18-19#楼钢筋施工方案

社会性别理论与18-19世纪英国妇女的社会地位“社会性别(gender)”是女性主义理论（注：女性主义有两种含义。

一是指“女权主义”，又称为妇女运动或女权运动。

它是指妇女为了争取在政治、经济、社会生活等各个方面与男性平等的权利，使自己从父权制文化和制度性的压迫和从属地位中解放出来而进行的运动和斗争。

它既包括政治运动本身，又包括运动所依据的意识形态主张。

二是指女性主义研究或理论。

它是指致力于性别差异和不平等的根源、结果及解决途径的理论解说，它是以妇女运动为社会来源的女性主义学术思潮，也可视为女性主义运动向文化界、学术界的扩张。

它构成了妇女运动的理论基础，同时又提供了基于女性价值的理解世界、理解生活的一种新方式。

它指向造成男女不平等的父权制制度和以男性为中心的文化，成为反主流文化中具有代表性的文化视角和研究方法之一。

因此，后一种解释比前一种解释涵盖了更广泛的领域和更丰富的内涵。

本文中的女性主义主要是采用后一种解释。

）的核心概念。

它从男女性别差异的视角出发，把女性作为有个体差别的群体，强调社会性别差异的性别史的撰写。

18-19世纪是英国社会步入工业化时代的社会变革时期，“资本主义的发展不仅依赖于熟练技师而且也依赖于非熟练的低工资的劳动力（女性在那时占了相当比例）”[1]（276页）。

早在1757年，约翰·布朗(John Brown)就鼓吹对男性和女性的地位进行界定，他认为“这将对英国社会和对英国作为世界强国地位的稳定产生重要作用”[2]（1-4页）。

本文试图介绍史学家们如何以社会性别理论为依据，通过研究影响妇女社会地位的相关因素，如工业化进程的多样性、家庭中女性地位的变化、中产阶级“两分领域”的意识等问题，以期揭示女性在英国历史变迁中的能动作用，进一步展现英国工业化历程的丰富内涵。

一认知妇女社会地位的基本概念、方法和理论观点（一）基本概念多学科的研究表明，人具有五种性别：以性染色体为载体的基因性别，以激素为载体的生物性别，以性生理特征为载体的生理性别，以某种心理认同或否定为载体的心理性别，以对不同性别的理解、规范和认可为载体的社会性别。

附录——教材课文译文Unit 1Women of achievement[对应教材P2Reading]一位非洲野生动物研究者清晨5点45分，太阳刚从东非的贡贝国家公园的上空升起。

