Macopinion

The Road Warrior Mailbag - From The Archive - October 20, 2008

• MCS computer sensitivities
• Computer Workarounds For The Chemically Sensitive [Originally Published March 26, 2001]

MCS computer sensitivities

From Daniel

Hi,

I recently read your article here.

I was wondering where you got that list from OSHA about the chemicals released by computers. thats a pretty nasty list. I tried searching OSHA's website but couldn't find anything.

Daniel

___

Hi Daniel;

That was a while back. I can't find my research notes for that article, and I struck out with Google as well. The resource may no longer be available.

These ones may be of some help.

http://www.ehcd.com/websteen/flame_retardants.htm

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/toxic-tech-testing

http://www.videojug.com/interview/the-chemicals-in-my-computer-2

Charles

___

Re: MCS computer sensitivities

I have a website... not sure if you've seen it.
http://www.rawair.net

You can ignore the enclosures I put on the site. I'm going to be halting this effort and totally changing the enclosure design and construction to something more more visually appealing and lower priced.

Thanks for the info... It sure is hard to find out what chemicals outgas from devices..

___

Hi Daniel;

Bravo for pursuing this project. There was someone marketing computer enclosures in the late '90s, but disappeared. I get occasional queries from readers looking for a source, and have only been able to share the ideas for my own homemade laptop enclosures.

I hope you will get around to a laptop enclosure model. In several respects, enclosing a laptop is easier than with a desktop, thanks to their smaller size and self-contained nature.

Things are improving slowly. Did you see Apple's 2008 Environmental Update signed by Steve Jobs?

A couple of points are particularly topical.

"Last year we announced the unprecedented goal of eliminating polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from Apple products by the end of 2008. We also pledged to remove mercury from our displays and arsenic from our display glass as we transition to more efficient light-emitting diode (LED) technology.

"The greatest of these challenges has been eliminating PVC and BFRs, which many other companies have only promised to phase out of certain parts like enclosures or printed circuit board laminates. In contrast, we are removing all forms of bromine and chlorine throughout the entire product, not just PVC and BFRs. Apple has qualified and tested thousands of components and mechanical plastics as bromine and chlorine free, and we are in the final stages of developing and certifying PVC-free power cables.

"I’m proud to report that all of Apple’s new product designs are on track to meet our 2008 year-end goal."

You can read the entire document here:
http://www.apple.com/environment/update/

Charles

***


From The Archive - Computer Workarounds For The Chemically Sensitive

For our From The Archive selection this week I've chosen an earlier The Road Warrior column on the topic of chemical emissions from computers, originally published March 26, 2001.

Notwithstanding the measures Apple has recently undertaken referenced in the recent Apple 2008 Environmental Update referenced in my reply to Daniel above, disappointingly little has been done to remediate the situation in the past seven years, and indeed the Intel based Macs, both notebook and desktop, have been among the worst offenders based on the volume of mail I've received from computer-using chemically-sensitive folks since 2006. It's good to hear that Apple is addressing more conventinal toxicity and recycling issues, but there is little indication that the problems of chemically hypersensitive users are being tackled.

A recent spike of interest in the topic catalyzed by a report in the French newspaper Liberation regarding issues allegedly encountered by some MAc Pro users is a case in point.

For Google machine translation click here.

And incidentally, both my old WallStreet, and the three PowerBook G3 Pismos I've owned subsequently all did eventually gas off to a degree that they no longer cause me problems, but it took literally years after their manufacture for the fumes to subside.

___

Computer Workarounds For The Chemically Sensitive [Originally Published March 26, 2001]


Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, with which I and and unfortunately growing cohort of others are afflicted, makes one's relationship with computers a bittersweet affair. On the one hand, a computer connected to the Internet is a means of communication and a tool for interaction with a world that many of us are obliged to keep at arm's length. MCS is not sometimes called "20th Century Disease" for nothing.

The other side of the computer coin for some of us struggling with this illness is that computers contain a lot of plastics, and plastics tend to gas off chemical vapors. Computers, especially newer ones, also tend to run hot, which increases their chemical emissions.

For example, I never had a problem with my PowerBook 5300, even when it was brand new, but I have severe reactions to my 233 MHz WallStreet PowerBook, which I am obliged to isolate in a glass case, force-vented away from my work area.

My level of sensitivity fluctuates somewhat, and during relatively good periods, I can tolerate my UMAX S.-900 tower machine. Most of the time, however, I have to direct its cooling fan exhaust to the outer atmosphere through ducting that I have fabricated.

I've written from time to time about my MCS travails, and I hear frequently from other folks who have similar difficulties. The thread of correspondence with a reader that appears below is a good example. With her permission, I'm including part of our exchange in this column.

Chemical Sensitivities and the G4 Titanium PowerBook

Hello Charles,

I read your article on chemical sensitivity and computers with interest. I am also chemically sensitive and so share some of your difficulties. I have had two PowerBooks over the last few years - a 1400cs and a G3 "Kanga" (second hand), both of which fortunately emit few fumes and are safe for me to use (I have them still).

For various complicated reasons, I am possibly about to lose my friendly old Kanga and be given a G4 Titanium PowerBook (gasp). I gather you have had recent experience with this machine, and I was wondering how 'toxic' you found it (i.e. how much it smelt). I had thought originally that it would be a relatively safe machine because of the metal casing, but I have since discovered that the metal is coated with something. I have been lucky with PowerBooks and fumes so far, but my luck may just run out with this new, powerful, hot-running machine, and I'd hate to have a brand spanking new G4 which I couldn't use.

