Intentional noise

It’s that time of the year: How to help your pooch on the 4th

Photo credit: Nancy Nobody from Pexels

Every year around the 4th of July we see a couple of articles on how to help your pet deal with the trauma they suffer during fireworks season. This year the advice is courtesy of the Carroll Count Times, where correspondent Iris Katz dispenses the usual nuggets of useful information:

Owners are advised to slowly inhale and exhale when fireworks and thunder start, play calming music, keep high value treats or toys on within reach to give the dog when thunder starts or a firework goes off and to keep tossing treats and toys. Food puzzle toys, like goody-stuffed Kongs or food dispensing toys, may be pleasant distractions for sound-sensitive dogs.

And every year we report on how fireworks drive dogs, in particular, mad. There’s even a medicine to treat doggy anxiety.

But one thing we in the U.S. don’t often hear is that loud fireworks are unnecessary. Rather, the sound is designed into fireworks displays, and quiet fireworks displays are possible. In fact, some thoughtful towns and cities in Europe and the Galapagos are starting to require quiet fireworks displays to protect pets and wildlife.

Isn’t it time we start doing the same here?

Sound regulation of unnecessary noise

Once again another community has come to the conclusion that fireworks noise must be controlled to protect wildlife. This time enforcement has come after a horrific reaction to a New Year’s fireworks display. Namely, Devon council in the UK will enforce a noise limit on fireworks after a New Year’s display startled nearby birds resulting in death for hundreds of them.

As we reported before, quiet fireworks exist. It is simply irresponsible for communities to continue to torment animals because they want loud noise to accompany what is primarily a visual display.  Then again, considering the pollution fireworks cause, can we just move on to something else that isn’t as destructive?

Do not do this

Rosemary Behan, The National, writes about the shockingly common use of smart phones for entertainment, sans earbuds, in public places. Behan starts her piece by recounting a recent encounter with a stranger in which she had to ask him to turn down the volume of his smart phone. Why? Because he had “casually been using his smartphone as a home cinema, without earphones” for five minutes and she decided that she “didn’t want to spend any part of my Friday morning listening to the loud film clips of a random stranger.”  We have all been there.

What follows is Behan’s lament about how often we are subjected to this kind of behavior and her wish that “hotels, restaurants, cafes, or airline managers” would “lay down the rules about this kind of thing” or, perhaps, keep “a supply of disposable headphones on hand, for this purpose.” If only.

The problem, of course, is that the miscreant with the loud phone can completely focus on whatever he or she wishes to without a worry about annoying others (seemingly), while the annoyed others cannot concentrate on their immediate interest or concern because of the miscreant’s use of his or her phone for entertainment. Hence quiet cars on trains, which Amtrak introduced at the urging of regular commuters who “had become fed up with obnoxious cell phone chatter,” and which have since been adopted by other train systems.

Count us among those who are grateful for the quiet car, but isn’t it a concession by the train operators that they are unable or unwilling to police the anti-social behavior of some percentage of their riders? Separation is probably be the best option–it’s relatively free of friction and more certain to reward those seeking some quiet–but why is it even necessary to complain about this frankly selfish behavior? By trying to find ways to accommodate both those who want some control over their soundscape and those who don’t give a damn who they distract and offend, are we not rewarding bad behavior? In the end, do we make the problem worse tomorrow by not discouraging this anti-social behavior today?

How to protect your hearing at holiday parties

Photo credit: Maurício Mascaro from Pexels

by G.M. Briggs

British charity Action on Hearing is advising Brits to protect their hearing this holiday by donning earplugs before going to holiday parties.  I agree.  At a recent holiday party, these came in handy:

Photo credit: Quiet City Maps

Ah, the joy of musician’s earplugs.  Not cheap at $250 (your price may vary), but they are fitted, long-lasting, and the cost may be covered by health insurance or flexible spending accounts. There are a variety of filters (the round white disc you see in the photo), but I opted for 25 decibels.  And while everyone was talking about how loud the music was, for once I was perfectly comfortable.

So have fun this season and enjoy the holiday parties, but don’t leave home without your earplugs!

Never underestimate man’s ability to find more obnoxious ways to make noise

Photo credit: ben dalton licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

And oh the irony that this assault on one’s senses (and sensibility) is termed a “silent disco.”  What is a silent disco?  It’s when a bunch of extroverts don wireless headphones playing pop music and dance their way through formerly delightful parts of European cities, stopping occasionally to shout out lyrics together, as a sort of fresh hell ensemble. Here’s a sample:

Fortunately, residents of Edinburgh, Scotland have a city government that understands their concerns and is responding in the only responsible way: Edinburgh to ban “silent discos.”

 

 

What should we do about intentional noise?

Photo credit: Daniel from Pexels

Two recent op-eds have focused on intentional noise, specifically noise made by people who profess to love the stuff. Marcus Gee, The Globe and Mail, in his piece titled Let’s crack down on unnecessary noise pollution, focuses on enforcement–and shaming–as a means of reducing noise pollution.

Bill Reader, The Athens News, cuts to the chase when he says that “those who enjoy noisy recreation also, often quite boastfully, enjoy ruining everybody else’s peace.”

Writes Reader:

There is a reason why the word “peace” is often followed by the phrase “and quiet,” while “loud” leads almost automatically to “and obnoxious.” Whether it’s a screeching herd of ATVs hurtling down a woodland trail or a single juiced-up river boat carving its way up an otherwise placid lake, the result is the same: those who go to those public spaces for “and quiet” will instead have their day ruined by “and obnoxious.” And more often than not, “Obnoxious” could care less.