Aviation noise

Local airports are a problem too

Photo credit: Addison YC licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

Local airports are a problem for those who live near them.

Airports big and small–from Logan in Boston and Reagan in Washington to the airports in the Hamptons and Santa Monica–have been in the news recently for noise and air pollution problems.

And now it’s Teterboro Airport’s turn in the spotlight.

I lived under the flight path to the Santa Monica Airport from 1991-2009, so I saw (or perhaps heard) the transition from single-engine Beechcraft, Cessna, and Piper aircraft, with a rare Beechcraft King Air two-engine plane from time to time, to Gulfstream 3, 4, and 5 jets. The single-engine planes didn’t make much noise, but not so for the jets.

A few things happened simultaneously. Thanks to airline deregulation, the number of passengers flying increased dramatically, without a corresponding increase in airport capacity. Because of this, airline service quality declined. After September 11, 2001, things got much worse. The security regulations made it unpleasant and time-consuming to travel on commercial flights, even in first or business class. The rise of the multi-millionaire and billionaire classes, thanks to strong markets and federal tax policies favoring wealthy investors, meant that many more people could afford to charter small jets, purchase fractional jet ownerships, or even buy their own planes.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald is reputed to have said, “the rich are different from you and me.” Why put up with the hassles of going through airport security and waiting for the boarding announcement when your limousine can drop you off and your private jet’s crew will load your bags while your custom-ordered meals are being delivered? Of course, the costs of these luxuries aren’t just borne by the rich. Those living near the airports put up with the noise and pollution.

In Santa Monica, the community finally rose in opposition and after a lengthy legal battle, succeeded in getting the airport to cease operations in 2028. Noise and safety concerns–a Gulfstream jet produces a lot more pollution and noise than a single-engine plane, and if one ever crashes it will cause a lot more damage than a small plane–were the major issues.

I hope I live ten more years to see (and hear) this happen. And I hope that those living near other small airports are successful in their efforts to control noise and pollution problems, too.

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.

The EU takes noise very seriously

Photo credit: Anthony Luco licensed under CC BY 2.0

The Connexion France cites a report by Le Monde that France was warned by European Commission on noise levels. Apparently “Brussels demanded that France instantly adopt its action points on the reduction of “ambient noise”, after the country was found to be in breach of the 2002 directive on the issue.” The directive that France is apparently breaching requires EU nation states to “measure and reduce noise levels in large towns, along main roads and railway tracks, and around large airports, and keep them within the European limits.” European limits are 68 decibels during the day and 62 decibels at night time.

This is not the first time that the EC has warned a member nation about noise, as The Connexion France says that since 2016, the EC has issued noise complaints against 13 members. Why is the EC so forceful about regulating noise? Because the Commission understands that “noise, especially that from traffic, trains or planes is the ‘second largest cause of premature death [among nearby residents] after atmospheric pollution.'” Adds Antoine Perez Munoz of Bruitparif, the noise regulator in Ile-de-France, “[o]n average, noise pollution causes seven months’ loss of good health or life per person, and up to two years’ loss for someone living in a very noisy area.”

One hopes for a future where the U.S. government is as vigilant with regard to noise.  Kudos to the EC.

 

The EU wants quiet, fuel-efficient airplanes sooner

Photo credit: Airbus

by David M. Sykes, Vice Chair, The Quiet Coalition

Some encouraging news this week from the BBC on the EU’s effort to develop quiet, fuel-efficient aircraft engines. Here’s how the BBC summarizes the situation:

Modern jets aren’t nearly as noisy as their predecessors from a couple of decades ago, but they still make quite a racket on landing or takeoff. If your house is close to the airport that’s bad news. Electric motors are a lot quieter, so they could allow more night flights, especially in airports close to city centres. And of course, there’s the question of emissions. Electrified aircraft, like hybrid cars, should be cleaner than conventional models.

If you live near an airport or beneath a glide path, you’re certainly wondering how soon “quiet” aircraft might appear, right? Well, according to the BBC, so do Airbus and it’s partner Siemens, as the BBC writes that “[t]he firms want to fly a demonstrator version of the plane by 2020, with a commercial application by 2025.”

If that’s not soon enough for you then get in touch with your Congressional representative and tell him/her that you want them to support the work of the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus and the National Quiet Skies Coalition.

