NZ Defence Force admits it has an issue with hearing loss

Printable View

28-09-2018, 10:52 AM
systolic

NZ Defence Force admits it has an issue with hearing loss

NZ Defence Force admits it has an issue with hearing loss

Video in the link.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...e-hearing-loss

The New Zealand Defence Force admits it has an issue with hearing loss, especially in the army where exposure to high intensity weapon fire is a hazard of the job.

A major review has delivered a series of recommendations to deal with the increasing problem.

Training has been a particular area of concern in the military.

"There are a number of military personnel exposed to excessive noise," Lieutenant Colonel Phil Wright told 1 NEWS.

Six per cent of soldiers most recently tested were found to have significant hearing loss, but the NZDF says age could be as big a contributor to that as noise exposure.

The review also found hearing protection issued to personnel does meet current regulations.

Previously personnel had hearing tests every five years, now the recommendation is tests be conducted annually for at risk personnel in keeping with WorkSafe guidelines.
28-09-2018, 11:12 AM
grunzter

Does not mention when you get married, apparently (& from experience), we all go deaf anyway...
28-09-2018, 11:33 AM
gonetropo

worksafe are muppets so are the electrical registration board. awhile back i found a product that was absolutely lethat being sold. contacted them both. worksafe did nothing and the erb "sent them a letter".
this was aomething people were spending 1000's pf dollars on and was an electrocution and fire risk .
28-09-2018, 11:40 AM
Cordite

1 Attachment(s)

Add recreational factors, before and during service years? Hearing protectors are no use against reckless self harm.

Attachment 95869
28-09-2018, 01:31 PM
Marty Henry

Wow industries or activities that cause noise can damage your hearing thats news!
28-09-2018, 05:13 PM
csmiffy

Yup. Being in the military with loud bangy noises and planes and bombs and helicopters and stuff.
Make you deaf...really? That would be the least of my worries if I was in the military.
While we do get shot at occasionally, we don't get shot at as much as some armed forces around the place.
The Veterans from all previous conflicts would be turning in their graves or choking on their beers if they are alive.
28-09-2018, 05:44 PM
Ryan

Not really an "issue" if only 6% of those tested had hearing loss.

As stated, probably due to age and coupled with that, that aged demographic would likely have been from the SLR / pre-OSH era.
28-09-2018, 05:54 PM
Rushy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Not really an "issue" if only 6% of those tested had hearing loss.

As stated, probably due to age and coupled with that, that aged demographic would likely have been from the SLR / pre-OSH era.

Speak up Ryan, what'd you say?
28-09-2018, 06:20 PM
veitnamcam

How much will this cost us in compensation?
28-09-2018, 06:37 PM
Max Headroom

Quote:

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

How much will this cost us in compensation?

Government peoples be all like: "What? I can't hear you".
29-09-2018, 06:58 AM
Rushy

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

There's been heaps of ACC pay outs for hearing aids because of hearing loss during the compulsory military training days. Most of the old buggers around here got hearing aids booked up to ACC.

Shit how do I get to ride that gravy train if I ever want to listen to the missus again?
29-09-2018, 09:19 AM
res

"The review also found hearing protection issued to personnel does meet current regulations"

this strikes me as the most important part of the story, having seen a fair amount of army personal using there hearing ppe I had already decided that a lot of it seemed very subpar compared to what I personly use.
29-09-2018, 10:45 AM
terryf

Coming from a bomb disposal background I can tell you that the majority of personnel have no clue of whats good and whats bad which is compounded by the govt attitude of "you will wear what we tell you to wear".
In the case of bombs, hearing protection is generally a nice to have as the shock waves penetrate the skull behind the ear, same happens with high powered rifles in confined spaces - even a 223 over an empty 40 gallon drum will cause issues with hearing protection. Unfortunately we blindly believe what the marketers tell us about hearing protection rather than go and research the risks for ourselves.

As a result I have around 40% hearing loss in both ears. (please reply in CAPS)
29-09-2018, 11:17 AM
Feral

Quote:

Originally Posted by terryf

Coming from a bomb disposal background I can tell you that the majority of personnel have no clue of whats good and whats bad which is compounded by the govt attitude of "you will wear what we tell you to wear".
In the case of bombs, hearing protection is generally a nice to have as the shock waves penetrate the skull behind the ear, same happens with high powered rifles in confined spaces - even a 223 over an empty 40 gallon drum will cause issues with hearing protection. Unfortunately we blindly believe what the marketers tell us about hearing protection rather than go and research the risks for ourselves.

As a result I have around 40% hearing loss in both ears. (please reply in CAPS)

YEAH IM H4 IN MY LEFT EAR FROM A COMBO OF DIVING BAROTRAUMA AND BLANK FIRING. I JUST ORDERED SEVERAL SETS OF PELTOR COMTAC H5 NOISE CANCELLING MUFFS FOR MY CREW WHO ARE H4 OR LOWER. $600 A PAIR IS CHEAP COMPARED TO EARS.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
29-09-2018, 11:26 AM
terryf

hahaha a literal interpretation of my request, awesome!!

Yip, 600 is cheap as chips compared to being deaf, couldn't agree more.
29-09-2018, 12:25 PM
300CALMAN

I remember the army earmuffs being crap and then there was standing too close too the 105/84/81/66/40 mm noisemakers when you weren't actually using them. I remember the back blast from CG 84mm being particularly nasty on the ears so I assume the plastic muffs that were maybe OK for 5.56 were probably totally inadequate.
29-09-2018, 01:15 PM
terryf

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

I remember the army earmuffs being crap and then there was standing too close too the 105/84/81/66/40 mm noisemakers when you weren't actually using them. I remember the back blast from CG 84mm being particularly nasty on the ears so I assume the plastic muffs that were maybe OK for 5.56 were probably totally inadequate.

Definitely inadequate hence the reversed 9mm cartridges in the ears under the muffs - but this didnt prevent noise through the skull behind the ear
Distance is always your friend in these cases.

So @300CALMAN whats your % loss?
29-09-2018, 02:39 PM
300CALMAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by terryf

Definitely inadequate hence the reversed 9mm cartridges in the ears under the muffs - but this didnt prevent noise through the skull behind the ear
Distance is always your friend in these cases.

So @300CALMAN whats your % loss?

Yes I remember firing the CG 84 was like sticking your head in a steel dust bin with a thunderflash. If your mouth was open when firing even worse.

Average on the left, but the right side was a little worse than average. Bit hard to pin on the military though as I did a lot of other stuff that was not so good for the hearing.
29-09-2018, 05:06 PM
terryf

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

Yes I remember firing the CG 84 was like sticking your head in a steel dust bin with a thunderflash. If your mouth was open when firing even worse.

Average on the left, but the right side was a little worse than average. Bit hard to pin on the military though as I did a lot of other stuff that was not so good for the hearing.

with the really heavy stuff mouth open is good as it allows the pressure to escape. With closed mouth you can rupture shit thats supposed to stay in one piece!

Must have been some REALLY dumb shit to get to the decibels where hearing loss becomes permanent :omg: