NOISE POLLUTION: AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE PROBLEM AND AN
OUTLINE FOR FUTURE
LEGAL RESEARCH
JAMES L. HILDEBRAND
REPRINTED FROM COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
VOL. 70, PACE 652 (APRIL 1970)
OOmiSHT 1970 BV DIRECTORS OF THE COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION, IMC.
reproduced with permission
by the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
-------
NOISE POLLUTION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
PROBLEM AND AN OUTLINE FOR FUTURE
LEGAL RESEARCH
JAMES L. HILDEBRAND*
I have long held the opinion that the amount oj noise which anyone
can bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion to his mental
capacity, and may therefore be regarded as a pretty fair measure
of it. . .. Noise is a torture to all intellectual people.1
Introduction
Noise is one of the scourges of the modern world. It is an unwanted
product of our technological civilization, and is becoming an increasingly
dangerous and disturbing environmental pollutant. There is a growing public
awareness and even some progress in the light against air and water pollution,
but a third jeopardy—noise pollution—has only recently begun to gain atten-
tion. Since the industrial revolution the daily lives of people, particularly in
urban environments, have been invaded by unwanted and disruptive sounds.
Traffic noise, which has been generally accepted without complaint until
recently, has become intolerably noticeable. Not only is the actual number
of operating motor vehicles increasing annually (an increase of 11.5 million
cars and trucks in 1969 alone),2 but there is also an upward trend in speed
and weight, plus an almost universal adoption of the diesel engine for com-
mercial vehicle use. However, the greatest increase in the urban noise level
has been brought about by the introduction of the turbojet engine into
commercial airline operation. It can be argued that the antagonism evoked
by aircraft noise has stimulated a more critical public attitude toward noise
in general and has drawn attention to other sources of unwanted sound which
were previously tolerated. The advent of the supersonic transport (SST) is
creating a global dimension to what is already a major national noise problem.
Noise has always been with us, but it has never been so obvious, so
intense, so varied, and so pervasive as it is today. Background noise3 has
increased at a rate of one decibel4 a year on the A scale (a scale devised to
* A.B., Hamilton College; J.D,, Case Western Reserve University; LL.M. Candi-
date, Harvard Law School. Member of the Ohio Bar.
The author is currently editing a selection of essays to be published in book form
under the title Noise Pollution and the Law (J. Hildebrand ed.). All rights of Suture
publication oi this article are reserved by the author.
1. A. ScHOpENHAUta, On Noist, in 2 The World as Will and Idea 199 (H.
Haldane & J. Kemp trans. 1844).
2. N.Y. Times, Jan. 11, 1970, g 12. at 18, col. 3. This figure is predicted to increase
to IS million annually by the end of the 1970's. Id. There are over 99.9 million motor
vehicles in the United States today. See N.Y. Times, Apr. 26, 1970, ( 1, at 22, col. 1.
3. See notes 28-31 and accompanying text infra.
4. The decibel is a unit measure of sound intensity and is calculated from the level
at which sound becomes audible to the human ear. One decibel represents the loweit
-------
NOISE POLLUTION
give greater weight to high-pitched sounds, which arc more annoying to the
human ear than low-pitched sounds). If this increase continues at the same
rate for the next 30 years as it has for the last 30, it could become lethal.6
Since the intensity of sounds doubles with every six decibels, it will take
only six years to double the loudness of city noise. "The strength of the
general noise background in some of our communities is now tour times what
it was in 1956, and 32 times what it. was in 1938.""
Noise may affect one's health in subtle ways—both psychologically and
physiologically. Dr. Samuel Rosen, clinical professor of otology (the science
of the ear) at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and consulting car surgeon
at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, recently stated: "At an un-
expected or unwanted noise, the pupils dilate, skin pales, mucous membtanes
dry; there arc intestinal spasms and the adrenals explode secret ions. The
biological organism, in a word, is disturbed."7 Noise also cause.- a loss of
nervous energy to the detriment of the health and well-being of the individual.
Moreover, noise pollution may be a major factor in creating individual
cognitive dissonance as well as mass societal neuroses. As the noise Wei in •
creases, man like other animals becomes more irritable and more protv to
irrational and neurotic behavior." An interesting correlation might b- made
between our nation's increasing crime rate and increasing urban noise level
The problem has also become an economic one. The World Health Organiza-
tion estimates that lowered efficiency and increased errors caused by noisy
working environments result in a loss of $4 billion per year to American
industry.0 In 1961 a Time estimate placed the cost of noise to American
audible sound and each additional decibel represents a tenfold increase in volume. For a
discussion of the physical properties and the measurement of sound see A PHTr.s=OM &
E. Gross, Jr., Handbook of Noise Measurement (5th ed. 1963); W. Burns, Noise
and Man 10-51 (1968); A. Bell, Noise: An Occupational Hazard and Public
Nuisance 58-61 (1966). The decibel measurement, however, cannot measure either the
subjective impression of noise perceived or the degree of mental disturbance caused.
For example, the 50 decibel change of intensity between the rustling ot leaves and the
sound of people talking is far less noticeable than the next 50 decibel increase from
the sound of people talking to the roar of a jet plane. See generally notes 85-89 and
accompanying text infra.
5. Noises Takes Toll, Says Experts, Today's Health, Oct 1967, at 87, col. 1 : sec
also Conn., Our Noisr, American Legion Magazine, Feb. 1968, at 30; Bailey, The Sound
of Madness: "Noise is a Slow Agent oj Death," N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 1969, § 6
(Magazine), at 46.
6. Conn, supra note 5, at 30. Many noise levels encountered in urban aims today
exceed standards found injurious in industry. Dougherty & Welsh, Community Nnisr
and hearing I.nss, 27S New England J. Medicine 759 (1966;; Srr llr.i'r II^usinc
AND Urdan Dkvf.i.upm ent, Noise in Urban and Suburban Areat, Ti'.( i 'lie ai. Studies
Program op Federal Housing Administration (1969) , Ostergaad & Donley, Back-
ground Noise Levels in Suburban Communities, 36 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 409 (1964) ;
Stevens, Community Noise and City Planning, in Handhook on Noise Control 35-1
(D. Harris ed. 1957).
7. Noise Takes Toll, Say Experts, Today's Health, Oct. 1967, a; 87, col. 1.
8. See notes 28-49 and accompanying text infra.
9. Mecklin, It's Time to Turn Doivn All That Noise, Fortune, Oct. 1969, at 133.
For a discussion of one company's early attempts at combating industrial noise, see
Scholtz, Combating the Traumatic Effects oj Industrial Noise, 7 Cleve -Mar. L. Rev.
260 (1958). See also Miller, Case Histories of Machine and Shop Quieting, in Noise
-------
654
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
industry—for compensation, lost hours, and decreased efficiency—at $2 million
a day.10
The present state of affairs leaves little room for man to be sanguine.
But how did we get into such a situation? The primary reason is the same as
in other areas of environmental pollution—social and legal measures were
not taken to prevent it, and for the failure to act in time the public authorities
bear the major responsibility. The increase in noise has been accepted as a
natural process, as a price to be mi i for our technological progress. Law,
justice, and public authorities all have capitulated to technology.
Yet, it is perhaps unfair to make modern technology the scapegoat of all
our social and ecological ills. The pessimistic attitude—that technology has
become an end in itself, that it subjects man to its demands rather than serves
human needs, that it is inherently destructive of personal freedom, and that it
will make the world totally uninhabitable or at least deprive it of all hope and
beauty—is based upon a vast oversimplification. The converse—that technology
is a universal solvent which has not only liberated Western man from the
bondage of poverty and disease but will assure global prosperity and universal
happiness for future generations if only applied vigorously—is likewise sim-
plistic.11 There is a more rational and balanced attitude somewhere between
the two extremes:
Between these two extremes lies the view of those who recognize
that benefit and injury alike may flow from technology, which, after
all, is nothing more than a systematic way of altering the environ-
ment. They recognize that the quality of life has been greatly im-
proved by technological advance and would deteriorate rapidly in a
period of technological stagnation; that a technological culture, al-
ready adopted by one third of the human race and eagerly sought by
much of the remaining two thirds, could be abandoned only at the
cost of relegating hundreds of millions of human beings to suffering
and death. The choice, from this perspective, is not between the
abandonment of technology as a tool of human aspiration and the
uncontrolled pursuit of technology as though more tools invariably
meant a better life. The choice, rather, is between technological ad-
vance that proceeds without adequate consideration of its conse-
quences and technological change that is influenced by a deeper
concern for the interaction between man's tools and the human
environment in which they do their work.12
Reduction, 571-98 (L. Beranek ed. 1960); Karplus & Bonvallet, A Noise Survey of
Manufacturing Industries, 14 Am. Indus. Hyg. Ass'n Q. 235 (1953).
10. Timt, Jan. 2, 1961, at 29.
11. House Comm. on Science and Astronautics, Technology: Processes of
Assessment and Choice, Report of the National Academy of Sciences 2 (July
1969). For a discussion of these and other oversimplified views about technology, see
Mesthene, The Role of Technology in Society: Some General Impli:alions of the Pro-
gram's Research, in Harvard University Program on Technology and Society,
Fourth Annual Report 1967-1968, at 41-43 (1968). See generally E. Mesthenf,
Technological Change: Its Impact on Man and Society (1970).
12. Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice, supra note 11, at 2-3.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
655
The stimulus necessary to provoke such a deeper concern for man's environ-
ment is often lethal. When air and water pollution was shown actually to kill
people, there was action. Fortunately or unfortunately, a direct cause and effect
relationship between excessive noise and death cannot yet be shown.13 How-
ever, the bell that is tolling is a loud one, and it is getting louder. If complete
environmental deterioration is to be avoided, we must view the world, in
Barbara Word's terminology, as a spaceship Earth which is capable of carrying
only so much cargo and whose environmental level must be qualitatively
maintained.14
Existing legal remedies have proved grossly inadequate to meet the
expanding needs for effective noise control. Common law nuisance remedies
and outdated municipal noise ordinances are not sufficient to protect individual
rights and public health and safety from the damages caused by noise pollution.
Even receht legislation, embodying modern scientific audiometric concepts, has
had only limited success. Ultimately, the quieting process will not gain impetus
until individual outlooks are changed. We must first realize that noise is not
just an unpleasant annoyance, which must be endured as part of the price of
progress. Once individuals realize that unwanted noise is a threat to health,
not too dissimilar from air or water pollution, and that determined -efforts
are needed to keep it within reasonable bounds, then market pressures can be
brought on manufacturers of noise-producing items and public pressure can
become an effective catalyst for securing particularized legal regulation of
specific rtoise-producing sources.
The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to the practical
problems surrounding noise as an environmental pollutant. The continuing
deterioration of man's habitat demands a reevaluation of the present approaches
to ecomanagement,15 and it is hoped that the discussion of the physiological,
behavioral and psychological effects on the physical and mental well-being of
our society and its members will emphasize the current need for legislative
as well as judicial regulation. The article will also discuss the various sources
of noise pollution and what can be done to ameliorate their disruptive in-
fluences. Finally, an outline for future legal research to meet the needs of
13. It Is rumored, however, that the latest exotic weapon for military use in Vietnam
is a siren capable of emitting 200- decibels—a sound intense enough to literally "boil"
the inner ear. Dreher, Its Getting Noisier, The Nation, Sept. 18, 1967, at 23o-39.
14. In the last few decades, mankind has been overcome by the most fateful
change in its entire history. Modern science and technology have created so close
a network of communication, transport, economic interdependence—and potential
nuclear destruction—that planet earth, on its journey through infinity, has
acquired the intimacy, the fellowship, and the vulnerability of a spaceship.
B. Wahov Spaceship Earth vii (1966).
15. Ecology is the science of the relations between organisms and their environment.
Ecomanagement can be defined & the public management of all natural resources,
ineludingspace and air. See J. Mayda, Environment and Resources : From Consebva-
TION TO jEtCOtfAKAOKMKNT (1968).
-------
656
COLVMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
planned and rational ecomanagement in the area of noise pollution will be
suggested.
I. The Effects of Noise Pollution
As in other areas of environmental pollution, the adverse effects of noise
pollution are multivariate and interrelated. While it can be shown empirically
that exposure to excessive noise causes loss of hearing, it is more difficult to
show the subjective effects of noise on individual and societal mental well-
being. Man's ability to adapt to the deterioration of his environment further
complicates attempts to measure the effects of noise pollution in any objective
fashion. "It is possible to become 'acclimatized' to some noises, although only
to the extent that one may become less aware of their subjective effects.
However, the reverse may also occur and the noise become more noticeable."16
For simplification, this discussion will divide the effects of noise pollution on
the human organism into physiological effects—including hearing loss, occupa-
tional deafness, and noise-induced diseases—and psychological and behavioral
effects—including annoyance, speech interference, fatigue, psychosomatic dis-
orders, tension-related diseases, sleep interference, and mental illness. The
effects of infrasound and ultrasound and the effects of noise pollution on other
animals and on our nation's wilderness areas will then be discussed.
A. Physiological Effects
The most severe and noticeable effect of exposure to excessive noise is
loss or impairment of hearing. In the United States alone, 11 million adults
and 3 million children suffer some form of hearing loss.17 Airborne sound is
16. A. Bell, supra note 4, at 33.
17. Brower, Noise Pollution: A Crowing Menace, Saturday Review, May 27, 1967,
at 17. There are several types of deafness: (1) nerve deafness, sometimes called inner-
ear, perceptive, or neurosensory deafness, in which noise is the usual cause; (2) con-
ductive hearing loss, in which there is interference with the conduction of sound to the
inner-ear; (3) additive or mixed hearing losses due to a combination of the above; and
(4) functional deafness, which is due to psychological factors or to malingering. A. Bell,
supra note 4, at 22. See generally J. Ballantyne, Deafness (1960); H. Davis &
S. Silverman, Hearing and Deafness (1961). On the mechanism of hearing, see
T. Litter, The Physics of the Ear (1965) ; I. Whitfield, The Auditory Pathway
(1967); A, Gloric, Noise and Your Ear (1958).
Until recently it wa9 generally thought to be a physiological effect of aging that
the ability to hear high tones gradually diminishes starting at about age 32 for men and
age 37 for women. However, it is now believed by some doctors, including Dt. Samuel
Rosen, consulting ear surgeon and clinical professor of otology at New York's Mount
Sinai Hospital, that this hearing change, called presbycusis, is not a natural hearing loss
but rather is caused by the general noise level in our society. See Rosen, Presbycusis
Study of a Relatively Noise-free Population of the Sudan, 71 Annals of Otology,
Rhinology & Laryngology 727 (1962) ; Rosen, Hearing Studies in Selected Urban-
Rural Populations, 29 Transactions or the N.Y. Academy op Sciences 9 (1966). Of
course, it is possible that factors other than noise cause a loss of hearing which corre-
lates with age in Western society. Dr. Roy Sullivan has suggested that atherosclerosis
and hypertension are two other possible factors, and he warns that Dr. Rosen's findings
should be interpreted "with caution, in light of cultural, hereditary, diet and other en-
vironmental differences between the [Sudan and Western] societies." 113 Cong. Rec.
H670 (daily ed. Jan. 26, 1967). See generally A. Bell, supra note 4, 41-43; W. Burns,
supra note 4, at 17-18.
