[HN Gopher] 3M is paying $5.5B to resolve 300k lawsuits over def...
___________________________________________________________________
3M is paying $5.5B to resolve 300k lawsuits over defective combat
earplugs
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 191 points
Date : 2023-08-28 17:40 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (qz.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (qz.com)
| Caligatio wrote:
| I'm not claiming to be an earplug engineer but I feel like it
| shouldn't be hard to ensure your product literally does the one
| thing it's supposed to do: block sound. Particularly if you know
| that your earplugs are going to be extensively used in very loud
| environments, i.e. combat.
|
| I hope the $5.5B is well in excess of the military contract's
| price tag.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Is it that simple? Ears come in all sizes and shapes, its
| possible you could make an earplug that worked great for you
| but not for some other people.
|
| Peeping at news articles though, there may have been an
| internal memo where they admitted to knowing there was a
| mistake - but they continued to sell them. Very likely THAT is
| where the huge fine came. see
| https://www.greenmatters.com/business/3m-ear-plug-lawsuit
| m00x wrote:
| > Ears come in all sizes and shapes, its possible you could
| make an earplug that worked great for you but not for some
| other people.
|
| But then it wouldn't be a legal issue since all earplug
| vendors would have the same issue, and it wouldn't be
| feasible to have a design that corrects it.
| TylerE wrote:
| It is absolutely not that simple, for the reasons you name
| amongst others.
| callalex wrote:
| Ah, the ol' hacker news "Dropbox is just S3" post.
| kube-system wrote:
| That would be more simple... if that was what these were
| designed to do.
|
| One of the requirements for these custom-made ear plugs were
| was to allow the user to hear quiet conversations when used in
| a certain way.
| netr0ute wrote:
| There are these "audiophile" earphones from companies like
| Etymotic that are basically earplugs that block all
| frequencies equally and still make sound good enough to rival
| the top end of regular headphones, yet we don't hear of those
| kicking the bucket.
| dmoy wrote:
| > There are these "audiophile" earphones from companies
| like Etymotic that are basically earplugs that block all
| frequencies equally and still make sound good enough to
| rival the top end of regular headphones, yet we don't hear
| of those kicking the bucket.
|
| I don't know if you've tried to use those next to lots of
| rifle fire, but they don't work that great. If we're
| talking about their ~$40 passive earplugs, the sound
| reduction isn't sufficient for rifles, even with a perfect
| fit. You're still over 145dB after the earplugs. It's
| explicitly not for use with gunshots, it says so on the
| box.
|
| If you're talking about the active ones marketed for
| shooting sports (which incidentally don't block all
| frequencies equally), it's okay reduction for outdoor rifle
| (still painful for indoor rifle). It's much more passable
| for pistol than super loud rifles (let alone
| artillery/etc).
|
| Plus those are $300 a pair, and the 3m plugs in question
| were what, $10?
| TylerE wrote:
| Very different use case. Those have a transducer (speaker)
| inside the plug. What you'd actually need to do what they
| want is active threshold-trigger, or perhaps just really
| good ANC.
|
| Edit: Also the difference between $200+ custom molds and
| plugs, vs foam ones that need to cost a few cents each.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| This whole thing has soured my opinion of 3m ppe products as a
| whole to the point that I look at my respirator questionably.
| Does anyone know other companies that produce reliable
| respirators?
| esaym wrote:
| The sad thing is, the yellow 3m earsoft version
| (https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00017636/) would probably have
| been fine in all cases. I've been using those for nearly 20
| years. I wear them to sleep, for yard work, shooting, and even a
| brief stint in aviation. Typically get a year of use out of one
| pair before I have to change out.
| ericcumbee wrote:
| I probably should not. But I still laugh when my father who has
| service related hearing loss heard about this lawsuit and his
| reaction was "They give them earplugs now?"
| gochi wrote:
| The magic of scale. Cause millions of irreparable damage to
| citizens, be fully aware of the issue and not fix it, pay the
| fine when caught, and keep making boat loads of profits.
| FredPret wrote:
| I feel your frustration. The people responsible should be
| punished - millions of lives are f-ed up in some way now.
|
| However, the market has financially punished this company
| heavily. Look at their recent profit (/massive loss) graph:
| valustox.com/MMM
|
| I think this is due to money being set aside for this fine. But
| their stock isn't exactly booming either - probably also due to
| this.
|
| EDIT:
|
| Looks like they made just under $2B in profit per quarter, and
| now a $7B loss in one quarter. They have quite a lot of debt,
| so this isn't the easiest blow to absorb, but they should be
| able to afford this without going under.
| ihsw wrote:
| [dead]
| skyyler wrote:
| >However, the market has financially punished this company
| heavily.
|
| If I caused even three people to become deaf through gross
| negligence, I'd expect to see jailtime.
|
| Lost profit isn't a punishment to the execs that OK'd this
| shit, they still have jobs; very lucrative jobs, even.
| sokoloff wrote:
| In the US, as long as you did it with a vehicle that you
| knew did not meet road safety standards and were sober at
| the time, I think you'd be in for a modest civil penalty
| (maybe even entirely covered by insurance) and no jail
| time.
| FredPret wrote:
| Lost profit punishes 3M.
|
| Those employees directly responsible for this should be
| punished as well.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| [flagged]
| FredPret wrote:
| No!
