do display screens give out harmful radiation made in china

Smoke detectors: most smoke detectors available for home use contain americium-241, a radioactive element. Unless tampered with, smoke detectors pose little to no health risk; a smoke detector’s ability to save lives far outweighs the health risks from the radioactive materials. For more information on smoke detectors, visit Americium in Ionization Smoke Detectors.

Clocks and watches: some luminous watches and clocks contain a small quantity of hydrogen-3 (tritium) or promethium-147. Older watches and clocks (made before 1970) may contain radium-226 paint on dials and numbers to make them visible in the dark. Avoid opening these items because the radium could flake off and be ingested or inhaled. Learn more about tritium and radium on the Radionuclides webpage.

Older camera lenses: some camera lenses from the 1950s-1970s incorporated thorium into the glass, allowing for a high refractive index while maintaining a low dispersion. The health risk from using older camera lenses is low; the radiation received when using a thoriated lens camera is approximately equal to natural background.

Gas lantern mantles: older, and some imported, gas lantern mantles generate light by heating thorium (primarily thorium-232). Unless gas lantern mantels are used as the primary light source, radiation exposure from thorium lantern mantles is not considered to have significant health impacts.

Televisions and monitors: Flat-screen televisions and monitors (e.g., LCD, OLED, plasma) do not use cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and therefore do not produce ionizing radiation. Older televisions and computer monitors that contain CRTs may emit x-rays. X-ray emissions from CRT monitors are not recognized as a significant health risk.

Sun lamps and tanning salons: the ultraviolet rays from sun lamps and tanning salons are as damaging to skin as the ultraviolet rays of the sun. In fact, warning labels are required which begin "DANGER—Ultraviolet radiation". You can learn more about performance standards for these devices from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Glass: glassware, especially antique glassware with a yellow or greenish color, can contain easily detectable quantities of uranium. Such uranium-containing glass is often referred to as canary or vaseline glass. In part, collectors like uranium glass for the attractive glow that is produced when the glass is exposed to a black light. Even ordinary glass can contain high-enough levels of potassium-40 or thorium-232 to be detectable with a survey instrument. However, the radiation received when using glassware – even canary or vaseline glass – is unlikely to exceed background radiation levels.

Fertilizer: Commercial fertilizers are designed to provide varying levels of potassium, phosphorous, and nitrogen to support plant growth. Such fertilizers can be measurably radioactive for two reasons: potassium is naturally radioactive, and the phosphorous can be derived from phosphate ore that contains elevated levels of uranium. Learn more about Radioactive Material From Fertilizer Production.

EXIT signs: Some EXIT signs contain the radioactive gas called tritium, allowing them to glow in the dark without electricity or batteries. The tritium used in EXIT signs gives off low-level beta radiation, causing a light-emitting compound to glow. Tritium EXIT signs do not pose a direct health hazard, as the beta radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper or clothing. However, tritium EXIT signs must not be disposed of in normal trash. For more information on tritium EXIT signs, see the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s page on tritium EXIT signs.

According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), "there is no convincing scientific evidence that computer video display terminals (VDTs) are harmful to the eyes."  The common complaints of eye discomfort and fatigue are associated with ergonomic factors such as distance from the person to the monitor, monitor height and brightness, etc.

I have a colleague who is pregnant and who types at a computer. How much radiation does her baby receive at a typical computer? Is there a lead shield that she could wear? Like an apron?

Regulations of the US Department of Health and Human Services require manufacturers to test computer monitor emissions for radiation and to label them attesting to the fact that they have been found to meet the standards of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. You should be able to find this label on the rear of the computer monitor or the computer processor. Health studies of pregnant women who work with VDTs have not found harmful effects on the women or on their children. Heavy lead aprons or other shields are not considered necessary for units that meet the x-ray emission standards of 21 CFR. Such shields may actually be counterproductive from an ergonomic point of view.

Radiation emissions from VDTs (for example, television sets and computer monitors) are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers are required to test and label these products.  Regulations limit radiation emissions from electronic products to levels considered safe.

I have heard a lot of answers about the ill effects of computer radiation but almost all that I have read claim no certainty in their answers. Has there been any valid and indisputable answer to this?

This means that if there are health risks they are too small or of a kind that have not been detected by current methods. Scientists often say that they "cannot disprove a negative," meaning that it is not logically possible to prove that something does not exist. This is because the list of things to be disproved can be endless, and the type and level of sensitivity of the tests that are used can always be improved upon.

I"m getting a computer for my child and would like to know which type of monitor/computer is safest in terms of the different types of radiation that exist. I was told years ago that the flat screens had a different, yet worse, type of radiation. Are there two types of radiation, and is this type worse?

All television receivers (including computer monitors), regardless of type, must meet a mandatory federal performance standard so any x-ray emissions, if they exist at all, must be at very low levels.  I am unaware of two types of radiation, unless you categorize the visible light which you see on the television screen as one type, which is, in fact an electromagnetic radiation; You can also consider radiowaves, which are also electromagnetic radiation. Both of these types of radiation are nonionizing and generally considered safe unless one is exposed to very intense levels.

All television receivers (including computer monitors), regardless of type, must meet a mandatory federal performance standard so any x-ray emissions, if they exist at all, must be at very low levels. The key point is that the emission standard is for "any point on the external surface" which means whether someone is in front of, to the side of, or behind the display or receiver, he/she is protected against any potential emissions of the display to the same degree.

My mom worries about the effects of computer radiation. She says that I am putting my health at risk by being on my PC more than four hours a day. Is this true?

The radiation emission from any computer is RF (radiofrequency) waves. There is no proof that these are harmful unless the intensity is high enough to warm tissue (like a microwave oven). You are not putting yourself at risk (from radiation) by being on your computer more than four hours a day.

My grandchildren often sit with their laptop computers in their laps. Is there any danger to their health and reproductive organs from low-level radiation that may be reaching them?

