|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
The content of the initial page includes a suggestion that a device limiting sound peaks to 85dB is effective in preventing acoustic shock and then gives a link to the Ear Angel web site. There is good field evidence that simple limiting does not work, and this seems to be nothing more than an attempt to advertise a commercial product.
I have to declare an interest as I am the Medical Director of the Acoustic Safety Programme. I have not previously attempted to start an acoustic shock entry as I understand that the lack of scientific evidence (there has been very little research on this topic) and my possible partiality would prevent an entry from meeting Wikipedia's normal requirements. I do, however, feel it appropriate to intervene when somebody attempts to use Wikipedia as a means of advertising a device which is unlikely to be able to offer the protection it claims. Andygc 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to have slipped in. Sorry for that. I've probably mistaken it for genuine information. Thanks for removing it. -FlubecaTalk 00:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this really limited to just telephone-based sounds? What is special about a telephone in this regard? I would expect it to be broader in cause, so some explanation in the article would be good. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In reality the term acoustic shock has more than one meaning as it is also used in material physics. However, in this context - audiology - it does seem to be a problem that is unique to telephone users. It is most often found in headset users, but occasional cases have been seen in handset users. It is possible that it has only been observed in telephone users at work because the context of the noise event is an important causal factor. One would expect it to be a frequent problem in, for example, police officers using in-ear radios, who certainly experience noise interference, but that does not apear to happen. The difficulty I have in expanding the article is the lack of research evidence - I know a lot about acoustic shock, but Wikipedia articles should be based on demonstrable fact, not anecdote. I will think more about this and, when I have the time, may edit the article to make it more informative and more in line with current knowledge. I should also comment that international perceptions vary considerably and that the Australian angle of the original article is not accepted globally. My perspective is UK-based, but there is by no means a national consensus here on this topic. Andygc (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be a distinction between the real effects of an exposure to loud noise, and what is being pseudo-scientifically claimed here. If these effects can happen even below 85dB then it's clearly a set of symptoms outside of what is accepted as symptoms of high impulse noise exposure (such as tinnitus) Gigs (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, frankly, the article is bullshit attempting to protect telephone involved workers, when ignoring heavy equipment workers, construction workers, military and those afflicted by an explosion. Perhaps this should be merged with one of the noise induced hearing loss articles. That said, I do have a bias, as I do have military related hearing loss, at a significant level.Wzrd1 (talk)