我们一行人都准备按照简研究黑猩猩的方法去森林里拜访它们。

简研究这些黑猩猩家族已经很多年了，她帮助人们了解了黑猩猩跟人类的行为是多么相似。

我们当天的首项活动就是观察黑猩猩一家是如何醒来的。

这意味着我们要返回前一天晚上我们离开黑猩猩一家睡觉的大树旁。

大家坐在树荫下等待着，这时候猩猩们睡醒了，准备离开。

然后这群黑猩猩向森林深处漫步而去，我们尾随其后。

在大部分时间里，黑猩猩或互相喂食，或彼此擦身，这在它们的家族里是表达爱的方式。

简预先提醒我们，到下午的时候我们就会又累又脏，她说对了。

不过到傍晚时分我们觉得这一切都是值得的。

我们看到黑猩猩妈妈跟她的幼子们在树上玩耍，后来看见它们一起回窝里睡觉了。

我们认识到黑猩猩家庭成员之间的关系像人类家庭一样紧密。

在简之前没有人完全了解黑猩猩的行为。

她花了多年的时间来观察并记录它们的日常活动。

从孩提时代起，她就想在动物生活的环境中研究它们。

但是，这不是一件容易的事。

当她1960年最初来到贡贝时，对女性来说，住进大森林还是很稀罕的事情。

她母亲前几个月过来帮她的忙，这才使她得以开始自己的计划。

她的工作改变了人们对黑猩猩的看法。

比方说，她的一个重要发现是黑猩猩捕猎并吃肉。

就在此之前，人们一直认为黑猩猩只吃水果和坚果。

她曾经亲眼看到过一群黑猩猩捕杀一只猴子，然后把它吃掉。

她还发现了黑猩猩之间是如何交流的，而她对黑猩猩身势语的研究帮助她勾勒出黑猩猩的社会体系。

40年来，简·古道尔一直在呼吁世人了解并尊重这些动物的生活。

她主张应该让野生动物留在野外生活，而不能用于娱乐或广告。

她帮助建起了黑猩猩可以安全生活的专门的保护区。

她的生活是忙忙碌碌的，然而，她说：“一旦我停下来，所有的一切都会涌上心头，我就会想到实验室里的黑猩猩，太可怕了。

Lesson 18Energy Crisis（能源危机）Host (Michael Parkhurst): Good evening, and welcome again to the 'Michael Parkhurst Talkabout'. In tonight's programme, we're looking at the problem of energy. The world's energy resources are limited. Nobody knows exactly how much fuel is left, but pessimistic forecasts say that there is only enough coal for 450 years, enough natural gas for 50 years and that oil might run out in 30 years. Obviously we have to do something, and we have to do it soon!I'd like to welcome our first guest, Professor Marvin Burnham of the New England Institute of Technology. Professor Burnham.Prof. Burnham: Well, we are in an energy crisis and we will have to do something quickly. Fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) are rapidly running out. The tragedy is that fossil fuels are far too valuable to waste on the production of electricity. Just think of all the things you can make from oil! If we don't start conserving these things now, it will be too late. And nuclear power is the only real alternative. We are getting some electricity from nuclear power stations already. If we invest in further research now, we'll be ready to face the future. There's been a lot of protest lately against nuclear power —some people will protest at anything—but nuclear power stations are not as dangerous as some people say. It's far more dangerous to work down a coal mine or on a North Sea oil-rig. Safety regulations in power stations are very strict.If we spent money on research now, we could develop stations which create their own fuel and burn their own waste. In many parts of the world where there are no fossil fuels, nuclear power is the only alternative. If you accept that we need electricity, then we will need nuclear energy. Just imagine what the world would be like if we didn't have electricity —no heating, no lighting, no transport, no radio or TV. Just think about the ways you use electricity every day. Surely we don't want to go back to the Stone Age. That's what will happen if we turn our backs on nuclear research.Host: Thank you, Professor. Our next guest is a member of CANE, the Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, Jennifer Hughes.Jennifer Hughes: Right. I must disagree totally with Professor Burnham. Let's look at the facts. First, there is no perfect machine. I mean, why do aeroplanes crash? Machines fail. People make mistakes. What would happen if there were a serious nuclear accident? And an accident must be inevitable—sooner or later. Huge areas would be evacuated. And they could remain contaminated with radioactivity for years. If it happened in your area, you wouldn't get a penny in compensation. No insurance company covers nuclear risks. There are accidents. If the nuclear industry didn't keep them quiet, there would be a public outcry. Radioactivity causes cancer and may affect future generations. Next, nuclear waste. There is no technology for absolutely safe disposal. Some of this waste will remain active for thousands of years. Is that what you want to leave to your children? And their children's children? A reactor only lasts about 25 years. By the year 2000 we'll have 'retired' 26 reactors in the UK.Next, terrorism. Terrorists could hold the nation to ransom if they captured a reactor. In the USA the Savannah River plant, and Professor Burnham knows this very well, lost (yes, 'lost') enough plutonium between 1955 and 1978 to make 18 (18!) atom bombs. Where is it? Who's got it? I consider that nuclear energy is expensive, dangerous, and evil, and most of all, absolutely unnecessary. But Dr. Woodstock will be saying more about that.Host: Thank you Jennifer. Now I'm very pleased to welcome Dr. Catherine Woodstock. She is the author of several books on alternative technology.Catherine Woodstock: Hello. I'd like to begin by agreeing with Jennifer. We can develop alternative sources of power, and unless we try we'll never succeed. Instead of burning fossil fuels we should be concentrating on more economic uses of electricity, because electricity can be produced from anysource of energy. If we didn't waste so much energy, our resources would last longer. You can save more energy by conservation than you can produce for the same money. Unless we do research on solar energy, wind power, wave power, tidal power, hydroelectric schemes etc, our fossil fuels will run out, and we'll all freeze or starve to death. Other countries are spending much more than us on research, and don't forget that energy from the sun, the waves and the wind lasts for ever. We really won't survive unless we start working on cleaner, safer sources of energy.Host: Thank you very much, Dr. Woodstock. Our final speaker, before we open the discussion to the studio audience, is Charles Wicks, MP, the Minister for Energy.Charles Wicks: I've been listening to the other speakers with great interest. By