Source: Safety & Health, January 2011

Vancouver, British Columbia – Chronic exposure to workplace noise may double an employee’s risk of serious heart disease, indicates research from the University of British Columbia.

According to a study abstract published online Oct. 5 in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, researchers conducted interviews and medical tests with more than 6,000 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004.

Participants were divided into two groups: people who endured persistent loud noise for at least three months and those who did not.  Employees who worked in noisy workplaces were 2 to 3 times more likely to have serious heart problems than their counterparts in quiet workplaces, the abstract said.

Researchers suggested loud noise may cause as much stress as sudden emotion or physical exertion, which prompt chemical responses that constrict blood flow to the coronary arteries.

One out of every 5 workers reported being exposed to workplace noise for an average of almost nine months in a row, according to a press release from BMJ Group, publisher of the journal the research appeared in.  Those participants with an average age of 40, were mostly male and tended to weigh and smoke more – two risk factors for heart disease – than employees in quieter workplaces.

“This study suggests that excess noise exposure in the workplace is an important occupational health issue and deserves special attention,” researchers said in the release.

Read the abstract at www.nsc.org/plus.

NHCA members: 

Over the past several months, we have followed and contributed to the debate around OSHA’s proposal to revert to the original interpretation and intent of the noise standard. This interpretation would require noise control (administrative or engineering) when economically and technologically feasible for employees exposed at or above the permissible exposure limit.  The basis for this more rigorous enforcement was the continuing occurrence of permanent, significant hearing loss in employees; the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported 125,000 such cases since 2004.

In response to certain reactions to this proposed interpretation, OSHA has withdrawn this proposal, as of January 19, 2011.  In their news release, they indicated that they were still committed to the goal of reducing the incidence of work-related hearing loss; they are suspending work on this policy modification while they study other approaches.

NHCA supported the proposed interpretation as a significant step towards our association’s primary mission: the prevention of hearing loss due to noise and other environmental factors in every sector of society.  We will continue to support OSHA’s efforts to address the issue of work-related hearing loss.

Laura Kauth, M.A., CCC-A

Director of Communications, NHCA

Designing to achieve the desired reduction in noise without excessive capital cost and negative operational impact is often a delicate balance.

    * By Mike Taubitz
    * Jan 01, 2011

OSHA is making noise about noise and industrial employers need to be thinking about how they might retrofit plants as a result.

Industry has had nearly three decades of relative peace and quiet with its noise control programs. Since 1983, OSHA has typically not cited employers who deployed personal protective equipment and a hearing conservation program to address noise, rather than using engineering and administrative controls. The exceptions were for noise so loud that it borders on 100 dBA when the most effective hearing protection is used or in cases where the controls cost less than an effective hearing conservation program. In practice, controls are usually more expensive, so citations for failure to use them have been rare. However, that could change.

Employers in construction and general industry are likely to have a new category of expenses — and potential OSHA citations — to worry about if the agency’s “proposed interpretation” on noise regulations goes into effect.

That’s because OSHA now proposes to interpret 29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1) and 1926.52(b) as written.

These sections of the two noise standards are almost identical. They say, “When employees are subjected to sound exceeding those listed [in tables within the standard], feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels within the levels of the tables, personal protective equipment . . . shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels within the levels of the table.”

Click here for the remainder of the article.