liGo NEWS

BBC Rules Against Wi Fi Detractors

There is no end to it. Considering the commotion that keeps springing up left and right about Wi Fi, this is really a fair assessment. Communication adepts who’ve grown quite fond of anything Wi Fi—from their cordless phones with refined Wi Fi features to other consumer electronics in their collection of world-beating Wi Fi enabled gadgets—will be happy to note that the latest buzz contesting Wi Fi’s suitability has been ruled out.

A number of curious industry folks may recall the recent Panorama programme that issued out a statement to the effect that Wi Fi effectively induced radiation levels three times higher than those generated by mobile cordless phones. In response to the complaint, a formal official BBC ruling has found reports of this nature misleading.

In addition, upon hearing of the complaints, two viewers were unable to help themselves from coming forward to share a few thoughts on the matter. They firmly believed that Panorama displayed a glaring error in judgment, exaggerating grounds for concern. The worst of it was that Panaorama had passed off erroneous assumptions as facts, deluding a number of viewers into entertaining notions that Wi Fi installations do indeed generate radiation levels higher than those of mobile cordless phones.

In a similar vein, another viewer complaint further castigated the programme, saying that Panorama had willfully mislead viewers, presenting an experiment in a confusing manner, designed to deceive viewers into acquiring a flawed understanding of how the test mechanics work in gauging how certain types of people are hypersensitive to radiation while some are not.

Also appearing in the programme, Professor Michael Repacholi expressed a similar opinion on the matter. Repacholi publicly shared his views on the issue, saying that the presentation of the scientific concerns in the programmer was clumsily done, obviously designed to tip the greater portion of the audience to favor one side over the other. He further added that his own contribution to the matter received the same unfair treatment.