New T.V. Please Help!

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote:
I got the itch to make a return trip to H.H. Gregg this evening - because there is a 32-inch version of the Samsung that I mentioned in my previous post (the current 26" model whose specs seem very similar to the Samsung I owned).  Based on a previous experience with evaluating Samsungs, I thought that the 32" Samsung (model number: UN32EH4003) would be very similar in feel to its 26" counterpart.

I even took my radio!  I explained to the first employee who approached me what my basic situation is, and what I would be doing with the radio.  His reaction seemed o.k. - he didn't seem that skeptical/judgmental.  But I still think I incurred a bit of suspicion from another employee (who approached me twice), and someone who may have been an "undercover" loss-prevention agent.  

The 32" Samsung seemed to test fine using the radio test (I didn't get any distinct buzzes like I would get with several of the TVs I tested in 2010).  But something about it vaguely seemed like it may be bothersome if I brought it home.  I'm mainly basing this impression on the recent experience I've had with the "deceptive" LG (which seemed o.k. in the store - more on that later).  I didn't notice a strong or definite negative reaction to the 32" Samsung - but there was still a subtle, vague uncertainty.  

Does this mean that the 26" version of this same TV (they have very similar model numbers) would be bothersome?  Or are smaller TVs by their very nature less bothersome than their larger counterparts?  

There was a 32" LG sitting nearby that felt noticeably better than the 32" Samsung - it felt so good that I was quite tempted to think that it might work in my bedroom.  (It "passed" the radio test.)  This LG is not the larger version of what I have now - it has a completely different model number.  I wonder if there is a 26" version of this - or even a 24" or 29" version?  I may look this up.

Then I tested a 29" Samsung.  Right off the bat, it felt "better" as I was standing in front of it than the 32" Samsung.  Things got confusing because there were factors about this TV that "should" have made it MORE bothersome than the 32" Samsung.  For one thing, the radio seemed slightly more "noisy" when I ran the radio test (though it still wasn't nearly as bad as some of those 2010 TVs).  Then I discovered that the "Dynamic Contrast" was set to "high" on this TV (it was already turned off on the 32" Samsung).  Yet, even with the high Dynamic Contrast setting - it seemed to feel better than the 32".  I turned off Dynamic Contrast - which may have made the TV feel even better - but I still was getting the same slight "noise" with the radio.  I discovered that the backlight was below maximum (it was already at maximum with the 32").  I turned the backlight to maximum.  The radio response was slightly better - but still perhaps not as good as the 32".  The "kicker" is that this 29" Samsung has a Clear Motion Rate of 120 - while the 32" Samsung has a Clear Motion Rate of 60.  So shouldn't the higher motion rating make the TV more bothersome?  

Was the size the difference?  Was it simply because the TV was smaller that it was less bothersome?  Or did it happen to be in a location where I felt the radiation less?  I don't know...the whole thing is a bit confounding.  

This visit to H.H. Gregg may have raised more questions than it answered - lol.  

~Svetaswan

On July 27, svetaswan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I got the itch to make a return trip to H.H. Gregg this evening

I would trust your symptoms around the sets more than I'd trust
"the radio test".  I've found things to be problematic that don't
show up on a radio at all.  All that means is that what's bothersome
isn't in the range of an AM radio station frequency.

Also, I'd hesitate to extrapolate from one set from a manufacturer
to another.  And I don't think you can generalize that "larger" is
more problematic.

Marc

Last time I bought a TV, I studied up on the differences between plasma, LED, LCD. I think I went for the LCD. (not sure now)... I didn't want plasma. I remember the word mercury. Anyway, I have a Phillips I am very happy with. Some screens are way too glitzy. I think some of us have light sensitivity. I can't look at Apple devices and Samsung also are too gltzy, shiny, something - hard on the eyes and brain. Your brain has to process all that unnatural light and it makes your brain tired.

Maybe this can shed some light. :-) on the topic.  Hoping I typed it right!

