Noise Pollution
by Dave Aftandilian
While noise usually wonât kill us, it can certainly make our lives miserable. Whether itâs an inconsiderate neighbor listening to their music loud enough to rattle our teeth or a jet plane takeoff that shakes our whole house, noise is not a laughing matter for the 20 million or more U.S. residents estimated to be “exposed on a regular basis to hazardous noise levels that could result in hearing loss” (National Institutes of Health, 1990) or the millions of others who lose sleep, feel constantly stressed, or otherwise suffer from unwanted sounds they canât escape in the office or at home. And people arenât the only creatures affected by noise pollution. Airplane noise can cause birds to abandon their nests and young, and many species of whales run away from the low frequency noises of ship engines and from high frequency sonar.
When considering the effects of noise on human health and quality of life, we have to take into account the intensity of the sound in question, its duration, and the time and place at which it is heard. Sound intensity is usually measured on the logarithmic decibel (dB) scale, often weighted to discriminate against the lower frequencies, as our own ears do (dB(A)). A noise 10dB more intense than another sounds twice as loud. Here are some sample sounds and their A-weighted average intensities:
~ threshold of hearing (0dB)
~ rustling leaves (20dB)
~ soft whisper, three feet (30dB)
~ normal conversation (55-60dB)
~ car passing, 15 feet (70dB)
~ vacuum cleaner; freeway traffic (80dB)
~ gas-powered lawn mower (90dB)
~ subway train, inside (95dB)
~ snowmobile (100dB)
~ chainsaw (110dB)
~ rock concert (120dB)
~ threshold of pain (120-130dB)
~ airplane takeoff, 100 feet (130-150dB)
~ firecracker (150dB)
~ shotgun (170dB)
A single unprotected short-range exposure to a gunshot or explosion can sometimes cause permanent hearing loss, but most of the time hearing loss results from long-term exposure to less intense sounds. Noises heard close up are more harmful than noises at a distance, and noises at night are often more harmful than noises heard during the day, because weâre trying to rest at night.
Sources of Noise
Probably the single largest sources of noise are airports. As listed above, a jet taking off can sound as loud as 150dB(A) if your house is directly under its flight path. Jack Saporito, executive director of the Alliance of Residents Concerning OâHare (AreCO), says that when a jet passes over your house, “your windows rattle, the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, your blood pressure goes up.” Conversations stop when a jet screams by, as does teaching in a nearby school or sleeping in nearby homes.
At a busy airport like OâHare, aircraft can take off as often as every 15-22 seconds, and the noise can be bothersome more than 15 miles away from the airport. Newer, quieter aircraft are being phased in, but air traffic is increasing at such a rapid rate â according to the Federal Aviation Administration, there will be at least 36 percent more flights in 2007 than today â that airport noise pollution will increase even with the use of quieter planes.
Highways and railways are also large sources of noise for people who live nearby. The Federal Highway Administration says that the level of highway traffic noise depends on the volume of traffic, its speed, and the number of trucks it contains; increases in any of these factors increase traffic noise. Vehicle noise comes from the engine, exhaust, and tires; faulty equipment, such as defective mufflers, increases vehicle noise, as does having to climb a steep grade. Locomotive diesel engines are probably the loudest noise source, but idling engines and blowing whistles produce the most railway noise complaints, according to Greg Zak, noise advisor for the Illinois EPA.
We are also subjected to noise at work and play. Anyone who operates heavy machinery, in a factory or on a farm, may experience dangerously high levels of noise. Les Blomberg, executive director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, says that “20 to 30 percent of the population regularly exposed to levels permitted by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration [90 dB(A) in an eight-hour workday] will suffer hearing loss.” Thatâs a conservative estimate; the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends lowering this permissible exposure level to 85 dB(A). A study reported by the BBC last summer found that even office workers exposed to low-level noises such as overheard gossip and computer keyboard clatter had their short-term memory and math skills reduced by up to 60 percent due to these noisy distractions.
Weekend warriors mowing their lawns with gas-powered mowers endanger their own hearing unless they wear ear protection, as do those who wield snow-and leafblowers. We all know that rock concerts can be bad for your ears, as can personal stereos played at maximum volume for extended periods. But did you know that the average health club pumps up the volume to 110 or even 120dB(A)? That movies in state-of-the-art theaters can clock in at up to 118dB(A)? That some toy phones ring at between 123 and 129dB(A)?
Effects of Noise on Health and Well-Being
Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere.
