Richardson
Inactive
I'm convinced. What advantage does "electronic" hearing protection offer? Where can I get it? //Richardson
Handgun Noise Levels - Your Views
- Thread starter Mike H
- Start date
- Status
When a shooting is investigated the type of gun/ammo/accessories really shouldn't influence the decision on whether the shooting was "good" or not.
But, I guarantee that if you use a suppressed weapon in the shooting the DA is going to paint you as some crazy, paramilitary nutcase killer-type.
That isn't right, but that's what will happen.
In the states that allow possession of suppressors, you need to be fingerprinted and photographed for the ATF and pay a $200 tax, per suppressor. Three suppressor=$600 in taxes, not to mention the price of the units.
For a house gun I keep a .38 Special K-frame. Loaded up with either 158grLSWCHP+P, or 125gr JHP+P. The 158 won't break the sound barrier, so the supersonic "crack" is eliminated. Some 125's go supersonic, but not all. It depends on brand, barrel length and B/C gap.
In addition to the 38's being slightly easier on the ears than a 357, the risk of everpenetration is lower, plus I can shoot the 38's more accurately and quicker than the 357. More accurate translates to fewer misses that would sail through drywall like butter.
-Kframe
But, I guarantee that if you use a suppressed weapon in the shooting the DA is going to paint you as some crazy, paramilitary nutcase killer-type.
That isn't right, but that's what will happen.
In the states that allow possession of suppressors, you need to be fingerprinted and photographed for the ATF and pay a $200 tax, per suppressor. Three suppressor=$600 in taxes, not to mention the price of the units.
For a house gun I keep a .38 Special K-frame. Loaded up with either 158grLSWCHP+P, or 125gr JHP+P. The 158 won't break the sound barrier, so the supersonic "crack" is eliminated. Some 125's go supersonic, but not all. It depends on brand, barrel length and B/C gap.
In addition to the 38's being slightly easier on the ears than a 357, the risk of everpenetration is lower, plus I can shoot the 38's more accurately and quicker than the 357. More accurate translates to fewer misses that would sail through drywall like butter.
-Kframe
I too would like to know what advantage(s) electronic protection has over non?
As far as a DA painting you as a nut if you use a silencer - true - but what about the situation where you carry hearing protection in the car, see a violent confrontation forming (e.g. a road rager approaching your vehicle), you don the earmuffs, see the person threaten you, then shoot him. Will the jury think you're just "cautious" or "safety-minded" or a nut just itching to shoot someone? Would your answer be different if you put the hearing protection on in a home-defense scenario?
And Mal H, off the subject, but it seems to me that cities that allow you to get that close to the train without some kind of barrier (which could be moved when the train stops) are being extraordinarily negligent! I thought the same thing when riding a ski lift at Keystone which had absolutely no retention bar that lowered to help keep you in, esp. since we were 50+ feet up and they'd let any kid over about 5 years old on the lift with or without an adult. Absolutely big time negligence there.
As far as a DA painting you as a nut if you use a silencer - true - but what about the situation where you carry hearing protection in the car, see a violent confrontation forming (e.g. a road rager approaching your vehicle), you don the earmuffs, see the person threaten you, then shoot him. Will the jury think you're just "cautious" or "safety-minded" or a nut just itching to shoot someone? Would your answer be different if you put the hearing protection on in a home-defense scenario?
And Mal H, off the subject, but it seems to me that cities that allow you to get that close to the train without some kind of barrier (which could be moved when the train stops) are being extraordinarily negligent! I thought the same thing when riding a ski lift at Keystone which had absolutely no retention bar that lowered to help keep you in, esp. since we were 50+ feet up and they'd let any kid over about 5 years old on the lift with or without an adult. Absolutely big time negligence there.
Ryan Meyering
New member
Futo Inu,
I believe the electronic hearing protection referred to in this post is the kind that allows you to hear normally below a certain decibal range, but blocks sounds at harmful decibal level. Thus, they can be used for hunting, or, I guess, in a home defense scenario, if you had the time to put them on.
