Becoming a Father with Tinnitus

[Michael Leigh]

I wasn't talking about your post. I was talking about the horror stories in my post. In those stories, innocent sounding noises caused serious spikes. This is not consistent with the beliefs that you described below

To be honest I never read your post. I mentioned in my post I read Ed's posts and was commenting on them.

 

[AZeurotuner]

Says who? I have only ever heard this theory on here, but have never seen any solid science on it. The professionals I have spoken to dispute it and say there is no evidence to support such an idea.

The origin of the noise itself isn't even known yet. If it was only reliant on the damaged hair cells then every person with hearing loss would have it, but they don't. It's beyond our current comprehension. All I know is that thinking about it all the time only ends up exacerbating it.

Anyway, I'm going down the same rabbit hole I always do so I'll leave it there.

I wish you well Bill, but I still think you're a bit crazy And I'm not saying that in a mean way. You just have a vastly different outlook on life than I do.

I'd have to disagree with that, while I understand that we shouldn't be protecting for normal, everyday noises, our ears are most definitely compromised. Most of them members on this forum have gotten spikes (sometimes permanent) from noises that wouldn't damage a normals person's hearing. It's great that you've let the anxiety go and are focusing on life instead of tinnitus, but a baby screaming in your ear is over 100 decibels and WILL cause damage over time, that's not what I would consider an "everyday" noise. Grab a set of ear muffs (takes a second to put on and are pretty hard to misplace) for when the baby starts crying, definitely not "overprotecting" to avoid loud, high pitched noises so close to your ear.

 

[Michael Leigh]

I'd have to disagree with that, while I understand that we shouldn't be protecting for normal, everyday noises, our ears are most definitely compromised. Most of them members on this forum have gotten spikes (sometimes permanent) from noises that wouldn't damage a normals person's hearing. It's great that you've let the anxiety go and are focusing on life instead of tinnitus, but a baby screaming in your ear is over 100 decibels and WILL cause damage over time, that's not what I would consider an "everyday" noise. Grab a set of ear muffs (takes a second to put on and are pretty hard to misplace) for when the baby starts crying, definitely not "overprotecting" to avoid loud, high pitched noises so close to your ear.

With respect I believe you are wrong. It is overprotecting the ears that causes harm and negative thinking which instills fear and anxiety which makes the condition worse and prevents a person from habituating and moving on with their life. They are caught up in a vicious cycle and obsession over the slightest raised sound they are subjected to and it isn't healthy. If a person has noise induced tinnitus with or without hyperacusis, and they haven't habituated in a year they should seek professional help/treatment with a Hearing Therapist/Audilogist, trained in the treatment and management of tinnitus and hyperacusis. This is the solution not over using hearing protection which makes the condition much worse.

Michael

 

[Bill Bauer]

It is overprotecting the ears that causes harm and negative thinking

Read the horror stories in my earlier post. Hopefully that will be enough to change your mind.

 

[Bill Bauer]

This is the solution not over using hearing protection which makes the condition much worse.

When I began to do what you would refer to as "overprotecting", my condition (especially my H) got much better.

 

[AZeurotuner]

With respect I believe you are wrong. It is overprotecting the ears that causes harm and negative thinking which instills fear and anxiety which makes the condition worse and prevents a person from habituating and moving on with their life. They are caught up in a vicious cycle and obsession over the slightest raised sound they are subjected to and it isn't healthy. If a person has noise induced tinnitus with or without hyperacusis, and they haven't habituated in a year they should seek professional help/treatment with a Hearing Therapist/Audilogist, trained in the treatment and management of tinnitus and hyperacusis. This is the solution not over using hearing protection which makes the condition much worse.

Michael

Sounds over 100 decibels have been proven to damage a healthy person's ears, and a baby crying exceeds that. This isn't "overprotection"... It's recommended for healthy people to wear protection when using power tools (~95-110 decibels), a baby's cry can exceed 115 decibels (highest measured was 130 I believe), and our ears are much more sensitive so why the heck wouldn't we protect for that?