â Dr. William H. Stewart,
former U.S. Surgeon General
Because noise often does not produce visible effects, and because there is usually not a distinct cause-and-effect (“dose-response” in medical terms) relationship between a single noise event and a clear adverse health effect, some people believe noise does not pose a serious risk to human health. But evidence from a number of recent studies, especially on children, provides ample proof that noise harms human health and decreases quality of life.
A report released by the American Academy of Pediatrics in October of 1997 concludes that “(1) exposure to excessive noise during pregnancy may result in high-frequency hearing loss in newborns, and may be associated with prematurity and intrauterine growth retardation, (2) exposure to noise in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) may result in cochlear [inner ear] damage, and (3) exposure to noise and other environmental factors in the NICU may disrupt the normal growth and development of premature infants.”
In a series of studies published since 1995, Gary W. Evans of Cornell University and his coworkers have found that chronic exposure to aircraft noise in elementary school children can raise blood pressure and stress levels and cause defects in reading abilities and long-term memory. Other studies show that children exposed to noise from elevated trains and highways at school also perform worse on standardized reading tests than do students at the same schools in quieter classrooms.
An article by Arline L. Bronzaft and colleagues published early in 1998 found that nearly 70 percent of respondents to a questionnaire who lived within the flight corridors of a major airport were bothered by the noise. Also, “subjects who were bothered by aircraft noise were more likely to complain of sleep difficulties and more likely to perceive themselves to be in poorer health.”
Other studies have linked noise to industrial accidents, sleep loss, decreased ability to concentrate, and gastrointestinal problems.
Summing up the quality of life and public health issues, David Staudacher of Vancouverâs Right to Quiet Society says, “By any standard of health, from infant mortality to life expectancy, statistics will show that people are healthier in quiet areas than in noisy ones (all else being equal). The reason, I believe, is that noise destroys the sense of public peace and tranquility that nourishes healthy social interaction.”
Regulating Noise
Given the many negative effects of noise on public health and well-being, one would expect the government to regulate noise pollution just as stringently as it does other forms of pollution. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
The first federal legislation on noise pollution was passed in 1972. Called the Noise Control Act (NCA), this law established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) as part of the U.S. EPA to protect all Americans from “noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.” The NCA specifically charged ONAC with regulating noise emissions from new products used in interstate commerce, coordinating the noise abatement efforts of other agencies, and providing information to the public concerning the noise emissions of products. In a 1991 review article, Sidney A. Shapiro, a University of Kansas law professor, assessed the pros and cons of ONAC, and concluded that “although ONACâs efforts were more successful in some areas than others, it had a record of accomplishment after the first decade of the NCA.” Nevertheless, funding for ONAC was abolished in 1982 during Ronald Reaganâs presidency, though the NCA was not repealed.
Since then, noise regulation has effectively fallen to other agencies within the federal government, as well as to state and local governments. Illinois residents are fortunate in that we are one of only 13 states that have statewide noise regulations, and one of fewer still in which they are actively enforced (based on data from the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse).
Illinois EPA, and noise advisor Greg Zak in particular, handle noise monitoring and complaints for the state. According to Zak, “if you have a noise problem in Illinois, you call me.” Zak handles about 2,000 complaints a year, mainly by providing the complainants with “self-help” information about the steps to follow in resolving the problem, and also by helping research noise control technology. About ten noise complaints per year end up in hearings before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, which can assess penalties as high as $50,000 for the offense and $10,000 for each day that it continues (though the board very rarely levels such draconian fines for noise pollution).
Sometimes Zak can also help the noise emitter as well as the complainant by “finding something else that can do the same thing [as the noisemaker] but make much less or no noise.” For example, before the federal laws took away Illinoisâ jurisdiction over railroads, Zak fielded a number of complaints about train engines left idling all night long in the wintertime so that they wouldnât freeze. After doing some research, Zak found a company that manufactured small water heaters to keep diesel engines warm. Although the heaters cost a couple hundred dollars apiece, they used far less fuel than keeping the train engines idling all night, and the railroads found that after a couple months the heaters had paid for themselves in saved fuel costs!
While Illinois noise laws cannot regulate vehicles involved in interstate commerce, they are otherwise quite comprehensive, covering noises that cross from one private property to another, including air conditioners, ventilator fans, debris blowers, and motor vehicles. Many municipalities have used the Illinois regulations as models on which to base their own ordinances, with some local laws being more stringent and some less so.