-------
1970J
NOISE POLLUTION
657
a variation in normal atmospheric pressure,18 and the response of the ear is
proportional to such pressure. There are numerous ways that noise can
damage hearing. The most common effect of excessive noise on hearing is
nerve deafness, which occurs when noises damage the hearing mechanism to a
point where the sensory nerve function is depressed. In the process of hearing,
sound waves are transmitted to the inner ear's cochlea, a shell-like chamber
which is lined with hair-like sensors. Sounds are analyzed bv the ear in this
chamber. Prolonged exposure to excessive noise can cause marked changes in
the cells of the hair-like sensors, causing a hearing loss which may be perma-
nent.19 A more exceptional hearing damage, called acoustic trauma, or blast
trauma, is caused when a sudden burst of noise, such as gunfire, ruptures the
eardrum or disrupts the chain of small bones that transmit the sound within
the ear to the auditory nerve. Explosive noise may also affect the inner ear,
producing cochlear damage and permanent nerve deafness.20
Not only the intensity of noise but such factors as duration of exposure,
distance from the source, and frequency must be considered when assessing the
probability of both correctable and irreparable hearing damage. Obviously, the
longer the exposure the greater the damage. The intensity of sound diminishes
over distance, with a propressively greater reduction as the frequency in-
creases. Moreover, higher frequency sounds, such as that created by a turbo-
prop airplane, are more disagreeable and dangerous than those of lower
frequencies.81
18. A. Petcbsom & E. Gross, Jr., supra note 4, at 3. Sound can be defined as a
mechanical disturbance or an oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle
velocity, etc^ propagated in an elastic medium, of such character as to be capable of
exciting the sensation of hearing. By extension, the term sound is sometimes applied to
any disturbance, irrespective of frequency, which may be propagated as a wave motion
in an elastic medium. The medium in which the source exists is often indicated by an
appropriate adjective, e.g., air bo me, waterbome, structurebome. Sound can also be de-
fined as the sensation of hearing excited by mechanical disturbance. Disturbances of
frequency too high to be capable of exciting the sensation of hearing arc described as
ultrasonic. Hypertonics is the name given to ultrasonic disturbances in a medium, whose
wavelength is comparable with the inter-molecular spacing. Disturbances of frequency
too low to be capable of exciting the sensation of hearing are described as infrasonic.
Set id. at 213; British Standards Institution, BS661, Glossary of Acoustical
Tbrmb (1969). For a discussion of the physical properties of sound, see W. Burns,
tupra note 4, at 10-51; W. Hall & O. Matthews, Sound (2d ed. 1965); L. Kinsler &
A. Frey, Fundamentals at Acoustics (1962); R. Stephens & A. Bate, Acoustics
and Vibrational Physics (1966).
19. Ste W. Burns, tupra note 4, at 69; Brower, supra note 17, at 17; discussion in
note 21 infra.
20. Lehmami, Noitt and Health, UNESCO Courier, July 1967, at 26.
21. Id,
Two physicians, Dr. John D. Dougherty of the Harvard School of Public
Health and Dr. Oliver I. Welsh, chief of the Audiology Unit of liie Veterans
Administration Outpatient Clinic in Boston, made a study of loss of hearing in
the high frequencies. Their report was published in the New England Journal
of Medicine {Vol. 27S, No. 14, Oct 6, 1966, at 759). In the process of hearing,
they, explained, sound waves are transmitted to the inner car s cochlea, a sliell-
¦ like 'chamber whkh is lined with hairlike sensors. High-frequency sounds are
analyzed by the ear at the front of this chamber, while the low-frequency sounds
are dealt with all along the path of the inner cochlea. Consequently, there is
persistent wear in that one small area where the high-frequency sounds impinge ;
this area ware oat first The two physicians also noted marked tissue changes
in the hair cells during noise exposure. According to Dr. Dougherty, "the hair
-------
658
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
Loss or partial impairment of hearing is not the only physical damage
that can be caused to the human organism by noise pollution. There is a grow-
ing concern that other serious physical difficulties may be caused or aggravated
by the increa?<:ig noise in the urban environment.22 At a recent meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, it was asserted by
Dr. Lester W. Sontag that the human fetus may be damaged by noise pollution
either directly by such violent noise as sonic booms, or indirectly by the
mother's psycho-physiological reaction, to excessive noise.23 On the adult level,
physicians have reported a causal relationship between exposure to excessive
noise over a period of time and the incidence of heart disease and cardio-
vascular dysfunction,24 migraine headaches, gastrointestinal disorders, and
allergies, as well as endocrine and metabolic effects.25 A recent report by the
Federal Council for Science and Technology has stated that "[ijncreasing
numbers of competent investigators believe that [prolonged exposure to in-
tense noise] may adversely affect other organic, sensory and physiologic func-
tions of the human body."26 Dr. Vern O. Knudsen, a physicist, a founder of
the Acoustical Society of America, and former Chancellor of the University
of California, did not overstate the problems when he said: "Noise is a slow
agent of death."27
B. Psychological and Behavioral Effects
Noise can be defined simply as one or a group of loud, harsh, nonhar-
monious sounds or vibrations that are unpleasant and irritating to the ear.28
cells regenerate themselves after noise exposure; but after long-term exposure,
it is entirely likely that they will wear out altogether."
Brower, supra note 17, at 17.
22. See, e.g.. Hearings on Noise: Its Effect on Man and Machine, Before the Special
Investigating Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Science and Astronautics, 86th Cong.,
2d Sess. (Aug. 23-25, 1960) [hereinafter cited as Hearings on Noise] ; American Ass'n
for the Advancement of Science, Symposium: Physiological Effects of Audible Sound,
Boston, Mass., Dec. 28-29, 1969 [hereinafter cited as AAAS Symposium], discussed in
Welch, Physiological Effects of Audible Sound, 166 Science 533 (1969) ; N.Y. Times,
Dec. 29, 1969, at 1, cols. 4-5. The papers presented at the AAAS Symposium are
scheduled to be published later this year by the Plenum Press.
23. Sontag, Effects of Noise During Pregnancy Upon Foetal and Subsequent Adult
Behavior, at AAAS Symposium, supra note 22, discussed in N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 1969,
at 1, cols. 4-5, and 25, col. 2.
24. Rosen, Noise, Hearing and Cardiovascular Function, at AAAS Symposium,
supra note 22; Rosen, Hearing Loss and Coronary Heart Disease, 82 Archives of
Otolaryngology 236 (1965) ; Rosen, Relation of Hearing Loss to Cardiovascular
Disease, Transactions Am. Acad. Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology 433 (1964).
See also N.Y. Times, Mar. 19, 1967, 6 1, at 42, col. 1 (report of Dr. Samuel Rosen at
Conference on Noise Control, New York) ; Ragon, Impact, World Health, Feb.-Mar.
1966, at 26-28.
25. N.Y. Times, June 23, 1967, at 22, col. 2 (report of Professor Lee E. Farr to
American Medical Ass'n Convention) ; Blum, Noise: How Much Can We Take?,
McCalls, Jan. 1967, at 113. See generally AAAS Symposium, supra note 24.
26. Report of the Comm. on Environmental Quality of thk FpnFRAr. Council.
por Science and Technology, Noise: Sound Without Value 3 (1968) [hereinafter
cited as Noise: Sound Without Value), discussed in N.Y. Times, Nov. 10, 1968
at 42. col. 1.
27. Quoted in Bailey, supra note 5, at 131.
28. Noise is any undesired sound. By extension, noise is any unwanted dis-
turbance within a useful frequency band, such as undesired electric waves in any
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
659
"Whether a sound becomes noise—whether it is wanted or unwanted—whether
it is injurious—in many instances is all in the point of view."20 The degree of
annoyance is not necessarily related to the intensity of the sound; it may often
be influenced by subjective factors, such as familiarity and personal attitudes.
Very loud music may still be considered beautiful by an appreciative listener,90
whereas even minute scratching and extremely weak sounds can be a disturbing
noise. Since annoyance is largely an individual response, and varies with
persons and situations, it can be said that what makes a sound a noise is a
matter of psychology rather than acoustics.
A sound which we associate with something pleasurable is far less
likely to be considered as a noise than one with unwelcome con-
notations. We always tend to underrate the noise of our own car,
for example, and the children next door always seem to make more
noise than our own. So whether a sound is regarded as a noise and
how noisy it is depends also on who causes the noise and his relation-
ship with the person who hears it.81
In determining whether a sound is a noise, mental attitude and environment
are of major importance,82 and it is interesting to note that groups of people
with different backgrounds of work experience have differing annoyance
thresholds.83
As in other areas of psychological and behavioral reaction, there is no
objective method of measuring annoyance as such. By asking a sufficient
number of people about their reactions to noises, it is possible to obtain some
transmission channel or device .... Noise is an erratic, intermittent, or statis-
tically random oscillation .... If ambiguity exists as to the nature of the noise,
a phrase such as "acoustic noise" or "electric noise" should be used .... Since
the above definitions are not mutually exclusive, it is usually necessary to depend
upon context for the distinction.
A. Peterson & E. Gboss, Jh, tvPra note 4, at 210.
29. Auekican Medical Ass n, Noise and Its Health Effects, Human Develop-
ments in Action, May-June 1967, at 23.
We shall apply the term noise to describe sounds which are unwanted and
possibly also loud and objectionable. The criteria are thu9 subjective. The very
nature of these definitions presupposes a very wide range of reactions by different
ale to the same sound, but if the sound is sufficiently loud or lonp-lasting, or
, or if it has some peculiarity In quality or time pattern, it will be found
disagreeable by some people. By and large the louder the noise the greater the
number of people who wilt find it objectionable; with certain noises, a larger
proportion of those exposed will be likely to object strongly.
W. Burns, supra note 4, at 7-8.
30. Even desired sound can be damaging, whether you call it noise or not:
In Melbourne, Australia, nolSe researcher R. F. Burton set out to discover why
he was noticing "tender ear" in two or three percent of teen-agers. He went
to a rock'n roll teenage dance and clocked 114 decibels of sound, a dangerously
high level for the ear to tolerate. He came away predicting that many teen-agers
who subject themselves to this wanted noise will lose their hearing earlier in
life than usual, and many will be deaf at 40.
Conn, supra note 5, at 32. See also Medicine, Going Deaf from Rock'n'Roll, Time, Aug. 9,
1968, at 47; Not Exactly Music to Your Ears: High Sound Levels of Rock-and-Roll
Music, Consumers Repciit, July 1968, at 349; Rock Physically Unsound, Scixncb
Digest, Tune 1968, at 67.
31. Lehmann, supra note 20, at 26.
32. A. Bell, supra note 4, at 33.
33. See Kryter, Noise Control Criteria For Buildings, 3 Noise Control, Nov.
19S7, at 14; Noish: Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 2.
-------
66C
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
indication of the general degree of annoyance or distress. On ihe statistical
basis of replies to specific questions concerning annoyance caused by noise,
"together with a knowledge of the relevant noise environment, some quantita-
tive indication of the way in which noise interferes with people's lives can be
obtained."34 It can be generally said that the louder the noise and the higher
the pitch of its components, the greater the annoyance is likely to be; other
factors are the characteristics of the sound and the modulation of loudness
and pitch.
Another behaviorally disruptive effect of noise is its interference with
speech communication. This is probably the best understood of the non-
auditory effects of noise. This aspect of noise pollution is important for
industry where the ability to communicate by speech is vital, and its inter-
ference may cause inconvenience, disruption of work, inefficiency, and acci-
dents. The consonants convey most of the information content of speech, and
because they are articulated in higher frequencies and are weaker in intensity
than the vowels, they are more readily drowned out by other noises.38 The
interference with speech communication caused by noise is basically a masking
process.88 Background noises increase an individual's threshold of hearing, and
the extent to which the hearing threshold is increased is railed the speech
interference level and can be expressed in decibels. "Discontinuous or impul-
sive noises often produce less interference than expected because speech that
is partly masked may be complemented by interpolation or gesture to make
good the gaps in what is actually heard."37 The necessity to talk loudly or the
extra effort caused by misunderstandings due to speech interference may cause
fatigue. However, because of differing individual reactions it is not easy to
prove that employees become more tired working in noisy surroundings than
in quiet ones.88
34. W. Buhns, supra note 4, at 101.
35. See Grimm, Perception of Segments of English-Spoken Consonant-Vowel
Syllables, 40 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1454 (1966) ; Fairbanks & Miron, Effects of Vocal
Effort Upon the Consonant-Vowel Ratio Within the Syllable, 29 J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
621 (1957) ; Kryter, Williams & Green, Auditory Acuity and the Perception of Speech,
34 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1217 (1962).
36. See Webster, Speech Communications as Limited by Ambient Noise, 37 J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 692 (1965). For a discussion of masking, see note 52 infra.
37. A. Bell, supra note 4, at 31. For a discussion of non-verbal communication, see
Rosenthal, Unintended Communication of Interpersonal Expectations, 10 American
Behavioral Scientist 24 (Apr. 1967); Communication: What's in a Glance?, Time,
Oct. 17, 1969, at 74; N.Y. Times, Sept. 28, 1969, 8 1, at 53, col. 1. See also Bacon, The
Man Who Reads Nature's Secret Signals, National Wildlife, Feb.-Ma^. 1969, at 4.
38. A. Bei.l, supra note 4, at 35, citing Pugh, Noise—Noxious or Nice, 15 Am.
Industr. Hyc. Ass'n Q. 127 (1954). Similarly, the claim that noisy working environ-
ments cause a loss of employee morale is a matter difficult to assess objectively. "In
general, morale is related more to the degree of ego involvement in one's work than to
noise levels or other disturbing conditions." A. Bell, supra note 4, at 35, citing Fe'ton &
Spencer, Morale .of Workers Exposed to High Levels of Occupational Noise, 22 Am.
Industr. Hyg. Ass'.n Q. 136 (1961). Because of psychological considerations, often re-
sulting from the participation of employees in noise-effect investigations, employee work
performance may improve temporarily under simulated noisy conditions. See discussion
and citations in A. Bell, supra note 4, at 34.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
661
Psychiatrists and psychologists have recently noted the connection be-
tween excessive undesired noise and mental disorders. Drs. Rosen and
Knudsen suggest that loss of hearing may in fact be the least serious impair-
ment to the human organism caused by noise pollution. Both of these doctors
point out that one no longer has to work in a boiler factory to suffer noise-
induced psychological and physiological damage. Day and night most of us
are exposed to a general racket. These noises are now being recognized as a
major factor in the celebrated "tensions" of modern living; they contribute
and aggravate all of the tension-related diseases—from stomach ulcers,
neuroses, and mental illness to allergies and cardiovascular and circulatory
diseases.39
Dr. Knudsen calls the total effect of the background roar of modern
life "decibel fatigue," and says that millions of Americans suffer from
it. Dr. Rosen believes that medical science will one day recognize an
entire "noise syndrome"—a family of symptoms related to unwanted
or unexpected noises. He and others already cite dilation of the pupils,
dry mucous membranes, skin paleness, intestinal spasms and glandular
secretions as candidates for membership in the full "noise syndrome"
when it is recognized.40
Similarly, the late Dr. Fabian Rouke reported to the New York Committee for
a Quiet City:
One of the insidious aspects of excessive noise is the fact that an
individual may be unconsciously building up nervous tension due to
noise exposures. This may cause a person thus exposed to noise
suddenly to be catapulted into an act of violence, or mental collapse,
by some seemingly minor sounds which drive him beyond the point
of endurance. Many persons who are using tranquilizers may be
treating the symptoms rather than the disease.41
Persons exposed to unwanted noise easily become irritable and un-
sociable: "Studies show that workers in noisy jobs tend to be more quarrel-
some at work and away from it (at home, for example) than those doing
equivalent jobs, but who are not subjected to similar noise stresses."42 There
is evidence of increasing concern relating to the effect of noise on the
efficiency, performance, and concentration of factory workers and office em-
ployees. It has been reported that astronauts subjected to a reproduction of
the 145 decibel sound of a jet engine at full thrust experience difficulty in
carrying out simple arithmetical operations, and tended to put down any
answer in order to end the experiment.'48 "In many cases, [people working
39. See notes 22-36 and accompanying text supra. For additional citations, see A.
Bell, rubra note 4, at 34.
