News/Posts/Events

Hearing loss associated with 57% higher risk per 10dB. Another reason to update policies?

Recent research adds to the damage list - and potential claims costs

Could the recent >£700k settlement become commonplace?

What effect should this have on hearing conservation programmes?

New research (Lancaster University, January 2025) indicates that hearing damage is associated with a dramatically increased risk of developing Parkinson's.

HSE identified common failings, preemptive advice and resources

300% increased enforcement actions + a crack-down on rogue consultants...

Chris Steel, Specialist Noise & Vibration HSE Inspector reported the initial findings. The headline figures and intent from the results of the first 3 months of the programme include:

• 300% uptick in noise related enforcement letters and notices (does not include health surveillance shortfalls)
• Only 5% of sites test for audibility of warnings etc when using PPE (over-protection)
• Common errors in noise reports - 41% of sites use external consultants
• Noise risk assessment consultant and reporting quality checklist
• Crack down on "rogue" noise consultants

Apart from the obvious (and expected) large increase in noise related enforcement activities, one of the key takeaways from the inspection focus is the HSE desire to move organisations away from the all-to-common risk assessment checkbox mentality towards risk controls.

Our advice on this (based on seeing so many poor noise reports on our IOSH competency courses) has always been -

"Why spend so much money on placebo risk assessment reports that tell you what you already know; that you have a problem? Spend the resources on risk reduction instead..."

HSE inspections target the failings of hearing protection and noise control

Over the 2024-2025 period, Workplace Noise will be specifically targeted by HSE Inspectors. Hearing protection and noise control have been selected as the initial subjects for a review of occupational noise risk across all industries. The 3 main issues that will be considered are:

1. PPE: the assumption that this is an easy risk management option is false as the real-world performance is only a small fraction of that generally assumed so too many employees still suffer Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL)...
2. Noise Control: effective noise control programmes are far too rare due to lack of knowledge.
3. Noise Reports: a quality review as the general standard is poor - enforcement action will be possible.

...40% of PPE users got no protection whatsoever… 60% had inadequate protection… 14% did not wear the PPE… HSE Research Report RR720

Preemptive Duty Holder Actions

Note: you can view the initial results from the HSE noise inspection programme here.

Check the following to ensure that you are using current best practices.

• Learn about the real-world limitations of PPE; review and update hearing conservation practices
• Invest in a Noise Control Audit to generate a cost/benefit analysis of the options that could be self-financing
• Review past noise reports and generate a high quality digital template for future use either in-house or by consultants

Why is the Hierarchy of Control (HoC) for noise so conspicuous by it's absence?

This British Safety Council commissioned article by our technical director, Peter Wilson, demonstrates how modern low-cost noise control technology can be used to cut hearing damage risk by 75% - 90% at negligible or no cost.

Most noise reports are seriously inadequate (HSE research)

It’s a sad fact that the general standard of advice on reducing the risk of hearing damage to workers is truly abysmal and, consequently, many continue to suffer unnecessary hearing damage. Have any of your previous noise assessments included anything useful on noise control? Any at all?

The recommended Hierarchy of Control is typically nowhere to be seen when it comes to noise. PPE is the first, and usually the only, risk reduction recommendation. Noise control is ignored.

The current approach has failed to prevent extensive unnecessary hearing loss among workers. Organisations are unwittingly wasting resources on measures that are not best practice and not sufficiently effective. This article details these failings and provides a guide to using modern noise control technology to make noise risk reduction much more effective within current budgets - or even as a profitable exercise...

It's time to change...

Institute of Acoustics (IOA) conference: October 2023

Noise report quality: 60% extremely poor, 30% very poor, 5% poor. Total 95%

Julija Smyrnowa of the Environment Agency (EA) gave a paper on BS4142. She also reported the results of an EA survey on the quality of the noise reports they get from acoustic consultants. Figures as above.

And lo, at that moment, (ironically) a deathly hush fell upon the room full of IOA consultants. Why am I not surprised? Because...

