Review Title: Noise Pollution: Its Possible Adverse and Unfavorable Implications

Related Literature

Noise is an inescapable part of human life. While we may enjoy occasional moments of
solitude, it is usually not long before we are confronted with noise of some sort. While some of this
noise is ignored or "gotten used to," it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so as our
convenience-oriented American society races around in its singly-occupied cars, shuttles off to
business meetings in gigantic jumbo jets, and commutes to our noisy offices in even noisier subway
cars. And when we arrive home at the end of the day we turn to our stereo systems and television
sets to blast the day's worries out of our heads, seeking solace in the likes of Matchbox 20 who also
claim to have had a "Long Day." Or maybe we burn off steam by walking or jogging, but we do so
while wedging our heads between headphones whose shrieking guitars or thumping bass help us to
keep in stride. At any rate, we are a noisy society, and to some extent we don't seem to mind it.
Though researchers were investigating the dangers of noise pollution as early as the 1960's (e.g.
McKennell, 1963), we still continue to largely ignore the damage we are causing ourselves, at least
until it's time to go out and buy a hearing aid. And by then the damage is usually irreversible.

This section of our Audition and Music website and its constituent subsections are intended
primarily to raise awareness of the dangers of noise pollution by describing the sources of noise
that we commonly face and by elucidating the effects that this noise commonly has on us. Relevant
links and references are also included.

Sources:

Noise pollution derives from several sources, including street traffic, aircraft, railroads,
industry, construction, consumer products, and other sources. In order to better understand noise
pollution, it is first important to understand where it comes from. Upon doing so, one can then more
carefully consider its impacts on humans and more effectively investigate methods for reducing
noise and preventing its negative consequences.

Street Traffic

Of all the sources of noise pollution, street traffic is the most prevalent and perhaps
damaging source of noise pollution. Indeed, Sharp and Donovan (1979) confirm that "more people
are exposed to noise from motor vehicles than any other single source of noise" (p. 32-1). Though
this claim is now 20 years old, the prevalence of street traffic has certainly grown since then, and
thus the impacts of traffic noise are still a major factor in human society.

Noise that is emitted by street traffic is generated by engines, exhaust systems, tires
interacting with the road, and horns. Of these, tires contribute most predominantly to the noise
emitted by automobiles, both in the effects on passengers within a vehicle and in the contribution to
roadside noise, especially in American-made cars. The other components of traffic noise are
significant contributors nonetheless. Exhaust and engine noise, for example, have been implicated
as even more prevalent as tire noise in some cases, especially in Japanese and European-made cars.
Further, noise produced during acceleration can be as much as 20 dB greater than that produced at
cruising speed. (Bugliarello, Alexandre, Barnes, & Wakstein, 1976)

Besides cars, buses and trucks also contribute significantly to traffic noise. Though there are
fewer of these vehicles in use than cars, the contribution of buses and trucks to noise pollution is
significant nonetheless. For example, according to Burgliarello et al. (1976), "the noise from a heavy
truck or bus is equivalent to that from 10 to 15 private cars together" (p. 83). One reason for this is
that trucks and buses generally use diesel engines, in which ignition occurs at a higher pressure
than in gasoline-burning automobile engine, resulting in an increased amount of airborne vibration
emission. Additionally, diesel engines tend to be used at or near maximum power more often than
passenger cars and light trucks, further contributing to their levels of noise emission. (Burgliarello
et al.)

Motorcycles are another source of traffic noise, and they present a unique situation. First,
unlike cars, trucks, and buses, tire noise contributes rather insignificantly to the overall amount of
noise produced by motorcycles (Sharp & Donovan, 1979). Thus, the type of engine, acceleration,
and other issues that are relevant to the engine system rather than the tires become more
important when considering motorcycles as a noise source. Second, unlike passengers in cars,
trucks, and buses, the rider of a motorcycle is not shielded by an enclosed compartment from the
noise produced by their vehicle. Third, motorcycles can be particularly noisy; whereas cars
generally produce noise levels in the range of 67-75 dB, motorcycle noise generally ranges from 72-
83 dB, but can reach levels as high as 120 dB immediately behind the cycle. (Burgliarello et al.,
1976)

In summary, then, one would expect to find peaks in traffic noise accompanying the
presence of trucks, buses, and motorcycles. But there are many other factors besides the type of
vehicle that influence the amount of noise produced by street traffic, as well. Examples of these
additional factors can be seen in traffic, road, environmental, weather, and building parameters.
(Bugliarello et al., 1976)

