CRT monitors dim a lot between frames. Take a high-speed photo of a CRT monitor and a lot of the image will be dark.
An LCD monitor will basically stay at constant brightness between frames, so even if it is updating slowly, there's no flicker. A moving image on screen will be moving in a series of jumps, so the slower the frame rate, the larger the jumps.
Sensitivity to flicker varies enormously between people. I appear to be very sensitive to it, and I find the 100 Hz lighting on cars highly irritating, even though I can't see it flickering unless there is movement. Of course, at night, there is a lot of contrast which makes it worse, and the flicker becomes visible as I look away or towards a 100 Hz light, and in normal driving, there's a lot of looking at different things.
The 100 Hz flicker on car lights is often worse than the 100 Hz flicker on some 50 Hz lightbulbs because the duty cycle is different. Some car tail lights are only on for 10% of the time, so there are 9 ms gaps in the lighting. Some 50 Hz lightbulbs dim as the voltage reduces and and so they are on for the majority of the time and the actual dark period is probably only about 2 ms.
There are many ways that LED lightbulb circuits are arranged, and one method that I have seen used is a series capacitor as a current limiting device, followed by a bridge rectifier, the smoothing capacitor and the LEDs. On several of these the smoothing capacitor is far too small so it does little to reduce flicker, and I have virtually eliminated flicker by adding a significantly larger capacitor.
Flicker can be photographed by deliberately moving the camera during the exposure so that the image becomes a series of dots, like this:-
http://www.malin.me.uk/vwflashsm.jpg That shows 100 Hz car lighting as dots, 50 Hz street lighting (so modulated at 100 Hz) as the orange strip with gaps, while a steady light, in this case an incandescent one, is a uniform strip. The photo gives an idea of what I see as I move my eyes.
I've been able to detect higher frequencies. I've used the moving camera technique to estimate the flashing frequency of one set of car lights at about 2 kHz. I had noticed the flicker with the naked eye before taking the photo. Beyond about 500 Hz I don't find the flickering distracting, even though I can see it.
There was TV documentary many years ago where the effect of fluorescent lighting with 100 Hz modulation was measured by experiments on volunteers. Even when the volunteers couldn't say whether there was modulation, when they moved their eyes to look in a different place, they were less accurate when there was lighting modulation, with their eyes often overshooting the correct position at first.
I don't think that 100 Hz lighting is harmful, but I know that it can be intensely irritating to me, even when other people are unable to detect flicker. It seems to me that allowing flicker in lighting systems just because only 5 - 10% of the population can tell the difference is simply bad engineering.