Slashdot Mirror
Health Consequences of CRT Monitors?
DigiMan asks: "I was wondering, what are the effects of working on a CRT are on your health - long term. It has recently bothered me that EVERYONE seems to be switching to LCD's - I noticed that Bill Gates was one of the 1st people to do this, even when the cost was super high, and many, many government offices switched to the much more expensive LCD's - despite budget cuts and having to go with the lowest bidder strategy they operate under. Was this ONLY for style and space savings? Is there some health consequence that no one talks about publically. I know that they do emit very low amounts of X-Rays and have a 60Hz magnetic field as well as a 12.5 kHz electro magnetic field (for the raster scan). I work in front of typically 3, 19" CRT's for 12 - 16 hours per day at an average distance of 18". Can these magnetic fields cause Leukemia, or anything else? Is being behind the a cathode ray tube that bad for you?"
I'm sure that CRTs affect your eyes. A local eye doctor told me once that this is because your eyes actually tend to focus about an inch behind the glass on your CRT because of the way the image is projected. Eventually this probably causes problems. Almost everyone that I knew before and after they started using computers (back in the 80s and 90s) had to get glasses within 6 months of using a computer with a CRT. Some of those people that I've talked to about this say that they most likely bought glasses because they were reading more or for longer periods of time. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard evidence to back up this claim (and many slashdotters will slam me for it) but its kinda obvious and I have a good gut feeling about it. Probably many other people feel the same way.
There is also a book by an eye doctor named William Bates (kinda a punny name for April Fools) where he talks about how to restore your normal eyesight through training. He mentions in his book that reading at close distances strains your eyes enough to distort the lens or something like that.
For reference, the rate of change of my eyesight (nearsidedness) has slowed down since I started using flat panels, but that could just be because I'm getting older. I would recommend taking breaks once or twice a day, going outside and looking out long distances.
(I hope this wasn't some kind of weird April Fools Ask Slashdot article)
Hairy palms and blindness.
Wait, that might be caused by something else...
Is this an actual real article?
they may cause you to loose a sense of humor and whine about stories posted on April 1st.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The 60Hz refresh is bad for your eyes, LCDs are nicer to your eyes in general. I've heard there's a bit of radiation, but I don't think anywhere near what a cell phone puts out
Well dang, if I can't get a tan from my monitor, where can I anymore?
"If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?" --Seymour Cray
Starring at a crt all day may induce light headedness, mild nausea, and cause your eyes to become so red that they will ignite into flames!!!! Or maybe if we're all lucky april fools day will be over soon
Heck ya - every time a pixel switches from a 1 to a 0, the resultant decrease in entropic state causes a photon of bit radiation to be launched right at you! Fortunately, as it slowly erodes your frontal lobes, you lose the ability to care about it happening.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
I, for one, welcome our new LCD overlords.
My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
"Was this ONLY for style and space savings?"
For me personally, Yes. It's all about the style and convenience. I can actually see my desk now.
For our SOC personnel that are in front of multiple large screens for an entire 8 hour shift, I think it is a nice side benefit that they are not being bathed in magnetic fields all day.
But they still look cool and take up less space. Not too mention, generate a lot less heat.
You do make an interesting point about being behind multiple tubes. I believe most measurements are made from some distance from the front of the tube.
Once again in a scenario like a call center or in our SOC this would tend to be the case when you have rows of monitors.
If all of us inside the conspiracy have been keeping the secret from you this long, why would we suddenly tell you the deep, dark truth now? Because you asked nicely?
I've had this sig for three days.
*Stares intently trying to find the April Fool's joke in this post*
Whaa? You mean you aren't wearing tinfoil eyeshades?
ha-HA!
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Like a poster said one time: google knows all who knows all; therfore, a quick google search for Radiation King reveals
In episode 2F07, Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy. In it, Homer finds himself in his childhood home, and the living room wall has a shadow of Homer as a child burned into it by the Radiation King TV set. The scene then shifts to his memory of watching it in the refulgent radiation of TV the set in the process of creating that distinctive shadow on the wall.
Thus, we have answered your questions: USE LCD until such time it is determined to produces some other kind of Sexual Inadequacy Radiation.
I noticed that Bill Gates was one of the 1st people to do this, even when the cost was super high ..yeah, cause I'm sure the cost is a big concern for him huh?
air and light and time and space
any scientific tests to show CRT cause eyesight problems?
doctors say to take breaks, when doing lots of reading, be it lcd/crt/book/newspaper anyways...
Or is this just more wasting my time Slashdot April Fools shit.
LCD monitors are indeed better for your health, they don't produce any radiation.
Last time I went to the eye doctor (a month or two ago) he told me basically, that staring at monitors should have NO ill effects, as long as you take a break evrey once in a while. He phrased it as the 20-20-20 rule. Basically evrey 20 minutes, look at somthign 20 feet away for 20 seconds to prevent your eyes from getting strained.
Dunno, dude, I'm blind as a bat and have to get awfully close to my monitors. I've DEFINITELY noticed an increase in heat on my face since switching to the LCD.
Go ahead, try it... put your nose up to your LCD. Feel the heat? That's your face cooking right there. Never had that problem with a CRT before. Brain cancer, sure, but no cooked face. I'd rather be pretty than smart.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
dunno about you, but, every time i brush my hair, i lose GOBS of hair...
Long sessions in front of CRTs produce eyestrain, apparently even at high refresh rates like 85Hz from what I read. No study to back this up though.
But anyway the other problem is radiation. For the most part, the front is well shielded although some do leak out but the sides and back are not as good as the front. In some companies, as soon as someone is pregnant, their CRT is replaced with an LCD.
Of course, in the long run, LCDs save a lot more energy and that's a good thing by itself.
CRT's are surely as healthy as radon.
. html
For more info on Radon Health Mines... and this is NOT an April Fools... visit here: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/MTBASradon
Some of my inlaws are freaky-nutty suckers and go in for this crap.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I noticed that Bill Gates was one of the 1st people to do this
If you're modeling your life after Bill Gates, you've got worse problems than LCDs over CRTs.
