Talk:Health effects from noise/Archive 1

Simple edits
In the opening paragraph, what is the significance of digital audio players? I'll believe it but if you know the reason I think the reader would be interested to know. Otherwise, why wouldn't it suffice to be mentioned as audio players? Just curious.

Music related hearing loss
I don't know enough about the subject myself to make an informed edit, but I have been told in the past by a relative who works in the field of hearing loss that in the developed world music induced hearing loss is becoming a very significant cause. I know that exposure to very loud (130decibel plus - and this isn't unusually high unfortunately) music has damaged my hearing. The impact of concerts and high db levels produced by earphones/headphones deserves comment.

Any thoughts? Mostlyharmless 21:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * i had this in an earlier draft but removed it as the article length was getting cumbersome. loud music is definitely a factor.  the reason i subordinate it is that it is not true environmental noise (defined as something one is unwillingly exposed to),  it is usually exposed to by choice.  the second reason i subordinate it is length of exposure time.  few people are exposed to music loudness for 170 hours a month, but about 30 million americans are exposed to damaging doses of highway or occupational noise for 170 hrs per month.  ill think about re-inserting it ...since this is the age of the ipod.  thanks for your interest in the article mostlyharmless Anlace 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say it needs to be in there, even if only a few lines. As for the amount of exposure, I'd say that music is rapidly overtaking industry as one of the leading causes. I thought about being bold, but it's always get some consensus. Nice article btw. Mostlyharmless 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * your politeness and persistence pays off. its in the intro now :) cheers Anlace 03:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

navigational template
this idea is not a bad one...but the first clickable item "noise" takes the reader farther away from the topic of noise pollution...back to the disambig root page...seems like a disservice to many readers when one regresses to the more general. what are others thoughts? one could modify the template for this article so as not to expose the choice "noise". Anlace 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Earhole picture- eye candy?
Is this picture of any value to the article or just a bit of eye (or should it be ear) candy? --Light current 00:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * see new text for caption of image.Anlace 06:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Earhole and chest internals pics
You have reverted my change so please tell me exactly what info these pics provide to the reader regarding the subject. (captions can be put in the text).--Light current 12:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

These two pic are next on removal list if no one can justify their retention.--Light current 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * these two images are valuable to the present article as set forth in the following:

Pinna

 * re pinna. this image is significant in the following ways:


 * it is iconic of the hearing loss phenomena, which is the most widespread health effect of noise

we dont need icons--Light current 22:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * it is an organ of remarkable structure, with intricate folds and design not known in most lower mammalian forms. it evokes an evolutionary thought of why this organ is so elaborately developed...presumably because of man's early prehistoric need to amplify sound for language and for alerts to danger.

we know it is an organ of remarkable structure, but everyone who is not blind has seen one, The picture illustrates NOTHING!--Light current 22:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * most importantly, its very design for sound amplication to the inner ear is the causation of the vulnerability to hearing impairment induced by elevated sound levels.

Ok its an amplifier (impedance matching structure actually) How does the picture show that?--Light current 22:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * at a reader interest level, photos are a means of engaging many readers into a technical article that would otherwise go unread

Eye candy is not what WP is about. We could put a pic a a naked lady if we wanted to attract attention. THat would have about as much to do with this subject.--Light current 22:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as I promised.--Light current 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Chest

 * re heart image:


 * it illustrates another of the most important health impacts: that of the cardiovascular system


 * more particularly it illustrates the scale and geometry of the coronary arteries, where the most significant endothelial damage occurs from narrowing (vasoconstriction) effects of elevated sound levels


 * again from a readers perspective, such an icon may draw many readers into an artilce that would otherwise go unread.


 * lets wait a few weeks and let others join the discussion. cheers Anlace 05:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion regarding this is not very strong, but I'd consider taking out the heart image and maybe even the whole section about cardiovascular disease. Unless I misunderstand the article, noise causes stress causes heart problems. Unless stress caused by noise is fundamentally different from stress caused by pointy-haired bosses, relation problems, and so on, I think it would be sufficient if the article briefly mentioned that exposure to noise can lead to stress and refer to an article about stress for the details. Han-Kwang 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed!--Light current 22:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No support or other comment. Therefore removed img as promised--Light current 17:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The following text was on my talk page:


 * thank you for your interest in this article. the issue here is threefold: first noise pollution is a living circumstance that affects over 34 million americans and proportionate to the population as many as that fraction indicates in every industrialized country. Most people who are affected have few choices about where they live due to economic circumstances. thus this effect involves the systematic exposure of large number of essentially involuntary people. much of the personal relationship stress we create is partly of our own making and correspondingly ability to solve. so there is a big difference in forced exposure.


 * second and most important the vasoconstriction caused by noise is a pure physiological response of the cardiovascular system. this is a hypertensive stress that is continuous during exposure (and to some extent after exposure). we know that the harm done to the endothelial system is proportional to the time extent of elevated blood pressure, which in the case of living by a freeway may be 8 to 16 hours per day, so the damage extent is potentially enormous. the stress of having a bad boss may be intermittent and arguably does not last such a length of time; moreover, this form of relationship stress definitely occurs as a secondary response to adrenaline and may not induce endothelial dysfunction (physiological level stress) at all. to dismiss environmental noise a "just another source of stress" is a real disservice to readers, who need to understand this phenomenon. some surveys have shown that most people exposed to high levels of noise have little idea of the physiological effects of chronic vasoconstriction.