|
| But it doesn't hurt in addition to the actual punishment.
|
| I guess the MMM entity should be punished (done as per the
| market and the lawsuit) and the employees in charge as
| well, to the extent they were responsible (perhaps not done
| yet - I'm not sure)
| pc86 wrote:
| > _millions of lives are f-ed up in some way now_
|
| It's only 300,000 lawsuits, and 85% have normal hearing. So
| it's more like 45,000.
|
| Still 45,000 too many, but certainly not "millions" by any
| stretch.
| ShrigmaMale wrote:
| this is one of the interesting problems of assessing damages in
| cases like this.
|
| putting the company out of business serves no particular
| purpose: lost jobs, higher prices and shortages for important
| products.
|
| letting it get off without a penalty establishes a clear moral
| hazard and makes it hard to compensate victims.
|
| evidently, the line is in the middle. and of course, the
| military tested these earplugs and said they met spec - so
| should 3m really bear full liability?
|
| and, even with all this: if 85% of the victims still have
| normal hearing, don't you think ambulance chasing plays a role
| here?
| teachrdan wrote:
| > putting the company out of business serves no particular
| purpose
|
| Hard disagree. Putting the company out of business strongly
| disincentivizes other companies from engaging in fraud.
|
| > the military tested these earplugs and said they met spec -
| so should 3m really bear full liability?
|
| This is exactly what a trial is designed to do: Decide who is
| liable, and to what degree. If 3M had been confident in their
| actions they could have gone to trial. But of course that
| path has the highest risk-reward.
|
| > don't you think ambulance chasing plays a role here?
|
| This doesn't matter? You seem to use "ambulance chasing" as a
| pejorative term for "lawyers trying to win suits for money,"
| but that is literally the foundation of the civil law system.
| It seems like Hacker News should appreciate that government
| has created an incentive for private attorneys to pursue
| claims on behalf of people who have been harmed.
| sokoloff wrote:
| We can appreciate that while simultaneously not
| appreciating that it creates a linked incentive for private
| attorneys to find people and convince them to claim they've
| been harmed and/or overstate the amount of harm,
| particularly in cases where it's difficult to ascertain
| whether any loss they have suffered is linked to the
| product or not.
| teachrdan wrote:
| > particularly in cases where it's difficult to ascertain
| whether any loss they have suffered is linked to the
| product or not
|
| This is what a trial is for? I'm not sure if you
| understand how a civil trial works. But lawyers from both
| sides get to present evidence supporting their case.
| Unless you're suggesting that 3M (market cap: $57.5
| billion) did not have the resources to defend themselves
| against a frivolous suit.
|
| To state what should be obvious: A company does not
| settle a frivolous lawsuit for $5.5 billion dollars.
|
| https://search.brave.com/search?q=market+cap+3M&source=de
| skt...
| sokoloff wrote:
| My comment was responding to the ambulance-chasing-
| incentives aspect of the process.
| teachrdan wrote:
| That response does not make any sense. Ambulance chasers
| only make money if they win. In this case 3M had more
| than enough resources to defend itself. At worst, they
| could have settled for a trivial amount -- if they were
| not liable. The fact that they settled for $5.5 billion
| strongly suggests they were liable and they knew it.
|
| tl;dr It's not ambulance chasing to sue a company guilty
| of corporate misconduct.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > Ambulance chasers only make money if they win.
|
| Clarification/correction: Ambulance chasers make money if
| they win _or if the defendant settles the case_.
| teachrdan wrote:
| Do you have an alternative system in mind? I'm not sure I
| understand what you're getting at. Should there be a
| purity test for lawyers to make sure they're 100% sincere
| in their lawsuits?
| avar wrote:
| > Putting the company out of business strongly
| disincentivizes other companies from engaging in fraud.
|
| It'll also disincentivize other companies from working in
| these areas at all.
|
| That's often easy to justify in isolation from an abundance
| of caution, but in the aggregate it's the cause of things
| like the Cessna 172 (a design from the 50s!) still being
| manufactured today.
| gruez wrote:
| >putting the company out of business serves no particular
| purpose: lost jobs, higher prices and shortages for important
| products.
|
| Why not keep the company around but expropriate it from the
| current owners?
| rightbyte wrote:
| Has anyone tried those? Are they worse than normal cheap foam
| ones? I have never had any ear plugs that I feel is sufficient
| for gun shots.
| ttpphd wrote:
| Protecting service members is a real challenge. I have a couple
| of papers investigating hearing protection and voice use in noisy
| military environments.
|
| https://journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/abstract/2021/11000/eva...
|
| In this study, we evaluated whether an extended-wear hearing aid
| could feasibly work as a hearing protection device. There were
| some issues, especially comfort, but perhaps once those issues
| are solved, extended-wear hearing aids might be a way to protect
| hearing while still enabling people to hear important situational
| and environmental sounds even if they have some hearing loss.
|
| https://pubs.asha.org/doi/full/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00150
|
| In this study we found an important effect of noise exposures and
| temporary threshold shifts on voice problems among service
| members. To quote myself:
|
| "A fourth hypothesis is that the relationship between voice
| concerns, hearing difficulties, and TTS arises from the trade-
| offs of wearing hearing protection in high-level noise
| environments. The use of hearing protection presents a challenge
| when selecting an appropriate vocal loudness level for effective
| communication (Brungart et al., 2012; Vaziri, 2018). In
| particular, individuals who wear hearing protection in high-noise
| environments tend to speak quietly, making them difficult to
| understand. People may overcompensate by talking too loudly
| (placing their vocal health at risk) or by removing their hearing
| protection so they can communicate more effectively (thus
| increasing TTS and placing their hearing at risk)."