Finally, a article that isn't a joke (I think). Anyway, cancer is caused by damaged DNA. This means that how close your DNA is to one of these "damaged cancer causing states" is how likely you are to get cancer. If you are unlucky enough to also get that right mutation in a cell then cancer starts. I guess magnatic fields can cause these mutations, but many other things can also cause mutations including other healthy cells(free radicals). So I guess you are screwed either way. But getting out and exercising every once in a while can't hurt (well not in the sense that is shouldn't damage your health).
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
notsy
whose eye doc told her to get up at least once an hour and look out of a window into the distance. He said her eye muscles that focus were getting weak becuase she was mostly looking at close objects. After a few weeks, her vision improved.
There is also a significant savings on electricty. I worked in a computer lab, and we were able to justify switching for several reasons.
1. style and space savings
2. electricty savings for running the monitor
3 electicity savings for air conditioning...the lab was so hot from the monitors that we had to run the air conditioner constantly even through the winter.
Well, there was a Japanese study1 2 that linked computer use to glaucoma, but it doesn't seem to distinguish between people who use LCDs and CRTs.
:-) Oh well, glasses fix the problem anyways ;)
We probably don't know the full effects of what we're doing. Doctors often don't know the root cause of problems, but it's typically considered a success if you can reduce people's chances of getting it by even a few percent.
I'm no doctor, but it would make sense that looking at close objects for long periods of time might increase your risk of myopia- countries with heavy computer use have high rates of myopia, and places like 3rd world countries where people have to look at far objects more have lower rates. It's a known fact that you adapt to changes, maybe people like myself have glasses because we use computers so heavily? But I would imagine that reading books at an early age might also cause that...so there's not much we can do about it
I consider Thief 1 and 2 the best games ever and will buy 3 as soon as I upgrade my graphics card but due to the very special requirements to play it (i.e. the fact that the room must be dark and gamma correctly adjusted to make the graphics look good) - I've been a bit unsure whether a flat screen would do it? I'd really like it both due to the reason this slashdotter asks and the simple desk space saved - does anybody have any experience?
I think your tinfoil hat's a might too tight! 8)=
Coincidentally, I have a 19" LCD here at work, which is kinda on the fritz (unless you like the color blue - The monitor seems to have a fondness for coloring everything blue), and I've requested to go back to a CRT if possible, when they replace it next week.
Why? The LCD display isn't anywhere near as crisp when viewing small details. Also, I'm not a fan of the LCD's fixed resolution. You can go larger or smaller than the default size, but the image is nowhere near as good as it is at its native resolution.
I've got 2 21" Nokias at home, and although the power and heat reduction makes me constantly consider LCD's, the quality, and priciness of the LCD monitors have kept me stuck on CRT's for the time being.
I'm not neccesarily worried about the health effects per se', but I am concerned about eye fatigue! If I'm working at home in dim light for awhile in front of my CRT's, when I look away from the monitors, I'm unable to make out details for a minute or two while my eyes adjust to the dim light from the brightness of the CRT's. Not a huge concern, but it is the one that worries me most...
I know that my eyes get tired from the flicker, and I'm sure that others experience the same. It seems to me that the high tech industry ought to start scrapping monitors wholesale to improve productivity - cheaper than outsourcing.
Best regards.
http://slashdot.org/yro/99/10/25/2039238.shtml
it's fine! don't worry!
it's great to have millions of high speed electrons sprayed at your head all day!
it's good for you.
it gives your brain conditioning... like a nano-massage... and a tan, you're brain gets a tan.
Also really good? letting a pitching machine hurl baseballs at your face.
-pyrrho
First off, the human vision system was made to look at diffuse light sources; that is we're meant to look at things that are reflecting light, not emitting it. There are some strains from that. And especially from vivid colors side by side. I once saw someone with the apple color scheme - green on red. Instant migraine.
More worrisome, the x-rays being emitted out the front are carefully regulated for health reasons. However this doesn't apply to the back, which typically has 3-7 times as much radiation coming out of it. Lots of offices are setup in such a way that you are staring directly at the back of a co-workers monitor. So, your three CRT setup?
Should be perfectly safe. For you.
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
Some Swedish studies have shown that for some reason, there might be negative side effects to having large electromagnetic guns (aka CRTs) aimed directly at your head and upper torso.
But the CRT manufacturers swear you're safe. Just like all the SUV manufacturers do.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I started using computers at age 5. At age 9 I had one with it's own dedicated CRT (they used the TV before that). I'm now 24. So, I did need to get glasses at 22, however that was for an astygmatism in my left eye, my right eye still has perfect vision.
Now I'm a computer junky, I use them all the time, at work and at home. Until about a year ago, it was always CRTs. I now have an LCD at work, but still a CRT at home (which I am soon going to replace with another).
So in my case, an excessive amount of CRT usage doesn't seem to have caused any nearsightedness. Also not being nearsighted is counter to my genetics, my mother and father are both nearsighted, as is my sister who doesn't make much use of computers and got her glasses much younger than I did.
Again, just a personal anecdote and not a valid representation of the overall situation, but it runs completely counter to yours. I know it's compelling to think your experience is representitive, but it's very often not the case. Trust emprical research, not personal anecdotes.
LCDs use less electricity, and don't flicker.
In addition to being easier on the eyes (the refresh rate is a big plus), LCDs save power. I have heard of companies replacing CRTs with LCDs to lower the total cost of ownership. In addition to taking less power every day, there's less heat generated requiring less air conditioning which in turn takes even less power.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
many government offices switched to the much more expensive LCD's - despite budget cuts and having to go with the lowest bidder strategy they operate under. Was this ONLY for style and space savings?
They cost less in the end because they are so more energy efficient. This will save money in the end because of the drop in power consumption and thus power bills. When you have about 500 lcd monitors they are probably going to use less energy than 250 CRTs.
The Television Wiki
The government (and aliens) can monitor the radiation coming from your CRT and see what you're seeing on your monitor from far away...through walls..
I'm sorry, but according to the Department of Homeland Insecurity, it is a crime to publish links that might impede the Department of Grande Papito from its work/surveillance. Please report to the nearest Center for Reeducation within the next 24 hours.
