From the Low-level Radiation Campaign comes this cheerful little missive about the BBC. You remember the BBC? That beacon of fair play and truthful, balanced reporting?
How the BBC plays down the health effects of Chernobyl; breaks its own rules; condones lying; and skews the nuclear debate.
In April 1986 Chernobyl's reactor number 4 exploded. It burned for ten days, spreading radioactivity all over the world. This was the worst nuclear accident ever. If it had no effect on health, then why would we worry about a new generation of nuclear power stations?
On 13th July 2006, just as the Blair Government announced its intention to go for new nuclear build, BBC TV broadcast "Nuclear Nightmares". This 50 minute Horizon documentary discussed public anxiety about the health effects of nuclear power using Chernobyl as a particular example.
Preceded by global publicity, Horizon …
• claimed to present evidence that fear of radiation is irrational
• headlined claims from the Chernobyl Forum that radioactive pollution had no observable effect on health
• dismissed without explanation all the hundreds of published scientific studies that link the accident to increased rates of cancer, leukaemia, birth defects, miscarriages, genetic mutations, lowered intelligence, and other diseases
• suggested that the very real breakdown of public health in regions around Chernobyl is caused by fear of radiation
• speculated on unpublished findings that low levels of radiation may even be good for us
The BBC says Horizon is its "flagship science series ... outstanding acclaim ... a world leader".
Defending themselves against complaints of bias, Horizon staff …
• lied about evidence they'd examined
• denied the topic was controversial
• put forward irrelevant, scientifically illiterate arguments
• totally ignored the studies that contradict the Chernobyl Forum.
In adjudicating the complaints, the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit
• denied that the topic was controversial
• ignored Horizon's lie about the evidence
• accepted Horizon's illiterate arguments
• misrepresented the complaints
• totally ignored the studies that contradict the Chernobyl Forum.
No surprise there, then. After 19 acrimonious months the BBC Trust adjudicated an appeal. Guided by an anonymous "Editorial Advisor" who was even more biased than "Nightmares" itself, they …
• ignored Horizon's lie about the evidence
• parroted some of the illiterate science
• misrepresented the complaints
• totally ignored the studies that contradict the Chernobyl Forum.
But they also …
• ruled that "Nuclear Nightmares" was biased - it had failed to meet acceptable standards for impartiality (this was on a rather obscure technical point). The Trust thought it was important to "remind all programme areas to ensure impartiality, especially on controversial topics", in which they explicitly included the health effects of radiation. The Trust has been very coy about saying what exactly they did to remind all programme areas. We infer that they did nothing beyond publishing their Ruling, which was garbled to the point of being incomprehensible on some issues.
Then they did the same thing again.
On New Year's Eve 2007 the Today programme repeated the Chernobyl Forum view that "apart from the deaths of a few highly irradiated firemen and some additional cases of thyroid cancer (mostly curable), there was no measurable impact." "Fear of radiation has had more of a health impact than the radiation itself". Evidence to the contrary is, they claimed, "mythology and misconception".
Emails from Today's editors show that, like "Nuclear Nightmares", they didn't consider any of the abundant scientific evidence that contradicts the Chernobyl Forum.
Can we trust the Forum?
No. The Chernobyl Forum is led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). The IAEA exists to promote nuclear power and for half a century has exercised a power of veto over WHO research on radiation and health. An international campaign opposes this conflict of interest, calling for WHO to be independent of the nuclear lobby.
The veto was created by Agreement WHA 12.40, approved by the 12th World Health Assembly on May 28th 1959.
What we want from the BBC: the BBC must stop pretending that the Chernobyl Forum represents a "scientific consensus". Hundreds of scientists have shown increases in a wide range of diseases after the disaster and they believe radioactive pollution is responsible.
The BBC must make a programme to redress the bias of "Nuclear Nightmares". Their own rules on balance demand this. It must be as prominent as "Nuclear Nightmares" and it must have the same amount of advance publicity. It must examine the evidence which the Chernobyl Forum left out and interview some of the scientists they ignored.
The BBC complaints process is clearly partisan and should be made independent.
What we want from you: ask the UK's Secretary of State for Health and your MP to support revision of Agreement WHA 12.40 so that WHO research is free of IAEA influence.
Please write to Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust, supporting our demands. His address is Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street, London W1 U4A.
Please write to your MP, MSP, and Welsh AM pointing out that the BBC must be impartial, especially on controversial subjects; that they admit radiation and health is controversial, and that licence-payers bear the cost of their pro-nuclear propaganda. The Low-level Radiation Campaign would like copies of any replies you receive - send them to GOS and we'll forward them.
Letters to national and local papers will also add to the pressure for change.
The GOS says: I suppose we'd better admit to a bit of bias ourselves here. We don't in general agree with much of what the LLRC says, and are strongly in favour of nuclear power.
But that's just our personal opinion. When it comes to biased reporting by the BBC, we all know full well how they support the government's agenda on all sorts of issues - look at their reportage on Global Warming, for a start. When was the last time you heard a BBC programme say that the sweet ickle polar bears are doing very nicely, thank you, or that the polar ice last year extended a full 100 miles further south than it did in the 1890s?
You didn't, that's when. Only last week we heard that arse Marcus Brigstocke bragging that he'd been to Greenland with a team of scientists so he was speaking with authority. Pretty funny team of scientists, if you ask us - a bunch of artists, writers and musicians on an old sailing ship?
Mind you, it was buried among the patronising jibes about fat people on "The Now Show", which is supposed to be comedy. Perhaps he thought it was funny.
Bastard.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2008 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite