After news reports showed the local community reaching out to help, a conscience-riddled burglar who stole two hearing aids belonging to 11-year-old Haley Osmond of Edmonton, Canada, anonymously returned one of them Monday.

"Shows that this guy at least has some conscience to him," Const. Jeff Benedict from Edmonton police said in an article in the CBC News.

The aids, which were the external pieces of cochlear implants and reported to be worth more than $20,000, had been in Haley's schoolbag, and her mother Rachel indicated her belief that thief accidentally stole the hearing aids when he used the bag to carry her son's Xbox out of the house, CBC News reports.

After talking with the media, the Osmonds received a slew of support from their surrounding community, according to an article in the Edmonton Sun. Several people sent e-mails pledging money to help replace the devices and, touched by the support, Rachel indicated she planned to open a bank account for the cause. A man raised $650 for the cause by turning his Halloween party into a fundraiser, and a woman even offered her own son's hearing aids since he can no longer wear them due to medical reasons (they weren't the same type, but the gesture was genuine). In addition, another fundraiser was planned for this coming Saturday at a local pub.

"Wow, this whole week from Tuesday to today has been a complete down and a complete up," Rachel told the Sun. "I can't put it into words right now. I'm floored."

CBC News reports that the police received an anonymous call from a man at 3 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 16, saying he had heard about the story on the news. He directed them to a garbage bag outside a nearby mall; it contained only one of the hearing aids-police believe the other fell out during the theft-as well as the stolen Xbox and Haley's backpack.

It's definitely a pretty crazy story, but in the midst of a slow news week, I thought it was a pretty worthwhile one. Not only was the Edmonton community kind enough to step up big time, but the thief even realized stealing a hearing aid is stepping way over the line.

Recent research from the University of Rochester Medical Center has shown that crossing a mouse with poor hearing and a mouse with even worse hearing results in a strain of mice who have "golden ears"-meaning they retain great hearing, despite the onset of age.

This unlikely result fascinates me, mainly because I can't quite wrap my head around it.

The concept of negatives negating one another makes sense mathematically and linguistically, but it seems odd that it would work on a genetic scale. I get the concept of two negatives making a positive, but I still don't quite get how two hearing-impaired mice can be bred to create a mouse impervious to age-induced hearing loss.

Sadly, the researchers don't comment on this peculiarity, as they instead focus on what the new strain can help them achieve. Doing the latter is obviously important, but I'm left wondering if genetic double negatives can apply elsewhere-could two mice (or even people) with other ailments (multiple sclerosis, vision impairment, whatever) breed to have a genetically superior offspring?

Does this tickle anyone else's curiosity?

Researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center are beginning a five-year study on the strength of a $1.9 million grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders that will compare the hearing of people with HIV/AIDS to people without HIV.

According to study lead Amneris Luque, MD, associate professor of Medicine and director of Strong Memorial Hospital's AIDS Clinic, hearing loss has been reported among AIDS patients since the disease was recognized three decades ago, but these reports have gone unconfirmed.

"There has not been a systematic study looking at hearing function in people with HIV," Dr. Luque says. "If there is hearing impairment, it could be related to the disease itself; it might be related to infections that our patients with AIDS are prone to getting; or it might be related to the medications used to treat the disease."

Dr. Luque will work with a hearing research team renowned for their work with age-related hearing loss. He noted that scientists have found some evidence to suggest people with HIV/AIDS may age prematurely, and so that team will look closely at the effects of this possibility on hearing loss.

"We're trying to tease out what is happening in people with HIV," Dr. Luque says. "Is there something inherent about the infection that may be involved in hearing loss?"

Obviously the correlation between HIV and hearing loss is nothing new (a simple Google search turns up over a million hits), but hopefully this study will shed more definitive light on the subject.

Although the country is still in the midst of a major economic crunch, it's important not to overlook/undervalue the importance of quality office help. Yes, having that extra employee can be a financial strain on an audiology practice's bottom line, but I thought I'd share two articles from our recently released November/December 2009 issue of ADVANCE that both happened to make what I think are two pretty good points:

1. Having office help can result in quality of life benefits; and
2. Administrative support can free audiologists up to give more time to their patients.

