Why Do People Here Go to Drastic Measures to Protect Themselves?

[dpdx]

It sounds like he is willing to risk having to find this out for himself...

He got warned.

 

[Jazzer]

"who's right and who's wrong crap...!!!"

'.........er........I'm outa here.........'

 

[glynis]

For some people headphones and ear phones can help them if they can not cope with tinnitus and have no way to access maskers or hearing aids.
Just be sensible and keep them on low and only for tinnitus breaks and see how you get on as never use them is a long time till the grave.
love glynis

 

[Bill Bauer]

have no way to access maskers

The masker I got from amazon cost $31, so I am not sure why anyone would have trouble getting a masker.
https://www.amazon.com/Cherry-Koala-Concentration-Relaxation-Sufferers/dp/B01FRW2WBA

 

[glynis]

Hi @Bill Bauer ,
Sorry should have made it clear , white noise generators for ears.
Professor David Baguly said for people whom don't have access to them would be ok using earphones or headphones on the lowest setting if the tinnitus was mental torture and could not cope and for short periods.
I know im fine with them and others will be also but some not so lucky but it's trill and error on the lowest setting.
love glynis x

 

[Bill Bauer]

In the end I usually end up with an inbox full of PMs asking me if X sound has damaged their ears because of what's said on Y thread and Z thread.

I get messages telling me that the person was exposed to noise that was under X dB (e.g., in today's message it was "under 85 dB"), and that as a result months of progress had been erased. For each case that gets reported here, there is a significant number of incidents that the members here choose not to report. The threat is real, as is the need for awareness.

 

[TuneOut]

Most places are fine. With earplugs you're ok to go out and have a good time. That doesn't mean you have to go raving in a club. Most bars are fine with plugs, some are fine without. Most cinemas (in U.K.) are fine, plugs provide a good safety blanket. Nearly all restaurants are fine; if they get a bit loud stick your ear plugs in and enjoy your food and time out with your friends.

I appreciate what you are trying to do here. No one should live in fear and isolation. I know the hell of it all too well.

Now your advice about noise exposure may apply to the general tinnitus populace. But I do not believe it applies to everyone. Mine ears are not at all as strong and resistant to noise as yours, as I've proved to myself countless times.

Also, ear plugs do not offer the protection they claim to on the package. Plus many people do not insert them properly.

In animal studies there is a small percentage that is more susceptible to acoustic trauma. The same is true with human animals. I do agree that there shouldn't be fear of noise or anxiety or stress. One should listen to their body and take the necessary precautions for their own individual situation - without fear.

 

[Bill Bauer]

Mine ears are not at all as strong and resistant to noise as yours, as I've proved to myself countless times.

Ed refuses to believe that giraffes' necks can be as long as some fearmongers tell us they are. His reasoning is: it can't be because it just can't be.

One should listen to their body and take the necessary precautions for their own individual situation - without fear.

Sounds good.

 

[TuneOut]

If your children insist on headphones/earbuds, use a sound meter to make sure they are listening at safe levels, which I did, and it measured around 60dB, even though it still sound loud at times.

Unfortunately, that's 60db directly into their ears, not at a distance.

 

[glynis]

@Bill Bauer ,
The safety level is 84db for workers to protect there hearing from hearingloss but not detailed enough to protect from tinnitus as everyone is different and if you have it already then it could be lower and if have Hyperacusis.
The guide line is just a guide im my view and going by the individual and how comfortable they are around sounds is important.
I do believe though that ear protection should not be over used or it will make your ears supper sensitive so its finding a balance for each person .
love glynis

 

[Ed209]

Now your advice about noise exposure may apply to the general tinnitus populace. But I do not believe it applies to everyone. Mine ears are not at all as strong and resistant to noise as yours, as I've proved to myself countless times.

Neither were mine until I stopped living in a protective bubble of fear. My ears reacted to everything. No one should be afraid of birdsong and/or conversation, for example, but that's what I'm seeing more and more of. Not exactly those examples, but sounds that are soft and not damaging. People are so anxious now that nearly every sound is causing a problem, yet the more you protect the worse it will get. This is what I was trying to stop.

Also, ear plugs do not offer the protection they claim to on the package. Plus many people do not insert them properly.