 

[Ed209]

{There used to be more examples here. I got the following alert: "Your post in the thread Becoming a Father with Tinnitus was edited. Reason: Some of your quotes of other members were incorrectly formatted and broke the post, feel free to re-add them as you see fit" - those examples got deleted}

There countless more examples where That came from. So, to answer your questions - say the experiences of all of those people (including me). We are more vulnerable than healthy people. Healthy people are not going to regret going to the mall (or pressing a loud phone to their ear, or being close to two glass plates clinking) for months after the event!

I'd have to disagree with that, while I understand that we shouldn't be protecting for normal, everyday noises, our ears are most definitely compromised. Most of them members on this forum have gotten spikes (sometimes permanent) from noises that wouldn't damage a normals person's hearing. It's great that you've let the anxiety go and are focusing on life instead of tinnitus, but a baby screaming in your ear is over 100 decibels and WILL cause damage over time, that's not what I would consider an "everyday" noise. Grab a set of ear muffs (takes a second to put on and are pretty hard to misplace) for when the baby starts crying, definitely not "overprotecting" to avoid loud, high pitched noises so close to your ear.

It's all anecdotal so nothing can be drawn from any of it. We have to realise that we are on a forum where only the most distressed people are compelled to sign up. This already puts a huge bias on everything and means we are only getting information from a very select demographic. I could equally demonstrate that the complete opposite is true, which would also be totally meaningless and biased. There's no scientific method involved so it's all pointless and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I said this before but I'll say it again: I was at a lecture once where the topic of statistical data and it's interpretation was spoken about in detail. I also have a book about this which is a good read (forgot the title at the moment). There are so many facets to this that I couldn't possibly fit them all into a paragraph, but I think it's something you should read into. One of the main points that sticks out which he was very clear about is when we automatically attribute a cause to a certain effect, and believe it to be true. Even when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it. He simplified this with a demonstration that involved people with yellowing of their teeth that he labelled (A), and people with lung cancer that he labelled (C). He stated that the data would suggest - with a very high probability - that anyone with yellow teeth (A) had a significantly higher chance of obtaining lung cancer than people with whiter teeth. This is where data can be deceiving and is why its analysis is very difficult, because different lenses can be applied and still be true. At this point he introduced smoking and labelled it (B), and only then does it make more sense. The yellowing of the teeth (A) becomes almost irrelevant once you add smoking (B) into the mix. Because it's then that you can see that smoking (B) causes yellow teeth (A), but can also lead to lung cancer (C). The link between (A) and (C) is no longer important, but is still true. Smoking (B) is the real cause, but if (B) is not known or understood then you wouldn't have the information required to understand what is really happening. This is overly simplified to explain how human biasing works and non of us are immune. So much so that even trained agents have to follow strict protocols to try and prevent human biasing affecting their investigations. The same is true of all financial institutions; in fact a new procedure was brought in after the crash of 2007 for this very reason.

What we think is true may not be the case, even if everything appears to suggest so. That's why anecdotal stories are just that. Proving that our ears are different once we get tinnitus is also very hard to prove. And just to clarify here, what I'm mainly referring to is the relationship between everyday sounds and tinnitus, as I know a lot of you here fear everything from slamming doors to being in a car etc.

 

[Michael Leigh]

Read the horror stories in my earlier post. Hopefully that will be enough to change your mind.

When I began to do what you would refer to as "overprotecting", my condition (especially my H) got much better.

I am not going to hijack Eds thread. With respect I have had tinnitus for many years and once had very severe hyperaucsis that is now been completely cured for 18 years. I have corresponded with many people with tinnitus and hyperacusis caused by "loud noise" exposure. I have counselled quite a few people with these conditions too and firmly standby what I have said in this thread and many of my posts which can be read on my "started threads" regarding tinnitus and hyperacusis.