Http://asia.cnet.com/led-vs-lcd-tv-which-is-better-update-62055838:htm

Judy


--- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@...> wrote:
>
>

>

A battery operated AM radio tuned to 530 KHz will distort when close to an emitter of all sorts of frequency. Interestingly the new radios emit RF compared to a radio that is over 5 years old. 

You will be able to hear pulses coming from an electric toothbrush.   

 Smart meter neighborhoods disrupt it with "popping" 900 MHz pulses or lightning from a storm close by. A radio can detect the CFL's  higher frequency too. 

You know there's a big problem when another radio station is present. This means your local powerline is acting like a broadcasting antenna.

I use an older battery operated radio to detect modulation on the line. A pure 60 Hz outlet will not disrupt the radio at all. 

Al

________________________________
 From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [eSens] New T.V. Please Help!
 


 
On July 27, svetaswan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I got the itch to make a return trip to H.H. Gregg this evening

I would trust your symptoms around the sets more than I'd trust
"the radio test".  I've found things to be problematic that don't
show up on a radio at all.  All that means is that what's bothersome
isn't in the range of an AM radio station frequency.

Also, I'd hesitate to extrapolate from one set from a manufacturer
to another.  And I don't think you can generalize that "larger" is
more problematic.

Marc

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], "judyl_nev" <judyl_nev@...> wrote:

Right - the last time around, when I was trying to acquaint myself with this new technology and was shopping around for a new TV  - I learned quickly that LCD TVs were a better choice for those who are trying to minimize radiation.  I've followed that advice - I've never even looked at a plasma TV in a store.  Perhaps it would be interesting to try to stand in front of one, though - just to see how they "feel".  I don't think that they make plasmas below a certain size, anyway - so plasmas kind-of rule themselves out as bedroom TVs, as far as I'm concerned.  

And you raise a good point about light sensitivity - and how the brain struggles to process the unnatural light emitted by modern screens.  I consider myself to be quite light-sensitive.  The issue of light, and light sensitivity - is something that I've been interested in.  I have even gone so far as to purchase "blue-light-blocking" goggles (which I ended up not using), and purchasing colored "gels" to further warm up the color temperature of my computer screens and TVs.

I am attracted to screens with more muted, warmer, "softer" colors.  But in the TV market, some of the same TVs that have these muted colors have reviews that sort-of scare me off.  I don't want to bring an Emerson TV home (which as a screen that doesn't stress the brain too much with overly-vivid colors) - only to have it die on me in a year.  I'm attracted to the Samsungs and the LGs because they have solid reputations for quality and reliabiltiy.  But that quality and reliability often comes with brightness!

Besides - with my last Samsung - I "adjusted down" the brightness and colors to something that was pretty reasonable.  I finished things off by placing a golden-yellowish gel over the screen (which introduced some glare - so I would prefer not to do that this time).  

Your words have perhaps inspired me to expand my search to see if I can find a reliable, 24"-26" TV that does not have "Wide Color Enhancer Plus"-like colors.  When I told an employee in Best Buy about my light sensitivity - he mentioned Vizio as a brand that might be relatively tolerable (and he said that I might want to stay away from Samsungs).  But I don't like the way Vizios lean back at a slight angle - this doesn't seem to present the best viewing angle.  

~Svetaswan

P.S. - the link you posted doesn't seem to work - but perhaps I'll try to search for the cached version...

My family (all males, but me :-) used to "tech up" as much as we could afford... with TVs, computers, stereo systems, appliances. Now I am moving in the opposite direction. Anything I get in the future will be as low-tech as is reasonable. I want no "smart" appliances and dummer electronics. That includes cars -- no electric cars, no hybrids... If or when I buy another vehicle, I will look for pre-computerized cars! The magnetic and RF frequency in our cars is atrocious. It gave me big clues as to why I have anxiety in cars!


It's a good article, if I type it right, hard from my phone keyboard. The article is mostly about lighting.

