Health and Noise

Swiss study confirms transportation noise causes health problems

Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

It is well-known in Europe that transportation noise causes adverse health effects, including sleep loss, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and death. The World Health Organization’s European Office published a monograph on the burden of disease from noise, and the European Noise Directive lays out a government plan to deal with the problem. Studies in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries have consistently shown this, most often with a relationship between greater noise exposure and worse health outcomes.

At the 12th Congress of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN) meeting in Zürich in June–the world’s largest meeting on the health effects of noise–Swiss researchers presented the results of a study done in their country. The results are from an integrated research approach dubbed SiRENE (the acronym roughly translates to Short and Long Term Effects of Transportation Noise Exposure) looking at noise exposure, sleep patterns, clinical testing for sleep disorders and glucose metabolism, mathematical modeling of noise exposure for the Swiss population, and determination of noise-induced health risks for the Swiss population. The study is ongoing, but interim reports at ICBEN were consistent with reports from other countries: transportation noise exposure caused cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and increased the risk of dying from a heart attack by 4% for each 10 decibel increase in road noise at home.

We are certain transportation noise has the same adverse health effects on Americans even if the research here is limited. Perhaps the best-known American study of the effect of transportation noise on health was done by Correia et al, looking at hospital admissions in the Medicare population in people living near airports. That study was limited in its scope and methods, but not surprisingly, transportation noise exposure increased hospital admissions here, 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.

Landscapers fail to blow away leaf blower bans

Photo credit: Dean Hochman licensed under CC BY 2.0

Recently, the city of Newton, Massachusetts, and town of Maplewood, New Jersey, passed restrictions on the use of gas-powered leaf blowers because of public health, safety and environmental concerns. Gas-powered leaf blowers are a source of substantial pollution as well as deafening noise levels. In both cases, the courts refused to grant emergency relief to the landscapers thereby allowing the ordinances to take effect. Here are the stories of what happened and what they mean. Jamie L. Banks, PhD, MSc, Executive Director, Quiet Communities

By Jeanne Kempthorne, J.D., Co-Chair, Quiet Communities Legal Advisory Council

Landscapers came out swinging to prevent municipalities in New Jersey and Massachusetts from enforcing gas-powered leaf blower ordinances limiting their use. So far, they’ve struck out.

Quiet Communities’ legal advisors have been following the litigation with interest, and have provided legal and technical assistance to municipalities forced to respond to last-minute efforts to stymie enforcement of local ordinances.

Newton, MA

In January 2017, the City of Newton, Massachusetts, a suburb west of Boston, amended its noise ordinance to, among other things, limit the use of leaf blowers between Memorial and Labor Days to the use of a single electric- or battery-powered machine emitting no more than 65 decibels per property. (The previous ordinance had already limited the permissible decibel level to 65, but was rarely enforced). The amendment followed two years of study and hearings by the City Council.

Shortly before Memorial Day when the summer limitations would take effect, a group of landscapers filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the amended ordinance. They argued that the ordinance was preempted by state environmental laws concerning air quality and claimed they would suffer irreparable economic injury if the ordinance were enforced. The plaintiffs also raised constitutional due process and equal protection claims, the latter on the basis of the ordinance’s distinction between gas- and non-gas-powered equipment operated at the same decibel level .

The Middlesex Superior Court denied the landscapers’ motion for a preliminary injunction, emphasizing, first, that the landscapers had not proved that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The plaintiffs had sworn in affidavits that they would suffer the loss of some business as a result of raising prices in order to comply with the ordinance, which, even if true, falls far short of the necessary proof of irreparable injury.

