Tag Archive: audiologist

Have a friend or family member who is showing signs of hearing loss?

In “Hearing loss: Listening to the signs,” Treva Lind, The Spokesman Review, writes about the 37.5 million Americans who have some degree of hearing loss, focusing on the baby boomers who are 20 to 25% of that population.  Lind states that “[t]he American Speech-Language Hearing Association recommends that people age 50 and older have a hearing test every three years.”  She sits in on a hearing exam for 67-year-old Dale Fowler, who came to the University Hearing and Speech Clinic in Spokane, Washington to see if he needed a hearing aid, a visit scheduled at the urging of family members.  Fowler’s exam revealed that he “had some minor hearing loss at high frequencies in one ear, but it wasn’t enough to warrant a hearing aid.”  Fowler’s audiologist, Barbara Peregoy, said that his result was “common among baby boomers.”

Peregoy said that baby boomers often fall into a “gray area,” where they don’t yet need hearing aids but still have some minor hearing loss.  She then explained why people who need hearing aids don’t get them right away (cost, denial, vanity, or fear of appearing older) and the consequences of not addressing hearing loss, noting that hearing loss is a risk factor for dementia.  As for her patient Dale Fowler, although he left without a hearing aid, he did not leave empty-handed–Peregoy handed him a list of good communication skills to help him deal with his minor hearing loss.

Click the link above to read the whole piece, including Barbara Peregoy’s “Ten commandments for good communication skills.”

 

 

Hearing Loss Is Growing


From the book The Human Body and Health Revised by Alvin Davison, 1908 / Public Domain

And Experts Say Earphones Are Part Of The Problem.

Mack interviews audiologist Michele Abrams who spoke about limiting exposure to damaging sound:

When we think about decibel levels, when we think of loudness levels, it’s really incremental.  It’s a logarithmic scale. It’s not a linear scale. So we know that 85 db is that critical level. Eighty-five db, eight hours a day, that’s your maximum. If it’s 90 db — five db greater — you have to cut your time in half.

While generally informative, Abrams’ comment unfortunately identifies 85 db, eight hours a day as the “critical level.”  But this noise exposure level is too high.  It was developed solely as an occupational noise exposure standard and should never be applied to the general public, certainly not to children.  As Dr. Daniel Fink, a noted noise activist, wrote in, “What Is A Safe Noise Level For The Public?”:

In the absence of a federal standard, an occupational standard meant to prevent hearing loss appears to have become the de facto safe level for all public noise exposures. This is demonstrated by the use of 85 decibels as a safe sound level by hearing health professionals and their organizations, in media reports, and in publications, most often without time limits; by its use as a volume limit for children’s headphones marketed to prevent hearing loss, again without exposure times; and by general acceptance of higher indoor and outdoor noise levels in the United States.

*   *   *
Eighty-five decibels is not a safe noise exposure level for the public. In 1972, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health developed an 85 A-weighted decibel recommended exposure level to reduce the risk of hearing loss from occupational noise exposure. … Even with strict time limits, this standard does not protect all workers from hearing loss.

So what is a safe noise level for the public?  Dr. Fink states:

In 1974 the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) adjusted the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommendation for additional exposure time: 24 instead of 8 hours daily and 365 instead of 240 days annually.  The EPA calculated the safe noise level for the public to prevent hearing loss to be a 70-decibel time-weighted average for a 24-hour period… The EPA did not adjust for lifetime noise exposure, now almost 80 years versus 40 work-years, so the real average safe noise level to prevent hearing loss is probably lower.

One thing is clear, allowing children to use earbuds or headphones without limiting volume and time exposure is a recipe for hearing loss.  Since the federal government has abdicated its authority to regulate noise, and manufacturers are unlikely to design products that limit the user’s ability to deliver as many decibels as he or she wants, parents must step in to protect their children’s hearing.  Here’s something that will help: Don’t allow your children to wear earbuds and headphones.  Tell them that if they want to listen to music they must play it through a speaker.  While this may be unpopular, know that you will be giving your children an important gift–the ability to listen to and enjoy music throughout their lifetimes.

 

 

An audiologist explains why noise is much more than a mere annoyance.

In “Why City Noise Is a Serious Health Hazard,” Eric Jaffe writes about noise in New York City.  His piece extensively quotes Craig Kasper, chief audiologist at New York Hearing Doctors, who notes how persistent noise complaints have been, citing a 1905 headline in the Times claiming New York to be “the noisiest city on earth.”  Kasper also discusses all of the ways in which noise adversely affects health and wellbeing (e.g., loss of sleep, anxiety, cardiovascular difficulties, etc.), adding that his patients “complain of loud restaurants the most.”  Oddly, this otherwise thoughtful piece concludes with Kasper stating that “noise adds to the charm of New York—and, really, any big city.”  It’s hard to accept that something as potentially damaging as noise can be described as charming.  Still, this short piece is worth a read.