40. Conn, supra note 5, at 31-32 (emphasis added).
41. Committee ron a Quiet City, Inc., Final Report & Recommendations, July
7, 1960, at 24.
42. Lehmann, supra note 20, at 30-31.
43. A. Bell, supra note 4, at 34.
-------
662
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
in a noisy environment] make more mistakes and their thinking ^ets slow and
fuzzy. Often they carry a burden of resentment and irritation, have more
'social conflicts' at home and on the job than workers in quieter surround-
ings."44 Obviously, unwanted noise that is deleterious to an individual's wen-
being and that also decreases working efficiency will add significantly to the
costs of production and industry. As noted above, these costs caused by lowered
efficiency and increased errors have been estimated to result in an annual $4
billion loss to American industry.4*
One of the most disruptive effects of noise pollution, both physically and
mentally, is loss of sleep. Even when the sleeping area is quiet a person
may be kept awake by a ringing sensation in the ears, called tinnitus, which
may have been caused by exposure to excessive noise several hours earlier.
Adequate sleep is a physiological necessity, and noises which prevent sleep
can be said to be prejudicial to physical health.4® Victims may also "develop
psychotic symptoms because their dreams are interrupted."47 Because of the
individual and personal peculiarities in the reaction to noise with respect to
interference with sleep, it is virtually impossible to lay down rules of a
practicable nature for preventing such disturbance. Maximum permissible
noise levels for sleeping accommodation can be suggested,48 "but an additional
factor is that of intermittent noise, such as that from passing road or air
traffic, and attempts must be made to account for the consequent individual
disturbances on the basis of their frequency of occurrence. This factor is of
particular importance in the case of aircraft noise."4®
C. Effects of Infrasound and Ultrasound
"Sound" may damage body and mind even though it cannot be heard.
Studies have only recently been started by the French National Centre for
Scientific Research in Marseilles concerning infrasound, which has a pitch or
frequency of below 30 cycles per second and is thus inaudible to the human
44. Manchester Rising Time of Noise, 53 Nat'l Cmc Rev. 418, 419 (1964). See
also Broadbent, Effects of Noise on Behavior, in Handbook on Noise Control, supra
note 6, at 10-10.
45. See Mecklin, supra note 9 at 133. For a discussion of one company's early attempts
at combating industrial noise, see Scholtz, supra note 9.
46. See W. Burns, supra note 4, at 100; Thiessen, Psychological Effects of Noise
During Sleep, at AAAS Symposium, supra rote 22; Lukas & Kryter, Awakening Effects
of Simulated Sunic Room and Subsonic Jet Noise, at AAAS symposium, supra note 22.
See also Atherly, Hempstock & Noble, Study of Tinnitus Induced Temporarily by Noise,
44 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1503 (1968).
47. Trial, Aug.-Sept., 1966, at 6 (summarizing testimony of Dr. Julius Buchwald,
psychiatrist, New York State Medical Center, before the Mental Hygiene Commission
of the New York State Assembly. See Mendels, Sleep and Depression, at AAAS
Symposium, supra note 22.
48. It has been suggested that 35 decibels is the threshold for optimum sleeping
conditions. See Bragdon, Noise—A Syndrome of Modern Society, 10 Scientist &
Citizen 29, 33 (1968).
49. W. Burns, supra note 4, at 101.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
663
ear, but which is still capable of harming the human organism. "Industrial
cities abound in infrasound, generated by many kinds of machines and motors
that turn at a slow rate. Even infrasound of weak intensity can penetrate
houses and become the unsuspected cause of such ills as dizziness and
fatigue."50 Infrasound is blamed for feelings of malaise and discomfort some-
times experienced by airplane passengers,61 and for this reason most airlines
cancel out or "mask" such infrasound with music while the engines are
idling.62 Persons affected by infrasound experience physiological effects similar
to those caused by low-frequency mechanical vibration. Vertigo and nausea
are attributed to the excitation of the semi-circular canals, and infrasound may
also cause resonances of internal organs producing intense irritation, visual
disturbances, and interference with intellectual activity.63
At the other end of the frequency scale are the ultrasounds which are also
inaudible to the human ear but which may have other serious effects on the
human organism. In an extensive survey of the auditory and subjective effects
of industrial ultrasonic sources made in 1967, it was found that unpleasant
subjective effects, including headache, nausea, tinnitus, and fatigue, were
experienced by some persons and that temporary threshold shift occurred.64
However, the conclusion of this report suggested that the effects were probably
due to noise in the high but audible frequency range which also occurred in
the industrial machine noise, and was not necessarily due to the ultrasonic
components as such.
50. The Danger of Sounds We Cannot Hear, UNESCO Coustra, July 1967, at 28.
Set oho discussion in note 18 mprn.
51. Id.
52. It is Comtncm experience to have one scrand completely drowned out when
another, louder noise occurs. For example, during the early evening when a
fluorescent light is on, the ballast tloise may not be heard, because of the usual
background noidt level in the ewcAtog. But late at night when there is much
less activity and correspondingly las noise, the ballast noise may become rela-
tively very lemd and annoying. Actually, the noise level produced by the ballast
may be the same in the two instances. Bat psychologically the noise is louder
at night because there is less oi the masking noise that reduces its apparent
loudness.
Experimenters have found that the masking effect of & sound is greatest
upon those sounds close M it in frequency. At low levels the masking effect
covers a relatively harrow region of frequencies. At higher levels, above 60
[decibelsj, say, the masking effect spreads out to cover a wide range, mainly for
frequencies above the frcqnencies of the dominating components. In other words,
the masking effect it asymmetrical toith respect to frequency. Noises that include
a wide range of frequencies will correspondingly be effective in masking over a
wide-frequency ranjje.
A. Peterson & E. GfiOss, supra note 4, at 20-21.
53. W. Burns, supra cote 4, at 249, citing Gaveau, Condat & Saul, Infra-sons:
Ginh-ateurs, Dilteleurj, Propriath Physiques, Effects Biologiques, 17 Acustica 1
(1966). Another very important Study in this area is Mohr, Cole, Guild & von Gierke,
Effects of Low Frequency and Infrasonie Noite on Man, 36 Absoepace Medicine, No. 9,
at 817 (1965).
54. Acton & Carson, Auditory and Subjective Effects of Airborne Noise from
Industrial Ultraionit Sennet, 24 Bttrr. J, ItrDUBT*. Med, 297 (1967). Set also Par rack.
Effect of Airborne Ultrasound o% Haounu, S Iational Audiolocy 294 (1966).
For a discussion of temporary and permanent threshold shift, see note 82 infra.
-------
664
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
D. Effects of Noise Pollution on Other Animals and on Wilderness Areas
Man is not the only animal affected by noise pollution. Mink farmers
can lose a majority of their animals in the killing frenzy the female minks
undergo after being startled by a sonic boom.85 "The laboratory exposure of
animals to short loud sounds can cause diverse effects, such as a temporary rise
in breathing and heart rates, a rise of blood pressure, or a lessened flow of
gastric juice; but these responses quickly subside when the noise ceases."69
Laboratory experiments have also demonstrated that sound with an intensity
of 150 to 160 decibels is fatal to certain animals. The animals suffered from
burns, spasms, and paralysis before dying.67 Sport fish are believed to be
hypersensitive to sound,68 and research is also being undertaken to determine
the effects of noise on commercial oyster beds.69 Guinea pigs exposed to short
periods of above-normal but supposedly tolerable noise have developed swollen
inside-the-ear membranes, and vital auditory ear hair cells have been destroyed.
Prolonged exposure to excessive noise has made rats lose their fertility, turn
homosexual, and eat their young. If loud enough (ISO decibels) the noise
eventually kills them through heart failure.60
" America's wilderness areas and national parks, which to date have
remained out of hearing range of urban and industrial noise, will soon be
subjected to a new menace—sonic booms from supersonic transport (SST)
planes flying overhead.81 Serious damage connected with sonic booms has been
observed and reported in the Canyon de Chelly National Monument in Arizona,
Bryce Canyon in Utah, Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado, and elsewhere.
At the Canyon de Chelly an ancient Indian dwelling was demolished
when a large portion of an overhanging cliff fell following a sonic
55. The Minneapolis Tribune reports that Zack Taylor, a mink farmer at
Frazee, Minnesota, was recently awarded $37,490 in damages resulting from
an Air Force sonic boom in 1965. The farmer said his minks "exploded"
simultaneously from their nest boxes and crashed against the ends of their cages
¦with all lour feet, then became quiet. Later, he found dead kittens in the boxes
and cages, some partially devoured, and concluded that the frenzied mothers had
eaten many of their young. In 1966 his herd produced less than half the
expected number of kittens.
National Parks, Aug. 1968, at 21. See Bond, Effects of Noise on the Physiology and
Behavior of Farm Animals and Farm-raised Mink, in AAAS Symposium. Supra note
22. See also Heinemann, Effects of Sonic Booms on the Hatchability of Chicken Eggs,
at AAAS Symposium, supra note 22.
56. A. Bell, supra note 4, at 35. See N.Y. Times, Feb. 8, 1970, § 1, at 83, col. 5
(report on experiments by Dr. Joseph Buckley, chairman and associate dean of pharma-
cology, University of Pittsburgh).
57. Echoes from Our Noisy World, UNESCO Courier, July 1967, at 22, 23.
58. See N.Y. Times, Oct. 27, 1968, f 5, at 28, col. 2.
59. See Cleveland Plain Dealer, Mar. 16, 1968, at 10, col. 1. See also A. Peterson &
E. Gross, Jr., supra note 4, at 21.
60. Bailey, supra note 5, at 131, See also Rocket Blasts and Guinea Pigs, Science
Digest, Oct. 1968, at 63. Ecological studies have shown that rats exposed to excessively
loud noise exhibit a marked decline in the pregnancy rate. Echoes from Our Noisy
World, supra note 57, at 23.
61. See genernlly text accompanying notes 126-132 infra.
-------
WO] NOISE POLLUTION 665
boom. Rare sandstone formations in Bryce Canyon have been severely
damaged. A rockfall of 66,000 tons occurred recently in Mesa Verde
after the passage of two jet planes traveling at supersonic speeds. A
rock slide from a canyon wall of the Navajo National Monument in
Arizona has just been reported. In the Death Valley National Monu-
ment (California and Nevada), 323 sonic booms were counted in a
six-month period ending in February 1968, with 68 of these con-
sidered to be serious enough to cause weakening and demolition of
geologic features.®2
The future does not appear promising. "In a hearing before a congres-
sional committee on May 22, 1967, Secretary of Transportation Alan S. Boyd
said that it was probable that certain routes over thinly populated areas could
be worked out in order to avoid booming the cities."63 This means, of course,
that special efforts will be made to find routes over our nation's wilderness
and national park areas for the supersonic jets. If such efforts are successful,
the tranquility and solitude of these sanctuaries will be destroyed by the
persistent cannonade of sonic booms.04
Increasing the threat to our parks and wilderness areas is the opinion of
some government officials that these areas provide the only "feasible and
prudent alternative" for locating the new SST jetports. The first of such air-
ports was scheduled to be built, and construction was begun in the Everglades
National Park in Florida. Six months after the project had begun, and after
$13 million had been spent on the construction of a landing strip for training
flights, the international jetport was banned by a joint federal and state
agreement."1 When finished, the jetport would have covered 39 square miles
in the middle of the Great Cypress Swamp, which supplies 38 percent of the
water flowing into the park. Conservationists contended that the interruption
of this flow would have upset, if not totally destroyed, the ecological balance
in what has been regarded as the last refuge of solitude along the Eastern
Seaboard. The construction of the flight training landing strip has already
endangered the fragile and unique ecology of the park.08
62. Editorial Comment to Graves, Sonic Booms and Wilderness, The Living
Wilderness, Winter 1967-68, at 17, 18. See also N.Y. Times, Dec. 1, 1968, § 1 at 73, col. 4
(discussion of sonic boom damage to Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado) ; 113 Cong.
Rec. H352 (daily ed. Jan. 18, 1967).
63. Graves, supra note 62, at 19.
64. The magnitude and range of the noise created by the new SST's are, to say
the least, awesome. On its maiden flight, the Anglo-French Concorde was heard 20 miles
away. Boeing's SST will generate noise above the threshold of pain. Soucie, The
Everglades Jetport—One Hell of an Uproar, 54 Siebra Club Bulletin, July 1969, at 4, 7.
See also SST: Noise Reduction Sideline Noise Viewed as Major Problem by Boeing 21
Aerospace Technology, May 20, 1968, at S3.
65. N.Y. Times, Jan. 16, 1970, at 1, cols. 6-7; N.Y. Times, Feb. 1, 1970, j 10," at
1, cols. 1-4.
66. See Soucie, supra note 64, at 7. See also Editorial, A Jetless Evcrfjlades, N.Y.
Times, Sept. 7, 1969, 8 4, at 14, col. 1; Pennekamp, Disaster in Everglades National
Park, 50 Sierra Club Bulletin, Oct. 1965, at 4.
Another aspect of our ecological crisis is that pollution problems are not only
multivariate but they are also interrelated—where there is big-league noise pollution, there
invariably will be air and water pollution. The construction and expansion of our nation's
-------
666
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
II. Sources of Noise Pollution—Anp What We Can Do About Them
The sources of noise pollution are infinite in number and diversity. If the
average person were to stop for ten minutes and attempt to identify all the
unwanted sounds he hears, he would find it impossible to even list them in
that amount of time. We have already defined noise as any unwanted or dis-
ruptive sound. Noise control can be defined as the technology of achieving an
acceptable noise environment consistent with economic and operational con-
siderations®7 There are three approaches to the problem: One solution is to
reduce the noise level at its source; the second solution is to dampen or insulate
the places where we live and work; the third alternative is to "mask" un-
wanted noises with other more pleasing sounds.68 For purposes of this
discussion the sources of noise pollution will be divided into four general
categories: (1) household appliances; (2) industry and construction; (3)
traffic; and (4) aircraft noise and the sonic boom.
A. Household Appliances
The kitchen is the noise center of the modern home. An electric blender
can produce 98 decibels, as compared with 95 by a subway and 107 by a loud
power motor.69 When the exhaust fan, the dishwasher, and the garbage disposal
operate simultaneously, as much as 100 decibels may result. The situation has
reached such proportions that Dr. John D. Dougherty of the Harvard School
of Public Health has cited the kitchen as a major contributor to the increasing
deafness of the general population.7®
The household roar, indoor and out, is multiplied not only by increasing
the number of appliances but also by increasing the size of their power sources.