Turning to the merits, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their legal claims at trial. Addressing preemption, which the court characterized as the “principal challenge to the Ordinance,” the court stated that the landscapers’ argument lacks merit because “[t]he [state] Air Act . . .  nowhere mentions noise pollution let alone suggests field preemption with respect to noise control.” The court emphasized that state law expressly authorizes municipal noise ordinances–-a fact the landscapers had ignored. Finally, the court summarily rejected the due process and equal protection challenges as unlikely to succeed. The City need merely show that the ordinance is a rational exercise of its police power, and that the distinction drawn between types of equipment is rationally related to a legitimate purpose.

Maplewood, NJ

In early April, the town of Maplewood, New Jersey, adopted an ordinance that prohibits the commercial use of gas-powered leaf blowers from May 15 through September 30. This replaced a previous ordinance that banned the use of equipment louder than 65 dB, an ordinance the Town found nearly impossible to enforce. On May 10, five days before the ordinance was scheduled to take effect, the New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association, “a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to advancing the integrity, proficiency, profitability and personal growth of the landscape professional,” sued the town, its mayor, and the township committee in federal district court in New Jersey seeking to invalidate the ordinance and to enjoin its enforcement.

The NJLCA complained that the ordinance was arbitrary and irrational in distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial users, and therefore ran afoul of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the state constitution. It also argued that the ordinance was preempted by the federal Clean Air and Occupational Safety and Health Acts. According to the complaint, the Clean Air Act empowered the State of California, and only the State of California, to regulate emissions from two-stroke, “in-use, non-road” engines. California having not done so, no other state or political subdivision of a state may do so. Nor may the town impose other or different requirements to protect workers, NJLCA complains, because OSHA already regulates worker safety.

In opposing the landscaper association’s motion for an injunction, the Town argued that it rationally distinguished between commercial and non-commercial users in terms of intensity and frequency of use. Moreover, the Town rationally concluded that commercial users were unlikely to engage in problem-solving discussions with the neighbors concerning noise and pollution. The Town disputed the premise of the Clean Air Act preemption argument, noting that the ordinance does not purport to regulate emissions. Finally, the Town noted that the landscapers did not merit equitable relief since it was apparent that they had ignored the previous ordinance which banned equipment operating at more than 65 decibels, which most commercial gas-powered leaf blowers do.

After a hearing on the association’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court dismissed the landscape association’s complaint without deciding whether the constitutional and preemption arguments had merit. Instead, it ruled that the association lacked legal “standing” to bring the complaint. If an individual landscaper is willing to be named as plaintiff, the complaint may be refiled. So far, that has not happened. Stay tuned . . .

Our take

What these cases illustrate is a burgeoning threat to local initiatives to protect the health and safety of community residents: the misuse of the little-understood preemption doctrine, which is being deployed more and more by business interests to quash democratic action at the municipal level. Instead of acknowledging and addressing the legitimate concerns of the public and industry workers, some in the landscaping industry have chosen to fight local efforts to protect public health and safety in court, forcing municipalities to spend scarce resources defending their right to enact and enforce local ordinances. Happily, the courts are calling them out.

We do not mean to sweep in a pile all players in the landscaping industry. Many responsible landscapers are conscious of the social, health, and environmental impacts of their work and are more than willing to pick up a rake or to use quieter, cleaner, and safer equipment. Ask them! Let’s reward those who are willing to work towards a more healthy, clean, and serene environment with our business.

Originally posted at Quiet Communities.

New Zealand researchers agree: hearing loss is probably a dementia risk factor

By Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

Many people don’t understand the process of medical and scientific research and how different hypotheses are developed and tested, using different methods in different human populations with animal studies when possible, until a consensus is reached. This was how researchers–including doctors, epidemiologists, researchers using animal models, and scientists doing basic research at the cellular, molecular, and genetic levels–figured out that cigarette smoke causes cancer and many other diseases, and how it does this. Despite the broad scientific and public health consensus, there are still skeptics, such as those at the conservative Heartland Institute, who say there is still doubt about whether smoking causes lung cancer. There is also a Flat Earth Society. Many Americans think that evolution is an unproven theory despite more than a century of research and strong evidence supporting evolution.

