NTID300.11
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF NOISE
DECEMBER 31, 1971
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
IMTID300.11
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF NOISE
DECEMBER 31, 1971
Prepared by
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
under
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
This report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this
report reflect the views of NBS, which is responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policy of EPA. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
-------
2. Extent of Problem -- Changing Scope of Problem
In a sense the noise problem of “today 1 ’ is both qualitatively
and quantitatively different from what it was “yesterday’ t . Noise
can no longer be thought of as a rather localized and confined problem.
For example large cities have “always” been associated with noise since
by definition they were the centers of activities having industries,
transportation, power facilities and large populations. A report by
Congress in 1937 ( 3 ) stated:
“The large city and especially its central business district is
so characteristically a place of noise that a sudden wave of silence
frequently proves to be oppressive to the urbanite for he is accus-
tomed to distracting sounds of all kinds. Screeching brakes, screaming
trolley cars, rumbling trucks, rasping auto horns, barking street
vendors, shouting newsboys, scolding traffic whistles, rumbling ele-
vated trains, rapping pneumatic hammers, open cut-outs, and now adver-
tising sound trucks and aircraft with radio amplifiers, when added to-
gether, constitute a general din for which it would be difficult to
find a precedent in the history of cities.”
After noting the intense sound levels produced by subway and ele-
vated trains used in several cities, the Wyle Laboratory EPA Report (4)
indicates that these systems carry 4.3 million commuters daily. The
rail transit system in a number of instances is operated in conjunction
with trolley lines which serve 182 million passengers annually. When
one considers that these transportation facilities are located so as
to be convenient for commuters and therefore adjacent to high density
residentIal areas, the overall noise impact on the community can be
better understood.
This same report further indicates that transportation noise is
the major cause of the escalation of the noise problem in the country.
It indicates that nine million people living in homes covering an area
of 2000 square miles are currently being exposed to aircraft and high-
way noise levels said to be incompatible with residential living 4 A
recent report by the National Academy of Sciences (5) indicates that
in the vicinity of Kennedy Airport 700,000 live under these conditions
and there are 220 schools in the same area which are attended by 280,000
pupils, Although these findings are cause for concern, the trend is
even more disturbing. For example, a report (6) concerned with noise
at Logan Airport, Boston, Massachusetts indicates the following:
—3—
-------
Estimated Impact of Noise at Logan Airport
1967 1975
Estimate of operations-Miles 90,000 280,000
Area “not ccxnpatible with
residential living” (square miles) 25 80
People 177,000 556,000
Schools 93 272
Hospital Beds 1,391 3,158
These statistics partially reflect the fact that jet aircraft have
almost totally replaced those powered by piston engines. Also, the “jets”
are from 10 to 20 dB “louder” than their predecessors, have more power
and produce noise which is judged more annoying than piston engines pro-
ducing an equally intense sound.
People living in the inner cities have often considered noise as
being a necessary evil to be borne in exchange for the convenience of
living either near their places of work or in proximity to public trans-
portation routes which can be used for commuting. However, the urban
sprawl which has accelerated greatly since World War II has resulted in
a significant expansion of the area and people affected by urban noises.
However, it appears that the most dramatic change in the scope of
the noise problem has occurred in areas outside of our cities. The accel-
erated growth of surburban areas combined with the mobility of the popu-
lation has brought about this circumstance. Primarily by changes in land
use patterns, there has been a systematic invasion of noises outward from
the city into the quietest areas of the nation. Surburban areas have
been converted to urban, farm to suburban, residential to industrial, etc.
For example, construction of an industrial plant results in a consider-
able change in outdoor noise levels because of many factors associated
with new industry. Road, rail lines and/or airport facilities are needed,
new workers may have to be accommodated and community services increased.
All of these activities profoundly affect the noise environment in at
least two phases - - during construction and use. The Bolt Beranek and
Nei an report for EPA (7) indicates that construction noises alone affect
approximately 30 million people a year. In the case of major construction
activities (highways, industrial plants) the process is a prolonged one.
TiE growth in “general aviation”, typified by private and business air
craft, has led to the construction of small airports in many suburban
and rural areas. This has also served to introduce a major noise source
into many residential communities.
-4-
-------
Recreational areas have also changed for the worse with respect to
noise intrusions. As more people have the time, inclination and re-
sources to travel, the more remote parts of our country are attracting
large numbers of tourists. This desire for travel has resulted in
roads and airfields which penetrate formerly remote regions. When
these formerly wilderness areas become relatively accessible, tourists
bring with them their powerful machines. Areas which formerly were
characterized by sounds of nature now accommodate power boats, snow—
mobiles, minibikes, motorcycles, radios and television sets.
In a sense there are two distinctive types of noise disruptions.
One, characterized by high ambient levels, is found in the inner cities
and near major transportation routes, and the other, basically single
event noise, intrudes into suburban and rural areas. Both have in com-
mon the capability to reduce our enjoyment of the outdoors whether at
home or during recreational pursuits.
Thus far, the noise sources considered have been those outside
the home. However, man has become very much dependent on labor saving
devices and most of them are centered in and around the home. These
machines, in common with others, have become more prevalent and more
powerful with the passage of time. In some instances, the noises
produced are on the verge of becoming a serious health problem as
well as being a major source of irritation.
The following table provides a general summary of the growth of noise
sources since 1950:
Growth in Noise Sources*
(M = Million, TB Thousand)
Year: 1950 1960 1970
Population (N) 151 181 204
Transportation Vehicles
Cars, Buses, Trucks (M) 49.2 73.9 106.3
Motorcycles (N) 0.45 0.51 3.0
Powered Boats (N) 2.6 4.7 5.8
Snowmobiles (TB) 0 2 1600
Commercial Aircraft (Turbofan) 0 202 1989
Private Aircraft (Th) 45 76.2 136
Outdoor Appliances (Approximate)
Lawn Mowers (M) 10 17
Chain Saws (M) .5 1.2
Home Appliances 1953 1960 1970
Dishwashers (N) 1.3 32 14.9
Clothes Washers (M) 32.2 42.0 57.6
Clothes Dryers (M) 1.5 9.0 25.3
Air Conditioners (M) 0.6 65 23,0
Food Mixers (M) 12.6 27.0 51.2
Food Waste Disposers (N) 1.4 4.8 14.4
*Based on EPA Reports by Wyle Laboratories (4) and Bolt Beranek and Newman (7).