That will be all.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
A high voltage electron gun pointing at my face for 8 hours a day..... for the past 10 years.
but your retinas are probably so fried by now you would no be able to read it. I will email a copy to your seeing eye dog/pony.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
No need for conspiracy theories ;-), the math alone is simple enough: Take a typical corporate or federal office building with a few thousand desktops, compute the space & power saved directly by each CRT replaced with an LCD, and indirectly by the load on power lines, UPS back-up systems & air conditioning (we're not talking one CRT, but several dozen floors full of them), sum it all up and add the savings they'll get from their insurers if they tell them there's not much left to implode - all of this is sufficient reason to spend a little more on getting rid of the big tubes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In places where electricity isn't cheap (such as cities)... it's cost effective to upgrade to LCD.
They have a higher up front cost, but when used 40hrs a week (and many employees leave computers on 24x7 with a screensaver)... the savings in electrical consumption make up for the cost (some say as little as a year, some say about 2 years).
When you have a larger company with 500-1000 computers, each with a display... if you can cut 1000 units down 50%... that's a considerable savings.
Some companies during the blackouts in CA pushed laptops. Not only did it encourage people to do a little work on weekends... but it cut down on power consumption in the office.
A display can last through several CPU's. The technology doesn't change that fast. Unless your a graphic artist it's irrelevent. A 7 year old 19" CRT is just as good as one bought today if it's taken care of. For most users the really subtle differences don't matter. By an LCD today, and your investing in the next several years. Get one with DVI/VGA input, and your in good shape for most users. Just swap out the CPU's every so often.
It's not just about space savings. It's cost savings.
The other thing to note is that CRT's contain a few pounds of Lead, mercury, and other hazardous materials. Several states have (or are proposing) disposal taxes for CRT's. So in the future throwing one out may cost you some cash. IT departments are well aware of this. Throwing out 1000 CRT's at $50 a pop.. that's $50,000 in additional costs.
I wrote a paper that discusses this a bit last year for an Environmental Biology course (incorporating my Business MIS studies). You can find that here. It discusses the environmental impacts of the CRT among other problems. LCD's aren't perfect, but they are much better.
And man he had to save his pennies! Poor Guy!
Ohh... wait...
1) I've been wearing rigid gas-permeable contact lenses for 22 years now (not the same set, and I take them out at night you smart-asses). I notice that when I wear these versus glasses, I can stare at most monitors for a long time without significant strain.
2) Use the best CRT monitor you can get your hands on. I've noticed that my eyestrain actually goes up working on my laptop versus my CRT (a 22" NEC MultiSync FP-series set to the highest possible resolution and very tiny fonts). It's one of those things you have to try for a few days before you realize how nice it is.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
I once thought about the characteristics of a CRT as I was trying to create an app that was nothing more than a mirror. To think how many secrataries would buy this app just to have a little window open up and turn a protion of your screen into a mirror. They would be staring into thier CRT's all day. LCD monitors runied this idea as well as the laws of physics.
This doesn't seem to bother most people I talk to, but I can actually see the refresh rate on CRTs. I refuse to work with anything less than 85Hz. 60Hz and a white background make my eyes water.
LCDs on the other hand are still slow enough that they look constant to me. Even at the 60Hz they run at. They even look more constant than a CRT at 100Hz. The only LCD I've seen that I can see refresh is a ginormous IBM LCD with some ungodly resolution.
Just go to a best buy and look at the LCDs and CRTs that they have side by side. Huge difference.
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
I bet it was beans on toast for the Gates' following that spending ludicrousy...
Unfortunately my employer has found a source of LCD panels that are blurry, but at least they don't flicker.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
"The test revealed that 522 (5.1%) employees had visual field abnormalities. And there appeared to be a significant link between these and heavy computer use among those with either long or short sight, collectively known as "refractive errors." The full text is from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health and can be found here for subscribers.
The question of whether CRTs pose a health risk is extremely controversial.
Those that think they do attribute the risk to the low-frequency magnetic fields created by the deflection yokes. The risk was considered serious enough for European countries to regulate magnetic field strength, and almost all modern CRTs are built to meet these European standards and contain shielding. (Similarly, the glass CRT envelope contains enough lead to shield against X-rays, which once were a concern in home television sets of the 1950s and 1960s). So, CRTs contain shielding against the _supposed_ causes of _disputed_ health effects.
The reason why CRTs are suspected of having health effects is that there have been various long-term epidemiological studies showing association of various conditions with CRT use.
I don't think anyone has subjected the relatively new flat panels to any similar studies.
Hold a radio next to a flat-panel display and you will see that these displays have electromagnetic radiation fields of their own. There's no reason to think that they pose any hazard, and no particular reason to think they're any safer than CRTs.
Those that simply do not believe that low-energy electromagnetic fields have health effects obviously won't worry about either technology.
Those who think they might should consider the fact that CRTs have at least been on the market long enough for studies to be done and shielding to be incorporated in their design.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know, perhaps.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The eye strain factor seems about the same for me. Your mileage may vary. I *like* my LCD better; it seems crisper, but the CRT is getting long in the tooth.
A lot of dead pixels on your LCD, I take it?
Man, that's just nuts. But then again:
So I'm guessing that by the time the radiation gets damaging, they're pretty much too dead to care.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Bill gates is rich, u dolt !
My complaint about John Bolton
If you are stimulated by new ideas, and if you can think for yourself rather than simply accept what John Bolton dishes out, I think you will find this letter of interest. With this letter, I hope to preserve the peace. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Bolton says that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his uncouth prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. Generally speaking, he never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. Bolton presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that I can reword my point as follows. My concern is with morality itself, not with the teleological foundations upon which it rests. Isn't it historically demonstrated that by opting for the easy, short-term, feel-good path, he will pit people against each other sooner than you think? I ask, because all he really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about.
It is deeply unfortunate that Bolton makes decisions based on random things glamorized by the press and the resulting rantings of the most intellectually challenged rubes I've ever seen, since far too many people tolerate Bolton's contrivances as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Bolton provides none. Bolton insists that he is beyond reproach. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. He exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority.
Those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that the continuing misunderstandings that some stupid, sick twits seem to have merely underscore this point, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Bolton is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to do something good for others. We have an obligation to find the common ground that enables others to respond to his precepts. And we have an obligation to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented.
