Xref: utzoo sci.physics:13348 sci.electronics:12604 sci.med:18112 comp.sys.apple2:3201
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bpa!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics,sci.med,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: EMF Radiation Kills !!!
Message-ID: <12967@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 27 Jun 90 03:41:45 GMT
References: <31104@cup.portal.com> <85@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> <3710@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 55

In article <3710@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
> In article <85@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) write
> >Please, would sometime tell me why, in all the discussion over
> >Brodeur's claims of damage caused by ELF radiation from VDTs, there

>   Except for;

> 1. Most tv's have a shield (especially older ones) across the face that helps
> to block stray & non desired electrons.  Monitors, generally don't have any
> screen or pixel shield.

Most color displays have some attempt at shielding, most monochrome don't, be
they TV's or VDT's.  Older televisions used a separate piece of glass for
"implosion protection", newer televisions and VDT's typically have a heavy
duty or laminated faceplate.  It is also possible to use leaded glass to
minimize X-ray emission, but this form of protection isn't visible.

> 2. Tv's use a much lower scan rate & generate lower energy in that range.

TV scan rates aren't much different from VDT's and since they typically have
larger screens, probably generate more energy.  High resolution graphics
displays may be a different matter.
   
> 3. It is very rare that users sit in front the tv screen 18 to 30 inches away.

Got one right at least...

>4. Tv's in this country are tested, rated, and done my major mfg with liability
>     insurance.  Many/most computer monitors are not tested or rated, if done,
>     a lower class rating is o.k., as long as the mfg classifies it as a not
>     a consumer item. Further, they are fly by nighters, how can anyone sue a
>    fly by night or samnung without offices in the us, etc...

Nonsense.  Most "commercial" grade equipment is made to better standards than
consumer equipment.  Most of the VDT's in commercial use aren't fly by night,
those are the ones bought for use with cheap clones for home use.  Most of these
require UL or similar testing to allow unrestricted retail sale.

> 5. It might be better to believe that the emissions cause long term quality of
>    life problems. And/or possibly MAY cause genetic damages that may not be
>    observable for several generations.  By then, who knows what may be blamed
>    wrongly.

If the belief was based something more than factoids and scare stories, then
I'd almost agree, but most of the anti-VDT noise is coming from labor groups
who have realized that doing drudge work in front of a CRT in a high pressure/
productivity oriented situation is a miserable way to make a living.  It's
probably not healthy either, but it's well to keep an open mind whether the
VDT is the cause of the problem, or simply the tool that enables this particular
form of workplace.

-- 
George Robbins - now working for,     uucp:   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing:   domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com
Commodore, Engineering Department     phone:  215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)