Any comments or insight would be appreciated.

___

Hi;

This is a very hard issue to judge for someone else.

Basically, I have not been able to use any PowerBook since the G3 Series II (the WallStreet I was not a problem for me) without a gas mask or isolation case because of the phenolic and plastic odor. My own WallStreet II lives in a glass case.

The metal skin of the TiBook is a plus, but you still have those phenolic circuit boards in there gassing off. It depends on your tolerance for the sort of phenolics they use at the PowerBook manufacturing facility in Taiwan. (The WallStreet Is I tested were made in Ireland). Mine is almost zero.

The TiBook is painted, but that should gas off relatively quickly.

The ideal way to approach this is for you to try a TiBook in your normal work environment before committing.

Good luck!
Charles

___

Hello Charles,

Thanks for replying. I know it's an impossible thing to judge for someone else; I was just looking for clues. Testing in my 'normal work environment' probably isn't going to be possible, unfortunately.

My 'normal work environment' is my bed; I've been chronically ill and bedridden on and off for 16 years since being poisoned by pesticides in my late teens, hence the MCS.

My Kanga G3 PowerBook, which normally sits on a stand over my bed in front of me, is my connection with the outside world. Apple have it in for warranty repair at the moment (again...) and are considering replacing it with an iBook for free because I've had such reliability problems and warranty repair stuff-ups with it and the 1400cs I had before it (whoever said they were reliable?), So I can use the iBook they're offering me as credit towards a G4 PowerBook (I don't want an iBook). Because of all this, I don't think they're going to let me test the new machine beforehand, but I'll ask them of course....I have told them about my chemical sensitivities....

___

Hi again;

MCS is a hell of a thing, isn't it?

Sorry to hear about that, and about your PowerBook problems.

Like I said, it's hard to judge how someone else will react.

A family member who is a Mac tech and IT support person, is skeptical that I would ever be able to use a recent modern PowerBook, noting that their new Lombard PowerBook smells as strongly now than when it was new 14 months ago (this person is not chemically sensitive - just aware).

On one hand, PowerBooks are great for someone in your circumstances - small and self-contained. However, all that hot, smelly stuff is right there under your nose.

Charles

___

As I noted to the reader, I really am a poor judge of how likely a particular computer is to cause adverse reactions even for me, let alone someone else. My own sense of smell has been partially wiped out by a half-decade-long yeast infection in my sinuses. For example, I can't smell at all whatever it is coming from the WallStreet that clobbers me. My wife says she can smell it. I have a Kinesis ergonomic keyboard that I love the feel of, and that I can't smell even with my nose pressed to the keys, but using it for an hour puts me in pain for days (not in the arms and hands). There is some vestigial chemical emission from the plastics and/or circuit boards that doesn't agree with my immune system.

On the other hand, the MacAlly New Wave keyboard that I use most of the time never bothered me even new from the box. This idiosyncratic response to randomly combined chemical emissions from various products makes speculation about whether a particular product will cause difficulty or not futile.

Neither does sniffing a product in a dealer's showroom help much. It might identify something that smelled truly awful, but there are too many other odors floating around in an environment like that for such tests to be useful. An MCS person really has to try the product out in his/her normal working environment to discern whether there will be a problem.

Nevertheless, any effort on the part of manufacturers to cut down on chemical emissions from computers is welcome. An Apple authorized reseller friend of mine recently noted that:

"Regarding your environmental issues, I've noticed both the Cube and the TiBook are a whole lot less smelly when you first turn the things on straight out of the box than either iMacs or Pismo/WallStreet/Lombards. Who knows? They may have made them more toxic and less smelly, but at least in my unscientific analysis, there was a whole lot less physical nose irritation to deal with."

That's encouraging news. Still, I am skeptical that a really chemically sensitive person like myself is going to be able to use any of today's generation of hot-running computers comfortably when they are new.

___

Appendix

Research Confirms Computer Chemical Allergy Hazard

Swedish researchers have found that a chemical compound widely used as a flame retardant in plastics is emitted into office air in large quantities, especially during the first week of [computer] operation.

The compound, triphenyl phosphate [a flame retardant,] is known to cause allergic reactions in some people, with symptoms ranging from itching and nasal congestion to headaches.

The study, led by Conny Ostman of Stockholm University, was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society.

Ostman's team found that some monitors contained as much 10 percent of the allergenic compound, but that concentrations seemed to vary among various manufacturing plants, and may also be different at various times within the plants, which could explain my personal experience of reacting severely to one example of a particular computer model, but not to another seemingly identical one.

Even after 183 days operation, the equivalent of two years of working use, emitted levels of the allergen remained 10 times higher than normal background levels. "Even in offices with adequate ventilation, this compound could be a potential hazard for computer users," Ostman is quoted saying.


***



cmoore@macopinion.com

Note: Letters to The Road Warrior may or may not be published in The Road Warrior Mailbag at the editor's discretion. Correspondents' email addresses will NOT be published unless the correspondent specifically requests publication. Letters may be edited for length and/or context.

If you would prefer that your message not appear in The Road Warrior Mailbag, we would still like to hear from you. Just clearly mark your message "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," and it will not be published.

CM