Noise as a Hazardous Exposure Agent - Case Study Example

Hygiene Study Design In Focus: Noise as a Hazardous Exposure Agent Table of Contents Hygiene Study Design In Focus: Noise as a Hazardous Exposure Agent 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 Report Guidelines to the Hygienist 7 Introduction Permanent hearing loss can be an outcome of exposure to high levels of noise. No corrective measures help recover audibility; neither hearing aid nor surgery. If the exposure to loud noise is short-term it can lead up to a feeling of stuffiness in ears or continuous ringing in the same, a condition which is known as tinnitus. Short-term hearing loss is reversible and can be a matter of minutes or hours before the hearing is resumed. Statistics are alarming. For example in the United States hazardous noise affects as many as 30 million people and this type of occupational hazard is considered to be one of the most common one (United States Department of Labor, nd). The hazard has increased in the last three decades. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics, released for data after 2004 till date, nearly 125,000 people have suffered hearing damage significantly. The most affected are those at workplaces. Workplace noise hazards are of major concern. In Australia, statistics reveal that workers' compensation claims on account of workplace-related hearing loss amounted to 16,500 (Safeworkaustralia.gov.au, nd). While society bears the brunt of the economic damage imposed by workers' hearing loss, those at the direct impact include managers, business owners and families of both. There is not much data available as to how many people are exposed to hazardous noise at workplaces but rough estimates, according to Australian Safety and Compensation Council, put the figure at around 10.5-12 percent in twin years of 2001 and 2002 (ABS, 2006). Part of this paper intended to carry out a search and find out three articles which are bound by a commonality of an occupational hazard at workplace similar in nature to each other. Three research papers were chosen for this work, which are as below: 1. Authors: Jacqueline A. Patel and Keith Broughton. Title: Assessment of Noise Exposure of Call Center Operators. Journal: Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 46, No. 8, pp. 653-661, 2002. 2. Author: Chandran Achutan. Title: Assessment of Noise Exposures in a Hospital Kitchen. Source: Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 2007-0183-3047 Department of Veterans Affairs Cincinnati, Ohio August 2007. 3. Author: John C. Freytag. Title: Los Altos Rod and Gun Club: Shooting Noise Assessment. A technical assessment of noise exposure from the Gun Club ranges on local residences. Source: Michel & Associates, P.C. Attorneys at Law. Long Beach, CA. Short Review Key similarities: The first two papers are workplace-related and provide insight into how hazardous noise pollution can be in workplace settings. The third article deals with the hazard of noise pollution within a gun club and how it impacts immediate neighbours around the club. The first article is an assessment on the noise exposure of call center operators. The article holds a significant meaning in today's work culture because call centers are now considered as a major service providers to companies in several segments like technology, finance and healthcare. Even as the article has researched specifically with reference to UK call center industry, the impact on workforces is felt much the same in all call centers throughout the world. The intensity of the impact might vary on account of the size of the call center and type of work the call center is doing. This paper outlines the visit-based study to the call centers - 15 in all, between specific working hours, while the equipment within the call centers were pre-installed. The main equipment to measure the noise levels were 4 Cirrus 710 dosemeters, so strategically placed that they could able to capture noise levels uniformly over the representative area. The dosemeters were installed so that noise levels generated by headsets and background noise levels could be recorded. Apart from this typical working pattern information was recorded too. KEMAR manikins were used to measure headset noise levels using conversion through frequency-dependent transfer function so that eardrum microphone level measurement could be transformed into unobstructed field level (Rice et al, 1987). The similarity of this study with that of the second one on kitchen noise levels was that sound levels throughout the area were monitored in both. The one in the kitchen was done following a request from the employees who were concerned about the sound levels emanating from the area, particularly from kitchen pans and pots room. Here again dosimeters, not Cirrus but Quest, were used to monitor the sound levels but continuously through two days covering all 13 shifts that were in practice at the Nutrition and Food Services Department. In both the studies the primary aim was to check the level of noise exposure to which the employees working there are exposed to. In the call center study the number of employees exposed was, as a natural case, higher than the number of employees in the hospital kitchen. Objectives in this study were almost identical to the one in the call center study i.e., evaluate personal noise levels of the employees, identify the sources of noise and check for the frequencies of noise. Dishwashing room was of special emphasis in collection of data because most of the noise, which disturbed the employees, seemed to be coming from there as a new dishwasher had been recently set up there. The gun club study had similar aims to detect noise levels coming out of the firearm use from within the club. Different locations were identified for the measurement devices to be set up but since this was a gun club, and not a closed premises like a call center or a kitchen, the measuring devices were set up outside of the facility at varying locations from the site, which included near and far field locations, and community complainant locations, while considering a number of latitudes and longitudes. Differences: The first two studies were fairly simple i.e., they measured the sound levels within two different locations occupied by employees; in the first case a number of them and in the second only a few. The first study was undertaken because researchers wanted one such study to be conducted – there was no workforce initiative for the same, and the second study was undertaken at the behest of workers who ‘felt disturbed by the high level sounds from the kitchen area of the hospital’. Apparently, the first study does not highlight any employee concern about the high decibels that they produce; but the second study highlights worker anxiety on high levels of noise that they have to bear. The third study, pertaining to the gun club, was conducted because community which lived around the gun club became complainant. The residential area was getting disturbed by the noise levels which activities in the gun club gave rise to. The third study can be considered as starkly different from the first two because this was a large-scale, community-based study and involved looking into a number of parameters before collection of data. In this study digital programmable sound level meters, which were calibrated, were used. These were operating to Type 1 meter standards (ANSI S1.4) and national standards were used to note down measurements (Freytag & Reindel, 2008). Each meter was programmed such that it was able to record sound levels every one-eighth of a second. SEL or Sound Exposure Level values were directly calculated from the recorded measurements. In this case, following 21 complaints received by the concerned authorities, general annoyance on account of firearm noise, was cited as the basic cause of concern. More interestingly, reduced property value was another cause cited by some. Strengths: In the first study 15 call centers were visited, covering 150 operators in all. The best part of the study was that call centers from different sectors were chosen for the visit so as to leave no room for typecasting the findings. This study had smarty set out to check noise emanating from the headsets and when the results revealed that most of the noise came from these headsets, this aim of the study became one of its major strengths since it set a benchmark sort-of for forthcoming studies. The study also provided individual voice level estimates in centers from different sectors like business, outsourcing, financial, leisure, public/voluntary, retail, telecommunications/ IT and utilities. Since uniform systems were used to record data across all the centers, it was found that business and telecommunication/IT sector call centers' headset noise level were high (75 in each), using corrected noise level (by mean) generated by headset. The strength of the hospital kitchen study was in its recommendations post-study. It urged the importance of protecting employees hearing in Nutrition and Food Service Department of the hospital and stressed the need to reduce metal-to-metal contact the best possible extent. An important recommendation was to use plastic racks in place of metal racks and even replacing stainless steel utensils with best alternative found in plastic materials. It advised the kitchen ware manufacturer to produce noise-reduction enclosures and do away with the pulper in the dishwasher room with a reliable disposable system. The strength of the gun club study was that it carried out extension data analysis and calculations and the findings paved a way for further understanding of the impact of noise-producing facilities and sites which have detrimental social and environmental impacts. It did so in accordance with Noise Element of the County General Plan and County Noise Ordinance. It also laid special emphasis on the complainant residences and also reviewed and assessed a report produced by CALM (Community Association for Life in the Mountains), a local representative body of people in that area, particularly the complainants. Weaknesses: The gun club study was extensive, covered wider aspects and local rules and regulations on noise pollution. The call center study, despite covering 15 call centers, did not cover number of people proportionate to the number of call centers. The data collected and findings got would have been far high if the call centers chosen had larger carrying capacity, say around 50-100 employees per call center. The same weakness was in the kitchen study as the same size was too little. Report Guidelines to the Hygienist Consulting hygienist's pre-installation task on wind turbines near homes, monitoring of noise levels and degree of compliance in use of hearing protectors in the vicinity of wind turbines Context: In Australia wind power has been given impetus following the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. This is also keeping up with the concept of 'green' energy and its widespread acceptance among people who are willing to pay premium for this type of energy (Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit, 2008; Pedersen & Waye, 2007). However, despite the advantages the green energy has to offer, wind farms have got their own share of controversies. Minnesota Department of Health (2009) has opined that wind turbines cause aerodynamic noise which results on account of wind striking the turbine's blades and people can be sensitive to this noise if they hold a preconditioned negative impression about the same, it is likely they will be affected by their noise (AusWEA, 2004). Preliminary task: You as a hygienist assigned the task of exposure monitoring of noise levels on account of wind turbines likely to be installed near homes, are asked to check on the following heads: Opposing views on whether or not the wind turbines should be installed in the designated area. In order to accomplish this, you are advised to pay a visit to these areas with your fact-finding team and collect data on the following: 1. What are the residents' views on wind turbines; do they find them as a health hazard. If yes, then why. If no, is it because you find them ignorant about turbines or they think noise levels emanating from these turbines are negligible. 2. Collect any scientific-based evidence from the residents on both for and against the installation. 3. You are advised to also collate substantial evidence on your own, scientifically-backed, as to why do you or not recommend the installation around residential areas. 4. You are advised to prepare a fact-finding data sheet, by carrying out an extensive scientific search, to check the literature on the health hazards of wind turbines. Allied research: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) have argued that renewable sources of energy like that from wind turbines are associated with adverse health effects. The researchers further argue that enough evidence is lacking in this regard in comparison to the traditional sources of energy which have been widely researched. You are advised to throw light on this statement and in the process of exploration, furnish details on the following: Controversy between the health impacts of high level audible sound and infrasound emitted by the wind turbines. Tolerance of people to this type of sound; gather experiences from people who might have been in contact with wind turbines elsewhere. What perception do the residents hold towards noise i.e., how much noise is noise for them? Give a comparative analysis of a jet aircraft at 250m, busy noisy office, car at a speed of 60 miles per hour, quiet bedroom, background nigh-time noise from a rural area, and noise from a 10 turbine wind far at 250m. Recommendations: Whether or not the wind turbines should be installed would depend on your recommendations covering the following aspects of your work: 1. Do you expect the people to report (or have they already) subjective effects including nuisance, annoyance and dissatisfaction? 2. Interference with their basic physiological activities of sleep, speech and learning? 3. Your own findings if noise from wind turbines has been widely associated with conditions like anxiety, hearing loss or tinnitus. Monitor use of hearing protectors: In case of your positive recommendations and in the event of installation of these turbines, your possible blue print on recommending the affected people the use of hearing protectors. You are advised to submit a brief summary on hearing protection devices (HPDs) and their efficacy in protection about disturbances from these turbines. Your recommendations on how to monitor the compliance on their use should be part of these recommendations. References Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA), (2004): The Noise Emissions Associated with Wind Farming in Australia. Sustainable Energy Australia. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2006). 2004–05 National Health Survey: summary of results, Australia. Cat. no. 4364.0. Canberra: ABS. Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit, (2008): The Health Impact of Wind Turbines: A Review of the Current White, Grey, and Published Literature. Chatham-Kent Municipal Council, Chatham Ottawa. Freytag, J. C. and Reindel, E. M. (2008). Noise Level Reduction Measurement Methods for Sound-Insulated Structures, NOISE-CON, Dearborn. Minnesota Department of Health. (2009): Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines. Markandya A & Wilkinson P. (2007): Electricity generation and health. The Lancet, 370: 979-990. Pederson E & Persson Waye K. (2007): Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise – a dose-response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6): 3460-3470. Rice, C.G.., Breslin. M., Roper, R.G., (1987). Sound levels from personal cassette players. Br J Audiol; 21:273-8. Safeworkaustralia.gov.au, (nd). Occupational Noise-induced Hearing Loss in Australia. Available http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/rr201008occupationalnoiseinducedhearinglossinaustralia. Accessed April 17, 2013. United States Department of Labor, (nd). Occupational noise exposure. Available http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/. Accessed April 17, 2013. Read More