He is attracted to nihilism like a moth to a candle. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that Bolton is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally cantankerous strictures. He is not only superficial, but he also lacks the self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms. We can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but oligarchism doesn't work. So why does Bolton cling to it? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: Bolton claims that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Well, I beg to differ. It's amazing how low Bolton will stoop to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives. In that context, one could say that not everyone agrees with him. That said, let me continue.
If I had to choose the most raucous specimen from his welter of mingy gabble, it would have to be his claim that the Universe belongs to him by right. Plan to join Bolton's camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. Did Bolton get dropped on his head when he was young, or did he take massive
I get a lot of grief from my girlfriend about "electro smog" from the WLAN (802.11b) I put in the flat (which I used to replace those ugly CAT5 cables she was nagging me about).
Often, after she's finished nagging, she likes to spend an hour or so chatting with friends on the mobile phone.
Anyone got a pertinent link I can point her that discusses this? So far the facts I've produced have been all "too scientific" (while her understanding of "electro smog" comes from a womens magaizine).
"Is being behind the a cathode ray tube that bad for you?"
Absolutely. Personally, I try to stay in front of it.
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
No, usually just for style.
In my my experience, space savings rarely has anything to do with it. People see somebody else with one and they want one for themselves. I refer to it as "monitor envy".
I work in the IT dept for a bank with about 170 employees. About 4 years ago, we moved all the tellers from small dedicated teller machines to a PC based system. Space was a very real concern, especially at the small branches. We got each teller a 15" IBM LCD monitor, about $900 apiece at the time. Within a month, over 20 other employees were begging for LCD monitors. This was back when picture quality was very inferior to CRT, even at native resolution. (And try working on a 15" monitor at 1024x768. Most people here used 800x600, which really looked bad.)
People would suddenly complain that they needed more space on their desks. We did get a few more LCDs for a few select people that probably could have used more desk space. I would set up the monitor, pushing it to the back of their desk. They would move it forward so the screen was where it had been with the CRT, and leave a foot of empty space behind.
People wanted LCDs because they were slim and sexy. They wanted the latest and greatest. I'm sure other corporate IT people have seen this too.
Now, all the new monitors we buy are LCDs. But we're buying them to replace old monitors that are starting to blink out, or are going fuzzy. We aren't on any project to get rid of the CRT monitors.
Redundancy is good And also good.
Whgen viewing/working for long periods of time, CRTs used to give me headaches. Ever since I switched to LCDs, that has gone away. I am much happier with the LCDs too. I will never consider using CRT again.
Radiation used to be an issue, however nearly
all recent (decent) CRTs conform to the Swedish
low radiation requirements. Older CRTs or that
crappy one that came with a $299 whitebox PC
probably don't conform. LCDs have almost no radiation.
But the biggest benefit of LCDs is their low
cost of operation. LCD displays consume far less
electricity than CRTs. LCDs also generate far less
heat (with a subsequent reduction in AC costs).
Corporations and governments are choosing LCDs
because the equipment costs are quickly compensated
for by reduced energy costs.
I noticed that Bill Gates was one of the 1st people to do this, even when the cost was super high
WTF? Ha. Heh. Heh. Ha! LOL
And many sites allege a justified concern:
But their next paragraph cites the FDA's page on radiation emitting products, saying most CRT emissions fall well below this limitIf there are many peer-reviewed studies of the health dangers of CRT usage, they are not easy to find.
Test signature: Brett Walker
"Was this ONLY for style and space savings?"
0 82
Not to mention power consumption:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=1
As you can see, generally speaking, LCD monitors use far less wattage than a traditional CRT monitor, both asleep and awake. Being able to run my LCD monitors awake for the same wattage as my CRT monitors asleep is a very nice thing.
He he, and you think your LCD will provide better protection, think again geek! Time to rewallpaper your walls with tin foil! I should know, I did a study based on the initial research done by Markus Kuhn.
Have a read for the interested:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
It has been 6 years since I've been using a laptop, and I noticed a consistent worsening for my eye sight (with a mix of myopia and astigmatism). Before that, I used desktop computers with CRT monitor with no problems. It turns out that using a laptop is bad too in the sense that you're looking at the screen much closer, since the keyboard is right under the screen. Nowadays I use an usb keyboard for my laptop whenever possible. With the external keyboard, I get at least an additional 30cm between my eyes and the monitor.
I once had a signature.
CRT's are very dangerous to your health (if they are dropped on your head). The larger the CRT, the worse the danger.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Well my cat spends about 12 hours a day on top of my 21" CRT, if he explodes, catches on fire or mutates I'll let you know.
The radiation coming out of the back of the moniter is the scary part that is most overlooked. I had a cat who loved to sit on the back of the moniter (it's warm).
She died of Leukemia in three years.
I hate sitting with the back of a moniter pointed at me or sitting in front of a CRT with its back pointed toward a reflective surface like a window or white wall and I don't let cats sit there anymore.
--
the plural of Anecdote is not Data
CRT's have provent to be bad.
LCD's are claimed to be bad. However on LCD the problem is the backlight, and only small percentage of people can see the backlight refresh. Most people's brains are too slow to notice that LCD's actually flicker as bad as CRT. However with high speed equipment its easy to prove.
So if you want to be safe you are going to want RGB LED LCD, however these have only just recently begun sampling for usage as computer displays and may cost a small fortune. I would expect that in 1-2 years they should be more affordable.
Which is healthier LCD with LED lighting or OLED, remains to be seen. However I believe both are much less dangerous than CRT or fluorescent backlighting.
About the 60 Hz and 10-100 KHz sweep and the dot clock and all of that -- professional fear mongers bring this stuff up all the time, but there is neither any plausible mechanism nor any experimental evidence of any danger from this stuff. In particular, for a photon to carry enough energy to damage DNA it needs to be at least in the shorter UV -- this is the mechanism by which UV, x-rays, and gamma rays cause cancer.
Seems like a lot of government offices are switching to LCD monitors because they save desk space.