For the rest of us who believe in evidence-based science and evidence-based social and economic policies, our understanding of reality is always evolving based on the evidence. Sometimes something long thought to be true is found not to be correct after all. In medicine, one of the best examples may be ulcers in the stomach and small intestine, which for decades were thought to be caused by too much stomach acid but were found to be caused by bacteria. Australians Barry Marshall and J. Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize in 2005 for making this discovery. But most of the time an early hypothesis is confirmed by one study, and then another, and then by studies in animal models, and then by basic science research, until a broad consensus is reached.

This is what is happening with the hypothesis that hearing loss is associated, probably causally, with dementia. Dr. Frank Lin at Johns Hopkins University may be the best-known researcher in this field but other researchers in other countries are studying the same question. This report from New Zealand discusses what is being done there. And this report from the UK discusses research presented there.

It’s always good to have confirmation of research by different researchers using different techniques in different populations. Such confirmation helps validate initial findings in one population and help move our understanding forward. We know that noise exposure causes hearing loss. If hearing loss is shown to be causally associated with the development of dementia, then preventing hearing loss should help to also prevent dementia. One theory is that they brain needs input to maintain function, and without auditory input and/or social connections, brain function declines. Another theory is that whatever degenerative process causes hearing loss also causes loss of mental function. Ongoing studies, providing hearing aids to those with hearing loss but not to others and then measuring intellectual function over time, may elucidate the cause-effect relationship. Regardless, we don’t need to wait for more evidence for the link. Preserving one’s hearing should be enough reason to avoid loud noise or to wear ear plugs if you can’t.

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.

New drug may prevent hearing loss after noise exposure

By Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

For many years, a body of research has shown that chemicals with antioxidant properties might prevent or reduce hearing loss after noise exposure. In animals, noise exposure reduces levels of a chemical called glutathione peroxidase 1 (a naturally occurring enzyme). A recent report in the British journal The Lancet looks at how a similar chemical, ebselen, works in helping to reduce “both temporary and permanent noise-induced hearing loss in preclinical studies.”

It appears to work quite well.

Of course, we at The Quiet Coalition think it’s better just to avoid loud noise exposure, which is 100% safe and effective at preventing hearing loss. That said, the experimental protocol raises interesting questions about research ethics. Namely, the study tested the efficacy of different doses of ebselen after the subjects, healthy adults aged 18–31 years, were exposed to loud sound. The measure of ebselen’s success was the prevention of a phenomenon called temporary threshold shift (TTS), more completely noise-induced temporary threshold shift (NITTS). This audiometric measure has been used for decades to measure the impact of noise on humans.

Unfortunately, recent research, beginning with a 2009 report and updated last year describes a phenomenon called “hidden hearing loss,” a synaptopathy (injury to the synapses in the cochlea) caused by noise exposure. Hidden hearing loss is called that because it is not detected by standard audiometric techniques. Hidden hearing loss is the likely cause of being unable to follow one conversation among many in a noisy environment, or having a normal or near-normal audiogram but still having difficulty understanding speech.

Many experts think that there is no temporary auditory damage. That is, TTS is a real phenomenon but the use of the word “temporary” is misleading because if TTS occurs then it is likely that permanent auditory damage has also occurred.

In this study, healthy young adults were exposed to noise levels loud enough and long enough to cause TTS, likely indicating permanent auditory damage. Some of the subjects were given large enough doses of the experimental drug ebselen to prevent TTS from occurring, but whether the drug would or wouldn’t work, and at what dosage, wasn’t known when the study began. Simply put, the study exposed all subjects to the threat of auditory damage, and most likely caused auditory damage in the subjects who received the placebo or didn’t get a high enough dose of the experimental drug.

