The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
World Health Organization Wants Europe to Be As Quiet as a Library
Hexmage-PA
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I had heard the term "noise pollution" before, but I never took it seriously. According to a new study released by the Word Health Organization, though, noise pollution's negative health affects are only second to air pollution's in severity. Somehow, and this is news to me, noise can trigger heart disease by causing stress hormones and fatty materials to build up in the cardiovascular system.
The researchers are so certain of their conclusions that they are proposing a "noise cap" of 40 decibels at night for the European Union.
Source: New Scientist: Noise Kills and Blights Lives in Europe
The concept of "noise pollution" is still bizarre to me (I mean, really, noise can kill people?). Is it really possible to legislate the amount of noise permissible at night?
The researchers are so certain of their conclusions that they are proposing a "noise cap" of 40 decibels at night for the European Union.
"Considering the overall impact, I think this really puts noise on a footing where it needs to be taken seriously," says Deepak Prasher, who studies the effects of noise on heart health at the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford, UK. "Governments need to acknowledge that it is a problem."
Kim says that the European Commission has already set guideline maximum levels for night-time noise of 40 decibels. "That's about the same noise you would get in a library," he says.
In countries of eastern Europe that have joined the EU more recently, the level has been set slightly higher, at 55 decibels, to allow them to adapt.
The researchers collaborating on the report are still gathering data to set limits averaged across 24 hours. These need to be ready by 2013, when the revised version of Europe's 2002 Noise Directive is due.
Source: New Scientist: Noise Kills and Blights Lives in Europe
The concept of "noise pollution" is still bizarre to me (I mean, really, noise can kill people?). Is it really possible to legislate the amount of noise permissible at night?
Hexmage-PA on
0
Posts
I'd rather see a general broad reduction in noise across all schedules & areas of life than one specifically targeted at nighttime noise.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
More appropriate, I think.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
By chance I got to see some planning by our local government for highway modifications just a few days ago, and noise pollution figures are indeed on there, bracketed in three parts (Number of houses recieving over 40, 48 and 65 dB, which were something along the lines of 10.000, 4.000, 110 for the plans in question).
I think in general that it's just part of societal evolution, the more we learn the more we realize that many of our current habits are harmful to some degree. Light pollution is another factor that throws people off. The average individual harm may not be that great, but the overall sum can be quite high. Of course, this balances with economic activity, the price of counteracting the damaging, or with safety measures, so it remains to be seen how much is done with it.
as far as noise at night, in most residential areas i've lived in city ordinances prohibit things like operating heavy machinery after certain hours which has been effective in my experience
i imagine in urban areas that might be quite a bit more difficult to regulate but i think mandating better sound insulation indoors is a better solution than just outright capping noise levels
You heard it here first, folks.
You, sir, better be a white girl with distractingly forward cleavage. Or else.
It would seem more sensible to get the extremes ameliorated first - the high-noise industrial situations in particular. And there's only so much you can do while still relying on internal combustion engines...
Also, again, potentially marginalizing for people who do not keep normal hours. And the answer isn't just "go to bed already, hippy!" as some people are simply biologically constituted so as to keep irregular hours and others are required to for work purposes.
I imagine that you already do have noise pollution laws. This just seems to be standardisation.
People who play their saxophone loudly at 2am already get in trouble, so I'm not sure what the point of this is.
I'd be more concerned about it being misused against entertainment venues - there's already a big problem with hipsters moving into pub/club districts to live near the cool part of town, and then immediately bitching that X venue is keeping them up at night.
The worry is that by making the standard of "too loud" lower and lower, these noise ordinances will come to constitute an undue burden on those who for whatever reasons are up at night?
Pffft, this is environmental law, cops won't go near that shit. It'll be 'enforced' by an insufficiently staffed and trained high-turnover mob of Environment department lackeys, and the legislation will be all negotiate-a-path-to-compliance-and-only-bring-out-the-Stick-of-Fines-if-that-doesn't-work.
Maybe? I'm pretty sure our local noise laws are 'nothing over 50' after 10pm or so already *shrug*. You're also using american legal terms in a discussion about EU policy, so...
Totally agree on both these points.
The latter is kind of a problem in San Francisco, as I imagine it's a problem in a lot of cities. There are plenty of politicians who love to make it difficult to have a nightlife.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Seeing how many places already do...
I'm with Feral and Cat. It should be universal rather than dependent on the time of day, a lot more forgiving than 40 db, and with protections for venues to which elevated noise levels are inherent. You can promote advancements and efficiencies that make a train yard run quiet without impacting the nature of the work. A concert, not so much.
BTW, I don't really know anything about the effects of noise on humans over the long-term, but I can comment on a different problem. It contributes to animal habitat loss. When human development encroaches on an animal habitat - say, a woodland - even if you leave X square mileage of woodland available, you've rendered a certain percentage of that woodland uninhabitable. Prey species will flee from the unfamiliar noises, which will either drive predator species further inwards, or will force them to feed on species that aren't scared of human noise - like, for example, domesticated pets.
Combined with light pollution you can also have some funky, unpredictable effects on circadian rhythms, which also upsets predator/prey cycles and throws populations out of equilibrium.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Areas with high population density simply will not be that quiet at night. It's just not feasible, even if you assume they're willing to shut down the highways and other sources of traffic noise.