In our cover story, "Settling In," Lisa Klop, AuD, owner of Yarmouth Audiology, Yarmouth, ME, acknowledged the benefits of having good office help. For a year, Dr. Klop says she ran her practice as a one-woman show, juggling financial reports, payroll, taxes, and business regulations. Eventually, she recognized "one person can't do it all."

"I realized I could not wear all hats. I didn't want to give up time with my patients, which was going to end up being the ultimate cost," Dr, Klop told ADVANCE. "Your practice is going to be successful when you have people you can trust at your side. Office managers, accountants, bookkeepers, attorneys, and payroll services are invaluable resources. I guess you could say it takes a village."

Later in the issue, we featured a story I wrote on virtual assistants (VAs), contracted entrepreneurs who offer administrative services from a home office without the financial complications that come with traditional assistants. Full details about VAs can be found in the article, but the basic allure is that since you can contract on hourly or retainer rates, you pay for 100 percent productive time, which can be especially helpful for small practices that can't afford to pay full-time wages for minimal need.

"Even in these tough economic times, one of the smartest things people can do is get the administrative support they really need, so it frees them up to work with more clients and make more money" said Stacey Brice, founder of the VA profession and CEO of Assist U, a virtual organization committed to training, coaching, supporting, and certifying VAs.

Ms. Brice also made some quality of life comments that didn't make it into the article. In the interest of highlighting this theme, I thought I might share her remarks here:

"Business owners can do anything, they just can't do everything. What happens when money gets tight is people try to do everything, and then everything suffers. I have this quotation that hangs on my wall--it was in a magazine--and it just says ‘If you work 20 hours a day your product will be crap,' and that's the bottom line. You cannot have a balanced life, you cannot run a successful business, you cannot pay attention to all the things that need to be paid attention to, keep all the balls juggling in the air and not drop stuff, if you're doing it all yourself.

"One of the things that people have to think about when they run their own business is ‘If I work with people doing what I do, I bill at this rate,' whatever that rate is. If I take time away from doing that to do my administrative work, I'm actually paying myself that same amount of money to do administrative work I probably don't do very well. So it's probably in my best interest to get someone who is an expert at administrative work, who can make all of this stuff hum and sing and make me look brilliant, and probably be less expensive than paying myself to do it, and it frees me to work with more clients and make more money or go spend time with my kids. So it's very cost effective, and it's very cost efficient."

I just became aware of From Silence to Sound, a documentary that tells the story of the first recipient of a bilateral cochlear implant in Oklahoma. The film is slated to play at the New York International Film Festival on Friday, Oct. 23, 2009, and because of that, I received a press release.

It seems like an interesting film, so I thought I'd pass along some excerpts from the release:

"Director Chase Matthews offers this moving documentary about Justin Garrett, a completely deaf young man who, in 2006, agreed to undergo radical cochlear implant surgery that could possibly make him hear for the first time. Matthews follows Justin as he prepares for, submits to and recovers from the high-stakes surgery. Success will reverse Justin's condition, but failure will irrevocably destine him to a lifetime of total silence."

"Producer Jenine Mayring comments, "One of my goals for this project was to subtitle the film in English, thereby making it accessible to deaf audiences worldwide." Mayring is a former American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter and instructor whose credits as an ASL consultant include the hit TV shows ER and nip/tuck."

The film, which also delves into the affects his hearing problem had on his mother, father and wife, as well as his relationships with each of them, has actually been making the festival rounds for a few years. Tulsa World published a great article on the Garret and the film in April.

It's also worth pointing out that Garret discussed his desire to function as part of the hearing world and the hearing impaired world in an article in the Park Labrea News/Beverly Press.

"I have been involved a lot with the hearing world, but I try to remind myself that I came from the deaf community. I want to show the deaf community there is a lot out there they can do...I still take part in deaf activism, deaf awareness week and things like that."

The trailer for the film can be found at its official Web site, which also offers the film for purchase on DVD.

Over the course of the last two weeks, I've blogged about some pretty political stuff, offering up lengthy opinion pieces on government volume control and acoustic warfare. This week, I thought I'd take a lighter approach and focus on something a bit less controversial and a bit more fun.

Because of this, I'm just going to keep this blog short and point out a cute little picture I came across when sifting through Google alerts. According to FastCharacters.com, a company that offers cartoon character design and mascot design services, Cochlear UK recently contacted them requesting that they create a character "to help communicate what can be somewhat dry information about their technology."

I can't seem to find any mention of the character on Cochlear's Web site, but the mock-up seems pretty cute, so I thought I would share. What do you think of it?

FastCharacters.com seems to have done a pretty good job of taking Cochlear's brand image (seen at the top left of this page) and turning it into a kid-friendly cartoon. I'm interested to see how they use it and if it branches outside of the UK, because it can't hurt to have a mascot like this.

A Mindless Aside:

Is it just me or does this character have a similar aura to one of those Microsoft Word office assistants that often come up at the bottom of the screen? Or better yet, Mr. DNA from Jurassic Park.

Is it OK for police forces to use acoustic warfare to disperse unruly crowds and political protestors?

That's the question I'm currently pondering, as I'm sure are many in the hearing industry (and, to be honest, the entire country) after the events that transpired in Pittsburgh last week.

For those who are unaware, a quick summary: Pittsburgh police used a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) to disperse protestors at the Group of 20 summit last week. The device, which targets large volumes of sound in specific directions, was developed initially for military use. It can be used to communicate, but the military has used it to repel battlefield insurgents and Somali pirates with a piercing, car-alarm like noise that is louder than a jet engine (over 150 decibels) at close distances and still audible two miles away, according to an article in The Washington Times.

The use of the device has been staunchly opposed by a variety of organizations, including the American Tinnitus Association, who said protestors "were ‘acoustically assaulted' with sound over 140 decibels, which it described as ‘like the kind of sound pressure members of the armed service might face from an Improvised Explosive Device (IED)," according to the Times article.

As many in the hearing industry know, sound at half of this level can be seriously detrimental to hearing health. This concept was covered in my last blog, and has been a major talking point in the industry for organizations like the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), whose "Listen to Your Buds" campaign has gone to great lengths to warn iPod-loving youth of the potential for noise-induced hearing loss.

However, with these LRADs we're talking about a completely different ballgame-we're talking potential immediate hearing damage. The device's creator, American Technology Corp., told the Times the device is not meant to be used as a weapon, but rather "to influence the behavior and gain compliance," from people, but that comment really just sounds like a softened definition of, well, weapons.

The company's spokesperson went further in defending the technology to the Times, saying it was meant as a communications device for delivering "critical information, instructions and warnings." He said that while they can be harmful, the officers using the devices have been trained. To be fair, police reported that they were aware of potential dangers, and so they used it about 12 feet off the ground so that no one would be in their direct path, according to an article in the Associated Press.

However, regardless if someone was severely hurt in this instance, it unnerves me that these LRADs are growing in popularity and being bought by more and more cities. I understand the officers have been trained, but the margin for error is slight--defenders of the technology talk about its ability to maintain order without hurting people, but it seems every use of the technology will walk a fine line between being effectively annoying enough to be successful and extremely dangerous. And let's be real: police officers are occasionally going to overstep their bounds and/or make mistakes when it comes to enforcing the law-it's why cities all over the country pay millions upon millions in settlement fees. Sometimes, such collateral damage payments are necessary, but I ask, "Are they necessary here?" (especially when the collateral damage can also include permanent hearing damage).

Furthermore, the fact that people would be so disturbed by the sound that they need to cover their ears and flee, indicates the sound may be more problematic than defenders are letting on. The spokesperson for American Technology Corp. has said that those complaining have probably exposed themselves to worse noise at rock concerts, but that doesn't make it better (just because someone inflicts the damage on themselves, doesn't mean it justifies others to do so). Nor does it add up, as Witold Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania pointed out to the Associated Press: "People don't flee from the front row of a rock concert. Why would they be fleeing here? Because it's loud, it's painfully loud."

The deployment and use of LRADs points to, I think, the nation's overall inability to "get it" when it comes to hearing. Real political movement to protect hearing is hard to come by, and the population as a whole doesn't worry about their hearing either. Similarly, in attempting to find a non-violent means of crowd control, defenders of this technology are missing the big picture.

Arguing against this technology makes me feel like somewhat of an idealist, because I understand it can be tough for police forces to maintain order, and it's not like these protestors were being totally peaceful (they damaged property and even rolled a dumpster down a hill at cops, for Pete's sake). But I just can't get past the potential drawbacks of this technology.

If  LRADs have the capability to be sonic weapons, they are sonic weapons. There's no softening it or arguing it-as the saying goes, "a duck is a duck is a duck." Likening LRADs to some sort of overpowered microphone that enables communication with unruly crowds seems to be simplifying the issue to a cartoonish degree-it's like giving police forces bazookas and saying they are merely meant for protection. It's dangerous, excessive and ridiculous, but because it only concerns hearing, people aren't seeing it that way.

Here in the U.S., a great deal of talk is swirling about government-regulated healthcare. Over in Europe, they've already got a universal healthcare option, so they're focusing on something else-regulating volume levels on MP3 players.

The European Union has asked Apple, makers of the iPod, and other manufacturers, to "display labels advising users of the damaging long-term effects of loud music on their hearing or to devise a system of on-screen alerts triggered by the prolonged use of headphones at high noise levels," according to an article in the London-based The Times.

However, the EU isn't stopping there; they also plan to set a union-wide default volume setting of 80 decibels for portable music players. The Times reports that this is the volume deemed safe for 40 hours of use per week. Although users will be able to override the default, the EU is calling for periodic warnings from the music device if the unsafe volume level persists.

Another article on the matter can be found in the Seattle Times. That article produced this nugget of information:

"The EU's executive commission said the maximum sound levels of players now being sold range between 80 and 115 decibels. Using different earphones could add to those levels by up to 9 decibels. Above 120 decibels is equivalent to the level of noise generated by an airplane taking off."

It's worth noting that the Seattle Times goes on to say that such a move wouldn't be unprecedented-Apple already ships iPods with a warning label and has made moves in recent years to limit volume levels after France passed a law capping sound to 100 decibels for music players.

Obviously, people are going to fall on both sides this issue-some will say it's smart move by the EU, because people haven't actually grasped the long term problems that could result from excessive music; others will scoff at the notion, saying that it's a person's right to listen to loud music and their responsibility to make safe choices.

It's an interesting debate, and it's similar to the one we in the U.S. are currently grappling concerning healthcare. Here's an example of how similar these conversations have become:

Should the government be regulating healthcare because people are unable to pay for it or because some are stupid/naive enough to try to get by without it? Or should it be the responsibility of the individual?

Should the government be regulating volume of portable music players because people are unable to realize the consequences or because some are stupid/naive enough not to care? Or should it be a responsibility of the individual?  

My gut instinct is to say the government would be overstepping their bounds--that things like hearing health, healthcare, heck, even Social Security, shouldn't be mandated by the government, but rather should be left to the individuals.

However, the problem with gut instinct is that it's usually simplistic, and doesn't leave a lot of room for gray area. In this case, I like my gut instinct--at least I would, if we lived in a bubble where everyone makes sound responsible decisions and life isn't unfair to sects of the population who aren't properly informed or wealthy enough to even be capable of making said decisions.

But, as nice as it sounds, that bubble doesn't exist. We live in the world where things aren't exactly fair and every Joe walking down the street doesn't have all the facts to make the logical decision. It's why we've developed things like Social Security and affirmative action-to protect us against the unfair nature of the world, and, to put it bluntly, to protect us from ourselves. The regulations are not always perfect, of course, and, yes, they limit freedom somewhat, but they're done in earnest and with good intention.