Fifteen years ago, the typical, self-propelled power mowers had one horsepower
engines, while today the "economy" models are equipped with engines three
times that size; riding mowers and home tractors may have as much as
twelve horsepower.71 Vacuum cleaners often will have more than two horse-
power motors, and it is exceptional to find one with less than one horse-
power.72 Music reproduction has undergone a similar, and perhaps unreason-
airports not only means an increase in pollution from jet sound, but also pollution from
jet contrails and from the attendant on-ground sewage and industrial waste. It was
estimated that the proposed Everglades jetport would have added 9,000 to 72,800 tons
of carbon monoxide, 4,150 to 6,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 13,000 to 40,250 tons of hydro-
carbons, 1,000 tons of aldehydes and 1,260 to 3,250 tons of particulates to the surrounding
atmosphere when it reached the projected operational level of 900,000 flights a year.
Soucie, supra note 64, at 7.
67. Harris, Noise, Environmental Science & Technologv, April 1967, at 292.
68. See note 52 supra.
69. That Noise You Hear May be Pollution, Business Week, Apr. 22, 1967, at 42,
43.
70. See Brower, supra note 17, at 17; see note 21 supra.
71. Dreher, supra note 13, at 239.
72. Of course, another problem is changing personal attitudes—millions of dollars have
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
667
able, increase in power size. A stereo amplifier for home use will commonly
produce 120 watts, or 60 watts of audio power per channel. The advantage is
supposed to be that momentary peaks will be accommodated without distor-
tion. The acoustic output of a 100-man symphony orchestra, however, seldom
rises above 10 watts.73
One approach to the problem of household appliance noise is to require
manufacturers to rate their products on a numerical decibel scale so that
consumers can compare relative noise levels of the products before they buy.
Similarly, houses and apartments could be rated by city inspectors for noise
so that prospective buyers and tenants will have some concept of how noisy
the physical location actually is. Many noise levels encountered in community
areas now exceed tiie safety standards found in industry.
"Sound absorbing materials, drapes, curtains and carpets which deaden
noise, quieter air-conditioners, ventilators and other household appliances, and
sound-insulated ceilings, walls, doors and windows all help to make the home
a quieter and more restful place."74 Acoustical research at the Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corporation has brought forth several simple ways that household
noise can be reduced.78 Since uninsulated walls are useless in stopping airborne
noise (voices, street sounds, appliances), it is recommended that the house
or apartment be built with a double-wall system in which there is no direct path
for the transmission of undesired sound. Wall studs should be staggered so
that the same stud does not touch the inner surface of both walls. "Blankets"
of heavy insulation can then be hung between the walls. Impact noise
(slamming doors, footsteps, mechanical equipment) can be reduced by cushion-
ing. Carpets and sound-absorbing, ceilings and walls can also greatly reduce
impact sounds. Plumbing noise, which is a major headache for homeowners,
can be reduced by "wrapping" the pipes so that they do not touch any part
of the building structure, and holes where pipes pass through walls can be
stuffed with resilient materials. One relatively easy way to control noise from
motorized home appliances is to place them on sound-absorbing materials, and,
if possible, within sound-insulated rooms.
been spent on advertising so that housewives will prefer "powerful" sounding household
appliances. While it is technically feasible to build a vacuum cleaner that is nearly
silent, it may not sel 1 very well because today's housewife has been conditioned to the
sound of power. See N.Y. Times, Apr. 30, 1969, at 31, cols. 4-8.
73. Dreher, sitpra note 13, at 239.
74. Schenker-Sprungli, Down With Decibels I, UNESCO Courier, July 1967, at 4, 7.
75. Solutions to Noise Control Problems in the Construction of Houses, Apartments,
Motels and Hotels, Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (undated); discussed in Noise:
Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 23, 26-28. For a comprehensive 420 page report
which analyzes the basic causes of noise problems in buildings and recommends cor-
rective measures for their alleviation, see U.S. Dep't Housing & Urban Development,
Report No. ST/TS-24, Guide to Airborne, Impact and Structure-Borne Noise Con-
trol in Multifamily Dwellings (Jan. 1968). See also Noise Control in Architecture:
More Engineering than Art, Architecture Record, Oct 1967, at 193; Some Particular
Problems of Noise Control, Architecture Record, Sept. 1968, at 18S.
-------
668
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
There is some indication that "sound conditioned" houses sell more
rapidly than those in which noise-absorbers have not been installed. At a
meeting of the National Association of Home Builders, in Washington. D.C.,
Charles McMahon, a spokesman for the association, reported that in a housing
development in Birmingham, Alabama, 11 suund conditioned houses were
built. These houses sold more quickly than similar homes in which the anti-
noise features were not installed, despite the fact that the sound conditioned
homes cost from $600 to $800 more. Tue homes included such special equip-
ment as "a 'super-quiet toilet,' sound-proofed air-conditioning and heating
units, sound-absorbing tiling and staggered stud construction in the walls."70
In an attempt to develop low-cost methods and materials to reduce noise
transmission between housing units and the intrusion of noise from outside
sources, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
has-entered into a $160,000 contract with Wyle Laboratories of Segundo,
California, for an 18-month study. The findings of this study will be published
as a guide, to architects and builders.77
Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Soviet Union
have all developed strong building codes containing comprehensive noise-
control provisions.78 In the United States, building codes are being used to
regulate noise in new apartment and office buildings. The New York City
Council has drawn up a code calling for the reduction "of airborne noises
traveling from one apartment to another through wall partitions or floors or
coming from a public hallway; for the quieting of machinery such as central
air conditioning; and for limitations on noises transmitted through ventilators,
shafts, ducts, and outlets, as well as noises emanating from a neighboring
building."79 The New York City Board of Estimate recently withheld approval
of Tracey Towers apartments in the Bronx until the builder agreed to include
certain noise abating structures.®0 It is encouraging to note that the Federal
Housing Administration has set impact-noise ratings in its minimum property
standards.81 While such codes have inherent limitations, it can be hoped that
they will have some effect in reducing the amount of acoustical garbage seeping
from one apartment to another.
76. N.Y. Times. June 23, 1967, at 22, col. 2.
77. Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 13, 1969, 8 E, at 23, col. 7.
78. Editorial, City nj Noise. N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 1967, § 4, at 12, col. 2
79. Brower, supra note 17. at 19. See also Note, Urban Noise Control, 4 Coi.um. J.L.
& Soc. Prob. 105, 108-14 (1968) ; Watcrhouse, Noise Control Requirements in Building
Codes, Handbook on Noise Control, supra note 6, at 40-1.
80. N.Y. Times, Nov. 22, 1968, at 45, col. 1 (city ed.).
81. U.S. Dep't Housing & Urban Development and Federal Housing Admin.,
Report No. 2600, Minimum Property Standards for Multipamily Housing, (Nov.
1963) ; discussed in Noise: Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 25. Sec also
Federal Housing Admin. Report No. 760, Impact Noise Control in Mui.tifavily
Dwellings (1963).
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
669
B. Industry and Construction
Since the 19th century it has been recognized that workers in noisy
surroundings suffered hearing loss earlier in life than other people. Today,
hearing loss resulting from excessive noise is recognized in most countries as
an occupational disease with financial compensation based on the extent of
loss of hearing.82 The scope of such occupational deafness has reached im-
pressive proportions. "Claims for compensation for hearing loss on the job
now run at about $2 million a year, while it has been estimated that 4 1/2
million American workers who don't file claims might win them if they
would."83 The Federal Council for Science and Technology, in a report issued
in September 1968, estimated that the number of United States workers
experiencing noise conditions unsafe for hearing to be in excess of 6 million
and perhaps as high as 16 million.84
A leading acoustical engineer, Dr. Leo L. Beranek,86 has observed that
men of 30 who have been exposed to a work environment with an average
noise level of 90 decibels for periods as short as 10 years probably can hear
no better than men in their 60's and 70's who have worked in a quiet environ-
ment.88 The danger limit for most individuals is somewhere between 80 and
82. See Lehinann, supra note 20, at 26, 30. The most common result of excessive
exposure to noise is a temporary shift in an individual's threshold of hearing, in other
words, for the affected individual to hear clearly sounds must now be louder. By
definition temporary threshold shift refers to any loss of hearing from which the ear
recovers, however long this takes. If no recovery occurs, then there is said to have been
a permanent threshold shift—an important factor in determining a workman's com-
pensation. See Nelson, Legal Liability For Loss of Hearing, Handbook of Noise
Control,- supra note 6, at 38-1.
83. Conn, supra note 5, at 32. See also Brower, supra note 17, at 17.
84. Noise: Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 32. See N.Y. Times, Nov. 10,
1968, at 42, col. 1; A. Gloria, supra note 17, at 133.
See generally Subcomm. on Noise of tiie Comm. on Conservation of Hearing
and Research Center, Guide foe Conservation ok Hearing in Noise (1964); cf.
Address by William H. Stewart, Surgeon General, Public Health Service, U.S. Dep't
of Health, Educ. & Welfare, Health and the Urban Environment, Medical Symposium on
Biological Effects of Air Pollution, Oct. 28, 1966 (Public Health Service Reprint). Much
of this research has been financed by affected industries. See Blum, Noise: How Much
More Can We Take?, McCalls, Jan. 1967, at 113. Industry has traditionally looked on
the problem from a defensive position. Not only is industry the defendant in claims for
occupational hearing loss, it is often the object of attack by irate citizens claiming that
a factory or industrial plant is a public noise nuisance. A "classic" in this area is the
article by William H. Lloyd, Noise as a Nuisance, 82 Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 567 (1934).
See also Note, Nuisance and Legislative Authorisation, 52 Colum. L. Rf.v. 781 (1952);
Note, Nuisance—As a "Taking" of Property, 17 U. Miami L. Rev. 537 (1963) ; Prosser,
Private Action for Public Nuisance, 52 Va. L. Rev. 997 (1966).
85. Dr. Leo L. Beranek is a leading American specialist on problems of acoustics.
He is a lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
where he was formerly associate professor of communications engineering, and is
president of an American noise research and consulting firm. See L. Beranik, Acoustics
(1954); L. Beranf.k, Noise Reduction (1960).
86. Dreher, supra note 13, at 239.
-------
670
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
85 decibels.87 The United States Air Force, the largest single employer with
an inescapably noisy environment for most of its personnel, has settled on 85
decibels as the level where ear protection is mandatory.88 Long-term exposure
to noise with a decibel rating of over 80 is a generally accepted cause of
hearing loss, and investigations have shown that some degree of hearing loss
87. RELATIVE NOISE LEVELS IN DECIBELS:
Noise Weapon (?)
THRESHOLD OF PAIN fone trillion
rimes greater than lewi audible sound)
DANGER LEVEL
THRESHOLD OF HEARING
170
1(50
ISO
140
1)0
120
110
100
90
80
70
tt
SO
40
X
20
10
0
Jet Aircraft at 200 feet
Pneumatic Riveter;
Air Said Siren
Rock Music with Amplifiers (4 to 6
feet away)} Power Mower
Food Blender (2 to 4 feet away)
Motorcycle
Subway Train
Sportt Car; Heavy Track
Bury Street
Normal Conversation
Quiet Street, Average Urban Interior
Quiet Room, Residential Area at Night
Tick of Watch (at 2 feet)
Whi«per
Leave* Ruitling in Wind
Compiled from the following sources; Schenker-Sprungli, tupra note 74, at 6; Drcher,
supra note 13, at 241; Medicine, Going Deaf from Rock'n Roll, Time, Aug. 9, 1968, at
47; Brower, supra note 17, at 17-18.
88. U.S. An Force Regulation 160-3:5, Hasardous Noise Exposure (19S6).
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
671
may occur at levels which are well below those commonly encountered under
all sorts of contemporary conditions. Temporary deafness can be caused by
short exposure to levels between 100 and 125 decibels. Listening becomes
painful in the range of 125 and 140 decibels, and at 150 decibels the ear can
be permanently damaged even with only short exposures.
Industrial noise is also a source of irritation for the general community.
Mayor John Lindsay of New York City has been quoted as saying:
This city has an obligation to protect its citizens against all forms of
violence, including assault by decibels .... In a modern industrial
civilization, I suppose we have to be prepared to tolerate some in-
crease in the sound level, but I see no reason why this city or its
people should have to put up with battering, shattering noises.8"
This statement holds true for every other American city as well as for our
nation as a whole.
With liability on their minds, it is not surprising that industries are
searching for quieting processes. A relatively quiet pile-driver and air com-
pressor are already on the market,80 and it would take little research to
develop similar less noisy industrial and construction equipment. The silenced
machines are usually enclosed in a solid plastic housing lined with sound-
deadening material. Furthermore, some noise reducing progress could be made
if silencers and adequate mufflers were attached to present equipment, or if this
equipment were properly isolated, screened, or enclosed. Techniques are being
developed to permit economical and effective noise reduction where it was
once considered too difficult or too expensive. Industries should be encouraged
to seek suitable noise control measures, "and where large numbers of persons
are exposed to a severe noise hazard, governments should encourage research
and provide, directly or indirectly, the necessary financial assistance."91 Since
noise control measures which are economically impossible today may become
feasible or mandatory tomorrow, the problems must be kept under constant
review.
Laws which allow unlimited construction noises between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.
in New York City and elsewhere should be re-evaluated. There is little reason
why millions of people should be awakened by drills and jackhammers at
7 a.m. if these tools can be effectively quieted. Even the noisy garbage collectors
celebrated by Carl Sandburg can be made more quiet by the use of rubber or
plastic containers or by placing rubber bumper-rings around the garbage
cans.
To a great extent the problem of controlling needless construction noise
89. Quoted in Brower, supra note 17, at 19.
90. Id. at 19; Muffling^ the Clamor of Urban Construction, Business Week, Dec. 14,
1968, at 168. For a discussion of European efforts to abate construction noises, see Schen-
ker-Sprungli, supra note 74, at 7.
91. A. Bell, supra note 3, at 62.
-------
672
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
is a icgal one. The typical municipal zoning ordinance or anti-noise, regulation
is more or less capable of regulating the neighborhood nuisance potential of
fixed industrial installations, but there is virtually no legal restriction on how
much noise temporary or transient construction companies can make in any
neighborhood they invade. "If complaining citizens attack them as public
nuisances, courts will generally rule that if even the noisiest construction
project serves a social purpose, it isn't a public nuisance—and of course con-
struction serves a social purpose."92 The logical result of the absence of legal
control is that existing methods of abating construction noise are not applied.
