do display screens give out harmful radiation supplier

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.

Since the advent of modern flat-panel screens, the vast majority of computer monitors have few, if any, radiation safety issues. The older technology used with vintage monitors, however, does have a potential for emitting certain types of harmful radiation, though manufacturers were aware of the risks and designed them to be safe. Overall, radiation safety issues from monitors are very minor and easily mitigated.

Monitor Types Computer monitors have used two basic types of technology: traditional cathode-ray tubes and more modern flat-screen designs. Before 2000, most computer equipment makers produced CRT-based monitors. These create images by sending a high-voltage beam of electrons in a vacuum tube to a phosphor screen, causing it to glow. The high voltage generates weak forms of radiation, a fact manufacturers have recognized since color TVs became widespread in the 1960s. Flat-screen monitors, by contrast, dispense with the CRT, creating images using a finely detailed grid of liquid crystals. Inside a flat-screen monitor, a bright lamp produces white light, which the liquid crystals filter into a broad range of colors. Although this technology uses low voltages, some of the lamps used produce mild radiation.

Radiation Types The radiation that comes from computer monitors takes the form of X-rays and ultraviolet light. This is not the same radiation normally associated with radioactive materials such as uranium, although it is associated with long-term exposure risks to living things. Of the two radiation types, X-rays are more harmful as they have more energy. Where monitor designs have the potential to produce X-rays or UV, the manufacturer adds materials that block the radiation, greatly reducing the safety issue.

X-Rays Traditional CRT-based monitors use high voltages that generate X-rays. The voltages used in black-and-white monitors is much lower than that found in color models, so X-rays are an issue only for the latter type. X-rays from a computer monitor are much weaker than those produced in a medical X-ray, as the operating voltage is lower and the radiation is a side effect, not the intended purpose of the design. CRT manufacturers solved the X-ray problem by adding lead to the glass picture-tube material.

Ultraviolet Although ultraviolet light is less harmful than X-rays, high levels of UV can burn skin and even cause blindness. Some flat-panel computer displays employ a fluorescent lamp as a bright light source. In the lamp, ultraviolet light strikes a white phosphor, creating visible light, but a small amount of the UV also escapes. In most LCD monitor designs, a layer of plastic absorbs the UV, minimizing the safety risk. Some flat-screen computer monitors use light-emitting diodes in place of fluorescent lighting, eliminating the UV problem completely.

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.

Even the World Health Organization admits that EMF radiation at certain levels can trigger symptoms like headaches, stress, suicide by depression, vomiting, fatigue, and loss of libido.

Unlike the two products mentioned so far, this Screen Protector exclusively obstructs blue light. It’s not mean to attenuate radiation but to shield your eyes from the harmful effects of blue light.

Yes, but it’s mostly the old CRT monitors that are concerning. Newer LCD screens don’t emit as much. The more immediate threat stems from the blue light they emit.

It depends on your distance from the monitor. Inches away would give you 25-500 mG of EMF radiation, 1 foot emits 0.4-20 mG, while 3 feet emits just 0.1-1.5 mG of radiation.

Monitors emit such a low level of radiation that most agree it’s not a concern. However, even low levels over long periods of time have induced side effects like headaches and depression.

Certified EMF Expert, Chief Editor & Researcher at Beat EMF. I’m in charge of testing all the products and sorting through the duds to deliver effective EMF solutions for your family. Learn more about me here.

Since computers began dominating home and work environments, health concerns have arisen about prolonged computer usage. In the late 1970s and 1980s, workplaces were more concerned with basic comfort and about the toll on people"s backs of sitting in front of a screen for hours; in the 1990s, people were concerned instead about Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from extended keyboard use. Since the turn of the millenium, health advocates have become concerned with radiation from the electromagnetic fields generated by computer monitors.

All computers create -- and therefore emit -- electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are a source of radiation, however minor. In the early days of home computers, most used cathode-ray tube (CRT) monitors. Bulky, boxy monitors once populated offices, though as of July 2011, most have been replaced by the slimmer, sleeker -- and healthier -- liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. In addition, all laptops use LCD screens. LCDs are not EMF-free, but studies have shown they emit lower EMFs than CRT displays.

