Your attitude isn't appreciated.koolaid wrote:I don't know why I need to explain it because I think it was fairly obvious what my meaning was. Shooting indoors increases your exposure to hearing damaging levels of sound, thus increasing the likelihood of hearing damage. The increased resonance is what causes this. Ear muffs alone do not provide enough protection from this exposure to prevent hearing damage.puma guy wrote:You're going to have to explain that one. Resonance may increase, but not volume.koolaid wrote:It is completely possible she has hearing damage in ten minutes if her muffs weren't seated correctly.
One of the many reasons it is always a good idea to double up at indoor ranges. The other being that muffs alone aren't capable of bringing the noise level of gun shots in a cement room down to safe levels.
If you want to be pedantic though, you can enjoy this exciting 1975 government paper on air quality and noise considerations for indoor shooting ranges, complete with exciting charts of sound pressure level decay.
The source you cite doesn't support your claims. Look at pages 16 - 17 where it recommends the use of ear muffs, or even ear plugs, in indoor shooting ranges. See also page 15 and the discussion of the danger of noise levels in the 138 to 140db, not the 82db range you experience with electric ear muffs. Noise measurement in db levels is not linear; it's logarithmic so the difference between 82db and 138db isn't a difference of 168%, it far far greater.
Show me the medical proof of that a person wearing electronic ear muffs can suffer permanent hearing loss from a 10 minute exposure to gunfire in an indoor shooting range. That's what it will take for the plaintiff to win this case. Your 37 year old paper doesn't support your argument.
Chas.