Air compressors and jack hammers, riveters, paving breakers, cement mixers,
auxiliary engines, and pumps are all used amidst stores, homes, and office
buildings with little or no muffling. Sometimes, the engines are surrounded
with metal sheets that only act as sounding boards. In their vicinity conversa-
tion and rational thought are impossible. The answers to these problems must
be in the form of new laws and law enforcement to reduce the volume of
construction and demolition noise as much as possible. Noise control is expen-
sive, and it is as unreasonable as it is naive to ask sympathetic construction
firms and industries to invest in noise control measures voluntarily, only to
let the unsympathetic companies underbid them on jobs by avoiding noise
control costs.63
C. Traffic Noises
Traffic noise is one of the major irritants contributing to our environmental
noise pollution. Inter-city expressways, which extend for hundreds and
thousands of miles, are bringing the din of the city to the country. Passenger
car traffic, however, need not necessarily be irritating; many new car models
are being equipped with better exhaust silencers and specially designed quiet
tire treads. Furthermore, city and highway planners have it in their power
to choose (and the public can demand) quieter road surfaces.94
The more blatant violators of our relative urban peace and quiet are
92. Conn, supra note 5, at 33-34.
93. On May 16, 1969 the United States Department of Labor, under Secretary
George P. Shultz, took an unprecedented step forward in the battle for noise control by
promulgating new standards for industrial noise. These standards, known as the Walsh-
Healy Health and Safety Regulations, 34 Fed. Reg. 7948 (1969), became effective on May
20, 1969 and apply to all industrial firms which have federal contracts of $10,000 or more
during the course of one year. These new regulations establish a maximum allowable level
of 90 decibels measured on the A scale for a continuous eight hour per day exposure; as
the permissible noise level exposures increase in decibels, the duration per day and per
number of exposure hours decreases. The new regulations will benefit some 27 million
workers in about 70,000 plants. However, the $10,000 minimum, and the fact that the
standards apply only to government contractors means that millions of other workers
•wiU not be covered by these safety regulations. Furthermore, the regulations establish a
maximum noise level of 90 decibels which is S to 10 decibels higher than most experts
regard as safe.
94. See, Beranek, Street and Air Traffic Noise—And What Wt Can Do About Jt,
UNESCO Courier, July 1967, at 12, 14. A brief biography of Dr. Beranek appears in
note 85 supra.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
673
trucks, buses, mrtorcycles, sports cars, and passenger cars with loud or faulty
mufflers. In general, the average truck at 60 miles per hour is about twice as
noisy as a steady stream of automobile traffic. Truck noise is also more irri-
tating because it is sporadic. Sports cars, motorcycles, and buses create similar
disruptions. The obvious remedy for this aspect of the noise pollution problem
is to require adequate shielding and noise-insulation on all engine compart-
ments and exhaust systems. It is encouraging to note that the new air pollution
control mufflers are quieter than the regular exhaust mufflers. The organized
parts of the trucking industry, such as the large fleet owners, have openly
recognized their fast-growing contribution to national noise pollution. Gener-
ally, these large trucking concerns have encouraged reasonable laws and fair
enforcement; they want truck noise control to be more legal than voluntary so
that the "gypsies" will have to conform to the same noise standards as the
fleets.
Traffic noise may be abated through technology in a number of ways.
One solution is to place major thoroughfares in "ditches"—that is, building
the roads in troughs which are 15 to 20 feet below the normal land surface.
This approach is especially needed where the high-speed roads are extended
into the heart of major cities. Some futuristic architects have predicted the
use of covered tunnels for all city vehicular traffic.®5 Even lining streets and
highways with trees, shrubs, fences, earth banks, and so forth, helps to insulate
and to protect the surrounding area from the noise.
Ultimately, or from the long-term viewpoint, it can be hoped that other
forms of propulsion may alleviate or at least alter the noise created by road
vehicles. One such development is the Wankel engine which, while still an
internal combustion engine, employs a rotor in a casing rather than the more
common piston in a cylinder.86 A gas-turbine powered bus in being currently
tested in New York City, but General Motors has indicated that a production
model of the bus would not be available for another two years.97 The gas-
turbine vehicle engines have been praised for their low noise levels—"the
engine gives off a subdued canine whine, instead of the familiar feline purr that
turns into a roar when the diesel engine accelerates."98 Since gas-turbine
produce a different type of noise, albeit quieter, than that of piston engines,
road engineers and vehicle designers are likely to continue to face noise prob-
lems in the future. The most attractive possibility for the reduction of noise
is some form of electric engine. A dual-mode transit system has been devised
by Dwight M. Baumann, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
95. See Sullivan; N.Y. Times, Dec. 31, 1967, 5 4, at 7, cols. 1-7. See also text
accomoanyinf? notes 165-66 infra.
96. W. Burns, supra note 4, at 133. The only commercially available_ passenger
vehicle with a Wankel engine is the German NSU Moter's "Ro-80." See Chinitz, Rotary
Engines, Scientific Amebican, Feb. 1969, at 90.
97. N.Y. Times, Dec. 20, 1969, at 61, cols. 1-5.
98. Id. at col. 1.
-------
674
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
nology, which uses special buses and cars, equipped with both internal com-
bustion engines and electric motors. The conventional engines would be used
on city streets and highways. "On specially built transit corridors, however,
they would be operated by electric motors and be guided by a retractable side
arm that would swing out and touch an electric rail along the transit way.
The rail would provide the power and guidance and control speeds."9®
Still a third solution would be to encourage a shift from individual auto-
mobile transportation to mass transportation. Indeed, there is some indication
that Americans may be reaching the end of their long romance with the
automobile.100 In many cities the planner's dream has become the commuter's
nightmare. In New York, for example, it is virtually impossible to cross
Manhattan in the rush hour, either with a car or without one. The suffocation
and immobilization of the cities by the automobile has been encouraged greatly
by the federal government since the Eisenhower Administration. At that
time, the powerful lobbying interests of the oil and automobile industries
persuaded Congress to set up a huge self-perpetuating highway trust fund
which is financed from a tax imposed on all sales of gasoline. The money can
only be used for building new interstate highways. In a futile effort to abate
city congestion, large multi-story car parks have been built in the midst of the
metropolitan areas—and the effect of their presence has been to encourage more
motorists to drive into town.
The public has finally begun to react against this lunacy. The city author-
ities in San Francisco, for example, flatly refused to cooperate with the state
and federal governments in permitting a huge new highway, which would have
destroyed one of that city's loveliest parks. Other cities, including Cleveland,
New Orleans, and Memphis, are now putting up similar fights.
In addition, the new National Environment Policy Act of 1969101 may
have a revolutionary effect on projects affecting the environment, including
highway construction. This landmark legislation attempts to establish a
national environmental policy and an independent body of environmental ad-
visors within the executive office of the President. Besides the important
declaration of a national policy for a better environment, the Act requires
agencies of the federal government to consider environmental impact in
deciding on project development, and gives the Council of Environmental
Advisors surveillance over proposals. Oscar S. Gray, acting director of the
Department of Transportation's Office of Environmental and Urban Systems
99. N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 1969, at 90 cols. 1-3.
100. See Boyd, The Transportation Dilemma, 54 Va. L. Rev. 428 (1968); J. Meyeh,
J. Kain & M. Wohl, The Urban Transportation Problem (1966); C. Pell, Mega-
lopolis Unbound: The Super-City and the Transportation Problem (1966).
101. Pub. L. No._91-190, 83 Stat 852 (1970). See Sive, Some Thoughts of an En-
vironmental Lawyer in the Wilderness of Administrative Law, 70 Colum. L, Rev. 612
(1970).
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
675
Research, has stated recently that among the factors to be evaluated in the
early stages of highway planning will be such environmental concerns as
recreation, parks, aesthetics, neighborhood character, erosion, wildlife, noise,
and air and water pollution.102 It remains to be seen, however, if these federal
guidelines will be followed on the state level.
Yet if transportation by automobile is to be discouraged, one must sub-
stitute a viable alternative in the form of fast, efficient, and quiet mass trans-
portation. The rapid public transit systems have been sadly neglected. New
York's subway system, which was designed at the beginning of the century,
has had no new lines added to it for 40 years, despite a tremendous population
increase in the areas it serves. The railroads, which used to be the major
carriers of freight and passengers, have suffered and many have died. There
are at least two states today (Maine and Vermont) where all passenger trains
have stopped running, making the residents almost entirely dependent upon
automobiles. Moreover, city subways and rail lines are presently one of the
most important sources of urban noise pollution. "The San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District, the Montreal subway and a few other urban-
suburban railroads have taken pains to reduce noise, but most of the major
systems, like that of New York City, seem to be operated on the basis that noise
is unimportant."103 It would seem that the well-known and perfectly feasible
engineering measures for abating rail noise are "a refinement to which the
users of public transportation are not entitled."104
There is some indication that a new generation of mass transportation
trains, capable of operating at speeds up to 250 miles an hour, may help to
entice travelers and commuters off the busy highways. "Two developments
have made such trains possible; the air cushion that replaces wheels and
virtually eliminates friction, and the linear electric motor that pulls the train
in almost complete silence."105 Low noise levels are unquestionably a great
advantage of such municipal transit vehicles; other high speed trains,
propelled by jet or propellor engines, would be too noisy for use in urban and
residential areas.
The conversion to swift, silent, and exhaust-free mass transport systems
will not be easy. Not only will it require a tremendous capital investment in
new equipment, but it will also mean the sacrifice of already-existing invest-
102. Boston Globe, Jan. 22, 1970, at 4, cols. 3-4.
103. Dreher, supra note 13, at 239.
104. Id. at 240. It is encouraging to note that: "The Washington [D.C.] area's
planned $2.5 billion transit system will boast . . . quiet-gentle track curves to avoid
screech, continuous welded rails, sound-absorbing carpet between tracks, rubberized
insulation of vehicle components, acoustical treatment of stations." The Boom Nobody
Wanis, Nation's Business, Sept. 1968, at 76, 78.
105. N.Y. Times, Dec. 14, 1969, § E, at 14, cots. 1-3. The United States has recently
let a $3 million contract with Gruman Aerospace Corporation for the designing of a
similar transit vehicle. N.Y. Times, Mar. 18, 1970, at 73, cols. 1-4.
-------
676
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
ments in conventional modes of transportation. Ingenuity must be applied to
make the new systems as compatible as possible with existing rights of way.
It is imperative that the costs of pollution control be accepted by industry and
by the public in general in the same way that costs for other safety measures
are accepted.
Most states have motor vehicle statutes or codes requiring mufflers on
automobiles, trucks, and buses to prevent excessive or unusual noise,106
However, these statutes usually do not establish maximum decibel levels, and
are, therefore, extremely difficult to enforce. Recognizing that the reduction of
traffic noise through technology may be a long way off, two states (New York
and Connecticut) as well as several foreign countries have at least attempted
to limit traffic noise through comprehensive anti-noise legislation establishing
maximum decibel noise levels for motor vehicles. In New York State, vehicles
on toll ways and public highways are limited by law to a decibel count of 88.107
Enforced along the Thomas E. Dewey Thruway at Larchmont by state police
using portable decibel meters at toll booths, the law has substantially reduced
truck and automobile noise.108 The State of California has recently adopted
comprehensive anti-highway noise legislation that would prohibit noise levels
in excess of 82 decibels for passenger cars and 92 decibels for trucks and
buses at posted highway speeds.109 As an additional means of noise abatement,
106. For a compilation of state and local ordinances on noise control, see 115 Cong.
Rec. E9031-E9112 (daily ed. Oct. 29, 1969). See also Yerges & Weisier, Anti-Noise
Ordinances, in Handbook on Noise Control, supra note 6, at 39-1.
107. N.Y. Veh. & Traffic L. § 386 (McKinney Supp. 1968-69) :
1. No .motor vehicle, other than an authorized emergency vehicle or a vehicle
moving under special permit, which makes or creates excessive or unusual noise,
shall operate upon a public highway.
2. A ntotor vehicle which produces a sound level of eighty-eight decibels or more
on the "A" scale shall be deemed to make or create excessive or unusual noise.
(a) Sound pressure levels in decibels shall be measured on the "A" scale of
a standard sound level meter having characteristics defined by American Stan-
dards Association specification S 1.4-1961 "General Purpose Sound Level
Meter." Measurements of sound pressure level shall be made in accordance with
applicable measurement practices outlined in the Society of Automotive En-
gineers Standard J672 "Measurement of Truck and Bus Noise" as approved
January, nineteen hundred fifty-seven. The microphone shall be placed at a
distance of fifty feet plus or minus two feet from the center of the lane in which
the vehicle is traveling.
(b) Measurements of sound pressure level shall be made at speeds of less
than thirty-five miles per hour.
(c) No arrest shall be made in cases where the noise limit is exceeded by
less than a two decibel tolerance.
In People v. Byron, 17 N.Y.2d 64, 268 N.Y.S.2d 24, 215 N.E.2d 345 (1966), the court
stated that section 375 prohibiting the operation of vehicles with excessively noisy mufflers
and requiring each motorist to minimize the noise in his particular vehicle was unaffected
by section 386 which set up limits beyond which no vehicle noise could go. Id. at 69,
268 N.Y.S.2d at 28, 215 N.E2d at 348 (1966).
108. Brower, supra note 17, at 19. For a discussion of the New York experiment
with decibel laws, see Note, suj>ra note 79. at 111-14.
109. Cal. Veh. Code 8 23130 (West Supp. 1969) :
(a) No person shall operate either a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles
of a type subject to registration at any time or under any condition of grade,
load, acceleration or deceleration in such a manner as to exceed the following
noise limit for the category of motor vehicle based on a distance of 50 feet from
the center of the lane of travel within the speed limits specified in this section:
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
677
California now restricts the sale of new motor vehicles which exceed established
noise levels.110 In Connecticut the state police have begun to use a new
electronic system to record the noise levels from passing vehicles and to
photograph each car or truck exceeding a certain decibel level.111 Microphones
record each vehicle as it passes. If the emitted noise from the passing vehicle
reaches a certain level, the system trips a camera which photographs a noise-
level gauge in a corner of the photograph of the offending vehicle. A signal is
then automatically relayed to a state police cruiser so that an immediate warn-
ing or arrest can take place. This system can be used to provide evidence for
court cases in states and communities that outlaw noise over an established
(1) Any motor vehicle with a manufacturer's
gross vehicle weight of 6,000 pounds or more,
any combination of vehicles towed by such
motor vehicle, and any motorcycle other than
a motor-driven cycle:
(A) Before January 1, 1973
(B) On or after January 1, 1973
Any other motor vehicle and any combina-
tion of vehicles towed by such motor
(2)
vehicle
Speed limit
of 35 mph
or less
88 dbA
86 dbA
82 dbA
Speed limit
of more
than 35 mph
90 dbA
90 dbA
86 dbA
(b) The department shall adopt regulations establishing the test procedures
and instrumentation to be utilized.
(c) This section applies to the total noise from a vehicle or combination of
vehicles and shall not be construed as limiting or precluding the enforcement of
any other provisions of this code relating to motor vehicle exhaust noise.
(d) For the purpose of this section, a motortruck, truck tractor, or bus that
is not equipped with an identification plate or marking bearing the manufacturer's
name and manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating shall be considered as
having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or more if
the unladen weight is more than 5,000 pounds.
(e) No person shall have a cause of action relating to the provisions of this
section against a manufacturer of a vehicle or a component part thereof on a
theory based upon breach of express or implied warranty unless it is alleged and
proved that such manufacturer did not comply with noise limit standards of the
Vehicle Code applicable to manufacturers and in effect at the time such vehicle
or component part was first sold for purposes other than resale.
