Talk:Noise pollution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Herrmaac.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malcolmka. Peer reviewers: Sallie.croissant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarity Edits

I did the clarity edit. I did it without discussing, even though I prefer to in most cases. It is quite a few edits. I did not change the content of the page. Only adresses technical issues like "This stategy has had noticeable improvement on urban sound levels." A stategy cannot posses improvement unless it is the object being improved. Mistakes like these are understandable, as plentiful as they are. They get looked right over at first but they make it hard for a reader to keep track of what is being talked about. That is why wikipedia articals are hard to read, not because of big words. Please, someone cheak my changes once and then write "verified" under my text, so we don't get in an edit war over clarity.

"The overarching cause of most noise worldwide is generated by transportation systems, principally ... but also ..." Do these generate the cause, or the noise its self, which. I tried to fix it by I can't figure out how to do it without removing overarching. I figured someone would not like it without. I think it is fine without.

"Most noise worldwide is generated by transportation systems, principally..." It is factual and a clear lead-in to the paragraph, agreed?

p.s. This artical is pov. I didn't change it though.

Most of the "clarity" edits are fine. I put one word back in: "limited", which was there since most of the general public seem to think aircraft noise can be solved by technology at the source. Without the word "limited" the reader is easily misled or supported in this widespread myth. The article still needs some work. it is very old. when i first saw the article a year ago, it was a disaster, but it has come along. Anlace 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article seems rather POV and narrowly focused on military sonar damage to marine mammals. What about undersea geological/archeological prospecting, fishing sonar, boat propeller noise? What about noise pollution effect on humans? Noise pollution countermeasures? Etc. etc. Jorge Stolfi 22:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

thats one reason why this article should be elimanated and merged with Noise pollutionAnlace 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

this issue has been fixed in the merge Anlace 19:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

car stereos paragraph

Why does this story begin in the 1980s, as if that were a baseline? Better to place car stereos in context. Writer notes that car stereos are a problem for setting off car alarms: aren't they both a noise pollution problem? 12 May 2005

Merge

I suggest this page be merged with Noise (environmental), against the suggestion that that page be merged with this one brought up at Talk:Noise (environmental)#Environmental noise should be merged with Noise pollution. Hyacinth 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

hi hyacinth, im not sure i understand the above remark. as it is now Noise (environmental), which page probably shouldnt exist, is a non substantive article that assists navigation. Furthermore neither the public nor scientists use the term Noise (environmental), regards Anlace 14:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

hi again hyacinth, have you read the article noise pollution. its a decent statement on the topic and that article should be the core article on this topic, whether it ends up being named noise pollution or environmental noise is a valid topic of discussion. i would also welcome your substantive editing of Noise pollution...it isnt perfect :)best regards and let me know your further thoughtsAnlace 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Noise Pollution (band)

reference to the band should be deleted as notability hasnt been establishedAnlace 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a disambiguation note. Any qualms about notability of the band should be taken up on the relevant page, which is not this one. Kilbosh 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

this issue has been resolved...editors acted to remove noise pollution(band) article Anlace 19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.229.160 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Lughole

Whats this ear doing ere? Does it serve any purpose?--Light current 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

there are several purposes to such an image. firstly it is the aperture to human hearing, without which there would be no noise pollution; secondly, it is a vivid reminder that some of the principal noise health effects are irreversible hearing loss; thirdly, it is an icon which can draw readers into an article (too many science articles are devoid of images and probably devoid of many readers.) if you have other images to upload for this article, i would invite you to experiment. would like to hear any other users' thoughts as well. regards Anlace 05:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but everyone know what an ear looks like! So its just window dressing is it?--Light current 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

you have not responded to my points above. further if we follow your logic there would be no desirabilty to have a picture of an airplane under the aircraft noise article or a picture of a bicycle under the bicycle article, etc. if you dont like photos in articles just say so...or if you do like photos, rise to my challenge and upload some better ones. in any case lets not waste both of our time on this subject. i would rather be creating a new article on a new subject just now. cheers Anlace 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you wont mind if I remove it then!--Light current 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no desirabilty to have a picture of an airplane under the aircraft noise article or a picture of a bicycle under the bicycle article, etc. unless it provides information that is additional to the text. I like photos and diagrams that illustrate a point and convey some information: like 'what does this thingummy look like' or 'how does this thing work'. Everyone nose what an ear looks like (unless they are blind in which case it doesnt matter). THe picture inclusion is purely gratuitous and unneccessary in this article. ,You, We might as well show a pic of someones brain as the ultimate processor of the sound!--Light current 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