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Weird, I use 3M earplugs when I'm in our data center and I think
| they are great. That's certainly not the level of noise as combat
| though. But they are much better than the squishy orange foam
| ones that the data center provides.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| [dead]
| kube-system wrote:
| These lawsuits are about this particular design, which was
| designed specifically for the military:
|
| https://filecache.thecampaignroom.com/mr5cm_3mearplugfacts/1...
| data-ottawa wrote:
| What sort of noise levels are in a data centre, or is the
| duration of noise the issue?
| liveoneggs wrote:
| datacenters are super loud (many many fans + giant HVAC,
| mostly) but you don't appreciate how loud they are because
| it's continuous and the frequencies are weird.
|
| Ear protection is definitely recommended if you are in one
| for days-at-a-time.
| [deleted]
| metaphor wrote:
| Not all 3M earplugs are created equal. These[1][2][3], for
| example, are steaming piles of hot garbage. I carry a pair of
| 3M compact 21 dB NRR earmuffs because they're superior to these
| earplugs that are way too common in our production environment.
| The skull screws and corded variant are particularly egregious
| because they have a plastic stem embedded in the foam that can
| make insertion really uncomfortable and potentially hazardous
| if you slip or get smacked on the ear.
|
| [1] https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v000153037/
|
| [2] https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v000181515/
|
| [3] https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00037662/
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >are steaming piles of hot garbage
|
| Amazon shows all these plugs have mixed reviews with average
| rating. I use these 3M plugs and love them:
| https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00017636/
|
| You should always find and match your desired band filter
| with a spec sheet:
| https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/885639O/3m-e-a-r-
| earplug...
| metaphor wrote:
| The ones that have never let me down in the field are
| these[1]. Works well from the low drone of lab server racks
| to high squeals of running jet engines with double hearing
| protection.
|
| [1] https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v000153443/
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I've brought these to the range but I could never even get the
| damned things in my ears so I just used regular foam plugs.
| iramiller wrote:
| I've used the shaped orange foam 3M ear plugs extensively while
| riding a motorcycle. The wind noise is extremely bad for you
| given the duration and surprisingly high decibels.
|
| One interesting thing I have noticed is that these plugs are
| extremely sensitive to being inserted correctly and despite
| extensive experience and good technique (which for me involves
| two hands, one to insert and one to pull the top of my ear for
| alignment) I still find the need to reinsert plugs on occasion.
|
| Unfortunately the poor fit isn't obvious until I am on the road
| at speed when the sound volume is higher than it should be. If
| this same situation arises in combat I can easily imagine that
| the higher intensity of noises would cause hearing damage far
| sooner and in addition it seems unlikely soldiers would call for
| a timeout to fix their ear plugs.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Custom mold earplugs from a ENT or other similar vendor could
| be a good fit for you (pun intended)
| dharmab wrote:
| Custom mold earplugs work _too_ well for motorcycling. They
| block emergency vehicle sirens.
|
| I once got chased halfway down a mountain by a cop I couldn't
| hear (my KTM had nearly useless factory mirrors). Cop said he
| was leaning against n his horn and my foamies blocked it out
| entirely. Somehow I didn't get a ticket...
| ArchOversight wrote:
| You can get ones with certain dB reductions instead. Those
| will allow you to still hear but at a lesser level.
|
| This is great for reducing wind noise while riding, but
| still being able to use in-helmet comms and hearing things
| like sirens/honking horns.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Yeah this. Let them know what you're using them for and
| they'll tune the NRR and frequencies for your use case.
| jsyolo wrote:
| Why not use a full head helmet with windshield?
| infecto wrote:
| That just does not work unless you have bubble around your
| whole body and I bet even then it's sufficiently loud.
|
| Unless you find the perfect windscreen, most have lots of
| buffeting and it's actually quite hard to dial it in
| perfectly.
|
| Helmets do absolutely zero to block noises.
|
| Edit: just to add. I think it stands. The helmet does not
| block any sound. It may be aero dynamic enough that it helps
| prevent additional wind noise but it's not blocking sound.
| Ear pro all the time.
| post_break wrote:
| My Shoei RF 1400 was extremely quiet. Supposedly one of the
| few helmets that you actually don't need ear plugs with
| unless you're going extremely fast.
| infecto wrote:
| I would be willing to bet the db was high enough to cause
| damage over enough time. It's not just just the peaks but
| also the duration. I would be very surprised if generally
| helmets provide much if any meaningful db reduction.
| m00x wrote:
| It depends on the helmet and speed. When I got my Arai
| helmet, the speed where the wind noise is troubling went
| from 80kmh to 130kmh.
| infecto wrote:
| Said it in another thread but while sure it matters, it's
| generally a pretty weak argument. It's your ears and you
| can decide for yourself but even if it does not sound
| loud, over the course of a ride it can still be high
| enough to slowly cause damage.
