Sep 2009 29

Speak Up, Young Man0

Over the weekend there was some random coverage about a health group campaigning for the European Commission to regulate over IPOD noise. To be precise, they were encouraging the Commission to force companies put warning notices on the boxes rather than demand some form of noise inhibitors.

Once again, media reporting falls behind the reality. Commission Decision 2009/490/EC was passed on 23 June addressing this very concern. It ordains that,


"Personal music players shall be designed and manufactured in a manner that ensures that, under reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, they are inherently safe and do not cause hearing damage."

The Commission also demands that "personal music players shall provide adequate warnings on the risks involved in using the device and to the ways of avoiding them and information to users in cases where exposure poses a threat of hearing damage." So at first sight, a health warning and some sensible design work that doesn’t ghettoblast your eardrums is all that’s on the cards.

But look again. The Decision also adds a new limit, stating that,


"Exposure to sound levels shall be time limited to avoid hearing damage. At 80 dB(A) exposure time shall be limited to 40 hours/week, whereas at 89 dB(A) exposure time shall be limited to 5 hours/week. For other exposure levels a linear intra- and extrapolation applies. Account shall be taken of the dynamic range of sound and the reasonably foreseeable use of the products."

Herein lies the red tape tripwire. This suggests that manufacturers of ipods, personal music players and similar gadgetry will indeed be expected to provide some form of – possibly quite complex – noise-limitation.

Of course it’s good that the issue is being taken seriously. Tube travellers may rejoice at the reduction of thumping beats from neighbours, and it may well be medically justifiable. But it is also potentially very heavy handed, potentially expensive, and for an infrequent user very intrusive.

Yet the crunch issue is really this: why is the press reporting a decision that has apparently already been made as a still an issue for discussion?

Watch this space for yet another case of an EU law that dribbles up on us while the media’s eye is off the ball.

 

 

Related Posts