—5-
-------
The next sections of the report will deal with the effects of noise,
starting with the medical ones.
3 Effects of Noise
3J. Medical
Since the most extreme and widely recognized effects of noise
are concerned with deafness, the medical aspects of noise will be
covered first. it is difficult to make any definitive statement
about the number of people in our country suffering from either par-
tial or total deafness because there are conflicting estimates. A
recent estimate was made by Dr. R. Marcus (8) at the EPA Hearings in
Chicago:
Rearing Loss -— By Age
Population Totals Loss of Noise—Associated
Age Range (in thousands) Hearing Totals Hearing loss
(thousands) (thousands)
0—5 17,000 850 ?
5—10 20,000 1,000—1,400 *200
10—18 32,500 650— 975 **150
18—65 113,000 2,260 2,000 (Approx)
over 65 20,000 4,000 400—600
TOTALS 202,500 8,760—11,135 2,750—2,950
*
Most common cause is explosions from toy caps (20% sensory—neural hearing
loss).
**
Firearms and toy caps (based on approximately 20% sensory—neural).
—6—
-------
Although the occupational noise exposure regulations promulgated
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act are designed to control
noise exposure within the work environment, this continues to be a
major problem area. Dr. A. Cohen (9) recently reported that the total
number of United States workers experiencing noise conditions poten-
tially hazardous to hearing is estimated to be in excess of six mil-
lion and may be as high as sixteen million. It is now becoming evi-
dent that many occupations are included among those in which noise is
a hazard. In addition to the heavy industries traditionally associ-
ated with this problem, construction workers, textile employees, truck
drivers and pilots of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft are included.
The new computer—based organizations are not immune to this hazard
either. Keypunch and paper tape devices and equipment such as the
optical character recognition and letter-sorting machines used in post
offices all produce noise that may ultimately affect their operators
as well as others working nearby.
It is estimated that more than 10 million operators of heavy
trucks, motorcycles and gas engine powered recreational vehicles are
currently being exposed to noise at excessive levels. An additional
major source of noise exposure is the home workshop. There are
approximately 12 million home workshop tools in use in the country,
many of which are major noise sources not only to the operators and
other family members but sometimes to neighbors as well.
Dr. D. Lipscomb (10) has reported a number of findings associated
with recent trends in hearing loss. For several years many investi-
gators have expressed concern about the possible adverse consequences
caused by music heard at greatly amplified sound levels. Dr. Lipscomb
indicated that entering freshmen college students did have hearing dis-
orders that were attributed to exposure to music played at very intense
levels. A series of audiometric tests were given to more than seven
thousand students ranging from sixth graders to college freshmen. The
findings indicate a steady increase in hearing loss at high frequencies,
as measured by a screening examination. While only 3.87 of the sixth
graders failed this test, the comparable figure was approximately 10 ’L
for 9th and 10th graders and was more than 307w for incoming college
freshmen. Examination of the next freshmen class (Fall 1969) yielded
the most disturbing findings of all, 6l7 of them failed the audiometric
1t screening t test. Dr. Lipscomb concludes that the data presented are
a cause for concern. There is evidence that the hearing acuity of
young persons 21 years of age and under is becoming reduced many years
before one would expect such reductions. These implications lead to
the fearful speculation that the current population of young persons
will encounter much more serious hearing problems in their middle years
than the present group of 50 to 60 years olds.
—7—
-------
Even the strictly medical consequences of noise cannot be limited
to auditory effects. Many investigators have documented physiological
changes associated with noise, whether subjects were awake or asleep.
It is hypothesized that there may be cardiac, vascular, neural or other
effects which bear directly on the overall health of people.
Dr. C. Jansen (11) found that “Blood circulation does not adapt to con-
tinuing exposure to noise by a return of blood flow to its initial level.
Instead, peripheral blood flow continues to be reduced as a result of
continuing vaso-constriction and increased resistance 0 This phenomenon
was first observed at about 60 to 70 dB and as sound intensity increased,
it became more pronounced”. N. N. Shatalov (12), a Russian scientist,
studied 589 factory workers in a number of industrial plants. He found
that the effects were different for two types of noises. He noted that
continuous noises resulted in “arterial tension, downward trend in venous
pressure, reduced peripheral resistance and bradycardia”. Intermittent
noise on the other hand caused “hypertension, rising arterial pressure
and frequent capillary spasms”. Miss Alice Suter (13) of the National
Association of Hearing and Speech Agencies made the following statement
at the recent EPA-sponsored hearings in Atlanta: “The process of vas-
cular constriction keeps on going and does not adapt, and it also limits
the blood supply to the ear. Lack of proper blood supply over years
would definitely be a contributing factor to old age hearing loss. The
internal auditory artery which leads to the ear is the smallest artery
in the body, and it is probably quite apt to suffer vascular con-
striction”. Dr. L. E. Farr (14) summarized his views on the effects
of noise in the following way: “In disease states such as anxieties,
duodenal ulcers, and other so-called tension ills, the additive dele-
terious effect of noise is real and immediate. Any disease which may
be associated with an emotional change requires as part of the therapy
a calm, relaxed, quiet environment. This is particularly true of
disturbed emotional states.”
It might be conjectured that among those people not in peak phys-
ical condition (aged, disabled and convalescent) noise is an impedi-
ment to rest and can thereby contribute to longer convalescent periods
and lower general levels of activity often associated with fatigue and
loss of sleep.