The only measurable radiation emission from a laptop computer is radio waves. We are constantly exposed to such radiation from all directions and multiple sources, including radio and TV signals, electronic appliances, etc. Current data indicate that these are not harmful to our health. There is, however, quite a bit of heat generated within the laptop while it is on. It is for this reason manufacturers recommend against extended periods of use with the computer on your lap.

The information posted on this web page is intended as general reference information only. Specific facts and circumstances may affect the applicability of concepts, materials, and information described herein. The information provided is not a substitute for professional advice and should not be relied upon in the absence of such professional advice. To the best of our knowledge, answers are correct at the time they are posted. Be advised that over time, requirements could change, new data could be made available, and Internet links could change, affecting the correctness of the answers. Answers are the professional opinions of the expert responding to each question; they do not necessarily represent the position of the Health Physics Society.

It is well known that ROS lead to oxidative damage in major cell macromolecules, such as lipids and nucleic acids. ROS have been implicated in tissue injury. The main ROS that have to be considered are the superoxide anion (O2-.), which is predominantly generated by the mitochondria; H2O2 produced from O2-. by the action of SOD; and peroxynitrite generated by the reaction of O2-. with nitric oxide. ROS are scavenged by SOD, GSH-Px, and CAT. MDA is the breakdown product of the major chain reactions leading to the oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids and, thus, serves as a reliable marker of oxidative stress-mediated lipid peroxidation [42].

The disruption of the oxidant/antioxidant balance in the eye and other tissues exposed to EMR from mobile phones has been shown in experimental studies [11,43]. In addition, we found that mobile phone radiation leads to oxidative stress due to increased MDA levels in the cornea and lens [44]. Falone et al. [45] indicated that ELF-EMF exposure significantly affects anti-oxidative capability, and they suggested that exposure to ELF-EMFs may act as a risk factor for the occurrence of oxidative stress-based nervous system pathologies. Moreover, some researchers have recently linked the role of ELF-EMFs in activating immune-relevant cell types to the free radical-based physiological changes detected following field exposure [46,47].

Yokus et al. [38] reported increased lipid peroxidation oxidative DNA damage in rats exposed to ELF-EMFs. Furthermore, Guler et al. [48] found a significant increase in the levels of MDA and a significant decrease in antioxidant enzyme activities in Guinea pigs that were exposed to an ELF-electric field. They also indicated that N-acetyl-L-cysteine application has protective effects on ELF-electric field-induced oxidative stress. In the present study, we detected clear changes due to oxidative stress in the cornea, in accordance with previous studies. In corneas exposed to PC monitor radiation, the MDA level, as an indicator of lipid peroxidation, significantly increased. The cornea, being lipid-rich tissue, may manifest this marked increase in MDA [49].

A number of studies have been performed to evaluate the antioxidant effects on EMF-induced oxidative damage [11,43]. We also investigated the effectiveness of a powerful antioxidant, vitamin C, on the oxidative damage induced by monitor radiation under the present experimental conditions. Vitamin C treatment on the radiation-exposed groups resulted in significantly increased SOD and GSH-Px activities. However, vitamin C could not protect corneal tissue against PC monitor radiation-induced oxidative stress, as revealed by increased MDA levels, and decreased catalase activity, in the PC monitor plus vitamin C group compared to the PC monitor group.

In the lens tissue, significantly increased MDA levels, SOD, and GSH-Px activities were found in the group exposed to radiation compared to the control group. SOD and GSH-Px activities may increase as a compensatory mechanism to eliminate this oxidative stress. We observed a significant decrease in MDA levels in the lens tissue with the administration of vitamin C in the PC monitor group, compared to the PC monitor alone group. Additionally, SOD activity was higher in the PC monitor plus vitamin C group than in the control group.

In conclusion, exposure to PC monitor radiation may act as a risk factor for the occurrence of oxidative stress-based cornea and lens pathologies. The potent free radical scavenger and antioxidant, vitamin C, may protect lens tissues from oxidative damage, thus preventing organ dysfunction. Considering the widespread use of computers, it will be essential to evaluate the long-term effects of computer monitor radiation on the eye, as well as protective measures. There is a need for further study with different frequencies and exposure periods in order to discover the effects of PC monitor radiation-induced oxidative stress in the eye.

Picked up by several high-profile sites, a new report from RF Exposure Lab claims to shoot down safety reports from the FCC about the iPhone 11 Pro. Its results state Apple’s hugely popular smartphone emits more than double the legal limit for RF radiation (3.8 watts per kilogram versus the 1.6W/kg limit). The report blames antiquated testing methods at the FCC for the discrepancy but I would advise you to look more closely.

02/14 Update: Apple has got in touch with me to say the company will not be issuing a formal statement but it has directed me toiPhone 11 Pro RF Exposure Information. This states that when "iPhone radios are set to their highest transmission levels" and held 5mm from the body the iPhone 11 Pro measures 1.6-2W/Kg meaning standard transition levels will run below this (the readings are the same for theiPhone 11andiPhone 11 Pro Max). Apple does advise users "To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories."

Despite some major sites taking this report at face value, I believe the report is misleading and alarmist, and consumers need to know the full facts. The key is to look at who commissioned RF Exposure Lab’s testing: Penumbra Brands. The company describes itself as supporting “products that improve the performance, aesthetic and lifespan of mobile devices” but its website simply highlights Gadget Guard, which sells (link deliberately excluded) phone cases offering radiation protection.

All over the site are serious warnings about iPhones breaking FCC emissions limits and claims Gadget Guard cases slash these emissions well into safe levels. The site also quotes an article from the Chicago Tribune last year, which erroneously stated the iPhone 7 broke safe radiation levels. Apple denied this and when the FCC retested the phone it was found to be perfectly safe (report here).

