[access-uk] Re: Monitors and Radiation
- From: "Colin @ New Vision" <cph.newvision@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:15:49 +0100
Hi Robert
I would guess that the monitor would tend to cause more problems with
radiation than the scanner due to the higher voltages required within the
monitor to burn the image into the phosphor coating of the monitor. This
emits X-rays when the electrons impinge on the fluorescent coating. Possible
affects on health due to electrical or magnetic fields such as headaches,
dizziness, insomnia, sore eyes, stress, breathing problems, heart problems
and lapses of concentration have only been proved at CRT workstations but
not at LCD workstations.
Even though all electrical / electronic equipment emit electrical and
magnetic fields. The MPR11 standard for CRT monitors was introduced so the
manufacturers could minimise the risk of exposure.
Below is part of an article on computer workstations and ergonomics with
reference to the monitor.
Eye to eye: The picture quality is the most important ergonomic aspect
The results of numerous studies of the consequences of unergonomic
workplaces include carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis and tenosynovitis,
aching of the muscles in the hand, wrist, arm or neck, headaches, nausea and
severe sight disorders. Many German ophthalmologists continue to deny that
there is any impairment of vision but the results of research by the
institutes and universities show that damage occurs just through the eyes
being fixed rigidly on the monitor.
The subject of freedom from radiation for monitors was the starting point
for all other endeavours to improve the ergonomics of computer workstations.
No wonder, as from the very beginning the VDU has always concealed a great
risk to health due to its high radiation. The subject of radiation has
become less acute since virtually all new CRT monitors now fulfil the MPR2
and the latest TCO standards and since the completely radiation-free
TFT-LCDs have come onto the market. Even those that are reluctant to scrap
their old monitors, which only conform to superseded radiation protection
regulations, are offered special radiation protection filters for the front
screen from manufacturers such as Mas Plast, BASF or Profiline. These are
stuck onto the monitor frame and provide additional protection from static
or electrical fields and also, as a spin-off, from disturbing reflections.
However, none of the filters that can be retrospectively fitted offers
protection against the particularly damaging effects of electromagnetic
radiation, which are also specially taken into account by the current TCO
recommendations.
Of course, the size and picture quality of the monitor used are decisive
factors in caring for the eyes while working. The EC even lays down special
protective objectives in a dedicated section of the EC Directives. For
example, it must not be possible to detect any disturbing flicker on the
screen or prove that there is any present. Furthermore, adequate contrast
and good definition are also specified. Dynamic focussing and an adjustable
convergence control can be a great help in this regard and also ensure that
the picture is sufficiently sharp even at the edges. The size of characters
must also be sufficiently large to avoid excessive eyestrain when working at
the screen for extended periods. Incidentally, this is also a particularly
important part of the new EC Directives. Large-format screens enable a
relatively large part of the picture to be displayed while at the same time
displaying a good character size. For this reason, 17-inch units are also
being recommended more frequently for text-orientated work while 14 and
15-inch units are rapidly becoming less important and are already considered
to be out-of-date and unergonomic. Incidentally, if larger monitors are used
in conjunction with graphics cards, which provide only an inadequate
resolution (e.g. 640 x 480 pixels), the picture resolution per square
centimetre is too low. In spite of the monitor having good picture quality
and the character size being sufficiently large, the characters then appear
too coarsely "rastered" and cause the eyes to tire prematurely.
After a lot of consideration the EC has finally taken serious steps. Since
then stringent ergonomic guidelines have had to be observed in the
workplace, especially where electronic data processing is concerned. The
legislation is intended to provide more safety in the workplace and less
casualties amongst the personnel.
The EC allowed the member countries four years to implement its "Minimum
Regulations Directive (90/270/EEC)" into their national legislation. These
minimum regulations have been applicable in Germany since 31.12.96 in the
form of the legislation for "Safety and Protection of Health when working on
Visual Display Units". Even the frequently overlooked Civil Service comes
under this act. Since then, all employers, even small businesses and the
public authorities, are obliged to keep themselves informed about the latest
state of the art and the scientific knowledge in the field of ergonomic
arrangement of workplaces and to set up their workplaces accordingly.
There is no fear of damage to health due to radiation or to the eyesight due
to lack of display quality when using LCD monitors. In contrast to CRT
devices, which emit X-rays when the electrons impinge on the fluorescent
coating, LCD monitors only emit the harmless visible portion of the
electromagnetic spectrum that is required to display the image. Possible
affects on health due to electrical or magnetic fields such as headaches,
dizziness, insomnia, sore eyes, stress, breathing problems, heart problems
and lapses of concentration have only been proved at CRT workstations but
not at LCD workstations. The decision-maker in the office will therefore not
not need to expect any problems with the legislator or with the EC
Directives for ergonomic workstations.
However, the formulation of the wording of the act is quite general in
places (e.g. "Screens must be sharp, clear and of sufficient size") and
allows much room for interpretation. Nevertheless, in case of doubt, the
legislator will abide by the exact demands of the TÜV or the TCO commission
in Sweden.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Stokes" <restokes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:24 PM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Monitors and Radiation
> Hi Yvonne and Colin,
>
> A couple of years ago I started experiencing a prickly feeling in my
> forehead and scalp. I was scanning a lot of books and wondered if the
> scanner might be emitting some sort of radiation that might be causing the
> problem. I mentioned it to my doctor but she didn't know, so I contacted
my
> local Environmental Health Department. One of the officers was interested
> and said he would do some research. He rang me a few days later and began
by
> asking me if I had much hair. When I told him I had become very thin on
top
> of my head, he went on to explain that scanner did emit low levels of
> radiation and my lack of hair might be making me susceptible. He said his
> terms of reference would not permit him to contact the scanner's
> representatives directly but he would direct more enquiries through their
> local Environmental Health Department. A few weeks later he came back to
me
> with the news that there was no way the scanner could be causing the scalp
> irritation. He suggested wearing a hat when scanning might help. I took
his
> advice and it certainly did seem to help a little. A couple of months
later,
> our microwave cooker broke down and we arranged for a local engineer to
come
> to the house to repair it. I mentioned my problem to him and asked if he
had
> a tool for measuring microwave radiation. He produced one and checked both
> my scanner and computer monitor but could find no evidence of harmful
> radiation. However, he stressed that the instrument he was using was
> designed specifically for use with microwave cookers. Well, the prickly
> sensation is still with me when I've been sitting at my computer for a
long
> time but it hasn't got any worse. I'm using a standard monitor and now
> wondering if the problem would go away if I switched to one of the more
> recent flat screen monitors.
>
> Best.
>
> Robert.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yvonne Stewart" <yvonne.stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:33 PM
> Subject: [access-uk] Re: Monitors and Radiation
>
>
> Hi Colin
> how about trying your Health and Safety Section of the Council's Public
> Protection Department, or the Health Unit. Even if they can't help,
> maybe they could point you in the appropriate direction of someone who
> can.
>
> Good luck, hope you get some co-operation and advice.
>
> Regards
> Yvonne and Libby.
>
> >>> cph.newvision@xxxxxxxxxx 25/05/04 11:31:56 >>>
> Hi to the list
> I hope you don't mind but I have cross posted this message from the
> magnifiers group. Maybe someone would like to make a comment.
> >I've been listening to this monitor emissions thread, and started
> worrying a bit.
> >My nose is also 10cm or less from the screen 8 hours a day, for the
> last 6 years!!!
> >How can I find out if my monitor is safe, or safer?
>
> Regards
> Colin
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
