BBC’s Panorama panders to the ignorant
Les Hatton, 18 Jun 2007
The current affairs programme’s recent Wi-Fi “exposé” was scare-mongering
drivel of the crassest kind
go
Another perspective
Thanks for the comments. As they are mostly negative I felt I should reply.
I rubbished the Panorama coverage because it needed rubbishing. It was
highly selective in the evidence it presented and highly misleading as a result.
First note the following from the Stewart Report:
(http://www.iegmp.org.uk/report/summary.htm)
-------
1.17
"The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.33 - 6.42)."
-------
At no point did Panorama state this although the reporter attempted to discredit Dr. Repacholi for saying the same thing. The reporter simply wanted people to agree with him because otherwise he didn't have a program.
I have no objection to carefully balanced programs and am strongly in favour of
continuing experiments because you can never prove technology to be totally safe.
All you can do is balance the risks against the benefits. This was not a carefully
balanced program. It was sloppy and scare-mongering like many of the BBC's attempts at covering science.
With regard to the analogy with rhinos from Dr. Blackwell. Sorry but you don't understand the difference between a symmetric probability density function and an asymmetric one. A lot of people have made the same mistake and its one of the reasons I rubbished the
program. Think about tossing a coin, (which does have a symmetric pdf). Say a head is a 'result' and tail is 'not a result'. 50% of all experiments give a result on average and 50% do not but there is no underlying effect - just the unceasing rumble of entropy. In epidemiological experiments, there is
never a rhino to see. Just a pile of numbers with overwhelmingly symmetric behaviour.
When you compare lots of piles of numbers and see an effect in 50% of them and no effect in the rest, you come up with statements like 1.17 above. It's all you can do.
For the benefit of Mr. Baron, I am a mathematician and I do not disagree with 1.17 above.
Posted by: Les Hatton, 24 Jul 2007Honesty
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr Blackwell. Time and time again, we have seen 'pseudo-scientists' such as Mr Hatton disparaging the Panorama programme in question. These people do not appear to understand (or choose to ignore) that they are, in effect, disparaging Professor Sir William Stewart, the Chairman of the HPA and principal adviser to HM Government on such matters, whose learned opinion was central to the programme's message. Why are they insufficiently honest, I wonder, to come clean and criticise him?
Posted by: David Baron, 13 Jul 2007Off with the fairies?
It seems to me that Les Hatton is guilty of a significantly greater degree of hyperbole than the programme that he takes such delight in belittling. I see little in his article to justify his accusation of "mathematically dysfunctional, scare-mongering drivel", indeed most of his article appears to be taken up with a hypothetical misrepresentation of science that owes more to his own imagination than it does to Panorama. If he actually wishes to claim that Panorama misrepresented the science in this way - which is not what he says, nor is it what Panorama did - then perhaps he should come out and say so, with scientific evidence to back up his wild claims.
Early in his article Hatton admits that the programme openly acknowledged that half the studies show an effect and half don't - though he presents this more as an accusation than as recognition of impartial reporting. He then, for some reason, refers to "statistical concepts" - as if a failure to observe an effect in 50% of studies makes the situation ok. If a pharmaceutical company undertook 30 research studies on a new product and (only) 15 of those studies demonstrated clear adverse health effects each replicated across a number of those studies, would Mr Hatton consider that product safe to put out on the market? To put it another way, if ten early Victorian explorers had gone to Africa looking for rhinos and five of them came back saying that they hadn't seen a rhino whilst five declared that they definitely had, would the reasonable conclusion be that rhinos do exist or that they don't?
One specific point of error in Mr Hatton's reporting: NO World Health Organisation scientist was interviewed on the Panorama programme. Mike Repacholi left the WHO last year. It may be of interest that before his departure he was the subject of an internet petition for his removal from post, based on perceived strong pro-industry bias. Mr Hatton's reference to Dr Repacholi "trying to explain the science" flies in the face of a recent report published in the Lancet criticising the WHO for failing to support its advice with scientific evidence: one of the report's authors is quoted by an Associated Press release as saying in respect of this lack of evidence "In that case you're left with blind trust", whilst Lancet's editor is quoted as saying "It undermines the very purpose of WHO".
I've been in computing for over 40 years and got into computer networking R&D 36 years ago in one of the very first international computer networks, BOAC's BOADICEA system. I've always been very proud of the profession I'm in, its high standards and the myriad benefits it's brought to all walks of life. I for one do not take kindly to Les Hatton's facile treatment of an issue that certainly deserves serious consideration. It seems to me that it's Hatton, not Panorama, that's off with the fairies and he's not taking me with him.
Posted by: EurIng Dr Grahame Blackwell MBCS CEng, 22 Jun 2007Ignorance is bliss
The Panorama programme had many flaws, and it was far from being a piece of serious science.
However, one thing it didn't do was pander to ignorance. In fact, quite the opposite.
The current WHO safety limits for EMF exposure are based on a very simple assumption - that the only health effects we need to worry about are thermal effects. If it doesn't measurably heat you up, then it must be safe.
That's not something you can prove - it's a hypothesis that stands until it's disproven. And recently, there's been significant new research which makes the hypothesis look positively shaky.
So if the Panorama programme highlighted that research, it increased knowledge, rather than perpetuating most people's ignorance of these possible risks.
I'm not going to stop using my mobile, until I become convinced that these non-thermal effects really are harmful. That's my informed decision, balancing the benefits against the risk.
But if you're putting in WiFi without even realising this research exists - how can that be anything other than blissful ignorance?
Posted by: Ben, 21 Jun 2007What about the evidence that does exist?
Should we suppose Les Hatton thinks that the 50% of studies that do show links to ill health and cancer - symptoms that often do not show up until many years after should simply be ignored? Perhaps in 10 years time Mr Hatton will be wishing he had been wearing a tin foil hat. Indecently 80% of epidemiological studies in the WHO database do demonstrate an increase in ill health in people who live near a mobile phone mast. The WHO scientist in question, Mike Repacholi, has been reported as receiving $150,000 per year for 'expenses' from the mobile phone industry - while he was heading their EMF department, and every one of the eight WHO scientists in this department responsible for weighing up this evidence has been shown to have close links with the mobile phone industry. Even then Mr Repacholi admitted that studies existed that showed links with ill health and cancer and that the WHO's position was not technically accurate. But most importantly I must ask where does Mr Hatton think the balance of proof should lie? Would he opt to put a new chemical into the public water supply and only then remove it if it could be proven beyond all doubt that it was causing debilitating illnesses in a percentage of the population? I'd rather a tin foil hat than a phone mast any day.
Posted by: Simon Densley, 21 Jun 2007
Post your comment