Needless to say, I have contacted Apple for a response to the new report but I think we already know what the answer will be. As such, while some will remain convinced by the claim that FCC testing is out of date, there is no evidence to prove this.

So while stock level fears about the upcoming iPhone SE2 / iPhone 9 are very real, I would strongly advise you to dismiss this radiation report out of hand. And always remember the golden rule: check the source.MORE FROM FORBESApple iPhone SE2: Everything We Know So Far [Updated]By Gordon Kelly

The RadioactivityCounter app installed on an iPhone 6s was tested. Measurements were performed with a calibrated source (137Cs) using the phone’s front camera. The other measurements using the back camera were performed through the use of environmental pads. The resulting data were graphically presented and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The RadioactivityCounter app was also tested at normal background radiation levels. The indicated dose rate stabilized after 4 min at around 0.10 µSv/h.

To evaluate the minimum exposure time required for a stable signal, the iPhone 6s was irradiated for 3 min in measurement setups. From the data recorded by the app using the calibrated source (137Cs), the average dose rates obtained after 3 min slightly differed from the expected values, but are still somewhat acceptable. This contrasts with a previous study that found that the minimum time required for a stable signal should be 10 min or more

Radiation dose rates were measured by the phone as a function of the distance between the source and smartphone sensor. Besides, the expected dose rates determined from the calibration data related to the ARPANSA calibration of the source are shown and compared with the measured dose rates (Fig. 4). At the doses higher than approximately 20 µSv/h, the measured values tended to match the expected dose rates; however, below this level, the phone showed some variance. Furthermore, as distance increased, the dose rate decreased, and consequently, the radiation detected by the app declined. Figure 5 plots the count per minute versus the measured dose rate acquired by the RadioactivityCounter app. An approximately linear response was apparent, while at lower doses, this relationship tended to be less evident. At low dose rates of nearby 10 µSv/h, the phone’s response appeared weak. Since a dosimeter’s response to ionizing radiation ideally should not depend on the dose rate, the app was irradiated using a calibrated radioactive source (137Cs), with different dose rates ranging from 104 to 1.0 µSv/h and at different distances as shown in Fig. 4. The relationship between expected and measured dose rates (µSv/h) versus distance (cm) is graphically presented (Fig. 4).

Expected and measured dose rates (µSv/h) versus distances (cm). The expected doses represent calibrated source (137CS) values, whereas the measured doses represent the values recorded by the RadioactivityCounter app.

The expected dose represents the values obtained from the calibrated source (Table 1) (137Cs-661.6 keV gamma emitter) performed at the calibration center. The measured dose represents the values obtained by the RadioactivityCounter app. The resultant data at dose rates above 20 µSv/h corresponded approximately to the expected values, as presented in Fig. 4. The measured and reference dose rates show some deviation at lower dose rates, probably due to the reduced sensitivity of CMOS sensors to low dose rates values. Figure 5 plots the measured doses versus the expected doses. An approximate linear response was observed, although, at lower dose rates around 10 µSv/h, this relationship was less clear. Therefore, the phone’s response seemed to be weaker at low dose rates.

The counts per minute recorded by the app exposed to the radioactive source (137Cs) were directly proportional to the dose rate above 20 µSv/h, as shown in Fig. 6. This finding contrasts with a previous study in which physicists tested an iPhone 4S at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). The recorded counts per minute were directly proportional to dose rates higher than 30 µSv/h5 and 6, which correlates with previously published results

The angular dependence of the measurements is shown in Fig. 7. The dots represent the dose rates at different orientation angles measured by the app. An analysis of the plots below indicates a lower dose–response at 0° and 180°. The highest responses appeared to occur at 30° and 135°, with medium responses at other angles. This suggests a definite trend concerning measurement angles. The angles of 0° and 180° are less efficient, and the radiation is less likely to interact when the pixel array is ‘flat’ concerning the beam angle.

The response of an ionizing radiation detector should also not depend on the impact angle of the radiation. Therefore, the angular dependency of the RadioactivityCounter app was evaluated. The phone’s angular response from 0° to 180° for the dose rate of 37.5 µSv/h is illustrated in Fig. 7, and this result shows that the phone’s response to radiation has an angular dependence on the orientation of the phone. The 0° and 180° angles correspond to facing the source and facing away from the source of radiation. The data in Fig. 7 shows that the phone’s front camera CMOS can detect harmful ionizing radiation at any incidental radiation angle. This helps determine the direction of the ionizing radiation from the source to the smartphone8, the iPhone 6s′ angular response is dependent on its orientation at lower dose rates of around 37.5 µSv/h.

The measured dose rates versus the CPM as acquired by the RadioactivityCounter app above the calibration pad number 5 (Fig. 8). No detection was recorded by the phone, as the radiation emitted from this pad is low at nearly 0.35 µSv/h

The data recorded by the RadioactivityCounter app at pad number 5 is graphically presented as a relationship between counts per minute versus dose rate (µSv/h), as shown in Fig. 8. Since the app’s sensitivity for radiation detection is limited to 10 µSv/h, there was no detection where the radiation emitted from Pad 5 was at 0.35 µSv/h. This finding corresponds to the developer, in which the sensitivity of this app begins at 10 µSv/h

Figure 9 displays the measured dose rates versus the CPM with the phone pointing toward the sun. A linear relationship was observed. Although these results do not represent radiation measurements, they demonstrate that CPM and dose rate recorded by the app are directly related. Regarding the data collected from the concrete pads, at calibration pad number 1, the app recorded no radiation, as this pad’s dose is below the limit of 10 μSv/h. However, Sunlight produced a false signal by the smartphone’s CMOS sensor, as shown in Fig. 9. A linear relationship was observed between the counts per minute and dose rates (µSv/h) recorded by the RadioactivityCounter app (Fig. 9). This demonstrates that the app can potentially be developed, which would enable a smartphone to be used as a light meter for the measurement of personal exposure to the sun (Table 2, Figs. 10, 11, 12).