|
| To me it's the same kind of argument of friends who would
| say it's ok to shoot shotguns without ear pro. Sure it
| can be done but it adds up.
| m00x wrote:
| Maybe I don't ride enough for it to be an issue, but my
| hearing is top notch for a 35 year old.
|
| I got tested and I'm at 20 y old levels of sensitivity.
| infecto wrote:
| And I don't mean this the wrong way. Your experience is
| anecdotal. Maybe you ride in a city and slow speeds,
| maybe you have a windscreen that actually does decent job
| of creating a bubble over you, maybe you don't ride for
| extended periods of time. Too many variables to account
| for. For the population though, ear pro is recommended
| for Motorsports. I had a bike once that caused buffeting
| from the hand guards. It might work for you but generally
| does not work for many.
| dharmab wrote:
| If your Arai has the wind deflector in you are giving
| yourself oxygen deprivation at every stoplight.
| https://youtu.be/x_ej8sehs8k?si=9LtvP0TfhQzgNDVM
| m00x wrote:
| Never been an issue, and I'm susceptible to oxygen
| deprivation being a big guy with weak lungs.
|
| I get dizzy in crowds, but never while riding.
| dharmab wrote:
| At just 30kph you are getting permanent hearing loss.
| https://www.noisyplanet.nidcd.nih.gov/have-you-
| heard/wind-no...
| m00x wrote:
| Cyclists typically don't wear full face helmets with wind
| deflectors.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| You might be shocked to learn people have tried that :)
|
| It's hard to believe the amount of road noise on most
| motorcycles. It's not really comparable to rolling down the
| window in a nice modern car with good aerodynamics.
| bogantech wrote:
| Full-face helmets are still very noisy at highway speeds
| dharmab wrote:
| Just 18mph of wind is enough to cause permanent hearing
| damage. Windshields and helmets don't block enough of the air
| (the rider needs some air ventilation for defogging in cold
| weather and cooling in hot weather.)
|
| If you try to fully seal the helmet you cause measurable
| oxygen deprivation.
| https://youtu.be/x_ej8sehs8k?si=9LtvP0TfhQzgNDVM
| barrkel wrote:
| Even a quiet helmet, at speed it's like a radio tuned to
| static turned up to a noise level just below painful.
| Windshields can actually make it worse, depending on airflow
| - turbulent air coming over the top and around the sides of
| the windshield is louder than clean smooth air. Windshields
| do more for fatigue, weather protection and aerodynamics.
|
| I wear hearing aids due to motorcycle-related hearing loss,
| and I have never worn anything less than a full helmet.
| moonchrome wrote:
| If there's any airflow (and there better be for breathing and
| ventilation) there's wind noise at speed. You're always
| better off with plugs.
| dharmab wrote:
| I switched from the 3M plugs to Pinlock plugs for most riding.
| The Pinlock ones are suitable for around town, twisties and
| short highway runs, but allow me to hear engines, sirens,
| conversations, etc. They slide in easily with a little water. I
| still use the foamies for long road trips.
| Reubachi wrote:
| Tangential but using water (which critically is not the same
| as sweat) to get earplugs in regularly would cause your
| doctor to have an annuerism.
|
| I'm legit interested in this because I chase constant ear
| infections from needing to put in earbuds/plugs right after
| showering for my routine/work flow.
|
| Have you ever had an issue?
| function_seven wrote:
| I used to use water all the time to slide earplugs in, and
| never had any issues with ear infections. But I always had
| a nagging voice inside my head telling me it wasn't a good
| idea.
|
| Did I get lucky? Or maybe I'm just less susceptible to
| infections? I always made sure the water was clean, but I
| suppose if there were bacteria on the outer surface of my
| ear, the water would carry it inward easier than a dry
| fitting would?
| m00x wrote:
| It's luck, and maybe genetic thing.
|
| Water cleanliness doesn't guarantee anything, bacteria is
| everywhere. Some scuba divers with the same technique get
| infections often, some don't (with same techniques). I
| got an infection on my first dive, then nothing ever
| again. Some get them every 6-7 dives.
| avar wrote:
| > Water cleanliness doesn't matter, bacteria is
| everywhere[...]
|
| It matters a lot, I've dived extensively, and the only
| time I've gotten an ear infection was in Indonesia,
| likely polluted runoff water contributed to that.
|
| You'll find scientific articles backing that up, i.e.
| infections in general go up when swimming in untreated
| sewage/runoff, including ear infections.
| m00x wrote:
| I miswrote that. Water cleanliness matters, but it
| doesn't guarantee a lack of infection.
|
| Sorry for the confusion.
| swores wrote:
| Is it worse than having a bath where your ears go under
| water or a shower where water splashes into ears? Isn't
| that something many people do daily?
| ketzo wrote:
| After a bath or shower, your ears are open to the air,
| and the water can evaporate.
|
| The earplugs keep the water sealed in your inner ear for
| a long time where it can't dry, increasing the chance of
| infection.
|
| Some people do just get more frequent ear infections than
| others, though, from swimming or even just daily
| showers/baths. That gets back to the luck/genetics thing.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Diving has total saturation and additional pressure
| driving the water deeper than water splashed at 1
| atmosphere of absolute pressure.
|
| Combat (or riding or flying) has longer duration of
| dampness than getting out of a bath/shower and going
| about your normal routine.
| dharmab wrote:
| It doesn't take much. I just run them under the tap and
| flick most of the water off. It helps form a seal and then
| dries off. They always come out dry.
|
| I can see how putting them in right after a shower can be
| worse since you might have water collecting in your ears.
| badpun wrote:
| Is it legal to wear earplugs while riding on public roads?
| dharmab wrote:
| Not only legal but strongly encouraged by our instructors to
| prevent hearing loss. There are riding specific earplugs
| tuned to block the wind and road noise more than sirens,
| horns, etc
| andersrs wrote:
| [flagged]
| mathisfun123 wrote:
| > The majority of motorcycles are deliberately loud
|
| this is peak reactionary nonsense - that majority of
| motorcycles are stock bikes from the manufacturer, ie
| appropriately muffled. like with absolutely anything else in
| life: you don't notice the ones that are muffled and thus,
| conversely, you assume the majority aren't.
|
| > I can't say I have much sympathy for motorcyclists losing
| their hearing
|
| it's just so weird to me that people will voluntarily be
| spiteful like this. like does this make someone feel good? to
| proudly proclaim their spite? i must've watched too much
| disney when i was a kid because when i'm spiteful _i_ feel
| bad.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site
| guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.
|
| Your comment would have been fine with just the substantive
| point.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| dang wrote:
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| barrkel wrote:
| You're noticing the ones which aren't stock.
| redeeman wrote:
| > The majority of motorcycles are deliberately loud
|
| you're ignorant. if you truly do not know that you just
| spewed BS, i feel sorry for you.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't cross into personal attack or name-calling,
| regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
|
| If you'd please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick
| to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. We've
| had to warn you about breaking them in the past.
| Fortunately it looks like you've been doing it less lately,
| but please don't go back to posting the other way.
| tguvot wrote:
| wind noise. not engine noise.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I've got flange-shaped earplugs for the motorcycle, they seem
| to be just fine. Pulling up the ear is good practice for any
| kind of earplug though, I presume it straightens out the ear
| canal or something like that, I've used it for audio earbuds as
| well for a long time.
|
| If they fall out, get different ones.
|
| My dad had custom molded ones for his job (in metalwork), but
| that was well after the damage was done. He had tinnitus and
| he's now finally budged and got himself some subtle hearing
| aids.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| You can do the custom-molded ones yourself now, I had some
| for motorcycle riding and they worked very well.
| Unfortunately the ambulance cut them off of me when I got in
| a wreck so they are toast now, but they did their job great
| up until then!
|
| I used https://earfuze.com/ but I'm sure there are better
| ones out now.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| Any gun enthusiast that has ever tried to take friends shooting
| knows how hard it is to get people to wear earplugs correctly,
| especially the foam ones.
|
| I'd say about 75% of guys do it wrong but will fix it if you show
| them how.
|
| Basically 100% of women I have taken shooting hate ear plugs and
| it's almost a relationship argument trying to get them to install
| them correctly.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Now I'm curious, can you point to what most people are doing
| wrong, and what leads people to hate doing it right? (Does it
| cause pain or something? What's the resistance?) Even if just a
| link or a video.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| The basic steps to doing it properly are
|
| 1. Roll the earplug to compress it (similar to if you've ever
| made a snake out of play-dough). Most people do this properly
| but some people just immediately try to jam the earplugs in
| while they're flaccid, which prevents them from inserting
| very far.
|
| 2. While inserting the earplug, use your opposite hand to
| pull on your ear (eg use your left hand over your head to
| yank your right ear up a bit). This helps line up your ear
| canal. Most people don't do this
|
| 3. Hold the earplug in place for 10-30 seconds, so that the
| foam you compressed in step 1 has time to reexpand and lock
| in. I don't think I've ever seen someone actually do this
| step.
|
| IMO the move for new shooters (especially indoors, where IMO
| it's a good idea for everyone) is to double up on ear pro.
| Use ear plugs in addition to muffs (bonus points for ANC
| muffs with amplification, so you don't have to shout). It'll
| reduce the sensory overload and physical discomfort that some
| people experience.
| [deleted]
| rascul wrote:
| Here is how to properly use the inexpensive soft foam ear
| plugs:
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/content/earplug.html
|
| What I often see people do is skip all that and just stuff it
| in the ear until it doesn't fall out. This does not get a
| proper seal. It might still be better than nothing but I
| doubt it protects much when used incorrectly.
| Alupis wrote:
| Bring a spare set or two of over the head ear muffs. Really
| hard to get those wrong... At the range with friends I'll
| usually loan out my old pairs. I have a couple various
| quality/tier electric ear muffs, and some old school regular
| ear muffs.
|
| The electric ones, even the cheap ones, usually get people
| interested in getting a pair. Being able to hear conversations,
| but still dampen gunfire is really nice.
| exabrial wrote:
| The vast majority of vets I've heard talk about this admit they
| never actually used the ear plugs in combat... basically when
| things start happening they weren't reaching for earplugs... The
| real problem is the military provided no _practical_ combat
| hearing protection at all for the longest time.
| aabhay wrote:
| The reality seems even worse. 1M+ cases of tinnitus or hearing
| loss linked to these earplugs, claims increasing double digits
| YoY.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The reality of these lawsuits is that everyone with an
| impairment who ever used or plausibly used said product in the
| past will put out their hand for a payout.
