June 3, 1990

I NEVER cease to be amazed at how very badly most people in this country want to believe what they’re told, if it means they don’t have to do anything out of character like actually think about something.

So I was not terribly surprised to pick up the latest issue of Macworld (July 1990) and find a shocking story about health dangers posed by low-level electromagnetic field (ELF) emissions from Macintosh-compatible display monitors. (Long-time readers may recall my column about VDT-related issues a little less than a year ago.)

The Macworld piece, called, “The Magnetic Field Menace,” was written by none other than Paul Brodeur, the New Yorker magazine staff writer who wrote an intensive, three-part series on the same topic for his magazine in 1989 that appeared in the June 12, 19 and 26 issues.

Brodeur’s New Yorker series, as well as the Macworld piece, draws attention to the fact that virtually all the research stating that low-level ELF emissions are safe was done by people who were representing business or public utilities — hardly what I’d call watchdogs for the public good.

I think it’s incredibly brave of Macworld — which earns its living in great measure by advertising dollars from companies selling these products — to take on this subject. (The only reason it’s only about Mac monitors is because of its audience, by the way, not because other computer monitors are safe.)

In addition to Brodeur’s lengthy story, which includes ELF test results for 10 monitors commonly used with Macintosh computers, editor Jerry Borrell discusses in his monthly “Commentary” why Macworld decided to run the piece.

He writes about reading Alan Derickson’s book, “Dying for Work: Workers’ Safety and Health in Twentieth Century America” (Indiana University Press, 1989), realizing that computer users may be in the same position as miners were with black-lung disease, before the connection was made between the work and the disease, or radium dial painters who became palsied by contact with the radioactive substance.

Though some paint Brodeur as a fanatic (because he presents a good case for some kind of complicity going on between industry and the scientists it hires), Borrell takes a look at history and brings home, once again, why maybe we shouldn’t believe everything that we’re told by the companies whose products we buy.

“So often over the last 90 years,” writes Borrell, “in t e case of each of the substances listed above, each claim of an impact on health began with a long period of denial. The period of denial is typically followed by a period when terminology obfuscates the issues, when the public does not have a clear understanding that there are problems. During this time people continue to grow ill or die while scientists and technologists argue over what the real issue is.”

This scenario fits exactly what’s happening with ELF emissions from computer displays today. In addition, Borrell describes what must have been one of those moments in life where reality intrudes in a particularly unkind manner.

He writes of making calls to the federal government, hoping to get some brain-cell activity going in Washington on the subject of ELF and human health. Get this:

Robert Roe, chairman of the House Science Committee, had a staffer respond to Borrell that “the congressman did not want to be bothered by non-issues.”

John Villforth, chairman of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health in the Food and Drug Administration, responded to Borrell’s question with a fax Borrell says “that may as well have been written by James Watt to people complaining about tree harvesting on public lands.”

What’s interesting is that Macworld did get some display manufacturers to respond when they were confronted with the ELF data on their products. I was horrified at Apple’s cavalier response, but at least one independent manufacturer, SuperMac Technology, says it will host a meeting between industry and vendors who sell cathode-ray tubes to talk about reducing ELF emissions.

If SuperMac follows up on this (and I believe Macworld will make sure that they do), it’s a great lesson to anyone who reads or writes for computer magazines. Although advertising dollars pay for the magazine to operate, readers who buy products make sure that the coin flips both ways. Hats off to Macworld for using its leverage in the industry in a healthy, productive way.

I would love to keep pulling out amazing snippets of this story to shock you — there are plenty of them — but I suggest you read it yourself. And write Macworld a nice thank you letter for doing a great public service for the computer-using community.