the way, I don't agree with some of the estimates of world energy reserves. More oil and gas is being discovered all the time. If we listened to the pessimists (and there are a lot of them about) none of us would sleep at night. In the short term, we must continue to rely on the fossil fuels —oil, coal and gas. But we must also look to the future. Our policy must be flexible. Unless we thought new research was necessary, we wouldn't be spending money on it. After all, the Government wouldn't have a Department of Energy unless they thought it was important. The big question is where to spend the money—on conservation of present resources or on research into new forms of power. But I'm fairly optimistic. I wouldn't be in this job unless I were an optimist!Task 1: The Years to Come (I)Mal Carrington: Good morning. Welcome to "The years to Come".I'm Mal Carrington, and every week at this time Channel 5 brings you information on life in the future from an expert in the field. Today's expert is Dr Reginald Healy from MIT, the famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Good morning, Dr Healy. Welcome to The years to come.Dr Healy: Thank you.Mal Carrington: Well, what are your predictions about the world? What is it going to be like in the year 2000?Dr Healy: Hum, if present trends continue, I'm afraid the world in 2000 will be more crowded and more polluted than the world we live in now.Mal Carrington: Yes, however, food production is constantly increasing. Don't you think we will be able to cope with the increase in world population?Dr Healy: I don't think so. Even though production is constantly increasing, the people of the world will be poorer than they are today. For hundreds of millions of the desperately poor, the supply of food and other necessities of life will not be any better. And for many they will be worse, unless the nations of the world do something to change the current trends.Mal Carrington: What is your estimate of world population in AD 2000.Dr Healy: Well, already, world population is about 5,000 million. If present trends continue, that is with the number of births by far exceeding the number of deaths in 2000 the world population could approach 6,500 million people.Mal Carrington: How many people are born every day?Dr Healy: About 250 every minute, but only 100 people die. This means there is an increase of 216,000 people per day, and ninety per cent of this increase is in the poorest countries.Mal Carrington: That's worrying! And what about energy? Will there be enough oil to satisfy our needs in the year 2000?Dr Healy: During the 1990s, world oil production will reach the maximum and the price of oil will begin to increase. At the endof the century, the available supplies will not be sufficient for our needs. So at least part of these needs will have to be met by alternative sources of energy.Mal Carrington: Yes, water is becoming a problem too.Dr Healy: Yes, unfortunately. Water shortage will become more severe in the future, and due to the increase of births there will be enough water only for half of the population.Mal Carrington: Which of the present trends do you think will continue over the next decade?Dr Healy: Well, significant loss of the world's forests will continue over the next ten years as the demand for wood for fuel and manufacturers increases. Also atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other chemicals is expected to increase at rates that could alter the world's climate due to the 'greenhouse effect'.Mal Carrington: The 'greenhouse effect'? Could you explain what the 'greenhouse effect' is?Dr Healy: Sure. Well, the amount of carbon dioxide in the airis progressively increasing and it traps more of the heat of the sun in the lower atmosphere. This has a warming effect which could change the climate and even melt the polar ice caps, which would cause disastrous flooding.Mal Carrington: I see. Is this the only effect of carbon dioxide?Dr Healy: No, it isn't. Carbon dioxide and other chemicals which derive from the use of fossil fuels will also increase the quantity of acid rain which is already damaging or even destroying plants, trees and other parts of our environment. Also, there will be a dramatic increase in the number of species becoming extinct. Hundreds of thousands of species will be lost because of the loss of their habitat.Mal Carrington: That's appalling! What about nuclear plants? Aren't they a constant menace to life on our planet?Dr Healy: Definitely. And apart from the more obvious danger of accidents, like the one at Chemobyl, there's the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste, that is the waste which is produced by nuclear power stations.Mal Carrington: Oh, yes. I know that some of the materials keep their radioactivity for hundreds or thousands of years.Dr Healy: Yeah, for example, strontium 90 needs storing for 500 years, being kept cool all the time. Plutonium-239 may need storing for up to half a million years!Mal Carrington: So, what is going to happen to the Earth in the next few years? Will we be able to reverse this trend towards destruction? What is your prediction?Dr Healy: Well, I don't want to be pessimistic, but I'm afraid that if this trend doesn't change within five or ten years we won't be able to do very much to save the earth.Mal Carrington: Well, that's a warning that we all need to take seriously. And with that warning, we end part one of this week's The years to come. We'll be back soon after the break. Task 2: The Years to Come (II)Mal Carrington: Here we are again with "The years to Come". Now I'd like to tell you about and to show you the pictures of an exciting