110. Cm.. Veh. Code J 27160 (West Supp. 1969):
1 27160. Motor vehicle noise limits
(~) No person shall sell or offer for sale a new motor vehicle which produces a
maximum noise exceeding the following noise limit at a distance of 50 feet from
the centerline of travel under test procedures established by the department:
(H Any motorcycle manufactured before January 1, 1970 92 dbA
(2) Any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven cycle, manufactured
on or after January 1, 1970, and before January 1, 1973
(3) Any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven cycle, manufac-
tured on or after January 1, 1973
(4) Any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000
pounds or more manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and
before January 1, 1973
(5) Any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000
pounds or more manufactured on or after January 1, 1973
(~) Any other motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1,
1968, and before January 1, 1973
(7) Any other motor vehicle manufactured after January 1, 1973
111. N.Y. Times, Nov. 15, 1969, at 73, cols. 1-3.
88 dbA
86 dbA
88 dbA
86 dbA
86 dbA
84 dbA
-------
678
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[VoL 70:652
level A reading of more than 85 decibels is considered excessive in Connec-
ticut,113 and in a six-month study, which recorded the noise levels of 2,900
vehicles on the Connecticut Turnpike, 11 percent of the vehicles had decibel
levels of 94 or higher from 25 feet away.
A British regulation requires that all passenger cars and trucks con-
structed after April 1, 1970 shall not produce more than 85 decibels; motor-
cycles and other mechanically propelled two-wheeled vehicles are limited to
noise levels below 90 decibels.113 Maximum permissible noise levels in France,
determined under the British testing procedure,114 are 83 decibels for passenger
cars and small trucks, 86 decibels for motorcycles, and a maximum 90 decibels
for large trucks and buses. In Switzerland the maximum permissible noise
levels, measured laterally in an open field at a distance of seven meters with
full engine power, are 80 decibels for passenger cars, 85 decibels for two-stroke
motorcycles, large trucks, and buses.110 The "maximum noise level" scales
established by the Swiss Anti-Noise Commission,110 have been of great value
in providing points of departure for the anti-noise legislation of other
countries.117
State decibel laws are a delayed step in the right direction for abating
noise pollution from surface traffic. Perhaps truck noise and commercial
vehicle noise should be federally regulated because of the heavy interstate
112. Connecticut's Motor Vehicles Law states in part: "(c) Each motor vehicle
. . . shall be provided with a muffler or mufflers designed to prevent excessive, unusual
or unnecessary exhaust noise, which muffler shall be maintained by the owner in good
working order and in constant operation." Conn. Gen. Stats. Ann. S 14-80 (Supp.
1969).
113. The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1969, reprinted in
The Butish Noise Abatement Society, The Law on Noise 53-64 (1969).
114. The • acoustical test for British automobiles requires measurement of the
noise at a point 25 ft. from the centerline of the lane in which the vehicle
travels for three different operating conditions: [1] constant speed of 30 mph
in top gear ; [2] starting from a steady speed of 30 mph and (beginning 32 ft.
before passing the test microphone) accelerating as rapidly as possible over a
distance of 65 ft; and [3] maintaining a constant speed of 30 mph at full throttle
with brakes applied. The highest noise level obtained under these three condi-
tions of test is used to rate the vehicle.
Beranek, supra note 94, at 15.
115. Beranek, supra note 94, at 15.
116.
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS
(in decibels)
Established by the Swiss Anti-Noise Commission
Basic Fre<{uent Infrequent
Areas sound peaks peaks
night day night day night day
Recreational 35 45 45 50 55 55
Residential 45 55 55 65 65 70
Mixed 45 60 55 70 65 75
Commercial 50 60 60 70 . 65 75
Industrial 55 65 60 75 70 80
Main Traffic Arteries 60 70 70 80 80 90
Source: Schenker-Sprungli, supra note 74, at 7.
117. Id.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
679
traffic involved. Due to the increased costs of providing and maintaining
adequate mufflers and engine covers, decibel laws may be ultimately effective
only if they are national in scope and apply uniformly to all vehicles.118
D. Aircraft Noise and the Sonic Boom
In no other area of noise control are conflicting values more clearly seen
than in the controversy over jet noise and the location and extension of
airports.119 William F. McKee, Federal Aviation Administrator, has indicated
that irritated citizens, protesting over aircraft noise, are the main obstacle to
airport expansion.120 The creation of any new airport or the enlargement of
an existing one brings immediate protest from whole communities and chains
of communities. Airlines and airports alter flight patterns and runways, while
manufacturers attempt to minimize the noise problem on the ground by dras-
tically altering airplane design. Recognizing the problem, federal agencies
as well as private organizations are searching for means to control such noise.
Although quieter jet aircraft engines have been developed, the airline
companies have been slow to change engines in mid-stream. Because of the
increased costs of the new quieter jets,121 the public must exert economic and
political pressure on the aircraft industry and the government. Many citizens
are now demanding that their legislatures pass laws requiring all aircraft to
118. Beranek, supra note 94, at IS.
119. The first comprehensive report on the growing aircraft noise problem was
the Doolittle Report in 1952. Thk Airport and Its Neighbors, Report of the Pres-
ident's Airport Commission (1952). Since then numerous other reports have been
made. See, e.g., Noise: Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 8-16; White House
Press Secretary, Aircraft Noise and Compatible Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports,
Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies (Mar. 22, 1967) ; Office of
Science and Technology, Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Airports, Report
of the Jet Aircraft Noise Panel (1966); Investigation and Study of Aircraft
Noise Problems, H.R. Rep. No. 36, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963).
For a discussion of the legal aspects of aircraft noise, including noise litigation,
claims, and theories of recovery, see Hill, Liability for Aircraft Noise: The Aftermath
of Causby and Griggs, 19 U. Miami L. Rf.v. 1 (1964) ; Munro, Aircraft Noise as a
Taking of Property, 13 N.Y.L. Forum 476 (1967) ; Spatcr, Noise and the Law, 63
Mich. L. Rev. 1373 (1965) ; Tenzer, Jet Aircraft Noise: Problems and Their Solutions,
13 N.Y.L. Forum 465 (1967) ; Tondel, Noise Litigation at Public Airports, 32 J. Air
L. & Commerce 387 (1966); Note, Jet Noise in Airport Areas: A National Solution
Required, 51 Minn. L. Rev. 1087 (1967). See also Nat'l Aircraft Noise Abatement
Council Aircraft Notse Litigation and Claim Survey (June 1965) ; 115 Cong. Rec. E9031
(daily ed. Oct. 29, 1969) (remarks by Senator Hatfield).
120. N.Y. Times, Oct. 5, 1967, at 79, col. 1. See generally Tenzer, supra note 119;
Note, supra note U9.
121. "Prior to the introduction of jet-powered commercial aircraft, an estimated
$50 million was spent on research and development by the industry to perfect in-flight
sound suppressors for jet powerplants. By 19o5, the industry had invested an estimated
$150 million in installation of in-flight suppressors." Noise: Sound Without Value,
supra note 26, at 10. citing Report of Proceedings, Nat'l Aircraft Noise Symposium,
Jamaica, New York, at II-I (1965).
On the federal level, Representative John W. Wydler introduced a bill during the
second session of the 89th Congress which souRht to nmend the National Aeronautical
and Space Administration (NASA) appropriations to include $20 million for noise
reduction research. Although this bill was defeated, NASA has since instituted research
on jet noise reduction, with a budget of $1.5 million. See Bragdon, supra note 48, at 31.
For a discussion of jet engine noise and its reduction, see W. Burns, supra note 4.
at 209-14.
-------
680
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
produce lower noise levels in residential areas. Such laws have little immediate
effect, however, because most of today's jet aircraft cannot meet a substantially
lower noise requirement. The proper approach to abating commercial aircraft
noise is to impose noise limitations on all new aircraft entering the airlines'
inventories. Then the process of quieting existing aircraft can begin. Federal
requirements establishing acceptable noise levels Defore certification of new air-
craft are the existing legal means available to accomplish this result. "Without
such regulation, competitive pressure:: i:i both the manufacturing and operating
industries will maintain the same lack of concern about noise as that which
now exists from trucks."122 Municipal ordinances which attempt to ban exces-
sive jet noise and sonic booms caused by airplanes flying over their territory
may be invalidated, as was the case in American Airlines, Inc. v. Town of
Hempstead,m on grounds of federal preemption.124 But while local anti-noise
ordinances may be ineffective, they at least give clear warning to the federal
government and to the airplane industry that the public is very much disturbed
by the problem and demands a solution.120
The public has also made clear its impatience with the problem of sonic
booms—'"the loudest, most startling and most damaging noise yet made by any
ordinary thing for routine peaceful human use"126—which will be a part of the
next generation of jet aircraft.127 Any airplane flying faster than the speed of
sound produces pressure or shock waves around the nose and around pro-
truding parts of the plane, much like the waves created by a rapidly moving
ship. These shock waves form a cone which encircles and follows the aircraft
and intersects with the earth. "As the line of intersection with the earth ad-
vances with the movement of the airplane, people living within the width of the
122. Beranek. supra note 94, at 20.
123. 272 F. Supp. 226 (E.D.N.Y. 1966). Private action may be brought on theories
of "taking of property" or public nuisance even though it is no longer a trespass to fly
through the airspace over private property. See generally Spater, supra note 119; Munro,
supra note 119; Hill, supra note 119; Tondel, supra note 119. See also Note, Nuisance
and Legislative Authorisation, 52 Colum. L. Rev. 781 (1952); Note, Nuisance—As a
"Taking" of Property, 17 U. Miami L. Rev. 537 (1963) ; Lloyd, Noise As Nuisance, 82
U. Pa. L. Rev. S67 (1934) ; Prosser Private Action for Public Nuisance, 52 Va. L. Rev.
997 (1966).
124. See discussion in Note, supra note 79, at 117-18 & n.95; Spater, supra note 119,
at 1381-96L Compare Griggs v. County of Allegheny, 369 U.S. 84 (1962), discussed in
Hill, supra note 119.
125. See Time, Oct. 6, 1967, at 67.
126. Conn, supra note 5, at 35. Concerning the damaging effects of the sonic boom
on the human organism, see Nixon, Human Response to the Sonic Boom, at A A AS
Symposium, supra note 22; Sontag, Effects of Noise During Pregnancy Upon Foetal
and Subsequent Adult Behavior, at AAAS Symposium, supra note 22; see also N.Y.
Times, Aug. 3, 1967, at 43, col. 2.
127. See U.S. Dep't of Transportation, Summary op Sonic Boom Claims Pre-
sented in the United States to the Air Force, Fiscal Years 1956-1967 (1967);
Baxter, Tb.e SST: From Watts to Harlem in Two Hours, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (1968);
Ortner, Sonic Boom: Containment or Confrontation, 34 J. Air L. & Commerce 208
(1968) ; Note, Sonic Booms—Ground Damage—Theories of Recovery, 32 J. Air L. &
Commerce 596 (1966); Note, Torts—Liability—Sonic Boom, 36 J. Air L. & Commerce
117 (1970): Katz, The Function of Tort Liability in Technological Assessment, 38
U. Cur. L. Rev. 5«7, 655-61 (1969).
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
681
intersecting path usually hear two closely-spaced explosive sounds, known as
the 'sonic boom,' "128 an explosive phenomena of the air caused by shock
waves generated at supersonic flight speeds.129 It is estimated that a single
supersonic transport (SST) while flying across the nation will create a 50 to
80 mile wide noise carpet, or "bang zone," behind it that could startle as many
as 20 million persons.130 Furthermore, a fleet of 150 SST's in operation could
cause an estimated $1 million in damage every day to windows, plaster and
other building materials.181 Unrestrained, the SST could change noise pollu-
tion from a local phenomenon to one of national and international propor-
tions.132
In an attempt to "afford present and future relief and protection to the
public from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom" the federal government
passed the aircraft noise abatement law on July 21, 1968.133 While this law
will not solve all the problems involved in aircraft noise abatement, it can be an
essential instrument in finding solutions and coordinating remedial research.184
128. Beranek, supra note 94, at 20.
Measured outdoors, a typical sonic boom from a high-flying aircraft is a
pressure wave that suddenly increases above normal atmospheric pressure by
0.5 to 2 pounds per square foot, then decreases somewhat more slowly to below
normal atmospheric pressure by about the same amount, and finally jumps back
to atmospheric pressure. The result is an N-shaped pressure wave less than half
a second long. The lateral spread of the boom becomes greater as the altitude
of the airplane increases, although the intensity of the boom decreases.
Id.
129. Roth, Sonic Boom: A Definition and Some Legal Implications, 25 J. Aih L. &
Commerce 68 (1958).
130. N.Y. Times, June 18, 1967, { 1, at 60, col. 3 (statement by Harvard University
physicist Dr. William Shurcliff, Director of the Citizen's League Against the Sonic
Boom); Brower, supra note 17, at 19. See generally W. Shurcliff, SST and Sonic
Boom Handbook 50-56 (1970).
If the boom turns out to be seriously disturbing, by the time the prototype is
built public resentment will collide head-on with the project. Some experts
believe that by modifying the shape of the aircraft to reduce drag and hence
the force of the boom, it can be kept within tolerable limits. If they prove wrong,
there is little doubt that the SST will be barred from overland use. The economic
consequences would be serious, but the public relations problem would be even
worse. Either the technical problem will be solved, or the SST will be the first
major casualty of the antinoise movement.
Dreher, supra note 13, at 242. See also N.Y. Times, Sept. 28, 1969, § 4, at 8, cols. 7-8.
131. N.Y. Times, June 18, 1967, § 1, at 60, col. 3; see also Note, supra note 79, at
105. See United States v. Gravel le, 407 F2d 964 (10th Cir. 1969), discussed in Note,
Torts—Liability—Sonic Boom, supra note 125. Compart Brown v. United States, 230
F. Supp, 774 (D. Mass. 1964).
132. The application of international law to the SST is a serious question. Under
existing treaties, overflights may be restricted or prohibited for reasons of public safety.
See Huard, The Roar, the Whine, the Boom and the Law: Some Legal Concerns About
the SST, 9 Santa Clara L. Rev. 189 (1969); Hill, supra note 119, at 9-13; W. Shur-
cliff, supra note 130, at 108-10. There is also a wide variety of foreign laws that might
be applicable, including doctrines of strict liability. See Mankiewicz, Airport Noise—
Compensation of Adjoining Landorvners under French Lctiv: A Report oh a Case and
Some Further Considerations, 35 J. Air L. & Commerce 238 (1969) ; Mankiewicz, Some
Aspects of Civil Latv Regarding Nuisance and Damage Caused by Aircraft, 28 J. Are
L & Commerce 44 (1958). Clearly, some new international convention regarding the
SST will be necessary.
133. 82 Stat 395 (1968); discussed in S. Rep. No. 1353, 1968 U.S Conc. & Admin.
News 2688-98.
134. Statement of the Sec'y of Transportation, Alan S. Boyd, on Noise Abatement,
-------
662
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
In amending Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,188 the law gives
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, after consul-
tation with the Secretary of Transportation, the power to fix standards for
the measurement of aircraft noise and regulations for noise control and abate-
ment.1*4 This law forms a part of an overall noise control program encompas-
sing eight basic areas: aircraft noise research, aircraft operations, sonic boom
research, airport and land use, natural environment, legal, structures, and
human response.187 At the time cf enactment it was intended that all federal
efforts in these areas would be coordinated through an Inter-Agency Aircraft
Noise Abatement Program to be established by the Department of Transporta-
tion.18®
Before the Transportation & Aeronautics Subcomm. of the House Interstate & Foreign
Commerce Comm., Wednesday, Nov. 15, 1967 (U.S. Dep't of Transportation Reprint),
at 6, disctutrd i* N.Y. Times, Nov. 11, 1967, at 1, col. /.
