Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?

New measurements indicate that the public are being exposed, without their knowledge, to airborne ultrasound. Existing guidelines are insufficient for such exposures, the vast majority referring to occupational exposure only (where workers are aware of the exposure, can be monitored and can wear pro...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Leighton, T.G (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2016-01-20.
Subjects:
Online Access:Get fulltext
LEADER 01913 am a22001213u 4500
001 385213
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Leighton, T.G.  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air? 
260 |c 2016-01-20. 
856 |z Get fulltext  |u https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/385213/1/Pre-publication%2520for%2520Eprint%2520-%2520Are%2520some%2520people%2520suffering%2520%2528post%2520review%2529.pdf 
520 |a New measurements indicate that the public are being exposed, without their knowledge, to airborne ultrasound. Existing guidelines are insufficient for such exposures, the vast majority referring to occupational exposure only (where workers are aware of the exposure, can be monitored and can wear protection). Existing guidelines are based on an insufficient evidence base, most of which was collected over 40 years ago by researchers who themselves considered it insufficient to finalize guidelines, but which produced preliminary guidelines. This warning of inadequacy was lost as nations and organisations issued 'new' guidelines based on these early guidelines, and through such repetition generated a false impression of consensus. The evidence base is so slim that few reports have progressed far along the sequence from anecdote to case study, to formal scientific controlled trials and epidemiological studies. Early studies reported hearing threshold shifts, nausea, headache, fatigue, migraine and tinnitus, but there is insufficient research on human subjects, and insufficient measurement of fields, to assess what health risk current occupational and public exposures might produce. Furthermore, the assumptions underpinning audiology and physical measurements at high frequencies must be questioned: simple extrapolation of approaches used at lower frequencies does not address current unknowns. Recommendations are provided. 
655 7 |a Article