Posted by
timothy
on from the mmmm-lcds-are-great dept.
SunPin writes "Slashdotters are doomed. An article from Reuters describes serious health problems from using CRTs (they call them "VDT") for too long. Studies show that we need more studies." So go ahead and expense a three-head LCD setup for your desk.
VDT = Video Display Terminal CRT = Cathode Ray Tube LCD = Liquid Crystal Display
In the article summary where the slashdot link leads, they don't mention anything about LCDs being more healthy than CRTs. They refer to VDPs which I would guess is a superset containing both computer systems with CRTs and LCDs.
I would be happy however if health benefits are found from using LCDs since I've had trouble convincing my friends just with the cool factor.
Re:Study this!
by
e8johan
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Ok, they mainly complain about the screen, but the conclusions says that it is sitting in front of a computer that is the problem, not radiation from a CRT.
From this I draw two conclusions: 1) the original article is better than the rewritten summary and 2) LCDs is not the solution.
I have two tips myself to solve the problem: 1) get an adjustable dest that you can stand or sit at and 2) make sit-ups each morning and evening to avoid back pains. These two points helped me!
Not always the monitor
by
ibmhack
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm sure you could get some of the same symptoms from LCDs. Much of the physical problems are associated with the posture in front of the computer - people tend to hunch over when the monitor is placed wrong. Exersise helps, especially ab work to keep you sitting up straight like your momma told you too.
Re:Some truth
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
For years I have been unable to sleep properly. It's been at least 6 years, perhaps since I was 15, maybe younger. I wake up feeling energetic, sort of - able to leap over piles of junk in my room instantly. Yet for the whole day my eyes feel sleepy, like they want to sleep. And my body screams out that it's not ready for bed.
Did you ever try going to a doctor for that? If you don't want to take medication for it I'm sure there are some things they could suggest that would help getting a sound sleep at night. Also, have you tried getting laid recently? Nothing makes me sleep better than a good 2-3 minutes of sex with my wife.:-)
Re:Study this!
by
IIRCAFAIKIANAL
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Interesting points. Could be junk science. Personally, I never believe headlines and I won't even pay attention until there have been several studies from independant sources.
The problem is we see this stuff published every day - it often gets retracted, but that rarely makes the news.
-- Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Being currently embroiled in a statistics course at university, one of the things that has been recently drilled into my head is that a correlation of factors does not mean at all that the one factor causes the other.
Firstly, the term "statistically significant" means that the relationship observed was unlikely to occur by chance. This does not mean that there is definitely a correlation, but that there is a probability of finding a correlation.
Secondly even a very strong correlation when found, does not meant that there is causation, just that there is something interrelating those factors. For example there could be a strong correlation between a person's age and their owning a car. This does not mean that your growing up will cause you to own a car, or that owning a car makes you older. The two variables are interrelated in a system that involves many more complexe factors, but which yields results that keep certain observed factors grouped together. Finding actual causation is much more difficult.
Thirdly, this type of study is called an observational study, where you send out questionaires and look for correlations. These types of studies have very unclear results generally, and really cannot show causation. There is no talk in the article, for example, of what types of people were responding to the study. Often in voluntary response studies you find that there is an unusually high number of people of one particular tendency who respond more readily than another, so that will skew the results. What you would need to do in order to find actual causation is a set of experiments, with control groups, to show an actual causal relationship between VDT use and health. What observational studies are useful for is drawing attention to a subject and saying we need more attention to this issue.
Anyway, here I am rambling on to little point. They say in the article that they need to do more work, and that is my whole point. Its just that often people read articles like this and jump to conclusions like "my computer is going to make me crazy and depressive". So just relax and don't worry... yet!
--
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
I'm sure another study would easily find that people who are generally dissatisfied with their jobs feel exactly the same way regardless of what they actually do.
You said it, man. I install telecom/data wiring and equipment (no desk, no chair, no CRT) and I have all those symptoms.
-- If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG. 20 replies so far and pretty much every one of them mentions either CRTs or LCDs.
The article mentions displays NOT ONCE.
The closest it comes is "eyestrain," which is one of several symptoms they examined.
This article is not about displays, it is about sitting in front of the computer.
The idea is so cool; many of us have considered this before. We're all afraid of one thing, though- isn't the bulb replacement a killer on the wallet?
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
VDT = Video Display Terminal
CRT = Cathode Ray Tube
LCD = Liquid Crystal Display
In the article summary where the slashdot link leads, they don't mention anything about LCDs being more healthy than CRTs. They refer to VDPs which I would guess is a superset containing both computer systems with CRTs and LCDs.
I would be happy however if health benefits are found from using LCDs since I've had trouble convincing my friends just with the cool factor.
Ok, they mainly complain about the screen, but the conclusions says that it is sitting in front of a computer that is the problem, not radiation from a CRT.
From this I draw two conclusions: 1) the original article is better than the rewritten summary and 2) LCDs is not the solution.
I have two tips myself to solve the problem: 1) get an adjustable dest that you can stand or sit at and 2) make sit-ups each morning and evening to avoid back pains. These two points helped me!
I'm sure you could get some of the same symptoms from LCDs. Much of the physical problems are associated with the posture in front of the computer - people tend to hunch over when the monitor is placed wrong. Exersise helps, especially ab work to keep you sitting up straight like your momma told you too.
Did you ever try going to a doctor for that? If you don't want to take medication for it I'm sure there are some things they could suggest that would help getting a sound sleep at night. Also, have you tried getting laid recently? Nothing makes me sleep better than a good 2-3 minutes of sex with my wife.
- Al Bundy.
Being 100 pounds overweight has nothing to do with sitting down all day. It's more to do with being lazy. You can still exercise can't you?
My experience is similar to yours. I started having problems with both wrist strain and neck tension.
My solution has been to start going to the gym, where I make sure I train my neck, wrists and fingers.
In addition to that I've also learned to use my mouse with either hand. That way when my hand gets tired I just swap.
In general I feel working out is a great idea, sitting for 2 years doing nothing didn't do me any good, but nowadays I really feel a lot healthier.
.: Max Romantschuk
Interesting points. Could be junk science. Personally, I never believe headlines and I won't even pay attention until there have been several studies from independant sources.
The problem is we see this stuff published every day - it often gets retracted, but that rarely makes the news.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Being currently embroiled in a statistics course at university, one of the things that has been recently drilled into my head is that a correlation of factors does not mean at all that the one factor causes the other.
Firstly, the term "statistically significant" means that the relationship observed was unlikely to occur by chance. This does not mean that there is definitely a correlation, but that there is a probability of finding a correlation.
Secondly even a very strong correlation when found, does not meant that there is causation, just that there is something interrelating those factors. For example there could be a strong correlation between a person's age and their owning a car. This does not mean that your growing up will cause you to own a car, or that owning a car makes you older. The two variables are interrelated in a system that involves many more complexe factors, but which yields results that keep certain observed factors grouped together. Finding actual causation is much more difficult.
Thirdly, this type of study is called an observational study, where you send out questionaires and look for correlations. These types of studies have very unclear results generally, and really cannot show causation. There is no talk in the article, for example, of what types of people were responding to the study. Often in voluntary response studies you find that there is an unusually high number of people of one particular tendency who respond more readily than another, so that will skew the results. What you would need to do in order to find actual causation is a set of experiments, with control groups, to show an actual causal relationship between VDT use and health. What observational studies are useful for is drawing attention to a subject and saying we need more attention to this issue.
Anyway, here I am rambling on to little point. They say in the article that they need to do more work, and that is my whole point. Its just that often people read articles like this and jump to conclusions like "my computer is going to make me crazy and depressive". So just relax and don't worry... yet!
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
I'm sure another study would easily find that people who are generally dissatisfied with their jobs feel exactly the same way regardless of what they actually do.
You said it, man. I install telecom/data wiring and equipment (no desk, no chair, no CRT) and I have all those symptoms.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.