The local community college admissions and records office are using 15" LCD monitors with a compact micro-ATX case for data entry to replace the clunky CRT with build-in keyboard. Unfortunately, the backend is a mainframe computer that communicates over serial lines. The processing time is still slow today as it was 15 years ago when I was getting my General Ed degree. Go figure.
If I use my old 486's monitor for long periods of time I tend to get headache. On newer CRT's I don't get a headache from them.
As long as you wear your tinfoil hat you should be fine.
My monitors only cause me headache... Anyone else has monitors which make noise?
Can I get taste loss from a foosball table?
I am also concened about the effects of long-term exposure to CRTs and spent some time researching on the net, finding no conlcusive evidence either way about X-rays.
However I also read a swedish study that concluded spending a long time in front of CRT's (especially big ones) may cause problems if you have metal dental work such as amalgam fillings, due to them inducting a slight current from the CRT's EMF field.
I've spent about 25 years of working in front of CRTs with no noticeable problem so far, except that CRT's, espcially in combination with flourescent strip lighting, give me terrible headaches after extended use, probably because of the beat-frequency of the combined flicker.
I get far less headaches and eyestrain with LCD panels, and my x-ray paranoia is satsfied too.
. I work in front of typically 3, 19" CRT's for 12 - 16 hours per day at an average distance of 18". Can these magnetic fields cause Leukemia, or anything else?
Don't worry, you'll probably die of a heart attack long before the leukemia kills you.
And you make my head lmost explode from the anger... You little fuck... Get your little fucken LCD and stop that story already...
That's one reason government agencies switched, but there are other factors. As is well-known from such classic scientific research milestones as the G-bomb, the first private venture into space using insufficient spacecraft shielding, or poisoning by spiders exposed to ionizing radiation, the kind of hazardous rays that CRTs emit (especially from the back) have been known to induce superpowers in humans. Since the extent and strength of these powers are not predictable, the government is doing everything it can to avoid having them bestowed on listless, apathetic bureaucrats.
Bill Gates acquired superpowers years ago, of course, so he got rid of his CRT because he no longer needed the radiation. His power? He attracts money. The whole Microsoft thing is just a front to keep his power from public view so he can just exercise it over the normal course of the day. (And a good thing too. Can you imagine him in spandex?)
For true powers-seeking geeks, of course, the best course of action is to surround yourself with as many CRTs as possible. Gaming and graphic hardware companies know this, and since geeks are their main customer base both industries have been working toward their empowerment for quite some time now. This is the real reason for nVidia's TwinView technology, for example, and also the real reason why games are not developed for Linux necessitating a Windows box sitting next to the useful one. (After all, the more boxes you have in your house, the more CRTs you have pumping out those healthful X-rays.) It's no coincidence that most games involve the exercise of some kind of superhuman ability: they're trainers.
Sure, there's a serious risk of contracting some kind of cancer here, but considering the potential gains a cost/benefit analysis clearly favors bathing yourself in that wonderful blue glow.
And the brethren went away edified.
crts, if nothing else, emit HUGE amounts of negative ionization (don't have the exact figures). now this, especially over long periods of time and day-after-day, year-after-year, causes the bra9in to produce more melatonin, causing a drop in mood level, ultimately leading to a "down" or "blue" or "depressed-like" feeling.
we were taught this over and over in school: if you use a crt, don't sit in front of it too long. go for a walk ever hour or so, or, my favorit as i live in florida, GO TO THE BEACH! the positive ions in the salt water wash all those CRT blues away in a flash! it's like degaussing your brain.
IT's like staring at a lightbulb all day.
The above have been correlated..
= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1554706 5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
I'm making them buy me a nice big fat 20"
Dell LCD next month since I'm extremely
nearsighted. -8 and -8.5 diopter
Have a 20" Apple Cinema Display at home
that totally rocks!
I need the same at my place of work.
When in worked at Macromedia from 1994 - 1998, I had real problems with my eyes. Our monitors were pretty low refresh rates but the key was that I had a Mac blinking at me at 75 Hz and a PC blinking at me at 60 Hz and flourescent lights blinking at me at whatever Hz and around 10 am, I would get really really angry.
My eyes were hurting so bad because of the flashing, It pained me to keep them open. I had to steam in the shower to moisturize them and also put ice cubes in paper towels and rested them on my closed eyes.
Really hurt.
Got different monitors with higher refresh rates and THE SAME refresh rates, covered the flourescent lights and turned two off and the pain went away.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I use a non-standard resolution for my CRT (1400x1050 on a Samsung 750s) that tops at just under 60hz.
I actually find it strangely soothing, to tell you the truth, and have never had headaches or vision problems.
When someone else comes along, though, it's a different story altogether; some people can't use it for longer than ten minutes or so before backing away horrified.
More computing power for me, I say!
O make me a mask
I've switched to LCDs as soon as I could get my hands on them and I've been feeling better since the move. I'm one of those very sensitive people where if I keep a cell phone longer than 5 minutes next to my ear I get a headache and my ear starts to hurt but not if I use a headphone. I happen to work in a hospital and whenever I pass through the radiology rooms I instantly get dizzy and feel like passing out in less than 5-10 of being in them. This is not a phobia, I'm not afraid of them, but my body picks up and feels the extremely strong presence of radiation even when the equipment is not in use.
I have been using CRTs very heavily in the 80's and have noticed that my vision deteriorated extensively in less than a year of serious usage (8+ hours a day) so I believe there may be a strong correlation there. Also, I'm sure that all the x-ray radiation emitted by the CRTs over your lifetime will potentially have a negative effect on your body so don't be surprised if you end up with some weird tumor or mysteriously die! I can't even think of a single positive thing (health wise) about CRTs, if you can, I definitely would love to hear about it! The real question now is, ARE LCDs safe? Given how sensitive I am I think not since I have yet to encounter any negative symptoms from heavy LCD usage.
Time to call an attorney and start a class action suite to sue those damn CRTs companies for causing my vision loss and the thousands I've spent on glasses and contacts over the years. I know I'm not the only one here!