new project which is the result of the cooperation of scientists, engineers and technicians from virtually all over the world.Towards the end of the 90s, a bright new celestial body will appear in the night sky like an immense shining star, fully visible from 38 degrees north or south of the equator. It will be a space station, Freedom. The idea for Freedom originated in the USA, but eleven other nations have agreed to contributea few of the station's many parts.The space station is not going to be launched into orbit in one piece—the thousands of parts which make up Freedom are going to be assembled directly in space. Twenty trips by the shuttle and two rockets will be needed to deliver Freedom, piece by piece, into a low orbit around the Earth. Then, 250 miles above the Earth, construction crews are going to bolt together the space station's many components. The first batch of parts is going to be launched in 1995. By the end of 1996, the first crew of eight is going to enter the living module to begin what NASA hopes will be a continuous human presence in space. The station has been designed to remain occupied and operational for up to thirty years—a whole generation of living in space. Considering that the first man-made object reached orbit just thirty years ago, that will be quite an accomplishment. The design of a space station must combine the excitement of space with the necessity for safety and comfort. Freedom will be the best solution to date and will also be the most complex computerized house ever built—either on Earth or in space. There will be accommodation for eight people and each crew member will have his or her own room, a shower, a toilet, exercise equipment, a washing machine, a pantry, and a sick bay. Add a television, video, phone and computer to each of the eight private sleeping rooms, then top it off with the best view on Earth. Is this some wild new 'luxury house' of the future? Exactly. Life on board will also be brightened by a plan to fill twenty percent of the larder with fresh refrigerated fruit, vegetable and dairy products.Behind every space station lies the dream that is at least 120 years old: a colony in space. Freedom is not going to be that colony, for it will always depend on the Earth for supplies. But it is going to be the place where scientists discover how to establish healthy and productive human habitation in space. When new technology is developed to make it less risky, we will see more civilians in space. So an eighteen-year-old can look forward to visiting space by his or her sixty-eighth birthday, in 2050.And that's the end of this week's programme. Tune in nextweek for another edition of The years to come. The years to come is a Channel 5 production and this is Mal Carrington. Recognizing the Main Idea1. Two years ago, ... when I landed on your soil, I said to the people of the Philippines. 'Whence I came I shall return.' Tonight, I repeat those words. I shall return.(Douglas MacArthur 17/03/44)2. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day, even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. (Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. 28/08/63)3. One thought him indestructible, so over-powering was he in his energy, warmth and his deep faith in man's inherent goodness. For 25 years he had been my friend, my older brother, my inspiration and my teacher.(Henry Kissinger 02/02/79)4. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again, and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.(Franklin D. Roosevelt 30/10/40)5. I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But, as President, I must put the interests of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress. Particularly at this time, with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a periodwhen our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.(Richard M. Nixon 08/08/74)6. In the past several months I have been living in purgatory.I have found myself the recipient of undefined, unclear, unattributed accusations that have surfaced in the largest and the most widely circulated organs of our communications media.I want to say, at this point, clearly and unequivocally: I am innocent of the charges against me.(Spiro T. Agnew 29/09/73)Enjoy Your English（英文歌曲）Killing Me Softly With His SongI heard he sang a good songI heard he had a styleAnd so I came to see him to listen for a while.And there he was this young boyA stranger to my eyesStrumming my pain with his fingersSinging my life with his wordsKilling me softly with his songKilling me softly with his songTelling my whole life with his wordsKilling me softly with his songI felt all flushed with feverEmbarrassed by the crowdI felt he found my letters and read each one out loudI prayed that he would finishBut he just kept right onStrumming my pain with his fingersSinging my life with his wordsKilling me softly with his songKilling me softly with his songTelling my whole life with his wordsKilling me softly with his songHe sang as if he knew me in all my dark despairAnd then he looked right through me as if I wasn't there And he just kept on singingSinging clear and strongStrumming my pain with his fingersSinging my life with his wordsKilling me softly with his songKilling me softly with his songTelling my whole life with his wordsKilling me softly with his songLesson 19Task 1: Estate AgentPresenter: This week's financial talk will be given by our property expert, James Milligan, who is here to tell us about some surprising new developments in the London area.James Milligan: Good afternoon. Not so very long ago it would have been really unusual to pay ￡1 million