Panorama "expert" defends Wi-Fi cancer scaremongering

There has been a lot of controversy over Wi-Fi in schools in the UK lately, with the BBC’s Panorma program doing an “expose” about the possible health dangers of school Wi-Fi networks on children. As you would expect, Panorma has been attacked for scaremongering, but now one of the key experts used by the program has come out to defend some of the more controversial contentions of the program.

Researchers for the BBC’s Panorama program visited a comprehensive school in Norwich and measured the strength of a radiation signal from a classroom Wi-Fi laptop. They found that the maximum signal strength was three times higher than that of a typical mobile phone mast 100 m away. The program contended that there is research that links “radiation” from mobiles to cancer and brain damage, and that children are thought to be more vulnerable than adults.

Leading the attack on the Panorama program has been doctor, Ben Goldacre, who writes for the Guardian (his articles are also published on his blog). Goldacre was dismayed by the the documentary, which he accused of being sensationalist and of twisting the facts to suit its own agenda. He wrote:

“In the show, you can see them walking around Norwich with a special ‘radiation monitor’. Radiation, incidentally, is their favourite word, and they use it 30 times, although Wi-Fi is ‘radiation’ in the same sense that light is.”

Good point — it wouldn’t have sounded nearly as dangerous if they spoke about radio waves, rather than radiation.

Goldacre is was also very dubious about the experts used by the program, in part:

“Panorama’s readings were “well into the red” on “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, and he will sell one to you for just £175. Alasdair decided what “red” meant on Panorama’s device. So not very independent then.”

Panorma spent some time covering “electronsensitivity”, a condition where people believe they suffer from physical and/or psychological symptoms when exposed to electromagnetic fields. Goldacre dismissed the concept of “electrosensitivity” as completely unproven.

Now Alasdair Phillips has hit back at Goldacre, defending his reputation, as well as the original Panorama documentary.

“Ben Goldacre describes me as ‘an electrosmog pressure group campaigner’,” fumed Phillips. 

“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.”

Phillips also contends that there is 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 important 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.

In regards to electrosensitivity, Phillips urges readers to review Powerwatch’s response to a rather weak HPA-RPD report, “Definition, Epidemiology and Management of Electrical Hypersensitivity, which reviewed published literature, and didn’t come to any real conclusions.

I’m no expert, but I have to say I don’t find Phillips’ counter attack too compelling — he doesn’t appear to have come up with anything new, or any definitive evidence to support his claims, or the claims put forward by Panorama.

• 

• Wi-Fi radiation: Is it dangerous to your child?
• Beta Firefox 4 Panorama to solve tab chaos
• Scientists reignite mobile phone cancer fears
• UK Govt study: mobile phone cancer risk can’t be ruled out
• Mobile phone radiation actually beneficial to health – can prevent Alzheimer’s