Although the findings cited above are merely typical of many studies
indicating the non-auditory effects of hearing, it should be made clear
that many researchers are not convinced of their relevance to any real
medical problem. The lack of any clearcut link between these physio-
logical indices and adverse medical consequences has been the primary
reason for such judgments. In answer to this attitude, the aforemen-
tioned Dr. C. Jansen notes that “Experimental work and field studies
concerned with disease other than occupational deafness must assume --
until the contrary is proved -- that noise can be harmful”.
-8-
-------
Perhaps one of the most important factors in assessing the medical
impact of noise is the fact that its effects are cumulative. When
thinking of the noise experienced during the course of a day, from day
to day and over the course of a lifetime, an interesting perspective
emerges. Millions of workers are now being exposed to industrial noises
that are expected to produce permanent hearing defects. Many millions
of other workers experience noises barely below the maximum levels
promulgated under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act. But these same workers do not enjoy quiet during their non-working
hours. On the contrary, they are exposed to transportation noises while
commuting to their jobs, appliance noises at home and possibly community
noise sources as well. An illustration of the “noise history of a
typical person” is included below. Since this informationis in-
cluded only for illustrative purposes, there is no attempt to specify
age ranges or exposure duration data.
LIFETIME EXPOSURE TO NOISE (ILLUSTRATION)
Childhood Youth Maturity
Cap Pistols X
Firearms X X
Rock & Roll Music X
Transportation
School Eus X X X
Automobile X X X
Train (subway, elevated) X X
Aircraft X X
Household Appliances x x x
Construction Equipment x x x
“Community” (roadside, flight path) X X X
Recreational Vehicles X x
X = Exposure to noise source
—9—
-------
One other direct medical consequence of noise is a possible increase
in the accident rate. The authors of the 1963 British Noise Study (16)
indicate that “It seems reasonable to suppose that if high noise levels
increase, the number of errors during work will also increase. They
will also cause errors in safety measures and consequently high noise
levels may cause a higher rate of accidents than would occur in quieter
conditions.” Another possible cause of accident is the masking of an
auditory alarm. Since danger signals often take this form, it can be
reasonably expected that some such signals will be masked out in environ-
ments typical of heavy industry operations, construction activities and
mid-city traffic during shopping and commuting hours.
In view of all of the foregoing, the nature and cost of medical ser-
vices might be expected to be profoundly altered, not merely for those
directly affected but for our society as a whole, if the number of per-
Sons seriously affected by noise significantly increases. A greater
proportion of every dollar devoted to medical treatment would have to be
set aside to treat hearing disorders. If the findings indicated in the
studies by Dr. Lipsconib are substantiated by others, many people would
spend their adult lives as partially handicapped individuals requiring
medical attention as well as prosthetic devices to improve their hearing.
The societal costs associated with an increase in deafness in the popu-
lation would result in educational, job related, and medical consequences.
Resources projected for use in combatting heart disease, cancer, nervous
disorders and other diseases might have to be directed to auditory re-
search. The medical profession’s capability to treat auditory disorders
might have to be upgraded by means of additional facilities and training
grants. Overall payments for medical services, and therefore insurance
rates, would be expected to increase to cope with a rise in the incidence
of partial and total deafness. Finally, since relatively normal hearing
is a pre-requisite for many jobs (e.g. answering a telephone), many
people could find that loss of hearing has reduced the number and type
of available job opportunities.
While examining the effects of noise on people and groups, it is
easy to lose sight of an evident but important fact. The “average” per-
son or group simply does not exist. It should be noted that responses
to noise by individuals as well as by classes of people differ markedly.
The reaction of groups, and communities of individuals, arise in
part from the aggregation of personalized responses of individuals, and
from their interaction with a wide variety of sociological influences.
As an example, due to ethnic background one group of families may accept
a noisy environment in their home life situation which would be con-
sidered as unacceptable to those of different cultural orientation.
They may in fact create conditions which while acceptable to themselves
are considered “noisy” by others.
-10-
-------
Th phenomena must be taken into account in assessing the attri-
butes of noise as a sociological problem. It also must be given careful
attention in translating results of various studies on noise as relates
to a particular source, and affecting a specific population (such as the
variously cited ones on transportation noise mentioned elsewhere in this
section and in other portions of this report) to other sources, situ-
ations or populations. This caution was cited in Karl Kryter’s recent
work “The Effects of Noise on Man” (15) in relation to possible nation-
alistic differences in tolerance to road noise. He further discusses
the many factors in this regard which must be taken into account in
assessing validity of various studies and study techniques.
3.1 Psychological
A segment of the population (estimated from 2°7 to l07 depending
upon the source) is considered to be highly susceptible to noise at al-
most any level while some individuals (possibly 20% of the population)
barely respond to noises considered quite intense by others. Borsky
(17), cited the following factors found to be most important in enhanc-
ing or impeding noise acceptability: (1) feeling about the necessity
or preventability of the noise; (2) feeling of the importance of the
noise source and the value of its primary functions; (3) types of living
activities affected; (4) extent to which there are other things dis-
liked in the residential environment. Parrack (18),in an evaluation
of community response to noise, provided data on the characteristics of
people more likely to complain about noise. lie noted that they were
generally of higher socioeconomic status, had more education and were
likely to have political affiliations. Mr. J. Van Den Eijk (19), in
describing the new Dutch code on noise control, noted a similar rela-
tionship between “nuisance” complaints, social status and education.
He also found that those people engaging in mental, as contrasted to
physical, occupational pursuits were more likely to complain about
noise. This latter finding is consistent with that of the London noise
survey and many others. A recently completed NASA study (19) concerned
with community response to noise indicated that on the average, com-
plainants are older, more affluent and have a higher education level
than non-complainers.
A close relationship between expressed annoyance and level of noise
intensity was pointed out almost 15 years ago by Parrack (17). He re-
ported the results of community surveys based on 3500 people in widely
separated areas. In general, the number of people expressing annoyance
increased steadily as the noise level increased. He also found that the
number of complaints were a good indicator of the degree of annoyance.
