                          SUBMITTED BY

                        KENNETH P. SOBEL
                      SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR
                       CITY OF LOS ANGELES
                         (213) 485-4691
                       FAX (213) 485-8765
_________________________________________________________________


December 19, 1988

Video Display Terminals (VDT)

I am writing in response to your October 19 letter regarding the
use of video display terminals.

Since 1980, the Personnel Department's Occupational Safety staff
has closely followed the evolving concerns regarding VDT usage. 
A member of our staff has been attending the Cal/OSHA VDT Commit-
tee hearings in San Francisco for the last year, keeping us abreast
of the latest available information.  The attached safety bulletin,
issued in 1985, addresses employee concerns, and since the bulletin
was issued, no new, conclusive, objective evidence has come forth
requiring an update.

The studies addressed in the letter from the (XXXXX) Corporation
have been both embraced and critically reviewed and rejected by
many organizations.  The consistent theme in the attached articles
is that the findings are premature and inconclusive.  There is no
reason, at this time, to suspect that a cause and effect relation-
ship can be determined from these studies.  Nowhere in the sup-
portive articles is it claimed that there is a link between worker
health and low frequency radiation as generated by VDTs.

The product sold by (XXXXX) could possibly aid in reducing glare
on VDT screens.  However, there is no evidence that low level elec-
tromagnetic radiation needs to be eliminated, and there is no
evidence that this device does eliminate said radiation, in any
case.  Therefore, we cannot recommend this product for that pur-
pose.

Paul Petersen, Safety Engineering Associate, is available at ex-
tension 54691 to answer questions and provide further assistance
to your staff regarding this matter.
