Health Risks, Current Legislation and Critical Comparison

This essay discusses the health risks associated with working on computers, current legislation related to storing information on computers, and a comparison of functions of peripheral devices of computers and smartphones.

Running head: HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
Health Risks, current legislation and critical comparison
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author Note

1HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
Understanding health Risks, current legislation and critical comparison:
A computer is an essential tool for various activities and jobs. However, long periods to use
computers raises the scopes to develop an injury. Improper use of computers causes joint and muscle
pains, overuse of injuries to eyestrain, wrist and hands, injuries to shoulders and many more.
Current day developments of information technologies and changes in working methods have
witnessed various facets. There has been a notable rise across multiple office workers using
computers regularly. Recent researches have suggested that there are different psychological stress,
visual disturbances, an issue with peripheral nervous systems, musculoskeletal disorders and many
more.
The following essay demonstrates the health issues of working with computers. This includes
the understanding of present legislation related to storing information over networks. Next, various
functions provided by peripheral devices of computers are compared with alternatives device
choices.
Discussion on health issues while working with computers:
Various problems faced by computer issues are demonstrated hereafter. First of all, there can
be a strain in the eyes. Staring at monitors for long periods and typing on that constantly for hours
put pressures (Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa 2018). Here, eye muscles and legs are locked in a
similar position. This situation takes place for a long period and ultimately get strained. Moreover,
they are subsequently weakened. Thus they can perform relaxations and various contractions that are
done to the needed extent. This is required to adjust to eye lens for viewing the objects for close
distances. Thus the vision gets impaired. It symptoms include watering of eyes, pain in eyes and

2HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
headache. To prevent this frequent breaks can be taken and the screen can be placed at a distance of
two feet.
Next, there can be cervical spondylosis and lumbar spondylosis. Due to a long period of
working over computers, there are skips in specific vertebra slips and space between two adjacent
vertebras is decreased. In both the cases, the symptoms are a pain in shoulder’s and necks, tingling
and numbness in hands (Card 2017). Here, suitable posture is mandatory and might be advised to
wear the lumbosacral belt while sitting at workstations. To do away with this, the monitor must be
kept at eye level. A proper posture of the back and neck is exercised daily.
Then, there is the Carpel Tunnel syndrome. As the mouse in handled constantly with
hammering on keyboard, the overall carpal ligament of the wrist gets edematous and then inflamed.
The symptoms include pains, stiffness, soreness and burning sensations in a finger, palms and
forearms. The best way to prevent this is to place the wrists and forearms parallel to thighs. The
mouse can behold lightly and can be operated with a hand for preventing pressure overhand
(Voruganti et al. 2015).
Besides, there are mental stresses. This occurs because of overtime and long hours in front of
computers for achieving those incentives and targets. Due to high work pressure, there can be high
tensions at work. This also includes senses of loneliness (Bates et al. 2014). People having low these
thresholds holds this tensions that further turn into depressions. To prevent this, people should try to
specialize in the workplace during breaks and talk to family and friends.
Lastly, there can be weight gains and indigestion. This results in physical activities because
of long hours at workplaces. This can be mitigated through high nutritious and low-fat diets (Devlin
et al. 2018).

3HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
Present legislation related to storage of information on computers:
The data storage indicates the collection of technologies and methods, capturing and
retaining digital data over various storage media that are optical and silicon-based. Here, room is the
primary element of digital services such as business and customers can depend on that to store data.
This might include storing personal photos to business-critical information. The storage is
commonly utilized for design devices and data that are connected to computers through I/O
operations. This includes media types, tape systems, flash devices and hard disks. Investigating the
significance of storage is seen as a steady climb in creating new information. This is attributable to
big data and profusion of IoT or Internet Of Things. Present storage systems need developed abilities
to permit the enterprise to deploy machine learning enabled –AI. This is to capture data, assess
information and retrieve the utmost value from it. Huge deployments of various scripts and the real-
time database analytics are found to be contributing to the rise of highly dense and different types of
scalable storage systems (Buskirk and Andrus 2014). This involves converged infrastructure, high-
performance computing storages, hyper-converged storage infrastructure, composable storage
systems, object storage platforms and scale-out and scale up NAS or Network Attacked Storages.
The data storage is the intimidating phrase for business owners, conjuring images of wordy
and different legislation that ate hard-to-understand. Hence, the business owners have been a thing
the law is restricted to digital corporations or business. Here the information is used as a commodity.
Essentially, the personal information is to be stored in some way. This this is needed to have
complied with various legal requirements for storing data. This is also vital to assure that the data is
protected and secured as possible (Höhne, Revilla and Lenzner 2018).
The United Kingdom possesses various national and international laws that apply to multiple
activities done through networks and computers. These laws are applicable specifically to

4HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
computers. Firstly, the computer misuse act 1990, mitigates offenses of unlawful interferences and
access with data and computers. Next, the Communications Act 2003, eradicates issue with improper
use of public communication services and illegal retrieving of electronic communication services.
Next, the Investigatory power Act 2016, has been managing interception of traffic over networks.
This generates power for police and new investigating authorities. This needs networks for providing
data about various users and the overall use of networks. Next, the various type investigatory powers
or effective interception through business o monitor and keeping purposes of records has covered
interception for purposes of business. Examples of this include enforcing acceptable usage policies.
Next, the common data protection regulation and with data protection act 2018, has deployed various
necessities of people holding personal data over computers and organized filing systems. Then there
is electronic and private communications or EC Directive regulations 2003. This consists of detailed
limitations on using various personal data in the field of electronic communications. This includes
the sending of various unsolicited e-mails. This is been amended through “EC Directive or Privacy
and Electronic Communications Regulations 2011”. Then their police and justice Act 2006, section
37 is found to be mitigating the latest offenses related to make, supply, and retrieve tools using in
present computer misuse Act 1990 offences. Different individuals and business that are involved
here in this research and development of various security tools and while training other people are
aware of crown prosecution services (Müller et al. 2015). These are guided towards prosecutors for
assuring that the tasks are caught through those provisions.
Comparison of functions of peripheral devices of computers and smart phones:
In the following section, a comparison is made on various functions of peripheral devices of
desktop computers with tablet or smartphones. As far as storage is concerned, the computers
consume hard drive capacities that exceed 1 TB or terabytes and then they can rise in size. Most
primary computers of today have been coming with 50 GB of a hard drive of today. Netbooks like

5HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
Google Chromebook designed mainly for working under web browsers are found to be offering 16
to 32 GB space. On the other hand, most tablets and smartphones have been coming between 8 GB
and 64 GB of built-in storage (Leigh et al. 2015). Here, most of the cases, the expansion slot is
available of an extra memory chip. This provides the removable storage. Tablets and smartphones
have been offering less capacity for storage than computers. These components are unable to be
modified like that of machines. This is an effective idea to understand how much room is needed
before purchasing the device and factors that to the decision (Furber 2017).
As far as data entry and user inputs are concerned, the computers make use of keyboards.
This is done for data entry that most of the users are been found to be familiar with and are always
comfortable in using. Here the mouse is available for smooth clicking and scrolling. The smart-
phone has been featuring on0screen touch keyboards smaller than the standard computers. Here, the
small keyboard makes typing more complicated for users, particularly users having big fingers.
Here, some of the smartphones have been featuring slide-out keyboards having actual keys for
pressing. This keyboard is smaller than the standard keyboard of computers. This is still seen to be
difficult for some users.
Regarding portability, the laptop computers are portable as far design. On the other hand,
desktops are not portable usually. For instance, a NUC is no more than 5” wide and long and less
than 2” high. It has weight just a little more than 1 Lb. The smartphones are light weighted and fit in
pocket or pocket. They can be taken at any place due to its portability (Saidi et al. 2015). However,
the tablet never fit the pocket and they are light and can be carried in one single hand.
It can be concluded that it might sound that using computers is not a good thing. However,
most people are unable to afford to avoid that regardless. The technology is spreading at all the area
and it is impossible to prevent it. The computers are not bad things as used with proper responsibility

6HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
and effective direction. The above mentioned preventions and comparisons with smartphones and
tablets are to be kept in mind. These are great ways to reduce the risks to health and useful to
accompany using computers.

7HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
References:
Bates, D.W., Saria, S., Ohno-Machado, L., Shah, A. and Escobar, G., 2014. Big data in health care:
using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health Affairs, 33(7),
pp.1123-1131.
Buskirk, T.D. and Andrus, C.H., 2014. Making mobile browser surveys smarter: results from a
randomized experiment comparing online surveys completed via computer or smartphone. Field
Methods, 26(4), pp.322-342.
Card, S.K., 2017. The psychology of human-computer interaction. CRC Press.
Devlin, N.J., Shah, K.K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B. and van Hout, B., 2018. Valuing health‐related
quality of life: An EQ‐5 D‐5 L value set for E ngland. Health economics, 27(1), pp.7-22.
Furber, S.B., 2017. VLSI RISC architecture and organization. Routledge.
Höhne, J.K., Revilla, M. and Lenzner, T., 2018. Comparing the Performance of Agree/Disagree and
Item-Specific Questions Across PCs and Smartphones. Methodology.
Leigh, S.W., Schoessler, P., Heibeck, F., Maes, P. and Ishii, H., 2015, January. THAW: tangible
interaction with see-through augmentation for smartphones on computer screens. In Proceedings of
the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 89-96).
ACM.
Levy, H.M., 2014. Capability-based computer systems. Digital Press.
Müller, H., Gove, J.L., Webb, J.S. and Cheang, A., 2015, December. Understanding and comparing
smartphone and tablet use: Insights from a large-scale diary study. In Proceedings of the Annual

8HEALTH RISKS, CURRENT LEGISLATION AND CRITICAL COMPARISON
Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (pp. 427-436).
ACM.
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. and Harjumaa, M., 2018. Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model
and system features. In Routledge Handbook of Policy Design (pp. 105-123). Routledge.
Saidi, S., Ernst, R., Uhrig, S., Theiling, H. and de Dinechin, B.D., 2015, October. The shift to
multicores in real-time and safety-critical systems. In Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis (pp. 220-229). IEEE Press.
Voruganti, T., O'Brien, M.A., Straus, S.E., McLaughlin, J.R. and Grunfeld, E., 2015. Primary care
physicians’ perspectives on computer-based health risk assessment tools for chronic diseases: a
mixed methods study. Journal of innovation in health informatics, 22(3), pp.333-339.