135. 49 U.S.C. (t 1421-30 (1964).
136. ftifelic Lav 90-411, 82 Stat. 395 (1968) reads as follows:
Sec. 611. (a) In order to afford present and future relief and protection to
the public {ram unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom, the Administrator of
the rederal Aviation Administration, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, shall prescribe and amend standards for the measurement of air-
craft noise and sonic Doom and shall prescribe and amend such rules and regula-
tions as he may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of
aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the application of such standards, rules,
and regulations in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revoca-
tion of any certificate authorized by this title.
(b) In prescribing and amending standards, rules, and regulations under
this section, the Administrator shall—
(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise and sonic
bootn, including the results of research, development, testing, and evaluation
activities conducted pursuant to this Act and the Department of Trans-
portation Act;
(2) consult with such Federal, State, and interstate agencies as he
deems appropriate;
(3) consider whether any proposed standard, rule, or regulation is
consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce or air trans-
portation in the public interest;
(4) consider whether any proposed standard, role, or regulation is
economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for
the particular type of aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate to
which it will apply; and
(5) consider the extent to which such standard, rule, or regulation will
contribute to carrying out the purposes of this section.
_ (c) In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a certificate in
which violation of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards, rules, or regulations
is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the same notice and appeal rights
as are contained in section 609, and in any appeal to the National Transporta-
tion Safety Board, the Board may amend, modify, or reverse the order of the
Administrator if it finds that control or abatement of aircraft noise or sonic
boom and the public interest do not require the affirmation of such order, or
that such order is not consistent with safety in air commerce or air trans-
portation.
In November 1969, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a regulation intended to
reduce by half the amount of noise produced by jet aircraft landings and take-offs. "The
new rule, which sets maximum noise levels, will at first apply only to the big new jets
scheduled to appear at airports within the next year. But it is expected that similar
regulations will be ordered for current jet planes. Bailey, supra note 5, at 132. For a
discussion of a similar British attempt to reduce jet aircraft noise, see W. Bukns sutra
note 4, at 214-41.
137. Statement of the Sec'y of Transportation, supra note 134, at 4.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
683
III. An Outline for Future Research
The purpose of this article has been to provide an introduction to the
practical problems and damaging effects of noise as an environmental pollutant.
The solutions to these problems will only bs found with the backing of informed
public opinion and proper laws and regulations. As in other areas of environ-
mental control, law-making and enforcement is a vital factor in any anti-noise
campaign. The following outline for future research is an attempt to point out
various areas where information, research, and understanding are needed. This
outline does not pretend to be definitive in scope; rather its purpose is to
indicate the inadequacies of existing legal remedies, to suggest some possible
legislative solutions concerning noise pollution, and to emphasize the poly-
centricity of our ecological crisis.
A. Existing Legal Remedies
The legal responses to noise pollution, as to any problem, may be charac-
terized as private or public remedies. Broadly stated, private remedies consist
of individual law suits; public remedies consist of regulatory and remedial
legislation. While these categories are obviously not mutually exclusive—a law
suit brought under a public nuisance statute is both a public and private
remedy—they do provide a convenient framework in which to analyze the
adequacy of existing legal remedies and to suggest needed research.
1. Private Remedies. Private law suits are usually based on public
nuisance statutes, or on the common law of nuisance, or on the constitutional
theory of the "taking" of property.180 Generally, these solutions, based as they
are on economic and political theories developed during a period less techno-
logical and less complex than today, have proved inadequate to solve the
problems posed by present-day noise pollution. Public nuisance statutes were
not written with unwanted noise in mind.140 Moreover, other legal and social
problems limit the usefulness of the common law nuisance suit. In an urban
environment, the most offensive noise is often the conglomeration of sounds
caused by an almost infinite number of unidentifiable sources. The burden of
showing causation, combined with the important requirement that the nuisance
impair the enjoyment of the plaintiff's own property, can prove an insur-
mountable barrier to recovery.141 Finally, the constitutional theory of "taking"
139. See generally citations in note 123 supra. See also Note, The Cost-Internctional-
isation Case for Class Actions, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 383 (1969) ; cf. Juergensmeyer, Control
of Air Pollution Through the Assertion of Private Rights, 1967 Duke L.J. U26.
140. Of course, this defect is easily remedied by amendment. In the area of air
pollution, the State Senate of Massachusetts is currently considering legislation which
would allow private citizens to brin^ suit against anyone polluting the environment
within that state. (Mass. Senate No, 907). The bill would allow judgments requiring
that the pollution be stopped unless the costs of such action would threaten the existence
of the polluting concern. See N.Y. Times, Feb. 4, 1970, at 19, col. 4.
141. Note, supra note 79, at 108.
-------
684
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
of property requires governmental activity and does not reach the primary
cause of noise pollution, that is private industry.
Certainly the damaging effects of noise as an environmental pollutant is
a harm for which there should be an appropriate legal remedy. The physical
damage to nerve receptors caused by excessive noise is not unlike that caused
by a series of physical blows, and it may not be unreasonable to characterize
excessive and deliberate public noise as a form of battery.142 Perhaps our
developing law of the right of privacy, or, more appropriately, the right to
sanity, should also encompass infringement by excessive noise.143 These and
other theories deserve exploration in the light of developing sociological and
psychological studies of the effects of unwanted noise.144
2. Public Remedies. While legislative solutions to noise pollution can be
as broad and as varied as man's creativity, the response to date has fallen
considerably short of that limit. Such laws as the federal aircraft noise abate-
ment law145 and the various schemes of limiting decibel levels have already
142. See generally citations in note 127 supra.
143. Under British common law, freedom from noise is considered essential to the
full private enjoyment of a dwelling house. Noise alone may constitute a nuisance.
Crump v. Lambert, L.R. 3 Eq. 409 (1867); R. v. Smith, 93 Eng. Rep. 795 (K.B. 1726).
There are eight general principles relating to the common law of noise nuisance which
have been established in the Chancery Division of the High Court, the Court of Appeal,
and the House of Lords. These principles are: (1) There must be material inter-
ference with property or personal comfort. Walter v. Selfe, 64 Eng. Rep. 849 (Ch. 1851) ;
Betts v. Fenge U.D.C., [1942] 2 K.B. 154 (1942); Rushmer v. Polsue & Alfieri Ltd.,
[1906] 1 Ch. 234 (1906). (2) It is no defense for the defendant to show that he has
taken all reasonable steps ana care to prevent noise. Polsue & Alfieri Ltd. v. Rushmer,
t19071 A.C. 121, 122 (1907) (opinion of Lord Loreburn) ; Halsey v. Esso Petroleum
!o., Ltd., (1961] 1 W.L.R. 683 (Q.B. 1961). (3) The noise need not be injurious to
health. Vanderpant v. Mayfair Hotel Co., [1930] 1 Ch. 138 (1929); Hampstead &
Suburban Properties Ltd. v. Diomedous, [1969] 1 Ch. 248 (1968). (4) Temporary or
transient noise will not generally be accepted as a nuisance. Andreae v. Selfridge & Co.,
[1938] Ch. 1 (1937) ; teeman v. Montagu, E.R, 1677 (K.B. 1936). (5) The courts do
not seek to apply a fixed standard of comfort. Rushmer v. Polsue & Alfieri Ltd., [1906]
1 Ch. 234 (1906); Colls v. Home & Colonial Stores Ltd., [19W] A.C. 179 (1904);
Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co., [1961] 1 W.L.R. 683 (Q.B. 19*51) ; Sedleigh-Denfield v.
O'Callaghan, [1940] A.C. 880 (1940). (6) It is no defense to show that the plaintiff
came to the nuisance. Bliss v. Hall, 132 Eng. Rep. 758 (C.P. 1838) ; Sturges v. Bridg-
man, 11 Ch. D. 852 (C.A. 1879). (7) The courts will not interfere with building opera-
tions conducted in a reasonable manner. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd. v. Spicer Bros.
Ltd. & Minter, 30 T.L.R. 257 (Ch. 1914) (dictum); Andreae v. Selfridge & Co.,
[19381 Ch. 1 (1937) ; Barrette v. Franki Compressed Pile Co., 2 D.L.R. 665 (1954).
(8) Malice may be a significant factor. Christie v. Davey, [1893] 1 Ch. 316 (1892);
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. v. Emmett, [1936] 2 K.B.D. 468 (1936). For a
discussion of these and other cases, see The Law on Noise, supra note 113, at 13-19;
Spater, supra note 119, at 1396-97.
144. As of yet, the possibility that light may be an environmental pollutant has been
largely ignored. The increasing ocular barrage of neon signs and flashing lights,
however, may soon become of greater concern. There is some indication that excessive
light, like . excessive noise, may produce physical and psychological damage to the
human organism. See, e.g., Gregory, Visual Illusions, Scientific American, Nov. 1968,
at 66; Thomas, Movements of the Eye, Scientific American, Aug. 1968, at 88. Assum-
ing that light can be an environmental pollutant, then the plethora of legal problems
being raised concerning noise pollution will also arise concerning unwanted and obtrusive
light, and there is little hope that nuisance laws, our "taking" of property laws, or our
right of privacy laws will provide adequate remedies. The suggestions in text, therefore,
apply also to the probable future problem of light pollution.
145. See notes 133-38 and accompanying text supra.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
685
been mentioned.148 Other, as yet untried, possibilities suggest themselves. While
it would be difficult to tax noise polluters directly,147 tax incentives on the state
and federal level could be employed to encourage noise abatement programs.
A corporation might be given the option to treat expenditures for noise pollu-
tion abatement as a business expense in order to receive an immediate tax
write-off without having to depreciate such expenditures over several years.148
Federal or state governments could also make low-interest loans to companies
unable to secure funds from traditional sources. Such loans might be limited
to companies presently in existence and presently causing noise pollution
without the means of abating it.
The reason for the failure of legislatures to grapple fully with the very
real problems of environmental pollution generally and noise pollution
specifically is probably the lack of understanding of both the problem and
its possible solutions. There remains much to be done in the area of compre-
hensive anti-noise regulation on city, state, and federal levels. Studies in com-
parative law might attempt to evaluate various legislative solutions to noise
control. Moreover, legislators and legal counsel for legislative bodies must be
familiar with the scientific intricacies of noise pollution as well as the legal
intricacies of anti-noise legislation.
B. The Possibilities jor International Action
As business and transportation integrate on an international level, noise
pollution, as with air and water pollution, becomes a problem of international
control. It is obvious that international treaties and conventions are needed to
resolve international environmental conflicts. There is growing concern over
our global environment which transcends purely national interests, and it is
foreseeable that in the near future a body of transnational environmental law
will be developed.
1. Education and Communication. On the international level, the educa-
tional approaches to our environmental problems can assume various forms.
They include international conferences and symposia, demonstrations, and
scholarships. Because of its polycentric effects, a comprehensive educational
program on noise must include architects, engineers, factory inspectors, health
organization representatives, industrialists, insurance executives, lawyers,
medical doctors, machine designers and manufacturers, politicians, and trade-
union officials. Help from the World Health Organization and the Inter-
146. See notes 106-17 and accompanying text supra. See also discussion of the new
Walsh-Healy anti-noise regulations in note 93 supra.
147. However, in the area of traffic noise one effective abatement solution would
be for local governments to limit the use of private motor vehicles by means of increased
taxation on private vehicle ownership or by means of "city entrance" tolls for all private
vehicles. The revenue obtained by taxing motorists who insist on driving and parking
in congested, noise and air polluted inner-city areas could be used to improve and
subsidize quieter public transportation.
148. See Int. Rev. Code of 1954 §{ 162, 167.
-------
686 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 70;652
national Labor Organization should also be solicited. The aim of a compre-
hensive educational program should be to establish a body of experts in each
country with a thorough knowledge of the subject, capable of stimulating the
development of, and perhaps even directing, noise abatement activities.14*
Several international meetings devoted to noise have been held, but none of
these have been planned specifically for public health and labor officials or for
lawyers and legislators. Forums must be established where various national
approaches to environmental problems can be compared. And the structure
of model national and international noise control legislation is a matter of
prime importance.
Among the legislative considerations are a general survey of the
problem, including methods, instrumentation and standards; the defi-
nition of harmful noise levels by intensity, frequency and duration of
exposure; specification of the persons, places and circumstances where
the law applies; details of enforcement agencies and penalties for
infringements; the principles and practice of engineering noise con-
trol; standards and methods for medical examination and action to
be taken when noise-induced hearing loss is found; the qualifications
of medical and engineering control staffs; and the types of ear-
protector, with indications for their use.180
2. International Cooperation. "Although increasing attention is being
paid in many countries to health problems arising from noise, in only a few
has there been any systematic attempt to assess the extent of the problem on a
national scale."1®1 To date, no survey of noise pollution has been made on an
international scale. However, there are indications of increased international
cooperation in the area of environmental control. Plans are being drafted by
a "task force" of specialists at the National Academy of Sciences for a global
warning network on environmental changes which threaten life forms.162 The
149. A. Bell, supra note 4, at 111.
150. A. Bell, supra note 4, at 112. There is also a need for a wider and freer inter-
change of knowledge and increased communication between nations concerning our
global environmental problems.
Apart from certain publications and periodicals of various organizations and
societies, the International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre
of the ILO [International Labor Organization] has made a praiseworthy attempt
to break down this isolation, but it has to cover a very -wide field. A detailed
up-to-date bibliography, including recommendations, standards and codes, would
be most useful. . . . Since the volume of published material on acoustics is
prodigious and spans many disciplines, there is considerable need for some inter-
national correlation and for the dissemination of sufficiently detailed abstracts
on every aspect of the subject.
151. Id. at 113.
152. N.y. Timfs, Feb. 12, 1970, at 1, cols. 6-7. See Kennan, To Prevent a World
Wasteland: A Proposal, 48 Foreign Affairs 401 (1970) ; N.Y. Times, Mar. 20, 1970,
at 12, cols. 1-3 (city ed.).
The United^ States itself has taken a major step toward recognizing the desirability
of encouraging international cooperation in preservation of world environment. Title I,
section 102(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 states:
The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the
policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted
and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2)
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
687
General Assembly of the United Nations has begun plans for an international
conference in 1972 to explore the possibilities of cooperation to "eliminate the
impairment of human environment" and to organize a worldwide defense
against pollution.113 In a similar attempt, the 22-nation Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recently announced its
intention to establish international tolerance limits for environmental pollu-
tants.154 Countries who exceed the limits would pay indemnities. Members of
OECD include the United States, Canada, Japan, and 19 Western European
countries. But the organization operates by voluntary compliance, and since
there is no way of enforcing action on the independent governments, it cannot
be assumed that all the members will adhere to the standards of environmental
control.
C. Suggested Remedial Approaches
1. Population Control. Our exponential population explosion is the
underlying cause for all our natural resources problems; there are simply
too many people fighting over a limited supply of renewable and non-renew-
able resources.158 The population problem is by no means limited to the "have-
not" and underdeveloped nations. In November of 1967 the population of the
United States was 200 million, by November 1969 it had exceeded 203 million
and the average annual population growth rate was 1.3 percent (compared
with 2.1 percent growth rate of underdeveloped nations and a world average
population-growth rate of 1.8 percent).18® Present projections put the United
all agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . (E) recognize the world-
wide and long-range character of environmental problems and, where consistent
with the foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to initia-
tives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation
in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind's world en-
vironment: ....