In addition to serving as vice chair of the The Quiet Coalition, David Sykes chairs several professional organizations in acoustical science: The Acoustics Research Council, American National Standards Institute Committee S12, Workgroup 44, The Rothschild Foundation Task Force on Acoustics, and the FGI Acoustics Working Group—a partner of the American Hospital Association. He is the lead author of “Sound & Vibration 2.0 (2012, Springer-Verlag), a contributor to the National Academy of Engineering report “Technology for a Quieter America,” and to the US-GSA guidance “Sound Matters”, and co-founded the Laboratory for Advanced Research in Acoustics (LARA) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He recently retired from the board of directors of the American Tinnitus Association. A graduate of the University of California/Berkeley with graduate degrees from Cornell University, he is a frequent organizer of and speaker at professional conferences in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Helicopter manufacturer aims to keep noise down

inside the cabin.  Mary Grady, The Robb Report, writes:

A helicopter solves the problem of many travelers—how to avoid traffic in a crowded city center and get directly to your destination, or to your private jet or yacht, as efficiently as possible. But they’re noisy inside, and passengers often wear headsets for the duration of the trip, to ease communication in the cabin. Mecaer Aviation Group says it has solved that problem, with its sound-reducing technology called SILENS (Sound Intensity Level Enhanced Noise System), which reduces the noise in the cabin to the point where travelers can ditch their headsets.

No doubt people who insist on traveling by helicopter are thrilled.

So what does the article say about Mecaer’s efforts to reduce exterior noise?

Nothing.  The rest of the world, apparently, does not matter.

 

 

NASA demonstrates another way to reduce aircraft noise

Photo credit: NASA

David M. Sykes, Vice Chair, The Quiet Coalition

I hope you’ve read the new post by our chairman, Dr. Daniel Fink, about the “denialist playbook.” It has been actively used for decades to sideline and undermine all efforts to address aircraft/airport noise. In fact aircraft/airport noise is a textbook case of well-organized and well-funded “denialism” in action.

What’s particularly astonishing is that answers already exist—they’re just not being implemented by aircraft manufacturers or by airlines. Nor are the FAA and the UN agency ICAO (the International Commercial Aviation Organization, based in Montreal) encouraging their adoption. For instance, the EU manufacturer Airbus already produces aircraft that are substantially quieter. The A380 and the A320neo, with it’s American-produced engines from Pratt & Whitney, are reportedly 75% quieter. How many of those planes are in the fleets of U.S. airlines? Why not a higher percentage?

We’ve also reported on work by NASA to quiet helicopters and launch electrically-powered aircraft. Now here’s another example of significant progress, in this case progress on reducing noise from the airframe itself. Wouldn’t a 30% reduction in airframe noise be a good idea?

In fact, there’s no lack of “good ideas”—the problem is that the air travel industry, including manufacturers, airlines, and local airport agencies, refuse to acknowledge that noise is actually a health hazard for people living near airports. In fact, the “denialist” argument is that aircraft noise is merely local “annoyance,” but there’s plenty of credible medical and public health evidence that health effects are real, serious, and wide-spread.

The Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus recently submitted a request to the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development requesting funds to evaluate the health effects of airport and helicopter noise—though many would argue that the existing evidence is already sufficient to prove the case.

We support the work of the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus, but respectfully submit that there’s little need for more evidence to prove this point, so if this request fails, there’s no need to wait and write another one.

What’s needed is for more members of Congress (in addition the the 36 who are already members of the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus) to wake up and realize that the Department of Transportation, of which the FAA is a part, has been playing the “denialism” game for far too long, that the agency is a victim of what economists call “regulatory capture.”

Let’s stop arguing with the denialists because the science is clear. Let’s instead start demanding that aircraft manufacturers and airlines simply adopt the technologies and solutions that are already available. Doesn’t that sound like progress we can all live with?

In addition to serving as vice chair of the The Quiet Coalition, David Sykes chairs several professional organizations in acoustical science: The Acoustics Research Council, American National Standards Institute Committee S12, Workgroup 44, The Rothschild Foundation Task Force on Acoustics, and the FGI Acoustics Working Group—a partner of the American Hospital Association. He is the lead author of “Sound & Vibration 2.0 (2012, Springer-Verlag), a contributor to the National Academy of Engineering report “Technology for a Quieter America,” and to the US-GSA guidance “Sound Matters”, and co-founded the Laboratory for Advanced Research in Acoustics (LARA) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He recently retired from the board of directors of the American Tinnitus Association. A graduate of the University of California/Berkeley with graduate degrees from Cornell University, he is a frequent organizer of and speaker at professional conferences in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

The Denialist Playbook and the FAA

Photo credit: MBisanz licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

When I was sent a copy of this FAA presentation to the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus, FAA Powerpoint PDF, I had a moment of recognition: the FAA is using a play from what I call “The Denialist Playbook.” The Oxford Dictionaries define a denialist as:

A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

There appears to be a denialist playbook, just as there are playbooks for football teams. Just as one can recognize a screen pass play watching a football game, one can recognize the denialist plays when industries or government agencies try them. A well-documented example denialism can be found in the book “The Merchants of Doubt,” which chronicles how “Big Tobacco” issued statements and funded research to sow doubt about the dangers of cigarettes. No doubt Big Tobacco looked to the past. After all, when the lead contamination scandal unfolded in Flint, Michigan, it came to light that lead pipe manufacturers had trod the same path in the 1920s. And, of course, the conservative denial of climate change–continuing to deny that it is happening, even as the seas rise, the floods of biblical proportion inundate Houston, and the fires burn in California–would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so serious.

