jim@uw-beaver.UUCP (07/18/83)
By WARREN E. LEARY, AP Science Writer WASHINGTON (AP) There is no scientific evidence that the video display terminals used by millions of workers damage vision, but poor quality equipment and bad workplace design can contribute to eye discomfort, says a National Academy of Sciences study released today. The two-year study by the academy's National Research Council concluded that it is ``highly improbable'' that radiation from the television-like VDTs contribute to the development of blinding cataracts. Labor organizations and others have expressed concern that continued exposure to radiation from the terminals eventually could lead to cataracts -- the clouding of the transparent lens of the eye. The panel cited studies of animals and humans indicating that ``the levels of radiation required to produce cataracts are thousands to millions of times higher than the levels emitted by VDTs.'' ``We find no scientifically valid evidence that occupational use of VDTs is associated with increased risk of ocular diseases or abnormalities, including cataracts,'' the report said. The experts said radiation emission tests on new VDT equipment should be continued to assure compliance with product safety standards. However, it said, routine radiation surveys of equipment already in the workplace do not appear warranted. The study, commissioned by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, primarily addressed visual problems and did not investigate other areas of concern with VDT use, including potential effects on reproductive organs or the fetuses of pregnant workers. The report noted that more than seven million Americans used VDTs in their work in 1980, and the number is going up rapidly. As VDTs increase in use, so do worker complaints of blurred vision, tired eyes, headaches, muscular aches and stress, it said. The panel said it would be ``premature'' to impose mandatory standards for equipment design or for limiting workers' time at the machines. Because the technology is changing so rapidly, putting rigid standards in place too soon might stifle improvements, it said. The study group, which included experts in eye care, psychology, video technology and occupational health, said present information indicates large-scale studies of cataracts among VDT workers ``are not now justified.'' But the group said many of the problems of visual discomfort reported by workers could be overcome immediately if current knowledge about VDT technology, workplace arrangement and how to design jobs with workers in mind is put into practice. ``It is not necessary to wait for further research'' to implement these improvements, the panel said. Poor lighting conditions in offices, excessive glare on VDT screens, and rigidly placed desks, chairs, screens and keyboards that cannot be adjusted to suit each worker appear to be factors in the discomfort reported by employees, the panel said. The report said many problems associated with introducing VDTs into a workplace stem from putting them in places designed for traditional desk-top work. ``Operators are often required to work in cramped spaces that leave them little room to place document holders or manuscripts in positions that allow comfortable working postures,'' said the report. ``Operators in such situations are likely to experience visual discomfort, muscular discomfort and fatigue.'' ``VDTs that have detachable keyboards, screens that can be tilted to a comfortable viewing angle, and movable document holders allow operators to change postures and aid in preventing postural stress and discomfort,'' said the report. ``Although there has been little research on the effects of using adjustable chairs and work tables, their use seems desirable,'' it continued.