 * thirdly, i would venture to say most readers dont really understand the relationship between stress and physiological responses of the endothelium (vasoconstriction) and resultant causation of cardiovascualar disease. these effects really need discussion in this article. i hope you will reconsider your input on this important issue. sincerely Anlace 03:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not capable of judging these facts. If I understand it correctly, there is a significant difference between noise-induced stress and other forms of stress, so it would be alright to keep that part of the page, as long as this difference is explained on the page (which is doesn't appear so to me). I'm still a bit skeptical about the merits of the picture; to draw readers without a medical education (like me) it would be better to change the change the text to make it accessible to a general audience. Han-Kwang 08:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you for your further response Hankwang. yes there is a significant difference between the two stress types. i think your comment about better explanation of the stress pathway effects is a good one. i have changed the text in the attempt to address your point. let me know if that helps with your reading of the stress phenomenon linked to exposure to elevated sound levels. regards Anlace 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, the article was clearer now. I tried to replace some medical terminology by layman terms, please check that I didn't make mistakes. If I understand you correctly, bad bosses and user-unfriendly programs create stress without adrenalin? Han-Kwang 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for your constructive edit. i think it is clearer now to a general audience. yes the emotional stress may or may not porduce a stong adrenalin response (medical stress), and emotional stress may not produce a very time extended adrenalin dose, where noise produces a dependable hypertensive response that extends for as long as the elevated sound level exposure. Anlace 22:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Regulation
I added a remark about the typical guidelines for occupational exposure to noise (85 dB(A) 40 hrs/week). The remark was modified and a link to the Noise regulation article was added. The latter does not mention such guidelines at all. Han-Kwang 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy piece?
The page really reads like an advocacy piece to me, rather than an encyclopedic one - the whole page seems geared towards convincing me that noise health effects are REALLY IMPORTANT and HERE IS WHY. Iffy, if you ask me. Will see about editing it. WLU (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going through the page, to date I've done mostly citation template additions, but I have noticed that the section on hearing loss cites a study which appears to directly contradict the prose. That gave me a 'what the fuck' moment.  The tone of the page is also overly 'certain', meaning it gives definite answers to statements which, in my mind, should ever be tentative due to falsification.  I'm continuing to re-work it.  WLU (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The following 'reference' seems like absolute bullshit to me, and per WP:MEDMOS, totally ineligible for inclusion in the page. The information is from 1978 and states that the links between noise and damage to the heart are uncertain; this isn't a study, it's a pamphlet.     WLU (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WLU: Some of the material that you deleted deserved it, but I think you got carried away here. For example, I don't think it's "NPOV" to completely denigrate something distributed by the EPA as unworthy of mention in Wikipedia.  You may disagree with it, it may be hopelessly outdated, it may have been contradicted by later studies - then say so, and give those references.  But a statement made by the EPA in 1978 is bound to be important in the development of perceptions of noise health effects and shouldn't just be thrown out.
 * Also confusing is the Rosenhall 1990 publication - a pretty obscure piece of primary literature, really, which I doubt that anyone editing this article has actually chased down more than the abstract of. Your version sounds like it says the exact opposite of the last edit because the study says exactly opposite things depending on the precise population group considered; neither version was wrong, exactly, but the gap between them hints that perhaps a more easily interpreted and more comprehensive review should be used instead.
 * One concern I have with this article regards the hypothesis that noise health effects result from elevated cortisol resulting from psychological stress from noise that is audible to the ear and consciously perceived by most people and represented in the dB(A) frequency weighting scheme. This could be true, but it is a fairly narrow hypothesis with many apparent alternatives.  For example, infrasound has most typically been associated with severe, visceral reactions ranging from a sense of awe or fear to disorientation and nausea to even lethal effects (at higher levels, of course).  Yet it scarcely registers as sound at all under the dB(A) weighting scheme.  It is conceivable that infrasound could affect the people who "unconsciously" hear it, whatever that means, by psychological mechanisms, could be sensed as vibration, or could physically interact with the vasculature or other bodily organs.  I feel like your edits, placing great organizational importance on "Annoyance", detailed as dB(A) levels, have had the unintended effect of giving the first hypothesis more weight than it necessarily deserves. Mike Serfas (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My biggest problem was with the lack of good sources and the grossly-overstated conclusions based on the tenuous sources. Your addition of other sources looks good, much higher quality than what existed before, thanks.  Some of the formatting is off for the citation templates, this is a great tool to generate fault-free templates using PMID numbers, which you obviously have access to.  I'll go through the article and correct the templates, I may have a look at the content as well.  Note that per WP:MEDRS, the news article and senate piece are a tenuous sources for medical claims, but lacking a better source it should stay for now at least.  It'd be nice to track down a pubmed or major governing body statement, but CBS and the US senate are better than nothing.  Regards the EPA pamphlet, I still think it's not a good source, and there must be a more recent source for any statements it justifies.  Failing that, the sources they used to write the pamphlet would be a better choice. Anyway, I'm happy to expand the page with reliable source, but given what was available, the 'annoyance' bits were the only thing I had to work with.  The reliable sources you added were an excellent addition.  WLU (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone have a better detail for the Berglund 1999 reference? I don't think anyone could verify based on a name and a year.  WLU (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found it. WLU (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)