Powerwatch's response to negative comments re Panorama program on WIFI - Part II
Here is the continuation to Powerwatche's defense against the criticisms received. Enjoy!
4. What we measured and how it was measured was "bad science".
I believe that the science behind our measurements at the Norwich School was absolutely fine. I had put together what I though was a balanced and interesting PowerPoint presentation for the school pupils which had much of relevance for the GCSE KS4 science curriculum. Apparently, according to Goldacre, it was the teacher who decided that I was not going to be allowed to talk to the class - "I've just had to ask a BBC Panorama film crew not to film in my school or in my class because of the bad science they were trying to carry out". My presentation will soon be available from this website (we are currently attaching an audio track to it so it is more than just slides).
Instead the science teacher told them about our "bad science" and showed them the Powerwatch and EMFields websites. According to Goldacre: "When the children saw Alasdair's Powerwatch website, and the excellent picture of the insulating mesh beekeeper hat that he sells (£27) to "protect your head from excess microwave exposure", they were astonished and outraged".
So, where was our bad science? Apparently it was because "They set about downloading the biggest file they could get hold of - so the Wi-Fi signal was working as powerfully as possible - and took the peak reading during that," says our noble science teacher. It was a great teaching exercise, and the children made valuable criticisms of Panorama's methodology, such as "well, we're not allowed to download files so it wouldn't be that strong", "only a couple of classes have wifi", and,"we only use the laptops a couple of times a week".
• Firstly, not using WiFi very much will indeed greatly reduce their exposure, but it entirely misses the point. The comparison was between the usage of it as compared to being in the main beam of a phone mast, and as such was looking at Sir William's recommendation of whether they should use WiFi at all. • Secondly, it is normal practice to generate as continuous a signal as possible to make the best measurements as it makes it easier to catch the data bursts. In fact, this does not increase the signal strength (measured in volts per metre). It does increase the average power as the signal is active for more of the time, but not the signal strength of the data bursts. We measured the phone mast signals in the same manner. The reasons for measuring signals in this way were to be explained in my talk, but of course, the teacher cancelled that without hearing it or asking me what I was going to say. I explain more about why I believe we should use signal strength rather than average power for non-thermal EMF affects later. • Thirdly, the file was not downloaded from the internet, we merely accessed a .pdf document (one that according to the IT manager the pupils would have been looking at that day) on the public share of the school server. If the pupils don't access documents on the server, then they don't need their computers networked at all and the WiFi is completely unnecessary. • Lastly, it is not clear how the children could make "valuable criticisms of Panorama's methodology" when the teacher was only aware of about a third of the information that Panorama were going to share with the school class. This class discussion took place before the programme had even been completed, let alone shown. It is like criticising the gameplay of a computer game from the screenshots posted on a fansite. That is certainly not any type of scientific method and sets a very poor example to the young people of how a scientific review should be done. It would have been much better to allow me to make my presentation and then criticise me, if he could, in front of the class. That would have been scientific debate. In fact, the teacher banning Panorama from the school half-way through the filming process made the programme much harder to complete in a balanced way, because part of my informative talk to the class and their questions to me was going to be used in the film. Some of this information had to be put into the programme in other ways which probably were not quite as good - for example Paul Kenyon (the presenter), walking around Norwich centre with a COM monitor.
5. The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
The IEGMP Stewart Report, in 2000, recommended that the beam of greatest intensity from a mobile phone mast should not fall on any part of a schools grounds. This view was reached by Sir William Stewart's expert group, and not by him alone. The expert group included Dr Mike Repacholi. It would follow that Sir William might well have concerns about the similar pulsing radiation arising inside the school from WiFi. He says he does. Panorama went to a school and measured it.
Panorama then compared it with the levels that there would be in a classroom 100 metres away from a nearby and very typical local phone mast, which the Sir William had expressed his concerns about. Panorama checked with an independent scientist at the University of Bristol, who said that for the purpose of this programme these two sources would produce comparable fields in the classroom. It must be pointed out that Panorama interviewed Sir William before they carried out the tests at the school, and so his concern was not as a result of the tests.
The apparent purpose of the Panorama programme was to raise important issues that need to be thought carefully about when applying an appropriate precautionary approach to new technology and environmental issues. The BBC and other main media carry many programmes about the wondrous benefits that wireless technology is bringing to the world. They don't raise any issue of possible harm. The Panorama programme was, in a small way, helping to restore a more balanced perspective in the 28 minutes it had available.
6. Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
There is plenty of evidence that exposure to low levels of electromagnetic fields can have unwanted biological and health effects. One good starting point to find out about this vast and complex subject would be to visit Microwave News who have reported on it for over 25 years.
One inportant large group of scientific studies was called the REFLEX project. Especially worth reading is the late Professor Ross Adey's Foreword. This offers some wise thoughts from a lifetime's experience of investigating EMF and health matters. Ross was also an enthusiastic radio amateur, regularly bouncing signals off the moon to reach radio amateurs on the other side of the Earth using equipment that he built himself - so he certainly was not a techophobe or a wireless-phobe.
Ross Adey, who made fundamental contributions over 50 years to the emerging science of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), died in May 2004. In memory of his major achievements as a scientist and in recognition of his support of the REFLEX work, the consortium decided that his message would be an inspiration to all those scientists who are willing to accept the challenges posed by EMF research, and in addition, make a fitting introduction to the final report.
7. Where is the scientific evidence of Electrical Sensitivity?
We have produced a 74 page book about this and it isn't possible to summarise ES/EHS in a few lines here. One good starting point is Neil Irvine's HPA report and our response to it.
Also the Swedish FEB website is helpful, as is the H-E-S-E project website. The ES-UK Charity website also has lots of information on it.