One version of the Denialist Playbook was described by Christie Aschwanden at Grist:

Step 1: Doubt the science.
Step 2: Question scientists’ motives and interests.
Step 3: Magnify legitimate, normal disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies as authorities.
Step 4: Exaggerate potential harms (scare the hell out of people).
Step 5: Appeal to personal freedom (I’m an American and no government official can tell me what vaccinations I need).
Step 6: Show that accepting the science would represent a repudiation of a key philosophy.

But I think that brief version omits several important basic plays from what I will call “The Complete Denialist Playbook.” Here are the playbook topics by chapter:

  1. Deny that there is a problem. Climate change denialism may be the most salient current example, but the FAA does this to a certain extent on Slide 4, when it states, “[a] factor of 20 decrease in community noise exposure has been accompanied by increased community concerns.” The FAA is staying that there isn’t a problem, when numerous media reports across the country document that aircraft noise is a major problem.
  2. When it becomes obvious that there is a problem, claim that it isn’t a major or real problem.
  3. Ignore those who complain about a problem, especially if they are young, women, or members of minority groups. This happened with the water problems in Flint, Michigan.
  4. State that there must be something wrong with those who complain about a problem. This was done by the conservative Mercatus Center in its “NIMBY report.
  5. Reluctantly admit that there might be a problem, but it isn’t associated, statistically correlated, and certainly not causally related with what reputable scientists think is the causative agent.
  6. Find fake experts who have views contrary to established knowledge but really are not experts in the field, even though they may have a PhD after their names.
  7. Fund research to find alternative explanations for the causation of the problem.
  8. Fund (in many cases through hidden funding mechanisms) consensus statements or even research that will obscure the true nature of the problem, i.e., sow confusion or doubt about the causal relationship.
  9. Cherry-pick the data and select research or quotes taken out of context to discredit established researchers and the scientific consensus to create an appearance of conflict or controversy when among experts there is none.
  10. Fund cultural or social organizations whose support can then be enlisted in fighting any regulatory efforts to control or ameliorate the problem. Philip Morris, among others, did this.
  11. Fund legitimate researchers looking for funding so that they will be reluctant to criticize their funding source or do research that may endanger their funding source.
  12. When the problem is so obvious that it can’t be denied, finally admit that there might be a problem, but insist that it isn’t a big problem.
  13. Offer alternative solutions to the problem which mask the real cause, e.g., soda makers funding youth exercise programs as a solution to the epidemic of obesity in young people, rather than admitting that sodas are a major, if not the major, contributor to obesity in your people.
  14. Invoke American freedoms to fight any regulatory efforts. Again, the tobacco industry did this, funding fake “Astroturf” organizations protesting that restrictions on smoking interfered with smokers’ right to smoke.
  15. Insist that the data are not robust enough and that more research is needed, which, of course, will take many years.
  16. Keep insisting that there is still doubt about the level of proof even when the overwhelming majority of scientists and even the public are convinced. The Heartland Institute, for example, still claims that there is doubt about whether smoking causes lung cancer.

It is the “more research” strategy that the FAA is adopting. On Slide 11 concerning cardiovascular health, the FAA states that “[e]xisting health study cohorts are being used to evaluate linkages between health outcomes a noise exposure while accounting for a wide range of factors,” with the research completion anticipated in 2020.

I have read some of the salient literature about aircraft noise and cardiovascular health, and attended several sessions on this topic and spoke with the world’s leading researchers in this field at the 12th Congress of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise in Zürich in June, 2017. While there is always a need for more research, there is no need for further research into this particular topic because there is no doubt that aircraft noise causes cardiovascular disease. The basic physiologic mechanisms of how noise in general and aircraft noise specifically causes involuntary physiologic responses in the neuroendocrine and parasympathetic nervous systems have been well-described. A large number of epidemiology studies, using a variety of study designs, in a large number of countries, in different population groups, have shown that aircraft noise causes hypertension and cardiovascular disease. There can be no rational doubt about this relationship. These studies have been reviewed by Hammer et al., Basner et al., Munzel et al., and many others. As Basner noted in an editorial, the evidence is strong enough that most experts in the field think causality has been established.