Smartphones can offer customizable data with user-friendly applications that can prove more useful than conventional special-purpose equipment. Sensor quality and processing power in smartphones are continually developing. Consumer demand for high-quality image sensors is high. Modern smartphone cameras have advanced features, such as accelerated camera pixel intensity, higher image quality, and more incredible rapidity. These features allow smartphones to be especially useful in their ability to detect radiation

However, despite the low sensitivity of smartphones for the low level of radiation, they can be very useful in accident scenarios. The public may be exposed to higher dose levels

One of the notable limitations of this study is that a suitable measurement time is required for a stable measurement, and this could be anywhere between four and ten minutes. Therefore, rapid radiation surveys that are needed (often in seconds) for rapid safety responses cannot be performed by RadioactivityCounter in which after the proper stabilization of four to ten minutes, at least one extra minute is needed to obtain a measurement. Furthermore, if the black tape is not applied correctly to the camera lens, visible rays can be detected, which invalidate the measurement. The precision of the RadioactivityCounter app may also be affected by heat or low battery. The sensitivity of the CMOS is limited to 10 µGy/h; thus, low dose rates cannot be detected. Furthermore, processing the data in the app rapidly depletes the smartphone’s battery, and black tape can damage a phone’s lens with frequent use. Alpha radiation cannot be detected as it is blocked by the housing, lens, and cover of the mobile phone. Gamma rays, X-rays, and beta particles with high energy, however, can be measured by this app.

In hindsight, the years leading up to 2016 were downright sleepy in comparison with what would follow. Donald Trump’s meteoric, tweet-powered rise to the presidency. The Cambridge Analytica scandal. Congressional hearings on privacy and bias. TikTok at the center of souring U.S.–China relations. Each new day brought a fresh wave of controversy the shores of once infallible social media platforms.

Today, the honeymoon phase is long over and the messiness of running a global social platform is now on full display. Nowhere is this more evident than Twitter during the current Elon Musk transitional period—but more details on that later.

The scale of Meta’s platforms still dominate thanks to their global reach, but there are a number of smaller networks fighting for market share. Here’s a look at popular platforms, organized from largest to smallest active userbase:

YouTube is the only true competition for Meta’s scale and reach. Alphabet’s video content hub with social features boasts more than two billion monthly active users. YouTube’s embrace of the creator economy is nudging the platform further into pure social media territory with the introduction of “handles”.

Today, there are also a number of smaller, special interest platforms. OnlyFans, for example, is focused on adult content creators. Parler and Truth Social appeal to users who want fewer constraints on the content they post and consume. BeReal aims to create more authentic moments by prompting users to post a photo at a random time each day.

Having a figurehead CEO is a double-edged sword. When things are going well, the market rallies around the successful leader. Case in point, Mark Zuckerberg was named Time’s Person of the Year in 2010. Even as recently as 2016, Glassdoor named the Facebook founder the “most admired tech CEO”.

On the flip side, when the tide turns, it turns fast. After a series of controversies, Zuckerberg took a multi-billion-dollar gamble by renaming his entire company Meta and pivoting its focus to the burgeoning idea of a metaverse. Meta’s New Horizons platform is rumored to have plateaued at about 200,000 active users, which is underwhelming for a company that still reaches a sizable slice of humanity with its other services.

Of course, it’s too early to know whether Zuckerberg’s gamble will pay off. As always, all is forgiven once a business unit takes off and becomes profitable.

The company was launched in the shadow of Facebook’s massive growth, and was saddled with expectations that were tough to meet. Although Twitter has an engaged and influential audience, it hasn’t managed to monetize them at the level of Meta’s platforms (for better or worse). The introduction of Twitter Blue in 2021 did not resonate with users at the scale the company hoped, and “fleets” were essentially written off as a failed experiment.

If reports of an exodus of talent and advertising dollars are to be believed, then the future of one of world’s most influential social media platforms could be at risk.

Social media has always been dominated by Facebook and its related apps. When a new challenger came along, Facebook either acquired it (Instagram, WhatsApp), or “acquired” their features (Snapchat). TikTok is the first challenger to keep its momentum and growth, even as Instagram rolled out very similar features.

TikTok is also a rare case of a Chinese tech product crossing over into Western markets. The ascendancy of TikTok was not without controversy though. Suspicion over Chinese access to user data continues to be an issue both in the U.S., and in other large markets around the world. TikTok has been banned in India since 2020.

Despite these headwinds, TikTok remains wildly popular. The short-form video platform was the number one downloaded app on the planet, and it remains a favorite of the all-important Gen Z demographic.

In recent years, neighborhood-based social networks have sprung up and gained traction. NextDoor used physical letters sent to adjacent addresses to supercharge its growth, while Neighbors piggybacked off the popularity of Ring’s doorbell cameras. Although members post about more benign topics such as lost cats and where to find a good plumber, crime is an increasingly common theme as well.

Apps like Neighbors and Citizen have a more overt focus on crime and safety. While the growth of these apps reflects an obvious interest preventing crime, critics point out that the ubiquity of personal surveillance equipment and forums built purely around public safety promote a culture of suspicion in communities.

The multi-billion-dollar question—is dissatisfaction with major platforms temporary, or will emerging networks like Mastodon or BeReal hit critical mass and become new staples for people connecting online. Time will tell.

In this post, I’m going to tell you how computer monitors emit EMF radiation, how much they emit, how you can test this, and what you can do about it.

(Just a quick note before we move on. I would love for you to take just a minute and check out Nicolas Pineault’s groundbreaking E-book “A Non-Tinfoil Guide To EMFs.” It is the most entertaining and informative book on EMF radiation you’ll ever read, I promise.)

