Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 Like Rick, I've noticed sitting in front of a monitor is a guaranteed trigger, but only certain monitors. With my monitor at work, within 20 minutes I can feel the tingling, and within an hour, it's a full flush. However, I never flush at all sitting in front of my bedroom monitor. And no, it's not a stress-related flush... I spend at least the first half-hour of each work day just surfing the web... . Then I noticed on my home monitor there's a sticker that says " MPR II Low Emission - This device meets Swedish MPRII Standard " . After a bit of web research, it turns out the Swedish government came up with a set of standards for monitor electro-magnetic output for various wavelength ranges. From what I gather, MPR II is the most commonly used standard, and " TCO " is even stricter. IF anyone knows anything more about the MPR II, I'd be interested to know. The Best Buy website lists whether each monitor it sells is MPR II compliant. I can't say for sure whether that explains the difference in the monitors, but there definately is a difference. -Greg __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 > IF anyone knows anything more about the MPR II, I'd be interested to > know. No more than what you described, Greg, but I checked on its stats and my rash-producing monitor is, " Low emissions for operator safety. MPR II and CE compliant. " (I also learned my monitor is 19 " , not 21 " . Oh well. It looks really big to me. ) From what I'm reading online, there seems to be a real but poorly documented relationship between rosacea-type skin reaction and monitors/video display terminals. It's interesting that all these resources describe essentially the same skin reaction -- the same one I experience, and what others are describing here too. A review article from the respected Southern Medical Journal looks critically at pre-1998 studies linking electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and several health complaints, including skin rashes, without hard conclusions: http://www.sma.org/smj1998/jansmj98/2text.htm I'm not very familiar with Curtis, but an article from that dermatology journal links facial rashes to electrostatic fields, not EMR: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/7.31.html#subj6 On a Web site for building home computers, the increased dust burden around electrostatic fields and electricity hypersensitivity are implicated: http://www.webpromo-inc.com/pc/health.htm#Electromagnetism%20and% 20Health%20issues The last two references talk about electrostatic fields in low humidity environments, which definitely describes my home. There's a lot about electrostatic fields online, but much of it is promotional marketing to sell products. Janiemmca wrote: " Some people, myself included; also react to flourescent lights the same way...the topic was discussed way back.. " I've heard that fluorescent and other artifical lights are associated with photosensitivity to ultraviolet rays (UVR, as in sun light). Photosensitivity occurs with some diseases (not rosacea, I believe) but medicines such as doxycycline -- used to treat rosacea -- is well known to cause photosensitivity. I don't know much about fluorescent lighting, and there's relatively little online about it. But a patient newsletter from the University of Iowa Department of Dermatology (http://tray.dermatology.uiowa.edu/Vol1-3.SunProtect.pdf) says, " For maximum UV protection, acrylic diffusion shields should be placed over bare fluorescent light bulbs...to block the small amount of UV irradiation that can leak from such light sources (UVA greater than UVB). " Not all sunscreens block UVA, but sunblocking agents zinc oxide and titanium dioxide do a good job of blocking UVA rays. I wouldn't think that monitors emit enough UVRs to cause photosensitivity reaction, and the reaction doesn't sound like typical photosensitivity. For example, it looks different and tends to last days and weeks after exposure rather than dissipate within hours, as is typical for the above-described monitor rash. Perhaps someone knows more? Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 While doing shopping for a monitor glare-guard, there appears to be two types: those that reduce glare, and those which also reduce static/radiation. This implies that the former does not affect static/radiation. If my theory is correct, it's the low-frequency wavelength static that's causing me problems, as opposed to high-frequency UV waves. The versions with static/radiation reduction seem to run about $10 more, and require " grounding " the guard for maximum effect. Again, if anyone's done comparisons among these, I'd be interested. -Greg __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 I purchased a glare screen which filters everything (UV and radiation) for my computer at work and stopped flushing at work, at least from the computer. I have yet to purchase one for my home computer and continue to flush if I spend significant time at the computer. My filter came from Office Depot and cost about $50 for a 17# monitor. I have a 19# at home and the price for those were about $100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 I purchased a glare screen which filters everything (UV and radiation) for my computer at work and stopped flushing at work, at least from the computer. I have yet to purchase one for my home computer and continue to flush if I spend significant time at the computer. My filter came from Office Depot and cost about $50 for a 17# monitor. I have a 19# at home and the price for those were about $100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2002 Report Share Posted March 17, 2002 > While doing shopping for a monitor glare-guard, there appears > to be two types: those that reduce glare, and those which also > reduce static/radiation. This implies that the former does > not affect static/radiation. I've heard that 3M make the best filters, and I believe most 3M filters are anti-static. > If my theory is correct, it's the > low-frequency wavelength static that's causing me problems, > as opposed to high-frequency UV waves. Most sources on the Internet attribute the rash to a monitor's electrostatic field: tiny dust and other particles within an electrostatic field settling on a person would be selectively irritating to rosacea faces, and as soon as the person leaves the field the particles would fall off (explaining why the irritation is short-lived). My monitor doesn't have glare and I doubt radiation has anything to do with it, so I'm going to investigate simplier anti-static options like anti-static cleaners or ways to ground a monitor without purchasing a filter. Anyone have experience with anti-static measures? Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2002 Report Share Posted March 17, 2002 > While doing shopping for a monitor glare-guard, there appears > to be two types: those that reduce glare, and those which also > reduce static/radiation. This implies that the former does > not affect static/radiation. I've heard that 3M make the best filters, and I believe most 3M filters are anti-static. > If my theory is correct, it's the > low-frequency wavelength static that's causing me problems, > as opposed to high-frequency UV waves. Most sources on the Internet attribute the rash to a monitor's electrostatic field: tiny dust and other particles within an electrostatic field settling on a person would be selectively irritating to rosacea faces, and as soon as the person leaves the field the particles would fall off (explaining why the irritation is short-lived). My monitor doesn't have glare and I doubt radiation has anything to do with it, so I'm going to investigate simplier anti-static options like anti-static cleaners or ways to ground a monitor without purchasing a filter. Anyone have experience with anti-static measures? Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2002 Report Share Posted March 17, 2002 > While doing shopping for a monitor glare-guard, there appears > to be two types: those that reduce glare, and those which also > reduce static/radiation. This implies that the former does > not affect static/radiation. I've heard that 3M make the best filters, and I believe most 3M filters are anti-static. > If my theory is correct, it's the > low-frequency wavelength static that's causing me problems, > as opposed to high-frequency UV waves. Most sources on the Internet attribute the rash to a monitor's electrostatic field: tiny dust and other particles within an electrostatic field settling on a person would be selectively irritating to rosacea faces, and as soon as the person leaves the field the particles would fall off (explaining why the irritation is short-lived). My monitor doesn't have glare and I doubt radiation has anything to do with it, so I'm going to investigate simplier anti-static options like anti-static cleaners or ways to ground a monitor without purchasing a filter. Anyone have experience with anti-static measures? Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.