Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-26 Thread Charles Lenington 

Kris Tilford wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Stephen Conrad wrote:
>
>   
>> Ummm, why would you want to scrap out perfectly good usable monitors
>> just so you could spend money on an LCD?
>> 
>
> Sometimes spending money actually saves money. In the case of LCD  
> monitors, the payback period in electricity saving is enough to pay  
> for the monitor.
>
> While Bruce may have pointed out that health concerns over EMF are not  
> statistically proven, the converse is also true, they are not  
> statistically disproved. It is a fact that most forms of  
> electromagnetic radiation DO have biological effect, and large,  
> statistically valid samples have shown that cancers such as skin  
> cancer ARE correlated DIRECTLY to exposure levels. We know the inverse  
> square law applies, and that people tend to sit very close to their  
> monitors. The EU computer safety whitepaper has studied this subject  
> recommended a safe viewing distance of 86cm, which is substantially  
> further away than most CRT users sit.
>
> I've inherited an old 1970's Ford LTD with a big 500 ci engine that  
> gets about 6 mpg. It too is "perfectly good usable", but it wastes  
> money in gas, pollutes the air, and carries enough momentum to kill  
> people driving more fuel efficient vehicles if there were an accident.  
> I can't justify ever using this vehicle again, and I don't feel  
> comfortable selling it, so it's headed to the recycler even though  
> it's "perfectly good". Your free, disposed of, CRTs are not an example  
> of a efficient use of recycling. Rather it shows the laziness of the  
> average citizen, placing a CRT in a dumpster rather than recycling it.  
> And you, to cheap to do yourself a favor, there are new LCDs for less  
> than $100, buy one, IT PAYS FOR ITSELF! Society as a whole is better  
> served with your CRTs in the landfill than with them in use. They're  
> digging coal in Wyoming and shipping it on a smokey diesel train to  
> Missouri and burning it releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere so  
> that you can waste energy with an antiquated CRT monitor that possibly  
> harms your health in other ways. There was a reason the monitor was in  
> the trash, and it has nothing to do with whether or not it's  
> "perfectly good usable". It's always about money. They're saving money  
> by throwing the CRT away. You're wasting money by using it.
>
>   
I take it that Kris is volunteering to buy everyone that wants one, a 
lcd monitor.   So how do you want us to do it buy it and bill it to 
you.  Or do you want to buy it and ship to us.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-25 Thread Bruce Johnson 


On Oct 25, 2008, at 12:52 AM, Stephen Conrad wrote:

> The LCD Monitor I got is this:
>
> Acer LCD Monitor
> Model #: AL1716
> S/N: ETL480B00555300652RH02
>
> It only had the plug for the back of the computer.
>
> I plugged it into my Smurf (B&W G3) but had no luck.


Except for Apple ADC versions, all LCD monitors need external power.  
Look for either a small DC power connection or the now-typical  
'cloverleaf' three prong AC in port on the back of it.



--
Bruce Johnson
U of Az  College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions don't have opinions, merely customs


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "G3-5 
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-25 Thread Simon Royal 

Kris.

I use Macs past the point of everyone else, saving them from being landfilled.

If everyone did then the whole Mac production would slow down, which is already 
slower than PC turnover as they have a longer shelf life than PCs.

Kris there are lots of 'environmental' savings for lots of things. I should 
technically change my heating system at home for a more modern one because it 
is more environmentally efficient, but money is always the bottom line.

Simon

--- www.simonroyal.co.uk and www.nmug.org.uk (sent using Nokia E71)

-original message-
Subject: Re: Family Of eMacs
From: Kris Tilford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25/10/2008 01:52


On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Stephen Conrad wrote:

> Ummm, why would you want to scrap out perfectly good usable monitors
> just so you could spend money on an LCD?

Sometimes spending money actually saves money. In the case of LCD  
monitors, the payback period in electricity saving is enough to pay  
for the monitor.

While Bruce may have pointed out that health concerns over EMF are not  
statistically proven, the converse is also true, they are not  
statistically disproved. It is a fact that most forms of  
electromagnetic radiation DO have biological effect, and large,  
statistically valid samples have shown that cancers such as skin  
cancer ARE correlated DIRECTLY to exposure levels. We know the inverse  
square law applies, and that people tend to sit very close to their  
monitors. The EU computer safety whitepaper has studied this subject  
recommended a safe viewing distance of 86cm, which is substantially  
further away than most CRT users sit.