i dont think the priveledge of image removal belongs to a user that does not respond in substance to the points raised. you still have not responded to the above three points in my first posting. nor have you suggested or gone to the work to upload a new image. i think your removal of an image without such dialogue would be tanatamount to vandalism. Anlace 15:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Image does not contain any information. Therefore it is wasting space!--Light current 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. And while were at it, what the hell has a diagram of a human heart to do with anything?. This is another pic that conveys no info with regard to the article. I propose it is removed also!--Light current 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as what a picture of a heart has to do with anything, to me it looks related to the topics within its section. How do you convey anything about noise pollution that is literally visible? Must absolutely no picture about things you can't see be included?

Show the damage it causes or the precautions necessary to prevent damage!--Light current 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as the "ear" goes, personally, I think objecting this strongly to a picture that is--however indirectly--within the scope of discussion, is a bit of an over-reaction. I don't think it would have occured to me but I guess some of us have more finely attuned critical faculties. It probably is debatable whether an ear is the "quintessential" depiction of sound pollution or whether it should go at the top of the article but calling for removal on the basis of wasted webpage space as if this resource was in danger of running out or not conserving it would cause some harm doesn't sound very compelling. I personally like the quirkiness of it--sort of tongue-in-cheek.

If anything, what is really at stake is not "wasted space" but aesthetic sensibility. The thing that merits addressing is the argument that a better one might be found and is likely a more generally favorable goal than blunt deletion. Article improvement is a goal that benefits everyone. In that spirit, I vote that the current picture be kept in until a better one is found--with any "maddening" inadequacy of the current one to serve as prodding motivation. Having said this, for my part, the only thing that would serve as a better picture is the depiction of some source of noise pollution such as jet airplanes, construction site jackhammers, weed blowers, etc. Freeway traffic maybe, but there is already a car pictured in the body of the article. Other things that would capture the crux of the article like a car alarm or one of my pet peeves, the fire alarm, are either too hard to really visualize or also serve critical functions. If it is not too much clutter, the "ear" might click better with the section on health effects. -my $0.02, Onceler 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What we want is a pic of a noisy vehicle, object. machine with a person with his fingers in his ears of with a pair of muffs on! Actually, that gives me an idea. Use the mandatory 'ear protection must be worn' sign!! and say what it is. Then we have an image with a purpose!--Light current 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a picture of a noisy vehicle (when a more purposeful thing is available, it can be added); moved and/or resized pictures that have been the center of dispute--and didn't have to delete anything or add any significant content, and restructured the article a little bit more rationally--I think--with respect to order/emphasis. -Onceler 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Did not convey any idea of what the problem is Im afraid! Just looks like any old car!--Light current 23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

?You've:

• taken a picture of a "noisy vehicle"--which you yourself requested--out of the introductory paragraph,

I suggrested a noisy vehicle or m/c with someone wearing earmuffs to protect their hearing. like this [1] --Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• removed a picture of an ear out a section on "hearing",

I removed pic of ear as it contains no information pertinent to the article--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• removed a picture of a car out of a section on "noise sources",

I removed pic of car as it contains no information pertinent to the article--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• removed a picture of a "heart" out of a section on "cardiovascular health", but

I removed pic of heart as it contains no information pertinent to the article--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• not removed >>2<< pictures of earplugs in a section on hearing protection 2 sentences long buried within the article that someone else did you the courtesy of adding

Do you think that only pictures you choose are worthy of being in an article?

No- I included one that someone else had chosen of being worthy of inclusion in an article. ( A differnt article but a pic more suitable for this article than those I removed)--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your actions have been ridiculous. You cannot possibly be on the level. Otherwise you've done nothing if not mock yourself. If you are mocking yourself, the joke is short-lived (without even a picture of yourself in the article).

