
As a ham radio operator I have to point out that RF radiation exposure limits are a function of frequency and time, and the higher the frequency you deal with the less time you should be exposed to it!
Some helpful stuff on that for the concerned:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65b.pdf [fcc.gov]
http://n5xu.ece.utexas.edu/rfsafety/ [utexas.edu]
dumbed down (Score:2, Insightful)
It's been obvious that the BBC's standards have been gradually eroding for about 20 years. It probably hasn't reached bottom yet. Biased tabloid journalism, and product placement to get round the no advertising rules, are the daily norm, not the exception nowadays.
Focus groups lead to mediocrity and bias. A similar thing is happening to the UK in many other areas too. If you have an IQ over 95 you're a statistical outlier, and are no longer catered to by corporta
Is a headcount the best way to decide balance? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the BBC shows a rerun of Sesame Street that claims that 1 + 1 = 2, do they have to give equal time to mathematicians who claim that it isn't? (Where would they find them?)
If the program was wrong, it wasn't wrong because they had the wrong number of scientists on each side.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as the slashdot sig goes, There are 10 types of mathematician - those that understand binary and those that don't.
Meanwhile, you're not really suggesting that the media can't make any sort of judgement distinguish between genuine areas of scientific disagreement and fringe quackery, are you? Gosh, that's almost like suggesting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the BBC journalist, in the conclusion remarks said "as always, the truth is somewhre in between". WTF? Truth is usuall
OT: Panarama is getting pretty bad (Score:3, Informative)
I love my BBC but when I have to step back and become objective, not because of the topic, but because of the way information is inappropriately portrayed, I'm a little sad inside.
Matt
Only two people complained? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since this report was published Panorama was broadcast as usual on Monday night. There was no trailing "we got the wifi program badly wrong" apology, so I've complained again about that - we'll see what happens.
It's worth mentioning that the BBC is going through a sustained period of navel-gazing at the moment, ever since the Hutton Report. Among the items for consideration have been such earth-shattering topics such as the name of the Blue Peter cat http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/09/it_fair_knocks_your_socks.html [guardian.co.uk] and whether two pieces of film about an unelected German woman had been reversed between the programme and the trail http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7079070.stm [bbc.co.uk]. In among this, ensuring basic scientific accuracy in a flagship current-affairs program clearly isn't very important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Spartacus!
Reminds of an episode of Yes Minister. (Score:2)
Both the MP and his civil servent had no idea if it was safe of not because they didn't know any science.
"Minister I have a classical eduction. I don't know any science."
Scaremongering? (Score:2)
Lemme guess - there was an "overwhelming consensus" that WIFI was gonna cook all of our children's brains
That never happens - right?
Scientist and researchers never exaggerate or manipulate results in order to further a hidden agenda - right?
I'm so disillusioned right now
Crackpot (Score:2)
One sure sign of a crackpot is that he takes every chance he can get to insult and demean the scientific establishment. That shit won't fly here. It does not make you seem smart or wise in anyone's eyes. It just points out to all the smart folks here that you are an anti-intellectual dolt.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. Quite the contrary; there's about a half-dozen cranks who say that, yet who get a quite astonishing amount of media attention for their pains. Analogies to other fields of research are left to the reader.
"Radiation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, never mind that 1W of radiation coming out of your phone or Wifi router. There's maybe 100W coming out of your light bulbs (or less if you have Al Gore-compliant lightbulbs). And what's more, that radiation doesn't pass straight through you, a lot of it is intercepted by the body! I think we need a campaign to stop radiation in the 400nm to 700nm wavelength range from infecting our children! Ban it now! That, and Dihydrogen Monoxide...
Bad Science [badscience.net] has lots of info on this and other science quackery.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how they refer to it as 'radiation', because radiation is clearly a *bad thing*. It killed all those people in Hiroshima didn't it? Nasty.
It didn't even necessarily kill all those people [slashdot.org]. Radiation was just set up as a boogeyman because it's invisible and really easy to be scared of. I'm not saying it's not dangerous, I'm saying that policy makers and other people that communicate to the public don't have the requisite experience or knowledge to adequately judge it.
Misunderstanding Lithium (Score:5, Insightful)
No it hasn't. Lithium in the body is normally under the "trace" level. Unless you're on meds.
In fact Lithium is highly toxic, and the therapeutic margin (doses at which it can be used in meds without causing the toxic effect) is pretty narrow.
That's why it is forbidden in product that will be consumed by humans.
Also I have some doubt about 30-to-60T and 60Hz being the correct parameters needed, and I have also serious doubt the 60Hz AC current found in houses generates a strong enough emission to have an impact on lithium. But I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
WTF ? Lithium - as a ion - is charged, whereas the blood-brain barrier is hydrophobic. Moving the ion around won't make it cross the barrier, it would just get stuck against it and refuse to move further (the size orders aren't the same : the lithium would have to cross a width several order of magnitude it's own radius. And path has defavorable properties on its whole length).
:
What you need is either
- changing the properties of the barrier (for an example see how electric fields are used to transfer transgenes inside bio-engineered cells. It's not used because it makes the genes move (like in a electrophoresis gel) but because it makes the properties of the cell surface change and it becomes transiently permeable to the gene. Similarly ultrasounds are used in needle-less injectors to make the skin permeable to the drug)
or
- special transporter (that what may be the case with lithium, because it mimics closely enough Sodium, and may sometimes be using the same channels).