All research protocols in the U.S. must pass review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) which must make certain that steps are taken to prevent harm to research subjects.. Under the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association, and in the United States under what is called the federal “Common Rule” (45 CFR §46 et seq.), human subjects must be protected. If there is a risk of permanent auditory damage when the phenomenon of TTS is observed–and Drs. Liberman and colleagues certainly think that temporary auditory changes denote permanent auditory damage–we think the IRB should have done more to protect the subjects from any possibility of harm.

How could a study that exposes young people to noise levels loud and long enough to cause TTS pass IRB review? We hope the federal Office for Human Research Protections will let us know.

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.

Noise exposure directly damages rat brains. What does it do to humans?

Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

The evidence keeps mounting, almost on a daily basis, that noise is a health and public health hazard. Just last month, an article by researchers in Italy found that noise exposure directly damaged rat brains, producing changes in DNA, neurotransmitters, and even morphological changes. (For those who might be skeptical of this report, there is an existing body of research on the effects of noise on the brain. I don’t understand the details of the newer scientific studies, and I’m always cautious because studies have shown that positive results get reported more frequently than negative results, but taken together with the new report, there is a large amount of research pointing to a direct effect of noise on the brain.)

The Italian study exposed rates to noise of 100 decibels for 12 hours. That level exceeds exposure levels for most humans–certainly for a half-day period–but probably not cumulatively for many who attend clubs, rock concerts, or have noisy hobbies such as woodworking or motorcycle riding.

Humans and rats are genetically very similar–experts argue about whether the rat and human genomes are 97% or 99% similar, and about how to measure this similarity–but regardless of the exact percentage, we’re not talking about applying data from a roundworm to humans. The basic similarities are there in organ and cellular biochemistry, structure, and function. So it’s very likely that noise is also a direct toxin to the human brain, with similar genetic, neurotransmitter, and morphological changes, and most likely at lower noise exposure levels, too.

So what can we do? The solution is simple: avoid loud noise exposure, and wear hearing protection if you can’t.

And one last thing–encourage legislators, regulators, and public health authorities to do more to protect us from exposure to unnecessary noise.

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.

Is eating out bad for your ears?

By Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

We all know from personal experience that restaurants are too loud. In this piece in The Washington Post, Gail Richard, the president of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, writes that noise levels in restaurants are loud enough to damage one’s hearing. Specifically, Richard states that “[c]onsistently listening to noise levels above 70 decibels can cause hearing loss over time,” noting that “it is not unusual for restaurant reviewers who regularly list restaurant noise in their reviews to find levels above 70 and even 80 decibels.”

The Quiet Coalition has covered a number of reports about restaurant noise so this information is nothing new, but this opinion piece is a nice summary.

The only thing I disagree with is Richard’s suggestion that restaurants could provide quiet zones for customers with hearing loss or those who prefer less noisy spaces. The idea of “separate but equal” spaces embodied in quiet zones, quiet rooms, or even a request for a quiet table runs counter to the legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that places of public accommodation offer those with disabilities full and equal enjoyment. Someone with complete hearing loss in one ear would appear to meet the ADA definition of having a disability.

Simply put, we shouldn’t have to ask for a quiet table or a quiet room. All restaurants should be quiet enough to allow all customers to converse.

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.

Supreme Court on airport noise: “Go away!”

By David Sykes, Vice Chair, The Quiet Coalition (with contributions by Jamie L. Banks, Jeanne Kempthorne and Gina M. Briggs)

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the airport noise case brought by the town of East Hampton, Long Island (of The Hamptons in New York).
This is an important case that The Quiet Coalition wrote about back in January and March.  This case is significant as it addresses an important issue of public health, because noise not only causes hearing problems, it also contributes to heart disease and other conditions.

There are 15,000 airports in the USA, 5200 of which have paved runways, and 376 have regularly scheduled flights. That’s a lot of neighborhoods and people exposed to the pollution and noise from take-offs and landings! Perhaps now that the Supreme Court has denied their petition for a writ of certiorari (i.e., seeking review of a lower court decision), the East Hampton group will join the 36 communities in the National Quiet Skies Coalition and press their congressional representatives to join the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus. The Caucus has already petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and submitted a bill to Congress. But it’s going to take many more communities joining the battle to win this one.