My actions are serious and are not intended to be ridiculed.--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And if you are not on the level then what other motive but vandalism can one attribute to your actions? Hmm, trolling maybe? -Onceler 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism and trolling are offensive. Please refer to my previous edit histories.--Light current 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

okey it is not available when not obeying the rules@ 105.161.131.108 (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please remain calm. Also please be careful about accusations and if you are accusing me of something, please use the correct words. Accusations of trolling are extremely offensive on WP and I would ask you to back up such a statement with evidence or withdraw it. I believe I am acting in the best interests of the articles and WP in removing irrelevant and unhelpful items. If you reread my previous posts youll see this is the case. Also please refrain from personal attacks and keep comments related to the articles in question . Thanks. --Light current 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat heartened that you understand the seriousness of the term. Please don't patronise me about what it means. Yes and I even did a sanity check of the WP:Internet Troll article before choosing the words I did. But like all human endeavors, creativity and subtlety play a part. If you understand what it means then you must know that regardless of your words, I had begun to doubt you choose them sincerely. If you wish to reverse the situation, you should respond to the bullets above, which are self-evident descriptions of your own actions. Unjustified deletions are not the free pass you might think they are.

You have reversed the work of others giving little justification but an inability to see their point. Not everything on Wikipedia will be as you would have written it and you can't just delete everything you don't understand. I hope you can see that the fact that I was willing to include your contributions in the article and never removed them indicates a dedication to the betterment of the article and an openness to your efforts. However, any lack of acuity on your part or inability to see the value of the work of others should not oblige them to do backflips on a discussion page for your amusement. I am not going to go much farther in this direction but since I believe in open discussion as a constructive course of issue resolution I have gone this far. If your antics persist, you'll only convince me my recent reaction was justified. I hope this turns out better than the way it's going. -Onceler 02:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion (see Anonymous Internet posting). Most online discussion groups are open (especially Usenet) therefore the self-described members have no more right than anyone else to be there. It is tribalistic types (often depraved) who claim that a group is their turf. Unsurprisingly, "troll" very often simply means "newcomer" or a person who says something someone else doesn't like. You can say "the sky is blue" and yet be accused of being a troll.

Please spell out exactly where I fit into this definition. Is it the first or the second bolded section? I will admit to the 2nd defn but I still reject the term. Perhaps you can then find a new word. God knows there are enough to choose from on my page. Troll is not one of them and is generally accepted to be offensive language on WP. I would therfore ask you once more to withdraw your use of the term against me.--Light current 15:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

it seems user light current fits into all the categories he has listed. inflammatory for not allowing others reasonable time to review his posts before removing images; rude for not responding to substantive queries on topic; and offensive for posting an image which ridicules the topic (see discussion under ==earplug photo==. Anlace 17:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Anlace

• I would hardly call prompt action 'inflammatory' unless of course you a have a particularly low flash point (which it seems you have).
• My position was outlined adequately in my initial comments and since you seem not to have understood those brief but clear comments, I have since expanded them at your request.
• I cant see what you find offessive about a method of hearing protection!

Onceler I ask you yet again to withdraw your inaccurate accusations. --Light current 17:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Useless pictures on page

There are 4 useless pictures on this page. Would anyone like to discuss getting rid of them ?--Light current 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to remove the image of the heart (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action.--Light current 16:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done!--Light current 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to remove the image of the airplane (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action.--Light current 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done!--Light current 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to remove the image of the ear (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action.--Light current 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done!--Light current 23:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to remove the image of the car (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action. Tick- tick--Light current 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! but saved useful text.--Light current 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

these images serve a purpose here. Do not remove them unless you can provide better images to illustrate this article. aircraft and vehicular noise are principal sources of noise pollution. the human ear is the primary receptor for noise pollution and hearing damage can result from excess noise.Anlace 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What purpose exactly does the picture of a persons pinna actually add to the article?--Light current 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to remove the image of the airplane (as I feel it provides zero information with regard to the article) unless its retention can be justified. I will wait a decent time for other comments before taking action.--Light current 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

