BBC Rules That Wi-Fi Radiation Findings Were Wrong 210
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.'"
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: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.
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.
Re:Is a headcount the best way to decide balance? (Score:3, Interesting)
And the BBC journalist, in the conclusion remarks said "as always, the truth is somewhre in between". WTF? Truth is usually NOT somewhere in between, but at one or the other side - like in that story, when it was squarely in the techy guy's hands.
I HATE this sort of journalistic bullshit. Probably spouted because they have no clue about what they're writing about. My father worked as a journalist for 20 years, and he told me the "Journalists are the most ignorant people in the world". His words.
Re:I can't wait! (Score:2, Interesting)