The English study of noise around Heathrow Airport indicated that 22% of
-11—
-------
the respondents said they were sometimes kept from going to sleep due to
aircraft noise. This figure rose to 507 with an increase in noise levels.
A still greater proportion, also increasing with a corresponding increase
in noise level, complained of being awakened by noise. A Swedish (21)
traffice noise survey indicated that the proportion of people annoyed in-
creased linearly with increasing noise levels from 50 dBA on, based on
a 24 hour average. Symptoms such as headache, insomnia and nervousness
were closely correlated with annoyance measures of the severity of
exposure.
The studies by Parrack and the London Noise Survey are typical of
many investigations which demonstrated that nighttime sounds are more
annoying than daytime sounds. H. A. Deuzel (22) indicates that: “We
know that noise interferes with rest and relaxation and especially with
sleep. While sleep, the complete withdrawal from the world around us,
is an obvious necessity for physical and emotional health, less complete
withdrawal into the ‘luiet of our homes may also be necessary if we want
to retain individual integrity.”
Many researchers concerned with noise are convinced that noise levels
that are not intense enough to cause permanent damage cannot simply be
dismissed as a nuisance which is a necessary waste product of technolog-
ical progress. The reasons for this widespread interpretation are par-
tially rooted in the characteristics of sound and the types of effects
associated with noise. Experimental findings have consistently demon-
strated that when visual and auditory signals are concurrently presented,
subjects tend to respond to the auditory signals first, presumably because
of some “attention demanding” quality. Researchers designing warning
devices have made use of this characteristic for years. Another charac-
teristic of noise that causes annoyance is that it affects people who are
in the position of “innocent bystander&’. That is, in many instances those
people responsible for producing noise are not the same ones who are se-
verely affected by it. Also the receivers of the noise in those instances
have no control of the noise source. Borsky (17) indicates that annoyance
is closely associated with the degree to which the noise producer is con-
cerned with and doing something to minimize the effect of noise on the
receivers of the noise. As further evidence of this effect, D. C. Glass,
et al. (23) conducted a study which indicated that subjects showed lowered
tolerance for frustration after exposure to unpredictable noise. In a
later experiment, when the noise source was under the control of the sub-
jects, these frustration effects were significantly reduced. This aspect
of the problem is very important because it has been repeatedly demonstrated
that when there is no benefit to a person associated with an activity and
yet there are adverse consequences that must be suffered, there is very
little tolerance for these consequences. For example, if two people live
near a highway and one uses it for commuting while the other one walks to
work, the walker is much more likely to complain about noise and air pol-
lution due to automobiles than is the person who drives (all other things
being equal).
-12—
-------
The pervasiveness of noise, combined with these characteristics
already noted, makes it a problem of special concern when psychological
well-being is considered. The human organism being driven at a frenetic
pace in the modern word is the same one that evolved to cope with the
more leisurely pace of the past. Most competent medical practitioners,
as well as researchers, agree that there is an absolute requirement for
rest and recreational activities at regular intervals in order to main-
tain adequate mental and physical health. It is evident, when we con-
sider the quality of life, that the need becomes an overriding one. Where
is the needed place of refuge in our modern society?
The home has traditionally served the function of providing a haven
for the individual and the family. Ironically, in the case of noise, the
characteristics associated with a haven are subverted in two major ways,
the “outside world” cannot be shut out and the “inside world” cannot be
confined within.
In considering noise within the home, it is useful to make the
distinction between singLe-family dwellings and other houses. In multi-
ple-family buildings, the lack of acoustical privacy is a major source
of difficulty. Acoustical privacy can be defined as the expectation
that sounds generated within one household will not be broadcast to
other households throughout the building. This particular problem de-
serves attention because of the slowly evolving changes in construction
techniques. There is a trend toward using lightweight construction
materials that have relatively poor Sound insulating properties. If
this trend continues (without modification of the sound insulating
properties), the future homes will have far less acoustical privacy
than did the past homes. Privacy, as annoyance, has been a difficult
concept for researchers to contend with in an objective fashion. The
authors of the London Noise Study equated the two somewhat by indicating
that annoyance due to noise may be thought of essentially as the resent-
ment we feel at an intrusion into the physical privacy we have. The
existence of the problem, though, has been documented in a variety of
community studies conducted in this country and abroad.
Noises in the home can be generally categorized into three sources:
those generated by family members, building noises (fans, blowers) and
those originating outside but penetrating the home. The mechanical
“helpers” within the home are a major source of complaint by householders.
Although washers, dryers, garbage disposer units, etc., have made house-
hold tasks easier to physically perform, they have exacted a psycholog-
ical cost. The relatively long cycle time of many of these devices has
not resulted merely in a noise nuisance but in a persistent one as well.
Although the family benefits from the primary noise sources within the
home, even those noises are a source of conflict among family members
engaging in incompatible activities, e.g., the housewife washing the
supper dishes and the husband reading the newspaper or watching TV.
-13-
-------
The community noise studies already cited are in substantial agree-
inent that noise seriously affects many of the activities often engaged in
at home. The British study indicated that noises in the home outnumbered
all other disturbances. Rest and relaxation are difficult, and there is
interference with TV viewing, listening to music, reading, conversation,
and many other social and recreational activities. These and other in-
vestigations indicate that the home appears to be the focal point for a
great number of noise sources in the community. Among the major causes
of complaint, the following have been cited most frequently: traffic,
aircraft, industrial plants, construction, and neighborhood related sources
such as dogs and power lawn mowers.
When rest and recreation cannot be successfully accomplished at home
there is a tendency for people to seek these diversions elsewhere. This
has been one of several factors leading to an intensive use of the out-
doors which has resulted in large recreational industries based on camping,
fishing, boating and skiing. The function performed by recreation is
primarily that of ‘ t unwinding’ t and relaxing, as a necessary counterpoint
to the often hectic day-to-day work and homemaking activities. Since the
goal is identified basically with getting away from the usual annoyances,
any interference with the achievement of this objective is not well toler-
ated. Disturbances that are normally considered relatively minor thereby
result in a sense of frustration well beyond that normally occurring.