earplug photos

i presume this photo insertion is meant to be a joke. it is a cruel one, since this type of iconic representation was used in the 1960s before the seriousness and point of responsibility of environmental noise was well understood. Present thinking places the responsibility of noise control for environmental noise on transportation planners and vehicle manufacturers, not on the individual to wear protective hearing. this image could arguably pertain to industrial hygiene. i would vote for removal of this image and will wait for two weeks to hear from others. Anlace 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is not a joke. It shows a method of preventing hearing damage due to insdustrial noise and certainle had more relevance than the other images previously on the page.. How is it not appropriate to the article? --Light current 17:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If transportation planners, vehicle manufacturers, and other people who originate/create noise pollution where actually held responsible for it, there wouldn't be any. In regards to the image issue in general, there may be something which depicted would make a better image for this page, but the topic is sound. Hyacinth 17:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the topic is noise pollution. We can all wish for a quiter world, but we must report the facts. Hearing protection is a fact. Who is reponsible for noise and what should be done about it are largely opinion.--Light current 17:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

i think the main point is still eluding you. people should not be required to wear ear protection to protect themselves from roadway or aircraft noise. you should really check out the occupational hygiene article if you want a good place for your earplugs photo. it has no photos.Anlace 00:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not my photo. I still think it has a place in this article because it is one way of preventing hearing damge due to noise.--Light current 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how showing earplugs condones or promotes noise pollution. Hyacinth 10:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand the above statement. Are U for or against earplugs?--Light current 23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

see discussion below under ==personal protection==. for example i have read over 200 Noise Elements of the General Plan for municpalities and counties throughout the USA. These documents are official public policy and set forth a wide array of noise mitigation strategies. In not one of them can i recall a reference to personal protection. In the field of environmental noise it is simply not a concept. if the noise is industrial thats a different matter and why i have stated it would be a suitable image topic for occupational hygiene, which article is devoid of images. if the noise is self inflicted then that is not a topic of environmental noise either. Anlace 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Primary cause of deafness in the US

Im still astounded that the primary cause of deafness in the US is road noise. Is that actually what you are saying? --Light current 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thunder

How much noise world wide does thunder create? Is it greater or less than cars? And what about wind, volcanoes, earthquakes, loud music etc, etc?--Light current 23:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

those sources are all neglible compared to roadway or aircraft noise. i see you are searching for the dramatic..but at least we now seem to have a civil dialog which is appreciated. loud music is often personally inflicted. However, it is one that people often comment upon, even though it is a small fraction of total environmental noise. i would have no objection to an image depicting loud music, but this is a tricky area you enter, since most images will be of self inflicted noise (such as a rock band), which in the most strict sense is not an erternality or "noise pollutant" Also in the case of natural noise such as volcano noise, one has to ask how many people are exposed to the noise and for how long. then the numbers become very small. thank you for your positive ideas...its much more constructive than saying you dont like an image or an existing image doesnt have meaning to you. Anlace 00:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

personal protection

this material is not appropriate for the noise pollution article, which addresses environmental noise. this content should be moved to occupational hygiene or a similar industrial exposure page, where ear protection is sometimes used. Can you think of one governmental agency who has recommended people wear earplugs in their homes exposed to aircraft or roadway noise. i have attended seveal hundred public hearings (implying testimony by over 3000 persons} on environmental noise. i can think of only five persons (all representing noise polluters) who even mentioned the use of earplugs. In each instance the person testifying was boo-ed vehemently (not a polite response but a poll of public opinion nonetheless). in the interest of fair play lets leave this material up for a couple of weeks and hear what others have to say Anlace 00:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Im not suggesting that wearing earplugs is the only to solution to environmental (industrial) noise. Im just suggesting that it is one way of protecting your hearing from damage. You cannot deny that! Most noise inflicted hearing damage is caused by the person making the noise anyway! (metal bashers , riveters, musicians etc etc) Hence earplugs are a good solution.--Light current 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

quite untrue that most hearing damage is self inflicted. The EPA and HUD studies and many more show that roadway and aircraft noise are responsible for about 70 percent of hearing loss exposure, industrial noise about 15 percent and self inflicted (musicians, using ones own lawnmower etc} plus neighbor noise plus barking dogs plus miscellaneous the rest. Earplugs are indeed a good means of protection from industrial noise and self inflicted noise, but not really appropriate for environmental noise.Anlace 03:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is really surprising to me. How do you explain all the successful claims fof industrial deafness then?--Light current 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

