monitor radiation

[Guest guest]

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

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to back what everyone was saying. Since Sept 11th I have had

little or no flushing. Since Sept 11 I have also had no job. Yesterday I began

temping, yesterday I began flushing again. I noticed it immediately, 20 minutes

after sitting in from of this ridiculous screen. So.

I've just placed a glare screen in front of my computer. Let's see if it helps.

Marie

emarjency emarjency@...> wrote: > 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

--

Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group

(http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you don't give a

meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must change the subject when

replying to a digest !

See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book.

To leave the list send an email to rosacea-support-unsubscribe

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to back what everyone was saying. Since Sept 11th I have had

little or no flushing. Since Sept 11 I have also had no job. Yesterday I began

temping, yesterday I began flushing again. I noticed it immediately, 20 minutes

after sitting in from of this ridiculous screen. So.

I've just placed a glare screen in front of my computer. Let's see if it helps.

Marie

emarjency emarjency@...> wrote: > 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

--

Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group

(http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you don't give a

meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must change the subject when

replying to a digest !

See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book.

To leave the list send an email to rosacea-support-unsubscribe

[Guest guest]

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.