Tag Archive: occupational noise

How to motivate millennials to protect their hearing at work

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

The Quiet Coalition doesn’t spend much time worrying about occupational noise because our focus is on protecting the general public from noise. Workers’ ears are protected by regulations drafted and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and similar state agencies. Moreover, workers generally have health care for occupational injuries, and are compensated for work-related permanent damage (including hearing loss) by state-administered workers compensation systems. If occupational hearing loss is established, hearing aids may be provided for those with occupational hearing loss.

From time to time we will agree with the many observers who think that the occupational noise exposure limit–90 A-weighted decibels for 40 hours a week, 240 days a year, for 40 years, causing excess hearing loss in 25% of exposed workers–is set too high, but at least workers have that meager protection. There are no such protections for the public, and no compensation for hearing loss, either.

That said, we’re making an exception to share with you this well-written article in Occupational Health & Safety Magazine. It’s focused on preventing hearing loss in younger workers, but it provides good information for everyone who is concerned about their hearing.

Dr. Daniel Fink is a leading noise activist based in the Los Angeles area. He serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association, is the interim chair of Quiet Communities’s Health Advisory Council, and is the founding chair of The Quiet Coalition, an organization of science, health, and legal professionals concerned about the impacts of noise on health, environment, learning, productivity, and quality of life in America.

Yes, you can put a dollar figure (well, euros) on the impact of noise:

The (VERY) high cost of noise.  Acoustic Bulletin writes about a study published last June by the French Agency Against Noise (Conseil National du Bruit) and the French Environment Agency (ADEME), where the two agencies tried to estimate the total cost of noise pollution in France.  In the end, they determined that the cost was 57.2 billion euros in social costs.  Yes, that billion.  So what was included in this impressive figure?  The study focused on six categories of noise:

  • Impact of traffic noise on health
  • Indirect costs of traffic noise (for example, on real estate)
  • Workplace accidents and hearing loss caused by occupational noise
  • Distraction in the workplace and productivity loss
  • Impact of noise in educational premises
  • Impact of neighbourhood noise

At 18 billion euros, the study shows that the cost of open plan offices is very dear.

Which makes us pause and wonder about the cost of noise pollution is in the United States, which has a population about five times larger than France but no Agency Against Noise.

 

 

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.