Interference by noise with outdoor recreational activities is almost
a universal phenomenon in that it occurs regardless of the time of day
and in all seasons of the year. Winter vacations are now being disrupted
since the advent of the snowmobile in the same way that motorboats have
upset the tranquility of many of our lakes and rivers. The simple enjoy-
ment of nature by hikers and families enjoying picnics is often inter-
rupted by transportation noises generated by nearby roadways or aircraft.
During the recently conducted EPA hearings in Dallas, Mr. T. Berland
(24) noted the intrusion of noise in the Fort Parker State Park and Grand
Canyon National Park. He indicated that disturbances were caused by jet
aircraft, helicopters, snowmobiles, minibikes and motorcycles. Other
organizations such as the Sierra Club, have noted that increasing levels
of noise are seriously disrupting the serenity of many of the formerly
secluded retreat areas.
Outdoor spectator events are also seriously affected by noise,
especially aircraft noises. The Watergate concerts in the Washington, D.C.,
area have for years undergone regular interruptions as a result of over-
flights associated with nearby National Airport. The enjoyment of the
music is made extremely difficult by the almost continuous pattern of
takeoffs and landings.
-14-
-------
3.3. Social
Professor A. C. NcKennell (25) evaluated the results of many com-
munity surveys in the following terms: “We know a certain amount about
the characteristics of the reactions of communities to events which
deeply affect them. A small, middle class group actively protesting in
the presence of an apparently indifferent majority is a common occurrence.
It is when these active groups gain the support of the larger, normally
acquiescent majority, that serious community conflict can result. Under
these conditions, what starts as a specific issue often sparks off a more
generalized local conflict”.
Although the recent conflict over the SST program could hardly be
classified as local, all of the other major features cited by McKennell
were present with the added feature that individual middle class
complaints were institutionalized through many concerned organizations
such as the Sierra Club, Citizens for a Quieter City and Citizens
Against Noise. The proliferation of these organizations concerned with
environmental quality is quite a recent phenomenon. Their successes in
defeating the SST and in profoundly altering the methods previously
used in prescribing airport and highway design is a matter of almost
daily record. The day when planners could concern themselves solely
with economic considerations -- sometimes to the detriment of the
community at large -- appears to be past.
In a paper entitled “Predicting the Future” (26), Prof. R.A. Bauer
of the Harvard Graduate School of Business notes: “if we are moving into
a period in which individual citizens increasingly expect to be freed
from various forms of environmental nuisance and if citizens groups are
tending more and more to take an active role in the decision making pro-
cess, then it is probable that complaints and effective organized protests
will occur at lower levels and frequency rates of noise exposure than in
the past”. He further stated that, “For a variety of convergent reasons,
we appear to be entering a period in which people will be more disposed
to organize for direct participation in policy decisions affecting them”.
As a counterforce to this community pressure, the industrial corn-
niunity has made use of existing organizations and associations to act in
a concerted way in order to minimize the impact of citizens groups con-
cerned with noise. They have indicated that consumers have not been will-
ing to pay for quiet products in the past and that noise reduction is too
costly to be borne by the producers alone. Just as the noise producing
and receiving organizations have aligned against one another, individuals
-15—
-------
often find themselves in conflict because of competing requirements.
This situation occurs in the inner city and suburbia, during outdoor
recreational activities and at home, whether in multi-family dwellings
or in private houses. Whenever one person produces noise while he
engages in an activity and thereby disrupts another person requiring
quiet for his individual needs, the “battle lines are drawn”.
The problem is not new or unique to noise, as the following quote
from Spater which appears in “Noise Pollution and the Law’ edited by
Hildebrand (27) says, “For hundreds of years, indeed throughout most of
the history of the common law as we know it, courts have been struggling
to reconcile the conflicting interests of two property owners -- one who
believes that his ownership entitles him to use his property as he wills
and the neighbor who believes that his ownership entitles him to enjoy
his property without annoyance. T ,io major principles have envolved:
First, each person must put up with a certain amount of annoyance.
Second, the gravity of the harm to the complainant should be weighed
against the utility of the conduct of his troublesome neighbor. The
first of these tells us what every city dweller experiences every day of
his life. The second is less easy to understand. In determining the util-
ity of the defendant’s conduct one must consider in addition to the social
value of his conduct, its suitability and the impracticability of prevent-
ing or avoiding the annoyance’.
Group actions have been but one method of controlling the effects
of noise in the community. Laws specifying acceptable limits of noise
have been passed at all levels of government. These laws have one
factor in common. They were enacted to deal with a specific set of con-
ditions and designed to meet local needs. This has re’sulted in require-
ments that differ greatly from community to community, state to state,
etc. A continuation of this approach in the future may result in serious
disruptions of the economic base in some areas of the country. A non-
unifQrmity of regulations may lead to the movement of noise producing
activities to areas where stringent noise regulations are not applied.
The introduction of major industrial plants in areas formerly zoned for
farm and residential land use has resulted in widespread dislocations in
the past where residential areas have become less desirable “overnight”,
partially due to noise-associated difficulties. Since the presence of
industry often requires additional transportation facilities (road, rail
and aircraft in some instances) noise is introduced in the area in sev-
eral ways.
—16—
-------
Regulations have been developed with two major goals in mind - -
to reduce the incidence of noise-induced deafness and to minimize noise
disturbances in the community. The hearing conservation regulations
issued under the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) were
designed to combat the problem ot industrially associated deafness. At
the local level of government, many cities have enacted ordinances to
reduce motor vehicle and aircraft noise. Many cities regulate noises
produced at construction sites. Another method of noise control at the
municipal level is the establishment of requirements for acoustical
treatment of buildings.