In Europe, the adverse effects of noise on health are well-known, as summarized in a World Health Organization monograph on the “Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise.”  The European Union is dealing with this in its European Noise Directive.

There is NO need to reinvent this wheel on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, unless scientists can prove Americans are biologically different from Europeans. The FAA insisting that more research is needed to document the health dangers of aircraft noise exposure in the face of hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals is like the National Cancer Institute suddenly insisting that more research must be done to prove the dangers of smoking. How many more Americans must have their health damaged by aircraft noise–or even killed by it–before the truth is acknowledged? It is time for the FAA to act to protect the health of those exposed to aircraft noise, and if the FAA won’t act, for America’s congressional representatives to take action.

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.

Originally posted at The Quiet Coalition.

Quiet aircraft? NASA’s on the job, but when?

By David Sykes, Vice Chair, The Quiet Coalition

Hope is nice now and then—don’t expect results tomorrow, but maybe next year?

If you like an occasional look ahead—toward a world with quieter aircraft—read the August 14-September 3 issue of Aviation Week.* In an article entitled “Sound Barrier: Noise is emerging as the biggest challenge to high-density urban air-taxi operations,” the magazine’s managing editor for technology, Graham Warwick writes about what NASA (and yes, Uber) are doing to build a future of inter-urban transport. Are you ready to imagine “Air-Uber”?

The key is convincing municipal governments that these air-taxis will be quiet(er) than conventional aircraft. So note the term “eVTOL” (Electric Vertical Take Off and Landing craft, or distributed electric-propulsion vehicles). That’s right, they’re electric. This is the likely future of quieter, low-emission air transport—and as the video above proves, it’s no joke.

Do we really need eVTOL air-taxis? That depends on what “we” means. At any rate, it turns out the kink in this scenario is the noise problem: so switching to quiet eVTOLs is a prerequisite to getting this air-taxi fleet off the ground in urban areas. Hence, NASA has taken on the noise issue—at last! (NOT the FAA—which is a good thing overall since FAA has steadfastly resisted doing anything at all about noise for decades).

Meanwhile back in the real world, why can’t American airports and airlines simply encourage adoption of the new Pratt & Whitney quiet jet engine that is already in use in the UK and EU (the PW1100G geared turbofan). It’s supposed to be 75% quieter and 15% to 20% more fuel-efficient than conventional jet engines. Furthermore, Airbus has already installed the Pratt & Whitney engine on it’s new A320neo aircraft and 90 of them have already been delivered to 11 airlines (only two of which are American: Spirit and Frontier). Another issue of Aviation Week* reported favorably on the launch of this new, quieter aircraft and cited one source as saying “[t]he A320neo is now the quietest aircraft.”

There are plenty of Airbus planes in the fleets of US-based airlines, so let’s urge airlines to order a few more and retire their noisy fleets of aging aircraft! Airbus is set to deliver 200 more of them this year.

Sadly, the FAA is not going to get out in front of the noise issue anytime soon. They continue to insist that while noise may be “annoying” to some people, they won’t let that get in the way of the roll-out of their NextGen program—despite the fact that NextGen is precisely the program that has so enraged the three dozen members of Congress who formed the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus and the 36 communities across the USA that have formed the National Quiet Skies Coalition.

Take a look at this recent presentation given by the FAA to the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus: FAA Powerpoint PDF.

Doesn’t sound like they’re in any rush to quiet down America’s airports, does it? So I’m betting on NASA’s approach, i.e., electrically powered aircraft and “alternative solutions”—such as convincing airlines to stock their fleets with Airbus planes. Maybe the competition will finally wake up Boeing and GE and they’ll realize that some of us understand that noise is much more than “annoyance,” it’s a public health issue.

*Sorry, you’ll either have to subscribe to Aviation Week online or read it in the library.

In addition to serving as vice chair of the The Quiet Coalition, David Sykes chairs several professional organizations in acoustical science: The Acoustics Research Council, American National Standards Institute Committee S12, Workgroup 44, The Rothschild Foundation Task Force on Acoustics, and the FGI Acoustics Working Group—a partner of the American Hospital Association. He is the lead author of “Sound & Vibration 2.0 (2012, Springer-Verlag), a contributor to the National Academy of Engineering report “Technology for a Quieter America,” and to the US-GSA guidance “Sound Matters”, and co-founded the Laboratory for Advanced Research in Acoustics (LARA) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He recently retired from the board of directors of the American Tinnitus Association. A graduate of the University of California/Berkeley with graduate degrees from Cornell University, he is a frequent organizer of and speaker at professional conferences in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Tracking those noisy airplanes flying over your house

Photo credit: Edith Peeps

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

As The Quiet Coalition has reported, people living all over the country have complained about airplane noise in the last few years. This is a result of flight path changes promoted by the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen program, which guides airplanes on more direct flight paths, saving time and fuel and making flying safer. Unfortunately, the FAA forgot to consider what happens to the people living below these newly concentrated flight paths, who are subjected to a barrage of aircraft noise.