Michael

 

[AZeurotuner]

It's all anecdotal so nothing can be drawn from any of it. We have to realise that we are on a forum where only the most distressed people are compelled to sign up. This already puts a huge bias on everything and means we are only getting information from a very select demographic. I could equally demonstrate that the complete opposite is true, which would also be totally meaningless and biased. There's no scientific method involved so it's all pointless and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I said this before but I'll say it again: I was at a lecture once where the topic of statistical data and it's interpretation was spoken about in detail. I also have a book about this which is a good read (forgot the title at the moment). There are so many facets to this that I couldn't possibly fit them all into a paragraph, but I think it's something you should read. One of the main points that sticks out which he was very clear about is when we automatically attribute a cause to a certain effect, and believe it to be true. Even when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it. He simplified this with a demonstration that involved people with yellowing teeth that he labelled (A), and people with lung cancer that he labelled (C). He stated that the data would suggest - with a very high probability - that anyone with yellow teeth (A) had a significantly higher chance of obtaining lung cancer than people with whiter teeth. This is where data can be deceiving and is why data analysis is very difficult to interpret, because different lenses can be applied and still be true. At this point he introduced smoking and labelled it (B), and only then does it make more sense. The yellowing of the teeth (A) becomes almost irrelevant once you add smoking (B) into the mix. Because it's then that you can see that smoking (B) causes yellow teeth (A), but can also lead to lung cancer (C). The link between (A) and (C) is no longer important, but is still true. Smoking (B) is the real cause, but if (B) is not known or understood then you wouldn't have the information required to understand what is really happening. This is overly simplified to explain how human biasing works and non of us are immune. So much so that even training agents have to follow strict protocols to try and prevent human biasing affecting investigations. The same is true of all financial institutions; in fact a new procedure was brought in after the crash of 2007 for this very reason.

I've gotten permanent spikes from things that would have never phased me before T... Many members here have experienced this, read my post above concerning the decibel level of a baby's cry.

 

[Bill Bauer]

It's all anecdotal so nothing can be drawn from any of it.

You are right, we can't deduce the actual probabilities, but we can deduce that the probability is not zero, and not negligible.

I could equally demonstrate that the complete opposite is true, which would also be totally meaningless and biased.

X examples (X>0) of something not being safe proves that it is not safe. X examples of something being safe does NOT prove that it is safe.

Correlation not implying causation is a valid point, but it is especially valid where no theoretical reason exist for A to cause C. In our case, noise caused T for many of us, so it makes sense that it could also lead to spikes.

 

[Michael Leigh]

Sounds over 100 decibels have been proven to damage a healthy person's ears, and a baby crying exceeds that. This isn't "overprotection"... It's recommended for healthy people to wear protection when using power tools (~95-110 decibels), a baby's cry can exceed 115 decibels (highest measured was 130 I believe), and our ears are much more sensitive so why the heck wouldn't we protect for that?

Sound levels of 100db will not necessarily damage ears. Please read my post: Hyperacusis, As I see it, and you'll see my point. Of course duration and time exposed is an important factor too.
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/threads/hyperacusis-as-i-see-it.19174/

 

[Bill Bauer]

I am not going to hijack Eds thread.

I feel bad about doing that.

 

[Bill Bauer]

Sound levels of 100db will not necessarily damage ears.

This is true. It is also true that these sounds can lead to serious spikes for people like us. This proves that information about whether or not certain noise is loud enough to damage healthy ears is irrelevant for us. If it is loud enough to damage healthy ears, it will hurt us too. if it is not loud enough, it can still hurt us.

 

[Michael Leigh]

This is true. It is also true that these sounds can lead to serious spikes for people like us.

