Panorama. "Wi-fi:A warning Signal"

TheBoyPaj

Graduate Poster
TheBoyPaj
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
1,640
Maybe I am using the search function wrong, but I'm amazed that no one has commented on this terrible piece of science-free scaremongering from the BBC.

The film made great efforts to highlight the fact that many of our schools are installing wi-fi networks, making it clear that "we just don't know what the dangers are!"

Claims of biological damage were mentioned with no studies to back them up. They poisoned the well on the WHO spokesperson. They spent more time showing us the "hypersensitive" woman's tin-foil coated house than investigating her claim.

I thought it was an irresponsible piece of journalism. What about you?
 
I didn't see it but Panorama used to be a very good show. I'm sad to say I have noticed a downturn in the quality of the news the beeb has been putting out in the last few years. So this wouldn't surprise me.
 
I think they quoted that the hypersensitive woman when tested was able to tell two thirds of the time when the (whatever they were testing her with) was 'on'. Two thirds, the way they said it sounded impressive, but that is just 6 or 7 times out of 10. If she was that sensitive, it should have been 10 times out of 10. And who knows what range two thirds really covers....

I wasn't watching that closely, but the above made my BS detector go into overdrive.
 
FarSideOfTheMoon said:
I think they quoted that the hypersensitive woman when tested was able to tell two thirds of the time when the (whatever they were testing her with) was 'on'. Two thirds, the way they said it sounded impressive, but that is just 6 or 7 times out of 10. If she was that sensitive, it should have been 10 times out of 10. And who knows what range two thirds really covers....
Click to expand...
I also noted that they said "although the tests have only just finished" in a kind of wriggle room "The official results are not out yet, but this is how we interpret it". They also admitted that all the other "electro sensitives" failed in previous studies.

I tried to find details of the study right after the programme, but could find nothing about either the woman (Silvia Wilson) or microwave studies at Essex University.
 
Last edited:
TheBoyPaj said:
Maybe I am using the search function wrong, but I'm amazed that no one has commented on this terrible piece of science-free scaremongering from the BBC.
Click to expand...
I am also surprised this isn't being debated more here.

I have been in a bit of a row with other people in my local paper about this subject, including someone who claims to suffer from EMH and actually had the unbelievable gall to write that it didn't matter what science said, they just knew they had this ailment.

The paper has stopped publishing my responses now.

These people just do not understand what electromagnetic radiation is and how much of it they are bathed in every second.
The 'ailment' should be renamed to "I am hypersensitive to things I think emit what I believe electromagnetic radiation to be and not ones that emit the same radiation but I don't know about or understand, does this make me special yet?"

And I am really getting fed up with the spooky "Well it's new so more research is required, who knows what we will find, oooooooh..."

Hey, Coke Zero is new - maybe we'd better ban that suddenly because who knows what the long term effects are? Children drink it for heaven's sake! What of the children!
 
EHS is just another manifestation of Total Allergy Syndrome.
Does anybody remember the people back in the 70s who were supposed to be so allergic to modern chemicals that they had to live a totally chemical-free (sic) existence? Funny how none of them actually died from their illness. In fact, the woman who was probably most famous for it, Sheila Rossall, died in Blackpool last year, having survived to the reasonably ripe old age of 57.
 
There's really no good reason to refer to radio waves as "radiation" when discussing them in such a context, unless the sole aim is to cause fear. It's a classic dihydrogen monoxide type scam: everyone knows "radiation" is dangerous, don't they?
 
That program was an absolute disgrace. The following points stick in my mind :

1. The geezer from PowerWatch failed to say that his organisation makes lots of money from selling expensive "antiradiation" products. The journalist also failed to mention this but was happy to critisize a sceptic for his former links to phone companies.

2. Said geezer measured the signal strength from a phone mast but failed to give a numerical value. He and the journo then go into a WiFi equipped classroom. At first the screen on his detector is out of sight of the camera and he says "just got to adjust the range" as one might with an oscilloscope trying to measure a weak signal. He then shows the scary looking trace. Again, no numerical values are given.

3. Nobody mentioned that WiFi uses the frequencies freed up when monochrome TV transmissions were phased out. If these frequencies were dangerous, there would have been whole clusters of ill-health around the transmitters, which were in operation for 60 years. No such clusters exist.

4. The allegedly "seriously electrosensitive" woman who could only tell when a microwave transmitter was on two thirds of the time, ie not greatly avove the 50% she would have got by guessing. There were 3 other electrosensitives in this study but there results weren't given as they "were still being analysed". If the study was incomplete, why use it. This smacks of cherry-picked data.
 
JQH said:
That program was an absolute disgrace. The following points stick in my mind :

...

4. The allegedly "seriously electrosensitive" woman who could only tell when a microwave transmitter was on two thirds of the time, ie not greatly avove the 50% she would have got by guessing. There were 3 other electrosensitives in this study but there results weren't given as they "were still being analysed". If the study was incomplete, why use it. This smacks of cherry-picked data.
Click to expand...

I caught that "two thirds of the time" and realized that random chance would make her right 50% of the time. Then wondered about that lack of information about how many trials there were. being right 60 out of 90 times is somewhat more impressive than 2 out of 3. But I don't think we were supposed to analyze the information.
 
JQH said:
That program was an absolute disgrace. The following points stick in my mind :

...

3. Nobody mentioned that WiFi uses the frequencies freed up when monochrome TV transmissions were phased out. If these frequencies were dangerous, there would have been whole clusters of ill-health around the transmitters, which were in operation for 60 years. No such clusters exist.
...
Click to expand...

I think you may need to clarify this statement (although I agree with your others). WiFi doesn't use TV frequencies, and I am not aware that monochrome TV used different frequencies than color.
 
Hitch said:
I caught that "two thirds of the time" and realized that random chance would make her right 50% of the time. Then wondered about that lack of information about how many trials there were. being right 60 out of 90 times is somewhat more impressive than 2 out of 3. But I don't think we were supposed to analyze the information.
Click to expand...

the bbc seems to have a hard time with statistics. Yesterday I caught a fragment of some program on radio 4 about empathy. The example had the presenter getting 3 judgements right and 3 wrong, in what AFAICT was a set of binary options. this was described as 'middling', rather than 'indestinguishable from random noise', which was what it appeared to be to me ...
 
slyjoe said:
I think you may need to clarify this statement (although I agree with your others). WiFi doesn't use TV frequencies, and I am not aware that monochrome TV used different frequencies than color.
Click to expand...
There was a period in I think the 1960s where TV transmissions in Britain changed from VHF (which was all black and white) to UHF (which could be colour if you had the right equipment). I seem to remember that you could only get BBC1 and ITV on a VHF set, and that BBC2 was only on UHF from the get-go. Some sets had the capacity to receive both, as it depended on your reception area which would give the best picture. The VHF signal had more lines per screen, I believe.

For a while transmissions went out on both frequencies to allow people with old sets to pick up the signals. Then when most of the old VHF sets had gone to the great Currys in the Sky, the VHF signal was switched off. I think if was that VHF frequency that was later appropriated for wifi. I think.

Rolfe.
 
yeah and a doctor said that aids wasn't transferable through needles and pricked himself with a needle that was used to get blood from an aids patient. Also PCB's aren't bad for people, or the numerous other things that we found out are really bad for us. There haven't been enough studies or a long enough time period to say whether or not wi-fi signals are dangerous but there is some evidence to suggest that cellphones do cause cancer in the brain. I don't see why other signals like wi-fi might not have the same sort of effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom