SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 2012
Investigative Something-ism: The Hazards of WiFi Radiation in Schools
Without some semblance of intelligent public
broadcasting, coverage like this (on any topic) can easily because the norm.
There are a number of people who have a wealth of knowledge and who have
concerns regarding both the content and representations in this CTV broadcast.
It would seem that the email from Jon Woodward’s email address was sent out as,
in effect, a form-letter reply to a high number of viewers who sent in their
comments from all over Canada and the U.S. (and elsewhere?). (I didn’t write in,
so I don’t have my own copy.) To follow the conversation, please start reading
where I used red to
mark the "Original Message."
Emailed June 30, 2012 to Jon.Woodward@bellmedia.ca
Jon,
I would like to add to what Iris has said. She is absolutely correct that your investigative report was biased by virtue of the facts that you used "experts" known to be associated with the telecommunications industry. You took the recommendation of sources at the University of British Columbia, a school that receives millions in donations from Bell, and ended up using Prof Dave Michelson who happens to be the past president of the IEEE - Vancouver Section. The IEEE is filled with engineers who discount the non-thermal effects of RF (microwave) radiation, and make decisions about standard setting that far exceed what most European countries, Russia, and the US military consider even close to safe or protective.
Doesn't it tell you something, Jon, that the University of British Columbia recommended Karl Reardon, formerly General Manager of Motorola’s Vancouver Research and Development Center and a significant force in raising allowable limits of exposure rather than an expert on the true biological effects of Wi-Fi on developing children? This conflict, which it is indeed, points out the difficulty we all have in getting to the truth of safety and health issues where giant corporations are involved.
The vast majority of your viewing audience will take your report at face value, which is troubling because there is indeed risk associated with Wi-Fi exposure, especially to children. It is not a question of if children are harmed, but how much and when will symptoms become manifest? These risks are not going to be appropriately investigated unless you seek out truly independent sources and take measurements in the schools when no one is expecting you. I have been involved with cell towers on firestations, and if we announced ahead of time that we're taking measurements, we come out with ridiculously low readings. Measurements for cell towers are controlled from remote locations and can be turned up, or turned down. I wonder who adjusted the Wi-Fi the day measurements were taken for your report? And as Iris asked, was the equipment used to test the Wi-Fi calibrated at an independent lab? Somehow, I suspect not.
The reality is this: I'm not sure how you can achieve independence when your boss is Bell Canada. I presume you know that Bell Canada bought 100 percent of CTV Inc. for $1.3 billion in 2010. They previously owned only 15 percent; now they have full control of the company that you work for. They sign your paychecks. Of course you are going to go where your immediate boss suggests, a university like almost all universities these days that enjoys the millions donated to them by Bell and/or other telecommunications giants. That money pays for much needed programs, of course, and it buys something infinitely more valuable to the donors like Bell than the tax write-off and the pure pleasure of donating to higher education. The telecom industry is buying influence, and so perhaps Iris Atzmon and I should be thanking you for pointing out this exquisite example of the far reaching tentacles of influence the telecommunications industry has.
You've been used, Jon, and we know it. You were guided to a university that gave you a predictable recommendation. What does it say to you that the University of British Columbia referred you to a professor who is the former chair of the Vancouver section of the IEEE, and a "consultant" who is without question an industry insider? That was not a true investigative report. It is a whitewash and a broadcast to your viewers offering a false senses of security and safety.
Thank you for this magnificent example of industry influence that almost makes the tobacco industry look good.
Sincerely,
Susan Foster, MSW
Honorary Firefighter, San Diego Fire Dept
Co-Author, Res. 15 passed by the IAFF, 2004
Member, International EMF Alliance
Advisor, Radiation Research Trust, UK
From: Iris XX
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 2:35 AM
To: Jon Woodward
Subject: re: CTV Wi-Fi investigation
Jon,
Your email to me was adressed to yourself. I understand from other people that you sent the same reply to everyone.
To the point itself, I understand that the expert you relied on is Prof. Dave Michelson. He has conflicts of interests:
He is the chair of Advisory Panel for Wavefront Wireless Commercialization Centre (WWCC). Industry partners include Sierra Wireless, Ericsson, Nokia, Orange and others. As a reporter, you are expected to bring a balanced report.
Are there different rules in your station? Why don't you do an honest declaration of conflict of interest before you come to calm down the public? Where is the balance in your position? Regarding the equipment itself, where was it calibrated?
do you have a certificate that it was calibrated in an independent lab?
You assume that people did not do homework before they express worries regarding WiFi. You are doing an underestimation here. Measurements were done independently from the industry and the results are conflicting with your programme.
But the most worrisome is this: what you actually tell me is that there are worries that Wi-Fi is dangerous and you adress them with a wireless industry person. It's like saying that if you are worried about processed food and a reporter brings a Mcdonald's guy and he will tell you that it's just fine, it's supposed to calm you down.
Regards,
Iris
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Woodward
To: Jon Woodward
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:16 PM
Subject: re: CTV Wi-Fi investigation
Hi,
Thanks for writing in. I apologize for taking a few days to write back to you but my duties as a daily reporter during those days kept me busy. I would rather take time to write a thoughtful response.
The point of the story was to put to the test concerns about wi-fi in schools. There are worries that wi-fi is dangerous, which we referred to in the report. We also reported the opinion that it is a safe and important learning tool. The scientific data concerned citizens use to support either side in this debate is often presented to the lay public without regard to the actual use of the technology in the schools in Vancouver at this time. The policy recommendation of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils was worth examining.
We came to the story with a question: what is happening at our schools, and how does this compare to exposure that children might face in other parts of their lives?
The Vancouver School Board gave us access to schools in the spirit of openness. We approached Karl Reardon, a consultant who came highly recommended from sources at the University of British Columbia and suppliers of the specialized testing equipment. We designed the experimental procedure and used high-tech equipment with standard protocols, while school was in session and while devices were used in a normal classroom or library setting. We saw for ourselves the readings on the devices. The readings were consistent during multiple tests. We explored the sources of signals in the schools with no wi-fi and traced some of them to everyday items like fluorescent lights. When we consulted experts in this technology at UBC, they told us our results were consistent with scientific expectations.
At no point was there any interference or input in our experimental procedures from any industry or outside source including our parent company, Bell.
Given the amount of debate over this issue to this point, it’s clear this story is hardly the last word. We did not test all Vancouver schools in all possible situations where wi-fi could be used, for example. We also made no conclusions about whether the wi-fi emissions themselves were safe. But I do hope that the story provided to parents who are concerned about this technology some context about the levels of wi-fi exposure that their children are facing at schools in Vancouver at this time.
Sincerely,
Jon Woodward
Jon Woodward | Investigative Reporter
CTV British Columbia |
750 Burrard Street Suite 300
Vancouver, BC V6Z 1X5
www.twitter.com/CTV_JonWoodward
http://www.ctvbc.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment