Monthly Archive: April 2018

The newest “it” device for open plan offices?

This might help.

Cisco is marketing headsets to help workers “stay focused in noisy environments.”  Businesses used to offer something to help their employees focus on work in the past, it was called an office.

But offices are expensive, the bean counters moan. Well, productivity takes a hit in noisy workspaces, as does trying to mitigate the noise with gadgets and quiet rooms. Just the earphone and headphone market alone was worth $11.68 billion in 2015 and the “number is expected to reach $18.2 billion by 2023.”

Which is why Cisco, smelling money, is manufacturing headsets to help workers “stay focused in noisy environments,” marketing them as “ideal for people who work side by side in contact centers and open spaces.” Says TechTarget, “[t]he move may be evidence that vendors are looking to capitalize on open-office plans.”

You think?

So take a look at the latest thing du jour designed to cure the open plan noise problem, but never stop dreaming of the return to sanity and sensibility.

Dutch “singing road” drives locals nuts

Imagine the aural counterpart to this. Photo credit: Steven Lek licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

Here is an amusing article about a singing road that bothered people living nearby and eventually was made to sound like a normal road.

Road traffic noise is a major contributor to noise pollution, obviously affecting those living closest to the road or highway.

Let’s hope that other cities and towns learn from the Dutch experience: people want quiet highways, not noisy ones.

Dr. Daniel Fink is a leading noise activist based in the Los Angeles area. He serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association, is the interim chair of Quiet Communities’s Health Advisory Council, and is the founding chair of The Quiet Coalition, an organization of science, health, and legal professionals concerned about the impacts of noise on health, environment, learning, productivity, and quality of life in America.

“A Quiet Place” is so quiet

Image may contain: text

that the audience is afraid of making noise. Reports have popped up saying the movie is so quiet that its audience is “too scared to eat their popcorn” because of the deafening silence. Not a bad thing in our book.

And apparently some others agree. Check out this review by Gary Thompson, The Philadelphia Inquirer: ‘A Quiet Place’: Aliens rid the earth of noisy people. Hear, hear.

 

 

It’s not just the noise level in restaurants but the type of noise that matters

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

This Denver Post article correctly makes the point that patrons don’t want a too noisy restaurant but they don’t want a too quiet one, either.

There is a fine balance between ambient noise levels that allow one to converse with your dining companions, but are loud or complex enough to mask conversations from nearby tables.

And the quality of the noise–is it sharp, tinkling, reverberating?–also makes a difference in the restaurant experience.

The article also notes that it’s hard to design the right sound environment into the restaurant and that adjustments are often needed after a restaurant opens.

DISCLOSURE: The article mentions the SoundPrint app for measuring restaurant noise. I serve as the Medical Advisor to SoundPrint.

Dr. Daniel Fink is a leading noise activist based in the Los Angeles area. He serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association, is the interim chair of Quiet Communities’s Health Advisory Council, and is the founding chair of The Quiet Coalition, an organization of science, health, and legal professionals concerned about the impacts of noise on health, environment, learning, productivity, and quality of life in America.

NY representatives win funding to combat aircraft noise

by Arline L. Bronzaft, Ph.D., Board of Directors, GrowNYC, and Co-founder, The Quiet Coalition

In my recent paper, “Impact of Noise on Health: The Divide Between Policy and Science,” I stressed that research on the adverse impacts of noise on health is plentiful but not enough was being done, especially in the U.S., to lessen noise. Many years earlier, the Environmental Protection Agency agreed the data linking noise to health were strong. In a booklet it published in August 1978, “Noise: A Health Problem,” it said “[i]t is finally clear that noise is a significant hazard to health.”

With respect to lessening noise, Russell Train, the then EPA Administrator, stated at a 1976 Inter-Noise Conference that with respect to lessening aircraft noise, which adversely affects millions of residents, “We really know what needs to be done. We have simply lacked the will to do it. Let’s get on with the job.”

Now fast forward to 2018 and you can readily understand the frustration and pain of the many U.S. groups fighting aircraft noise knowing the data supporting the harmful effects of aircraft noise are strong but the “will” to remedy the situation is still lacking. One of the reasons that the Federal Aviation Administration has lagged behind in remedying the noise problem is that the agency insists on using outdated methods to measure noise. The agency claims that the Day-Night Average Sound level of 65 dBA is the level at which sound becomes intrusive, but this metric has long been viewed as too high. Additionally, averages do not speak to the singular disturbing overhead jet sounds that come in at 6 a.m. or late at night, and the agency relies on modeling and simulations to determine impacts rather than actual measurements.

