Search

Industrial management became vitally interested in safety engineering only after the coincidence of a low accident rate with increased output was recognized. Just so, exposure to intense noise is an industrial problem being by-passed by management because executives have not clearly realized the possibility of increased efficiency and production through the curtailment of noise. It is evident that in certain occupations associated with continual exposure to loud noise a deafness results which with long exposure is progressive and may be permanent. The worker's deafness, because of its innocuous origin in the little used high frequency range, does not stimulate executive interest as does a temporary injury, such as a broken arm, with which the relationship between cause and effect is more evident. Increased production, accentuating the use of tools such as the pneumatically operated hammer, the chipper and the riveting gun in confined areas, underlines the importance of the noise

The innocuously progressive loss of hearing as encountered in industrial work associated with continuous exposure to noise has been a refractory disability problem. This is so not only by reason of the lack of an adequate treatment but also because essential precautions are imperfect and rarely instituted. Perhaps this is largely due to the fact that there has been no remedy which is both efficient in its function and acceptable to the worker.TYPES OF EAR DAMAGEThe significance of "boilermaker's ear" is well known among workers. In otologic practice it represents the clinical entity due to acoustic trauma. The deafness is relative to prolonged and repeated exposure to loud noises and particularly loud sounds of the high frequency range. In present day industry there are two factors which have accentuated the possibility of this disability. There is a demand for an unparalleled speed of production requiring an added number

TO THE EDITOR. —In an effort to minimize the risk of the occurrence of postoperative infection, the anterior chamber has been routinely irrigated with a solution of neomycin and polymyxin after intraocular surgery. Thus far, we have accumulated more than 250 cases from January 1966 through January 1968 with no signs of postoperative infection. We plan to extend this series over a period of years in an attempt to evaluate the efficacy of this form of prophylaxis. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports of anterior chamber irrigation with antibiotics after intraocular surgery.The solution employed is mixed in the following proportions: 0.5 gm neomycin and 100 mg polymyxin B/100 cc solution. The solution is autoclaved prior to use. In routine cataract extraction ¼ to ½ cc of the solution is used to irrigate the anterior chamber after lens delivery and prior to tying the sutures. A bulb