|
|
|
The issue of potential health hazards from
Electromagnetic radiation is a controversial one. The scientific and medical communities
are divided on everything but the fact that health concerns with regard to electromagnetic
radiation is controversial. There is also agreement that studies are inconclusive.
However, the inconclusiveness of the studies does not prove, as some would have us
believe, that no potential health hazards from CRTs (Cathode Ray Tubes) or
CDTs (Computer
Display Terminals) exist. It could just as easily be argued that inconclusive studies are
an indicator that the “non-risk” argument is not without loop-holes. In the United States, unlike Sweden, few if any independent
studies on human populations and CRT/CDT emissions have been undertaken. Not surprisingly,
studies in the United States, commissioned or indirectly paid for by manufactures of
computer displays, seem to attest that computer monitor exposure levels found in today's
computer monitors are safe. Therefore, there has been no regulation in the United States,
nor does it seem like any regulation pushing for lower levels of exposure will be
forthcoming. If anything, newer technologies, such as LCDs, that will eventually replace
Cathode Ray Tubes, will be the driving force behind a safer, less hazardous environment.
We would argue that it would best to err on the side of caution, and
give some thought to the studies in Sweden that have found some correlation between CRTs
and health problems of those using them.
In Sweden, where a push for lower emissions
was made after some independent studies
(studies not funded by manufacturers) did show a (statistically
significant number - twenty per cent) correlation between CRTs and
miscarriages and birth defects, the manufacturers agreed upon a compromise emission level,
which became a safety standard known as MPR-II. At first, this standard was accepted
by the Swedish Union of
Professionals (the lower exposure was thought to be better than
nothing). However, after about one year, MPR-II was opposed (thought
to be an unacceptable compromise). In fact,
only a year later, the Swedish Union of Professionals pushed for a stricter standard, which
eventually came about when Sweden
implemented TCO 92 (appearing in 1993).
In Sweden, where low emission monitors became
the rule, all monitors sold had to meet the tougher TCO 92 standard. In the United States,
where regulation of ELF and VLF is but a dream, less than fifty per cent of the monitors
sold even meet the MPR-II standard, and probably less than ten per cent met TCO 92
standards, not only during 1993, but years later. In fact, the majority of monitors found
in today's schools (where a lot of the equipment has been donated, or was purchased some
years ago, and many of the computer display terminals do not even meet MPR-II standards.
Ask most teachers designated as the the in-house
“computer science teacher” in today's high schools and elementary schools what
standard monitors in their lab meets, and you will probably be greeted with a blank stare.
Most will simply not know. Of course, they may be quick to point out that any new monitors
purchased recently are “low radiation” brand. However, it is simply untrue that
the majority of the computer monitors sold recently in the U.S. market meet TCO 92 or TC0 95 standards. Most only meet
MPR-II. And while, the U.S. computer industry like to refer to MPR-II
as "low radiation," even though the standard was replaced
with the TCO standard years ago.
Back in 1990, when the manufacturers had won the
MPR-II emissions compromise, little was made of how the emissions of an MPR-II rated
monitor were measured. Eventually, InfoWorld Magazine ran an article comparing various
MPR-II monitors. The article demonstrated that there was a great deal of variance in the
amount of radiation emanating from MPR-II monitors. It also made it painfully obvious that
MPR-II specifications only measured radiation emanating directly out the front of the
monitor. A computer display terminal (monitor) could qualify as MPR-II worthy as long as
it didn't exceed a specified amount of radiation from a specified distance directly IN
FRONT of the monitor. InfoWorld magazine, dramatic findings of EMF/ELF and VLF radiation
from the backs, bottom and sides of f these MPR-II monitors was startling as it was
terrifying. As much as ten to thirty times more radiation emanated out the backs, bottom
and sides of these supposedly safe monitors than radiated out the front. Whereas, in
Sweden, changes were being demanded for a magnitude of perhaps three times less radiation
out the front of MPR-II monitors, in America, InfoWorld Magazine was demonstrating that
people sitting either behind or to one side of these low radiation monitors were virtually
getting clobbered with ELF and VLF.
Most of the monitors in use
today, do not even meet MPR-II safety standard. It is still possible
to buy monitors that meet no standard whatsoever. It is likely
that the levels of radiation from these monitors can differ by as
much as 500 per cent, since Infoworld Magazine found that even MPR-II
monitors varied dramatically.
Many of
the computer labs in our schools are arranged in such a manner as to position students in
multiple rows so that they have computer display terminals, not only on either side, but
also directly face the back of a computer display terminal in the row in front or behind
them (or both).
