As audiologists, we were quite happy to see the hearing-loss article in the Oct. 1 Los Gatos Weekly-Times. Andrea Dorey did a reasonable job of presenting an overview of hearing loss and its ramifications and possible remediation; however, there were three notable omissions.

The first is that, although hearing loss can appear at any age, hearing loss among adolescents, teens and young adults is nearly epidemic. The reason, of course, is the pervasive use of personal headphones set at volume levels well within the range of causing permanent damage to hearing. Attending concerts where sound intensity is near the pain threshold certainly is another contributor to irreversible hearing loss.

A second important omitted piece of information is that word understanding can be improved by using speech reading (lip-reading) with or without hearing aids and assistive listening devices. Foothill and West Valley colleges offer classes at community and senior centers in Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Los Gatos and Palo Alto.

Lastly, some items of misinformation need to be clarified: there are three types of hearing loss—conductive, sensory and neural; aspirin may cause hearing loss; and, while individual members of SHHH often test hearing devices, SHHH does not endorse any particular product. Finally, although certainly many hearing-impaired persons are in denial, many persons having a mild loss of hearing may not even be aware that they are missing parts of conversation or misunderstanding similar-sounding words.

—Marcia Fariss, MA, CCC/A, Ellen Mastman, MA, CCC/A, Saratoga


Responding to a 'thoughtful' letter

Although neither a registered Democrat nor Republican, I offer some comments to Alan Rosenus, whose thoughtful letter I appreciate and am glad to see the Saratoga News publish (Sept. 10 issue).

The question in his second paragraph may be the easiest to answer. It is certain that the temporary occupation of Iraq will not stop bombings in India, Indonesia, Israel, Ireland or anywhere else, and neither will it prevent terrorists from setting up shop in the U.S. Invading Iraq and deposing its leaders will not stop terrorism; and a case can be made that the more the U.S. forcefully attempts to dictate its specific terms to the world (especially in the Middle East), the more angry people may be persuaded to become terrorists—such as the media describe those in Iraq now who are attacking U.S. troops there.

As for the third question, I cannot recall any statement by our leaders that the war in Iraq was "to make American economic objectives more palatable to Muslim nations." I don't think there is a single "Muslim nation" that supported the invasion. What then? Do we think they will now be more friendly or more understanding of our problems? Of course not.

The first question asks why we continue to sacrifice lives and money on the work in Iraq. Unfortunately, there may at this point be little choice. It seems to me doubtful that many thinking foreign governments will agree to pay for or take over the U.S. role (at least not without some significant U.S. concessions on something). Why ever would they? It is a recipe for great expense, killed soldiers, much heartache, and almost certain eventual failure.

Prefacing this whole set of questions, however, is: "How is what is happening now any different from what we should have expected?" Did anyone seriously believe that the Iraqi people would welcome the arrival of hundreds of thousands of foreign troops, the killing of thousands of their relatives, women and children (many more than were killed in the U.S. on 9/11) and the destruction of their cities? If anyone thought this, it was naive in the extreme. And even those Iraqis who would have been happy to see the end of Saddam cannot have wanted occupying forces or a regime that was a puppet of some foreign power, especially one not sharing their fundamental beliefs.

—Peter Knight, Glasgow Drive