Blogs

Blogs by topic:

Panorama Wi-Fi boffin bites back

June 1, 2007

The BBC's Panorama recently alleged that Wi-Fi causes kids to explode or cripples dolphins or something (I've been away, forgive the vagueness). Either way, the BBC caused all manner of rage among people who understand these things.

As one of my esteemed colleagues recently pointed out, the problem with the BBC Panorama investigation into the levels of radiation school Wi-fi networks are throwing at kids' brains - is that it's nonsense (I paraphrase, of course).

To quote none other than PC Advisor's Forum Editor, the BBC's attitude seemed to be: "There is no hard evidence, so let's make a programme that muddies the water, and scare the willies out of lots of people." Quite. My willy was scared off immediately.

Taking up the cudgels on behalf of non-brain-fried kiddies everywhere, Ben Goldacre of The Guardian's excellent Bad Science website pointed out that Panorama's story may be slightly tainted. It seems that the radiation meter used by the Panorama hacks was built by one of the anti-Wi-Fi experts interviewed in the programme, one Alasdair Philips. Which certainly doesn't meet the journalistic standards of PC Advisor, for one.

(When I want to prove radiation, for instance, I lick my finger and hold it up to the 'source'.)

And Philips has form - Goldacre reckons he has a grudge against Wi-Fi. (This seems like an arbitrary sort of thing to hate, but it takes all sorts to make a (wired) world.)

You can read Alasdair Philips' robust rebuttal here. His argument is, er, strident but, in my eyes at least, it falls down on the fact that you can buy all manner of expensive anti-Wi-Fi kit via the Powerwatch site. These include headnets, beds and snake oil. Alright, there's no snake oil.

So there you have it. An argument brewing nicely. I'm no expert (self-styled or not), but it's Friday evening and I'm off to drink ten pints of 802.11n juice and stick my head in a Wi-Fi router.

Check out the headnet! Out damn Wi-Fi

Posted by: Matt Egan

Submit to: Digg Digg Slashdot delicious Del.icio.us reddit Reddit

What is this?

<<newer entry | older entry>>

Comments

Posted by Owen Boswarva on June 3, 2007 :

I have recently started a website (www.wifirisks.com) about wireless networks and whether they present risks to human health. I have not yet formed a settled opinion myself, and with vested interests on both sides of the debate I think we should all maintain a degree of scepticism.

However, it does seem that an increasing number of people are attributing symptoms (rightly or wrongly) to wi-fi and other EMF sources. The Panorama report may have presented the science badly, but that in itself underlines the need for more rigorous research and education in this area.

Posted by Matt Egan on June 3, 2007 :

I think you've got a point Owen, but I am hugely sceptical of the BBC's motives on this story. And, as with other examples such as MMR, scapegoating technology is very easy to start, and impossible to stop.

What we need is a rational examination of the facts and discussion of the risks (if any). What we got - from our national broadcaster - was bad science and propaganda. Perhaps the Beeb should have spoken to you.

Matt

Posted by Matt Egan on June 3, 2007 :

Posted by Ronald McMinn on June 4, 2007 :

I understand that Ofcom will soon be freeing up the power outut of broadband wireless base stations to be doubled to 4 watts to extend the coverage of such devices. This this increase will apparently relate to the 5.8GHz frequency (IEEE 802.11a Wireless LAN catagory). I havn't read that it will apply to the ubiquitous & crouded Industrial, Scientific and Medical 2.4Ghz frequency waveban (IEEE 802.11b & g catagories) which includes a device used by everyone, including kids - the kitchen Microwave! Wireless LAN communications is growing everywhere and surely no-one is going to stop it's hockeystick curve of development, so give it up!

Posted by Bryan Bailey on June 4, 2007 :

Alright, we only need to be worried about radiation if it can actually irradiate our cells agreed? Well, here's a useful little piece of information, wifi signals transmit at a far, far lower energy level than things such as mobile phones, meaning that although yes the signal strengths may be equivilent to phone masks, it doesn't matter a jot as it cannot effect us in the slightest. In fact, it is merely harmless radio waves, so, all of the hype about wifi damaging children just because they have less thick skulls or whatever the argument was doesn't matter because it cannot actually do anything once in there

Posted by Ronald McMinn on June 4, 2007 :

I forgot to add on my last blog that circa 95%+ Laptops are shiping with inbuilt Wireless LAN (Wi-Fi) capability, who's development is rooted in the WW2 battlefield Radio. It's doubtless been one of the fastest and most popular developments since the start of the internet, which also comes with some bad aspects, but its here to stay!

PC Advisor staff
Blogger Daily news, views and thoughts from the PC Advisor staff as they put together the magazine. Collectively the PC Advisor team has over 100 years of computing experience, so as you'll imagine they're never short of an opinion or two.
Email author(s)

Latest entries

Entries by month

Nov09	\|	Oct09	\|	Sep09	\|	Aug09
Jul09	\|	Jun09	\|	May09	\|	Apr09
Mar09	\|	Feb09	\|	Jan09	\|	Dec08
Nov08	\|	Oct08	\|	Sep08	\|	Aug08
Jul08	\|	Jun08	\|	May08	\|	Apr08
Mar08	\|	Feb08	\|	Jan08	\|	Dec07
Nov07	\|	Oct07	\|	Sep07	\|	Aug07
Jul07	\|	Jun07	\|	May07	\|	Apr07
Mar07	\|	Feb07	\|	Jan07	\|	Dec06
Nov06	\|	Oct06	\|	Sep06	\|	Aug06
Jul06	\|	Jun06	\|	May06	\|	Apr06
Mar06	\|	Feb06	\|	Jan06	\|	Dec05
Nov05	\|	Oct05