for a house. Unfortunately this is no longer so. Decline in the real value of money over the past few years has made property values rocket. The cheap house is a thing of the past. Now, the sale of a ￡1 million house no longer causes surprise, nor is it likely to be the subject of a newspaper article.What exactly can we expect to get for ￡1 million today? Well, first of all, space, of course. Living in large cities has made us all tired of living in those cramped little houses and flats built just after the war. We now want space; space to live and relax in, preferably with a garden. And this, of course, is what puts the price up. Another reason for needing space is the fact that we have larger families growing up under one roof and even quite small children demand their own room these days, while teenagers may demand an extra room where they can entertain their friends privately. Also the trend of going out to eat is dying out due to rising prices of restaurant and transport, so people are once more beginning to entertain anddine at home, which requires a larger dining room. There are numerous new developments in London at the moment which can provide all this and more—if you have the money!At the moment the most fashionable places seem to be the Barbican, St John's Wood, Morgan's Walk in Battersea. People wanting quiet in the evening tend to prefer the Barbican situated in the business heart of the city and therefore fairly free of traffic in the evenings, although several theatres have opened there lately. The Barbican is also for those who like living high up, accommodation being situated mostly in tower blocks. St John's Wood, on the other hand, is favoured mostly by upper-middle class families who prefer a detached house surrounded by a walled garden, thus ensuring their privacy. Gardens of course tend to raise the price of a property. Those not interested in gardening can choose from the grand mansions in Battersea where you get a wonderful view of the Thames and are still only a few minutes away from London's theatres and shops.Look around and take your pick. Oh ... just make sure that you have that million pounds first!Task 2: Jazz SingerInterviewer: Now you're the First Lady of Jazz; probably the greatest blues singer the world has ever known. Just what is it that makes you sing as you do?Singer: I don't know; one night it's a little bit slower, the next night it's a little bit lighter. It's all according to how I feel. I never feel the same way twice. The blues is a mixed up sort of thing. There's two kinds of blues; there's happy blues and there's sad blues. I don't think I ever sing the same way twice.Interviewer: And how did you become a jazz singer in the first place?Singer: Well, it was all by accident really. You see, I wanted to be a dancer so I went along to try out, you know, to an audition and I was just a kid, I didn't know how to dance atall. So I kept doing the two steps I did know over and over until they told me to get off the stage. But I guess the pianist felt sort of sorry for me because he called me back and asked me if I could sing. Huh, 'Course I can sing, man,' I told him; 'I've been singing all my life. What the hell use is that?' And then he asked me to sing a blues song, St Louis Blues, I think it was, and I just kept on singing and he just kept on playing, and in the end I had a job. That was on West 42nd Street. Now that was the street for jazz in those days. And slowly I became known; people started coming to see me rather than just to listen to the orchestra, and that's how it started. I mean, it began like that and it's just been going on ever since.Interviewer: You've never looked back and you've been successful ever since?Singer: Well, it wasn't quite as easy as it sounds. I mean, when I started out I didn't know anything, I mean like chords and sharps and flats. I just sang. But if you're going to sing jazz you have to know these things. And people were very nice and kind to me and they slowly taught me what key I had to sing each song in. And that's how I really became a professional musician.I mean, the beginning was just luck, but if you want to stay at the top you really have to know your job. You have to know what you're doing and you have to know how to be able to change it to go with the public's taste; with the changing fashions. Otherwise you find yourself out of work and back on the streets where you started from.Interviewer: But surely, you never needed to go with the fashions? I mean, you've always been popular.Singer: Well, that's true up to a point. And if you're good enough you can even change the fashions. I've never done that. I've always sung what I wanted and if they didn't like it, they didn't have to buy it. I've never made a fortune from my music because I won't sing just any damn thing. I choose what I want to sing. But anything I do sing is part of my life. So it hasto be important to me before I'll sing it. I think this is why people like my music; they know that whatever I say in my songs I really believe and this means something to them and helps them in their lives. I'm not a rich pop singer and never wanted to be. And there's been a lot of scandal attached to my life. Some of it's true; some of it's not. But at least I've always been my true self in my music and I'll always stay that way. I think a guy called Shakespeare once wrote 'Unto thine own self be true and thou canst not then to any man be false'. Well, that's how I feel when I'm singing my songs. You may like them, you may hate them, but nobody can say that I'm not singing from deep down inside myself. I won't ever sing anything I don't believe