Powerwatch's response to negative comments re Panorama program on WIFI - Part I
Hi everyone -
Given feng shui consultant's desire to help make people's living environment healthy and harmonious, I felt it important to share the criticisms that the Panorama WIFI program (see summary of program in June 4th post) received and Powerwatch's arguments for each criticism made. Due to the great amount of detail provided, this has been split into a 2 part post.
Ben Goldacre's criticisms:
1. Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
2. Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
3. The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
____________________________________________________________________
Powerwatch's Responses:
1. Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
Powerwatch is independent and attempts to report the science and politics as we see it. It is headed by Alasdair Philips and represents the views of a loose collection of academics, engineers and other people who have been studying this field for some years. The website is done in unpaid time, other than the subscription section where the subscriptons help to cover time writing the subscription documents. Powerwatch overheads are supported by donations from EMFields. EMFields do supply EMF meters and screening materials, so could be seen in having a vested interest in promoting the subject. Although the prices do seem high, profit margins are small and EMFields does not make an overall profit after reasonable staff wages and overhead costs are taken off.
2. Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
Ben Goldacre describes me as "an 'electrosmog' pressure group campaigner". In fact, I am qualified in both electronics and agricultural engineering and have worked for over 35 years, 20 of them in the bio-effects field. I have many years experience in working with radio and other electronics systems, especially as regards electromagnetic field emissions, and have also given presentations to many councils and other groups about mobile phone mast planning and siting.
I have Chaired two international scientific conferences on mobile phones and health (a)(b) and given presentations at six industry conferences on the same subject since 1996. I was the principal instigator and co-ordinator of the 2004 CHILDREN with LEUKAEMIA Conference "International Scientific Conference on Childhood Leukaemia - incidence, causal mechanisms and prevention", which covered radiofrequency radiation in reasonable depth.
I am a member of the Department of Health SAGE process on power-frequency EMF and health, and a member of Sir William Stewart's high-level HPA EMF Discussion Group. I do hold strong views on the potential dangers of the 'electrosmog' that we now all bathe in, and discuss these at the various meetings I am invited to attend, but Ben's description does seem rather prejudiced and unbalanced. I do not campaign against the use of WiFi, per se, but do not believe that wireless technology should not be used when standard ethernet cables could easily be used which would also provide a better access speed, more stable connectivity, easier security and would not be more expensive to implement.
a. Mobile Telephones and Health. An Update on the Latest Research 16-17 September 1999, Gothenburg, Sweden
b. Mobile Telephones and Health, City & Financial Conference, London 6-7 June 2001
3. The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
Ben Goldacre manages to make it sound as if the COM was used to take the measurements at the school. In fact, the main measurements were taken at the local phone mast site and in the school science laboratory using (i) a top-of-the-range professional Anritsu 2721A spectrum analyser with calibrated antennas and (ii) a semi-professional Gigahertz HF59B broadband HF analyser.
Goldacre criticises the use of the COM monitor, "a special piece of detecting equipment designed from scratch and built by none other than Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, the man who leads the campaign against WiFi. His bespoke device is manufactured exclusively for Powerwatch."
I did, indeed, design it, but for Perspective Scientific (now Sensory Perspective) Ltd in the late 1990s.
It never has been made for Powerwatch, let alone exclusively. The COM was one of a number of different RF monitors used in the Panorama programme (although not at the school!) and is used by many UK schools in GCSE KS4 science and A-level physics classes when teaching pupils about microwave signals. It is also sold by a leading schools science equipment supplier and was featured on the Department of Education and Skills (DfES) stand at the Tomorrows World Live event at Earl's Court in London in 2000. It was tested and found fit for purpose by the MoD's Aquilla test facility. COM monitors also were used in a nationwide schools project by Sheffield Hallam University's 2001 Pupil Researcher Initiative a curriculum development project from two of the UK's Research Councils. COM monitors are in regular use by telecoms engineers as a quick-look-see pocket microwave indicator.
For those with an interest in what the "red" actually means, the red light turned on at a signal strength of approximately 4 V/m, showing that the level exceeded the UK and European EMC susceptibility test level of 3 V/m.