EMF radiation is present in all but a few specially-designed monitors, and the jury is still out on how harmful the levels of radiation from LCD screens might prove to human health. According to Safe Space Protection, "computers typically measure from two milligauss (mG) to five mG"; 2 mG and higher can potentially damage biological organisms. Despite this claim, the article "Harmful Electrostress from Computers/Laptops" doesn"t specify what kind of computers create this level of radiation, though the article does state that LCD screens and laptops are "much safer" than CRT monitors connected to desktop computers.

According to Danielle Barone, the family health editor for BellaOnline.org, even LCD monitors and laptops emit "enough radiation to affect your health and appearance." While the majority of computer users don"t seem troubled by this, some may wish to exercise a bit more caution. Barone suggests buying what"s called a radiation filter, which blocks between 94 percent and 99 percent of the radiation from your computer screen.

Ultra-health-conscientious computer users -- those who want to reduce their exposure to radiation at every possible turn -- can find and purchase 100 percent radiation-free LCD monitors. The website BlockEMF.com offers hundreds of EMF-preventing products, including four LCD monitors that the company guarantees to be completely free from radiation.

As far back as the 1970s, there was a distinct group of people who had concerns regarding the safety of screens. Fast forward to 2014, and screens are absolutely everywhere we walk. They are in bars, in hotels, at the DMV, and basically anywhere where they are useful as boredom deterrents. In the average person’s home, you’ll find one or two TV sets and an active monitor somewhere. The growing presence of screens in our lives has transformed their safety into an issue that some are taking so seriously, they are calling it a crisis. Whenever people are concerned, it is probably useful to help them understand what they are concerned about. And this is what we’re going to do!

First of all, let’s explain why people are concerned: Monitors, like any other electronic device, emit non-ionizing radiation. While most of this type of radiation (we’ll call it “NI” radiation) isn’t going to give you instant cancer, long-term consistent exposure to some forms of it will damage your retina and might even go so far as to damage neurons.

Of course, I would be a little bit too optimistic by saying that no monitor will emit ionizing radiation. Cathode ray tube (box-like) monitors emit X-rays.

LED/LCD monitors do not suffer from this issue since they don’t use tubes to emit light with electron guns. Instead, they just emit light through diodes (small surfaces that react to electricity by transforming it into light) and change the color of each pixel through transistors and liquid crystals.

It might sound like I’m minimizing the whole argument that X-rays are harmful, but I’m going to start off by saying that they are indeed extremely harmful and volatile. But the danger isn’t much of a concern with any device — television or not — that emits X-rays through cathode ray tubes. Here’s why:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a code that prevents manufacturers from creating television sets (and this also applies to computer monitors) that emit more than 0.5 milliroentgens of radiation per hour at a staring distance of 5 centimeters. That means that if your face is roughly two inches (the length of your thumb) away from the screen, you’ll get a very microscopic and negligible dose of X-ray radiation.

Today, the vast majority of CRT manufacturers don’t even touch the 0.5 milliroentgen limit. Their need to be energy efficient has significantly reduced the amount of radiation emitted to far below the already-harmless threshold described earlier.

The radiation emitted by your monitor is negligible. That’s awesome. But that doesn’t mean that the danger is clear. People still report getting headaches and pain in their eyes when using monitors for extended periods. If radiation isn’t the culprit, then what could possibly be causing these symptoms? These people simply can’t be imagining the pain!

Your eyes are best used to look at objects that move fluidly throughout the world. Any strobe effect, no matter how small, can ruin your focus, forcing your muscles to strain. The long term effects of this condition haven’t been studied extensively yet, but it’s safe to assume that you might end up damaging your eyes in the long run.

Modern high-end monitors are able to retain their capacitor charge throughout the refresh cycle and do not flicker when refreshing. I highly suggest you invest some money in them if you’re concerned. My left-hand 27-inch monitor cost me $250 and that was about two years ago.

Radiation is generated by a laptop in all directions: bottom, top and sides. Radiation is considered most dangerous when in direct contact with the body, particularly when on the lap. The most harmful radiation emissions are emitted from the bottom of the laptop and travel in a downward direction. The

The screen and sides of a laptop tend to emit less radiation than the bottom. The radiation levels of the screen, keyboard and sides of a laptop are considered acceptable, low-rise emissions. As a rule of thumb, if you are one foot away from the source of the emissions, the dangers are greatly reduced. Even moving a laptop a few inches away from the lap reduces exposure to potentially harmful radiation.