You can get them from Midway for a little over $100.
I believe the electronic hearing protection referred to in this post is the kind that allows you to hear normally below a certain decibal range, but blocks sounds at harmful decibal level. Thus, they can be used for hunting, or, I guess, in a home defense scenario, if you had the time to put them on.
You can get them from Midway for a little over $100.
Being a retired Police Officer and having been in several enclosed rooms where various firearms were being fired, I have some experience with the question.
Where the sound of the gunshot was unexpected (ND by another officer) my ears rang for days. Where the shots were expected (and not on the range) the sounds were muffled, they did not sound as loud as the same ammo did with ear protection. I did not have any ringing in my ears at all. I think it was part of the body trying to protect it self during the events.
When I go to the range, I wear electronic ear muffs, with them I can hear the range commands and my hearing is protected. For the times I am shooting really loud rifles, I wear plugs too.
Now if someone can explain why the report of a .223 out of a Ruger Mini-14 seems SO much worse than the same report out of an AR-15.
The three pistols that I would rate as gawdawful, reportwise, would be any handgun chambered for teh .30 carbine round, any stubnosed .22Mag. and the CZ 52 using the CORRECT ammo, the .30 Tok round and not the .30 Mauser.
My ear ringing, sorta whistling 2 cents.
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
Where the sound of the gunshot was unexpected (ND by another officer) my ears rang for days. Where the shots were expected (and not on the range) the sounds were muffled, they did not sound as loud as the same ammo did with ear protection. I did not have any ringing in my ears at all. I think it was part of the body trying to protect it self during the events.
When I go to the range, I wear electronic ear muffs, with them I can hear the range commands and my hearing is protected. For the times I am shooting really loud rifles, I wear plugs too.
Now if someone can explain why the report of a .223 out of a Ruger Mini-14 seems SO much worse than the same report out of an AR-15.
The three pistols that I would rate as gawdawful, reportwise, would be any handgun chambered for teh .30 carbine round, any stubnosed .22Mag. and the CZ 52 using the CORRECT ammo, the .30 Tok round and not the .30 Mauser.
My ear ringing, sorta whistling 2 cents.
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
Futo, I haven't seen a subway system yet that had a barrier like you described. It's a good idea, but will never be implemented unless it is implemented when a new system is installed - too costly. That leaves out NYC, DC, Boston, etc., etc. Just last week a man was killed when he was dragged by a subway train in DC.
I am an artillerymen and often when training with small arms, I really don't hear the weapons anymore. Example when I was a Lt, when every you did a live fire and manuever range you were not allowed to wear hearing protection, because you might not hear commands from the RSO. After a Plt reinforced live fire attack (Rifle Plt, with machine guns and SMAWs) most of the other Lt's complained about ringing in there ears, but since I spent awhile as an enlisted Cannoneer, I did not have a ringing in my ears, everything sounded normal. I have noticed the same thing on other livefire ranges that don't allow hearing protection, other complain, but I really don't have a problem. The only time I have noticed that is loud to fire was a live fire inside. by the way on my semiannual hearing tests I have shown a loss of hearing.
Futo, et al, I think that putting on muffs in an out-of-doors confrontation isn't really that great of an idea.
Lawyers are tricky, that's their job. I could still see the prosecutor alleging that if you had the time and presence of mind to don ear protection, that you could've gotten out of the situation. (As in, you had a few seconds to put on the muffs, so your life obviously wasn't in immediate danger.)
Also, with regular muffs (non-electronic) you would not be able to hear an arriving cop tell you to drop the weapon, and you certainly don't want to accidentally turn around and point a gun at him. Even if he realizes you're the good guy, a pointed gun is a pointed gun and your position looks pretty bad from the LEO's p.o.v. Aside from cops, you would be less able to keep track of your loved ones and other innocents.
If you've got electronic muffs, then I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to put them on; but I'm still thinking about the slimy prosecutor.
Also, nearby gunfire outside is not nearly as damaging to the ears as indoor gunfire. So, even though your ears may ring a bit after shooting outdoors w/o protection, I doubt that very serious permanent damage will occur (unless you're armed with a centerfire rifle or snub-44 Mag.).
I guess it's a personal choice.
Indoors, if you have the time to put on electronic muffs, then by all means do so! Not only will permanent hearing loss occur, the noise may actually disorient you enough that you perform poorly, and die.
If you only own regular muffs, then leave them in the closet. You can't afford to lose track of the good or bad guys!
-Kframe
Lawyers are tricky, that's their job. I could still see the prosecutor alleging that if you had the time and presence of mind to don ear protection, that you could've gotten out of the situation. (As in, you had a few seconds to put on the muffs, so your life obviously wasn't in immediate danger.)
Also, with regular muffs (non-electronic) you would not be able to hear an arriving cop tell you to drop the weapon, and you certainly don't want to accidentally turn around and point a gun at him. Even if he realizes you're the good guy, a pointed gun is a pointed gun and your position looks pretty bad from the LEO's p.o.v. Aside from cops, you would be less able to keep track of your loved ones and other innocents.
If you've got electronic muffs, then I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to put them on; but I'm still thinking about the slimy prosecutor.
Also, nearby gunfire outside is not nearly as damaging to the ears as indoor gunfire. So, even though your ears may ring a bit after shooting outdoors w/o protection, I doubt that very serious permanent damage will occur (unless you're armed with a centerfire rifle or snub-44 Mag.).
I guess it's a personal choice.
Indoors, if you have the time to put on electronic muffs, then by all means do so! Not only will permanent hearing loss occur, the noise may actually disorient you enough that you perform poorly, and die.
If you only own regular muffs, then leave them in the closet. You can't afford to lose track of the good or bad guys!
-Kframe
Jim V, as I recall, there is a tiny muscle attached to one of the three little bones that connects the ear drum with the inner ear. This muscle does in fact contract reflexively to dampen noise to the inner ear when one is exposed to or anticipates loud noises.
In general, prolonged exposure to 85 dBA and brief exposure to 115 dBA and above starts to be a concern for hearing loss. Notice that I put the A after the dBs, that indicates the A-weighted scale which subtracts some of the low frequency noise off to better reflect how humans hear mid-frequency sounds better than low or very high frequency sounds. The levels listed for various calibers above looks like it is the sound power level, which is the actual acoustical energy at the source, rather than the sound pressure that the ear perceives. Actual perceived levels would probably be 10 to 20 dB less - still in the 140 dBA range at your ear while firing a gun. Firing guns without hearing protection is very bad for your ears, indeed.
Electronic ear muffs may not be all that they are cracked up to be for us shooters. Gunfire is very broadband, that is, loud across the frequency spectrum. The most damaging components are where your ear is most sensitive - from 1000 to 4000 Hz. Active noise cancellation is seldom very effective above 1000 Hz so you aren't getting for your money over simple earmuffs. Dick Rutan and his lady friend that flew the airplane non-stop around the world without refueling a few years back used ear muffs with active noise cancellation. As I recall, they still suffered permanent hearing damage.
Personally, I use foam ear plugs with ear muffs. If you put the ear plugs in correctly, this combination attenuates noise as much as can be hoped for - about 40 to 50 dBA. This limitation is based on noise entering your body and being passed to the inner ear by the bones of your head. Pardon the long posting. - sleepy
In general, prolonged exposure to 85 dBA and brief exposure to 115 dBA and above starts to be a concern for hearing loss. Notice that I put the A after the dBs, that indicates the A-weighted scale which subtracts some of the low frequency noise off to better reflect how humans hear mid-frequency sounds better than low or very high frequency sounds. The levels listed for various calibers above looks like it is the sound power level, which is the actual acoustical energy at the source, rather than the sound pressure that the ear perceives. Actual perceived levels would probably be 10 to 20 dB less - still in the 140 dBA range at your ear while firing a gun. Firing guns without hearing protection is very bad for your ears, indeed.