easy to explain. one has a clear target to sue an employer. courts have not held roadbuilders (who are governmental agencies in the USA) responsible for damage as they are immune from prosecution for such types of liabilities. in the same way FAA is immune to damage prosecution as are most major airports that are owned in the USA anyway by cities. besides the tort system is way imbalanced in finding for the employee over employer, so no surprise its an easy victory for lawyers.Anlace 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been many cases in the recent past (upto 10 yrs ago) of successful claims for work related deafness here (UK). Primarily amongst those who had noisy jobs like riveters, sheet metal workers, jack hammer operators etc. Now the onus is on the employer to insist that workers wear hearing protection in these jobs. Hearing protection consists of muffs or earplugs. So I take issue with your claim that most hearing damage is caused by environmental noise. Of course it depends on which period in history you are talking about.--Light current 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

again you are talking about easily identifiable source to damage cases. you fall into the trap that most of the public fell into prior to 1969...thinking that one must see a clear link between source and damage. the EPA reported to congress about 1970 that they found 34 million americans exposed to levels of environmental noise (mostly roadway and aircraft) that could lead to hearing loss. Later studies have borne out these early findings. its difficult for most people to visualize the vast network of highways and urban arterials that expose millions to levels that are quite high. your point is a good one that some of the most dramatic cases and leading to total deafness arise from occupational noise. it might be good if you studied all the litarature referenced in this article lc Anlace 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No time to become expert on this. I only read WP!--Light current 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

the following material is inappropriate for the article noise pollution, which pertains to environmental noise, not industrial noise. additionally the material appears to be unsourced and probably OR. this material could be useful in editing industrial hygiene, earplug or a new article on personal hearing protection. Anlace 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) :

Personal protection

Two common forms of protection against noise are earplugs and earmuffs. These are available in a range of applications, effectiveness and quality. Unfortunately, these two methods of HPD (Hearing protection Devices) provide less than 20% of the human body needs. In fact, using these HPD can cause, in course of time, a permanent damage, and the best evidence is that although hundreds of HPD are available in the market reports clearly show that noise damages the hearing of millions around the world: Noise is the most common occupational disease and the second most self-reported occupational injury! (According to the National Campaign for Hearing Health). Noise is the major cause for Tinnitus, Vertigo, Jet Leg and other psychosomatic diseases (even a specific type of cancer was found as caused by noise). Noise disables communication and none of us can conduct a phone conversation in a noisy environment. Governments pay billions for lost of production and social security lost income. Noise is considered to be one of the worst environmental pollution worldwide. Its impact on the comfort and health in modern life is significant (White paper European transport policy for 2010).http://cordis.europa.eu/eoi/dsp_details.cfm?ID=34072 The problems of the current existing HPDs are well known to the modern science and include: 1. All of them seal the ear, or do not allow the minimal ventilation required to the ear. Since the human ears must remain open and ventilated, any attempt to seal the ear canal causes bio chemical, physiological reactions that affect the human body. Needles to mention that in this situation the user can not communicate normally. 2. Due to the first fact, current HPD are not comfortable for long use at all. It is know that HPD are difficult to adopt by users. Users often complain that HPD itches and warms the ear. 3. None of the existing HPDs block the ELF, (extremely Low frequencies), or infrasound. These are know as the most dangerous frequencies and yet, no solution for this risk. 4. No prevention of medical conditions caused by noise and transferred to body through the ears. Tinnitus, Vertigo, Jet Leg and other psychosomatic diseases can not be prevented using any of the HPD. 5. No protection from air pressure changes & shock waves. 6. Bone conduction noise transmission is not blocked by HPD. 7. NRR (or SNR) limitation. This measurement provides a limited protection in specific range of frequencies in which the HPD attenuates between 10 to 30 dB (as tested in labs only). No attenuation for all frequencies and no solution for those who are exposed to dangerous noise (In these case even attenuation of 30 dB will leave the user unprotected).

It seems that what current HPDs offer is based on a "No Theory". Even the electronic earmuffs do not provide the needed protection (The external ear is analog therefore any electronic attempt to block noise misses the target by definition).

The above mentioned leads to the conclusion that science lacks the theories that enable full protection to the auditory system In oppose to the ears that have today full protection by all kind of devices, or the respiratory system or the head itself, ear and hearing protection is still not achieved.

