When Laura Moore was pregnant, she neither smoked nor drank—not even coffee.
She did, however, operate a computer terminal for a telephone company in Renton, Washington, near Seattle, and she was one of three VDT operators there with problem pregnancies within a year and one-half.[44]
Laura Moore, after nineteen hours of labor, gave birth to a son with a birth defect called spina bifida. “We didn’t see it at first,” she said. “We saw a larger head and a foot that was a little odd and distorted. But when the nurse picked him up, then we saw this huge opening in his back, which is a spina bifida.” Laura was “devastated. Just devastated. We—I went through a severe depression afterward.”
Moore is just one of many people worried about VDTs. In Massachusetts a pregnant journalist, fearing radiation, wore a leaded apron. (A leaded apron’s weight on the mother might itself harm an unborn child.) At theNew York Timestwo young editors developed cataracts and filed for workers compensation, blaming their computer screens.
“We’ve heard of cases of everything from bad dreams of computers chasing people to psychic distress where people have attacks of depression,” says Michael Smith, the ex-NIOSH man. “But it can’t be linked specifically to the VDT.” And yet NIOSH as of this writing was continuing safety studies. “We might find that it has nothing to do with the video tubes,” Smith says of problem pregnancies among terminal operators. “It could be part of the circuitry.... It may be from job stress.” Meanwhile, proven problems—like eyestrain—bedevil men and women on the tube. When 1,236 secretaries and word processing-operators replied to a survey done for a major disk-maker, almost 70 percent worried about potential health complication. Some 63 percent told of eyestrain, and 36 percent reported backaches. Almost 80 percent wanted better lighting and more time to rest their eyes.
So, regardless of how your equipment supplier vouches for your computers’ safety, keep two facts in mind:
1. There is a possibility, extra-slim, but still there, that low-frequency radiation from computers can seriously threaten the health of workers like Laura Moore and their unborn children.
2. More minor physical and mental problems from computers definitely do exist. You and your people, however, can either overcome them or at least live with them. Don’t shrug the problems off. If you do, you’ll only ruin your credibility when you and your employees discuss radiation and other possible hazards.
Most people, however, accept the inevitability of computerization. Employees usually know you need your machines to keep up with your competitors. So do unions. They have computers of their own. The major labor-management issues aren’t over whether to computerize: they’re over how to be safe and humane about it.
And often, by agreeing to requests like those for eye examinations, you’ll be helping your company along with the workers.
Here is a summary of expert thinking about actual and possible health threats of computers:
Could low-frequency radiation from VDTs indeed endanger the unborn? Or might it cause cataracts? And what about x-rays?
A computer user sits much closer to the screen than most TV-watchers do; might this increase the danger? After all, a typical computer, like a TV, uses a cathode ray tube with a high-voltage charge. An electron gun fires these subatomic particles toward the phosphor coating on your screen. Toward you, in other words. Wouldn’t x-rays created by this process be dangerous?
Well, throw away your $50 lead-impregnated acrylic shield! Experts feel that x-ray are a nonissue here.
The x-rays aren’t strong enough; besides, there’s too much leaded glass in the computer screen itself for you to suffer harm. I’d worry more about the chemicals in my typewriter cleaning fluid than about x-rays from my green screen.
Then again, some respected scientistswonderabout low-frequency radiation given off by computer monitors. Until researchers can absolve computers of blame in cases like Laura Moore’s, the VDT safety issue will remain legitimate.
“The wild cards in the VDT debate are the eleven clusters of problem pregnancies and miscarriages among women who work on or nearby VDTs,” says Louis Slesin, editor ofMicrowave Newsand publisher of the sister publicationVDT News.[45]Some computer industry spokesmen and federal officials think the clusters show up by chance. Slesin, however, while noting that the “normal” miscarriage rate in the U.S. is almost 20 percent, says: “The incidence of birth defects is harder to account for.” And he says similar clusters haven’t popped up among women tapping away on typewriters.