Community groups have informed themselves about the dangers of aircraft noise and have learned about the changes the FAA must make to more accurately measure noise levels, which in turn can lead to better methods to abate noise. These groups have shared this information to legislators with whom they have formed partnerships to design legislation that can better address aircraft noise pollution. A number of New York legislators, including representatives Joe Crowley, Grace Meng, Greg Meeks, Hakeem Jeffries, and Kathleen Rice, formed a coalition known as the New York Quiet Skies Caucus. One of the members, Congressman Joe Crowley, wanting data to strengthen his request for improved methods to measure noise levels, secured a federal grant to conduct a study yielding such data. I was one of the authors of that study, which is discussed in “Airport-Related Air Pollution and Noise.”

Thus, it is with some satisfaction that I can now share the following press release from Rep. Grace Meng announcing that the New York Quiet Skies Caucus has “secured a provision in the newly enacted omnibus appropriations bill which directs the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to examine new methods of measuring aircraft noise in order to reduce the impact of excessive airplane noise over their districts.”

I wish to thank our members of congress for their hard work in getting this legislation passed and join them in their hope that this first step will lead to quieter skies.

Dr. Arline Bronzaft is a researcher, writer, and consultant on the adverse effects of noise on mental and physical health. She is co-author of “Why Noise Matters,” author of “Listen to the Raindrops” (children’s book illustrated by Steven Parton), and has written extensively about noise in books, encyclopedias, academic journals, and the popular press.  In addition, she is a Professor Emerita of the City University of New York and Board member of GrowNYC.

Edmonton, Canada cracks down on loud street noise

Because, as this editorial in the Edmonton Journal opines, “there are limits to the noise that Edmontonians will put up with — and should have to put up with.” So how will the city deal with loud vehicles on their streets?  With this exciting project:

Edmonton has started testing automated enforcement for loud vehicles. City officials will continue that project this summer, hoping to be ready to start issuing tickets after.

The city council voted to test “photo-radar style noise guns that can detect, photograph or video excessively loud vehicles,” and eventually the city will develop a program to fine offenders. The program won’t just be sprung on residents and people passing through, as the city council want a education component that will use digital noise displays and “a public-awareness campaign to encourage noisy motorists to tone it down.”

 

MRIs are dangerously noisy

Photo credit: liz west licensed under CC BY 2.0

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

MRI noise is in the news in two recent reports.

People magazine reported the story of a woman who suffered permanent auditory damage from an MRI, developing hyperacusis (a sensitivity to noise, which causes pain) and tinnitus. The Quiet Coalition’s Bryan Pollard, an expert on hyperacusis, is quoted in the article.

And researchers from SUNY Buffalo and China wrote about MRI noise in The Hearing Journal.

Standard MRIs produce noise in the 110-115 decibel range, and newer more powerful MRIs are even louder. Knowing this, I have several quibbles with the information in The Hearing Journal article. Namely, the article cites occupational noise exposure standards, but these use A-weighted decibels (dBA) to reflect the frequencies of human speech. MRI noise is low frequency noise, so occupational noise limits may not protect hearing adequately. And occupational standards are not safe standards for the public. At least 25% of workers exposed to sound at occupational noise exposure standards will develop hearing loss.

Most importantly, for many people the auditory damage caused by MRI noise isn’t hearing loss but tinnitus and hyperacusis, as in the People magazine article. Exactly how noise causes tinnitus and hyperacusis isn’t yet known, but the mechanisms are likely different from cochlear hair cell damage causing noise-induced hearing loss.

Finally, the authors talk about temporary auditory damage, but many researchers think that any temporary auditory changes indicate that permanent damage has been done.

I can’t find any large-scale studies of auditory problems after MRIs–the equipment manufacturers wouldn’t be excited about funding such a study, and radiologists are interested in the image, not in the patient’s hearing–but anecdotal reports from audiologists indicate that this is a problem for too many people undergoing diagnostic MRIs.

So if you need an MRI, be sure to ask for “dual protection”– ear plugs and ear muffs. NIOSH recommends dual protection for noise exposure over 100 dBA.

And if you suffer auditory damage from an MRI, be sure to file a report with the FDA. That’s the only way the government will be induced to issue appropriate patient safety regulations.

Dr. Daniel Fink is a leading noise activist based in the Los Angeles area. He serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association, is the interim chair of Quiet Communities’s Health Advisory Council, and is the founding chair of The Quiet Coalition, an organization of science, health, and legal professionals concerned about the impacts of noise on health, environment, learning, productivity, and quality of life in America.