This is incorrected and I've explained this numerous times. You are most likely referring to the occupational health websites such as 'cooper safety', for example. Earplugs do provide the stated protection on the box, and in the case of custom plugs, it's usually more than the stated figures. Those websites you're referring to are deliberately de-rating the efficacy of the plugs to account for the high percent of mis-use (where people have them hanging out of their ears, and remove them a lot). Years ago I researched this extensively and could provide many links, but I think this excerpt just about sums it up perfectly:

Ear plug ratings are regulated by international standards and ratings. In the United States, the EPA requires that every product post their NRR (Noise Reduction Rating). This measures the potential of reduction in sound by dB (decibels).

These ratings rely on proper usage, which varies so greatly that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) developed derating systems to more accurately portray NRR. In other words, ear plugs are so often misused that an NRR may inaccurately portray the level of protection. As a consumer, it is difficult to know whether or not you're wearing them correctly, and even more so to tell the difference between correctly and incorrectly worn ear plugs.

https://www.yourbestdigs.com/reviews/the-best-ear-plugs/#noise-reduction-ratings

I'll paste an older post where I already explained this as well:

If someone uses their plugs, properly, then the lab tested numbers are accurate and sub-tractable from the measured decibel exposure. Without going into too much detail, a measured broadband sound is usually a compressed average of all the frequencies in the human hearing range, over time (dBA). They are usually measured using octaves, or one third octaves, with the latter being more detailed and representing more frequencies. The most accurate measurements are made using narrowband intervals of a few HZ, but this is often unnecessarily detailed. Response times should also factor into the measurement, but these are far more important when it comes to impulse noises such as gunshots, and explosions, etc.

Most noise is measured as, LAeq, which allows for variation over time and gives an average score. It should represent the same energy equivalent of a continuous noise as a single figure.

Ed refuses to believe that giraffes' necks can be as long as some fearmongers tell us they are. His reasoning is: it can't be because it just can't be.

This makes no sense, Bill.

Unfortunately, that's 60db directly into their ears, not at a distance.

I'm not for or against using earphones, but scientifically speaking, this makes no sense either. Sound is just a wave of energy, moving air particles, until it reaches your eardrum and is transferred into a signal for your brain to interpret. The intensity of this energy (sound wave) can be high and damaging from any distance. If it's loud enough, at your eardrum, then it could cause damage no matter what the source of the sound is; your eardrum doesn't care how it receives the sound just like a microphone doesn't. If the SPL is high enough then it carries a risk.

So, earphones are not necessarily inherently dangerous if used at low levels. You are merely reproducing the same effect as any other normal sound would. Although I do understand the concerns people have.

Be careful what you believe when it comes to information that's on a forum; and this includes posts by me. Use some critical thinking and do your own research, and talk to some professionals.


PS, I came back to see if I had any PMs, and I did. Whilst replying to those I noticed I got quoted here so decided to reply.

 

[RingerBell]

@Ed209 Just as a general comment to this subject, I find it a bit confusing that, as far as I know, NRR is calculated from C-weighted measurements and so it applies to C-weighted measurements, while A-weighting is the scale where the regulations are usually given. From the user persective something should be subtracted from the NRR to get the equivalent value for A-weighted noise. But it's very hard for an average user to know that these different scales even exist. And even harder to know what the true dB(C)-dB(A) value that user should apply is and to know that this "-7dB" rule is there as an general estimated difference between these to two scales.

 

[Ed209]

@Ed209 Just as a general comment to this subject, I find it a bit confusing that, as far as I know, NRR is calculated from C-weighted measurements and so it applies to C-weighted measurements, while A-weighting is the scale where the regulations are usually given. From the user persective something should be subtracted from the NRR to get the equivalent value for A-weighted noise. But it's very hard for an average user to know that these different scales even exist. And even harder to know what the true dB(C)-dB(A) value that user should apply is and to know that this "-7dB" rule is there as an general estimated difference between these to two scales.

Hi ringerbell, you are right. However, all the scales we base danger levels on are A-rated which means we would have to disregard all the current literature surrounding noise exposure. This makes things really messy and complicated. Relatively speaking, if we were to say we need to protect our ears at around 92dBC (85dBA + 7 decibels), or 87dBC (80dBA plus 7 db), then everything remains the same as it is now. Only with different numbers, relatively speaking. All noise reports, if you have one conducted, are recorded in dBA. For me personally, though, it's not the numbers that are important but the way we interact with sound.

Occupational health, for example, usually stipulate protection must be worn if one is exposed to 85dbA (or more) for 8 hours a day. If we go by a linear C value (which is more accurate across a wide frequency range) then many jobs would likely come into question. We don't see air hostesses, for example, requiring mandatory ear protection.