Try again:
       Http://asia.cnet.com/led-vs-lcd-tv-which-is-better-update-62055838.htm

--- In [hidden email], "judyl_nev" <judyl_nev@...> wrote:

Right.  I used to embrace the concept of "electric cars" or "hybrids" - before I found out that they are electromagnetic nightmares.  (How convenient for "Big Oil" that electric cars might not be so healthy after all.)  And it's been quite disturbing that technology is "progressing" to the point where riding in a car can be an uncomfortable experience.  The last time I rode in my mother's car - I was so overwhelmed by apparent "electrosmog" that I could barely think, much less hold a decent conversation.  I'm not sure what it was that made her car so bothersome.  Was it the Sirius satellite radio?  Built-in GPS (not sure if she has that - but it may be "hidden" somewhere)?  

Like you, I'm trying to keep it low-tech as possible.  It can be difficult - because as "counter-culture" as I can come across, there is that side of me that embraces technology and wants to be with the times.  I'm not exactly thrilled about buying the exact same LED TV that I bought in 2011 - Samsung made it tempting to "upgrade" to a 29" current model - but because of e.s. (and my Dad's impatience), I cannot take any chances.  And for the past year, I've been seriously tempted to upgrade to a smartphone - but because they seem to be *exponentially* more emf-intense than the phone I have, I've resisted the temptation.  I was just "showing off" my basic, 2008 cellphone to my cousin. :o)  In this case, 2008 might as well be 1975...with how outdated my phone seems.  

And thanks for fixing the link. :)

~Svetaswan

--- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@...> wrote:

{snipped}

> There was one 26" TV available that I thought would work - a LG (26LN4500).  But - now that I've bought it, I've found it to be considerably worse than I perceived it to be in the store.  I will probably return it.  

........{snipped}
>
> While in the store, I noticed that the LG had the more vivid colors and greater picture-quality than many of the other sets - perhaps whatever makes this set have such a quality picture also generates more radiation, I'm not sure.  
>
> ~Svetaswan
>

Well, shortly after I wrote about how bothersome my new 26" LG LED TV is - I noticed an improvement in tolerability.  Some of the improvement may have to do with me changing a sound setting from "Music" to "Standard" - but for the past several days, I've been wondering if what I have actually been reacting to is the TV's *chemical* emissions, instead of its electromagnetic emissions.  (In addition to my e.s., I've also been dealing with chemical sensitivities in recent years.)  

During the first 48 - 72 hours of having this TV in my bedroom - I did notice a pretty strong plastic odor.  But I didn't really consider the possibility that this odor (and/or whatever other chemical emissions are coming from the TV) had anything to do with my sensitivity reaction.  But signs are pointing to this actually being the case.  Why else would a TV "suddenly" become more tolerable with little-to-no changes in settings - and no change in its technology?

There has been such an improvement in tolerability that I seriously considered keeping the TV.  I mean - aside from the fact that it seems to have a chemical outgassing issue...there have been signs that - electromagnetically-speaking - it could be even more tolerable than my former TV.  But some doubt remains that the chemical issue will clear up to my satisfaction. (I only have about 7 more days to return the TV - so time is not on my side to monitor any further improvements.)  Also - I'm moderately dissatisfied with the color-temperature of the TV - seems like I was able to warm up the color temperature a little more with the Samsung.

Yeah - this LG seems pretty offgassy/smelly.  For example - when I sniff the remote control of the LG, I detect a chemical or plastic odor - while the remote control of the Samsung (that the burglars left behind) has no odor.  

It has concerned me that so many consumer products are being made these days that have these "chemical"/plastic odors.  These smelly products seem to indicate a deterioration of manufacturing-standards - and such lowered standards likely expose us to greater quantities of questionable compounds.  

~Svetaswan

On July 31, svetaswan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> w bothersome my new 26" LG LED TV is - I noticed an improvement in tolerability.  
> Some of the improvement may have to do with me changing a sound setting from
> "Music" to "Standard" - but for the past several days, I've been wondering if what
> I have actually been reacting to is the TV's *chemical* emissions, instead of its
>  electromagnetic emissions.

Yes, I have noticed that as well on occasion.  The reaction to something new on
"day one" is not necessarily the same as it is a week or a month later.  Either due
to offgassing, or perhaps you develop a tolerance for it, or for some other reason.

