According to the BBC today, one of the teachers' unions, PAT, is demanding research into the risks posed to the health of them and their pupils by wi-fi networks in schools. So far the Health Protection Agency will only comment that wi-fi devices are "of very low power, much lower than mobile phones", and while the Chair of the HPA is being asked to condemn wi-fi, he is not prepared to do so - rather he has not taken a position on it.
I have just finished reading Managing Green Issues for a Review in the Journal of the OR Society. Tom Curtin, the author, points out the difficulty of categorical denial in such cases - although most of his examples are to do with bigger environmental causes, the issue is the same. Could any scientist or statistician say categorically that they were 100% certain that there was no health risk from wi-fi?
No we couldn't! And that is because that categorical 100% certainty is impossible as there could be a bizarre set of circumstances that could cause a problem that could ultimately lead to harm. In this way, campaigners are clever as they don't ask a comparative question. If the question was posed as to whether wi-fi was safer than conventional Ethernet or similar networks, I suspect the answer would be yes. Even with the best ducting, the cable will cause a hazard to something - I get my Ethernet cable tied up in the vacuum cleaner from time to time. There is an identifiable risk - but one that teachers seem to be quite happy to live with.
It seems to me that one clear demonstration of the lack of numerical skills in the nation is the lack of understanding of acceptable risk and probability. If something is potentially nice - a lottery win for example - people will put up with odds of 1 in 14 million, or indeed think they are a certain thing to win. A similar very small risk is of death on a railway train that has an accident. After the Hatfield accident a lot of people went back to their cars, as trains were now perceived as dangerous. Rail travel remains the safest form of transport (I will not comment on comfort!), but people prefer the much more dangerous automobile.
Personally I am all for a little more acceptable risk in life - deal with real and clear risks, yes, but as we learn from mistakes and dangers, don't try to give everything a 100% certified safe certificate. If a drug had to be 100% totally safe for example, we would not have access to Paracetamol, Aspirin, Ibuprofen or the contraceptive pill. Take a few minutes to imagine your life, let alone modern society without those!
The other aspect of risk is the feeling of being in control of the risk. Take extreme sports for example. People know them to be higher than normal risk but believe, quite often erroneously, that because they are aware of the risk and feel they can control it then the activity is safe enough. If you take radioactivity, which cannot be seen, smelt, heard, or felt then there is no control, no current awareness of risk. It is deemed to be insidious and thus dangerous. It also doesn't help that it can be detected down to atomic levels of contamination and a general lack of understanding about it. Risk is about being able to assesss things for yourself rather than being sensible.
Posted by: Roger Boucher, France | 05/04/2007 at 04:15 PM
To my mind, allowing people to decide about risk from incomplete media information is totally irresponsible. Just look at the rise in unwanted pregnancies whenever there is a scare about the pill and a change in risk of something from 1 in 10,000 to 2 in 10,000. The media call that doubling the chances of something awful - I say it is low risk!
Posted by: Cicely Gardener | 05/09/2007 at 12:06 PM