Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter #33.........................................................October 17, 1999 ===================================================================
Is It Time For INTERNATIONAL Noise Pollution Standards?
A International Noise Standard Analysis Needed? As the Clinton/Gore administration is trying to get international noise standards for aircraft, so the European Union will accept noisy, U.S., "hushkitted," stage 3 aircraft, shouldn't there be an agreement on a common noise ANALYSIS standard also? Or do they WANT different confusing noise analysis? While the Aviation Cabal has been extremely successful in quashing studies by getting their U.S. Congressional bribe recipients to stop the funding for these projects, they have had less success in Europe and with the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). WHO has actually done a study in 1995 on the health impacts of noise. (read abstract of report below or go to website: http://www.who.int/environmental_information/Information_resources/community_noise.htm or download and view the entire report from website: http://www.who.int/environmental_information/Information_resources/documents/Noise/noise1.pdf This is a pdf file that you need an Acrobat Reader to view. Unfortunately, they use a different way of analyzing (LAeq instead of DNL) noise than the FAA does.
New York State's Airport "Bubble Bill" Stagnates In Committee: As the Federal Government and the EPA refuse to monitor the air pollution impacts of highly polluting airports, some states, like New York, have had efforts by some politicians to do analysis on a the state level. The "Bubble Bill" (see website: http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/bubblebill.htm ) is such an effort. Unfortunately, local politicians, like the "best Congress (aviation) money can buy," afraid that this might affect airport expansion, refuse to allow even ANALYSIS of airport impacts. A story (see website: http://www.nypost.com/101299/news/15697.htm ) in the New York Post this week shows N.Y. City's air is 100 TIMES cancer-risk level targeted by 1990's Clean Air Act. But what do politicians care.
FAA's List Of Noisiest Planes: Most anti-aviation activists would probably disagree with the way the aviation industry-bribed government does analysis of noise impacts. However, the FAA list "ESTIMATED AIRPLANE NOISE LEVELS" (from worse to least) is interesting and seems accurate. I can personally attest to the accuracy of the Concorde topping the list as the worse noise polluting plane and the Boeing 747 being a close second. Check out the FAA's own listing of noisy planes at the websites: http://www.aee.faa.gov/aee-100/aee-110/AC36-3GT/AC36-3GT.htm http://www.aee.faa.gov/aee-100/aee-110/AC36-3GT/a1tview.htm http://www.aee.faa.gov/aee-100/aee-110/AC36-3GT/App1app.htm
Aviation News Stories
edited by Birgitta Berglund and Thomas
Document prepared for WHO.
Archives of the Centre for Sensory
Research, Vol. 2, Issue 1, 1995.
Stockholm University and Karolinska
The document critically reviews the adverse effects of community noise, including interference with communication, noise-induced hearing loss, annoyance responses, and effects on sleep, the cardiovascular and psychophysiological systems, performance, productivity, and social behavior. Noise measures or indices based only on energy summation are not enough for the characterization of most noise environments. This is particularly true when concerned with health assessment and predictions. It is equally important to measure and display the maximum values of the noise fluctuations, preferably combined with a measure of the number of noise events, and to assess whether the noise includes a large proportion of low frequency components.
For dwellings, recommended guideline values inside bedrooms are 30 dB LAeq for steady-state continuous noise and for a noise event 45 dB LAmax. To protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime, the sound pressure level from steady, continuous noise on balconies, terraces, and in outdoor living areas should not exceed 55 dB LAeq. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed during the daytime, the sound pressure level should not exceed 50 dB LAeq. At nighttime outdoors, sound pressure levels should not exceed 45 dB LAeq, so that people may sleep with bedroom windows open.
In schools and preschools, to be able to hear and understand spoken messages in class rooms, the sound pressure level should not exceed 35 dB LAeq during teaching sessions. For hearing impaired children, a still lower level may be needed. The reverberation time in the class room should be about 0.6 s, and preferably lower for hearing impaired children. For assembly halls and cafeterias in school buildings, the reverberation time should be less than 1 s. For outdoor playgrounds the sound pressure level from external sources should not exceed 55 dB LAeq.
In hospitals during nighttime, the recommended guideline values for wardrooms should be 30dB LAeq together with 40 dB LAmax. Since patients have less ability to cope with stress, the equivalent soundpressure level should not exceed 35 dB LAeq in most rooms in which patients are being treated, observed or resting.
The concern for protecting young people's hearing during leisure time activities warrants provisional guidelines for concert halls, outdoor concerts and discotheques. It is recommended that patrons should not be exposed to sound pressure levels greater than 100 dB LAeq during a 4-hour period. The same guideline values apply for sounds played back in headphones when converted to equivalent free-field level. To avoid hearing deficits from toys and fireworks, performers and audience should not be exposed to more than 140 dB(peak) of impulsive sounds. Existing large, quiet outdoor areas in parkland and conservation areas should be preserved and the background-to-noise ratio be kept low.
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
as a community service.