Industrial PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) companies invest millions in R&D hoping to find a cure to this hazard; the Academic world provides many articles emphasizing the urgent need for such a solution while demonstrating the magnitude of the phenomena. It was only in University of Salford, UK (located next to Manchester) where a Swiss - Israeli scientist called Adam Aloofi demonstrated a unique device that really does the work. Members of the Noise Lab in the university claim that his solution is based on a bio acoustical theory that provides a full protection to the auditory system. The device specifications and theory were never exposed to the public and will be available to all once the Professor's research is over.

Worst range of frequencies for hearing damage

I have always believed that the high frequencies were more damaging to hearing than lower ones (at the same SPL). Is that correct?--Light current 23:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "more damaging." Human hearing is most sensitive in the frequency range of about 500 Hz to 4000 Hz. Hearing damage in that region is most likely to have an adverse effect in day-to-day life because those are the speech frequencies (and those are the frequencies that are tested by audiologists). At low SPL's, human hearing is most sensitive to mid-frequencies, and less so at very high and very low frequencies. At high SPL's, human hearing becomes nearly equally sensitive across the board. See the Fletcher–Munson curves article for more info. Anechoic Man 16:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New studies show that any loud frequency can diminish a person's ability to hear other frequencies. That means there's no "worst range". Here's a US military study that shows high frequency loss after exposure to low frequency noise. Binksternet 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

SPLs

Hearing damage during short term from 120 dB up. (from SPL page)--Light current 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pollution template

this template on pollution in general is not very helpful and in fact distracting to most readers seeking information on noise pollution. if we have a template at all here, it should include such things as Roadway noise, Aircraft noise, Noise mitigation, Noise health effects, Noise regulation, etc. what do others think? Anlace 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are hybrid vehicles really quiter?

The statement: ""Hybrid vehicles are the first innovation within the last 100 years to achieve significant widespread noise source reduction"" seems a little odd to me. My thoguht is that apart from busses and other large diesel powered vehicles, most of the noise from modern cars, vans and the like does not comes from engines, but tyres and the air rushing over them. A hybrid car still has tyres.... in fact they still use internal combustion engines, so I would doubt that there would be any real environmental noise reduction attributable to hybrid or even fully electric cars. tommylommykins 09:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with that. The statement should be removed.

tommylommykins is half right - much of the appreciable noise from any vehicle is airflow, and depending on road surface also tyre roar. Hybrid cars have efficiency-biased tyres, so they may even be louder in some cases.

HOWEVER, the original statement is foolishly biased and obviously so - almost without exception a hybrid car only ever runs on full-electric at a standstill or up to low speed only. It's an idiotic statement & a registered user should remove it without hesitation. - Noise from passenger automobiles is almost entirely generated by engine noise below approx 20-30 mph. Above that, it's a mix of engine noise and tire noise, and at higher speeds, tire noise and aerodynamic noise takes over. The TNM Technical Manual has more info. It is entirely possible that at city speeds the hybrid vehicles could be quiet enough to be buried in the background noise. Anechoic Man 01:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My two dogs barking all night is not considered noise pollution

At least that is all I can figure by this opening statement "Noise pollution (or environmental noise in technical venues) is displeasing human or machine created sound that disrupts the environment". Only humans and machines can make noise pollution, so if your house is full of squealing pigs, that is not actually noise pollution. So either animals are not capable of producing noise pollution, or the opening statement is incorrect JayKeaton 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizens Against Noise

Noisefighter, I've reverted my deletion of your link, but I've taken out the (shouted) capitalization of your organization's name. Your org looks very similar to a couple of others that are linked; I don't know why I didn't notice this before. Maybe I was blinded by the ALL CAPS. :P You should know that I'm very much against casual overuse/abuse of car horns, especially in these two areas: car alarm ON/OFF signalling and residential neighborhood pickup of passengers by lazy drivers. I hate unwarranted urban noise as much or more than anybody I know. Binksternet 08:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Coronary heart disease from long-term exposure to noise?

I'm sure this is a relevant topic to bring up, but that the paragraph in question takes up almost an entire screen before the table of contents with no sourcing is something of concern to me. I'm sorry that I don't have the resources to deal with this myself, can anyone else look into it? 170.140.70.195 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[['i think sound levels greater than 130db can cause piain and perfanent ear damage.even sounds og about 80db cause damage if you are exposed to them for a lonf period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.63.182 (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question?