|
| Is everyone lying in these suits? No.
|
| Are large numbers of people lying? Yes.
|
| It's like if dell keyboards were linked to arthritis. Suddenly
| everyone with arthritis is saying they used a dell keyboard for
| 15 years. They don't have to mention that everyone in their
| family going back 3 generations had arthritis.
| autoexec wrote:
| I suspect there'll also be a ton of people who suffer from
| hearing damage because 3M hid the truth about their faulty
| product but who never join a class action, and that for many
| (if not most) who do try to get compensation whatever
| "payout" they get will be nothing compared to what they've
| lost.
|
| Hearing loss is probably something most of us will deal with
| at some point, and I've spoken to a lot of people who are
| already dealing with it and every one of them wishes they'd
| had more time with good hearing. It changes their daily lives
| and limits their ability to experience and interact with the
| world around them.
| aabhay wrote:
| But don't you think that's the first thing that 3M's counsel
| looked at to try and prove their innocence? Take the veteran
| incidence of hearing less divided by the population level
| incidence of hearing loss and see if that ratio went up after
| the introduction of 3M earbuds? And if there's a significant
| change there then it's likely that the earbuds were defective
| by design or there were manufacturing issues. At that point
| everyone who was exposed to that phenomenon DOES deserve the
| payout, as there's a plausible risk that the earbuds worsened
| it.
| [deleted]
| crazygringo wrote:
| Some context [1] that is missing from the article:
|
| > _3M has said the CAEv2 earplugs, which were designed in the
| late 1990s so soldiers could carry only one set of earplugs in
| multiple types of combat, aren't faulty unless they are worn
| incorrectly and 3M said it worked in "close coordination" with
| the U.S. military to develop the design._
|
| > _3M tried to use the government-contractor defense, which
| allows companies to be protected if equipment made under a
| government contract is later found to be defective, but the court
| rejected the defense because there was never a written contract
| between the U.S. government and Aearo regarding the earplugs '
| design._
|
| Unfortunately, I can't find any clear answers around whether they
| do always work when worn correctly, whether they were
| manufactured to specification or not, or whether the
| specification was ultimately (verbally?) approved by the
| government.
|
| All of which makes it exceedingly hard for any of us to judge
| whether this was 3M being negligent in design or manufacturing,
| or the government being negligent in ordering something it knew
| or should have known was defective in advance, or the military
| being negligent in not ensuring soldiers were using them
| correctly, or multiple of these. Unless someone here has more
| sources?
|
| [1]
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/08/27/3m-may-...
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| It sounds like (pun intended) one side of them was not working
| as described. The green end was designed to
| block out all sound. The yellow end, signaling "whisper mode,"
| purported to block out loud sound -- but allowed the user to
| hear quieter noises, like conversations.
|
| My source is hear (hah):
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/15/3m-legal-battle-combat-grade...
| crazygringo wrote:
| Thanks for that. A lot of interesting details:
|
| > _"The purpose of the creation of [the Combat Arms earplugs]
| was to collaborate with the military to solve one of the
| longest-standing problems they have had, that soldiers won't
| wear their hearing protection around loud noises and in
| combat," Rucker said._
|
| > _Rucker said the plugs were designed in collaboration with
| the U.S. military and tested by the Air Force, Army, National
| Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and others._
|
| > _"3M has purposefully skewed this data by relying on
| hearing standards that do not measure frequencies most
| affected by noise, concealing the hearing damage suffered by
| veterans," said Bryan Aylstock and Chris Seeger, co-lead
| counsel for the service members and veterans, in a joint
| statement._
|
| > _3M disagreed with those claims, telling CNBC: "The data
| support what 3M has maintained throughout this litigation:
| the Combat Arms Earplugs version two were safe and effective
| to use. This has been confirmed by every independent, third-
| party organization that has tested the product, including the
| Army Research Lab, the Air Force Research lab, NIOSH, and
| others."_
|
| Ultimately, whose job should it be to determine whether or
| not they're defective? If the military tested them in advance
| and determined they met standards, and they were manufactured
| identically to what the military approved, should 3M be the
| one held responsible?
| hyperhello wrote:
| If all of that is true, it's arbitrary whether 3M is part
| of the military or not, and can be held responsible.
| Nition wrote:
| > soldiers won't wear their hearing protection around loud
| noises and in combat
|
| I haven't been in combat, thankfully, but I assume the
| problem is that you also want to hear quiet sounds clearly,
| and others around you talking etc?
|
| In the audio world we would fix this with a compressor or a
| limiter. You set a loudness threshold and then reduce the
| component of the audio input that's above that threshold in
| volume by a fixed ratio, e.g. 4:1. A limiter is the same
| but the ratio is infinite (or near it), so the threshold
| becomes the maximum loudness. Basically, reduce the dynamic
| range.
|
| I wonder how much it would cost to have active processing
| like that integrated into hearing protection. I'm sure
| they've thought of it.
|
| Or maybe I'm thinking too fancy - maybe you could achieve
| the same thing without electronics. Loud sounds are just
| more pressure after all... could we have a little hole
| that's open in normal conditions but loud sounds push it
| closed?
|
| I know this is probably one of those things where "random
| idiot on hacker news thinks he has a new idea that we've
| _of course_ already researched thoroughly in the industry "
| but if these exit it'd be cool to see, or if they don't
| it'd be cool to know why.
| mkmk wrote:
| > Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to warn or instruct of
| the following risks and dangers of using the CAEv2 as intended:
| (1) that the CAEv2 loosens imperceptibly in a user's ears,
| thereby allowing damaging sounds to bypass the earplug and
| enter the ear; (2) that Aearo's testing subjects did not follow
| standard fitting instructions, but rather used a reconfigured
| method of folding back the opposing flanges before inserting
| the device into their ears; (3) that following Defendants'
| standard instructions for insertion of the CAEv2 would not
| achieve the 22 Noise Reduction Rating and would thereby pose a
| serious risk to users; and (4) that Defendants did not
| adequately or properly test the CAEv2.
|
| https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flnd-3_19-md-02...
| TylerE wrote:
| Wow, I had no idea they were that bad. 22NRR for guns at
| close range is...not much. Most range shooters will be using
| at least 30+ (which is WAY MORE than ~40% effective -
| decibels are logarithmic). Some will even wear 30+ plugs
| under 35+ muffs. (Which don't add, btw, again, logarithms,
| but doubling up does get you a few extra decibels reduction
| over either component alone.
| mkmk wrote:
| Tradeoff with retaining ability to hear commands/maintain
| situational awareness on the battlefield, perhaps?
| kazinator wrote:
| Yes, it should add! If we cascade a 30 dB reduction with
| another 30 dB reduction, we should get 60 dB reduction.
|
| The only reason you likely won't get anywhere near 60 dB
| from a combination of plugs and muffs has nothing to do
| with logarithms, but with physics/topology.
|
| Namely, the reason why these devices have the rating they
| do and not something better is not only that sounds goes
| _through_ them but that it goes around them, e.g. through
| your skull or Eustachian tube or whatever.
|
| When signal is leaking around the attenuators, then their
| decibel reductions cannot simply add. Even if the
| attenuators completely block signal, they will be bypassed,
| and so the best decibel reduction is limited by the floor
| of the bypassing signal.
|
| But decibels definitely add. E.g. in an electronic circuit
| where we have vanishingly low leakage around our
| attenuation stages, if we cascade a -6 dB drop with a -12
| dB drop we will get -18 dB. Now suppose we have a parasitic
| leakage from input to output so that even if we disconnect
| our circuits signal path, some input still reaches the
| output: say -100 dB. It might be going through ground
| wires, or inductive or capacitive cross-talk between
| circuit traces or whatever. That then sets the upper bound
| on our attenuation; we will not be able to attenuate better
| than -100 dB, because then the leakage dominates.
|
| I mentioned the Eustachian tube. If your ears are stuffed
| to heck and you have muffs over that, and then yawn with an
| open mouth, you may suddenly hear a lot more noise. Oops!
| TylerE wrote:
| No, because decibles are logarithmic.
|
| 30db + 30db = 33db
|
| https://www.noisemeters.com/apps/db-calculator/
|
| With hearing protection the ratings are _in isolation_.
| They are not circuit components that work serially. Sound
| transmits through the skull physically.
| sp332 wrote:
| But physically, if you put a 30 db noise reducer behind
| another 30 db noise reducer, you will get 60 db noise
| reduction overall.
| TylerE wrote:
| But you can't!
|
| Sound waves have many paths to the eardrum and related
| tiny bones.
| kazinator wrote:
| I predict that TylerE will not believe you.
| TylerE wrote:
| Neither does osha. They spec that when earring muffs and
| plugs the effective rating is the higher rated product
| +5db.
| kazinator wrote:
| Note that this estimate disagrees with the wholly
| inappropriate calculator you cited, which will never
| produce a value exceeding the higher value by more than 3
| dB.
|
| OSHA almost certainly had to empirically determine the
| estimate, either with a real human head, a fake one, or
| some numerical model or something.
| Retric wrote:
| That's likely due to sound conduction through your body.
| An isolated box inside another isolated box can reach
| well past +5db of improvement.
|
| This is how you can deal with truly extreme sounds like
| rocket launches and bomb tests.
|
| There's some edge cases as distance doesn't stack well
| with distance, but distance does stack well with ear
| protection.
| TylerE wrote:
| That's my entire point! You have to consider the entire
| system and not isolated components.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Attenuation is multiplicative.
| TylerE wrote:
| If you are attnuating 100% of the signal, yes. That is
| very much not the case with earplugs.
| kazinator wrote:
| I'm afraid are seriously misunderstanding what that
| calculator is for.
|
| In this calculator, whenever you add any equal decibel
| values X, you get X + X = X + 3: three more decibels.
|
| There is a familiar meaning behind that: it means that if
| we have two _independent_ noise sources of about equal
| intensity, and add them together, the result is 3dB more
| intense.
|
| E.g. if we have a loudspeaker playing white noise, and
| add an identical loudspeaker playing the same kind of of
| white noise at the same level, we get 3dB more white
| noise.
|
| It has nothing to do with cascaded boosts or
| attenuations.
|
| If we add together two sources that contain the same
| signal, in phase, then the rule is 6 dB. Like two
| identical loudspeakers in a cabinet instead of one,
| playing exactly the same signal.