The spikes will calm down. It is the overuse of hearing protection that prolongs the condition, causes harm and instills negative thinking and ultimately makes tinnitus and hyperacusis worse and often leads to phonophobia. Three people have contacted recently in this forum with phonophobia symptoms and now have to seek counselling due to overuse of hearing protection and keeping themselves locked up at home. I am not making this up!
I am not going to comment on this further.
All the best
Michael

 

[Ed209]

Sounds over 100 decibels have been proven to damage a healthy person's ears, and a baby crying exceeds that. This isn't "overprotection"... It's recommended for healthy people to wear protection when using power tools (~95-110 decibels), a baby's cry can exceed 115 decibels (highest measured was 130 I believe), and our ears are much more sensitive so why the heck wouldn't we protect for that?

I don't disagree. Anytime I'm around dangerous levels of noise I wear earplugs or leave the situation. A babies cry is vastly exaggerated on forums etc, it's loud but not that bad! 115db is near the world record for a human voice which in iteself is an extremely impressive feat. Her average cry when she's not too distressed is around the high 70's to low 80's for our daughter (all babies are different). She occasionally screams a note that's around 95db, but that's about 2 feet away from her. She's not a jackhammer though lol.

I don't think a babies cry poses too much of a threat. In my case, I'd prefer to not worry about it too much as it's pretty frequent and there's not a lot you can do about it. Forever reaching for earplugs seemed a bit overkill in the end, for me personally. I Can't speak for others, however.

 

[AZeurotuner]

Sound levels of 100db will not necessarily damage ears. Please read my post: Hyperacusis, As I see it, and you'll see my point. Of course duration and time exposed is an important factor too.
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/threads/hyperacusis-as-i-see-it.19174/

The CDC recommends no more than 1 minute of daily exposure to 110 decibels, and anything after that is measured in seconds... A baby averages 115db and can peak a lot higher. I think it's somewhat irresponsible to suggest to people with already compromised ears that a noise that loud is "fine" for their hearing.

 

[Bill Bauer]

The spikes will calm down.

Some spikes are permanent. Temporary spikes interfere with the healing process.

 

[AZeurotuner]

I don't disagree. Anytime I'm around dangerous levels of noise I wear earplugs or leave. A babies cry is vastly exaggerated on forums etc, it's loud but not that bad! 115db is near the world record for a human voice which in iteself is an extremely impressive feat. Her average cry when she's not too distressed is around the high 70's to low 80's for our daughter (all babies are different). She's not a jackhammer lol.

I don't think a babies cry poses too much of a threat. In my case, I'd prefer to not worry about it too much as it's pretty frequent and there's not a lot you can do about it. Forever reaching for earplugs seemed a bit overkill in the end, for me personally. I Can't speak for others, however.

Don't mean to piss all over your thread man, I just worry for people with our condition... I didn't protect much for the first few years and I'm paying for it big time now. I wouldn't wish my level of T on anyone, it's effected my life in a very negative way.

 

[Ed209]

Don't mean to piss all over your thread man, I just worry for people with our condition... I didn't protect much for the first few years and I'm paying for it big time now. I wouldn't wish my level of T on anyone, it's effected my life in a very negative way.

I'm in the same boat. I've had T since I was around 19 (I'm 35 now), and then two and a half years ago I went to a super loud gig and it made it significantly worse.

Loud noise will definitely damage your hearing and will cause/worsen T. That I'm absolutely sure of. It's where we draw the line that concerns me. I see people avoiding pretty much everything and that's when it becomes a whole different problem. This kind of behaviour can also, arguably, potentially worsen existening tinnitus and hyperacusis problems through other mechanisms.

 

[Ed209]

Anyway that's me over and out. I'm up late because of the bab bab . Stay cool everyone, and try not to let tinnitus rob too much from you all.

 

[AZeurotuner]

Anyway that's me over and out. I'm up late because of the bab bab . Stay cool everyone, and try not to let tinnitus rob too much from you all.

Stay well brother... Hope everything works out for you and have a happy new year.

