Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Environmental noise consists of all the unwanted sounds in our communities except that which originates in the workplace. Environmental noise pollution, a form of air pollution, is a threat to health and well-being. It is more severe and widespread than ever before, and it will continue to increase in magnitude and severity because of population growth, urbanization, and the associated growth in the use of increasingly powerful, varied, and highly mobile sources of noise. It will also continue to grow because of sustained growth in highway, rail, and air traffic, which remain major sources of environmental noise. The potential health effects of noise pollution are numerous, pervasive, persistent, and medically and socially significant. Noise produces direct and cumulative adverse effects that impair health and that degrade residential, social, working, and learning environments with corresponding real (economic) and intangible (well-being) losses. It interferes with sleep, concentration, communication, and recreation. The aim of enlightened governmental controls should be to protect citizens from the adverse effects of airborne pollution, including those produced by noise. People have the right to choose the nature of their acoustical environment; it should not be imposed by others.

/pdf/noise-pollution-a-modern-plague-3skadr3gd2.pdf

Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague

Background: Tens of millions of Americans suffer from a range of adverse health outcomes due to noise exposure, including heart disease and hearing loss. Reducing environmental noise pollution is a...

Environmental noise pollution in the United States: developing an effective public health response.

The contemporary technical rationale for assessing effects (“impacts”) of transportation noise on communities rests in large part on a purely descriptive dosage-effect relationship of the sort first synthesized by Schultz [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64, 377–405 (1978)]. Although U.S. federal adoption of an annoyance-based rationale for regulatory policy has made this approach a familiar one, it is only one of several historical perspectives, and not necessarily the most useful for all purposes. Last reviewed by the U.S. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) 10 years ago, the accuracy and precision of estimates of the prevalence of a consequential degree of noise-induced annoyance yielded by functions of noise exposure leave much to be desired. This tutorial article traces the development of the dosage-effect relationship on which FICON currently relies, in a wider historical context of efforts to understand and predict community response to transportation noise. It also identifies areas in which advances in genuine understanding might lead to improved means for predicting community response to transportation noise.

/pdf/the-schultz-curve-25-years-later-a-research-perspective-5fo88sk8wc.pdf

The Schultz curve 25 years later: a research perspective.

We compare the status of regional or ecosystem frameworks for managing airborne and underwater noise sources in the US, with particular emphasis on transportation noise in national marine sanctuaries and national parks. The Organic Act demands that the US National Park Service (NPS) preserve natural and cultural resources unimpaired for future generations, and NPS policies provide explicit guidance for managing acoustical environments to meet this standard. The US Office of National Marine Sanctuaries identifies noise as a threat to sanctuary resources, but does not address how the program should manage noise levels to minimize impacts to wildlife and protect the aesthetic resources within sanctuaries. Methods and results from 2 case studies that address noise management in spatially explicit contexts are highlighted: the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the Grand Canyon National Park. In both case studies, noise gener- ated by transportation networks that extend far beyond protected area boundaries must be managed to conserve local resources. Effective noise control policies must be developed through partnerships among transportation and resource management agencies, surmounting differences in their mis- sions, professional cultures, and historical precedents. Four collective approaches for managing noise in protected natural areas emerge from this analysis: (1) investing in monitoring programs and data management; (2) expanding the resolution and scope of impact assessment tools; (3) enhancing coor- dination and the governance structure; and (4) engaging and educating US citizens regarding the benefits of quieting.

/pdf/no-barrier-at-the-boundaries-implementing-regional-3s5pq5pg0k.pdf

No barrier at the boundaries: implementing regional frameworks for noise management in protected natural areas

I-ACT is a theoretical framework designed to guide environmental health improvement efforts. I-ACT identifies four interacting drivers of change that influence an environmental health aim: (1) Information systems; (2) public Awareness; (3) leadership and Coordination; and, (4) Tools. Actors can use I-ACT to clarify roles and identify strategies to impact their aim. Here, we apply the I-ACT framework to a ubiquitous environmental hazard, noise pollution, comparing three Western countries: the United States, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Our approach statutorily defines each country's designated aims, qualitatively evaluates its information systems, awareness, coordination, and tools, and assesses the role of these drivers in achieving the aims. While the Netherlands and the United Kingdom demonstrated robust activity for some drivers, the United States showed limited activity and achievement. There appeared to be an association between achievement of aims and demonstrated elements of each driver...

/pdf/applying-a-novel-environmental-health-framework-theory-i-act-4uhkshl3kg.pdf

Applying a novel environmental health framework theory (I-ACT) to noise pollution policies in the United States, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands

In 1981, Congress ended funding for the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Before the elimination of ONAC, EPA engaged in a wide variety of activities to abate noise pollution under the authority of the Noise Control Act and, after 1978, the Quiet Communities Act. Elimination of ONAC’s funding has stymied noise abatement efforts at both the federal and state level, while noise levels have probably increased. Without federal action, little governmental noise abatement activity can be expected. Although Congress has several options to abate noise pollution, funding EPA to implement the NCA is the best solution.

/pdf/the-dormant-noise-control-act-and-options-to-abate-noise-4bcjgvyh77.pdf

Sidney A. Shapiro

Papers

The dormant Noise Control Act and options to abate noise pollution.