Americans may argue that they have the
right to kill themselves anyway they choose. However, few American's even realize there
are potential risks associated with computer monitors. Sadly, the population
most at risk, our nation's youth, not only those who have recently entered the VDT
workforce, but our young school children who spend an ever increasing amount of
time, both at school and at home, both for study and at gaming, in front of computer
monitors that do not meet the older MPR-II monitor safety standards.
Manufacturers have been importing
computer monitors that better the MPR-II compromise, but in very small numbers.
Sales reps that work for computer wholesalers don't usually know what MPR-II or TCO means,
and seldom if ever ask if the purchaser would like to purchase a TCO rated model, even if
that model only costs $40 more. It's also worth noting that one doesn't have to spend
$1600 or more to purchase a monitor that meets the TCO standard. There are number of
15-inch TCO 92 and TCO 95 monitors now on the market that can purchased for under $200.
There is even a large list of TCO 92 and TCO 95 17-inch monitors on the market. In
most cases, the difference in cost between MPR-II and TCO 95 certified monitors is less
than $50.
Not all manufacturers offer TCO certified monitors.
However, many do!
Here are some of the manufacturers that offer TCO certified monitors: Acer, Apple, Compaq,
EIZO, Hewlett Packard, Hitachi, IBM, Iiyama, KDS, LaCie,
MAG, Mitsubishi, NEC,
Nokia, Optiquest, Philips, Princeton Graphics, Samsung, Sony, Viewsonic. Many of these manufacturers still sell many models with the older
MPR-II certification. In fact, some of these companies offer the same model in both
MPR-II and TCO versions. So make certain, if you decide to buy a new monitor that you are
getting a model with TCO 92 or TCO 95. Usually, if a monitor is TCO certified,
it will say so on the outside of the box it which it is packaged. It must also mention TCO
on the monitor itself. If the monitor unit itself does not have a TCO sticker on the
front or back, It's likely the monitor is not TCO certified monitor. Check with the manufacturer to be
certain.
Why don't journalists in the popular magazines discuss the issue? Well, to be fair, some
have. However, journalists, by and large, have either been handcuffed by their
editors or are themselves undereducated (no excuse) about the safety standards. Many
magazines and web sites still talk about the rejected MPR-II standard as if it were the
Holy Grail. And, worse still, most people using MPR-II monitors believe their children are
safe in front of them, and use computer furniture that places keyboards just in front of
their monitors. This places the user well in front of the 19.5 -inch distance that MPR-II
requires to meet the safety standard. No one seems concerned. Certainly not the computer
press.
Have you ever watched a child play computer games
at home? Have you happened to notice how close they sit to the monitors when they
play games? The answer is VERY CLOSE. Have you ever noticed for how long they
sit and play games? The answer is a VERY (VERY) long time, sometimes for hours at a
time.
What can you do about it? Well, we suggest that
parents begin in the home by attempting to ascertain if their home computer uses a monitor
that meets MPR-II standards. (We do not mean to imply that MPR-II is a safe standard. We
suggest TCO 92 or 95. ) If it does meet MPR-II standards , we suggest that you make
certain that your children sit no closer than an adult's arm's length (your arm, not your
child's arm) from the monitor. Radiation comes out the back and sides of the monitor, so
make certain that the rule of thumb is that no-one stays within a 30-inch circumference of
the monitor for any protracted period of time. Minimize the time of user sessions to
twenty to thirty minutes. If your children have to work at the computer for an hour or
more, insist they take a twenty minute break after thirty minutes. The body, it seems, has
the ability to return to its normal vibratory rate, once outside the strength of the
magnetic energy fields. This "recovery time" is slowly being recognized as a
“preventative measure” with regard to electromagnetic radiation.
Of course, we suggest using a monitor that betters
MPR-II safety standards, especially for children and young adults. In fact, we strongly
suggest that if you child is using a monitor for more than a half and hour per day, that
you consider purchasing a monitor that meets TCO 92/95 standards. Even in the case of TCO,
we suggest that your children sit no closer than 12 inches. In fact, it would still be
best to follow the "arm's length" rule, even with TCO
monitors: sit at least an arm's length away from your computer
monitor. And
finally, the price of flat-panel LCD monitors have dropped to below
$500 (Samsung and other brands now sell high quality 15-inch
displays for $450 or less). These monitors emit no measurable
radiation. We suggest that any school use an LCD monitor for
classroom use. Teachers that run computer labs, and who sit in
front of a monitor all day, would be well advised to replace their
own CRTs with an LCD as well as those CRTs in the computer lab.
Older Macs and IMacs should be replaced as well. |