Desktop computers don’t expose your reproductive organs to their EMF emissions directly like laptops do. This is because, to use desktops, you have to keep them at a certain distance. And since the power of EMF weakens as it travels, it’s fair to think that desktop computers are far safer than laptops. Right?

Well, it’s true to a certain degree. But desktop computers have their own set of problems, which we’ll discuss in-depth in this post. Besides that, we’ll also talk about things you can do to keep yourself on the safer side while using a desktop computer.

Most people don’t realize that visible light is also a form of EMF. It lies in the mid-section of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it’s the only kind of EMF that we can see with our naked eyes.

Your laptop screen or desktop monitor emits visible light to project whatever you’re doing on it. At any given time, your computer screen emits around 400 to 800 THz of EMF in the form of visible light.

The WiFi antenna in your computer emits radiofrequency radiation to connect with the WiFi router. This electromagnetic field operates on frequencies ranging from 2.4 GHz to 5 GHz.

Extremely low frequency or ELF radiation comes from the electronic circuitry inside the machine. And in the case of desktops, the wires and cables also produce this radiation.

Even though laptop and desktop computers emit the same types of electromagnetic fields, the amount in which they produce these radiations is not the same. Research says that desktop computers actually produce significantly more EMFs than laptops.

Desktops are bigger, contain larger hardware components, and require more cables than a laptop. So naturally, they will give off more EMF than their compact counterparts.

Almost all electronic gadget manufacturers advise you to keep their devices a specific distance away from your body. They do this because your EMF exposure exceeds legal limits when you use and carry devices like cell phones and laptops close to your body.

Your endocrine system plays an extremely vital role in your body. From balancing your mood and generating appropriate responses to controlling your height and weight, almost all functions are hormone-regulated.

Experts say that exposing your body to a huge volume of EMF disrupts your endocrine system, due to which your body can’t produce the necessary hormones properly.

At any given moment, there needs to be a healthy balance between free radicals and antioxidants. And if there isn’t, you’ll be prone to developing oxidative stress, which can cause problems ranging from heart diseases and diabetes to sexual disorders like erectile dysfunction.

It’s clear that desktop computers expose you to a large amount of EMF which can make you extremely sick. But the good news is, there are things you can do to mitigate your exposure exponentially without having to quit your computer use. Here are some of them:

When electricity flows inside the cables, it generates an extremely low frequency (ELF) field, which comes out of the wires, and occupies around eight feet of space.

When connected to WiFi, your computer has to emit large amounts of EMF to keep the connection stable with the router. And since EMF doesn’t travel linearly, you’ll get caught between that transmission.

See, when your internet travels to the router using an ethernet cable, most of the EMF stays inside. This will significantly reduce your EMF exposure. And since we’re talking about desktops, using an ethernet connection is convenient too.

Besides that, wired internet is faster, more stable, and a lot more secure than WiFi. I’ve written a separate post on the benefits of a wired internet connection, with simple instructions on how you can install it yourself. So, check it out.

But these accessories are not without a downside. Most of these products either use Bluetooth or RF (radiofrequency) to connect with your computer. And having that many wirelessly connected devices in front of you is not exactly good for your health.

We have a lot of products in our store to help you with this, like the SYB Baby Blanket, SYB Cap, and the SYB Neck Gaiter. So, give the Shield Your Body store a visit. We have laboratory-tested high-quality EMF shielding products for all your requirements.

While working on desktop computers, EMF exposure isn’t the only problem. Your chair, the way you sit, your monitor’s position… if you don’t have your setup right, you’ll suffer some major physical discomforts.

It’s certainly tempting to buy the first decent-looking office chair you can find. After all, it’s just a chair, and if you can sit on it, what else do you need, right?

But, we’re talking about something on which you’ll spend several hours a day. And cheap chairs are never ergonomic or comfortable. If you use one for a long time, you may develop problems like neck and back pain. Long-term, it might even lead to surgical-level injuries.

Also, never place your keyboard and mouse on different levels. If you do this, you’ll have to keep moving your arms which can cause musculoskeletal injuries.

Height: There isn’t an exact number because it depends on the user’s height. But, if you have to tilt your chin down, or look up at your screen, then it’s not the correct setup. Make sure that your monitor is at your eye level.

Viewing distance: Your monitor should be positioned at least 20 inches or 51 centimeters from your eyes. If you’re eyeballing, it’s about an arm’s length. Although, if your screen is larger, you will need to add more distance.