But in any case, one should usually give something new at least a few days before
you start thinking about returning it.

Marc

A lot of the smelly plastic odours likely come from nasty fire-retardants that are put in all plastics that are used with electronics.  Some very toxic stuff.


 

  ~=~
  Hud
_________________________________________________________
nam tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet
You too are in danger when your neighbor's house is on fire (Horace)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], H J R <hudjr@...> wrote:

Oh yeah - I've read a little about those fire retardants.  I keep forgetting that they saturate electronics with them.

Great - a fire-retardant/chemical-spewing object is not exactly something that I wanted to bring into my home.  I suspect that my body's levels of {insert your chemical here} have gone up over the seven days I've had this new TV.    

It sure is tricky these days for someone who is looking to minimize his/her toxic burden.  Toxins lurk everywhere - in your mattress, in your furniture...   They are tougher than ever to avoid without adopting rather drastic measures.

Why am I even this dependent on a TV, anyway?  I could stand to reduce the number of hours-per-day that I have the TV on.  Much of the time, I'm not even paying attention to what's on - it just serves as comforting "background noise".  EMF and chemical-outgassing aside - much of TV isn't exactly healthy for the mind or the eyes.  They have amped up little production tricks over the years to stimulate (or overstimulate) our senses - which helps to wreck the attention span and to ultimately dull our senses (it requires more and more to get us excited/stimulated - which is why PBS may seem more "boring" than ever).  That's not to mention how the common practice of pandering to the "least common denominator" dulls us.  And as Judy has pointed out - all of that bright artificial light (another trick that they use to keep us entranced) is not good for the eyes and the brain.    

~Svetaswan

I have MCS and my mother's Samsung LCD TV was pretty tolerable for me, outgassing wise.
Steve

--- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@...> wrote:

Try as I might, TV is a friend of mine. I do find lots of interesting things to watch, such as History 2 channel, NatGEO, military channel, Game of Thrones.......Big Bang Theory (I dig this show)
My biggest worry is that I use headphones all the time. I just ordered Ultrasone headphones which supposedly give off less emfs.
Steve

--- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@...> wrote:

i belong to the 'kill your TV' crowd.  
i live quite well without one.  
not suggesting that you would be
ok without one, but you could experiment.  
?  some say they are far happier without
the programming - such intensity.  
and it's all based on fear.  
love, patricia


On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:39 PM, svetaswan wrote:

> Oh yeah - I've read a little about those fire retardants.  I keep forgetting that they saturate electronics with them.
>
> Great - a fire-retardant/chemical-spewing object is not exactly something that I wanted to bring into my home.  I suspect that my body's levels of {insert your chemical here} have gone up over the seven days I've had this new TV.    
>
> It sure is tricky these days for someone who is looking to minimize his/her toxic burden.  Toxins lurk everywhere - in your mattress, in your furniture...   They are tougher than ever to avoid without adopting rather drastic measures.
>
> Why am I even this dependent on a TV, anyway?  I could stand to reduce the number of hours-per-day that I have the TV on.  Much of the time, I'm not even paying attention to what's on - it just serves as comforting "background noise".  EMF and chemical-outgassing aside - much of TV isn't exactly healthy for the mind or the eyes.  They have amped up little production tricks over the years to stimulate (or overstimulate) our senses - which helps to wreck the attention span and to ultimately dull our senses (it requires more and more to get us excited/stimulated - which is why PBS may seem more "boring" than ever).  That's not to mention how the common practice of pandering to the "least common denominator" dulls us.  And as Judy has pointed out - all of that bright artificial light (another trick that they use to keep us entranced) is not good for the eyes and the brain.    
>
> ~Svetaswan

I, too, am a member of the "kill your tv" club!  Life just gets better and better the more years I put between me and the TV watching experience".  The programming is so in your face, forced, ad-laden, repetetive... that it is indeed boring.

Yet I enjoy watching films (as long as I can decide which films to watch) and don't feel as though I'm wasting my time as I do when watching TV.