 

[dpdx]

My Tinnitus lessened considerably to the point where I didn't hear it, would only hear it in a quiet room. I got to optimistic and too excited to be back to "normal" went to the mall and didn't wear earplugs, walked around and shopped for Xmas presents, walked next to a small orchestra of four individuals who played Xmas songs on their clarinet/guitar, it wasn't that loud honestly, it wasn't like a club or concert or bar thing. I got a nasty spike Saturday Night and it still present right now (Tuesday), there is no change in volume, no reduction. When I got a spike after I went to a bar, tinnitus was loud for 2 days the next 2 days that followed it reduced and eventually went back to baseline.

 

[Bill Bauer]

Hopefully you will experience some improvement after a month or two...

 

[sjtinguy]

man, dude comes in here telling how he is enjoying life raising a child without letting tinnitus stop him, and people just shit all over the thread.. there are some really toxic regulars around here

 

[Bill Bauer]

he is enjoying life raising a child without letting tinnitus stop him

He was also explicitly telling people not to worry about wearing hearing protection around significant noises. THAT is toxic.

If someone were to tell that to me soon after the onset of my T, I believe I would then do things that would leave me with debilitating T, and possibly cause me to commit suicide. A lot is at stake - comments like that can't be ignored.

 

[sjtinguy]

He was also explicitly telling people not to worry about wearing hearing protection around significant noises. THAT is TOXIC

Yeah, no... he shared his experience and then you told him he was wrong. It's like you don't want people to do better or something. Your advice on this forum is terrible and probably prolongs people's recovery time.

 

[Bill Bauer]

Your advice on this forum is terrible

I am sorry you feel this way.

I hope you will not follow my advice. Please - push the envelope and try to maximize the noise level you expose yourself to. Punish me for my advice by punishing your ears. Don't let T (and me) win.

 

[Philippe79]

Let's be honest. This topic (earplug use) is so worn out it's ridiculous. It's the same old crap I've read before and has been regurgitated time and time again. It's just the same old negative cycle of bull****. This thread wasn't meant to be about that, there are countless other threads where that has been discussed and they all practically say the same thing. The guy has been shat on. The message this guy was trying to promote was a positive one and yet he has been made to look like a villain. Personally, I thank him for his positivity and congratulate him on becoming a dad.

 

[Tinker Bell]

He was also explicitly telling people not to worry about wearing hearing protection around significant noises. THAT is toxic.

If someone were to tell that to me soon after the onset of my T, I believe I would then do things that would leave me with debilitating T, and possibly cause me to commit suicide. A lot is at stake - comments like that can't be ignored.

He did not explicitly tell anyone not to wear hearing protection around significant noises. He posted regarding his own experience with his child. And incidentally he also commented later that her average cries are between high 70s to low 80s. Not sure that should be considered a significant volume.

Are we no longer allowed to share personal experiences? If I give examples of times that I have not worn ear plugs — at restaurants, church, my children's school, etc. — does that mean I am explicitly telling everyone not to wear earplugs to rock concerts?

A lot is a stake. After the initial onset of tinnitus, if I had only read negative posts, it would have given me debilitating anxiety and made me far more suicidal than I was.

 

[Bill Bauer]

And incidentally he also commented later that her average cries are between high 70s to low 80s. Not sure that should be considered a significant volume.

When you are talking about healthy people - that volume is not significant. When you are talking about a T sufferer - that volume is likely significant. It takes less to... oh, forget it.

Are we no longer allowed to share personal experiences? If I give examples of times that I have not worn ear plugs — at restaurants, church, my children's school, etc. — does that mean I am explicitly telling everyone not to wear earplugs to rock concerts?

You have a point.

Well, all I did was to say that just because he hasn't experienced any consequences yet, doesn't necessarily mean that in the long run there are not going to be any consequences.

A lot is a stake. After the initial onset of tinnitus, if I had only read negative posts, it would have given me debilitating anxiety and made me far more suicidal than I was.

Good point...