Taking even 5 minutes break every hour will allow you to take your mind off your task and think about other things. This way, you can better focus on whatever you’re doing.

Working continuously is also bad for your physical health. Your body needs a little bit of stretching after sitting for some time. And if you don’t give it that, you put yourself at the risk of developing some serious physiological problems.

If you’re thinking about what to choose between a laptop and a desktop, I’d say go for a desktop. I get that they emit more EMF than laptops, but you also have more control over your machine.

But if you already have a laptop and don’t want to shift to a desktop anytime soon, I’d suggest you visit my post on mitigating EMF exposure from laptops.

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.

Man cannot escape exposure to some radiation. We are surrounded by natural radioactivity in the earth and by cosmic rays from outer space. This is called background radiation and cannot be controlled. We are also exposed to manmade radiation, which can and must be controlled.

Much of the manmade radiation people are exposed to comes from electronic products. These include diagnostic x-ray machines, television sets, microwave ovens, radar devices, and lasers. In some cases, as with diagnostic x-rays, radiation emitted from these devices is intentional and serves a useful purpose. In others, as with TV sets, radiation emitted is not intentional and is not essential to the use of the product.

X-rays may be produced when electrons, accelerated by high voltage, strike an obstacle while traveling in a vacuum, as in a TV containing a cathode ray tube (CRT). Since many of the components in television sets operate at thousands of volts, there is the potential for x-ray generation. These components may produce x-rays capable of escaping from the television receiver or CRT. This unintentional emission of x-radiation can pose a potential hazard and must be controlled.

Scientists have not identified specific health effects resulting from exposure to extremely low doses of low-level radiation over prolonged periods of time. However, the current assumption is that there is no threshold of exposure below which x-radiation may not adversely effect human health. It is advisable, therefore, that x-radiation from TV sets, as well as other commonly used electronic products, be kept as low as reasonably achievable. It was for this purpose that Congress enacted the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (currently called Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act – Subchapter C – Electronic Product Radiation Control).

It should be emphasized that most TV sets have not been found to give off any measurable level of radiation, and there is no evidence that radiation from TV sets has resulted in human injury.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the responsibility for carrying out an electronic product radiation control program mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Through it"s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA sets and enforces standards of performance for electronic products to assure that radiation emissions do not pose a hazard to public health.

A Federal standard limiting x-ray emissions from TV receivers to 0.5 milliroentgen per hour (mR/hr) was issued on December 25, 1969. The standard is applicable to all TV sets manufactured after January 15, 1970. The overall effect of the standard is to require that TV receivers must not emit x-radiation above the 0.5 mR/hr level when tested under adverse operating conditions. Test conditions do not represent normal use and ensure that when used under normal conditions, TV sets do not pose a radiation hazard.

Manufacturers of television receivers and computer monitors contain CRTs must certify that their products meets performance standard under Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1020.10. All TV manufacturers must submit written radiation safety reports to FDA outlining how they assure that each set coming off the assembly line complies with the Federal x-ray radiation limit. These reports contain a description of the manufacturer’s quality control and testing program and the television radiation safety design. Manufacturers also must maintain records of test data and prepare an annual report to FDA summarizing these records. The FDA has the authority to ask for radiation safety data including results of x-ray leakage from selected sets to determine compliance with the standard.

Television receivers imported into the United States, which do not meet the standard are not allowed into the country and are destroyed if not exported in 90 days. Importers, however, may petition FDA for permission to correct the violations.

X-radiation emissions from properly operated TV sets and computer monitors containing CRTs are well controlled and do not present a public health hazard. The FDA standard, and today’s technology, such as electronic hold-down safety circuits and regulated power supplies, have effectively eliminated the risk of x-radiation from these products. FDA has not found TVs that violate the standard under normal (home) use conditions.

It is important to note also that flat panel TVs incorporating Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD) or Plasma displays are not capable of emitting x-radiation. As such these products and are not subject to the FDA standard and do not pose a public health hazard.

Video display products that contain cathode ray tubes (CRTs) can give off x-rays. The CRT is a specialized vacuum tube that receives and displays images on an electronic screen. Most modern computers monitors and televisions (TVs) today use liquid crystal display (LCD), Light-emitting diodes (LED), or plasma.