Both CRS's and LCD's have their advantages. I Have a computer with a dual monitor setup... 1 17inch LCD and 1 22inch CRT. I use the LCD for web browsing, photo editing and such, and I use the CRT for all of my gaming. I find that this combination keeps eye strain at a minimum when surfing, and still allows for hellacious refresh rates when gaming
avg. 11 hr/day, for the last 20 years, CRTs from green 320x200 apple2-clones to 21" flat trinitron...
double stars are still double for me, seen doctors only for paperwork / health certs
well, I don't have a TV set, don't know if it counts.
Yes CRTs put out radiation - in the visible spectrum. It is the voltage of the electrons jumping between cathode and anode that determines the radiation given off at impact. CRT's are tuned to the visible spectrum. Spark plugs, however, operate at 35-40KV, which is right smack dab in the middle of the hard X-ray spectrum. All those cancers people have been blaming on air pollution and hydrocarbons - uh-uh. Chances are it's all due to spark plug radiation.
I'm switching to diesel.
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
Set the refresh rate as high as you can.
Usually if you can get it above 72hz you wont see/be affected by the flicker. This can vary from person to person. Flicker will cause head aches.
Basicly you try to get the refresh rate higher than your optical system (eyes/brain) response time. This response time may be at a higher frequency than you notice.
Average sick leave taken in 2004 at my office:
Laptop users (6) - 14.3 hours
Desktop users (w/CRT monitors) (16) - 71.6 hours.
Why is it, that only after years of using computers does one get sensitive to 60Hz refresh rates. I noticed that new computer users don't even notice if they have the monitor set to flicker at 60Hz but for me, it is insanely bothersome...
After staring at CRT for a few years, I'm not only nearsighted, but also things appear a little "smudged" for me. I constantly have dry eyes and the area below my eye is black and is wrinkling. These things become less if I stop using my computer for a few days, and come back when I start using them again.
It's good to know this one day before my new LCD arrives... (and after 20 years of CRT life)
More worrisome, the x-rays being emitted out the front are carefully regulated for health reasons. However this doesn't apply to the back, which typically has 3-7 times as much radiation coming out of it. Lots of offices are setup in such a way that you are staring directly at the back of a co-workers monitor. So, your three CRT setup?
Sounds like we have the makings of a great under-cover radiation gun. I wonder how many monitors I can convince IT to loan me for a week. "Ha ha ha! No kids you for you, Jim!"
-Valiss
LCDs have fewer issues with TEMPEST.
Health consequences of CRT monitors are horrific!!! I had one fall on my foot, and let me tell you, radiation or not, I would much rather have an LCD one fall on it than a CRT!!!
I read a link someone posted on slashdot not so long ago (can't find it now) that even though your brain can't see flicker at relatively high refresh rates, your eyes can and it fatigures them.
I think it affects people differently but I have noticed that using CRTs fatigues my eyes. It makes me feel tired even when I'm not.
I had one of the $500 dell 20" LCDs for two weeks (customer let me use it until his machine arrived.) and it was fantastic. I didn't experience the fatigue that I get when I use CRTs.
As far as CRTs I'm using 21" trinitron tubed monitors and also a 19" Samsung SYncMaster 997DF. The 21" monitors are much better monitors but the problem exists either way.
I often think I can't justify spending $500 on an LCD but if it would save my eyes it's worth every penny.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
In all honesty, the gravest health concern facing IT professionals, probably has nothing to do with the hardware that we work around. I would think that the number one concern is that we spend far too much time sitting down, staring at a computer screen and not enough time exercising.
Books? Yes My eyes became far worse after I became a nightly reader (around 10) than after I started watching TV and using acomputer... which was probably when I was about 2.
Here's what the electromagnetic field studies are all about. You take a bunch of people who have high EMF exposure and compare them to people who have low exposure. You then take 100 different diseases like leukemia and brain tumors and ask do the high-exposure people have more of it. And viola, 1 or 2 diseases show up positive. But they are positive at the 0.01 probability level. That is, the probability of any one disease showing up is about 1:100. So if you screen 100 diseases, you're SURE to find one that comes up by chance. And funny thing...every one of the many studies comes up with a different disease.
So bottom line is, that there is NO good evidence that electromagnetic fields cause any real problems.
Sorry to hear about your cat, but chances are the CRT had little to do with her illness.
Feline Leukemia is caused by a viral infection.
10Brett-T
Oh, bother.
Although the jury is still out on the effects of the normal radiation coming out of a CRT, its no doubt that they are a big environmental hazard.
Ever picked up a monitor? Notice how heavy they are? Do you know what causes them to be that heavy?
An average monitor has something between 20-40 pounds of leaded glass in it. Of that, between 5-10 pounds are lead. Monitors dropped into the waste stream will eventually start leaking out lead into water supplies.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
and I still have 20/20 vision. An eye doctor friend says that how you use your eyes is a big component of how they'll turn out--spending lots of time outdoors and focusing on farther objects has probably helped sustain my vision.
If all of us inside the conspiracy have been keeping the secret from you this long, why would we suddenly tell you the deep, dark truth now?
We'll they've already told the Russians apparently. The Russians seem to think that a cactus can absorb dangerous radiation. Every single CRT I saw there had a little cactus in a pot next to it. I asked about it and this was their explanation. I'm not making this up.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
That white wall or window will do jack to reflect the energy back at you. Now, if there were a conductive surface back there, you'd be in trouble.
Glass has a hard time transmitting wavelengths shorter than blue light. Those x-rays won't reflect very easily off the glass or the white wall, and they'll actually penetrate into the material a bit which will decrease the chance of that particular photon getting back out. Visible light is transmitted very well, depending on the glass. And Infrared gets through for the most part. RF gets through unless your glass is metallic, or your white wall has conductive paint or sheetrock.
Definitely worry if the wall on the other side of your monitor is conductive. That'll likely bounce the radiation back at you.
The backside of a CRT is the most dangerous though. But you get more RF from the wiring in your house than if you were to stand more than 1 meter from the back of the CRT. And the CRT is MUCH more dangerous if you were to spill a liquid into the back of it... shorting out those electrical components gets very nasty. (Typically 50 kilovolts of charge in there, and a few amps of current switching back and forth for the electromagnets.)