There are primarily three types of radiation sources that a computer monitor is likely to have, UV light radiation, x-ray radiation, and EMF radiation. Which radiation, and how much they emit, will depend largely on the monitor. Let’s talk a little bit about each kind.

There are basically two categories of monitors: cathode-ray tubes, and the flat-screen monitors that you see today, which are typically either LED or LCD based screens.

Prior to about 2001, almost all monitors were using cathode-ray tube (CRT) technology to power the screens. However, these types of monitors generate, and leak, small amounts of highly dangerous X-Ray Radiation. Although this had been recognized since the 60’s as being dangerous, it was not until the late 1990’s that manufacturers really fell under scrutiny for continuing to make a knowingly dangerous product.

This led to the manufacturing of Light Emitting Diode (LED) and liquid crystal display (LCD), which is what I used for nearly all modern monitors (and televisions)

Exposure to x-radiation is obviously extremely harmful and is an unfortunate bi-product of older style cathode ray tube (CRT) type monitors. The electronics in these old monitors generated extremely high voltages that would often result in x-ray radiation.

Although x-radiation that you could receive from one of these older style CRT monitors is dangerous and harmful, it is much less than you would receive from a medical x-ray machine or the x-ray at the dentist. This is the reason that they have you wear led vests to protect your body from the radiation.

Later versions of CRT monitors were slightly safer, as manufacturers began to take steps to reduce this x-ray radiation by adding lead to the cathode ray tube, which helped to cut down on this issue.

The EMF meter that the gentleman is using in this video is the older version of the Trifield meter, the company now has the new TriField TF2 (read my review), but we’ll talk about that a bit more down below in the section about measuring computer monitor radiation.

Ultraviolet light (UV) is much less harmful than x-ray radiation, but high amounts over a long period of time can still certainly cause harm. Some monitors actually have a fluorescent lamp that is part of the illumination. When the ultraviolet light strikes a white phosphor, the visible light that you see is created, but it has the side effect of sometimes leaking ultraviolet light out.

Luckily they make screen protectors for computer monitors that not only block 100% of the UV light but also help to filter out blue lights that can cause computer vision syndrome (CVS) from longterm exposure to computer monitors.

The EMF Radiation from your computer monitor will be relatively small and come from circuitry in the back of the unit. As you can see from the video above when he is testing an LCD monitor, there is still a noticeable amount of EMF radiation, but you have to be quite close.

This amount of radiation is enough to cause damage over time. In fact, a study showed that the radiation emitted from a monitor was enough to destabilize the oxidant/antioxidant balance in the cornea’s of rats over even a small amount of time.

The Long Island Power Authority did a study where they measured the average EMF radiation from many home appliances. Although they did not specifically test LCD or led computer monitors, they did test led and LCD televisions. Here are the numbers they came up with at the following distances:

As you can see, there is quite a large amount of EMF radiation at VERY close distances, but if you sit at least three feet away from the screen, you will not much need to worry about EMF radiation exposure. Be sure that you don’t sit so far away that you strain your eyes, but do keep at least 3 feet between you and the screen.

This applies to almost anything that you want to test, but you first need to start by getting a high-quality EMF meter. I personally use, and love, the new TriField TF2 (read my review). It is super easy to use, incredibly accurate, and measures every kind of EMF radiation, which you’ll realize is really important. If you need to start with a lower cost version I also like the Meterk (read my review).

Getting a good EMF meter is one of the absolute best things you can do if you care about the dangers of EMF radiation. Whether it’s figuring out how much radiation your Smart Meter is emitting, or testing to see if your microwave is leaking radiation, or comparing cell phone radiation, having a good EMF meter is the first step in knowing what the problem is, and knowing if your solutions are working.

Now, to test the radiation from a computer monitor, start by turning the monitor off, and getting a baseline reading near it. Then, turn the monitor on and give it a few seconds to boot up.

Start from about 5 feet away, and slowly move towards the monitor with your meter. Take notes of the radiation levels at different distances and note how it exponentially increases as you get within a few inches.

First of all, computer monitors do emit a relatively small amount of EMF radiation at reasonable distances. So the absolute best thing you can do is keep at least a reasonable distance (3 feet or more) between you and the monitor whenever possible.

They don’t seem to make a good shield for computer monitors that are actually intended to block EMF radiation, but they do make this window film that you can pick up on Amazon, that you could cut to fit the size of your monitor if you really wanted to reduce the amount of radiation you’re exposing yourself to.

Although it won’t block radiation, if you are staring at a computer or tv quite a bit during your day, you should consider picking up a pair of glasses that block the blue light rays. This will help protect your eyes from long term exposure.

The Dutch authority for nuclear safety and radiation protection (ANVS) issued a warning about ten products it found gave off harmful ionising radiation.

"The sellers in the Netherlands known to the ANVS have been told that the sale is prohibited and must be stopped immediately, and that they must inform their customers about this."

Chemicals leaking from millions of computer screens in homes, offices and schools could damage human health, according to research by Chinese scientists.

Chemistry professor Su Guanyong and colleagues at Nanjing University of Science and Technology in eastern Jiangsu province studied more than 360 types of chemicals used in computer and mobile phone screens and found that 87 of them could be a danger if they got into the environment.

Some chemicals in liquid crystal displays (LCDs) could alter genes, they said. Animal cells mutated unexpectedly if exposed, and preliminary results of their ongoing study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday showed that one of the most polluted places was the home.

Researchers said about a quarter of the chemicals from screens they tested might be pollutants. Photo: Getty alt=Researchers said about a quarter of the chemicals from screens they tested might be pollutants. Photo: Getty

Studies found that excessive radiation from screens could speed up the ageing of skin and blue light from diodes could harm the retina of the eye. "But nobody has looked beyond the brightness to unveil the dark secrets behind," Su said.

Over the years, screen panel manufacturers have pushed LCD technology to higher resolutions and faster refreshing rates, but the chemical composition of the liquid crystal that fills their screens has hardly changed.