Private legal actions by citizens have also been an increasingly
used method to combat noise encroachments. People have recovered dam-
ages when it has been possible to demonstrate a substantial interference
with the use and enjoyment of one’s property. The usual measure of
damage is the decrease in value of the property.
Planners have suggested a number of solutions to reduce the noise
impact on the community by separating the noise producers from the noise
receivers. In theory, the approach has a great deal of merit, but the
results are often mixed. An example is the construction of new major
airports to areas distant from concentration of population. Dulles
Airport (Washington, D. C. area) was designed with this principle in
mind. Unfortunately, economic and social pressures are tending to off-
set the merits of the plan. The presence of the airport has led to
industrial activity nearby and the creation. of many new jobs. The people
working at and near the airport desire to live at locations convenient
to their jobs. Builders, in meeting this need, are pressing for zoning
changes to enable the construction of homes in areas where noise levels
are known to preclude a satisfactory home environment. In this (and
many other instances) the people have moved from a quieter area to
the vicinity, of a major noise source.
Another method employed in communities has been to strictly limit
the use of individual vehicles, thereby facilitating movement of public
and commercial transportation. In this instance, noise is but one of
several reasons for instituting control measures. However, it is often
helpful to think of noise not as an isolated problem, but rather as part
of a complex environment, physical as well as psychological. A midcity
area is often characterized by crowded conditions, air pollution, crime,
as well as intense noise levels. These conditions may well produce a
synergistic effect, with noise contributing substantially toward making
the environment intolerable because of its omnipresence.
In the context of airport noise, the study of Logan Airport (6)
indicated the nature of the dilemma often faced by planners. They
note that a successful program to alleviate community conflicts requires
long range planning that considers the needs not only of the airports,
but of the surrounding community.
—17—
-------
in the continued absence of effective noise control programs, the
problems associated with noise that are now experienced can be expected
to increase. The trend toward increasing mechanization makes the increase
in number and variety of noise sources all but inevitable. If past expe i-
ence can be used as a guide, it can be anticipated that an increase in
noise levels will result in an increasing tendency for individuals and
groups to promote regulation of noise by legislative means. Since noise
extends into many aspects of our society, its regulation might be ex-
pected to take a number of forms and have rather broad effects.
Thus far we have considered basically the middle class reaction to
the noise problem. Generally, the tendency has been, as expected, to
work directly through the traditional political process to effect envi-
ronmental change. However, the findings of many research studies may
also indicate the response of the disadvantaged people in society.
Parrack, Borsky, and other researchers note that annoyance produced by
noise is closely related to the attitude of people to their general
living environment. ]3orsky (17) notes that it has been found that the
more a person dislikes other things about his community, the more hos-
tile he may be to a noise interference, especially if he feels power-
less to change other environmental disturbances and if the noise is a
more recent addition to his cumulative dissatisfaction. Isn’t it reas-
onable to assume that “the poor” are under-represented in these stat-
istics because of their past experience in dealing with governmental
institutions? Unfortunately, in the recent past community protests reg-
istered by the poor have taken a very direct and violent form. Might
not increasing levels of noise contribute to this type of action again
in the future?
Since control of the source of noise has been determined by
acousticians to be an effective approach in noise reduction, a good
deal of activity may be expected to accomplish this goal. While the
aircraft industry has for many years been concerned with this problem,
as associated with community noise primarily, many other industries are
likely to receive increased attention. The other transportation in-
dustries (automobile, railroads) have already been identified as major
causes of annoyance due to noise in community surveys. These surveys
have also resulted in the increasing attention which is now given to con-
struction equipment, powered “pleasur&’ vehicles and household appliances.
The establishment of noise standards may be expected to have similar con-
sequences to those following the formulation of safety standards, i.e.,
higher costs to the producer which are passed on to the consumer. In some
instances, the availability of low priced items might be curtailed be-
cause it would not be economic to quiet them, thereby depriving those
least able to pay of needed products. Another area where the poorer
-18-
-------
members of our society might be seriously affected is the home. As noted
earlier, the lightweight construction techniques now used by many builders
have resulted in homes which are said to lack sufficient privacy. If
housing codes are developed which reflect this concern for privacy and
protection from “outside noise”, construction costs are likely to “follow
the same path” noted previously, namely that the user will pay for in-
creased acoustical treatment. Since many people now have difficulties
meeting payments required for shelter, it can be anticipated that they
will be even less able to pay for homes “designed for quiet”. Of course,
the effects of strong building codes in the area of acoustics will have
the most important direct effect upon the builders who are to meet these
requirements. In order to meet noise acceptability criteria, some of
the techniques used in lightweight construction today may have to be mod-
ified. If this were to occur, it might be conjectured that there would
be a slowing down of the process of meeting the Nation’s stated housing
goals.
One major segment of our society has not yet been considered
although it plays a major noise role, both as a source and a receiver --
the military. The military provides a microcosm of societys problems
with noise because of its widespread activities associated with the
major noise sources of transportation and construction. Naturally
these activities effect civilian as well as military personnel and add
to the general noise problem -- especially with respect to aircraft
noise. It is the only source of sonic booms at present and these have
been severely disruptive in many communities (as noted elsewhere).