On the federal level, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration have all been less than zealous at enforcing noise pollution standards in their various jurisdictions. This is especially problematic because the NCA specifically prohibits state and local governments from regulating noise emissions related to interstate commerce â despite the fact such commerce produces much of the worst noise pollution in the U.S.
The situation is particularly frustrating for those disturbed by aircraft noise. In their 1996 report, “Flying Off Course: Environmental Impacts of Americaâs Airports,” the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) notes that “airport communities often find themselves with little recourse in addressing noise impacts under the FAAâs current noise policies. In particular, the noise threshold that the FAA has set as compatible with residential use (65dB DNL) is problematic “because:” (1) it is based on an averaging of noise, rather than the loudâsingle eventâ noise that specifically characterizes aircraft noise, and (2) the threshold of 65dB significantly underestimates the level at which many people are annoyed or impacted by aircraft noise.” NRDC recommends that the FAA instead adopt a noise threshold of 55 dB CNEL (CNEL levels include an additional 5dB penalty for noise emitted between 7:00 and 10:00 pm) for its planning and funding decisions.
Several bills recently introduced in Congress deal with the aviation industry and noise pollution. First, the good news. The Right to Know About Airport Pollution Act of 1999 (S.775 / H.R. 1463) would require the U.S. EPA to conduct a feasibility study using a new research methodology known as “airport bubbles” to treat airports and an area within a specific radius around them as a single pollution source. It would also force the EPA to re-examine its air pollutant emission standards for airplane engines to determine whether they should be strengthened.
S.81 and H.R.717 both seek to reduce overflights of national parks by aircraft. That would certainly please wildlife living in the parks and park visitors who want a quiet vacation there.
In the bad news department, though, the language in the park overflights bills has been largely incorporated into S.545 and H.R.1000, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1999 and the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, respectively. According to Jack Saporito of the Alliance of Residents Concerning OâHare, “these bills would set the basis for massively increasing aviation within the next ten years.” They effectively remove the high-density rule that limits airports to 155 flights per hour. If this rule is removed, “weâre looking at doubling the amount of flights at many airports, tripling in some areas,” says Saporito.
Reducing Noise
Noise reduction starts with all of us. Everybody can turn down their stereos a notch, try not to make noise early in the morning or late at night, and adopt other simple “good neighbor” behaviors. Do you really need a leafblower, or would a rake work just as well, and give you better exercise too?
We can also help by discouraging airport expansion and instead supporting development of a Midwest high-speed rail system. High-speed rail emits far less ground, air, water, and noise pollution than aircraft do, and the Environmental Law and Policy Center predicts that high-speed rail would pay for itself soon after an initial infrastructure investment. Itâs ideal for trips of less than 500 miles, and such low-mileage travel accounts for about half of OâHare flights.
We can also use the market to provide incentives for manufacturers to produce quieter products. One step in this direction is to buy quiet products when they are available, such as reel (push) or electric lawn mowers instead of gas-powered mowers. You can find a list of some other quiet products on the Right to Quiet Societyâs web site (see below). We also can lobby for product labeling that states a productâs operating noise level. This labeling could be based on the energy efficiency labeling system already in use on refrigerators and other appliances. The U.S. EPAâs ONAC was working on developing such a noise labeling program when its funding was cut in 1982.
Which brings us to another way to reduce noise: get funding for the EPAâs ONAC office and update the federal regulations on noise pollution. Ideally, ONAC would provide both advice and small grants to state and local groups fighting noise. It also would stimulate, fund, and conduct research on noise and health and help develop quieter products and more effective noise control measures.
Current federal laws should also be changed so that state and local governments are allowed to adopt stricter regulations on noise from interstate commerce, so that the federal agencies responsible for aviation, railroads, and highways are not also responsible for developing and enforcing their own rules on noise pollution.
Legislation to reestablish ONCA will probably be introduced in Congress soon; watch for and support the Quiet Communities Act of 1999, to be sponsored by Robert G. Torricelli in the Senate.
If you have a recurring noise problem locally, you can ask your city council member to pass a local noise pollution ordinance. You can get help drafting such local legislation from Greg Zak at Illinois EPA, as well as the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse and the Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center.
In the meantime, soundproofing for homes and schools, constructing berms or sound walls along highways and railways, and other technological fixes can help reduce noise. Active noise cancellation technology holds great promise for the future, but is not very efficient or widely available yet. However, as Les Blomberg of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse points out, “itâs a lot easier to stop noise before itâs produced.”