|
| The reason we can add decibels for cascaded attenuations
| and boosts is exactly the same reason why we can add
| displacements on a slide rule to do multiplication.
| Attenuations (such as a voltage divider) multiply the
| signal. E.g. multiplying by 1/2 is -6db.
|
| In the logarithmic space, multiplication turns to
| addition. This is typically covered in high school.
|
| > _They are not circuit components that work serially._
|
| That's true, but I addressed in it my comment (with
| several redundant remarks) in such a way that the above
| remark doesn't add more clarity. I have a sneaking
| suspicion you might not have read it in detail.
| javajosh wrote:
| Perhaps it would be helpful to consider the path of a
| phonon going through a barrier. The odds of that phonon
| making it through is 1 chance in N. If there are two
| barriers, the odds of a phonon making it through both in
| series is 1 chance in N^2. That is, the odds multiply,
| and you are absolutely correct that dB's add (since they
| are basically log(N) in this case and log(N^2) =
| 2log(N)).
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| While not 3M's product nor the CAEv2, I have several pair
| "plain ol" soft rubber/silicone earplugs with a similar
| flange setup.
|
| I've noticed they tend to easily slide out of position just
| slightly. A bit of ear wax, a bit of sweat, a swallow, etc
| nudge them just enough to break the seal. Since they're a
| fully sealed earplug, it's obvious when they shift and I push
| them back in. I could only imagine how frustrating that
| shifting would be in combat with these.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| I think you can take it from their settlement that they think
| they have some reasonable chances of losing. Fighting a lawsuit
| you are likely to win only costs a fraction of this amount.
| nimbius wrote:
| tv commercial: "if you or a loved one..."
|
| veteran: "what?"
|
| tv commercial: "served in the military between..."
|
| veteran: "served a delicious military bean?"
|
| tv commercial: "you may be entitled to significant
| compensation..."
|
| veteran: "I knew those dang earplugs wrecked my hearing but i
| didnt know people were eating them...i guess that explains the
| significant constipation..."
| bkartal wrote:
| redditor: anything more original? common citizen: vow that is a
| good one!
| not_legal_yoda wrote:
| Does it make more sense to sue on your own in cases like this
| instead of going with the class action lawsuit in order to score
| a larger settlement?
|
| Edit: clarity
|
| Edit 2: From the article "$265 million: Total awarded to 13
| plaintiffs who have sued over the earplugs to date" --> average
| of $20 million per settlement. At $5.5B for 300k lawsuits the
| result is an average of 18k per settlement??!! That appears to be
| a dramatic difference to the individual lawsuits.
| [deleted]
| PerryUlyssesCox wrote:
| 3M also knows that many of the claimants are full of it - but a
| court would still side in favor of veterans so it makes sense to
| settle the cases.
|
| "Nearly a quarter of the plaintiffs with impairment under either
| AMA or WHO standards reported their condition in hearing tests
| before they ever used the Combat Arms earplugs"
|
| "Under WHO and National Institute of Health standards, more than
| 85% of plaintiffs have normal hearing."
| hammock wrote:
| >"Under WHO and National Institute of Health standards, more
| than 85% of plaintiffs have normal hearing."
|
| If a device degrades your hearing from supernormal to just
| normal, or from high-normal to low-normal, is that not still
| damage?
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| IANAL , but unless you have a reference point to start with ,
| I don't think you could prove damages.
|
| normal is a normal range, unless you can prove your "new"
| normal is sufficiently worse than what you started with
| [deleted]
| hammock wrote:
| It sounds like nearly 25% of people have a reference point
| to start with to prove that their new normal is
| sufficiently worse than what they started with:
|
| "Nearly a quarter of the plaintiffs ... reported their
| condition in hearing tests before they ever used the Combat
| Arms earplugs."
|
| That would seem to mean they have a "before" measurement,
| and can now test to get an "after" measurement.
| rascul wrote:
| When I enlisted into the US Army in 2006, a hearing test
| was done for all of us as part of the initial entry stuff.
| Then we had hearing tests every so often since, maybe every
| year or two. In my case, and I suspect for most, any
| hearing loss while in service is likely to be documented. I
| did not have any, and I also didn't use the specific
| earplugs the lawsuits are about.
|
| Although that does require the hearing tests to be done
| correctly. It was hard to tell sometimes if I heard the
| tone or imagined it.
| TylerE wrote:
| Even with all that, almost everyone loses hearing as they
| age, so you'd really have to shnow not just loss, but loss
| beyond what'd be expected from a population being nearly 30
| years older.
| dogman144 wrote:
| Full of it, or had hearing issues like everyone does in the
| service, and then goes to a live fire exercise every few weeks
| or combat with 3M plugs and the issue goes from bad to deaf?
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| 1. There are hearing disorders related to noise exposure that
| may come without detectable hearing loss, like hyperacusis and
| tinnitus. See "Hidden Hearing Loss".
|
| 2. Most hearing tests only go up to 8 kHz.
| squirrel6 wrote:
| Were it not for the faulty design, they would not have been
| exposed to dangerous levels of noise.
|
| But to your credit, there are plenty of arguments that could
| explain hearing loss at any degree, including voluntary
| consumption of ototoxic chemicals like alcohol and ibuprofen.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-28 23:01 UTC)