Perhaps the most important and direct link between the military and the
overall noise problem is the time spent in service by a large proportion
of the adult male population. The noise exposure history of millions of
people now includes exposure to powerful weapons, tanks, aircraft, and
countless other major noise sources which may contribute significantly
to the incidence of partial and total deafness in the future. The
Veterans Administration has, in some years, been paying approximately 30
million dollars annually for service connected hearing disabilities
Among those centers of act. vity most seriously affected by noise
are those centered in public buildings. This point n as made by Bolt
Beranek and Newman, in their study of Logan Airport (6). They indjc te
that institutional dwellings often require a greater degree of sound
conditioning than residential structures because lower sound levels
are required for internal use, The requirements of patients in hospitals
and the speech level in schools and churches demand special evaluation
in the vicinity of an airporti
-19—
-------
Recent studies concerned with aircraft noise in the community of
Inglewood, California, provide an example. In the local churches, it
was indicated that the conduct of meaningful services was virtually
impossible. The effects on several schools were so severe that new
schools had to be built to serve the community. Other surveys have
indicated that serious disruption of classroom activities has been a
major effect of noise. Is it not reasonable to assume that the quality
of education is going to suffer even when noise levels are not so great
that they cause the closing of schools? Conditions suitable for adequate
speech communication are necessary for classroom activities in which
disruptions by noise can necessitate the repeating of material, can
cause misunderstanding of assignments, and difficulty in concentration
on complex subject matter (which is especially susceptible to noise
interference).
Public libraries, churches and hospitals located in downtown areas
sometimes cannot serve the needs of the community because of noise inter-
ference. One solution to the problem has been the movement of institu-
tions to quieter locations away from the center of the city. Unfortunately
this approach has been self-defeating because it has separated the users
from the institutions designed to serve them. This has occurred because
the people continued to live in the same area, requiring added expenses
for transportation. Also, the time and difficulty in reaching these places
tend to discourage attendance in many instances.
Retail stores have followed the path of public institutions because
of problems associated with downtown areas. Certainly noise cannot be
considered the primary cause for such displacement but it is reasonable
to consider it one of the causes for the movement to shopping centers,.
Industrial plants and other businesses likewise are moving out of the
central cities partly because it is difficult for employees to find sat-
isfactory places to live nearby.
Modern society can, in a sense, be defined in terms of the tasks
the citizens are called upon to perform. These tasks are becoming more
and more concentrated in “white collar occupations”, where the emphasis
is on “brain power” rather than brawn, The required “muscle”, whether on
the job or at home, is supplied by electro-mechanjcal devices, Laboratory
and field investigations indicate that intellectually demanding tasks are
more subject to performance decrement and expressions of annoyance than
other more physical pursuits.
-20-
-------
The mass production cycle, typical of many industries,provides
another example of this dilemma. On the production line, any error may
become quite costly because of the number of “bad” units which can be
produced in a very short span of time. It is therefore necessary to
maintain very high standards of quality control, At some point in the
control process, an inspector often either closely inspects products
or monitors a display which has an error readout. With increased ef-
ficiency (more production per unit time) error costs can be expected
to increase in a corresponding fashion (if we assume a unit error cost).
However, in many instances increased production results in increased
noise levels, making the “error detection” process of the inspector
still more difficult.
Despite greatly increased activity by government, organized groups
and private citizens to combat noise, it is questionable whether the
scope of the problem is well understood. These overt activities and
compilations of complaint records are the product of a small but in-
fluential minority of the population. But, Borsky (7) notes that in
studies conducted in Britain and the United States, only lO7 of all
persons with serious noise problems felt that complaining would have
any beneficial results. The actual level of disaffection with noise is
therefore difficult to estimate.
Suburban living in some areas is beginning to resemble the life
style in the cities, because of the limited use of the outdoors. The
Wyle EPA Report (4) notes that in an increasing number of instances,
it is no longer possible to engage in conversation at a normal voice
level on one’s patio because of noise intrusions; therefore the family
will tend to spend more time indoors. As noted earlier, the prevalence
of major noise sources in outdoor recreational areas is diminishing the
enjoyment of many activities associated with restfulness and quiet.
This might also serve to induce people to stay at home where they can
avoid disturbances. It might be speculated that, taken as a whole,
these tendencies are divisive in nature and contribute to make the
existing problems in our society even worse. This occurs because they
tend to separate and isolate individuals and families in contrast to an
expansion of interests and activities usually equated with healthy
living.
As demonstrated throughout this report, the assessments of the
effects of noise have been based on data from many sources and are pre-
sented in a variety of forms. This has resulted in statements (some
highly quantitative, others primarily descriptive and often speculative)
on such indicators as community responses, physiological and annoyance
measures and numbers of people deafened by noises. In dealing with this
array of information and opinion it is easy to lose sight of the fact
that they all deal with the same problem area and therefore should not
be considered independently. Rather, it is extremely important to inte-
grate these diverse findings by means of some unifying concepts. One
method of accomplishing this objective might be to focus on the charac-
teristic noted previously, namely the cumulative aspect of noise exposure.
—21—
-------
This has already been identified as a major parameter associated with
loss of hearing. Isn’t it also likely to have important psychological
and sociological consequences since its effects are so far ranging and
intrude into most activities,especially those requiring concentra-
tion or rest? It is a commonly experienced phenomenon that comparatively
minor disturbances can often be ignored but once they exceed some thresh-
old level, they destroy concentration and become a major source of
nuisance.
The argument is often made that noise is not a major problem be-
cause people generally adapt to it. Borsky, in summarizing the results
of the Oklahoma City sonic boom studies, indicated that there was a
steady increase in the number of people “seriously annoyed t ’ as the tests
progressed, despite a massive public relations coinpaign designed to
promote acceptance. (The later booms were louder, however, and this
factor may have affected the findings. But since there were no booms
during the evenings the results might be accurate or even conservative.)
Public reaction to sonic booms caused the military to reroute most of its
training flights to sparsely populated areas. Laboratory and field
studies by Dr. K. Kryter (15) have generally confirmed the findings of
Borsky that widespread public reaction would occur if sonic booms were
a part of our everyday environment. Miss Alice Suter (National Association
of Hearing and Speech Agencies) noted in her EPA testimony:
“The idea that people become adapted to noise is really a myth. As
I mentioned previously, the circulatory system does not adapt. Also,
studies have shown that people who work in high noise levels during the
day are more rather than less susceptible to aggravation from noise after
work. The factory worker is more apt to explode at his noisy children
than the man who works in a quiet office.”
Dr. Rene Dubos, the distinguished microbiologist, experimental path-
ologist and authority on the ecology of disease, stressed those two
factors in a paper given at a 1966 forum on environmental quality (28).