Many people around the U.S.—on both sides of the airport noise problem—were watching to see what the Supreme Court would do. What the Court did was let the Second Circuit Court decision stand. That decision had invalidated the town’s restrictions on flights to and from the East Hampton Airport—which the town owns–after finding that the town did not have the right to impose the restrictions owing to a 1990 federal law that “limits the town’s authority to impose rules at the airport.”  NOTE: The FAA’s argument relied on federal preemption, and, in particular, the Town’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. The Second Circuit held that the Act applied even though the Town was had forgone federal funding for the airport.

Many locals were unhappy, with one telling the New York Times:

“The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case was ‘indicative of the fact that when it comes to our own airport, we don’t have local control,’ said Barry Raebeck…. ‘It strikes me as decidedly unjust, as un-American. This is what we’re all about, local control. We have federal agencies dictating. I consider the F.A.A. a lobbying group for airport operators. You don’t have any rights unless you’re in an airplane in their minds.’”

Is this the end of the matter? No. But getting a case to the Supreme Court is a long, time-consuming, and expensive process. We congratulate those who have been waging this battle so far and urge them: PLEASE TAKE THE NEXT STEP! We’re reminded of Theodore Roosevelt who said:

“…Credit belongs to the [people] who are actually in the arena…who err and come up short…who spend [themselves] for a worthy cause; who…know the triumph of high achievement, and who, if they fail, fail while daring greatly; [their] place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

We believe the key to winning the airport noise battle—indeed all battles about noise in America—is to challenge the FAA’s (and its parent, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s) long-held and politically convenient view that noise is “merely annoyance” with no appreciable effects on health or well-being. This is unfounded. In fact, the adverse health effects of noise are strongly supported by decades of authoritative evidence from medical and public health professionals. The use of the term “annoyance” is a shibboleth; that is, a term used to characterize the problem that is fundamentally wrong.

Noise control advocates now need to re-focus their efforts on the public health effects of noise—for which solid scientific evidence exists and continues to grow–and go back to court with new arguments until this battle is won.

David Sykes chairs/co-chairs four national professional groups in acoustical science: The Acoustics Research Council, ANSI S12 WG44, The Rothschild Foundation Task Force on Acoustics, and the FGI Acoustics Working Group. He is also a board member of the American Tinnitus Association, co-founder of the Laboratory for Advanced Research in Acoustics (LARA) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, lead author of “Sound & Vibration 2.0 (2012, Springer-Verlag), and a contributor to “Technology for a Quieter America” (2011, National Academy of Engineering). 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.

New explanation for why older people can’t hear in noisy environments

Photo credit: Filipe Fortes licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

By Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

There are already several explanations about why middle-aged and older people can’t understand speech in noisy environments. One may just be high-frequency hearing loss caused by noise, which makes it hard to hear the higher-pitched consonant sounds (F, S, SH, T, V) that allow us to differentiate similar sounding words (Fear, Sear, Shear, Tear, Veer). (See the graph in this CDC Vital Signs Issue.) Another reason may be a phenomenon called “hidden hearing loss,” which is caused by noise damage to nerve junctions (synapses) in the inner ear.

And now a new report indicates that there may also be a brain or central processing problem. A study conducted at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, “analyzed what happens in the brain when older adults have trouble listening in loud environments.”  The researchers “monitored the brains of 20 younger adults ages 18 to 31, and 20 older adults in their 60s and 70s, during a listening task” in which constant background noise was played while participants were told to focus on certain targeted sounds.

What the researchers found was that “the younger adults were able to zero in on the target signals while filtering out the irrelevant noise,” but the older participants had “a harder time tuning out the background noise.” What remained unclear was whether the “degradation of the ear’s ability to hear actually leads to a decline in the brain’s ability to filter out noise and hear a single sound,” or whether “the brain’s listening ability erodes independently of any changes going on in the ear.”

As for why older people have a difficult time understanding speech in noisy environments, it most likely is that all three factors occur to varying degrees in various individuals. But one thing is certain, preventing hearing loss is simple: avoid loud noise. And improving the ability of people young and old to follow conversations is also simple: turn down the volume in indoor places.

Link via the UK Noise Association.

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.

 

Can noise cause fertility problems?

By Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

A report in the New Scientist indicates the answer is “maybe.” Researchers in Denmark conducted a study that found an exposure-response relationship between noise and difficulty getting pregnant. The researchers made their discovery by analysing data from the Danish National Birth Cohort, a project that ran from 1996 to 2002, and focusing on women who had tried to get pregnant during the project “if traffic noise data was available for where they lived.” The study was controlled for factors like poverty levels and nitrogen oxide pollution.

Earlier research had suggested that 80% of women who were actively trying to get pregnant usually did so within six menstrual cycles, but the research team found that “for every 10 decibels of extra traffic noise around a woman’s home, there was a 5 to 8 per cent increased chance of it taking six months or longer.”  The article notes that it “is unclear whether traffic noise may be affecting women or their partners.”

New Scientist quotes Rachel Smith of Imperial College London, who finds the link between traffic noise and health worrying. Says Smith, “[b]ecause traffic noise is common, even a small effect on health could feasibly have a large impact across a population.”

Just as the Danish study was released, a South Korean study was reported that focused on long-term exposure to a noisy environment and male infertility.  The study by researchers at Seoul National University, which ran for eight years from 2006-2013, looked “at male infertility by analyzing data from 206,492 men aged 20-59 and calculating the participants’ levels of noise exposure.”  3,293 of the participants had an infertility diagnosis.

The researchers “found that, after taking into account factors such as age, income, BMI and smoking, men who were exposed to noise over 55 dB at night (a level equivalent to a suburban street or an air conditioner and above the World Health Organization night noise level) had a significantly higher chance of being diagnosed as infertile.”  Dr. Jin-Young Min, the study’s co-author, noted that infertility was becoming a significant public health issue, adding that it was known noise affected male fertility in animals, but his study was the first to show the risk of environmental noise on male infertility in humans.

Both studies’ findings have to be replicated in other countries and by other researchers, but the data keep mounting and show that environmental noise pollution is a ubiquitous, pervasive, and dangerous health problem.

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.

 

Enjoying the sounds of nature

 

Photo credit: Bruce Tremper licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Josh Wennergreen, a recent graduate from the University of Utah’s Environmental Humanities Graduate Program, pens an ode to the joys of nature. Wennergreen is an inveterate hiker who spends weekends hiking and camping in nearby canyons and national parks.  He asks us to “[t]hink of all the human-made noise we hear in a single day: car engines, helicopters, computer pings, phone chirps, pounding construction, cash drawers closing,” lamenting that “It’s endless.”

And he examines the effect of all that noise on the human body, finding, unsurprisingly, that it’s not good for human health. Wennergreen cites a German study of one million people who live near airports that found a whole host of horribles that befalls those “plagued by background noise (jet engines, leaf blowers, cars)….[like] an increased risk of kidney failure, cardiovascular diseases, and dementia compared to people who lived in quitter settings.”

His advice is simple. “Never has it been more vital to re-charge in the mountains, to hear the wild soundscape,” he writes, adding that “[t]his is not some new-age plea, this is an urgent public health crisis.”

So find some time to get away to the mountains or the nearest national park. Just make sure to follow Wennergreen’s advice to “not be the loudest thing around” as you enjoy nature, because “[j]ust as a candy wrapper clinging to branches of a trail-side oak is litter on the natural landscape, loud and boisterous behavior is litter on the natural soundscape.”