These clusters—found in widely scattered offices in the U.S. and Canada—may result from causes other than radiation. Some VDT operators feel less in control of their jobs than do traditional typists; and a remote possibility exists that this additional stress could take its toll on the unborn children. Slesin says fear of VDTs may itself increase the stress—a Catch-22 if ever one existed.
Seeking a definitive answer on the birth-defect and miscarriage questions, NIOSH in 1984 was planning a study of about 5,000 pregnancies in a two-year period. Perhaps one-half of the women would use terminals. And the study would tell if they had more miscarriages and children with birth defects than did the other mothers. It would not pinpoint the cause, however—justification for further study.
A possible culprit here isvery low frequency(VLF)radiationfrom the flyback transformer.
The transformer whips the cathode ray tube’s electron beams from one side to the other of the phosphor-coated screen, then back again. Typically a flyback transformer gives off radiation pulses at the rate of about 16,000 cycles a second, far below the AM radio broadcast band—hence, the term VLF. Could pulses at this frequency have biological effects?
We don’t know about VLF. But a Spanish scientist named Jose Delgado says even very weak pulses ofextremely low-frequency radiation(ELF), the term for below 300 cycles a second, have damaged chick embryos. Some authorities question the “Delgado effect”; still, scientists in both the U.S. and Europe are undertaking similar experiments. Trying to gauge the possible risks from ELF, researchers may face certain technical complexities. Some scientists talk about “windows” of power and frequency. Just a slightly lower or higher frequency, for instance, might mean the difference between safety and danger for expectant mothers.
Like it or not, the jury is still out on the low frequency issue, and some companies may want to protect themselves legally—just in case—by transferring pregnant women from VDTs. Ideally you’d coordinate this policy with those regarding maternity leaves and other health benefits; then a woman would feel free to tell you immediately about her pregnancy instead of disguising it for as long as possible.
Even if radio frequency radiation is a culprit, there is some hope. Slesin notes that the flyback transformer is on the side or back of a computer monitor rather than in the front near the operator. That isn’t the best news for someone sitting near the flyback transformer of a coworker’s machine, but perhaps the VLF threat isn’t so great to someone without any other VDTs nearby. “With the right office layout,” says Mark Pinsky, editor ofVDT News,“you might be able to greatly reduce exposure to VLFs fields. And obviously the risk to home computer users might be less without another machine around.”
Although VDTs have yet to be proven free of radiation risks, please note that groups like 9 to 5 and the Newspaper Guild have been using at least a few computers in their offices for several years. Don’t lie to your people that there’s nothing to worry about; do point out that the risks are low enough to justify computerization’s benefits.
“Can computer screens cause cataracts?” some employees might also ask.
Probably not. A NIOSH study at the BaltimoreSunfound no greater number of cataracts among VDT users than nonusers (although the researchers noted that the employees on VDTs averaged less than four years at the tube—perhaps not long enough to suffer the cataracts).
To be sure, strong microwave radiation indeed can lead to cataracts. But VDTs don’t give off microwaves, and no one has suggested that ELF and VLF are responsible for cataracts. Maybe there are other causes. Regardless, a certain percentage of people, some in their 30s or even late 20s, will always develop cataracts—whether or not they work in front of a tube.
Theyarecommon—because, as mentioned earlier, some terminals force you to choose between the best hand-keyboard distance and the optimal eye-screen one.
And for the most part, the pains are avoidable.
Etienne Grandjean tells of a study in which 11 percent of fifty-three people on data-entry terminals suffered neck problems; 15 percent, shoulder troubles; 15 percent, problems in their right arms; and 6 percent, problems in their right hands. The study also included fifty-five people in traditional office work. No more than 1 percent suffered neck, shoulder, or right arm pains, and none had problems with the right hand. Olov Ostberg and Ewa Gunnarsson, two other European ergonomics experts, likewise documented the frequent muscular pains from computer-related jobs. They found that almost two-thirds of some fairly young clerks with a Scandinavian airline reported such problems. In the United States, NIOSH, in its 1981 report, also said terminal users endured more muscular and skeletal pain.