Does anyone know the effect of noise pollution? I would think it makes people unsettled, fidgety, or annoyed. And, is the noise pollution level higher in cities that small towns with less cars going by? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.42.40 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer !

Your capablity of ignoring is limited. There are so many words in English for the same procedure: apprehend, descry, discern, experience, observe, spot, watch ... It all depends on the state of your mind, that you are in.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.109.168 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sonar Causing death of "beached whales" ?

"One of the best known cases of damage caused by noise pollution is the death of certain species of beached whales, brought on by the loud sound of military sonar" This sentence is surely just a little POV. A teensy bit biased? Poorly written too as it does not explain the mechanism by which the whales died. It can be taken as the whales being killed directly by the sonars' effect.

As I recall the allegation was that the whales natural navigation could be confused by naval sonar, so causing them to swim onto beaches, so become stranded, often resulting in death from 'exposure' or asphyxiation.

The "San Juan Islander" in my POV sounds like it may be just a bit less reliable a source than a major newpaper. Or an academic/scientific report. One document they cite headlined "Navy sonar affected whales" [2]is not accessible on the link given. Though they also say "No permanent damage was done to the whale's hearing, according to the report." This document is available,"Sonar and Marine Mammals Fact Sheet"Dating from April 2006.

Under "US Navy Sonar blasts Pacific Northwest killer whales". the 'evidence' directly cited is a press release from Ken Balcomb of the "Center for Whale Research". He uses 'NPOV' terms such as "terrorized whales". Refers to the US Navy as "most egregious of marine mammal harassers and killers worldwide". Then "Since March 2000,....the Navy has known that their sonar kills and injures whales.... " and "In just this one day....the Navy’s lethal sonar adversely impacted every marine mammal within twenty miles of the ship. ..."

Reference should be made to the Marine_mammals_and_sonar article, which has many more references, though it doesn't have anything on actual deaths. It does have lists of "Naval Sonar Linked Incidents", strandings correlated with military naval exercises.

This, [3],links to a search on the NOAA website for Sonar related documents, such as these:

• SURTASS LFA Sonar History
• SURTASS faqs
• SURTASS noise
• Whales, sonar and decompression sickness

Why not use a real simple example likes dogs freaking out from fireworks? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this text as explained, and replaced it with a short comment on the cats/dogs being adversely affected by fireworks.Cites needed. Are pet birds freaked out by fireoworks too? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I returned the NOAA reference and the bit about whales to the article. I find the NOAA reference an excellent source. I reworded the sentence as it is too difficult and not necessary to try and qualify how well known this example is. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Much better NPOV than it was. I didnt notice that a good reference had been added by User:Gabriel_Kielland before I changed the text. In fact I was going to re-add the text myself in something like this (not yet complete) form;

“Apparent correlations between use of naval sonar and ‘strandings’ of beaked whales leads cetacean researchers to maintain that, not only can sonar cause distress and confuse the animals’ navigation skills, but may actually cause direct physical damage to them.

I feel a mention of the effect on cats/dogs & other pets may also be worthwhile as it has been an issue here in Oz, and likely elsewhere. Esp at NYE when we have our big fireworks show on Sydney Harbour. People might relate better to that than whales (though I like whales too!). Thinking many people (worldwide) may not even have seen the sea, let alone a whale! I own neither a cat/ dog or whale so i'm very NPOV on this.”--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

outdoor?

It is absolutely wrong that noise pollution is only from outside noise! --Fmrauch (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be defining noise as loud sound, harmful to health. I think noise is unwanted sound rather than desired sound. It is assumed that noise indoors is purposeful or at least accounted for by health regulations such as hearing protection specified for workers. "Pollution" is when innocent people are affected, which is usually outdoors. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Impact

Try and work out the meanings of the verbs "effect" and "affect", which you obviously don't know - "impact" is not a satisfactory heal-all, as is shown here by ships impacting on crustaceans - it sounds as if the ships actually collide with the sea creatures! Maelli (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cause vs. victims

Neither the cause nor the vistims of noise should be singuralized. Noise can be defined as the absence of music. I define music as the absence of patterns.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.109.168 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What about incapacitation?