In conclusion
I believe that I have addressed, and dismissed, all the main points of criticism raised by Ben Goldacre.
4. What we measured and how it was measured was "bad science".
I believe that the science behind our measurements at the Norwich School was absolutely fine. I had put together what I though was a balanced and interesting PowerPoint presentation for the school pupils which had much of relevance for the GCSE KS4 science curriculum. Apparently, according to Goldacre, it was the teacher who decided that I was not going to be allowed to talk to the class - "I've just had to ask a BBC Panorama film crew not to film in my school or in my class because of the bad science they were trying to carry out". My presentation will soon be available from this website (we are currently attaching an audio track to it so it is more than just slides).
Instead the science teacher told them about our "bad science" and showed them the Powerwatch and EMFields websites. According to Goldacre: "When the children saw Alasdair's Powerwatch website, and the excellent picture of the insulating mesh beekeeper hat that he sells (£27) to "protect your head from excess microwave exposure", they were astonished and outraged".
So, where was our bad science? Apparently it was because "They set about downloading the biggest file they could get hold of - so the Wi-Fi signal was working as powerfully as possible - and took the peak reading during that," says our noble science teacher. It was a great teaching exercise, and the children made valuable criticisms of Panorama's methodology, such as "well, we're not allowed to download files so it wouldn't be that strong", "only a couple of classes have wifi", and,"we only use the laptops a couple of times a week".
• Firstly, not using WiFi very much will indeed greatly reduce their exposure, but it entirely misses the point. The comparison was between the usage of it as compared to being in the main beam of a phone mast, and as such was looking at Sir William's recommendation of whether they should use WiFi at all. • Secondly, it is normal practice to generate as continuous a signal as possible to make the best measurements as it makes it easier to catch the data bursts. In fact, this does not increase the signal strength (measured in volts per metre). It does increase the average power as the signal is active for more of the time, but not the signal strength of the data bursts. We measured the phone mast signals in the same manner. The reasons for measuring signals in this way were to be explained in my talk, but of course, the teacher cancelled that without hearing it or asking me what I was going to say. I explain more about why I believe we should use signal strength rather than average power for non-thermal EMF affects later. • Thirdly, the file was not downloaded from the internet, we merely accessed a .pdf document (one that according to the IT manager the pupils would have been looking at that day) on the public share of the school server. If the pupils don't access documents on the server, then they don't need their computers networked at all and the WiFi is completely unnecessary. • Lastly, it is not clear how the children could make "valuable criticisms of Panorama's methodology" when the teacher was only aware of about a third of the information that Panorama were going to share with the school class. This class discussion took place before the programme had even been completed, let alone shown. It is like criticising the gameplay of a computer game from the screenshots posted on a fansite. That is certainly not any type of scientific method and sets a very poor example to the young people of how a scientific review should be done. It would have been much better to allow me to make my presentation and then criticise me, if he could, in front of the class. That would have been scientific debate. In fact, the teacher banning Panorama from the school half-way through the filming process made the programme much harder to complete in a balanced way, because part of my informative talk to the class and their questions to me was going to be used in the film. Some of this information had to be put into the programme in other ways which probably were not quite as good - for example Paul Kenyon (the presenter), walking around Norwich centre with a COM monitor.
5. The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
The IEGMP Stewart Report, in 2000, recommended that the beam of greatest intensity from a mobile phone mast should not fall on any part of a schools grounds. This view was reached by Sir William Stewart's expert group, and not by him alone. The expert group included Dr Mike Repacholi. It would follow that Sir William might well have concerns about the similar pulsing radiation arising inside the school from WiFi. He says he does. Panorama went to a school and measured it.
Panorama then compared it with the levels that there would be in a classroom 100 metres away from a nearby and very typical local phone mast, which the Sir William had expressed his concerns about. Panorama checked with an independent scientist at the University of Bristol, who said that for the purpose of this programme these two sources would produce comparable fields in the classroom. It must be pointed out that Panorama interviewed Sir William before they carried out the tests at the school, and so his concern was not as a result of the tests.
The apparent purpose of the Panorama programme was to raise important issues that need to be thought carefully about when applying an appropriate precautionary approach to new technology and environmental issues. The BBC and other main media carry many programmes about the wondrous benefits that wireless technology is bringing to the world. They don't raise any issue of possible harm. The Panorama programme was, in a small way, helping to restore a more balanced perspective in the 28 minutes it had available.
6. Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
There is plenty of evidence that exposure to low levels of electromagnetic fields can have unwanted biological and health effects. One good starting point to find out about this vast and complex subject would be to visit Microwave News who have reported on it for over 25 years.
One inportant large group of scientific studies was called the REFLEX project. Especially worth reading is the late Professor Ross Adey's Foreword. This offers some wise thoughts from a lifetime's experience of investigating EMF and health matters. Ross was also an enthusiastic radio amateur, regularly bouncing signals off the moon to reach radio amateurs on the other side of the Earth using equipment that he built himself - so he certainly was not a techophobe or a wireless-phobe.
Ross Adey, who made fundamental contributions over 50 years to the emerging science of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), died in May 2004. In memory of his major achievements as a scientist and in recognition of his support of the REFLEX work, the consortium decided that his message would be an inspiration to all those scientists who are willing to accept the challenges posed by EMF research, and in addition, make a fitting introduction to the final report.
7. Where is the scientific evidence of Electrical Sensitivity?
We have produced a 74 page book about this and it isn't possible to summarise ES/EHS in a few lines here. One good starting point is Neil Irvine's HPA report and our response to it.
Also the Swedish FEB website is helpful, as is the H-E-S-E project website. The ES-UK Charity website also has lots of information on it.
In conclusion
I believe that I have addressed, and dismissed, all the main points of criticism raised by Ben Goldacre.
Comments