If we aren't careful, this will lead to us all wandering the earth with sound meters permenently attached to our hands which will only feed our obsession.

At the end of the day we must do what we feel is right for us. However, I still feel we need to be extremely careful how we voice these opinions, because it's quite evident, in some cases, that people are becoming terrified of all sound. This is getting to the point, now, that some on here are finding it hard to leave their house. Double protecting oneself around soft and modest noise is an illness in itself, and quite a crippling one. It can lead to further sensitisation of our ears, and can condition our parasympathetic nervous system to unnecessarily (and negatively) react to various sounds.

Be wary about the cause of your spikes around quiet to modest noises.

 

[RingerBell]

At the end of the day we must do what we feel is right for us. However, I still feel we need to be extremely careful how we voice these opinions, because it's quite evident, in some cases, that people are becoming terrified of all sound. This is getting to the point, now, that some on here are finding it hard to leave their house. Double protecting oneself around soft and modest noise is an illness in itself, and quite a crippling one. It can lead to further sensitisation of our ears, and can condition our parasympathetic nervous system to unnecessarily (and negatively) react to various sounds.

To start, I agree with you with this.

Hi ringerbell, you are right. However, all the scales we base danger levels on are A-rated which means we would have to disregard all the current literature surrounding noise exposure. This makes things really messy and complicated. Relatively speaking, if we were to say we need to protect our ears at around 92dBC (85dBA + 7 decibels), or 87dBC (80dBA plus 7 db), then everything remains the same as it is now. Only with different numbers, relatively speaking. All noise reports, if you have one conducted, are recorded in dBA. For me personally, though, it's not the numbers that are important but the way we interact with sound.

Occupational health, for example, usually stipulate protection must be worn if one is exposed to 85dbA (or more) for 8 hours a day. If we go by a linear C value (which is more accurate across a wide frequency range) then many jobs would likely come into question. We don't see air hostesses, for example, requiring mandatory ear protection.

It's more this general awareness about sound levels that I'm thinking. The A-weighting is so deeply rooted into the system, as it has been the main scale used to measure sound exposure for decades, that changing the way sound exposure is studied and regulated is very difficult. I actually hope that the scientific community would address this issue how sound pressure levels should be measured as an alternative way to answer the question what these allowable exposure thresholds and times should be. But that doesn't mean the criteria would have to be C-weighting, and all the existing knowledge about noise exposure would have to be disregarded as it mostly deals with A-weighting. That is already empirical evidence that can be used to search better ways to evaluate sound exposure.

Relatively speaking, if we were to say we need to protect our ears at around 92dBC (85dBA + 7 decibels), or 87dBC (80dBA plus 7 db), then everything remains the same as it is now. Only with different numbers, relatively speaking.

This is where I disagree with you. Because the difference dB(C)-dB(A) is not constant for all frequencies, choosing the 92dB(C) (85dB(A) + 7dB) would actually change alot of things. Not just the numbers. The dB(C)-dB(A) difference depends how the sound is distributed along different frequencies, and it does not need to equal 7dB. If there would be relatively much low frequency sounds it would be above that value. The 92dB(C) would be a different criteria than 85dB(A).

Like you said, if another criteria would be proposed, wearing hearing protectors in some professions would have to be re-evaluated. But if the exposure times and thresholds were lowered in dB(A), this also leads to mandatory hearing protection in some professions were it previously wasn't.

 

[Ed209]

It's more this general awareness about sound levels that I'm thinking. The A-weighting is so deeply rooted into the system, as it has been the main scale used to measure sound exposure for decades, that changing the way sound exposure is studied and regulated is very difficult. I actually hope that the scientific community would address this issue how sound pressure levels should be measured as an alternative way to answer the question what these allowable exposure thresholds and times should be. But that doesn't mean the criteria would have to be C-weighting, and all the existing knowledge about noise exposure would have to be disregarded as it mostly deals with A-weighting. That is already empirical evidence that can be used to search better ways to evaluate sound exposure.

I agree, in principal, but that doesn't change the current data set around noise tolerances. But you are right about better accuracy.

This is where I disagree with you. Because the difference dB(C)-dB(A) is not constant for all frequencies, choosing the 92dB(C) (85dB(A) + 7dB) would actually change alot of things. Not just the numbers. The dB(C)-dB(A) difference depends how the sound is distributed along different frequencies, and it does not need to equal 7dB. If there would be relatively much low frequency sounds it would be above that value. The 92dB(C) would be a different criteria than 85dB(A).

