espen@math.uio.no (Espen J. Vestre) (01/15/91)
The 13 inch AppleColor monitor is supposed to have a relatively high electromagnetic radiation level. Does it represent a _real_ health hazard (e.g. when used at very short distance or by a pregnant woman)? Is the new 12 inch screen any better? Or the SE/Plus/Classic screen? ----------------------------------------- Espen J. Vestre Department of Mathematics University of Oslo P.o. Box 1053 Blindern N-0316 OSLO 3 NORWAY espen@math.uio.no -----------------------------------------
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.134505.27763@ulrik.uio.no>, espen@math.uio.no (Espen J. Vestre) writes: > > The 13 inch AppleColor monitor is supposed to have a relatively high > electromagnetic radiation level. Does it represent a _real_ health hazard > (e.g. when used at very short distance or by a pregnant woman)? > Is the new 12 inch screen any better? > Or the SE/Plus/Classic screen? Get real. Turning down the brightness will reduce you electromagnetic radiation exposure (you see light is EMR too!). If you really want to avoid EMR don't walk by electric motors (better not run that vaccuum cleaner), watch TV or driver near a radio tower. Those electric blankets zap you too! Better to worry about smoke in the air, fats in your foods, and proper exercise if you want to take care of yourself! -- michael -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
espen@math.uio.no (Espen J. Vestre) (01/17/91)
In article <0B010004.ioq9pw@outpost.UUCP> peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes: > Turning down the brightness will reduce you electromagnetic radiation > exposure (you see light is EMR too!). If you really want to avoid > EMR don't walk by electric motors (better not run that vaccuum cleaner), > watch TV or driver near a radio tower. Those electric blankets zap > you too! > > Better to worry about smoke in the air, fats in your foods, and proper > exercise if you want to take care of yourself! > > -- michael Gammar rays and microwave radiation is EMR, too, so that is not a very convincing argument, Michael. Besides, the strongest radiation (according to a MacWorld test some issues ago) from the 13 inch screen comes from the _sides_ , not from the front. Swedish medical researchers are supposed to have found correlation between exposure to monitors and defects of babys. However, this may be a spurious correlation, it has been suggested that _sitting to much still_ may be the cause, not EMR. ----------------------------------------- Espen J. Vestre Department of Mathematics University of Oslo P.o. Box 1053 Blindern N-0316 OSLO 3 NORWAY espen@math.uio.no -----------------------------------------
yoshio@makaha.cs.ucla.edu (Yoshio Turner) (01/22/91)
In article <91016.100008JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) writes: >The question of health hazards arising from VLF and ELF emissions >from color monitors is not trivial; epidemiological evidence gives >strong support to the contention that there is a relationship between >such emissions and, for example, elevated rates of miscarriage. And cancer. See the recent EPA draft report, "Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields" (EPA/600/6-90-005B), available from ORD Publications Office, CERI-FRN, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; 513-569-7562. Also see the recent book "Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields: the question of cancer" edited by Bary W. Wilson, Richard G. Stevens, and Larry E. Anderson, published by Battelle Press (Columbus) 1990. According to the February 1991 issue of the IEEE newsletter "The Institute", the EPA draft report concludes that "60-hertz magnetic fields are a possible, though not proven, cause of cancer in humans and that more research is necessary". >For the original poster: there was an entire issue of MacWorld >devoted to this very issue (which, unfortunately, I have loaned >out to my secretary, who is pregnant and sits in front of a color >monitor on a IIcx all day; so I can't get the month and such). >I am sure there are some contacts listed in there that can provide >the information you seek, or tell you that that information simply >does not exist. This rather alarmist issue of Macworld is dated July, 1990. Unfortunately, the references therein are quite vague, making it difficult to find the original scientific conference/journal papers. Yoshio
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan21.185952.22248@cs.ucla.edu> yoshio@makaha.cs.ucla.edu (Yoshio Turner) writes: >In article <91016.100008JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) writes: >>The question of health hazards arising from VLF and ELF emissions >>from color monitors is not trivial; epidemiological evidence gives >>strong support to the contention that there is a relationship between >>such emissions and, for example, elevated rates of miscarriage. > >And cancer. See the recent EPA draft report, "Evaluation of the >Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields..." >the EPA draft report concludes that "60-hertz magnetic fields are a >possible, though not proven, cause of cancer in humans and that more >research is necessary". Excuse me, but saying that EM fields are a "possible, though not proved cause of cancer" and "more research is necessary" is not exactly the same as saying there is "strong support" for a relationship between EM and cancer.
yoshio@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Yoshio Turner) (01/23/91)
In article <1991Jan21.224758.28652@convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In article <1991Jan21.185952.22248@cs.ucla.edu> yoshio@makaha.cs.ucla.edu (Yoshio Turner) writes: >>In article <91016.100008JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) writes: >>>The question of health hazards arising from VLF and ELF emissions >>>from color monitors is not trivial; epidemiological evidence gives >>>strong support to the contention that there is a relationship between >>>such emissions and, for example, elevated rates of miscarriage. >> >>And cancer. See the recent EPA draft report, "Evaluation of the >>Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields..." >>the EPA draft report concludes that "60-hertz magnetic fields are a >>possible, though not proven, cause of cancer in humans and that more >>research is necessary". > >Excuse me, but saying that EM fields are a "possible, though not proved >cause of cancer" and "more research is necessary" is not exactly the same >as saying there is "strong support" for a relationship between EM and >cancer. Be careful. You are apparently trying to equate correlation with causation. The original poster is correct; there is strong support to the contention of a relationship between EM and various health problems (i.e. statistical *correlation* has been shown through epidemiological studies). Such a correlation, as noted by the EPA report, is sufficiently convincing to call for research that may (or may not, hopefully) establish a *causal* link. So is your Macintosh monitor killing you? The jury is still out. But there is some incomplete evidence that there are some adverse health effects. Personally, I try to avoid too much exposure, but that's mainly to protect my eyesight and reduce stress more than anything else. Yoshio