The article currently explains that "Sound becomes unwanted when it either interferes with normal activities such as irritation from vehicles horns, sleep, conversation, or disrupts or diminishes one's quality of life." Well, vehicle horns, sirens, backup beepers, and other alarms often cross from "irritation" to "incapacitation." Noise can incapacitate either through pain (in hyperacusis, or sometimes in loudness recruitment) or through its effects on the senses of balance and direction (in Meniere's disease). 173.66.5.216 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Specifics on Noise Pollution

This article Noise Pollution includes a lot of relevant information on the adverse health effects from noise pollution and some good information on laws and regulations. The article only explains what noise pollution is with brief information in the introduction. I would like to add a whole section that talks about different aspects of noise pollution (low frequency and high frequency, different sources) and how loud it must be to be considered noise pollution. I would also like to add a section about measuring noise pollution and ways to counteract it. Below are the sources I would use.

Bibliography

Dzhambov, Angelmario, and Donkadimitrova Dimitrova. “Urban Green Spaces′ Effectiveness as a Psychological Buffer for the Negative Health Impact of Noise Pollution: A Systematic Review.” Noise and Health, vol. 16, no. 70, 2014, p. 157., doi:10.4103/1463-1741.134916.

Kateman, Erik, et al. “Interventions to Prevent Occupational Noise Induced Hearing Loss.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007, doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006396.

Maisonneuve, Nicolas et al. “NoiseTube: Measuring and mapping noise pollution with mobile phones.” ITEE (2009).

Maisonneuve, Nicolas, et al. “Participatory Noise Pollution Monitoring Using Mobile Phones.” Information Polity, vol. 15, no. 1,2, 2010, pp. 51–71., doi:10.3233/ip-2010-0200.

Narendra Singh & S. C. Davar (2004) Noise Pollution-Sources, Effects and Control, Journal of Human Ecology, 16:3, 181-187, DOI: 10.1080/09709274.2004.11905735.

Nelson, Deborah Imel, et al. “The Global Burden of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 48, no. 6, 2005, pp. 446–458., doi:10.1002/ajim.20223.

Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska, Malgorzata, et al. “Does Low Frequency Noise at Moderate Levels Influence Human Mental Performance?” Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, vol. 24, no. 1, 2005, pp. 25–42., doi:10.1260/0263092054037711. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmka (talk • contribs) 00:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: 1. The entire article is already very detailed and well organized and written. A couple of sentences were reworded which will help with the flow of the content in certain areas. Adding more information to the sentence about autism and how noise pollution can affect was very informative. The sentence before left an empty thought, so adding more information and connecting autism with noise pollution was very interesting. Also in this statement more citations were added to back up the information that was provided. The paragraph at the beginning talking about how noise pollution affects not only humans, but also animals and the ways it does so helped me to understand what noise pollution is and its effects on life. More citations were also added which is always good to have a wide variety of sources to back up the information that is provided. 2. Something that could be considered making changes on is the section on legal status. There is information on India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. While this information is very helpful, trying to wrap it up in a conclusive world view would be good. It would help to understand why only looking at those three countries were talked about when noise pollution is most likely apparent not only in those countries, but all across the world. Readers may not understand the whole world perspective with only a few countries and may misunderstand the wide impact of noise pollution. 3. Information regarding what has been done currently or what is being looked into to contain/reduce noise pollution may be important for this article. There is a lot of information about laws, studies, etc. that have been done years ago, but having more up to date information would be important to add. This would give readers the confidence that the information is up to date on what is being done. 4. Throughout the article it talks about how loud the noise pollution can be so talking about hearing protection or adding a link to the list of additional resources at the bottom would be good. This would correlate my topic of hearing protection with noise pollution. Sallie.croissant (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Relevant paper

DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3862-z CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Information on Noise Assessment

Hi -

I was wondering if it would be useful to add in information on how noise is measured (noise assessment) as well as the different metrics captured, particularly for transportation-related noise. I feel like this is important given that we cannot assess the health effects without understanding how our exposure is measured.

Stephanie.Grady (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Highway-noise-barrier.jpg
• Noise-Reduction-Hedge.jpg
• Sound deadener2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)