Same as above. I'm well versed in how all this stuff works and even learned about it well before I had tinnitus as part of my sound engineering training.

I was oversimplifying the equation by using a standard measure of adding 7db. A good average between the two measurements.

The industry doesn't measure noise in dBC, although you have valid points as to the flaws in not doing so. However, my post is based on the current data and all the boundary's and limits that have been set by using this, and it's all in dBA. I can't take any blame for that .

 

[TuneOut]

This is incorrected and I've explained this numerous times.

I'm actually just going by my own experience here, with countless earplugs. I find that earmuffs of the same NRR offer noticeably better protection from sound.

 

[TuneOut]

Occupational health, for example, usually stipulate protection must be worn if one is exposed to 85dbA (or more) for 8 hours a day. If we go by a linear C value (which is more accurate across a wide frequency range) then many jobs would likely come into question. We don't see air hostesses, for example, requiring mandatory ear protection.

Those OSHA guidelines are only designed to protect the majority of workers from permanent hearing loss. A small percentage of workers will still experience permanent damage. Furthermore, the regulations do not take "temporary" threshold shifts into account, which have been shown to cause widespread loss of synapses. This can lead to hidden hearing loss and possibly tinnitus.

 

[Ed209]

I'm actually just going by my own experience here, with countless earplugs. I find that earmuffs of the same NRR offer noticeably better protection from sound.

That's fair enough you can't argue with that. However, I'll point out that muffs are foolproof and pretty much guarantee a correct fit. Plugs very much rely on the seal that's created in the ear canal meaning poorly fitting - or incorrectly fitting plugs - will not be as efficient.

 

[Ed209]

Those OSHA guidelines are only designed to protect the majority of workers from permanent hearing loss. A small percentage of workers will still experience permanent damage. Furthermore, the regulations do not take "temporary" threshold shifts into account, which have been shown to cause widespread loss of synapses. This can lead to hidden hearing loss and possibly tinnitus.

The entire point of the post is that we should protect when their is a legitimate danger to our ears. I'm trying to help the many (as per this threads title) who are in a serious health rut protecting in their own house, and from things like conversation and other soft sounds. That's all.

We're all aware of the dangers of noise but many have seriously lost their way and are now protecting at all costs when it's absolutely not necessary by any measure. No professional would ever advise that people should behave this way. It's painfully cruel to hear about this (via pm) on a daily basis from all the people who are suffering crippling phonophobia.

 

[RingerBell]

The industry doesn't measure noise in dBC, although you have valid points as to the flaws in not doing so. However, my post is based on the current data and all the boundary's and limits that have been set by using this, and it's all in dBA. I can't take any blame for that

I'm not blaming you. I'm just saying that if more awareness preventing hearing loss and tinnitus is wanted, then the problem should be looked from all angles. And I find that this problem is very rarely looked from this angle, even when it could be easily done.

 

[Ed209]

I'm not blaming you. I'm just saying that if more awareness preventing hearing loss and tinnitus is wanted, then the problem should be looked from all angles. And I find that this problem is very rarely looked from this angle, even when it could be easily done.

That last sentence was tongue in cheek, but I agree with the sentiment.

 

[Starthrower]

If we aren't careful, this will lead to us all wandering the earth with sound meters permenently attached to our hands which will only feed our obsession.

At the end of the day we must do what we feel is right for us. However, I still feel we need to be extremely careful how we voice these opinions, because it's quite evident, in some cases, that people are becoming terrified of all sound. This is getting to the point, now, that some on here are finding it hard to leave their house. Double protecting oneself around soft and modest noise is an illness in itself, and quite a crippling one. It can lead to further sensitisation of our ears, and can condition our parasympathetic nervous system to unnecessarily (and negatively) react to various sounds.

Be wary about the cause of your spikes around quiet to modest noises.

I agree @Ed209. I do remember back in 2002 when intrusive tinnitus hit me. Now, I am more experienced and less anxious regarding exposure to normal noise and louder noise.

If you and I and others can assure people over and over maybe it will make a difference.

But in those first few months. Wow. I was housebound by fear and anxiety for a year. Every single unexpected noise would feed the anxiety. I think this issue is a process each individual needs to address and be reassured so they do not live in fear.