I've inherited an old 1970's Ford LTD with a big 500 ci engine that  
gets about 6 mpg. It too is "perfectly good usable", but it wastes  
money in gas, pollutes the air, and carries enough momentum to kill  
people driving more fuel efficient vehicles if there were an accident.  
I can't justify ever using this vehicle again, and I don't feel  
comfortable selling it, so it's headed to the recycler even though  
it's "perfectly good". Your free, disposed of, CRTs are not an example  
of a efficient use of recycling. Rather it shows the laziness of the  
average citizen, placing a CRT in a dumpster rather than recycling it.  
And you, to cheap to do yourself a favor, there are new LCDs for less  
than $100, buy one, IT PAYS FOR ITSELF! Society as a whole is better  
served with your CRTs in the landfill than with them in use. They're  
digging coal in Wyoming and shipping it on a smokey diesel train to  
Missouri and burning it releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere so  
that you can waste energy with an antiquated CRT monitor that possibly  
harms your health in other ways. There was a reason the monitor was in  
the trash, and it has nothing to do with whether or not it's  
"perfectly good usable". It's always about money. They're saving money  
by throwing the CRT away. You're wasting money by using it.





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-25 Thread Stephen Conrad 

On 10/24/08, Kris Tilford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rather it shows the laziness of the
> average citizen, placing a CRT in a dumpster rather than recycling it.
> And you, to cheap to do yourself a favor, there are new LCDs for less
> than $100, buy one, IT PAYS FOR ITSELF!

The LCD Monitor I got is this:

Acer LCD Monitor
Model #: AL1716
S/N: ETL480B00555300652RH02

It only had the plug for the back of the computer.

I plugged it into my Smurf (B&W G3) but had no luck.

-- 
Steve Conrad
Henrietta, MO 64036

"The time has come for mankind to grow up and leave its cradle behind;
to go forth and claim our place in outer space."
   - Capt. Henry Gloval


(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Help Bunny Take Over The World!

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-24 Thread Stephen Conrad 

On 10/24/08, Kris Tilford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've inherited an old 1970's Ford LTD with a big 500 ci engine that
> gets about 6 mpg. It too is "perfectly good usable", but it wastes
> money in gas, pollutes the air, and carries enough momentum to kill
> people driving more fuel efficient vehicles if there were an accident.
> I can't justify ever using this vehicle again, and I don't feel
> comfortable selling it, so it's headed to the recycler even though
> it's "perfectly good".

It can run unleaded gas so thats a bit less polluting.
Probably can take more damage than today's cars so yo'd be safer.

Your free, disposed of, CRTs are not an example
> of a efficient use of recycling. Rather it shows the laziness of the
> average citizen, placing a CRT in a dumpster rather than recycling it.

True, but it is still usable so they didn't get their money out of it.
I got it cost free so it saved me money.

> And you, to cheap to do yourself a favor, there are new LCDs for less
> than $100, buy one, IT PAYS FOR ITSELF!

Some of us don't have money to toss around as our budgets are tight.

Society as a whole is better
> served with your CRTs in the landfill than with them in use.

In a landfill? Not recycled?

>They're digging coal in Wyoming and shipping it on a smokey diesel train to
> Missouri and burning it releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere so
> that you can waste energy with an antiquated CRT monitor that possibly
> harms your health in other ways. There was a reason the monitor was in
> the trash, and it has nothing to do with whether or not it's
> "perfectly good usable". It's always about money. They're saving money
> by throwing the CRT away. You're wasting money by using it.

Missouri does get coal for power plants, true. However, we are also
putting in windfarms and using solar so not all power is from coal
(some is natural gas as well).
Wasting money? It cost me nothing and it powers down when I am not at
the computer.



-- 
Steve Conrad
Henrietta, MO 64036

"The time has come for mankind to grow up and leave its cradle behind;
to go forth and claim our place in outer space."
   - Capt. Henry Gloval


(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Help Bunny Take Over The World!

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-24 Thread Kris Tilford 

On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Stephen Conrad wrote:

> Ummm, why would you want to scrap out perfectly good usable monitors
> just so you could spend money on an LCD?

Sometimes spending money actually saves money. In the case of LCD  
monitors, the payback period in electricity saving is enough to pay  
for the monitor.