First, traffic noise is influenced by traffic parameters, which include speed, density, "fluidity,"
and driver behavior. Traffic speed and density, the first two of the traffic parameters, are both
positively correlated with noise production. For example, noise levels increase by 3-5 dB when
traffic speed is doubled in the presence of 50 or more vehicles per hour. Traffic fluidity, or the
amount of stopping and starting versus continuous flow, tends to exert its effects in the level and
duration of peak noise intensities. And of course driver behavior influences noise emission, in that
how "hard" people drive their cars also influences peak noise intensities. Road parameters
represent a second additional group of factors influencing traffic noise. For example, the
propagation of traffic noise is significantly reduced in tunnels versus open roads. Other factors in
this category include road surface (e.g. stone is particularly noisy), gradient (steeper hills cause
vehicles to work harder and thus emit more noise), and width (narrow streets lined closely with
buildings trap noise and increase its effects).
 Another group of factors affecting traffic noise includes environmental parameters, such as
the distance and height from the road a person is located, the presence or absence of natural or
artificial screens, and the amount of noise absorption due to the condition of the ground between a
person and the road. Weather parameters include factors such as various precipitation conditions
(e.g. rain, snow, or dry), which mostly exert their effects indirectly by affecting traffic speed, and
wind direction and speed, which are generally more applicable in rural areas since urban areas have
many wind blocks such as tall buildings.

A final group of factors affecting traffic noise involve the design of buildings. Namely, people
in buildings that are better insulated are influenced less than people in poorly insulated buildings.
Other relevant factors include the number of windows in a building and how many of them are
open.

Aircraft

In the early days of aviation, the effects of noise were primarily considered in terms of their
influence on an aircraft's passengers and crew. However, airline travel has since become much more
common and widely available, resulting in an increased amount of air traffic and thus an increased
number of people who are affected by aircraft noise, both as passengers and as members of
communities located near airports.

Aircraft noise derives primarily from airplanes' propulsion systems and from aerodynamic
noise. First, there are two major propulsion systems to consider, the turbojet and the turbofan. In
the turbojet engine, air is first compressed, then heated in a combustion chamber, and finally
accelerated by exansion through a jet nozzle. This results in the production of three types of noise:
noise radiated from the air intake, noise radiated from vibrations of the engine shell, and exhaust
noise. The turbofan engine differs primarily from the turbojet engine in that it utilizes a thrust-
producing fan and that it produces a lower exhaust velocity, resulting in quieter operation for a
given total thrust. (Raney & Cawthorn, 1979)

The second type of noise that is dominant in aircraft noise is aerodynamic noise, which
includes the noise that is produced by the passing of air around the aircraft. Under normal cruising
conditions, this type of noise predominates, especially among higher frequencies. However,
propulsion noise tends to predominate at the lower takeoff and landing speeds. (Raney & Cawthorn,
1979)

In subsonic flight, which is typical for the vast majority of passenger flights, aircraft noise
peaks when the aircraft is approximately overhead and then gradually diminishes to the ambient
noise level. Additionally, noise that is heard as the aircraft approaches tends to be dominated by
higher frequency sound, whereas noise that is heard after the aircraft has passed tends to include
more lower-frequency sound (Raney & Cawthorn, 1979). However, this also depends on whether
the aircraft is powered by a turbojet engine or a turbofan engine. In a turbojet engine, lower-
frequency exhaust noise predominates over the rearward-propagating, higher-frequency noise
produced by the air compressor. In the turbofan engine, on the other hand, higher-frequency sound
radiating from the internal fans predominates over exhaust noise and propagates both forward and
rearward from the aircraft (Bugliarello et al., 1976). This may be a moot point, however, since the
vast majority of commercial aircraft now use turbofan engines. Thus, contemporary aircraft noise
pollution generally includes more higher-frequency noise than aircraft noise pollution of yesteryear.