Pub. L. No. 91-15*0, 83 Stat. 853 (1970). See also Sive, supra note 101.
153. This conference will be the First International Conference on the Human
Environment. Set N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1970, at 34, cols. 2-6; id., Dec. 4, 1968, at 18,
col. 1. An eight-day symposium on international environmental problems, sponsored by
the Standing Committee on Environmental Disruption of the International Social Science
Council (a United Nations auxiliary body), was held in Tokyo, Japan, on March 9-16,
1970. Forty-five delegates, including social scientists from 13 industrial countries, ex-
changed views on environmental pollution at this meeting. See N.Y. Times, Mar. 3, 1970,
at 18, col. S (city ed.).
154. N.Y. Times, Feb. 19, 1970, at II, col. 1.
155. Exponentially viewed, it will not be long before the earth's surface is
packed solid with humans, the whole mass standing in individual refrigerated
capsules on a thick layer of immovable automobiles. Babieswitl issue from this
mass in a constant stream to stand on the shoulders of their parents. Suddenly,
atomic fusion is achieved by the central computer which runs this horror ana
the mass dissolves into a small exploding universe of positive and negative
electrons, neutrions and antineutrions, baryons and Uptons, all moving apart at
relativistie speeds. Before this, of course, we shall have all killed one another
off by the exponential rise in the crime rate, by radiation diseases, and, lacking
all exercise, by dying shortly after birth from the ultimate pollution, namely,
the inability to move away from our own excrement.
Cowan. Law and Technology: Uneasy Leaders of Modern Life, 19 Case W. Res. L.
Rbv. 120, 122 (1967).
156. Ste Tims, Nov. 24, 1967, at 70; N.Y. Times, Jan. 11, 1970, 8 12, at 16, eols. 2-8;
-------
688
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
States population at 308 million by the year 2000, and 374 million by the year
2015. The world population, which now stands at 3.5 billion, will be increased
by at least another 3 billion in the next 30 years; and by 2050 the world
population will exceed 15 billion unless extreme measures are taken.
One effective way of abating noise is to limit the number of noise-
producers, beginning with the biggest noise-makers—the people themselves.
Generally speaking, there are two approaches to controlling the population:
first, by limiting the number of births, and second, by increasing the number
of deaths through a comprehensive program of applied eugenics.187 For moral
and philosophical reasons, applied eugenics is not a viable solution; birth
control is the only alternative.
The United States is becoming aware, as a nation, that a voluntary birth
control program, as enunciated by President Nixon in July 1969, is an unreal-
istic and futile approach to tlic problem.158 Direct controls, such as compulsory
sterilization or abortion, would be too offensive. However, indirect economic
incentives should be used to encourage the postponement of marriage and the
limitation of births within marriage. The federal government should stop
taxing single persons more heavily than married ones, eliminate tax exemp-
tions for children, legalize abortions and sterilization, and levy a "child tax"
on parents having more than one or two children. These suggestions are
extreme, and yet the choice today is not between the ideal and the undesirable,
but rather between the undesirable and the disastrous. If nothing is done, in
10 or 20 years, 50 to 100 million people may starve yearly.188 Add to this the
de-civilizing aspects of unwanted noise and the fact that the noise problem is
becoming more acute with urbanization, and the undesirable aspects of the
optimal alternatives become minimal.
2. Expanding the "Decibel Limit" Concept. As noted earlier, laws are
being enacted on state and federal levels to define prohibited noise in terms of
decibels, a measure of the intensity of sound.180 Inherent in any anti-noise
legislation based on the objective "decibel limit" concept are problems regard-
ing standard-setting, enforcement, and constitutionality.
id., Nov. 24, 1968, 8 4, at S (full-page ad sponsored by the Campaign to Check the
Population Explosion).
157. See Golding, Ethical Issues in Biological Engineering, IS U.C.L.A.L. Rev. 443
(1968) ; Grad, Legislative Responses to the New Biology: Limits and Possibilities IS
U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 480 (1968) ; VVald, The Evolution of Life and the Law, 19 Case W.
Res. L. Rev. 17 (1967) ; Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons: The Population Problem
has no Technical Solution, It Requires a Fundamental Extension in Morality, 162 Science
1243 (1968).
158. See, e.g., N.Y. Times, Oct 5, 1969, at SI, col. 1; id., Sept. 22, 1969, at 31,
cols. 3-7.
159. N.Y. Times. Sept. 22, 1969, at 35, col. 4. Set Wall Street J.. Dec. 3, 1968.
at 20, col. 4; N.Y. T:mcs, Dec. 15, 1968, at 55, col. 1; Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 4,
1968, at 20, cols. 1-2 (Report of th« 19th Annual Meeting, American Institute of Bio-
logical Sciences, at Ohio State Univ., Sept. 4, 1968) ; Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 23,
1968, at 53, cols. 1-8. See generally P. Ejtrlich, The Population Bomb (1968) ;
P. Ehsujch & A. Ehhuch, Population, Resources and Environment: Issues in
Human Ecology (1970).
160. Sec text accompanying notes 107-117 supra.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
689
In measuring [noise], three characteristics of so nd are significant.
First, sound cannot be separated from its environment. Therefore,
when a noise-meter measurement is made, the one sound being
measured cannot be isolated, and the reading is affected by all the
sounds in the area. A meter reading is also affected by the physical
nature of the surroundings and by atmospheric conditions. Second,
since sound intensity is a function of distance, a decibel reading is
meaningful only when the distance from the noise source to the
microphone is reported. Third, the decibel is a limited standard of
measurement; i.e., it only registers the intensity of, or pressure
created by, sound waves. Yet the offensiveness of noise varies with
the frequency as well as with the intensity of sound. Thus, two
noises which register the same number of decibels on a meter can
sound louder or softer to the hearer, depending on pitch.101
The traditional type of anti-noise ordinance, which merely limits noise
that is "excessive or unusual," may be attacked as unconstitutional on grounds
of arbitrariness and vagueness. The new "decibel limit" laws, while establish-
ing an objective standard and thus avoiding the vagueness problem, may
provide additional problems of enforcement. It is almost impossible to con-
duct measurement tests on crowded highways because of noises from other
vehicles and outside sources. More research is needed to determine the maxi-
mum noise levels for our modern urban environment, and the multitude of
legal problems, outlined earlier, must be attacked before the decibel-limiting
laws can become a truly viable solution.
3. The Quieting Process. In the area of noise pollution man has two
alternatives: he can attempt to abate the unwanted and disruptive noise which
pervades his habitat, or he can attempt to adjust and adapt to ever-increasing
levels of noise. People become accustomed to a steady noise level or familiar
sounds and tend to adjust themselves and their lives to these otherwise un-
wanted noises. Where convient, chemical pollution—of the air, water, and food
—noise, pollution, and light pollution will be sufficiently controlled to prevent
the kind of damaging effects that are immediately disabling and otherwise
obvious. "Human beings will then tolerate without complaints concentrations
of environmental pollutants (whatever their nature and origin) that they do
not regard as a serious nuisance and that do not interrupt social and economic
life."182
However, man's ability to adapt to the "quality" deterioration of his
environment has ominous implications. It is probable that continued exposure
to even low levels of toxic agents and pervasive noise will eventually result
in a great variety of delayed or latent pathological manifestations, creating
physiological and psychological misery.1®3 Behaviorally, a similar slow mental
161. Note, supra note 79, at Ul-12 (footnotes omitted).
162. Dubos, Adapting to Pollution, 10 Scientist & Citizen 1, 3, Jan.-Feh. 1968.
163. [T]he worst pathological effects of environmental pollutants will not
be detected at the time of exposure; indeed they may not become evident
until several decades later. In other words, society will become adjusted to
levels of pollution sufficiently low not to have an immediate nuisance value,
-------
690
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 70:652
disintegration may result from noise-induced cognitive dissonance, thus giving
impetus to what has been characterized as the mass societal neuroses. Insanity
and irrationality scales are based on current relative deviations from what is
considered "normal" behavior. The frightening aspect of slow societal trends
towards what at an earlier time would have been considered irrational is that
typically neurotic behavior of an earlier time may slowly become the normal
and therefore acceptable level of behavior of a current or future stage of
civilization or de-civilization. What is degeneratus at Time One may be
accepted as sapiens at Time Two.
One way for our society to maintain its relative long-term sanity is to
shift to a completely controlled environment. The elephants at Windsor Park
Zoo in London have been fitted and are wearing noise-mufflers on their ears.164
Soon those members of our society that can afford them will be wearing
"space-helmets" which can filter out toxic impurities in the air and control
the amount of noise that enters the wearer's head. Automobiles in the United
States are already being fitted with air purification systems and are so con-
structed as to minimize the intrusion of outside traffic noises. "The ultimate
long-term objective in environmental control should be to manage society in
such a manner that these products of its activities can be recycled so as to be-
come useful again, instead of being wasted and thereby added to environmental
pollution."18® Such futuristic city planners as Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus have
already designed smokeless, noiseless, and trafficless cities with completely
controlled environments and recycling systems.168
Conclusion
It is obvious that laws and their just application could provide an effective
coercive force for noise pollution abatement. Zoning is an important part of
urban environmental planning, and it is applicable to noise pollution as well as
such other environmental noxae as air and water pollution.107 Legal compensa-
tion for hearing loss, mental disturbances, and invasion of one's right of quiet
can also stimulate change in the noise level of our urban and industrial environ-
ments. Moreover, our civilization has the technology and resources to abate
disturbances from unwanted noise. The ineffectiveness of present solutions to
the quality deterioration of our habitat nevertheless indicates the need for re-
evaluating both the methods used and the goals desired in environmental law.
but this apparent adaptation will eventually cause much pathological damage
in the adult population and create large medical and social burdens.
Id.
164. N.Y. Times, Oct. 17, 1969, at 45, col. 8; id., Sept. 28, 1969, at 80, cols. 4-7.
165. Dubos, supra note 162, at 6, citing Spilhaus, The Experimental City, Daedalus.
Fall 1967, at 1129.
166. See, e.g., N.Y. Times, Dec. 31, 1967, 9 4, at 7, cols. 1-7; Spilhaus, supra
note 165.
167. See A. Bell, supra note 4, at 103-105; C. W. Kosten, Establishment of Zones
and the Right For Quiet, in Proceedings of the Second International Congress
for Noise Abatement, Salzburg, 1962.
-------
1970]
NOISE POLLUTION
691
Future environmental programs must be synoptic in their approach; no
small facet of our complex cultural and technological system can be overlooked
without incurring the hazards of latent dysfunctionality, the long-term dis-
ruptive and unwanted consequences of policies which attempt to solve poly-
centric problems and which otherwise, at least in the short-term, appear
functionally viable solutions to immediate socio-economic problems.168 Today
many of the central ecological issues are essentially "legal" in nature, but the
success of any legal policy for environmental control must ultimately be
evaluated in terms of its long-term effects. To help make this evaluation, law-
makers must turn to the science of human ecology. Human ecology is still a
young science where advancements "depend in part on mutual understanding
and cooperation among social and natural scientists and humanists, and in part
on the development of new methods for studying interacting processes in
complex systems."160 Lawyers and legal scholars can and must participate in
this cooperation and development if legal solutions are to be successful.
The types of solutions necessary to avoid the impending environmental
crisis will obviously place great strains upon basic political and economic
axioms. Such concepts as zero population growth110 and no "no-growth eco-
nomy"171 require a shift in values away from quantitative and toward qualita-
tive criteria. The most fundamental questions concerning our environmental
crisis, therefore, are ethical ones: Will a national policy of negative population
168. "A problem is 'polycentric' when it involves a complex of decisions judgment
upon each of which depends upon the judgment to be made upon each of the others."
H. Hast & A. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and
Application of Law 669 (tent. ed. 1958). For a legal example of latent dysfunctionality
because of only unidimensional success in socially engineering a change in female
mobilization in Central Asia, See Massel!, Law as an Instrument of Revolutionary
Change in a Traditional Milieu; The Case of Soviet Central Asia, 2 Law & Soc'y Rev,
179, 221 (1968). Sec generally Merton, Social Problems and Sociological Theory, in
Contemporary Social Problems 697 (R. Merton & R. Nisbet eds. 1961); Function-
alism in the Social Sciences: The Strength and Limits of Functionalism in
Anthropology, Economics, Political Science, and Sociology (D. Martindale ed.
1965).
169. N.Y. Times, Jan. 12, 1970, at 75, cols. 3-6. See also Hardin, supra note 157.
170. A population rate growth of zero occurs when the number of births equals the
number of deaths. Obviously, any program to reach this end, would clash with the
"right to propagate." Compare Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), with Buck v.
Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1926). Professor Kingsley Davis, director of international popula-
tion and urban research at the University of California and an advocate of the zero
population growth concept, has stated that such a drastic reduction in births would
necessarily require not only a change in existing laws but also absolute government
regulation of the sire of families—a concept that most nations have found impossible
to accept. "In a more Orwellian guise," writes Davis, "such control might include
pressure through limits on availability of housing, manipulation of inflation to force
mothers to work, increased city congestion by the deliberate neglect of transit systems,
and increased personal insecurity through rigged unemployment.' Time, Nov. 24, 1967,
at 70. See Davis, Population Policy: Will Current Programs Succeedf, 158 Science
730 (1967).
171. The concept of a "no-growth economy" was discussed extensively at a recent
meeting of the United States Commission for UNESCO held in San Francisco, Calif,
on November 24-28, 1969. Basically, the concept means of repudiation of the tenet of
bigness and perpetual economic expansion for the more optimal and qualitative concern
for the ultimate consumer and the environment in general. See N.Y. Times, Nov. 28,
1969, at 26, cols. 2-5; id., Jan. 11, 1970, J 12, at 22, col. 1; id., April 12, 1970, « 1, at 40,
coll. 3-4.
-------
692
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
growth or of negative economic growth enhance the freedom of human beings
as individuals, and will it enchance justice for all human beings as members of
society? "These two ethical ideals of individual freedom and distributive justice
often are, or seem to be, more or less incompatible. The task of law-givers
throughout history, however, has been to strike a workable balance between
them."173 So it must be as we prepare to meet our environmental crisis.
Environmental destruction has always been an aesthetic problem, but to-
day it also involves the survival of mankind as a species. In the area of noise
pollution, we are not dealing only with the maintenance of our own sanity, but
also with the mental well-being of our children and our society as a free and
rational civilization. To paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer,178 the amount of
noise which any civilization can bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion
to its mental capacity, and may therefore be regarded as a pretty fair measure
of it- Our ability to meet our environmental crisis may be a test of our in-
telligence and ultimately a test of the survival of our species.
172. N.Y. Times, Jan. 12, 1970, at 75, col. 6. (Article by Dr. Roger Revelle, Richard
Saltonstall Professor of Population Policy and director of the Center for Population
Studies at Harvard University).
173. A. Schopenhauer, On Noise, in 2 The Womjj as Will and Idea 199 (H.
Haldane & J. Kemp trans. 1844).
------- |