Electronic ear muffs may not be all that they are cracked up to be for us shooters. Gunfire is very broadband, that is, loud across the frequency spectrum. The most damaging components are where your ear is most sensitive - from 1000 to 4000 Hz. Active noise cancellation is seldom very effective above 1000 Hz so you aren't getting for your money over simple earmuffs. Dick Rutan and his lady friend that flew the airplane non-stop around the world without refueling a few years back used ear muffs with active noise cancellation. As I recall, they still suffered permanent hearing damage.
Personally, I use foam ear plugs with ear muffs. If you put the ear plugs in correctly, this combination attenuates noise as much as can be hoped for - about 40 to 50 dBA. This limitation is based on noise entering your body and being passed to the inner ear by the bones of your head. Pardon the long posting. - sleepy
Puddle Pirate
New member
Do electronic ear muff's cancel out noise with "white noise" or are they a microphone and speaker system where the speaker won't transmit noises over a certain Db?
[This message has been edited by Puddle Pirate (edited November 19, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Puddle Pirate (edited November 19, 1999).]
Maybe someone can give me some advice. I'm new to shooting, and got a chance to shoot my Ruger .22 pistol a couple of weeks ago. I shot a couple hundred rounds, using earplugs (rated 31) and muffs (rated 25). Almost immediately after shooting, I experienced some discomfort in my left ear. This happened on and off for the next few days. Not really painful, but very annoying. Even now I feel a "twinge" every now and then. I'm considering that it may be earwax getting stopped up due to the plugs, if it is not the sound itself. Can anyone help? Are some people just more sensitive? I really like shooting, and don't want to give it up.
Puddle Pirate (are you the Captain Kiddy?),
The answer is that both methods are used. Most earmuffs used in the shooting community use the mike/speaker arrangement and the electronics will either lower the volume of all sounds to the speaker when a loud sound is detected or, in the better models, will attenuate only the loud sounds above a certain db level leaving the other sounds, such as speech, alone.
Another method, perfected by Noise Cancellation Technology, analyzes the sound and creates an 180 deg. phase shift of the proper volume so that the sound cancels itself. This method is extremely effective, but has not cought on in the shooting world most likely due to the expense of the earmuffs. Their noise cancellation systems are in wide use in high noise manufacturing plants, aircraft maintenance, etc.
The answer is that both methods are used. Most earmuffs used in the shooting community use the mike/speaker arrangement and the electronics will either lower the volume of all sounds to the speaker when a loud sound is detected or, in the better models, will attenuate only the loud sounds above a certain db level leaving the other sounds, such as speech, alone.
Another method, perfected by Noise Cancellation Technology, analyzes the sound and creates an 180 deg. phase shift of the proper volume so that the sound cancels itself. This method is extremely effective, but has not cought on in the shooting world most likely due to the expense of the earmuffs. Their noise cancellation systems are in wide use in high noise manufacturing plants, aircraft maintenance, etc.
Here is an email sent to me by an ex-LEO regarding shooting without hearing protection (combat situation)...
I am an ex-cop and have shot a number of people in the line of duty. Every time I did it was an interesting phenomena that your ears don't ring. It must have something to do with the adrenaline, but in the heat of the moment your ears aren't affected by even a 12ga riot gun. I have talked with other cops who said the same thing. So you probably won't have to worry about becoming disoriented at some time you need to shoot your gun in self defense.
All of the people I shot was when I was not a patrolman, but a gunman at San Quentin Prison. I shot all of them with a Remington 870 12ga riot gun or else a Ruger mini-14 .223 rifle. Both of which would normally wreck your ears to shoot without hearing protection.
The other cops I have talked to that shot someone used a handgun and related that it was the same thing as far as no damage to the ears. In fact you don't even think about it. Without exception you shake afterward from
the remaining adrenaline, so it stands to reason it has something to do with the hearing phenomenon.
[This message has been edited by shamster (edited November 19, 1999).]
I am an ex-cop and have shot a number of people in the line of duty. Every time I did it was an interesting phenomena that your ears don't ring. It must have something to do with the adrenaline, but in the heat of the moment your ears aren't affected by even a 12ga riot gun. I have talked with other cops who said the same thing. So you probably won't have to worry about becoming disoriented at some time you need to shoot your gun in self defense.
All of the people I shot was when I was not a patrolman, but a gunman at San Quentin Prison. I shot all of them with a Remington 870 12ga riot gun or else a Ruger mini-14 .223 rifle. Both of which would normally wreck your ears to shoot without hearing protection.
The other cops I have talked to that shot someone used a handgun and related that it was the same thing as far as no damage to the ears. In fact you don't even think about it. Without exception you shake afterward from
the remaining adrenaline, so it stands to reason it has something to do with the hearing phenomenon.
[This message has been edited by shamster (edited November 19, 1999).]
BTR,
Try putting several drops of hydrogen peroxide in your ears after shooting if you suspect earwax is to blame. Tilt your head and hold it there for a minute or so, then do the other side. I believe the plugs can stress your ears, so a different design may be in order, esp one that doesn't go too far into the ear canal.
I have had two experiences w/ unprotected ears and handguns. One was a ND (on my part) w/ an SP101 3".357 about 18-24" from the left ear while indoors. It took around two days to get nearly all the hearing back (if I ever did-- don't notice anything).
The second was last weekend, outdoors w/ my ported Glock 20 10mm. I shoot left eyed and right handed and my left ear got it again, though a year and a half later. This one was painful, unlike the first one, but I got my hearing back in minutes and nearly all the way by bedtime.
Ironically, I shot my 6.5 x 55mm mauser w/o hearing protection that day and was just fine. I'm not big into shooting w/o protection and actually shot the Glock w/o protection on purpose to see if being outdoors dissipated the noise threat. Not a chance.
Try putting several drops of hydrogen peroxide in your ears after shooting if you suspect earwax is to blame. Tilt your head and hold it there for a minute or so, then do the other side. I believe the plugs can stress your ears, so a different design may be in order, esp one that doesn't go too far into the ear canal.
I have had two experiences w/ unprotected ears and handguns. One was a ND (on my part) w/ an SP101 3".357 about 18-24" from the left ear while indoors. It took around two days to get nearly all the hearing back (if I ever did-- don't notice anything).
The second was last weekend, outdoors w/ my ported Glock 20 10mm. I shoot left eyed and right handed and my left ear got it again, though a year and a half later. This one was painful, unlike the first one, but I got my hearing back in minutes and nearly all the way by bedtime.
Ironically, I shot my 6.5 x 55mm mauser w/o hearing protection that day and was just fine. I'm not big into shooting w/o protection and actually shot the Glock w/o protection on purpose to see if being outdoors dissipated the noise threat. Not a chance.
I have wondered how guys in combat deal with
this, we're talking full bore rifles in that context - loud. An instructor advised us that we had best know about the shock of hearing our sidearm without ear protection in a defense situation (of course being careful not to actually advise us to do this lest he face a lawsuit). That being said I fed 2 mags thru a 1911 with no ear protection to see what it was like, the results were not unlike a metallica concert times 2. It was not debilitating, the ringing went away 2 days later, but I wont be repeating the experience any time soon.
this, we're talking full bore rifles in that context - loud. An instructor advised us that we had best know about the shock of hearing our sidearm without ear protection in a defense situation (of course being careful not to actually advise us to do this lest he face a lawsuit). That being said I fed 2 mags thru a 1911 with no ear protection to see what it was like, the results were not unlike a metallica concert times 2. It was not debilitating, the ringing went away 2 days later, but I wont be repeating the experience any time soon.
KY-Midnight
New member
I personally skeet shooting without hearing protection (Left it at home, oops) and fired an Army Service Berretta 9mm repeatedly without any either (300+ rds). My hearing was rated as "above normal" in high feq. and "below normal" in mid-low feq.
Personnaly I think my 22 pocket auto is the second loudest thing I own
(AK-47s, 1911s, Glock M19, etc) The first being a Mosin Nagant carbine in 7.62x54. (WOW! you shoot it and FEEL the sound all over your face, cool ) I have fired all without protection at least once, but will not do it unless absolutely needed
I use .380 for home defense. I live in apartments and a 357 flying through my ceiling could be bad... really bad...
Personnaly I think my 22 pocket auto is the second loudest thing I own
(AK-47s, 1911s, Glock M19, etc) The first being a Mosin Nagant carbine in 7.62x54. (WOW! you shoot it and FEEL the sound all over your face, cool ) I have fired all without protection at least once, but will not do it unless absolutely needed I use .380 for home defense. I live in apartments and a 357 flying through my ceiling could be bad... really bad...
John Lawson
New member
I'm surprised that the Artillery man above did not tell you what they do to help even out the sound waves from firing the heavy weapons.
When artillery was firing, they told us to open our mouths because that helped to equalize the pressure exerted on the ear drums. We don't wear ear plugs on the street. Perhaps this is why some people shout things like "Front Sight!" more to have their mouths open during firing than to make a fashion statement.
When artillery was firing, they told us to open our mouths because that helped to equalize the pressure exerted on the ear drums. We don't wear ear plugs on the street. Perhaps this is why some people shout things like "Front Sight!" more to have their mouths open during firing than to make a fashion statement.
Last Oct. 31 a 5'6" rattlesnake was about to snack on my neighbor's cat. I had enough time to retrieve my mossberg that was loaded with fedral OO buck. When I shot the snake I was pretty pumped-up, didn't feel the recoil or hear the shot. No ring in my ears. I believe that if it is anticapated and you got better things to worry about it's a none issue.
------------------
| 4 SALE: MY FEEDOM,to|
| the person with |
| enough MONEY & POWER|
| to pry it from my |
| cold dead hands |
------------------
| 4 SALE: MY FEEDOM,to|
| the person with |
| enough MONEY & POWER|
| to pry it from my |
| cold dead hands |
Covert Mission
New member
I'll try to post some tech data I've read recently, at a later time. The post by Sleepy was good.
The good thing about gunshots is that it is a "pulsed" sound. Far less damaging than a constant high-level noise. Imagine a candle flame... feels hotter the longer you let your hand linger over it, even tho the temp's the same. If you just pass your hand thru quickly, it doesn't seem that hot. Sound is sorta the same, I'm told.
I wear electronic muffs, with foam plugs in addition. With the volume turned up, I can hear all range commands. Recently, I was glad I did... I was executing a stage in an IDPA match, and right in the string of fire, while on the move, my headset fell off. Because I had foam plugs too, I kept right on shooting with just a slight distraction and no discomfort.
Double plugging has another advantage... the muffs protect you to a greater degree from the sound vibration that is transmitted through the ear/face bones, whereas plugs alone don't.
The constant barrage of noise pollution we are all exposed to on a daily basis is also alarming (to health professionals too), and many don't seem to even notice. I've been to concerts where people stand right next to the speaker towers going full blast, for hours. I know the sSP levels must be over 120dB. Crazy. When a fire truck goes by on the street, I plug my ears, and notice that most others don't. I guess I have too much $$ invested in hi-fi gear to be totally careless with my hearing. I always keep a couple pairs of the cheap foam plugs handy. -more-
Good LINKS page: [URL}http://www.pp.okstate.edu/ehs/links/noise.htm[/URL]
Sound is measured in decibels (dB). The scale runs from the faintest sound the human ear can detect, labeled 0 dB, to the scream of a jet engine or a shotgun blast at over 165 dB.
Exposure to more than 90 decibels for eight hours a day (the noise level at a loud party) may be dangerous to your hearing. In addition, there is a trade-off between time and intensity: at 95 dB (the noise level of a loud portable stereo or a dirt bike) the same damage can result in four hours. At 100 dB (the noise level of a chain saw) it takes just two hours to do the same damage to your hearing.
"It doesn't matter what the source of the loud sound is," he added. "If it is loud enough and you are exposed long enough, hearing loss will result."
Extremely loud noises, like gun shots, or even firecrackers or cap pistols, can cause immediate damage. "Anyone using firearms without ear protection risks serious hearing loss," said Gates. To protect your hearing, turn down the volume on the stereo headphones, and wear ear protection when noise is unavoidable, whether from a power lawnmower or a rock concert. Some rock musicians are even wearing earplugs to protect themselves from their own music.
Hearing specialists recommend earplugs or earmuffs for anyone who works (or plays) in a noisy environment. Snugly fitted earplugs can provide from 15 to 30 decibels of noise protection, while snug-fitting earmuffs offer even more noise reduction. Ordinary cotton is too porous to provide any protection. It's important to realize you can be damaging your hearing without even knowing it, said Gates, because the loss is at first subtle. Often the first symptom is a ringing or other sound in your ear (tinnitus). Or you may have trouble understanding what people say; they may seem to be mumbling.
The high frequencies are lost first, so you may have difficulty hearing high-pitched voices. Loss of high-frequency hearing makes many words sound alike, especially those containing the high-frequency sounds S or soft C, F, SH, CH or H. Words like "hill," "fill" and "sill" may sound exactly the same.
from http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm#impulse
http://www.nonoise.org/
5. Varying and intermittent noise
Investigations of the relationship between noise level and duration have been conducted over recent years using laboratory animals. The results have confirmed the validity of the equal energy (3-dB) rule for single exposures to continuous noise (Bohne and Pearse, 1982; Ward and Turner, 1982), or when the exposures are broken up into 8-hour, or even 1-hour "workdays", 5 days per week, so long as the sound energy is equivalent (Ward, 1983). There is, however, some benefit to intermittent quiet periods (Ward and Turner, 1982), during which the ear can recover from small, temporary hearing losses.
6. Impulse noise
The effects of impulse noise have been studied extensively over recent years, but there is less agreement on this topic than there is for continuous and intermittent noise.
Frequency also has some bearing on the damage caused by impulse noise, in that low-frequency impulses produce significantly less damage than sounds in the mid-to-high-frequency range (Price, 1983). The ear appears to be most susceptible to impulses with peaks around 4,000 Hz (Price, 1989). Also, there may be a critical level, above which the ear is considerably more at risk because of a change in the response mechanism. On the basis of his research, Price (1981) has suggested a critical level of 145 dB, with a standard deviation of 8 dB.
Loud music in particular appears to be the cause of hearing impairment and tinnitus in rock musicians. Such luminaries as Pete Townshend and Ted Nugent (8) have acquired substantial hearing losses and are now campaigning for hearing conservation (Murphy, 1989). Some studies point to a hearing hazard for attendees as well
As mentioned above, probably the greatest nonoccupational hazard to hearing comes from sport shooting. Clark (1991) cites studies of industrial workers by Chung et al. (1981), Johnson and Riffle (1982), and Prosser et al. (1988), showing significantly greater hearing losses among sport-shooters than among their nonshooting counterparts. These losses are almost always characterized by worse hearing in the left ear than the right.
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited November 29, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited December 03, 1999).]
The good thing about gunshots is that it is a "pulsed" sound. Far less damaging than a constant high-level noise. Imagine a candle flame... feels hotter the longer you let your hand linger over it, even tho the temp's the same. If you just pass your hand thru quickly, it doesn't seem that hot. Sound is sorta the same, I'm told.
I wear electronic muffs, with foam plugs in addition. With the volume turned up, I can hear all range commands. Recently, I was glad I did... I was executing a stage in an IDPA match, and right in the string of fire, while on the move, my headset fell off. Because I had foam plugs too, I kept right on shooting with just a slight distraction and no discomfort.
Double plugging has another advantage... the muffs protect you to a greater degree from the sound vibration that is transmitted through the ear/face bones, whereas plugs alone don't.