While Bruce may have pointed out that health concerns over EMF are not  
statistically proven, the converse is also true, they are not  
statistically disproved. It is a fact that most forms of  
electromagnetic radiation DO have biological effect, and large,  
statistically valid samples have shown that cancers such as skin  
cancer ARE correlated DIRECTLY to exposure levels. We know the inverse  
square law applies, and that people tend to sit very close to their  
monitors. The EU computer safety whitepaper has studied this subject  
recommended a safe viewing distance of 86cm, which is substantially  
further away than most CRT users sit.

I've inherited an old 1970's Ford LTD with a big 500 ci engine that  
gets about 6 mpg. It too is "perfectly good usable", but it wastes  
money in gas, pollutes the air, and carries enough momentum to kill  
people driving more fuel efficient vehicles if there were an accident.  
I can't justify ever using this vehicle again, and I don't feel  
comfortable selling it, so it's headed to the recycler even though  
it's "perfectly good". Your free, disposed of, CRTs are not an example  
of a efficient use of recycling. Rather it shows the laziness of the  
average citizen, placing a CRT in a dumpster rather than recycling it.  
And you, to cheap to do yourself a favor, there are new LCDs for less  
than $100, buy one, IT PAYS FOR ITSELF! Society as a whole is better  
served with your CRTs in the landfill than with them in use. They're  
digging coal in Wyoming and shipping it on a smokey diesel train to  
Missouri and burning it releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere so  
that you can waste energy with an antiquated CRT monitor that possibly  
harms your health in other ways. There was a reason the monitor was in  
the trash, and it has nothing to do with whether or not it's  
"perfectly good usable". It's always about money. They're saving money  
by throwing the CRT away. You're wasting money by using it.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-24 Thread Stephen Conrad 

On 10/24/08, Kris Tilford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I reiterate from yesterday, recycle these, or remove/disable the CRT
 and use an LCD with them.

Ummm, why would you want to scrap out perfectly good usable monitors
just so you could spend money on an LCD?
I am using a Sony VAIO monitor (a Trinitron) that was THROWN AWAY by
the local Salvation Army. I have several more CRT monitors I got from
the same source. The only LCD monitor I found I don't think it works
(plugged it into the Smurf but no luck).
This current monitor also has USB ports on it.
Again, why toss out working monitors? If I want to recycle such a
monitor WITHOUT taking it apart I have to haul it into downtown Kansas
City and I don't think they pay me for the monitor.
However, when such a monitor dies I can gut it and sell back the
innards (sans the CRT itself and the plastic case which itself goes to
a local place that takes plastic).

Steve


-- 
Steve Conrad
Henrietta, MO 64036

"The time has come for mankind to grow up and leave its cradle behind;
to go forth and claim our place in outer space."
   - Capt. Henry Gloval


(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Help Bunny Take Over The World!

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-24 Thread Simon Royal 

Bruce

If we listened to every scare tactic we would never do anything.

There are wifi scares, computer scares, mobile scares.

You have more chance of getting hit by a bus or mugged in the street.

Simon

--- www.simonroyal.co.uk and www.nmug.org.uk (sent using Nokia E71)

-original message-
Subject: Re: Family Of eMacs
From: Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24/10/2008 18:20



On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Kris Tilford wrote:

> On the health side, studies have shown that for children, the risk of
> childhood cancers is as high as 2 for users of CRT monitor. This means
> your child may double their chances of cancer from prolonged use of
> CRT monitors. (2)

I'm sorry but the article you cite makes no such claim.

It says, specifically:

  "Epidemiologists have suggested that the risk factors for some  
childhood cancers (particularly leukemia) are as high as two for some  
populations exposed to low frequency EMI. "

Note "some populations" and "exposed to low-frequency EMI" not CRT's.

THEN ONE LINE LATER it says:

"In general, a risk factor of less than six is not considered  
significant (cigarette smoking has a risk factor of 10-20)."

Sadly, like may other fields (law, engineering,etc) to paraphrase  
Inigo Montoya:

  "those words, I do not think they mean what YOU think they mean"

Having worked in the carcinogenesis field, I can state that a risk  
factor of two derived from some study is not significantly greater  
than chance, unless it's a really really REALLY big study, controlled  
for a huge number of variables, and absent a police state keeping  
accurate and detailed health and lifestyle records of everyone, there  
just isn't the data available for that kind of study.

This means that you can draw NO CONCLUSIONS from the study, because it  
is equally probable that pure coincidence would give you the same  
results.

Sadly, these terms get tossed into articles directed at laypeople  
without a clear understanding or explanation of what the words mean  
within the field they're being used in.

Also the numbers on childhood cancer are very very low, so presuming  
the observed risk is real, even doubling the risk still means they  
have a very very low risk of the actual adverse outcome.

Seriously, the risks of letting your children near a street are far  
higher than the elevated risk from looking at CRTs.

Finally, while there have been widely touted studies linking living  
under power lines and cancer in young children, there is a glaring  
flaw in most of these studies: almost invariably this housing is  
relatively new, and almost invariably, significantly lower  
socioeconomic class, a whole host of other risk factors involved.

When these studies are properly controlled against this, the EMI  
effect vanishes. This isn't 'massaging the numbers' or 'lying with  
statistics' it's plain old ordinary science.

Anecdotes != Data.

This is akin to the 'brain cancer epidemic' we've been saddled with  
since we got the MRI which could find brain tumors too small to be  
found in the past.

If there IS an EMI effect, it is below the background noise of all  
other carcinogens in the environment.

And no I'm not a paid shill of the power industry, but if EMI caused  
cancer, we'd see a massive epidemic among factory workers, janitors  
and barbers...power tools, vacuum cleaners and barber's shears have  
vastly stronger EM fields than CRT's...that's why your TV goes crazy  
when the vacuum cleaner comes near.

-- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs







--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-24 Thread Bruce Johnson 


On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Kris Tilford wrote:

> On the health side, studies have shown that for children, the risk of
> childhood cancers is as high as 2 for users of CRT monitor. This means
> your child may double their chances of cancer from prolonged use of
> CRT monitors. (2)

I'm sorry but the article you cite makes no such claim.

It says, specifically:

  "Epidemiologists have suggested that the risk factors for some  
childhood cancers (particularly leukemia) are as high as two for some  
populations exposed to low frequency EMI. "

Note "some populations" and "exposed to low-frequency EMI" not CRT's.

THEN ONE LINE LATER it says:

"In general, a risk factor of less than six is not considered  
significant (cigarette smoking has a risk factor of 10-20)."

Sadly, like may other fields (law, engineering,etc) to paraphrase  
Inigo Montoya:

  "those words, I do not think they mean what YOU think they mean"

Having worked in the carcinogenesis field, I can state that a risk  
factor of two derived from some study is not significantly greater  
than chance, unless it's a really really REALLY big study, controlled  
for a huge number of variables, and absent a police state keeping  
accurate and detailed health and lifestyle records of everyone, there  
just isn't the data available for that kind of study.

This means that you can draw NO CONCLUSIONS from the study, because it  
is equally probable that pure coincidence would give you the same  
results.

Sadly, these terms get tossed into articles directed at laypeople  
without a clear understanding or explanation of what the words mean  
within the field they're being used in.

Also the numbers on childhood cancer are very very low, so presuming  
the observed risk is real, even doubling the risk still means they  
have a very very low risk of the actual adverse outcome.

Seriously, the risks of letting your children near a street are far  
higher than the elevated risk from looking at CRTs.

Finally, while there have been widely touted studies linking living  
under power lines and cancer in young children, there is a glaring  
flaw in most of these studies: almost invariably this housing is  
relatively new, and almost invariably, significantly lower  
socioeconomic class, a whole host of other risk factors involved.

When these studies are properly controlled against this, the EMI  
effect vanishes. This isn't 'massaging the numbers' or 'lying with  
statistics' it's plain old ordinary science.

Anecdotes != Data.

This is akin to the 'brain cancer epidemic' we've been saddled with  
since we got the MRI which could find brain tumors too small to be  
found in the past.

If there IS an EMI effect, it is below the background noise of all  
other carcinogens in the environment.

And no I'm not a paid shill of the power industry, but if EMI caused  
cancer, we'd see a massive epidemic among factory workers, janitors  
and barbers...power tools, vacuum cleaners and barber's shears have  
vastly stronger EM fields than CRT's...that's why your TV goes crazy  
when the vacuum cleaner comes near.

-- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-24 Thread Simon Royal 

Kris

I have been using CRTs for over 15 years and not suffered from heachaches or 
eye strain.

Simon

--- www.simonroyal.co.uk and www.nmug.org.uk (sent using Nokia E71)

-original message-
Subject: Re: Family Of eMacs
From: Kris Tilford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24/10/2008 13:20


On Oct 24, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Simon Royal wrote:

> All for £125 delivered. Bargain.

I disagree.

Yesterday I cited that LCD monitors literally "pay for themselves" in  
electricity saved. You're being "penny wise and pound foolish". The  
savings for one display over 5 years (in 2005 energy costs, which are  
low now, meaning more like 4 years or less now), is £100 per display.  
So your three eMacs are costing you at least £300 more than you've  
stated. (1)

On the health side, studies have shown that for children, the risk of  
childhood cancers is as high as 2 for users of CRT monitor. This means  
your child may double their chances of cancer from prolonged use of  
CRT monitors. (2)

I cited eyestrain as my reason for switching. There are 112,000 hits  
on Google for the terms "CRT eye strain" not in quotes.(3) You can  
take your choice. There are thousands of anecdotal reports like my own  
of years of headaches and eyestrain ending instantly by switching.  
There are studies and solutions (crank up your refresh rate on your  
CRT, it may help the eyestrain, but it hurts the EMF exposure). There  
are many, many anecdotal reports of computer programers who say their  
vision was ruined by CRT usage, but I've never seen a report saying  
"my vision was ruined by LCD usage".

I reiterate from yesterday, recycle these, or remove/disable the CRT  
and use an LCD with them.

Here are the links to my citations from above:

(1)<http://www.nec-display-solutions.com/c/g/uk/en/Monitorizing/Whitepapers/Details/dp/Internet/Shared/Content/SeeMore/Whitepapers/LCDandCRTTechnology/index,solutionId=.htm
 
 >

(2)<http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/video-faq/19-Should-I-be-concerned-about-monitor-emissions.html
 
 >

(3)<http://www.google.com/search?q=CRT+eye+strain>




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Family Of eMacs

2008-10-24 Thread Kris Tilford 

On Oct 24, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Simon Royal wrote:

> All for £125 delivered. Bargain.

I disagree.

Yesterday I cited that LCD monitors literally "pay for themselves" in  
electricity saved. You're being "penny wise and pound foolish". The  
savings for one display over 5 years (in 2005 energy costs, which are  
low now, meaning more like 4 years or less now), is £100 per display.  
So your three eMacs are costing you at least £300 more than you've  
stated. (1)

On the health side, studies have shown that for children, the risk of  
childhood cancers is as high as 2 for users of CRT monitor. This means  
your child may double their chances of cancer from prolonged use of  
CRT monitors. (2)

I cited eyestrain as my reason for switching. There are 112,000 hits  
on Google for the terms "CRT eye strain" not in quotes.(3) You can  
take your choice. There are thousands of anecdotal reports like my own  
of years of headaches and eyestrain ending instantly by switching.  
There are studies and solutions (crank up your refresh rate on your  
CRT, it may help the eyestrain, but it hurts the EMF exposure). There  
are many, many anecdotal reports of computer programers who say their  
vision was ruined by CRT usage, but I've never seen a report saying  
"my vision was ruined by LCD usage".

I reiterate from yesterday, recycle these, or remove/disable the CRT  
and use an LCD with them.

Here are the links to my citations from above:

(1)

(2)

(3)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Family Of eMacs

2008-10-24 Thread Simon Royal 

Well after a terrible few weeks of Macs I have finally sorted them all out.

I have just replaced the PowerMac G4 400mhz (which was to replace my dead Intel 
iMac) with an eMac 1.25Ghz with 1GB of RAM. 

The iMac G3 500mhz has been replaced with an eMac 800mhz with 512MB for my son 
and bought a second eMac 800mhz with 512MB for my other son.

The 1.25Ghz will be running Leopard and the other two will be running Tiger.

All for £125 delivered. Bargain.

I still have my trusty PowerBook G3 Pismo 400mhz with 1GB of RAM.

I will be a little sad to finally leave the iMac G3 behind as it is a fabulous 
machine. I might just keep it for nostalga reasons.

Simon

--- www.simonroyal.co.uk and www.nmug.org.uk (sent using Nokia E71)


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a 
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on 
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---