Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:34686 comp.sys.mac.programmer:7536
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!intercon!amanda@intercon.uu.net
From: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Radiation and the VDT News: all the news not fit to
Message-ID: <1266@intercon.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jul 89 15:47:47 GMT
References: <203@sierra.stanford.edu>
Sender: news@intercon.UUCP
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Lines: 26

In article <203@sierra.stanford.edu>, siegman@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E.
Siegman) writes:
> Are there any really major technical
> differences (accelerating voltage, etc.) between the
> radiation-producing capabilities of VDTs and TVs.

I can think of a couple things, but I have no idea whether or not they are
significant.  TVs are probably more likely to have color CRTs than VDTs (at
least until recently).  Modern VDTs use higher horizontal scan rates than
TVs, which might require higher electron beam energies, although the phospors
used might make a difference in how much energy is needed.  Based on vague
memories of high school physics :-), I'd think that color CRTs would be much
more likely to emit dangerous radiation, since the electronic beams are (a)
higher power, and (b) hitting a metal shadow mask.  What do you get when
you shoot electrons at a metal target?  X-radiation...

What I'd like to see is CRTs that are better shielded against *external*
interference.  I have a little fan on my desk to augment the A/C in our
office, and I have to tilt it at just the right angle or my screen wobbles
in synchrony :-).

--
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
--
amanda@intercon.uu.net  | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda