Technology for a Quieter America – Occupational Noise Exposure: Risks and Controls
The October 2023 “Occupational Noise Exposure: Risks and Controls” workshop examined the risk of occupational noise exposure for US workers and progress that has been made in controlling it. As noted by James Thompson in his workshop opening remarks, the issue of occupational noise exposure has long been recognized, and significant progress has been made in this area, yet significant challenges remain. With as many as 23 million American workers estimated to be overexposed daily, this is not a problem to be ignored.
This workshop focused on four questions:
- Are workers being adequately protected from overexposure to occupational noise?
- What is the quality of life and economic impacts of worker overexposure, for the individual, employer, and nation?
- What needs to be done to prevent overexposure?
- Are there engineering solutions, other than noise controls, that could reduce the impact of overexposure?
The workshop consisted of 20 presentations, as well as participant and panel discussions. The presentations and discussions are summarized in the report that is available in the inceusa website.
Included in these 20 presentations were three keynote lectures:
The first keynote speaker was Richard Neitzel from the University of Michigan. He provided an overview of the state of occupational noise exposure in the United States. He described noise exposure as a “ubiquitous” type of exposure not only in the US but also globally. From his 2 perspectives, regulations with the force of law are largely obsolete and insufficient to protect worker health. He went on to say that noise receives little emphasis and is rarely the focus of compliance efforts by occupational safety and health agencies. He cited the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimate that about 20 to 25 million US workers are exposed to hazardous levels of workplace noise and about a quarter of US workers have a history of high occupational noise exposure. He pointed out that where workers are exposed to noise levels below 100 dB(A), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) amendments and revisions have allowed employers to provide personal protective equipment to protect workers. This option reduces the government’s inspection burden and paints a picture of effective enforcement. His concern was that this reduces the need for engineering controls to reduce noise and may not adequately protect workers.
In the second keynote, Elizabeth Masterson from NIOSH discussed surveillance of occupational hearing loss in the United States. She noted that occupational hearing loss is one of the most common work-related health issues, with approximately 12 percent of the US working population experiencing hearing difficulty. Her data shows that less than half of noise-exposed workers—47 percent—wear hearing protection. From the data, mining, construction, and manufacturing are consistently the highest-risk industries. In the railroad industry, 35 percent report hearing difficulty, which is the highest figure of any industry. Masterson made the point that some industries, such as real estate, finance and professional services, and health care and social assistance, have a higher-than-expected prevalence of noise exposure, according to research. The takeaway from these numbers: No industry can be considered safe and free of noise exposure.
The third keynote presentation was made by Deana Meinke of the University of Northern Colorado. She discussed models of the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss. She discussed four primary models with promise to prevent worker hearing loss: the public health/preventive medicine model, the regulatory model, the medical model, and the health communication model. Each model was discussed in some detail, highlighting the positive and negative aspects of each. The presentation concluded with a summary of the “rings” of the socio-ecological model of hearing health promotion. These are the public policy ring, the cultural ring, the organizational ring, the interpersonal ring, and the “self” ring. In concluding her remarks, Meinke noted the model for a successful prevention program is based on health communication and is tailored to the target population based on factors including those related to demographics, workplace environment, and culture. Messaging should be continually reviewed for effectiveness and adapted as necessary.
Full details are available here: https://www.inceusa.org/publications/technology-for-a-quieter-america/