The outrage is that it’s unnecessary, almost always, now that ergonomic furniture and detachable keyboards are on the market.
Don’t blame your people for their pain. Buy truly ergonomic products.
And don’t just buy for male executives or female typists, especially in this age when more women are working.
NIOSH’s 1981 report observed that VDT operators showed dramatically more anxiety and depression than people not on the tubes. The researchers qualified their finding, however. They noted that many terminal operators were in jobs more routine than those of the non-VDT people, increasing psychological problems.
Could the machines themselves, however, have made some work more routine?
For me computers mean less typing and more writing. For a data-entry clerk, however, they may mean becoming part of what Grandjean calls “a man-machine-system.” Not all workers object. Some, as Grandjean says, “are proud to be included in the new work of modern technology.” But most people would still favor the human touch, with or without a computer. “The computer,” it’s been said, “is the ultimate unsupportive boss.” A Cleveland office worker observed that another woman was “fast as the wind” on a computer keyboard after ten years at it. “But,” said the worker, “it’s really affected her personality. I used to wonder if something was wrong—she had no exuberance. Once she said to me, ‘Rose, as soon as I sit down at that machine in the morning, I feel I’m going to cry.’”[46]
“You know,” said a worker at an accounting firm, “when the boss brings new clients through the office to show them around, he’ll point right to me working at the word processor and say, ‘Here we have our wonderful new LEXITRON,’ and then move right on. He doesn’t bother to introduce me—just the machine!” Mightn’t he also have bragged about the operator? Can you dismiss her as a whiner? Is it any surprise that on most days the woman and two colleagues suffered headaches, shaky hands, jittery stomachs? “The place looks gorgeous,” said a worker, “and that’s where the management’s priorities lie. They’re not really as interested in efficiency as they are in using people up and pushing them out the back door.”
According to Grandjean, psychological reactions to computers will differ depending on:
▪ The type of work.▪ The way the job is organized.▪ The way it is introduced.▪ Various personal attitudes.
▪ The type of work.▪ The way the job is organized.▪ The way it is introduced.▪ Various personal attitudes.
▪ The type of work.▪ The way the job is organized.▪ The way it is introduced.▪ Various personal attitudes.
▪ The type of work.
▪ The way the job is organized.
▪ The way it is introduced.
▪ Various personal attitudes.
To his list I would add “Surroundings.” A newspaper installed dark blue panels, six feet high, around some VDT operators. The dark blue may have cut down the glare, but at a cost. “All we see is the walls around us,” lamented one, “and sometimes the supervisor. The isolation is terrible.” Some employees might welcome isolation at times, especially a chance to work at home; but here management seems to have unwittingly created high-tech solitary cells.
“I wore glasses before I came in,” said a claims processor with the northeastern insurance office mentioned earlier, “and now I need a stronger prescription. And I can’t even read a book anymore. Before I used to enjoy reading,” she told me, “but now I can barely glance at newspapers.”
Many computer-ergonomics experts would scoff at the idea that the woman’s work is blinding her. No one has convincingly shown that the terminals cause a permanent deterioration in eyesight. There is, however, some uncertainty. “We don’t know,” said my ophthalmologist when I asked during an eye examination about long-term effects—and also when he prescribed new glasses.
Most ergonomics experts would be more reassuring. They would say, for instance, that, first, people’s eyes weaken naturally as they age, and you can’t automatically blame the terminals. Second, terminals place more demands on your eyes than reading does. VDTs, however, don’t permanently harm eyes, according to a twelve-member panel of the prestigious National Research Council (NRC) which is connected with the National Academies of Science and Engineering. The NRC study, released in 1983, said no evidence existed that VDTs could cause “anatomical or physiological damage ... to the visual system.” The panel felt that the VDT controversy should be a productivity issue rather than a health one. At the very least, however, it’s a comfort one. Harry Snyder, the Virginia Polytechnic Institute expert, in 1983 said that three-fifths of VDTs then on sale were not even reasonably comfortable. Just consider, if nothing else, the resultant productivity losses!