How to cut hearing damage risk by 75% - 90% at negligible or no cost

Date/Time: Feb. 29th, 13:00-14:30 + March 6th, 7am-8:30 (UK Times) – webinar repeated for different time zones.

Fees: Complimentary to all members of IOHA Associations. £80 for industry sponsored and for-profit organization participants

Webinar Content

This webinar provides a pragmatic guide to the necessary changes that delegates can implement immediately. The key changes involve simple techniques to improve the real-world performance of PPE by 50% - 75% combined with noise control measures that most organizations can use to reduce risk by 50% - 90% at little or no cost (or even at a profit) by using online tools to source the best engineering noise control measures available anywhere.

Download details and booking options >

Updated. A brief guide on how to evaluate low-frequency noise problems quickly and without spending any money - or simply using your smartphone.

Evaluating low-frequency noise complaints is one of the most common (“bane of my life”) issues that EHOs and the Environment Agencies contact us about. Using the right approach, we can sort most of them within a few days. The following is a brief, practical guide detailing solutions to the most oft encountered initial evaluation problems using a tool that won’t cost you a penny.

Does the updated HSE HAVS measurement guidance affect risk assessment?

Yes or No... Which is it?

Yes: if you haven't complied with the previous guidance and have been subject to disingenuous marketing.

No: if you are complying with the standards and the previous HSE guidance.

Unfortunately, many organisations would, usually unwittingly, have to go with Yes. If that is the case, then it can have serious implications re potential HAVS claims and risk management expenditure.

Elements of the HAVS measurement industry publish deliberately disingenuous disinformation. Vibration dosimetry seems plausible and useful. It usually isn't, leading to inflated costs and a false sense that risk reduction has been managed well. The HSE guidance has been specifically written to address this issue.

Q: why are wrist, hand or glove-based monitoring systems deprecated by the HSE?

Q: What does the updated HSE HAVS guidance have to say about what constitutes best practice in HAVS risk measurement?

Read on...

Are hand-arm vibration myths causing unnecessary human and financial costs?

Yes! Next question, please... Webinar: 24th October 2023, midday, 60 minutes

Stop press: view the HAVS risk management webinar video here >

This webinar with Peter Wilson, our technical director, demonstrates how many organisations are wasting fortunes on ineffective risk reduction measures based on common myths associated with HAVS. It also provides the antidote in the form of a practical guide to best practice in HAVS risk management to minimise the risks.

The latest HSE data shows that the number of HAVS cases in 2021 had increased to well above the 2018 pre-pandemic levels (67% higher). The reason has to be that the current commonly implemented vibration risk control measures are not as effective as people assume and that improvements are needed.

There are 5 common HAVS myths that are still in circulation that should be dispelled once and for all. There is also a 6-element best practice checklist that should be used regularly to evaluate where, if, and what improvements to HAVS risk management processes could be made...

Both EHOs and the Environment Agency consider that around 80% - 90% of the reports that they get from noise consultants are so inadequate that they ought to be rejected out-of-hand.

Think about that for a moment...

This is not only a waste of regulator time and resources, but it can also delay projects and dramatically increase the money spent on the (wrong) mitigation measures.

These inadequate reports are also the cause of continuing unacceptable noise environments for nearby residents that lead to more complaints and health issues into the future.

This should be an unacceptable state of affairs...

Interestingly, the title of my session was changed from "Why are noise consultant reports inadequate" to "Noise consultant reports: current best practice approaches" at the last minute. No comment...

The HSE has just released new guidance on how best to manage the use of hearing protection for employees who wear hearing aids. The following is a summary, but you can also download a full advance copy.

Why did the Advertising Standards Authority have to rule on what should be common knowledge? What is HAVS monitoring best practice, what do insurers say and could zero monitoring be the best option?

We are living in interesting times in the field of hearing damage risk reduction due to new mobile technologies coupled with a host of new (and forthcoming) ways to reduce risk dramatically. Here are 4 new things that you should know about…

Once more there are claims that wrist/glove mounted vibration transducers can be used to assess HAV risk in operators as per the British Standard (BS ISO 5349). No they can’t. Thank you for listening…