The constant barrage of noise pollution we are all exposed to on a daily basis is also alarming (to health professionals too), and many don't seem to even notice. I've been to concerts where people stand right next to the speaker towers going full blast, for hours. I know the sSP levels must be over 120dB. Crazy. When a fire truck goes by on the street, I plug my ears, and notice that most others don't. I guess I have too much $$ invested in hi-fi gear to be totally careless with my hearing. I always keep a couple pairs of the cheap foam plugs handy. -more-
Good LINKS page: [URL}http://www.pp.okstate.edu/ehs/links/noise.htm[/URL]
Sound is measured in decibels (dB). The scale runs from the faintest sound the human ear can detect, labeled 0 dB, to the scream of a jet engine or a shotgun blast at over 165 dB.
Exposure to more than 90 decibels for eight hours a day (the noise level at a loud party) may be dangerous to your hearing. In addition, there is a trade-off between time and intensity: at 95 dB (the noise level of a loud portable stereo or a dirt bike) the same damage can result in four hours. At 100 dB (the noise level of a chain saw) it takes just two hours to do the same damage to your hearing.
"It doesn't matter what the source of the loud sound is," he added. "If it is loud enough and you are exposed long enough, hearing loss will result."
Extremely loud noises, like gun shots, or even firecrackers or cap pistols, can cause immediate damage. "Anyone using firearms without ear protection risks serious hearing loss," said Gates. To protect your hearing, turn down the volume on the stereo headphones, and wear ear protection when noise is unavoidable, whether from a power lawnmower or a rock concert. Some rock musicians are even wearing earplugs to protect themselves from their own music.
Hearing specialists recommend earplugs or earmuffs for anyone who works (or plays) in a noisy environment. Snugly fitted earplugs can provide from 15 to 30 decibels of noise protection, while snug-fitting earmuffs offer even more noise reduction. Ordinary cotton is too porous to provide any protection. It's important to realize you can be damaging your hearing without even knowing it, said Gates, because the loss is at first subtle. Often the first symptom is a ringing or other sound in your ear (tinnitus). Or you may have trouble understanding what people say; they may seem to be mumbling.
The high frequencies are lost first, so you may have difficulty hearing high-pitched voices. Loss of high-frequency hearing makes many words sound alike, especially those containing the high-frequency sounds S or soft C, F, SH, CH or H. Words like "hill," "fill" and "sill" may sound exactly the same.
from http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm#impulse
http://www.nonoise.org/
5. Varying and intermittent noise
Investigations of the relationship between noise level and duration have been conducted over recent years using laboratory animals. The results have confirmed the validity of the equal energy (3-dB) rule for single exposures to continuous noise (Bohne and Pearse, 1982; Ward and Turner, 1982), or when the exposures are broken up into 8-hour, or even 1-hour "workdays", 5 days per week, so long as the sound energy is equivalent (Ward, 1983). There is, however, some benefit to intermittent quiet periods (Ward and Turner, 1982), during which the ear can recover from small, temporary hearing losses.
6. Impulse noise
The effects of impulse noise have been studied extensively over recent years, but there is less agreement on this topic than there is for continuous and intermittent noise.
Frequency also has some bearing on the damage caused by impulse noise, in that low-frequency impulses produce significantly less damage than sounds in the mid-to-high-frequency range (Price, 1983). The ear appears to be most susceptible to impulses with peaks around 4,000 Hz (Price, 1989). Also, there may be a critical level, above which the ear is considerably more at risk because of a change in the response mechanism. On the basis of his research, Price (1981) has suggested a critical level of 145 dB, with a standard deviation of 8 dB.
Loud music in particular appears to be the cause of hearing impairment and tinnitus in rock musicians. Such luminaries as Pete Townshend and Ted Nugent (8) have acquired substantial hearing losses and are now campaigning for hearing conservation (Murphy, 1989). Some studies point to a hearing hazard for attendees as well
As mentioned above, probably the greatest nonoccupational hazard to hearing comes from sport shooting. Clark (1991) cites studies of industrial workers by Chung et al. (1981), Johnson and Riffle (1982), and Prosser et al. (1988), showing significantly greater hearing losses among sport-shooters than among their nonshooting counterparts. These losses are almost always characterized by worse hearing in the left ear than the right.
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited November 29, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited December 03, 1999).]
- Status