Even if the computer isn’t permanently blinding the northeastern claims processor, it’s in a sense shortening her life. She has less time for the reading she loves. Presumably, she would agree with the findings of a NIOSH-sponsored study of San Francisco clerical workers. Ninety-one percent of the ones on terminals reportedly complained of eyestrain, while only 60 percent of the nonterminal users did.
How to reply to such complaints? Follow the lighting and glare suggestions outlined earlier and consider rest breaks or alternating VDT and non-VDT tasks. And educate your workers—ideally before you hire them.
Let them know you’re doing all you can to reduce the risks. “I have a selfish interest in this, too, you know,” you can tell them once they’re working for you. “The lousier your eyes get, the more errors you’ll make. Which hurtsme.”
Then hand them cards with a good ophthalmologist’s name on it—or perhaps several possibilities—and say: “Make an appointment. We’ll pay for it.” Why should a company invest thousands or millions of dollars in computer maintenance without worrying about other work tools—employees’ eyes? Have new employees’ eyes checked in these NIOSH-approved ways, among others, during thorough examinations:
1. Refraction2. Accommodation3. Acuity4. Color vision function5. Degree of opacity of the lens6. The possibility of a detached retina
1. Refraction2. Accommodation3. Acuity4. Color vision function5. Degree of opacity of the lens6. The possibility of a detached retina
1. Refraction2. Accommodation3. Acuity4. Color vision function5. Degree of opacity of the lens6. The possibility of a detached retina
1. Refraction
2. Accommodation
3. Acuity
4. Color vision function
5. Degree of opacity of the lens
6. The possibility of a detached retina
Yearly, the doctor should test for refraction, acuity, and accommodation.
Make sure your health insurance covers bifocals and other glasses that your employees wouldn’t need except for your CRT.
Yes. Not immediately. But sooner or later. CRTs are harder on the eye than the better flat screens will eventually be, and although scientists haven’t proved that CRTs are a radiation threat, the small possibility remains.
These bulky antiques, however, have been to the computer establishment what gas guzzlers were to Detroit. The CRT isn’tthe most promising kind of computer screen—just the most entrenched.[47]
Admittedly, CRTs have improved to the point where some pocket-sized TVs can use them. But in compactness and low-power consumption, CRTs will never rival the flat-screen displays.
“People will begin using flat-screen portables as regular desktops,” a New York researcher correctly says.[48]Flat-screen computers may not be as viewable now as the best CRT displays, but this may quickly change. What’s more, flat-screen machines don’t hog desks as the Kaypro II-style portables can. After all, the flat screens are essentially—flat. They don’t need hefty transformers, moreover, and don’t burn out like old vacuum tubes. CRTsarevacuum tubes. Low voltage is still another plus of most flat screens. Not that CRTs are normally a shock hazard, but you’ll presumably feel safer if you didn’t sit near a 20,000-volt gizmo flinging electrons around inside some glass.
Also, as David LaGrande, an official with the Communications Workers of America notes, flat screens may “eliminate the radiation danger, reduce the risks for pregnant women.” And unless you spray a flat display with radioactive material, it just won’t give you cancer.
Again, no one’s proved that CRTs will turn people’s bodies into tumor farms. But why gamble? Your caution won’t hurt labor relations.
Flat screens, also, don’t flicker tiresomely as many CRTs do, and someday they may boast more fully formed images than those from the CRTs. So you might make fewer errors reading material from the screen.
The word “might” is important. Manyliquid-crystal displays—LCDs, like the wristwatch kind—showed much cruder images in 1984 than did typical CRTs. The broken-up letters might bother you just like those from the cheap dot-matrix printers.