Su and colleagues produced a list of chemicals used by manufacturers and found that 87 " about a quarter of the substances tested " might be "persisting organic pollutants" that were not only harmful to health, but their composition meant they would take years or sometimes decades to decompose. The exact effect of these chemicals was unknown.

Smartphones mean booming demand for components such as screens. Photo: Ben Sin alt=Smartphones mean booming demand for components such as screens. Photo: Ben Sin

They exposed embryonic chicken cells to liquid crystal taken from the screens and compared them to cells grown in normal conditions. They found genetic changes that suggested the exposed cells had mutated.

The Nanjing team was baffled by the amount of liquid crystal in the air. They knew screens were made in dust-free factories and sealed, but their surveys of hotels, school buildings, canteens, dormitories, electronic product repair centres, homes and laboratories revealed surprising results.

Scientists say cracked screens and leaking chemicals are a worldwide problem. Photo: Shutterstock alt=Scientists say cracked screens and leaking chemicals are a worldwide problem. Photo: Shutterstock

The lowest levels were found in a canteen, a dormitory and classrooms. Su said they were not sure where the drifting liquid crystals came from. Some screens might have been cracked or broken, he said. If a screen was left on for a long time, heat and radiation might cause liquid crystal to evaporate.

"Electric device recycling plants could be a major source of emissions, with broken screens dumped everywhere and little protection. This practice must stop," he said.

This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP"s Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2019 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

It sounds like a horrible joke but it’s true. Although this is a really extreme case, it gives an indication of how far someone is willing to risk their health to use one. However, not everyone intentionally means to threaten their own health with the purchase of an iPad.

Most people are completely oblivious of any dangers iPads may pose. But, as a part of its fundamental design, iPads emit Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF) radiation.

IPad radiation is an ever present health risk that people don’t know enough of, but should learn more about. In short, iPad radiation is acause for concern.

Each unit possesses a simple user interface, built around a touch screen, which includes a virtual keyboard. The device can be used to do everything from paying taxes to playing games.

As with any popular device, we run the risk of equating popularity with safety. We give iPads to our young and have started incorporating them into our schools. We have iPads in our homes. We use them at work.

A growing body of scientific studies shows that Electromagnetic Radiation, and thus iPad radiation exposure, especially for children, causesmeasurable biological damage.

Models that are connected to a cellular network (3G, 4G) emit even more, as they connect via a high-speed cellular network. In addition, as electronic devices, iPads emit extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation as a function of their electronic circuitry operation.

Such emissions have been documented to cause a multitude of medical conditions from unsightly erythema ab igne (or “toasted skin syndrome“) to inducing liver disease and other chronic diseases. Over time, iPad radiation energy exposure fundamentally affects the basic components of your body and well-being, your cells.

Many manufacturers recommend specific measurementsfor how far away from the body electronic devices must be kept at all times. As a result, many technologically advanced countries such as Belgium, France, etc. have started passing laws or issuing warnings aboutlimiting use of wireless devices, especially for the young.

Recent studies show cell phone network use for even 50 minutes duration can cause brain tissues to increase in glucose metabolism. It can also cause an increase in intercellular calcium, which has been linked to Autism, as well as an increase in oxidative stress and DNA fragmentation in a cell. These factors can lead to many disruptions in cell communication and signaling, in the brain and throughout entire processes in the body!

The long term health outcomes are still being studied internationally. A recent study has shown EMF exposure is linked to some forms of cancer in rats.

The biological effects of ELF radiation is more controversial, yet it is the other reason that iPad radiation is a worry. ELF radiation has also been associated with potential carcinogenic, reproductive, cardiovascular, behavioral, immune system, and neurological side effects.

As electronic devices, iPads are capable of causing harm to the human body and living tissue. In particular, the iPad has several transmitters that emit radiation, including both wireless and cellular technology(RF), as well as its computing parts (ELF).

It is important to avoid too much unnecessary exposure by keeping your iPad away from your body, orturning off your wireless signals by using your iPad in airplane mode. This will reduce the RF radiation exposure, but you will still be exposed to ELF radiation.

The iPad is an incredible device and one of the most useful tools of our era. We can use an iPad to do everything from watching a movie or playing a game, to searching the internet and talking face-to-face with a loved one half way across the world.

Yet excessive iPad radiation exposure is a concern, as it comes with potential health risks. We should embrace and enjoy the technology, but use it wisely.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz).Health Physics 2010; 99(6):818–836. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181f06c86.

AGNIR. 2012. Health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Report from the Independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation. In Documents of the Health Protection Agency R, Chemical and Environmental Hazards. RCE 20, Health Protection Agency, UK (Ed.).

World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 2002; 80:1–395.

Does M, Scélo G, Metayer C, et al. Exposure to electrical contact currents and the risk of childhood leukemia. Radiation Research 2011; 175(3):390–396.

Ha M, Im H, Lee M, et al. Radio-frequency radiation exposure from AM radio transmitters and childhood leukemia and brain cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 166(3):270–279.

London SJ, Pogoda JM, Hwang KL, et al. Residential magnetic field exposure and breast cancer risk: A nested case–control study from a multiethnic cohort in Los Angeles County, California. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158(10):969–980.

Tynes T, Haldorsen T. Residential and occupational exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields and hematological cancers in Norway. Cancer Causes & Control 2003; 14(8):715–720.

Grayson JK. Radiation exposure, socioeconomic status, and brain tumor risk in the U.S. Air Force: A nested case–control study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1996; 143(5):480–486.

SCENIHR. 2015. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF): http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf, accessed August 15, 2015.

Computer screens and television sets work similarly, producing both electric and magnetic fields at various frequencies. Screens with liquid crystal displays (LCDs) don’t produce significant electric and magnetic fields.