In fact the "get stuck against the barrier instead of forcibily crossing it" effect is used in some medical NMR image techniques like tractography (imagery of nervous fibres inside the brain). To explain it in a simple way : you make the water vibrate along a specific direction, if there's room for the water to move, you'll get a signal, if the water encounters a barrier, you get none. Thus you can know if the fibres are oriented in the same direction (because water can move along them) or not (because water can't easily cross their borders). Do it for a lot of different directions and you can get a nice map of the overall fibers directions in the whole brain.
There's no water leakage produced by this method with water forcibly crossing the nervous cell membrane (for that you would need to change their surface properties, or change the amount of water channels on the surface like killing-white-cells do).
FYI, your confusing with mania & bipolar drugs, which may be based on lithium.
Depression drugs are mostly organic compounds that interfere the metabolism of monoamines (mostly serotonin in most recent product like fluoxetine/Prozac, or mostly dopamine and nor-adrenaline in other drugs).
No. Although, not all the details of the Lithium effect are known in details, :
the logic of lithium is putting in a substance that was never meant to be here in the first place and thus can interfere by several mean
- concurrence with sodium : it may replace it in some circumstance, but not be processed in the same way by all ionic pumps. Most of the toxicity also comes because of Lithium replacing Sodium.
OR MAYBE
- interfere with the expression of some genes.
OR EITHER
- interfere with the function of some enzymes.
There's almos
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
A trace quantity was the level being discussed. --Here's a the relevant excerpt from the referenced study [geocities.com] taken from this book. [amazon.com]
But please do me a favor: stop trusting random snake-oil vending charlatan's crackpot theories just because they use nice buzzwords like "natural" and "energize" and try to sell you a "natural magnetic therapy cyclotonic machine".
Ouch. --Do me a favor please and don't make such bold assum
3 x 0 = 0 (Score:2)
It remains that three times negligible remains negligible.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies to all claims, including those that handily advance socialist causes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So, don't taze me, bro!
(Oh, global warming, imagination, figment of, one each...)
Re:I can't wait! (Score:5, Insightful)
1)I think A
2)People with better qualifications say A is a bad idea
3)People with better qualifications have been wrong before
4)Therefore they are wrong now.
5)Thus A is a good idea.
6)People who don't want A are opposed to good ideas, so they must be evil.
7)It is all a conspiracy to tax/ruin our morals/benefit coorporations/steal your freedom/eat babies...
Really, from Homeopaths to Inteligent Designers, it is always the same. "Qualified people are sometimes wrong, so you should listen to my wacky idea instead." It is usually commbined with some conspiracy theory or general criticism of the scientific method interspersed with emotional or irrelevant arguments "Al gore is wasteful and just want to STEAL your tax dollars, hence GW isn't real." etc...
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't follow parent's links.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You get a program on a computer, a programme on TV.. english is funny like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The better the SNR is on analogue, the better the sound, the easier it is to understand somebody. The old analogue phones freqently transmitted on maximum power all the time, for best quality(and cheaper construction cost).
On digital, the SNR only has to be sufficient to be able to reconstruct the signal*, so you have much more in the way of reducing transmission power when the SNR is good. Most modern digital phones, for example, transmit at a quarter or less of what the old analogu
Re: Unscientific bunk (Score:4, Informative)
I think that's a lot of the problem... people haven't figured out that cell phones and wireless transmissions AREN'T magic. Hell, I didn't even get into wave physics until my second year in college, and that was at an engineering school... what chance does a liberal arts major or high-school dropout have of understanding it?
Parent
Re:Is BBC it for TV in the UK? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is the BBC used to offer alot of quality shows and things like Panorama and Eqinox (channel 4) used to be great for those intereting in technical things. Unfortunatly the BBC seems to be slowly deciding to cater to the lowest common denominator, so shows like Panarama have turned into complete rubbish and it seems every new BBC documentary has to repeat itself every ten minutes with flashy graphics. Its not that people want this. Heck recently the BBC editors blog asked what things he should think about when he went off to meet other TV producers at some conference. The 600/700 replies all asked for the BBC to go back to producing challenging and inteligent shows and to get rid of stupid reality tv shows.
The BBC isn't the only channel we get in the UK but it tends to be the best with the most varied tv and inteligent, when you've got the BBC producing the Planet Earth documentary compared to Channel 4's chantelle's throwing a tantrum in the recent big brother, or some old woman killing someone in corrie on ITV what do you think is going to get reported.
BTW the TV channels over here keep being hit by various scandals (From the Blue Peter people choosing anouther rabbits name and not the one people voted for, to various phone in competitions being rigged.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/terrestrial/epg/ [digitalspy.co.uk]
The first five of those are available analogue (which is currently being phased out); everything is available on a series of digital multiplexes which may or may not be available depending on where you live. If you follow the website links from the Digitalspy page you should be able to get to "who owns what", but in brief the BBC is publicly owned and licence-fee supported, ITV is a standalone company,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When TV got started in the UK, there was the BBC and only the BBC and it was good. This is also the source of the TV tax in the UK. Where as in the US, we had CBS, NBC and ABC. PBS in the US was not established until 1969. In the UK, it was THE station at the beginning. Another difference, the BBC gets most (all?) of it's funding from the TV tax. The PBS stations get over 85% of it's funding from donations. The