We welcome audience feedback on the IF series.
If you would like to contact the programme team with general comments, queries or ideas, please use the e-mail form below.
If you have a complaint about IF, or about any other BBC programme or service, please visit the
You can read below a selection of comments received following the previous series of IF, broadcast from March to April 2004:
Please, please, please will you repeat this series! We get so much of the rubbish on TV repeated several times in the week, but the really good thought provoking stuff doesn't get repeated. Unfortunately I work on a Wednesday evening so I only got to see two episodes, but it's really got people talking.
The program on electricity pandered to the scare mongering rubbish that seems to be popular these days.
In the winter of 1990, major cities such as Nottingham were without power for several days following severe snow. After one day it lead to failure of the water supply. It was fairly unpleasant but there was no looting, no government crisis board, no ministers sacked and no people migrating to areas that still had power.
Why can't the BBC report serious issues like this using a balanced approach? It is this sort of reporting that leads to the panic buying we see in the US and increasingly in the UK.
Tom Booth, Reading
I would like to thank you for provoking thought with your 'IF' programme. I hope the rest of the series is as good as the first. However, I think it is worth noting my worry that provoking these discussions might result in the government taking knee-jerk reactions.
I think this programme proves the point "think global, act local". If everyone turned off appliances that were on standby and reduced the waste of resources, our reserves will last longer. This would allow us to build more wind farms and more power stations, enabling us to become more self-sufficient.
This, and the other "IF" programmes shows that British society needs to look at its impacts now and plan to reduce them, rather than accepting the annual increases in demand of finite resources.
Joanne Thomas, Swansea, Wales
I am shocked that people have taken this fictional programme as fact. As an employee in the energy industry it is very clear that this was a piece of sensationalist journalism.
Ronnie Smart, Bury St Edmunds
I find it difficult to believe that people are choosing to ignore what is clearly a significant risk to our day-to-day living. We must tackle this issue constructively by involving local communities, parliament and businesses that can help the situation. Nuclear power is a good option and more investment is needed. It is proven to be cheap reliable and safe.
Dale McAlpine, Workington, Cumbria
Anyone who says that programmes that explore issues like this are only scaremongering is simply burying their head in the sand. Ok - the scenarios are fiction, but are based on facts and current policies. Given the growing apathy towards politics, perhaps programmes like this are the ideal way to encourage people to participate more actively in political debate. How many people would have watched if it had been a straight documentary?
What we need is a far better informed debate on subjects such as this. The role of science and technology in society has been largely hijacked by those with political agendas and by the media - to the extent that we no longer trust in science. One of the consequences is a disjointed energy policy and a premature closure of nuclear capacity for the wrong reason - to allay the fears of the public.
It seems incredible to me that we have reached this situation and, make no mistake, the issues in the programmes are all too real. If we are to get out of this hole, we need to frame our debates with the right level of scientific input - not be influenced by the popular press.
Steven Wood, London, UK
Why are the media constantly trying to evoke fear in the public? Ok, so it sells but really aren't these people forgetting that we survived without any electricity once and people didn't stop functioning. Perhaps the media are more concerned that their money will dry up?
Katie, Telford, Shropshire
It's not scaremongering to point out the future dangers - however there is a danger of always looking to big technical solutions to the problems. So, power cuts mean we need more nuclear power. Water shortages mean we need more reservoirs, or we need to tow icebergs from the poles. It would be encouraging if for once we thought a bit more small scale.
Energy shortages mean we should use proven energy efficiency technologies and domestic scale renewables (solar panels, small wind turbines). Water shortages can be saved by low flush toilets. The problem is these solutions are not the great projects where politicians can cut ribbons and demonstrate they have saved the public form catastrophe, so they always come second to the obvious solution...
Are there not enough problems in the world without you imagining more? This is pure speculation on your part with only the barest of evidence to support it. You may well have a programme on "If... the BBC continues to broadcast this sort of drivel, will the license fee be discontinued?"
Tony Sudworth, Cardiff, Wales
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.