For this reason, modern TVs, which generally use LCD, LED, or plasma screens, emit only small amounts of radiation. But it’s enough that you should keep children from getting too close. Watching from a couch several feet away is thought to pose little danger.

All wireless devices sold in the United States are certified by the FCC that they don’t exceed FCC exposure limits. The FCC incorporates a safety margin in these limits. If the FCC learns that a device doesn’t perform according to its disclosure, the FCC can withdraw its approval.

Microwave ovens are considered to be safe if you use them correctly. People have experienced burns and other injuries from microwave radiation and superheating, but mostly from misuse.

Microwave ovens also must have safety features to prevent the generation of microwaves if the door is open. FDA tests ovens in its lab to make sure its standards are met. All ovens sold in the United States must have a label stating that they meet the safety standard.

You also get short-term high exposures when you are near electrical appliances like refrigerators, microwaves, and washing machines. The EMF radiation drops off sharply as you move away from these appliances.

We live in a generation that relies heavily on technology. Whether for personal use or work, wireless devices, such as cell phones, are commonly used around the world, and exposure to radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is widespread, including in public spaces (1, 2).

Since 1998, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has maintained that no evidence of adverse biological effects of RFR exist, other than tissue heating at exposures above prescribed thresholds (6).

• The incidence of neuro-epithelial brain cancers has significantly increased in all children, adolescent, and young adult age groupings from birth to 24 years in the United States (14, 15).

Epidemiological evidence was subsequently reviewed and incorporated in a meta-analysis by Röösli et al. (19). They concluded that overall, epidemiological evidence does not suggest increased brain or salivary gland tumor risk with mobile phone (MP) use, although the authors admitted that some uncertainty remains regarding long latency periods (>15 years), rare brain tumor subtypes, and MP usage during childhood. Of concern is that these analyses included cohort studies with poor exposure classification (20).

In the interim, three large-scale toxicological (animal carcinogenicity) studies support the human evidence, as do modeling, cellular and DNA studies identifying vulnerable sub-groups of the population.

A study by Italy"s Ramazzini Institute has evaluated lifespan environmental exposure of rodents to RFR, as generated by 1.8 GHz GSM antennae of cell phone radio base stations. Although the exposures were 60 to 6,000 times lower than those in the NTP study, statistically significant increases in Schwannomas of the heart in male rodents exposed to the highest dose, and Schwann-cell hyperplasia in the heart in male and female rodents were observed (30). A non-statistically significant increase in malignant glial tumors in female rodents also was detected. These findings with far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure. Both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats, which are tumors of the same histological type as those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users.

Further, in a 2015 animal carcinogenicity study, tumor promotion by exposure of mice to RFR at levels below exposure limits for humans was demonstrated (31). Co-carcinogenicity of RFR was also demonstrated by Soffritti and Giuliani (32) who examined both power-line frequency magnetic fields as well as 1.8 GHz modulated RFR. They found that exposure to Sinusoidal-50 Hz Magnetic Field (S-50 Hz MF) combined with acute exposure to gamma radiation or to chronic administration of formaldehyde in drinking water induced a significantly increased incidence of malignant tumors in male and female Sprague Dawley rats. In the same report, preliminary results indicate higher incidence of malignant Schwannoma of the heart after exposure to RFR in male rats. Given the ubiquity of many of these co-carcinogens, this provides further evidence to support the recommendation to reduce the public"s exposure to RFR to as low as is reasonably achievable.

Finally, a case series highlights potential cancer risk from cell phones carried close to the body. West et al. (33) reported four “extraordinary” multifocal breast cancers that arose directly under the antennae of the cell phones habitually carried within the bra, on the sternal side of the breast (the opposite of the norm). We note that case reports can point to major unrecognized hazards and avenues for further investigation, although they do not usually provide direct causal evidence.

Modeling of energy absorption can be an indicator of potential exposure to RFR. A study modeling the exposure of children 3–14 years of age to RFR has indicated that a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to roughly double the radiation doses (including fluctuating electrical and magnetic fields) per unit volume than in adults, and also that the marrow in the young, thin skull absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose than in the skull of an adult male (39). Thus, pediatric populations are among the most vulnerable to RFR exposure.

The increasing use of cell phones in children, which can be regarded as a form of addictive behavior (40), has been shown to be associated with emotional and behavioral disorders. Divan et al. (41) studied 13,000 mothers and children and found that prenatal exposure to cell phones was associated with behavioral problems and hyperactivity in children. A subsequent Danish study of 24,499 children found a 23% increased odds of emotional and behavioral difficulties at age 11 years among children whose mothers reported any cell phone use at age 7 years, compared to children whose mothers reported no use at age 7 years (42). A cross-sectional study of 4,524 US children aged 8–11 years from 20 study sites indicated that shorter screen time and longer sleep periods independently improved child cognition, with maximum benefits achieved with low screen time and age-appropriate sleep times (43). Similarly, a cohort study of Swiss adolescents suggested a potential adverse effect of RFR on cognitive functions that involve brain regions mostly exposed during mobile phone use (44). Sage and Burgio et al. (45) posit that epigenetic drivers and DNA damage underlie adverse effects of wireless devices on childhood development.

A study of Mobile Phone Base Station Tower settings adjacent to school buildings has found that high exposure of male students to RFR from these towers was associated with delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention in adolescent students, compared with students who were exposed to low RFR (48). A recent prospective cohort study showed a potential adverse effect of RFR brain dose on adolescents" cognitive functions including spatial memory that involve brain regions exposed during cell phone use (44).

In a review, Pall (49) concluded that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects. Both animal research (50–52) and human studies of brain imaging research (53–56) indicate potential roles of RFR in these outcomes.

