liGo NEWS

BBC Rules Against Wi Fi Detractors II

The BBC ruling did indeed state that Panorama was within legitimate grounds when the programme opted to put particular emphasis on the public heath concerns as well as issues that have to do with those raised by Sir William Stewart’s. Stewart is currently the chairman of the Health Protection Agency.

The ruling also indicated that labeling the results of an experiment on the subject of electro-sensitivity as inconclusive were right on the mark. However, while these issues were put to rest, there were a considerable number of flaws that the BBC report was able to nimbly put out.

“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 by Panorama as a former cancer specialist) who seconded his concerns,” the ruling indicated.

“This gave a misleading impression of the state of scientific opinion on the issue.”

Stewart expressed in the programme that he was able to finally locate reliable evidence demonstrating how low-level radiation from consumer electronics such as mobile cordless phones as well as Wi-Fi are able to adversely affect human health. He thus summoned involved parties for a review.

As a result, the claims were able to prompt a council body in north London. This council body effectively acted to put a ban on Wi Fi use. This led to a suspension in schools, supposedly to be lifted only in the event of a thorough investigation on the matter yielding results that would prove satisfactorily in the end.

“I quite frankly think we are frying children’s brains,” Labour councillor Emma Jones of Bruce Grove claimed.

However, immediately on the heels of the broadcast, a considerable lot of industry experts emerged out of the woodwork to protest the truth of the matter, saying that there were no grounds for inciting such a negative attitude towards Wi Fi connectivity—from cordless phones with Wi Fi to other devices equipped with intergrated Wi Fi capabilities.

Ben Goldacre, a doctor who manages the Bad Science website, expressed that instead of providing users with an  informed documentary, the programme makers ended up producing one that was by equal parts, scientifically off-based and melodramatic. “In 28 minutes of TV you could have given a good summary of the research evidence so that people could make up their own minds. But that would not get you as many viewers,” he added.

Les Hatton, a columnist on IT Week, also conveyed similar thoughts: “Many readers may be feeling that they need to wear tin-foil hats following the Panorama ‘exposé’ and the supposedly harmful effects on children caused by wireless networks.

“All I can say in reassurance is that this sort of mathematically dysfunctional scare-mongering drivel really makes me cross.”

As the BBC ruling tips the scales back in balance—neither confirming or denying the possibility of Wi Fi negatively affecting human health outright—consumers don’t find themselves any worse for wear. To use a Wi Fi cordless phone or not, to opt for a Wi Fi connection or no, to operate via Wi Fi or not—users can go either way with questions of this nature since any sort of evidence to have come forward on the subject still remains largely inconclusive. Unless something revolutionary comes along to drastically affect these issues, effectively putting an end to the endless inferences as well as speculations on the extraordinary goodies and likely wrinkles of Wi Fi cordless phones, services, technologies, matters remain—more or less—at a touch-and-go.

And so the hoopla continues.

Meanwhile, consumers grow restless on the fence.