The next post will list the remaining criticisms & responses.
Given feng shui consultant's desire to help make people's living environment healthy and harmonious, I felt it important to share the criticisms that the Panorama WIFI program (see summary of program in June 4th post) received and Powerwatch's arguments for each criticism made. Due to the great amount of detail provided, this has been split into a 2 part post.
Ben Goldacre's criticisms:
1. Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
2. Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
3. The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
____________________________________________________________________
Powerwatch's Responses:
1. Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
Powerwatch is independent and attempts to report the science and politics as we see it. It is headed by Alasdair Philips and represents the views of a loose collection of academics, engineers and other people who have been studying this field for some years. The website is done in unpaid time, other than the subscription section where the subscriptons help to cover time writing the subscription documents. Powerwatch overheads are supported by donations from EMFields. EMFields do supply EMF meters and screening materials, so could be seen in having a vested interest in promoting the subject. Although the prices do seem high, profit margins are small and EMFields does not make an overall profit after reasonable staff wages and overhead costs are taken off.
2. Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
Ben Goldacre describes me as "an 'electrosmog' pressure group campaigner". In fact, I am qualified in both electronics and agricultural engineering and have worked for over 35 years, 20 of them in the bio-effects field. I have many years experience in working with radio and other electronics systems, especially as regards electromagnetic field emissions, and have also given presentations to many councils and other groups about mobile phone mast planning and siting.
I have Chaired two international scientific conferences on mobile phones and health (a)(b) and given presentations at six industry conferences on the same subject since 1996. I was the principal instigator and co-ordinator of the 2004 CHILDREN with LEUKAEMIA Conference "International Scientific Conference on Childhood Leukaemia - incidence, causal mechanisms and prevention", which covered radiofrequency radiation in reasonable depth.
I am a member of the Department of Health SAGE process on power-frequency EMF and health, and a member of Sir William Stewart's high-level HPA EMF Discussion Group. I do hold strong views on the potential dangers of the 'electrosmog' that we now all bathe in, and discuss these at the various meetings I am invited to attend, but Ben's description does seem rather prejudiced and unbalanced. I do not campaign against the use of WiFi, per se, but do not believe that wireless technology should not be used when standard ethernet cables could easily be used which would also provide a better access speed, more stable connectivity, easier security and would not be more expensive to implement.
a. Mobile Telephones and Health. An Update on the Latest Research 16-17 September 1999, Gothenburg, Sweden
b. Mobile Telephones and Health, City & Financial Conference, London 6-7 June 2001
3. The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
Ben Goldacre manages to make it sound as if the COM was used to take the measurements at the school. In fact, the main measurements were taken at the local phone mast site and in the school science laboratory using (i) a top-of-the-range professional Anritsu 2721A spectrum analyser with calibrated antennas and (ii) a semi-professional Gigahertz HF59B broadband HF analyser.
Goldacre criticises the use of the COM monitor, "a special piece of detecting equipment designed from scratch and built by none other than Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, the man who leads the campaign against WiFi. His bespoke device is manufactured exclusively for Powerwatch."
I did, indeed, design it, but for Perspective Scientific (now Sensory Perspective) Ltd in the late 1990s.
It never has been made for Powerwatch, let alone exclusively. The COM was one of a number of different RF monitors used in the Panorama programme (although not at the school!) and is used by many UK schools in GCSE KS4 science and A-level physics classes when teaching pupils about microwave signals. It is also sold by a leading schools science equipment supplier and was featured on the Department of Education and Skills (DfES) stand at the Tomorrows World Live event at Earl's Court in London in 2000. It was tested and found fit for purpose by the MoD's Aquilla test facility. COM monitors also were used in a nationwide schools project by Sheffield Hallam University's 2001 Pupil Researcher Initiative a curriculum development project from two of the UK's Research Councils. COM monitors are in regular use by telecoms engineers as a quick-look-see pocket microwave indicator.
For those with an interest in what the "red" actually means, the red light turned on at a signal strength of approximately 4 V/m, showing that the level exceeded the UK and European EMC susceptibility test level of 3 V/m.
The next post will list the remaining criticisms & responses.
Comments