 

  ~=~
  Hud
_________________________________________________________
nam tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet
You too are in danger when your neighbor's house is on fire (Horace)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], "torch369" <torch369@...> wrote:
>
> I have MCS and my mother's Samsung LCD TV was pretty tolerable for me, outgassing wise.
> Steve
>

I also didn't seem to have a problem with a Samsung, chemically-speaking.  While its emf was worse than this LG (although not as bad as other TVs of the time - and I managed to minimize the emf) - it seemed to be a healthier product than the LG from a chemical-sensitivity perspective.

I would like to try a current Samsung, but I'm restricted from further experimentation.  So I bought a used model of the Samsung that I had before.  Which brings up this point:  buying used products could possibly be a healthier option for people with MCS.  Then again, in some cases, buying a used item may not make much difference - as offgassing can be a problem with an indefinite (permanent) time-frame.

~Svetaswan

--- In [hidden email], "torch369" <torch369@...> wrote:
>
> Try as I might, TV is a friend of mine. I do find lots of interesting things to watch, such as History 2 channel, NatGEO, military channel, Game of Thrones.......Big Bang Theory (I dig this show)
> My biggest worry is that I use headphones all the time. I just ordered Ultrasone headphones which supposedly give off less emfs.
> Steve
>

Oh, yes - the stuff you mentioned - i.e. National Geographic - is great - there is little (or relatively little) to worry about with those programs.  I guess some of the more "mainstream" programming is the primary problem - like many of the shows that appear on network t.v. and many of the basic cable channels.  Even the news can be problematic - as it seems more tailored to titillate the senses or manipulate the emotions, and promotes shorter attention-spans than the news broadcasts of the past.  And let's not forget the commercials - many of them are a large part of the problem.

I guess I am personally-touched by this issue - especially since I seem to be addicted to ESPN and the NFL Network.  ESPN is one of the worst channels out there as far as possibly stimulating/affecting the brain in unhealthy ways.  All of the bright sets (this will get worse - I read that ESPN has a fancier, state-of-the-art set for "Sportscenter" in the works), quick-cut editing, luminous graphical effects - and all of the yelling and melodrama that goes on between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m..  

Sometimes - if you catch an old-enough TV clip on YouTube, it is very apparent what I'm getting at.  The production-values of the past were more low-key, more sensible, and less exploitative compared to the hype of today.  

But yes - I can relate to TV being a friend of sorts - perhaps I just need more of the low-key, enriching "friends" in my life, lol.  

~Svetaswan

--- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@...> wrote:
>
> {snipped}
>
>
> Sometimes - if you catch an old-enough TV clip on YouTube, it is very apparent what I'm getting at.  The production-values of the past were more low-key, more sensible, and less exploitative compared to the hype of today.  
>

>
> ~Svetaswan
>


P.S.  - the vintage clip doesn't even have to be that old to notice some basic differences between the programming of the past and the programming of today.  You can notice a marked difference just from looking at some sample programming from the '90s.

~Svetaswan

--- In [hidden email], Patricia Robinett <patricia@...> wrote:

Ideally, I would love to get rid of my TV dependence.  It doesn't mean that it will happen - but one can dream!

Another thing that I suspect that chronic TV-watching promotes is a passive mind - a mind that is not engaged in rich imagination, critical thinking, and unique ideas.  We are just sitting there in passive mode - taking in someone else's ideas, and someone else's ideas of the images we should be exposed to.  If you think about it - it's crazy how, over the past 50 years, our free time has become largely centered around sitting around a screen.  Interesting that you use the word "programming" - that word can hold a double-meaning when it comes to our TV exposure.  

~Svetaswan

yes, it is programming us... negatively.
and it can be an addiction.  
life is so much better without it.  
we live in such an unnatural world.  
the technology is unnatural,
and the ideas - and even many events -
on TV are unreal.  see
http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2013/08/secret-darpa-mind-control-project-revealed-leaked-document/ 
thanks to you, i just added a line about tv.  :)
love, patricia

On Aug 1, 2013, at 10:44 PM, svetaswan wrote: