Gate)
4. Results And Discussion
other habits (1). The total area of 1,860,359.67 km2 Indonesia and 37,530 , is a 52 km2 area of South Kalimantan. Indonesia has 17,504 islands are scattered throughout the country, and 320 are on the island of Borneo island (2). While the vast waters of Indonesia reached 5.8 million km2 (3). Until the year 2004 the number of marine fishermen particularly in South Kalimantan reached 66 697 people and 24% of this amount or 15,961 people in the District Kotabaru (4). fisherfolk sense that every working person catching fish or directly involved in fishing and fish management is done by the family (5).
The fishermen catch fish on a fishing line 1 (one) includes coastal waters measured from sea level at the lowest ebb on every island up to 6 (six) miles towards the sea (6).
The noise levels above 85 dB can cause irreversible disruption in the ear (choclea) even on other structures. Noise level Cleaner can also disrupt work activities, causing disruption of power from the Agency for Healthcare research (WHO) report, in 1988 there were 8-12% of the population worldwide suffer from occupational diseases are a result of noise and in some forms. That number is expected to continue to increase each year (8).
Hearing loss of 3.85% for impulsive noise and hearing loss of 27.78% for continuous noise. And the relationship between the period of employment with hearing loss (9).
The monitoring that level, most fishermen are impaired thresholds that level / volume everyday talk using voice above normal (loud). (7).
Number of Respondent
Left Rinne
Right
Rinne Webber Left Schawabach
Right
Schawabach Conclusion
Noise Intensity
(dB)
Respondent 2 Negative Positive Right Abridgment - Not 95
Respondent 3 Positive Negative Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 101
Respondent 4 Positivef Negative Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 109
Respondent 5 Positive Positive Right Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 110
Respondent 6 Positive Positive Nothing Abridgment - Not 97
Respondent 7 Positive Positive Nothing Abridgment - Not 95
Respondent 8 Positive Positive Right Abridgment -
Nerve
deafness 102
Respondent 9 Positive Positive Right Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 104
Respondent
10 Positive Positive Left Abridgment -
Nerve
deafness 102
Respondent
11 Positive Positive Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 98
Respondent
12 Positive Positive Left Abridgment -
Nerve
deafness 107
Respondent
13 Positive Positive Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 109
Respondent
14 Positive Positive Left Abridgment -
Nerve
deafness 106
Respondent
15 Positive Positive Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 110
Number of Respondent
Left Rinne
Right
Rinne Webber Left Schawabach
Right
Schawabach Conclusion
Noise Intensity
(dB)
Respondent
16 Positive Positive Right Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 101
Respondent
17 Positive Positive Right Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 101
Respondent
18 Positive Positive Right Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 110
Respondent
19 Positive Positive Nothing Abridgment - Not
98
Respondent
20 Positive Positive Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 104
Respondent
21 Positive Positive Nothing Abridgment - Not
95
Respondent
22 Positive Positive Nothing Abridgment - Not
97
Respondent
23 Positive Positive Right Abridgment -
Nerve
deafness 99
Respondent
24 Positive Positive Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 107
Respondent
25 Positive Negative Left Abridgment -
Nerve
deafness 107
Respondent
26 Positive Positive Nothing Abridgment - Not
99
Respondent
27 Positive Positive Nothing Abridgment - Not
100
Respondent
28 Positive Positive Right Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 110
Number of Respondent
Left Rinne
Right
Rinne Webber Left Schawabach
Right
Schawabach Conclusion
Noise Intensity
(dB)
Respondent
29 Positive Positive Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 107
Respondent
30 Positive Negative Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 104
Respondent
31 Positive Positive Nothing Abridgment - Not
98
Respondent
32 Positive Negative Left Abridgment - Nerve
deafness 110
Mean 103,16
Based on the table 1, respondents who experienced nerve deafness as many as 25 of the 32 respondents (78.1%) and were not as many as 7 people out of 32 respondents (21.9%).
Table 2 Distribution Frequency of Hearing Protective Equipment Using (ear plug) among respondent
Earplug using Frequency %
Routine 14 43,17
Not Routinely 18 56,25
Total 32 100
From Table 2 is known that most of the fishermen are not regular in using ear plugs.
The fishermen felt ear plug that they use is not convenient to their ears as they are not used, so some fishermen still not routine in using ear plugs.
Tabel 3 Distribution Frequency of Respondent Hearing Function
Hearing Function Frequency %
Positive 7 21,87
Negative 25 78,12
Total 32 100
From table 3 it is known that the majority of respondents (78.12%) had hearing impairment negatively. Hearing impairment can be affected by many factors, one of which is the high noise and not using APP (ear plug) properly.
In the implementation of the measures contained fewer distractions there are voices from around the measurement. It can not affect the maximum results in the can. In addition, there are no rooms are soundproofed so that the measurement is only done in the room which is considered approximately constant. Then also the honesty of respondents currently function measurements hear.
Table 4. Hearing Function based on Hearing Protective Equipment using obedience Hearing Function Total Positive Negative Positive Hearing
protective equipment
ROUTINE Count 2 12 14
Expected
Count 3,1 10,9 14,0
NOT ROUTINELY
Count 5 13 18
Expected
Count 3,9 14,1 18,0
Total
Count 7 25 32
Expected
Count 7,0 25,0 32,0
From Table 4 is known there are 2 of 14 fishermen that use hearing protective equipment routinely experience a decline in function positively hear. While 5 of 18 fishermen that use hearing protective equipment experienced a decline in the function of hearing positive. Statistical test results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Analysis of effect hearing protective equipment and hearing function
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 0,839(b) 1 0,360
Continuity
Correction(a) 0,235 1 0,628
Likelihood Ratio 0,867 1 0,352
Fisher's Exact Test 0,426 0,318
Linear-by-Linear
Association 0,813 1 0,367
N of Valid Cases 32
On the assumption that prior to the implementation of this study was no effect of the use of hearing protection devices for hearing function, but from the results of the study states that there is no effect of the use of hearing protection devices for hearing function.
This can happen because the influence of other factors such as the sensitivity of someone who has a wide range.
This study links between the use of hearing protection devices with functions hear the fishermen members Insan. The lack of influence between two variables can occur because it is influenced by the length of exposure per day, years of service, the correct way of using APP and others. This is what makes the relationship to the two variables is meaningless.
P-value obtained is greater than the alpha P> 0.05, not significant or meaningful hypothesis is rejected. It can be seen in the results of the proportion of the risk with no risk of between fishermen that use APP routine and non-routine there is not a significant difference, it can be seen in the comparison between the two criteria is as much as 2/14 or 0.14 fisherman who had a reduction in the use of APP hear regularly and 5/18, or 0.27 fisherman who had a reduction hearing on the use of a non-routine APP. From these calculations show that the proportion of the difference between routine and non-routine has a relatively small difference is not significant, so it can not show any significant effect.
Risk factors that cause accidents systematically fall into three groups: environmental factors, occupational factors and human factors. In addition to these factors, accidents can also occur due to the behavior of labor that do not use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which serves as a tool to protect workers from possible exposure to workplace hazards that cause accidents.
5. Conclusion And Recommendation