Also, some LCDs offered horrid contrast between the screen background and your typing.
That was as of late 1984. Even cheap LCDs in the future could do away with the breakup and contrast problems. Already the Japanese are selling color TVs with LCDs.
Perfected, LCDs could make computerized offices brighter andcheerier. They don’t glow. Rather, they reflect light, just like paper, so you needn’t darken the office. In fact, light helps.[49]
And if LCDs don’t fully pan out? There’s yet another choice—electrophereticscreens, which may offer decent contrast and even beat CRTs’ sharpness. Here’s the theory. A magnetic charge pushes tiny particles to the surface of the screens, and patterns of particles form images.
These gizmos will tax your battery less than some other flat-screen displays do. And listen to this: when you turn an electropheretic off, itremembers. The images on your screen don’t vanish.
Now, combine that wrinkle with memory chips that use next to no power and can be running all the time. And what do you have? A computer that will automatically shut off without harm if you didn’t tap a key after a certain stretch of time. Just like a calculator. So—battery makers, beware!
There are still other alternatives to CRTs. One is theelectroluminescentscreen—used on the Grid Compass portable—which glows and is sharper than the LCD. Electroluminescents in 1984, however, were far too expensive for the average computer buyer; the Grid was selling for $4,250, and much of that was the cost of the display. A second failing of electroluminescentscreensscreensis that they’re electricity hungry. You can’t operate them with miniature batteries.
Another LCD alternative is theplasma panel, which glows with a gas mixture consisting mainly of neon. Plasmas don’t flicker. The characters are sharp; the contrast, excellent. But backup circuitry has been expensive; and even small plasmas, with the accompanying electronics, cost several thousand dollars in 1984—a far cry from a $150 CRT monitor.
To sum up, the main advantages of flat screens are their lightness, low power consumption in most cases, safety, lack of flicker, and very likely a better view in the long run. As of late 1984 the trade-offs (at least in the case of LCDs) were:
▪ The broken-up, somewhat fuzzy letters and the low contrast between them and the background.
▪ The need to have the display at just the right angle from you to get the sharpest picture. This could get in the way if you were moving the LCD to reduce glare.
▪ The comparatively slow speed with which letters or numbersappeared on an LCD after you’ve typed.
▪ The general lack of full-sized 24-line screens with 80 columns. The Data General portable debuted with 24 lines and a screen measuring 11 inches diagonally—a welcome exception, even if the quality of the characters still wasn’t good enough for heavy use.
Since many flat screens were on portables, there were other ergonomic problems not related to the display technology per se. In late 1984, most flat-screen portables lacked detachable keyboards. But the limitations of LCDs were the main problems.
A reporter friend, banging out stories for his paper at times in the field, told me he’s survived the 40-column, 8-line screen of the Radio Shack Model 100 very well. But I’m not surprised. He’s also brooked that clunky Select software, which gets in the way of corrections and insertions. Gene, you see, apparently knows what he’s going to write—he needn’t watch the screen as much. I wish I were as decisive. At any rate, what was right for Gene wouldn’t necessarily be right for a clerk who’ll be at the keyboard seven or eight hours a day.
No matter what hardware and software you end up with, don’t lose sight of three goals, among others:
1. Getting the most work out of your people2. Keeping them happy3. Guarding your electronic files
1. Getting the most work out of your people2. Keeping them happy3. Guarding your electronic files
1. Getting the most work out of your people2. Keeping them happy3. Guarding your electronic files
1. Getting the most work out of your people
2. Keeping them happy
3. Guarding your electronic files
Sometimes, alas, the easiest-to-use computers may be the ones most vulnerable to computer crime and loss of important information—the subjects of the next chapter.
Backups:
Backups:
◼IX, Window Shopping, page343.
◼X, Of Mice and Men—and Touch Pads, Touch Screens Etc., page346.