News/Posts/Events

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…

How to update the current (failing) noise risk management process to make it much more effective – and self-financing...

The current noise risk management process has failed. This is how we fix it to reduce risk by c 90%…

Misunderstanding Hand Arm Vibration monitoring marketing material can put hands and safety policies at risk. Caveat emptor.

The availability of this new test will have a dramatic effect on the management of hearing loss prevention programmes…

This is one of a number of highly rated, interactive and practical noise related workshops developed for Environmental Health Officers. They are held locally by a host authority, saving on travel, time – and at a fraction of the cost of conventional training. It can even be a profitable exercise…

A simple way to cope with mobile plant and tools.

INVC recognised at the UK Energy Innovation Awards

International Occupational Hygiene Association (IOHA) Conference Paper: 27th April 2015: Peter Wilson: INVC Technical Director

CIEH 2014 conference paper highlights the woeful ignorance and performance of the industry…
The paper given by Peter Wilson (INVC technical director) illustrated that a very large proportion of the environmental “noise industry” is woefully ignorant both of the proper diagnostic techniques and of modern noise control methods. Consequently, thousands of people are needlessly exposed to stressful noise over very prolonged periods. This results in unnecessary deaths from stress as highlighted in the recent BMJ and WHO reports (see “Stressed to death by noise” post).

We all know that noise can be stressful – and that there is an ever increasing level that seeps into and through our lives like rising flood water. However, a study published this month in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) provides yet more evidence that environmental noise isn’t just pervasive and annoying, but that it is a serious health hazard that kills thousands of people a year in the UK.

An article about the application of our Quiet Fan technology (QFt) to reduce the noise from large fans feeding stacks in the power station industry has been published in Power Engineering International. The journalist suggests that the widespread adoption of the technology in this industry could reduce both capital and running costs very substantially compared with conventional fan silencing techniques – i.e. traditional attenuators, acoustic lagging and enclosures.

He uses the example of the 50MW Schiller biomass power station noise in the USA (the largest station of its kind) where the massive 2 storey ID fan feeding the stack (shown below) was modified in only 12 hours (that’s not a misprint – just 12 hours from noisy to quiet) to reduce the fan noise by 10dB at fraction of the cost and with a much lower power consumption compared with the conventional fan noise attenuator previously fitted.

Doesn’t the term “Acoustic Shock” sound nasty? If you renamed it “unexpected somewhat louder headset noise than usual that is still at only a tiny fraction of the noise level that is deemed to cause hearing damage in industry”, it wouldn’t sound so bad.