in although, as I said, it's never the same way two nights running: it may be happy one night and sad the next. It's all according to how I feel. And now I'm feeling the need for a drink of something strong; I've got four hours on stage tonight and that really takes it out of you, believe me.Interviewer: Go right ahead and thank you for the interview.Singer: That's OK. Here's a couple of tickets; come and see the show.Setting Up a Home ComputerNow first we must identify the parts of this home computer system. Before we can set up the system, we must all know what the names of the different parts of the computer are and what they do. So first I'm going to tell you the names of the parts and what they are used for in a home computer system.First, and most important of all, is your instruction manual. Can you all see that? The instruction manual is the book of instructions—it tells you how to set up your system and then how to use it. OK?Next, the monitor. The monitor is the part that everyone can recognize immediately because it looks just like a television. The monitor shows you the information you have typed in on the screen. You can change the information, move it around or take it away, while it is on the screen. Right? Now, when you have finished working with your informationand you want a copy of this on paper, then you have to use the printer. The printer prints out on paper what you have on the monitor screen. Then you have a copy of your work on paper. Now the keyboard. The keyboard contains the actual computer and it looks just like a typewriter. Each piece on the keyboard is called a key. You have keys for letters (a, b, c etc.) and keys for instructions to the computer. You have to be able to type if you want to use a computer properly.Now what have we got left? Ah yes, the 2 floppy discs and the disc drive. The disc drive is quite simple—it's the part of the system that operates the floppy discs, we say it powers the floppy discs. You put the floppy discs into the disc drive and the disc drive makes them work.So finally, the two floppy discs. You need two because the first one contains the programme—that is, the instructions —and the second is where you type in your information and where the program works on this information. So you really work on the second floppy disc: then, when you are ready to print, the printer takes everything from the second floppy disc and prints out what you have done.Now, is that clear? Are there any questions?My Computer Makes Me SickThere's no doubt that the computer has enlarged man's working capacity as well as his intellectual capacity enormously. Er ... but it brings with it dangers to match the benefits. Now by this, I mean danger to physical and mental well-being of the people who work at computer terminals, not the dangers to personal privacy or national or industrial security.There's one very alarming set of statistics which come from a survey done in the UK on 800 pregnant women, who happened to use computer terminals for a major part of their working day. In no less than 36% of the subjects there was some severe abnormality during the pregnancy, enough to make a termination necessary. Now these figures compare significantly with a control group of pregnant women of the same age but who did not work with computer terminals. The incidence of severe abnormalities in their case was only 16%. This survey confirms similar investigations carried out in Denmark, Canada,Australia and the USA. Now, no one yet has a clear idea about the exact connection between working with computer terminals and the problems with pregnancy, but the figures at least suggest that there's, well, a cause for alarm.In more general terms, increased stress and disturbances to vision have been noted in workers exposed for long periods to the video screen, and in many countries trade unions of workers involved with computers have laid down their own guidelines to protect members' health. Erm ... for instance, rest periods, or a change of activity from time to time are recommended, and the terminal should be placed so that there's a source of natural light, and something else to look at, erm, no blank walls behind the terminal, in other words, so that the operator has a chance to rest his eyes from time to time. Ironically, it seems that it's not only those who work with computers who are at risk. Er ... there's perhaps more danger for people who use computers for interest or pleasure in their own homes. Now, it's obviously not possible to impose in the privacy of people's homes the sort of safeguards that can be applied in the working environment. Most people get so fascinated by what they are doing that they stay in front of the screen for hours on end; some are real fanatics!But they're also using their computers in environments which are not specially designed. Er they may be dusty or hot, and not particularly well-lit on the whole.An English magazine for computer enthusiasts recently ran its own survey. The readers were invited to send in an account of any health problems they felt were connected with the use of their computers. Er, interestingly, a long list emerged of complaints both serious and less serious, ranging from constipation because of the long hours spent in sedentary ac ... inactivity, and backache due to crouching over an inconveniently positioned keyboard, um, right through to a general sense of fatigue owing to having puzzled over a problem for longer than was sensible.The visual disturbances mentioned above were also very common. Some readers who already suffered from short sight found that the condition had worsened, and a rarer complaint,。