News

The BBC "Dangers of WiFi" TV programme was "misleading" - says the BBC

It was legitimate (concluded the BBC complaint watchdog) for "Panorama: Wi-fi: a Warning Signal," to focus on questions raised by an eminent scientist with particular responsibility for public health issues. But the producers were reprimanded for presenting an unbalanced summary of the scientific consensus.

The programme was broadcast by the UK's BBC1 TV channel, on 21 May 2007, and caused widespread indignation in many circles.
In particular, wireless experts were almost unanimous in questioning the bona fides of some of the "experts" quoted - including one who was presented as an impartial technical consultant, but who actually runs a small business selling "wireless protector" equipment for the "electro-sensitive."

At the time, the NewsWireless comment on the programme concluded: "Don't imagine that the Panorama programme has advanced our knowledge by a millimetre. It was, clearly, put together by people who didn't know what they were doing; and was full of absolute howlers." The watchdog said that the statements by Sir William Stewart, Chairman of the Health Protection Agency, were a legitimate cause for concern and investigation. But:

...the programme included only one contributor (Prof 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. This gave a misleading impression of the state of scientific opinion on the issue. In addition, Prof Repacholi's contribution was presented in a context which suggested to viewers that his scientific independence was in question, whereas the other scientists were presented uncriticaly. This reinforced the misleading impression, and was unfair to Prof Repacholi.

The complaint watchdog could have gone much further. The "other scientists" who were so uncritically presented, are people who really have no more right to be taken seriously as experts in the field than is the Editor of NewsWireless. They are, of course, entitled to have an opinion! - but the decision to present that opinion as representing any scientific research or consensus, was rightly pilloried by many commentators.

One original scorching critique came from Ben Goldacre in his Bad Science blog, where he tore almost all of the arguments to shreds. He added:

There is the issue of Panorama's other experts, like associate professor Olle Johansson, awarded Misleader Of The Year 2004 in his native country.

This week, Goldacre has gone one step further, saying that the BBC watchdog was wrong to exonerate the programme makers. He quoted: "The ECU said Panorama had also correctly presented the results of an experiment on electro-sensitivity as inconclusive." And he disagreed.

This is unreasonable, as you may agree on reviewing the program alongside my original explanations of its flaws. The Essex electrosensitivity study, for example, to my mind, was characterised as having a positive finding by the extensive use of positive anecdote, and this misrepresentation was reinforced by the deliberate omission of the context of all the pre-existing similar experiments: 35 similar studies, in fact, all with negative findings.

NewsWireless has praised Sir William for not personally endorsing the Panorama programme, and for calling for legitimate research by epidemiological experts. Since then, there has been just one development which suggests that there might be grounds for concern, and that relates only to mobile phones.

This is not an expert opinion but it is ours: until there is actual evidence of statistically valid damage caused by low-level wireless radiation, caution may be appropriate for people who have high exposure... but panic and anxiety is premature.