 

[Bill Bauer]

earphones are not necessarily inherently dangerous if used at low levels.

Numerous people have been reporting that they are.

Be careful what you believe when it comes to information that's on a forum; and this includes posts by me. Use some critical thinking and do your own research, and talk to some professionals.

There hasn't been any research into this. How will the professionals be able to help? Assuming people are not making things up, you can use this forum to obtain observations. These observations will be biased. But if your goal is to determine whether the risk exists and is nonnegligeable (as opposed to the exact probabilities), you can use your common sense to learn from those those observations.

This makes no sense, Bill.

I know - so ask yourself why you have been doing it.

But in those first few months. Wow. I was housebound by fear and anxiety for a year.

I am sorry that protecting your ears during your first year hasn't helped to promote your healing. It works for many people, but clearly it will not always work...

 

[Starthrower]

I am sorry that protecting your ears during your first year hasn't helped to promote your healing. It works for many people, but clearly it will not always work...

@Bill Bauer thanks. My uneducated response was to over protect my brain from all noises. I often wonder - had I been less paranoid - if my recovery would have been quicker.

 

[BobbyH]

Hi
Professor David Baguly said for people whom don't have access to them would be ok using earphones or headphones on the lowest setting [B][U]if the tinnitus was mental torture and could not cope[/U][/B] and for short periods.

(emphasis is mine....Bobby)

I'm new here so I'm still learning the "lay of the land", so to speak. This thread is very informative in that regards. In my case, since I was sent here by my psychologist by way of my audiologist, I can ask them what information I read here applies to my individual case. I can also see the conflict if someone doesn't have anyone else to fall back on.

So, at the beginning of this thread, I didn't think it applied to me because I wear hearing aids with maskers every waking moment and putting ear protection over them would cause them to squeal. However, as the discussion (debate) progressed, I could see I was "putting on ear protection" albeit rather expensive electronic computerized ones in the form of my masking hearing aid. So then I wondered if I was indeed part of this discussion.

Thankfully @glynis post answered my question. Unfortunately my tinnitus has existed so long and is so severe, it is mental torture and I can not cope. I suffer depression and anxiety as a by-product. My audiologist is working very hard to provide relief with hearing aids and maskers. My psychologist is working hard to get me out of this deep hole I've ended up in.

So, in the spirit of the original purpose of this thread "why do people here go to drastic measures to protect themselves?", I guess, in my case, I block out the outside world to survive. I need the masker to help with the screaming in my head. In my case, I need sound to cope with the relentless sound my brain generates.

I couldn't use ear protection without my hearing aids (not from hearing loss but to help cope with the tinnitus) because the silence would be deafening from the tinnitus. However, this discussion does make me wonder if doing so early on,before the tinnitus worsened to its present debilitating stage, would not have helped. I suppose, at the end of the day, we take or discard from this forum what helps us get to tomorrow.

Bobby

 

[Ed209]

There hasn't been any research into this. How will the professionals be able to help? Assuming people are not making things up, you can use this forum to obtain observations. These observations will be biased. But if your goal is to determine whether the risk exists and is nonnegligeable (as opposed to the exact probabilities), you can use your common sense to learn from those those observations.

Bill, your thinking is so flawed that I don't know where to begin. The experts, top Drs and professors who specialise in the field (and there are some bad ones about, but let's not taint them all with the same brush) have access to clinical data, and have a good working knowledge of the ear and brain. In their opinion we should NOT be wearing earplugs around most everyday sounds. But yea, let's all listen to some armchair expert instead, with their quotes from a biased sample of sufferers. Makes sense.

I said seek outside help and to use critical thinking; how can you argue against that? I even said not to listen to my own posts. People need to be more self-aware because not everything we read is great or correct information. You can clearly see this all over the internet, especially Facebook. If many specialists in the field tell you to use earplugs upon leaving your house, for example, then it would be a lot more credible.

 

[kelpiemsp]

Bill, your thinking is so flawed that I don't know where to begin. The experts, top Drs and professors who specialise in the field (and there are some bad ones about, but let's not taint them all with the same brush) have access to clinical data, and have a good working knowledge of the ear and brain. In their opinion we should NOT be wearing earplugs around most everyday sounds. But yea, let's all listen to some armchair expert instead, with their quotes from a biased sample of sufferers. Makes sense.