Dr. Dubos stated:
“... Modern man, like his ancestors, can achieve some form of
physiological and socio-cultural adjustment to a very wide range of con-
ditions, even when these appear almost incompatible with organic survival.
The rapid increase in population during the nineteenth century occurred
even though the proletariat was then living under conditions that most of
us would find almost unbearable
—22-
-------
“Because human beings are so likely to become adapted to many
undesirable conditions, and because they tend at present to make econ-
omic growth the most important criterion of social betterment, it will
not be easy to create a climate of opinion favorable to the immense ef-
fort needed for the control of environmental threats. Yet it is certain
that many environmental factors exert a deleterious influence on im-
portant aspects of human life. The reason this danger is largely over-
looked is that the damage caused to human life by environmental insults
is usually so delayed and indirect that it escapes recognition through
the usual analysis of cause--efect relationships.
“. .. the very fact that man possesses great ability to achieve some
form of biological or social adjustment to many different forms of stress
is paradoxically a source of danger for his welfare and his future. The
danger comes from the fact that it is often difficult to relate the de-
layed and indirect pathological consequences of environmental damage to
their primary cause.”
Finally, it seems appropriate to present the views of the former
Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. W. H. Stewart. In his keynote
address to the 1968 Conference on “Noise as a Public Health Hazard”, he
states (27):
“Twenty years ago this fall, in the town of Donora, Pennsylvania, a
combination of unusual weather conditions and fumes from local factories
produced an air pollution episode during which 20 people died and hundreds
more were made acutely ill. The same sort of thing had been happening
for a number of years, on a larger but less intensive scale in England,
Belgium and elsewhere.
“Of course we haven’t had our Donora episode in the noise field.
Perhaps we never will. More likely, our Donora incidents are occurring
day by day, in communities across the Nation -- not in terms of 20 deaths
specifically attributable to a surfeit of noise, but in terms of more
than 20 ulcers, cardio-vascular problems, psychoses, and neuroses for
which the noises of 20th centruy living are a major contributory cause.
“Must we wait until we prove every link in the chain of observation?
I stand firmly with Burvey’s statement of 10 years ago. In protecting
health, absolute proof comes late. To wait for it is to invite disaster
or to prolong suffering unnecessarily.
“I submit that those things within man’s power to control which
impact upon the individual in a negative way, which infringe upon his
sense of integrity, and interrupt his pursuit of fulfillment, are hazards
to the public health”.
-23-
-------
References
(1) The Noise Around Us, U. S. Department of Commerce Publication,
1970.
(2) Johnson, C. C., Statement at EPA Hearings, Washington, D. C.,
1971.
(3) Our Cities — Their Role in the National Economy, National
Resources Committee in a Report for the President, 1937.
(4) Wyle Laboratory Report for EPA, Community Noise, Transportation
Noise, and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion
Engines, NTID 300—3.
(5) Jamaica Bay and Kennedy Airport Environmental Studies Board,
National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering,
1971.
(6) Bolt Beranek and Newman, Aircraft Noise and Airport Neighbors:
A Study of Logan International Airport, DOT/HUD IANAP 70—1, 1970.
(7) Bolt Beranek and Newman Report for EPA, Noise from Construction
Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances,
NTID 300—1.
(8) Marcus, R., EPA Hearings in Atlanta, 1971.
(9) Cohen, A., Noise effects on health, productivity and well being,
Transactions of New York Academy of Science, Series II, Volume
30, 1968.
(10) Lipscomb, D., EPA Hearings, Washington, D. C., 1971.
(11) Jansen, G., Effects of noise on health, German Medical Monthly,
Volume 13, 1968.
(12) Shatalov, N. N., Some Hemodynarnic Changes Provided by Industrial
Noise, U. S. Army Intelligence Report, 1965.
(13) Suter, A., EPA Hearings in Atlanta, 1971.
(14) Farr, L. B. , Medical consequences of environmental home noises,
Journal of American Medical Association, Volume 202, 1967.
(15) Kryter, K. D., The Effects of Noise on Man, Academic Press, New
York, 1970.
(16) Committee on the Problem of Noise, Noise, Her Majesty’s Stationary
Office, 1963.
(17) Borsky, P. N., Community Reaction to Sonic Booms in the Oklahoma
City Area, ANRL Technical Report 65—37, Wright Patterson AFB,
Ohio, 1965.
-24-
-------
(18) Parrack, H. 0., Community Response to Noise, Handbook of Noise
Control, Ed. C. Harris, McGraw Hill, New York, N. Y., 1957.
(19) Van Den Eijk, J., The new Dutch code on noise control, Journal
of Sound and Vibration, Volume 3, 1966.
(20) Community Reaction to Airport Noise, Tracor Corporation, 1971.
(21) Fog, H, and Johnson, E.,, Traffic Noise in Residential Areas,
National Swedish Institute for Building Health, 1969.
(22) Denzel, H. A., Noise and health, Science, Volume 143, 1964.
(23) Glass, D. C., Singer, J. E., Friedman, L. N., Psychic cost
of adaptation to an environmental stressor, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Volume 12, 1969.
(24) Berland, T., Testimony in EPA Hearings, Dallas, Texas, 1971.
(25) McKennell, A. C., Complaints and Community Action, in Transportation
Noises I A Symposium on Acceptability Criteria, Ed. J. D.
Chalupnik, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1970.
(26) McGrath, D. C., City Planning and Noise, Division of Metropolitan
Area Analysis, HEJD.
(27) Hildebrand, J. L., Noise Pollution and the Law, Law Book Publishers,
Buffalo, New York, 1970.
(28) Dubos, R., Man, Medicine and Environment, F. A. Praeger Publishers,
New York, N. Y., 1968.
(29) Noise as a Public Health Hazard, American Speech and Hearing Assn.,
ASHA Report No. 4, 1969.
—25—
------- |