The screenshot above shows the concentration of aircraft over the Los Angeles, California area.  Not surprisingly, newspaper and television reports have documented these problems in Washington, DC, Baltimore, Boston, Phoenix, San Francisco, and several cities near Los Angeles, and Orange County, California. I’ll stop there, but there are many more complaints in and around the 86 major airports in the U.S. In fact, the FAA just reported that it has received over 40,000 complaints of airplane noise from residents living near Washington DC airports.

In dealing with government agencies and elected officials, I have found that the best way to get someone to act is to document a problem as completely and as often as possible. For aircraft, that means reporting the date and time of the overflight, and ideally identifying the airline and flight number of the plane. I didn’t know that was possible until I was walking with a friend who pulled out her cell phone as an airplane flew far overhead, pointed it at the plane and said, “that’s the Qantas flight from Sydney.”

Photo credit: Edith Peeps

She showed me the Flightradar24 app that she had downloaded to her phone (a screenshot appears above). It identifies planes flying overhead, including the carrier, flight number, and type of airplane. There are several different levels of technology that can be purchased, obviously with more features costing more, but the basic app is free. There also are other flight tracker apps, but Flightradar24 appears to be best for this purpose.

If airplane noise is a problem in your neighborhood, get the app, start collecting data, and report it to your local council representative, congressional representative, local Quiet Skies organization, the FAA (contact them online here), and your local airport. Include the date and time, airplane identification data, and a decibel reading, if possible, using a sound meter app. At busier airports, flights depart every few minutes from early morning until almost midnight. Enlist a group of neighbors to take designated time slots to document the aircraft noise problem, or make documenting the problem a school science project. It’s hard to argue with the data.

Aircraft noise is a major health hazard, causing hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hospitalization, and death. Fighting aircraft noise will require accurate data, and Flightradar24 may be the way to get it.

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.

Airplane noise isn’t just a problem near airports

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

Aircraft noise can travel far if there are no natural boundaries to stop it, and a few thousand feet in elevation can make a big difference in how loud a plane sounds on the ground.

Most people may assume that airplane noise only affects those who live near airports, but that isn’t accurate. In fact, airplane noise can affect those living many miles away. In the western Los Angeles suburb of Thousand Oaks–approximately 40 miles from LAX–changes made by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rerouting planes arriving from the Pacific are creating problems for residents. Like those in other cities across the country affected by FAA flight path changes, the residents have appealed to their elected officials, in this case Rep. Julia Brownley, for help*.

The main impact on residents of Thousand Oaks is sleep disruption. Uninterrupted sleep is important for good health and normal daily function. We evolved from our vertebrate, mammalian, and primate ancestors in nature’s quiet. Sound was used to find food, avoid danger, and communicate. Humans cannot close our ears. Even small sounds were a warning of possible danger, e.g., the snap of a twig indicating an approaching predator or enemy. Because of this, sounds as quiet as 32-35 decibels–quieter than in a library–can cause microarousals as measured by EEG changes. These microarousals are in turn accompanied by increases in blood pressure and stress hormone levels.

I spoke about the adverse health effects of transportation noise on June 12 at the Institute for Noise Control Engineering meeting in Grand Rapids, MI, and then I flew to Zürich to speak at the 12th Congress of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise. My talks there were about different topics, but I attended several sessions about the adverse health effects of transportation noise. In Europe this body of knowledge is well known. The World Health Organization’s European Office wrote about this many years ago. The European Commission has directed member states to take remedial action. And in London, a draft Environmental Strategy deals with transportation noise.

Perhaps one day that research will be understood and accepted on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

*NOTE: Data-gathering serves a purpose when individual citizens share their data and concerns with organized groups that are already working on this issue. Here is the joint website of the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus and the National Quiet Skies Coalition. This pair of groups are large, national, well-organized and are taking meaningful actions in Congress to address aircraft/airport noise by working directly with the FAA. Among the myriad members from many states, this caucus and coalition includes 12 members of Congress from California and 10 California community groups. Check these two sites to see if your member of Congress is involved and if there is a community group in your area. And click here to file a complaint with the FAA.

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.