In the early 1960s, some TVs with CRTs were found to emit excessive x-radiation, and a federal performance standard was created to protect the public from this hazard. Today, electronic technology for TVs and computer monitors with CRTs has changed so drastically that the level of risk of x-ray exposure is almost non-existent. Manufacturers of products that use CRTs must certify that their products comply with the federal performance standard for the life of the product.

TV receivers and computer monitors containing CRTs no longer pose a risk of emitting any x-radiation. Since the creation of the federal performance standard, the FDA has tested hundreds of TV receivers and computer monitors and rarely encountered any that were unsafe.

Manufacturers of electronic radiation emitting products sold in the United States are responsible for compliance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), Chapter V, Subchapter C - Electronic Product Radiation Control.

Manufacturers of televisions and video display products are responsible for compliance with all applicable requirements of Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (Subchapter J, Radiological Health) Parts 1000 through 1005:

In addition, TV receivers and monitors with CRTs must comply with radiation safety performance standards in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (Subchapter J, Radiological Health) Parts 1010 and 1020:

On a recent morning, I indulged one of my worst habits—checking Twitter on my phone immediately upon waking up. When I turned the screen off, I was alarmed to discover that I could no longer see out of my right eye. I picked up my phone again, this time in a panic, to Google my symptoms, and quickly learned that I had experienced what medical researchers have called “transient smartphone blindness.” It can occur when you look at a bright screen while lying down with only one eye open. It’s one of many effects that constant engagement with screens could be having on our eyes, which together produce anxiety about the negative physical effects of contemporary technologies.

Before smartphones and handheld devices, that anxiety was directed at televisions. From the time of their commercialization, people worried about the potential harms of the device: the harms of placing their face close to the screen, of watching for many hours at a time, of the appliance’s position at the center of domestic life. People still worry about spending too much time in front of a television (much of the recent focus has been on the effects on children and weight gain). Samsung even warned of possible health risks from watching its 3-D TVs—pregnant women and the elderly were advised not to watch 3-D sets at all.

Since the 1940s, there had been long-standing concerns about radiation leaks from black-and-white picture tubes. But it wasn’t until 1967, when routine testing revealed that specific large-screen models of GE color sets were emitting “X-radiation in excess of desirable levels,” that there seemed to be any real evidence of such a risk. Scientists speculated that the high voltage required by color sets was partly to blame.

Initially, the radiation concern was limited to a single model, but by late in the year it became clear that televisions from almost every manufacturer were potentially affected—as many as 112,000 sets.

The response to the concern was swift. By late July of 1967, television-industry representatives were brought before a congressional committee, which eventually proposed a federal radiation-regulation bill (which became the 1968 Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act). Further testing was conducted by the National Center for Radiological Health (NCRH) and the Public Health Service into early 1968. The surgeon general eventually issued a statement, saying that testing showed that this low level of radiation posed only a small risk to any one set-owner’s health as long as he or she was watching a set in “normal viewing” conditions. That was understood to be maintaining “at least a six-foot viewing distance from the front of the screen and [avoiding] prolonged exposure at the sides, rear, or underneath a set.”

According to the NCRH, the leakage beam in most of the problematic sets was directed downward “in a thin crescent pattern.” It therefore didn’t pose a direct line of contact with a viewer’s body as long as the set was placed on the floor instead of on a high shelf. Color-set owners were also instructed to keep their distance from the set at all times and were warned against tinkering with its internals to avoid being in direct contact with the radiation beam.

The public was well aware of the potentially devastating health effects of intense radiation exposure from atomic bombs or nuclear catastrophes. But the slower impacts of lower levels of radiation were less well known. Much of the discussion in the press and in congressional hearings addressed what could happen from exposure to low-level radiation leaks over time, like the ones from color televisions. Concerns about damage to reproductive organs and about the genetic mutation of future generations were particularly common.

The anxiety and dread around radioactive materials, along with the role that nuclear weapons played in the Cold War, would certainly have given weight to the image of a slow and possibly deadly leak coming out of the home appliance your family gathered around most regularly. Color television, in this instance, was not just bringing images of the contemporary world into the home; it was also physically manifesting one of that world’s most pressing and feared perils.

“Radioactive” color television sets continued to make headlines through the end of the 1960s, but there was also acknowledgement that the threat of harm had likely been exaggerated. In 1969, Newsdayreported that W. Roger Ney, the executive director of the National Council on Radiation Protection, had called the amounts of radiation coming from the sets “too little to have a measurable effect on human beings.” He dismissed a proposal by two New York congressmen to have manufacturers “go into homes to test all of the nation’s 15 million color sets and to install radiation devices in them,” adding, “I’d sure like to see that amount of effort put into things that are more clearly dangerous.”

The crisis was eventually quieted by new policies and procedures the FDA put in place to regulate radiation emissions for all forms of electronic products. New glass plates also promised to suppress most radiation from the color-television tubes. However, the experience brought to the surface more general concerns over the possibility of radiation leaks from everyday technological objects, a growing mistrust that emanated from the underlying fear of nuclear war. It also made general worries about television’s other health effects much more real and pressing, lending credence to the idea that the distance between a human body and an electronic screen needs to be managed and regulated.

The FDA is still responsible for regulating “radiation-emitting electronic products” such as microwaves, X-rays, and televisions. Manufacturers submit annual testing reports and certify radiation levels in their products. Modern cathode-ray tube sets emit such low X-ray emissions that they are said to pose virtually no risk to consumers. Cellphones are the focus of greater concern today, and even thoughthe FCC and FDAstate that no scientific evidence links the phones with any health issues, they suggest ways to help limit exposure to the radio-frequency energy phones emit (including distancing the device from the body by using a headset or speaker).

Today’s consumers are still learning how to live with the ever-present smartphone. They share a niggling sense that something about the way people use them is amiss. Designers are responding, too, trying to anticipate and avoid potential harm. Features appear based on circulating concerns, like “night mode” functions to reduce blue light from displays, or the Screen Time feature meant to help reduce smartphone usage. Together, these forces are producing an existential dread about our attachment to screens. It’s hard not to feel that we are doomed to be destroyed by them eventually.

Transient smartphone blindness is not nearly as terrifying a prospect as color-TV-induced radiation sickness. Scientific research has always helped dampen cultural anxiety about the health effects of new technologies. The radioactive television offers a reminder that some caution can be justified—provided it is grounded in research and enforced through regulation. But today, these types of governmental protections and oversights are being reduced or eliminated, and research that might identify potential industrial harms is being cut. When it comes to screens, it’s become harder to keep two eyes open.

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.

You probably know that UV rays emitted by the sun can be damaging to your skin. But what about other types of light, like the warm glow of a computer monitor or smartphone?

Generally, newer model computers feature LCD or LED screens and do not emit harmful UV radiation. But most televisions, computers, smartphones and tablets emit other types of light that some studies show can be harmful to your skin with prolonged exposure.

While it’s doubtful that you’ll be giving up your devices any time soon, there are some things you can do to prevent and repair the signs of potential aging caused by computer and smartphone screens. Here’s what we suggest:

Of course, the best way to minimize the harmful effects of any type of light radiation is to limit your exposure to it, whether that is staying out of the sun or limiting your screen time.

Studies have found that using your electronic devices outdoors can be even more harmful, because the UV radiation from the sun reflects from your smartphone or tablet screen directly onto your face, doubling the impact of dangerous light radiation.

Antioxidants occur naturally in many of the fresh fruits and vegetables we eat. They offer your body many health benefits, including protecting your skin from harmful UV and HEV rays.

Strawberries, blueberries, and kiwis are just a few of the delicious fruits that are packed full of antioxidants. While having an antioxidant-rich diet is crucial to fighting off signs of aging, so is incorporating antioxidants into your daily skin care routine. The Baobab tree, native to the African savannah, has long been known as the “Tree of Life” for its nutrient-rich properties. Our Baobab Skin Correction Facial Cream is made with Baobab seed oil, which is packed full of antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals that can reduce the look of fine lines and wrinkles, making skin appear younger.

It is critical that you make sunscreen part of your daily skin care regimen. Even if you work in an office all day and spend little time outdoors, your skin will still be exposed to UV radiation as well as other types of light rays.

Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together (i.e., radiating) through space at the speed of light.  Taken together, all forms of electromagnetic energy are referred to as the electromagnetic "spectrum."  Radio waves and microwaves emitted by transmitting antennas are one form of electromagnetic energy.  They are collectively referred to as "radiofrequency" or "RF" energy or radiation.  Note that the term “radiation” does not mean “radioactive.”  Often, the terms "electromagnetic field" or "radiofrequency field" are used to indicate the presence of electromagnetic or RF energy.