I wear glasses, but I already was wearing glasses before I seriously started using a computer. We didnt have a computer in the house until I was 13 or so, at which point I was already wearing glasses. Since then I have spent many hours every day in front a computer, 12+ hours since the last 5 years (hell, it's how I met my wife, who is a computer gamer herself :-)... recently got new glasses, and my eyesight has not changed much in the past 13 years.
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
LCD panels, to me, have much higher contrast than any CRT I've ever looked at. The brightness and color purity also seem to be much higher overall.
Health benefits aside, LCD panels pull about a third of the power that a CRT monitor uses. This equates to an immediate savings in terms of less electricity used by the monitor, and (over the longer term) reduced air conditioning needs because of the reduced heat load. I suppose one could also make the connection that less electricity burned means less air pollution, assuming a fossil-fuel fired power plant.
All those government agencies who made the switch a few years back are probably getting to the point where the cost of energy saved more than made up for the higher cost of the initial crop of flat-panels.
I'm on my second LCD panel now. My first was an 18" Acer, the most recent one a 19" Samsung. Very nice stuff. I have not the slightest desire to change back to CRT.
Keep the peace(es).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
I've sat in front of many monitors for many years and have not suffered any ill effects.
But I always have my tin foil hat on...
Rick B.
I left school in 1979 at which point I'd been wearing glasses for 3 years. After 10 years working in electronics surrounded by scopes, signal generators and monitors I went into IT and have been sitting in front of CRTs ever since.
I had my eyes checked in 1999 and was prescribed new glasses for far-sightedness. This year I got them tested again, a reckless act given my family's history of Glaucoma but there you go, and the prescription had not changed in 6 years.
All this after spending at least 12-14 hours a day in front of a CRT.
Whether there are any other effects I don't know but I did lose my sense of direction when I used to sit in a screened room surrounded by RF test kit all day. This returned upon leaving the job but my eyes were screwed up long before that.
From a purely personal viewpoint I suspect that that flat screens are popular due more to a cool look factor than anything else. The only flat screen I've ever seen that could match a CRT was a £700 Apple job, all the rest seem shite (picture wise) in comparison to a CRT that costs less than half the price.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Is being behind the a cathode ray tube that bad for you?"
Well, my CRT points toward the wall, I sit in front of the screen. So, it would be nearly impossible for me to get behind it.
Pat
That (double entendre) said, I hear the US NRC is looking at reducing the amount of solar radiation striking the earth, due to the enormous health implications of exposing virtually the entire human race daily to the hard radiation emitted by the fusion of hydrogen into helium.
LCD/Plasma displays have the advantage of not having a "sync rate". They operate on what's called "electric slide" (no, not a Jock Jam). The sync rate on a CRT can cause eyestrain if set too low, but most CRT's nowadays can handle 72Hz or higher at working resolutions -- much better than television (60Hz in US, 50Hz for PAL/SECAM).
The radiative output from a CRT is still well below ambient exposure levels for sunlight, so I wouldn't suggest looking straight at the sun; straight at a CRT shouldn't hurt.
Research has shown that people who stare at a CRT for long periods (read: IT professionals) tend to blink far less often than those engaged in other activities -- I'm guessing that an LCD/Plasma display isn't going to help that. Contact lens wearers, take note.
The light (e.g., radiative) output from plasma/LCD displays is still considerably lower than that of a CRT, the sync rate is no longer an issue, and plasma displays are DROP DEAD SEXY. Try one when you have a chance, I think you'll like it.
Guess what activity makes you lose 5 mg of zinc? Uh huh. At 3 times per day, you've used up your daily dose of zinc!
I was reading a simlar thing about that here.
Did you go and ask these guys first? How dare you.
Simply put, pulling a little extra money out of the procurement cookie jar and having your operating budget drop is a manager's wet dream.
Same goes for Government agencies. A budget for aquiring new assets is easy to tinker with, day to day operating expenses run much thinner.
Yes, LCDs are easier on your eyes. My eye doctor told me to switch to an LCD to help slow my run-away myopia. Large companies and government agencies buying LCDs have nothing to do with this. Its simple economics.
It isn't even an issue with being sued for workplace injury. Bringing a suit over ergonomics of your workplace requires, in many places, that you prove your workplace is more hazardous than that of your peers.
I was wondering, what are the effects of working on a CRT are on your health - long term.
Dr. CRT: How are you gentlemen !!
All your eyesight are belong to us !!
I'm in the market for a new CRT in the 20" (viewable) range, high quality. For that I'm looking in the range of $500-$800 depending on the specific model. Wandering over to bensbargains.net, I find that 20" UltraSharp LCDs are about $560. Now the more pricey CRTs are probably a bit higher quality, but still. Looks to me like LCDs are right about teh same cost.
Before you ask I'm getting a CRT because I require the better colour and arbitrary resolution support. I'd like an LCD, but not until they get a better colour gamut at least.
...from my 15" overscan CRT. I have kept it just for that one reason.
But the problem is not my wagging finger, its my roving eye... as I scan from area to area as I read different points on the screen. I can't say exactly whats going on, but something is quite disorienting to me when I try to study something on a CRT which requires me to scan different areas on the face of the tube, as when I read or trace lines on a drawing.
Kinda like trying to read a book on a moving train under fluorescent lighting. Some sort of strobe effect I can't quite put my finger on, but it does cause me to become disoriented and nauseous after a few minutes of it. The finer the detail, the worse it gets.
If its only one area of the screen, no problem, its when I go from area to area rapidly, like one does when skimming a book. That's when it hits me on some sort of subliminal level.
I wish I could be a bit more definitive here and say exactly what it is, but I can only speculate its that somehow I get accustomed to the flicker - even at imperceptible rates - at one area of the screen, then I get abrupt phase changes of the flicker when I go to other areas of the screen.
This affects me on static displays where the information is not in motion. If its a case such as television, where the scene is already in motion, and I am not concentrating on a small area of the screen, but looking at the screen as a whole, the motion of the whole screen image seems to swamp out this effect.
The LCD, on the other hand, seems completely static, like an image on paper. I quite quickly noted the absence of this effect on me when reading text and studying CAD images on LCD's.