In the end, I'm not exactly sold on universal healthcare, nor am I sold on the idea of mandating volume control (especially if it would lead to constant annoying messages if people overrode them-wouldn't one or two be enough?). That said, I think both are worthy of discussion and may be our best option.

What do you think?

A bill has passed in the House of Representatives that, if approved, will reduce exposure to noise in classrooms and improve acoustics, according to a news brief posted by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

The bill (H.R. 3221) focuses primarily on student aid, but it also provides funding for school construction and modernization that would, among other things, address the issue of noise in classrooms.

Combatting noise in the classroom has been a long-term goal of ASHA, and other groups have also taken on the cause. The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) and the Noise Pollution Clearing House have combined to create Quiet Classrooms, an alliance that supports improved classroom acoustics. The alliance's Web site has a pretty lengthy article on the cause and its importance.

Obviously this is good news, but it's still somewhat unclear when change could possibly begin. The bill now moves to the Senate for approval where it joins H.R. 2187, 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, which also contains provisions to reduce classroom noise. The Senate received that bill in May, read it twice, and then passed it off to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions four months ago, according to http://www.govtrak.us/. If H.R. 3221 takes a similar route, a vote wouldn't occur until next year at the earliest.

As some of you may know, every  blog and article on the ADVANCE for Audiologists Web site allows readers to give feedback through comment sections. We launch a new top story on our Web site every two weeks as part of our Web update, and it's usually good for a few comments but, other than that, we typically get a spattering of comments here and there-maybe a few each week.

This isn't really disconcerting to us-we love the feedback, but we understand our readers are very busy people and that they can't comment on every single article and get into intense discussions based on our blogs.

However, so far this week, it's been a little different. In addition to the regular spattering of comments I mentioned above, our top story, "Selective Sound Sensitivity Syndrome" by Marsha Johnson, AuD, already has received 10 comments in just over 30 hours.

If you're unfamiliar with the condition, read the article, which does a better job of explaining it then I ever could. However, when you do, make sure to check out the comments at the end, because they speak, I think, to a definite interest in the condition (codenamed 4S) among the patient population.

The first commenter, a hearing aid dispenser from Long Beach, CA, made the point that while the condition is interesting, it is likely just a temporary psychological condition common among rebellious teens. It's a relatively fair point (teens are naturally rebellious), and it's also a somewhat common one (as the article explains it, this is a common assessment to 4S by those who don't have it).

However, the next nine comments all seem to have come from people who suffer from 4S. These people universally say they developed the condition as youngsters and have carried it into their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond. The say that they wish it was temporary because it alienates them and negatively affects their life. Take a look at these excerpts:

"I wish I could go unfettered to the mall or to a movie, or take a college course in a classroom, or do any number of things that people do, but I avoid anything that may expose me to gum cracking."

"I was almost in tears reading that someone finally understands what I am going through and is also trying to do something about it. I am so sick of doctors looking at me and saying they have never heard of what I was describing and that there was nothing they could do. This condition controls my life and is overwhelming at times."

"When will my "temporary" end? This does not subside. This is why there has been nothing done about it. Thanks again for this article and maybe we can get someone interested enough to find a cure for this phenomenon that lasts a lifetime."

It really is powerful stuff. However, let me point out, that this blog post is not meant to in some way gang up on the first commenter or anyone who has similar views (I actually greatly appreciate the input because it adds to the dialogue). In fact, if anyone else has a reason to believe 4S is not a "real condition," I encourage them to join the conversation in the talkback, because communication can only be a step forward.

Regardless, it's hard to ignore that there does seem to be some sort of disconnect here, and perhaps, as Dr. Johnson's article suggests, the condition should at least be considered by the healthcare community as we move forward.

The ultimate goal in healthcare should be helping people, and if there is the chance that research into this condition--even if some people may find it hard to believe--might do that, well, then I say, simply and humbly, "Why not?"