The RF waves emanating from an antenna are generated by the movement of electrical charges in the antenna.  Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by a wavelength and a frequency.  The wavelength is the distance covered by one complete cycle of the electromagnetic wave, while the frequency is the number of electromagnetic waves passing a given point in one second.  The frequency of an RF signal is usually expressed in terms of a unit called the "hertz" (abbreviated "Hz").  One Hz equals one cycle per second.  One megahertz MHz equals one million cycles per second.

Different forms of electromagnetic energy are categorized by their wavelengths and frequencies.  The RF part of the electromagnetic spectrum is generally defined as that part of the spectrum where electromagnetic waves have frequencies in the range of about 3 kilohertz (3 kHz) to 300 gigahertz (300 GHz).  Microwaves are a specific category of radio waves that can be loosely defined as radiofrequency energy at frequencies ranging from about 1 GHz to 30 GHz. (Back to Index)

"Ionization" is a process by which electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules.  This process can produce molecular changes that can lead to damage in biological tissue, including effects on DNA, the genetic material of living organisms.  This process requires interaction with high levels of electromagnetic energy.  Those types of electromagnetic radiation with enough energy to ionize biological material include X-radiation and gamma radiation.  Therefore, X-rays and gamma rays are examples of ionizing radiation.

The energy levels associated with RF and microwave radiation, on the other hand, are not great enough to cause the ionization of atoms and molecules, and RF energy is, therefore, is a type of non-ionizing radiation.  Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible and infrared light.  Often the term "radiation" is used, colloquially, to imply that ionizing radiation (radioactivity), such as that associated with nuclear power plants, is present.  Ionizing radiation should not be confused with the lower-energy, non-ionizing radiation with respect to possible biological effects, since the mechanisms of action are quite different. (Back to Index)

The most important use for RF energy is in providing telecommunications services.  Radio and television broadcasting, cellular telephones, personal communications services (PCS), pagers, cordless telephones, business radio, radio communications for police and fire departments, amateur radio, microwave point-to-point links and satellite communications are just a few of the many telecommunications applications of RF energy.  Microwave ovens are an example of a non-telecommunication use of RF energy.  Radiofrequency radiation, especially at microwave frequencies, can transfer energy to water molecules.  High levels of microwave energy will generate heat in water-rich materials such as most foods.  This efficient absorption of microwave energy via water molecules results in rapid heating throughout an object, thus allowing food to be cooked more quickly in a microwave oven than in a conventional oven.  Other important non-telecommunication uses of RF energy include radar and industrial heating and sealing.  Radar is a valuable tool used in many applications range from traffic speed enforcement to air traffic control and military surveillance.  Industrial heaters and sealers generate intense levels of RF radiation that rapidly heats the material being processed in the same way that a microwave oven cooks food.  These devices have many uses in industry, including molding plastic materials, gluing wood products, sealing items such as shoes and pocketbooks, and processing food products.  There are also a number of medical applications of RF energy, such as diathermy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). (Back to Index)

An RF electromagnetic wave has both an electric and a magnetic component (electric field and magnetic field), and it is often convenient to express the intensity of the RF environment at a given location in terms of units specific to each component. For example, the unit "volts per meter" (V/m) is used to express the strength of the electric field (electric "field strength"), and the unit "amperes per meter" (A/m) is used to express the strength of the magnetic field (magnetic "field strength").  Another commonly used unit for characterizing the total electromagnetic field is "power density."  Power density is most appropriately used when the point of measurement is far enough away from an antenna to be located in the "far-field" zone of the antenna.

The quantity used to measure the rate at which RF energy is actually absorbed in a body is called the "Specific Absorption Rate" or "SAR."  It is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram (mW/g).  In the case of exposure of the whole body, a standing ungrounded human adult absorbs RF energy at a maximum rate when the frequency of the RF radiation is in the range of about 70 MHz.  This means that the "whole-body" SAR is at a maximum under these conditions.  Because of this "resonance" phenomenon and consideration of children and grounded adults, RF safety standards are generally most restrictive in the frequency range of about 30 to 300 MHz.  For exposure of parts of the body, such as the exposure from hand-held mobile phones, "partial-body" SAR limits are used in the safety standards to control absorption of RF energy (see later questions on mobile phones).  (Back to Index)

Biological effects can result from exposure to RF energy.  Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects.  It has been know