One more thing on the LCD's... on my PCB programs driving it, the precise pixel alignments exaggerate the "jaggies" of not-quite-square PCB traces. Made a world of difference in my quickly looking at my work and seeing if I had any traces not quite aligned.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
ionizing radiation can but AFAIK you don't get that from a CRT. You are right, but you do get more electromagnetic radiation than what you need to see a picture. It is debated wether the frequency of these radiations make them bad for health. But UV , microwaves or Gamma rays are also electromagnatic radiations, and are known for a fact to be not good for health.
Typical CRT glass contains 23% lead by weight to shield the viewer from X-Rays.
Haven't you ever heard of the Finn who got blown up? http://www.cryptonomicon.com/main.html
Bill's known for often being strapped for cash.
Living with 19, 21, and 26 inch CRTS can cause severe physical damage. Just think of all the hernias, ruptures and broken toes. There are many fewer possiblities for physical injury with an LCD panel. however the range of the projectile can be extended, during late night shifts CRT's do have their advantages though. they are better candidates for fish tanks. HH
Its the same Cathode Ray tube as is in your TV set. Other than eye strain, The RF is not high enough on a CRT to do anything
CRTs cause some people severe eye strain.
A few years back, I spent about a year with two 15" CRT monitors, and yes, I felt much better after I got rid of one.
I am pretty sure I ran them up at a higher-than-60 vert. refresh: probably 75 or 80 Hz IIRC.
I've been using computers since the age of 8, of course first with a CRT. I've been using that for about 7 years until in 2004 I FINALLY upgraded to an LCD monitor. Those 7 years accumulated in me having totally messed up eyes, needing glasses in 2003, now being 14 I cannot see ANYTHING, 1 foot away from me without squinting and making my eyes worse. Which is why I have glasses. It's totally ruined my life (CRTs), so without me knowing. LCDs definitly look better, no matter what the cost, an LCD is a must. Throw away those damned CRTs. :X
As someone who has worn glasses since my earliest memories, I treat them as an extension of my body. Being farsighted, I have always seemed to be playing catch up between lenses strong enough to read comfortably, but not too strong to interfere with driving. From the time I was a small child, my precscription gradually increased from +3.75/+4 to +5.75/+6.25 by the time I hit the big four oh.
Just as you seem to be doing, I resisted my optometrist/opthamologist's early hints and suggestions to consider bifocals, as just his way of improving the bottom line of the overpriced optician that was colocated in his office. I figured he got a piece of the action for every customer he personally escorted to their counter.
I also couldn't stomach paying the $500 I would certainly be pressured into paying for their top of the line featherweight no-line bifocals by the time I got them into a good set of spring-templed stainless steel frames.
I held out for another year or so, but got tired of trying having to focus on my monitor from 3 feet away, and having to put the newspaper on the floor to read it. Next eye appointment I knew what was coming, but I was ready with several hundred bucks in my FSA. I fell for the opthamologist's FUD about any other optician than their's and expected the worst.
450 bucks and a week later I had my new top of the line no-line bifocals. The new lenses took about a week to get adjusted to, but overall I have been pleased with the results. My line of sight for driving is perfectly natural, and I don't even have to move my head to read the instruments. Using a computer at a desk is also in a natural position, but the eye level monitors on the System 150 and similar equipment I work on force me to crane my neck a bit to see well. Fortunately, I only have to interact with those monitors for a few minutes at a time.
A year later, I brought a pair of similar prescription polarized sunglasses for driving and motorcycling at an optician inside a Wal-Mart and paid about 100 bucks less, but they still set me back about 3 bills. They are okay, but are made to a slightly stronger prescription than my regular glasses, and cause a bit of eyestrain to switch back and forth between my regular glasses. I wish I had demanded an identical prescription, but it is too late to do anything about it now.
I wish I had done it 5 years sooner. If you have to wear glasses anyway, it is more convenient and easier on your eyes to deal with one pair of glasses rather than 2.
As someone who has worn glasses since my earliest memories, I treat them as an extension of my body. Being farsighted, I have always seemed to be playing catch up between lenses strong enough to read comfortably, but not too strong to interfere with driving. From the time I was a small child, my precscription gradually increased from +3.75/+4 to +5.75/+6.25 by the time I hit the big four oh.
Just as you seem to be doing, I resisted my optometrist/opthamologist's early hints and suggestions to consider bifocals, as just his way of improving the bottom line of the overpriced optician that was colocated in his office. I figured he got a piece of the action for every customer he personally escorted to their counter.
I also couldn't stomach paying the $500 I would certainly be pressured into paying for their top of the line featherweight no-line bifocals by the time I got them into a good set of spring-templed stainless steel frames.
I held out for another year or so, but got tired of trying having to focus on my monitor from 3 feet away, and having to put the newspaper on the floor to read it. Next eye appointment I knew what was coming, but I was ready with several hundred bucks in my FSA. I fell for the opthamologist's FUD about any other optician than their's and expected the worst.
450 bucks and a week later I had my new top of the line no-line bifocals. The new lenses took about a week to get adjusted to, but overall I have been pleased with the results. My line of sight for driving is perfectly natural, and I don't even have to move my head to read the instruments. Using a computer at a desk is also in a natural position, but the eye level monitors on the System 150 and similar equipment I work on force me to crane my neck a bit to see well. Fortunately, I only have to interact with those monitors for a few minutes at a time.
A year later, I brought a pair of similar prescription polarized sunglasses for driving and motorcycling at an optician inside a Wal-Mart and paid about 100 bucks less, but they still set me back about 3 bills. They are okay, but are made to a slightly stronger prescription than my regular glasses, and cause a bit of eyestrain to switch back and forth between my regular glasses. I wish I had demanded an identical prescription, but it is too late to do anything about it now.
I wish I had done it 5 years sooner. If you have to wear glasses anyway, it is more convenient and easier on your eyes to deal with one pair of glasses rather than 2. A decent optometrist/opthamologist can specify a base curve
suitable for optimal computer use, without compromising your vision during other activities.
I don't have a link right in front of me, but I've heard you should stretch your eyes every 15 minutes or so - which roughly means to focus on something as far away as possible to contrast your up-close monitor.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
i've been using CRTs reguarly from age 4. am now 31. no glasses. no contacts. mom and dad do wear glasses, brother does not (also a heavy crt user).