Male fertility has been addressed in cross-sectional studies in men. Associations between keeping cell phones in trouser pockets and lower sperm quantity and quality have been reported (57). Both in vivo and in vitro studies with human sperm confirm adverse effects of RFR on the testicular proteome and other indicators of male reproductive health (57, 58), including infertility (59). Rago et al. (60) found significantly altered sperm DNA fragmentation in subjects who use mobile phones for more than 4 h/day and in particular those who place the device in the trousers pocket. In a cohort study, Zhang et al. (61) found that cell phone use may negatively affect sperm quality in men by decreasing the semen volume, sperm concentration, or sperm count, thus impairing male fertility. Gautam et al. (62) studied the effect of 3G (1.8–2.5 GHz) mobile phone radiation on the reproductive system of male Wistar rats. They found that exposure to mobile phone radiation induces oxidative stress in the rats which may lead to alteration in sperm parameters affecting their fertility.

An extensive review of numerous published studies confirms non-thermally induced biological effects or damage (e.g., oxidative stress, damaged DNA, gene and protein expression, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier) from exposure to RFR (63), as well as adverse (chronic) health effects from long-term exposure (64). Biological effects of typical population exposures to RFR are largely attributed to fluctuating electrical and magnetic fields (65–67).

Advances in RFR-related technologies have been and continue to be rapid. Changes in carrier frequencies and the growing complexity of modulation technologies can quickly render “yesterdays” technologies obsolete. This rapid obsolescence restricts the amount of data on human RFR exposure to particular frequencies, modulations and related health outcomes that can be collected during the lifespan of the technology in question.

Epidemiological studies with adequate statistical power must be based upon large numbers of participants with sufficient latency and intensity of exposure to specific technologies. Therefore, a lack of epidemiological evidence does not necessarily indicate an absence of effect, but rather an inability to study an exposure for the length of time necessary, with an adequate sample size and unexposed comparators, to draw clear conclusions. For example, no case-control study has been published on fourth generation (4G; 2–8 GHz) Long-term Evolution (LTE) modulation, even though the modulation was introduced in 2010 and achieved a 39% market share worldwide by 2018 (71).

With this absence of human evidence, governments must require large-scale animal studies (or other appropriate studies of indicators of carcinogenicity and other adverse health effects) to determine whether the newest modulation technologies incur risks, prior to release into the marketplace. Governments should also investigate short-term impacts such as insomnia, memory, reaction time, hearing and vision, especially those that can occur in children and adolescents, whose use of wireless devices has grown exponentially within the past few years.

Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (73, 74). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.

While we do not know how risks to individuals from using cell phones may be offset by the benefits to public health of being able to summon timely health, fire and police emergency services, the findings reported above underscore the importance of evaluating potential adverse health effects from RFR exposure, and taking pragmatic, practical actions to minimize exposure.

➢ Population-based case-control designs can be more statistically powerful to determine relationships with rare outcomes such as glioma, than cohort studies. Such studies should explore the relationship between energy absorption (SAR

➢ Cohort studies are inefficient in the study of rare outcomes with long latencies, such as glioma, because of cost-considerations relating to the follow-up required of very large cohorts needed for the study of rare outcomes. In addition, without continual resource-consuming follow-up at frequent intervals, it is not possible to ascertain ongoing information about changing technologies, uses (e.g., phoning vs. texting or accessing the Internet) and/or exposures.

➢ Cross-sectional studies comparing high-, medium-, and low-exposure persons may yield hypothesis-generating information about a range of outcomes relating to memory, vision, hearing, reaction-time, pain, fertility, and sleep patterns.

• Exposure assessment is poor in this field, with very little fine-grained detail as to frequencies and modulations, doses and dose rates, and peak exposures, particularly over the long-term. Solutions such as wearable meters and phone apps have not yet been incorporated in large-scale research.

• Further work should be undertaken to determine the distance that wireless technology antennae should be kept away from humans to ensure acceptable levels of safety, distinguishing among a broad range of sources (e.g., from commercial transmitters to Bluetooth devices), recognizing that exposures fall with the inverse of the square of the distance (The inverse-square law specifies that intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of radiation). The effective radiated power from cell towers needs to be regularly measured and monitored.

At the time of writing, a total of 32 countries or governmental bodies within these countries78). Three U.S. states have issued advisories to limit exposure to RFR (81–83) and the Worcester Massachusetts Public Schools (84) voted to post precautionary guidelines on Wi-Fi radiation on its website. In France, Wi-Fi has been removed from pre-schools and ordered to be shut off in elementary schools when not in use, and children aged 16 years or under are banned from bringing cell phones to school (85). Because the national test agency found 9 out of 10 phones exceeded permissible radiation limits, France is also recalling several million phones.

3. Regulations should require that any WTD that could be used or carried directly against the skin (e.g., a cell phone) or in close proximity (e.g., a device being used on the lap of a small child) be tested appropriately as used, and that this information be prominently displayed at point of sale, on packaging, and both on the exterior and within the device.

The authors declare that this manuscript was drafted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest, although subsequent to its preparation, DD became a consultant to legal counsel representing persons with glioma attributed to radiation from cell phones.

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Ali Siddiqui in drafting the Policy Recommendations, and those from members of the Board of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) into previous iterations of this manuscript. We are grateful to external reviewers for their thoughtful critiques that have served to improve both accuracy and presentation.This manuscript was initially developed by the authors as a draft of a Position Statement of INEP. The opportunity was then provided to INEP"s 23 member organizations to endorse what the INEP Board had recommended, but 12 of those member organizations elected not to vote. Of the 11 that did vote, three endorsed the statement, two voted against it, and six abstained. Ultimately, the Board voted to abandon its involvement with what it determined to be a divisive topic. The authors then decided that, in the public interest, the document should be published independent of INEP.

4. ^Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, European Environmental Agency, European Parliament, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Italy, India, Ireland, Israel, Namibia, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

1. Carlberg M, Hedendahl L, Koppel T, Hardell L. High ambient radiofrequency radiation in Stockholm