Last month, in a previous post called Acceptable Risk? I commented on a story from the BBC website looking at teaching union fears of the health risks of wi-fi. I hadn't realised it was a puff piece, giving a lead into a Panorama programme to be broadcast today on "Wi-fi: a warning signal". Licence payers' money was spent on this investigation which found (suitable pause for effect here) that wi-fi radiation levels at one school were three times the level of mobile phone mast radiation - they were also 600 times below government safety limits.
A number of experts from British institutions are quoted as saying that there is no risk and that this is a non-story. The intensity of wi-fi radiation is 100,000 times less than that of a domestic microwave (where is the Panorama programme on let's ban the microwave oven?). My favourite part of the report is a section from Professor Sperrin, an expert in the field of medical physics, who points out that it is impossible to prove a negative or to prove that something has absolutely no effect. The implication is that Panorama, Jeremy Vine and other innumerate institutions will keep pushing this one until someone takes them seriously.
Other forms of electromagnetic radiation have been found to be harmful - the example quoted is of someone sitting in a wi-fi hot spot in full sun on a beach. The significant danger here is of sunstroke and sun burn - get into the shade being the health and safety advice. Other worries about wireless laptop computers come from the dangers of heat sources (the battery in particular) and the effect that prolonged exposure could have to the "soft parts of the body", where you might place a laptop. Think about it chaps!!
On the same day, a survey for the NSPCC found that violence is a day to day problem for young people aged 11 to 16. Of those questioned, 42% had been hit, punched or kicked at secondary school - a pretty tangible health risk. A good three quarters had faced some form of bullying in school, but less than half felt there was adequate support to help them cope with it.
Jeremy Vine - here surely is something that is worth picking up on! It would be a cheaper programme to fund by the BBC and a whole lot more relevant to the majority of young people than some non-existent risk that Panorama had to go to Sweden and to the USA to find some nebulous possible evidence for. It would highlight something that needs action and a bit of government spend - but perhaps the public school boys among the powers that be think that it is a good part of the school tradition and never did them any harm.
So for the numerate amongst us, let us act to stop or reduce the actual threat, and leave the fantasy threat to the science fiction writers! Or is there mileage in a study on the stupidity of the media - the chances (or risk) of getting funding for that are probably too low to be worth the effort of applying.
Sadly, Jane, I don't think Jeremy Vine or the BBC keep an eye on your blog to see what sensible people think on this issue. There was a second article on the BBC website yesterday ("Schools want urgent wi-fi advice") pushing the Panorama programme and trying to build further panic. Mind you, it seems that the silly season for news has started earlier than ever this year, despite war and violence in the Middle East, so this non-news story about a non-risk could run and run. Are you starting a campaign for the banning of the humble domestic microwave?
Posted by: Cicely Gardener | 05/22/2007 at 09:08 AM
Cicely - thanks for letting me know about the next irritating article in the series. I won't be starting a campaign against the microwave - too useful for making porridge! Reading the new article, what I find more worrying is the implied scoffing about the difficulty of proving no effect. Think about the MMR debate - how many of the parents of newly diagnosed autistic kids would be prepared to say that their child was abnormal before the jab, if they are offered a no fault option of saying it was MMR? Proving something is totally safe is impossible - you can choke on grass or slip on it, but no one wants to ban the domestic lawn.
Posted by: Jane Holland | 05/22/2007 at 09:15 AM
Somewhere down the road, maybe in 10 years or so, we are going to find out all too well about the effect of wireless technology on our health. Then it might be too late. The government and the industry does not want you to know about the hazards because that would be bad for business. Years ago, they kept insisting that tobacco and asbestos were harmless. This is the same thing, you'll see. don't be so arrogant that you stop looking for the real truth. You have been mislead.
Posted by: stan mrak | 05/24/2007 at 04:58 PM
It must be really pleasing to know that your blog is read by the 'tin foil in their underwear' brigade.
The difference between wi-fi and asbestos is a huge amount of research showing it to be safe, whereas asbestos was dominant in a period before H&S was a paramount concern. By all means look for the truth, it is out there!
Posted by: john | 05/26/2007 at 05:11 PM