Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!amelia!sun418!truesdel
From: truesdel@sun418.nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: GAS PLASMA SCREENS!!
Message-ID: <5603@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 12 Apr 90 21:01:14 GMT
References: <1990Apr10.002440.9812@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <26226d66.1467@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> <3366@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Sender: news@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
Lines: 67

kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes:

>In article <26226d66.1467@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>,
>>jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes:

>>CRT's DO NOT emit any radiation other than visible light!

>Bzzzzzzt! Wrong!  If CRTs don't emit any radiation, then please explain:

>1.  Why pregnant women who work in front of CRTs have a statistically higher
>    chance of miscarriage than pregnant women who don't work in front of
>    CRTs.

From what I remember, the study you're referring to didn't take into account
the socio-economic status of the women.  A possible alternate explanation
could be that the women who use CRT's the most (Word-processing, data entry)
had lower incomes, and thus could not afford the same level of prenatal care,
then the women who would use CRT's the least (managers).  Note that I'm not
saying that the effect isn't real, just that it hasn't been proven to be linked
to CRT's.

>2.  Why the Scandinavian countries *require* CRTs with additional shielding
>    to reduce the emission of electro-magnetic radiation.

It would be interesting to know what study's prompted this.

>3.  Not really germain to the subject, but why do families who live near
>    high tension (voltage) power lines have a statistically higher rate of
>    cancer, miscarriage, learning disabilities, and other maladies.  In fact
>    so much higher, that in many countries, housing may not be built anywhere
>    near such power lines.

Really?   What countrys have such restrictions.  From what I've read on the
subject the difference in the disease rates hasn't been shown to be very large
at all.

>This sounds like the age old dillusion; If you can't see it, it must not exist.
>Probably tens of thousands of people in the not too distant past suffered from
>horrible maladies, because they could not see things like X-rays or gamma rays.
>X-rays were used as party gimmicks around the turn of the century, everyone
>at a party would stand for an X-ray picture, during which the room would be
>flooded with high energy X-rays.  Factory workers at Curie's factory outside
>of Pittsburgh, PA.  routinely took home used bricks and other building
>materials which had been exposed to radioactivity; to use in their own homes,
>exposing themselves and their families to long term, low level, radiation
>doses.

Be careful, as it sounds like you might be suffering from one of those
delusions yourself.
First, a large number of those people died, not because the radiation was
invisible, but because many quacks were selling Xray treatments as magic cures
for any ailment.  Others sold "radium water" as medicine.  People today still
visit an old uranium mine, because they believe that breathing radon gas will
help treat arthritis.  The problem with Curie and the workers was that they
didn't know the dangers of excessive exposure, and that they took no
precautions against inhaling the radioactive dust, or against carrying it home
on their clothing.

Second, "long term, low level" radiation probably isn't as harmful as many
technophobe activists make it out to be.  If it were, you would expect that
those who live in areas with higher levels of backgound radiation to have a
higher incidence of cancer and related diseases, and this turns out not to be
the case.
--

T.T.F.N.,
dave truesdell (truesdel@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov)