Rich Americans spend countless hours using the technology to which we’ve so quickly become addicted. The current college-going generation is the first that grew up with electronics for the masses. As toddlers some of us were running around with gameboys in our hands. Now as university
students, it’s rare to find one of us that doesn’t claim our own computer, mp3 player, or cell phone. Personal electronics have become accessible enough for us to use them daily without even knowing their effects on health. Try this: Turn your iPod up to full volume and touch the ear buds together. When I showed my astronomy professor this he certainly didn’t think magnetism could be healthy so close to the brain. Many of the electronics we so readily use have health question marks underlining their legitimacy. Unfortunately, answers may be difficult to find. For example, the possible health consequences of computer and TV screens remain a mystery; even after rigorous investigation!

People have feared the damage potentially caused by Visual Display Terminals like computer and TV screens for a long time. Many have heard the annoyingly repetitive warnings not to sit so near the TV as children from concerned parents. Any user has felt dizzy after staring at a computer screen for
hours. Nearly 20 years ago, TIME was already asking, “Could your computer be killing you?” They discovered that magnetic field emissions were “ten times as high as those linked with cancer in children” when one sits four inches from the screen. Hopefully, people have the intelligence not to hold
their face that close to the computer. Still, it is a startling discovery. Pregnant mothers also have concerns. A multitude of pregnant women whose jobs involve working with VDTs reported miscarriages and birth defects in the late 1970s. The measured UV rays, X-rays, radio frequency fields, and static
fields surely beg for scientific investigation.

Surprisingly, the experts have confirmed very little. Richard S. Rosenberg, professor of Computer Science at Dalhousie University, claims in his book The Social Impact of Computers that
“the current medical opinion is that ‘most epidemiological studies suggest VDT work is not associated
with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.” A Wisconsin-Madison study found no significant evidence for job stress differences between VDT users and non-users. The IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation asserts that “neither laboratory nor epidemiological research has shown convincing evidence that the electromagnetic fields emanating from VDTs adversely affected the
health of VDT operators.” The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists
further beats concerns into submission by concluding that any eye pain you may experience is only temporary and does not lead to long-term damage. The feared emission and radiation are all low-level
enough to be harmless. Most scientific investigation concurs.

However, Allan Rose claims in Human Stress and the Environment that “VDT work may be contributing” to mental health problems in VDT users. Workers overloaded with VDT use report greater job dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem. Those who spend a majority of their work time with VDTs have
“higher levels of catecholamine,” which suggests that VDT users take longer to unwind.” Others have suggested that a certain threshold of daily VDT use must be reached for psychological effects to exist. Nakazawa concludes that “mental and sleep related symptoms increase with VDT work of more
than five hours per day.” They also contend that “further study is needed” to confirm their results. To be sure, science is less than settled about whether VDTs are dangerous.

Even if the majority of scientific investigation finds nothing harmful about VDTs, the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” as Ralph Levinson, professor of ophthalmology at UCLA’s Jules Stein Eye Institute, points out. The disconcerting eye pain remains. Levinson asserts that a longitudinal study following users and non-users for decades is the only conclusive way to determine the existence of eye damage from VDT use. As of yet, this has not been conducted. The research group of miscarriages and birth defects as a result of VDT use in the workplace is unexplained. Certainly, the mental effects suggested by a small handful of studies merit an effort to limit our time in front of a screen. It seems that at present we computer dependent youth cannot rest easy, knowing how our habits will affect our health later in life.