I said seek outside help and to use critical thinking; how can you argue against that? I even said not to listen to my own posts. People need to be more self-aware because not everything we read is great or correct information. You can clearly see this all over the internet, especially Facebook. If many specialists in the field tell you to use earplugs upon leaving your house, for example, then it would be a lot more credible.

Nobody wants to hear logical statements from someone who seems to be handling their T well. sheeesh. We don't want science and fact. I want emotionally based statements founded on personal opinion.

 

[Bill Bauer]

My uneducated response was to over protect my brain from all noises. I often wonder - had I been less paranoid - if my recovery would have been quicker.

The hypothesis above is in disagreement with my personal experiences, as well as the experience of most people I read about on this forum. The pattern I noticed is that those whose uneducated response is to not protect (as they assume that if some loud sound was ok back before their ears got compromised, it ought to continue being safe), get worse, or their recovery stagnates. Many of those who go out of their way to protect their ears experience their T fading. I am sorry that this hasn't happened to you. My guess is that had you not intuitively done the right thing, you would currently be "enjoying" louder tinnitus. Based on what I learned by reading this forum every day for 17 months, you have every reason to feel good about your choices.

Bill, your thinking is so flawed that I don't know where to begin.

Begin by reading people's posts and thinking about how you could learn from those people's experiences. If one were to apply your current approach to smokers, one would assume that all of the smokers who get cancer got it as a result of stress, so they ought to continue to smoke, as smoking relieves stress.

The experts, top Drs and professors who specialise in the field

You keep bringing this up, but we both know that there hasn't been any studies of what causes T spikes, and what causes T to get louder or to fade.

In their opinion we should NOT be wearing earplugs around most everyday sounds.

They are applying the guidelines for healthy people to us (because there hadn't been any studies of people like us).

I said seek outside help and to use critical thinking; how can you argue against that?

I agree that we ought to use our critical thinking.

People need to be more self-aware because not everything we read is great or correct information.

If there was only one horror story where someone got exposed to a relatively moderate noise and had regretted it, I would agree with you. But we get these stories here every week, so - use your critical thinking.

If many specialists in the field tell you to use earplugs upon leaving your house, for example, then it would be a lot more credible.

Correction: if many specialists, after multiple studies of whether T patients would benefit from the use of earplugs, were to advise one about what to do, one would be wise to listen to those specialists. But those studies don't exist, so if the advice of the specialists contradicts the signals given to you by your own body, you might consider ignoring the "specialists."

Better off donating to TT to support platform costs etc. Your advice =View attachment 20113 at best.

See, the fictional detective character on your avatar would actually back his claims with some arguments. You might Think that using an image instead of typing naughty words is classy and is very convincing, but it is not. Your statement above is not an argument, so I will leave it to the other readers to form their own opinions about the value of your posts.

Nobody wants to hear logical statements from someone who seems to be handling their T well.

His statements are logical, but rely on the assumption that the experts know what is best for us. In the absence of any studies of what is best for us, this assumption might not be right. And having said this, my ENT actually told me that my ear would benefit from me going easy on it. This shows that, surprise, when there are no studies, you are going to get heterogeneous advice from the experts.

We don't want science and fact.

We Want science. In the absence of any studies, we want to use the data that we have. The data is biased, so one wouldn't want to use it to estimate any probabilities. But one Can use it to determine that nonnegligeable risk Exists.

You are the one arguing for a faith-based approach of just ignoring our lying eyes, ignoring the signals we get from our bodies, and just pretending that our ears haven't been compromised.

 

[Bill Bauer]

The experts, top Drs and professors who specialise in the field (and there are some bad ones about, but let's not taint them all with the same brush) have access to clinical data, and have a good working knowledge of the ear and brain.

I just saw a tweet that reminded me of your post above. Here is a modified version.
Semmelweis, 1847: "Washing hands could really save lives"
The experts, top doctors, and professors: "There are no magical disease particles. LOL."

 

[sjtinguy]

Why do some people limit themselves so much because of tinnitus?

I hear of some people wearing ear plugs everywhere they go and some won't even listen to music at any volume or go to a bar or concert even with protection.

Is your tinnitus that terrible that it doesn't allow you to live a normal life?

Hell yes it is that terrible.. if going to a concert or a bar even with protection mean a week+ of poor sleep, ear pain, anxiety and constant screaming in your ears, would you go to the bar/concert? When my tinnitus first started ANY volume of music would increase the ringing.. luckily I can listen to music at low levels now but for months I avoided all music