timtammittee

Yep and only one person left in the run. He's on lap 4 of 5 which he has to finish by 9:23a

Its always good to have yourself checked from time to time. But there is nothing you can do about sensory hearing loss, hidden or non hidden (apart from hearing aids). That's why you should be careful to start with.

There are some indications that people with damage might be more at risk for the hearing loss to get worse. Maybe because they where more sensitive to start with. So everyone protect your ears!!

You are probably talking about what we call a hidden hearing loss. It is called like this because there are currently no clinical tests available.

The reason for this is probably a selective death of synapses in the inner ear. We separate between three types of auditory nerve fibers (ANFs): High spontaneous rate (HSR), low spontaneous rate (LSR) and mid spontaneous rate (MSR). Basically the HSRs are our high gain fibers used for low sound levels. Their response saturates quite early. LSRs on the other hand are low gain fibers used for higher levels.

the ANF synapse can release a large amount of neurotransmitter into the synaptic cleft (in this case glutamate) the problem is that high concentrations of glutamate can are actually harmful and HSR fibers seem to be quite sensitive to these high concentrations. If there is a long term exposure to a noisy environment the high glutamate concentration might selectively kills your HSR fibers. The problem with this is that your threshold of hearing is still normal as there is no damage to the HSR fibers which you need to detect low level sounds so your audiogram looks perfectly fine. But you will start to get problems if you are in situations where you need your full dynamic range e.g. understanding speech in a noisy environments.

As you can see from my writing, this is a current subject of research so we do not know for sure but it seems like that you have to be quite careful with long time noise exposure even if the sound levels are below what is normally considered as harmful.

In the Frontex Western Balkans Annual Risk Analysis 2016 Frontex investigated Nationality swapping and they found:

"In 2015, 173 042 migrants who claimed Syrian nationality were screened; of which 85.8% were assumed by screeners to be Syrian nationals. As regards the rest, 8.6% were assumed to be Iraqi; 2.5% Palestinian, 1% Moroccan, and 2.1% were assumed to be of other nationality."

So yes, 14.2% of the people who claimed to be from Syria really originated somewhere else. But, if we again sum up those who come from a country who is currently in a state of conflict (I included Palestine), we gain 97%.

Edit: Also, you should note that people are screened again during the process of applying for asylum. So I guess the number of wrongly assigned nationalities is neglectable.

I admit that these numbers do not include people who did not apply for asylum.

But in your own source theres a chart showing the distribution of all 1.0919M registered entries.

39.2% Syrian 14.1% Afganistan 11.1% Irak

I'd say even though not all of the 1.1M register as asylum seekers (or have not yet registered). Their distribution is quite similar to that of the people who registered.

> Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries affected by war.

Where do you get this information.

If you talk about asylum seekers (The majority of the current inbound traffic), you can look up the numbers yourself they are published as datasets by the UNHCR [1]

Looking at the top 5 origin states of asylum seekers for 2015 and 2016 reveals:

Syrian Arab Rep. 30.5% Afghanistan 18.1% Iraq 11.9% Serbia and Kosovo 3.5% Pakistan 2.9%

So more then 60% of the 2.7M asylum seekers are from Syria, Afganistan or Iraq all of which are currently in a state of conflict.

[1] http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/asylum_seekers_monthly