Quiet fireworks? Must be an oxymoron, no? No:

Oh, Say, Can You See (but Not Hear) Those Fireworks?

Why would someone want quiet fireworks, you may ask?  Pet owners know that cats and particularly dogs can be adversely affected by fireworks, but humans are at risk as well:

For people, loud fireworks can lead to hearing loss. The World Health Organization lists 120 decibels as the pain threshold for sound, including sharp sounds such as thunderclaps. Fireworks are louder than that.

“They’re typically above 150 decibels, and can even reach up to 170 decibels or more,” said Nathan Williams, an audiologist at Boys Town National Research Hospital in Nebraska.

Dr. Williams also sees higher traffic to his clinic after Independence Day. “We usually see a handful of people every year,” he said. “In these cases, hearing loss is more likely to be permanent.”

And Dr. Williams added that children are more vulnerable to hearing loss from fireworks because they have more sensitive hearing.  So if you are going to a fireworks display this weekend, enjoy it safely and bring ear plugs for the whole family.

Thanks to Daniel Fink, M.D., a noise pollution activist in the Los Angeles area, for the link.  Dr. Fink serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association and the Health Advisory Council of Quiet Communities.

The Philly Voice asks:

How do earbuds damage your hearing?

Philly Voice reporter Brandon Baker posed this question Linda Ronis-Kass, an audiologist at Penn Medicine Washington Square, “for an explanation of how listening to music at a high volume through earbuds can cause hearing loss — and potentially more.”  It’s an interesting read, particularly for those of you who like to pop in your earbuds and crank the volume up (don’t!!).

Thanks to Hearing Health Foundation for the link.

NIOSH Science Blog clarifies difference between occupational and general noise exposure limits

Many people are confused about what is a safe noise limit for the general public because the only noise limit the public may have heard about is the 85 decibel recommended exposure limit (REL) that National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) established for occupational noise exposures.  Fortunately, the NIOSH Science Blog has just posted an informative piece* that discusses acceptable RELS for both, titled: Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise.

The authors state that in 1998, NIOSH established the REL for occupational noise exposure to be 85 decibels based on an 8-hour shift for a 5-day work week, adding that the REL “assumes that the individual spends the other 16 hours in the day, as well as weekends, in quieter conditions,” and cautioning that “the NIOSH REL is not a recommendation for noise exposures outside of the workplace in the general environment.”  The difference between the occupational and general environmental noise exposures is that:

The NIOSH REL is not meant to be used to protect against general environmental or recreational noise; it does not account for noisy activities or hobbies outside the workplace (such as hunting, power tool use, listening to music with ear buds, playing music, or attending sporting events, movies and concerts) which may increase the overall risk for hearing loss.

The authors point out that a 1974 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report recommended 70 decibels over a 24-hour average exposure limit for general environmental noise (while noting the EPA’s caution that its recommendation was not a standard, specification, or regulation).  This recommendation was determined in a similar manner as the NIOSH REL, but it’s focus was on general environmental noise and not the workplace.  As the EPA report states, their recommendation “was chosen to protect 96% of the general population from developing hearing loss as well as to protect ‘public health and welfare.’”

The authors note that both limits “are based on the same scientific evidence and the equal-energy rule,” but “are designed to protect against different problems.”  As a result, the limit values differ because “the EPA limit was averaged over 24 hours with no rest period while the NIOSH limit is averaged for just 8 hours and includes a rest period between exposures,” and the EPA limit includes an allowance “to protect against exposures for 365 days a year versus the NIOSH REL’s calculation that aims to protect against work place exposures for 250 working days a year.”   The authors add that “the EPA limit did not consider cost or feasibility of implementation as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), in accepting a NIOSH REL as the basis for a mandatory standard, [was] required to do under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.”

Long and short, the authors conclude that the 85 decibel REL is a work standard that neither mandates nor recommends decibel limits for the general public.  Rather, it is the EPA’s recommendation of 70 decibels that provides the appropriate exposure limits for the public with regard to general environmental noise.

*The post was prepared by NIOSH engineer, Chuck Kardous, MS, PE; NIOSH audiologist, Christa L. Themann, MA; NIOSH research audiologist Thais C. Morata, Ph.D., who is also the Coordinator of the NORA Manufacturing Sector Council; and W. Gregory Lotz, Ph.D, Captain, US Public Health Service, Division Director of the Division of Applied Research and Technology (DART), and the manager of the NORA Manufacturing Sector Council.