Audiology has a long history with the U.S. Army and modern warfare. According to the Academy of Doctors of Audiology (ADA), "Audiology was born out of the armed forces rehabilitation programs during and following World War II."¹

All these years later, audiology has grown into a full-fledged profession, and America is in the midst of another war. Unsurprisingly, hearing issues have arisen as a result of the war and, setting politics aside, it seems the Army should really be commended for the way they've handled these issues, if an Army Times article is any indication.

According to the article, Army audiologists report that "one in four soldiers returning home report hearing loss, dizziness or ringing in the ears." This is despite the fact that the conflicts in the Middle East are the first in which soldiers have worn hearing protection.

The inherent danger is outlined by Major John Merkley, Army Hearing Program manager for U.S. Army Europe, who says the effect of a roadside blast on an eardrum is "like taking a mallet to a snare drum and putting a giant hole in it. That eardrum is going to work as well as that snare drum would."

I know the article is in an Army publication, and so it's prone to be biased, but it does seem as if the Army cares about the hearing health of its troops. Earplugs are mandatory yet, according to the article, many do not wear them because they do not want to sacrifice any tactical advantage they might have by hearing even the softest sounds. In an effort to entice soldiers to take the appropriate precautions, the Army has sought feedback and updated its hearing protection multiple times.

The article focuses on a new earplug aid that allows in-ear operation to regulate the amount of sound that enters the ear. This would allow soldiers to keep the tactical advantage, while also allowing them to quickly protect themselves in dangerous auditory environments.

I think this is a big plus, and I'm happy the Army is taking the hearing health of our soldiers seriously. Hopefully it will reduce the frequency of soldiers reporting hearing problems upon return, because our soldiers deserve far better than what the current numbers indicate.

References

1. Academy of Doctors of Audiology, Careers in Audiology. Accessed online at www.audiologist.org/pages/students/careers.php.

Peculiar People Day... Lost Sock Memorial Day... Smile Power Day... Winnie the Pooh Day.

If you didn't already know (don't feel bad if not; I didn't), these are all celebrated holidays. They obviously aren't in the same league as a Christmas or Thanksgiving, or heck, even Groundhog's Day or April Fool's Day, but they exist, because... well, I don't know really--I assume it has something to do with advancements in technology resulting in everyone having too much time on their hands mixed with the dangers associated with too much emphasis on uniqueness and free love or something.

Anyway, clearly the idea of a holiday has gotten a bit out of hand, and everything under the sun has gotten its own day, from stuff that sort of makes sense (National Good Neighbor Day) to the stuff that, at the very least, has a purpose of some kind (International Moment of Frustration Scream Day) to the stuff that doesn't really have any reason to exist at all (Plush Animal Lover's Day).

It seems that for every significant holiday like Martin Luther King Day, we get 25 days of this nonsense. I get the feeling that, in trying to have something every day, the crazies who devised these holidays really began grasping at straws. For what it's worth, today is apparently National Beheading Day. Whoopty doo...

Anyway, the reason I'm pointing all of this out is that I recently stumbled upon an off-the-beaten-path holiday in New Zealand that, unlike these lame entries, actually deserves some attention here in the U.S.--Loud Shirt Day.

It sounds silly, but Loud Shirt Day is actually an annual appeal by two charities to raise money for deaf and hearing impaired children with cochlear implants. The basic idea is for schools and businesses to get involved and then allow students and employees who make a donation to wear a loud shirt--free of social judgment, regardless how obnoxious it is--on September 18.

Loud Shirt Day was pretty successful last year--1,300 organizations helped raise $140,000 for the cause--and it seems to be getting an even bigger push this year. Local actors Rhys Darby (of Flight of the Conchords and the Jim Carrey film Yes Man) and Robyn Malcolm (star of the Aussie TV show Outrageous Fortune, but more recognizable for her appearance in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers) have donated shirts for auction, as has American rocker Alice Cooper. Darby also stars in an amusing commercial that perfectly captures the holiday's goofy appeal.

I know this is Aussie news, but I thought it was worth pointing out, because it's just pretty darn cool. With all the lame holidays we have here in the U.S., it would be nice to see Loud Shirt Day make the conversion to America. It would mean finding a different date for National Cheeseburger Day, but I'm sure we'd all somehow manage to get by.

It's no secret that hearing loss is a major problem for musicians. The lifestyle of a musician--constant concerts, endless recording sessions, and so forth--puts significant stress on the ears, packing multiple lifetimes' worth of sound into small periods of time. Furthermore, hearing loss doesn't just affect musicians' personal lives; it can hinder the ability to play a musical instrument and thus curtail musicians' livelihoods. These perils were highlighted pretty succinctly in a recent news update on our site about Stephen Stills of Crosby, Still and Nash.

In acknowledgement of this issue, Estes Audiology and Health Alliance for Austin Musicians (HAAM) have teamed up to launch The Hear Project, a venture designed to make earplugs affordable for musicians. The project, which got its start due to the initiative of musicians who reached out to HAAM for help, has already provided custom-fit earplugs for 60 Austin musicians.

It's a pretty cool project, so I thought it was worth pointing out, especially since it made me realize that reaching out to musicians in the local area by offering free screenings or earplugs might be a great way for practices to tap into a potential patient populace. Earning loyalty with this audience could be a boon for your practice.

For more on The Hear Project: check out this article and its accompanying video.

Deaf411, a deaf marketing and public relations company, recently completed the "Deaf-Friendly Cities in the U.S." project, which lists 20 cities culled from four regions throughout the country. A full report of the results from the 15-month survey is available online at www.deaf411online.com.

Deaf411 launched the survey online in April 2008, and since then more than 3700 people have participated in an online survey that attempts to find out what is important to deaf people. The results split the U.S. into four regions (West, East, South, and Midwest) and lists five cites in each region, one of which is given an in-depth write-up.

According to a signed and captioned video on Deaf411's Web site, the impetus for the report was the need for the key information that a deaf person needs to know about a particular city. Using a checklist format, the report indicates which services each city does and does not offer, comparing them by region. The checklist contains 18 specific services (i.e. "deaf day school," "deaf phone book," etc.), divided among five categories (education, recreation, accessibility, community and resources).

In-depth reports are available for Seattle, WA, Austin, TX, Olathe, KS, and Boston, MA. To view these reports, as well as information on the other 16 cities, you just need to sign up at www.deaf411online.com (don't worry; it's free and just requires your name and email).

The report also offers pictorial examples of deaf accessibility, statistical information on how the deaf community stacks u with other communities, a list of resources, and more.

Although, as the video suggests, the report "is not a definitive answer as to which cities are most deaf-friendly," it's certainly a good way to start spreading information and getting people (and cities through the country) thinking about the issue.

Short Message Service (SMS) communication has advanced tremendously in recent years, but in many ways, it hasn't all been for the good. Although text messaging has added a new convenient way to communicate, it can lead to some pretty annoying social gaffes.

With the lack of an established etiquette, I've started to tire of SMS and often wonder if it's a good thing (especially since it causes me to impulsively make poor etiquette decisions myself). However, despite the view that SMS is an extreme annoyance, the technology can still be used to serve a higher purpose, as indicated by a recent article in the BBC News.

Apparently, a new portable device allows deaf-blind people to have face-to-face conversations via SMS. Dubbed The DeafBlind Communicator (DBC), the device consists of a Braille note-taker linked by Bluetooth to a mobile phone.

To have a conversation, the deaf-blind person can simply type a message into the device with the Braille note-taker; the device will then covert the message and send it to the screen of the mobile handset. The person responding can type a message back, which will then be converted for the deaf-blind individual in Braille.

The device can also be hooked up to a landline and be used to make phone calls via text relay service; it can also send text messages.

The device is pretty darn cool, and a great example of how technology can be used to bring us closer together, as opposed to further apart.

If you have time, be sure to check out the BBC News article. It contains a great video of the DBC in action in which a deaf-blind individual orders a beer.

(Note: I realize the first link in this blog may be somewhat of a shameless plug for my previous work, but it fit so well I just had to include it.)