In addition to subsonic airplanes, other types of aircraft also contribute to noise pollution,
such as helicopters and supersonic airplanes. In helicopter noise, there is both a periodic noise
produced by the "blade slaps" and a nonperiodic broadband noise that results from air interacting
aerodynamically with the rotor. Helicopter noise depends primarily on the speed of the blade tips,
but also to a lesser extent on the number of blades, with both factors exhibiting positive
correlations with noise production. (Raney & Cawthorn, 1979)

Supersonic airplanes produce a unique noise phenomenon: the sonic boom. Sonic booms
occur as a result of an aircraft flying faster than the speed at which sound waves travel. In most
cases, a sonic boom is experienced as a shock wave sweeping across the ground below the aircraft.
However, sonic booms can also occur during acceleration periods such as diving, and in such cases
are more transient. The intensity of a sonic boom is primarily influenced by distance from the
aircraft (i.e. altitude, as far as the observer on the ground is concerned). To a lesser extent, sonic
booms are also influenced by how fast an aircraft is traveling beyond the speed of sound. Though
sonic booms are obviously much more damaging than noise produced during subsonic flight, they
are generally restricted to military aircraft and are banned above most urban areas, and thus
contribute less to the noise pollution experienced by most people. (Raney & Cawthorn, 1979)

Railroads

Railroads, like street traffic, are a source of surface transportation noise. The majority of
noise emitted by trains is produced by the engines or by the interaction of the wheels with the track
(Lotz & Kurzweil, 1979). While the former predominates in long-distance railroad systems, the
latter is the predominant noise source in urban subway systems (Bugliarello et al., 1976). Other
sources of noise in railroad systems include warning signals at crossings, whistles and horns, freight
classification yards, and railroad construction and maintenance equipment. (Lotz & Kurzweil, 1979)

Though railroad noise is confined to areas near tracks and is thus less pervasive than street
traffic, it still represents a significant danger to human health. For example, as Bugliarello et al.
(1976) point out, subway systems "are particularly noisy systems which expose millions of
passengers to high levels of noise". Further, noise levels experienced by passengers in trains
generally increase by about 10 dB in tunnels, an observation that is particularly relevant to urban
subway system patrons. And even in open areas, noise levels from trains decrease as a function of
distance less than noise levels from buses do. (Bugliarello et al.)

Industry

There are four main categories of industrial activity that are particularly relevant to the
study of noise: product fabrication, product assembly, power generation, and processing. Noise is
generated in all of these activities, with the majority occurring at the lower end of the frequency
spectrum. While people around an industrial facility and the people within it are both affected by
industrial noise, it is the workers within the plant that generally bear the brunt of most of it.

Product fabrication, the first category of industrial activity, can be a highly noisy operation.
In metal fabrication, the cutting, shearing, pressing, and riveting of metal products can be very
noisy. For example, Bugliarello et al. (1976) report that "riveting a large steel structure" (p. 221) can
produce noise levels greater than 130 dB. Molding, another type of product fabrication, can also be
highly noisy with its use of high-pressure air in the operation, pneumatic control, and cooling of
molding machinery. Plastic molding has been reported to produce noise at levels greater than 100
dB. (Bugliarello et al.)

The second category of industrial activity, product assembly, also produces dangerous noise
levels. The activities within this category often produce broad-band noise that includes high levels
of higher-frequency noise due to the operation of electric and pneumatic tools, such as grinders and
impact wrenches. (Bugliarello et al.) Most of the noise emitted in power generation, the third
industrial category, is produced by turbine generators and air compressors, though some noise also
derives from devices such as fans and blowers. Processing, the final industrial category, includes
activities such as oil refinery. Major sources of noise in this category are furnaces, heat exchangers,
pumps, compressors, and air and steam leaks. (Bugliarello et al.)

Miller (1979b) also discusses industrial noise production, and lists "motor noise, fan noise,
transformer noise, aerodynamic noise, hydraulic system noise, impact noise, bearing noise, gear
noise, [and] vibration-induced noise" (p. 26-1) as examples of noise due to industrial machinery. A
list of specific examples of industrial noise sources and their relevant noise levels is included below.

Specific sources of industrial noise:

130+ dB
o Testing a jet engine or turbine
o Riveting a large steel structure
120-129 dB
o Chain saw
o Riveting small structures
o Chipping operations on a large steel casting
110-119 dB
o Large drop hammer
o Power house
o Metal-forming machines
o Gear-cutting machines
o Testing an internal combustion engine
100-109 dB
o Most mining operations
o Most operations using pneumatic tools
o Heavy excavation equipment
o Large printing presses
 o Boiler room
o Plastic and rubber-molding equipment
o Stone crusher
o All furnaces other than open hearths
o Punch presses
o Grinders
o Sawing, planing, surfacing, etc. of large wood pieces
90-99 dB
o Food canning
o Food preparation
o Most textile operations
o Small printing presses
o Welding and cutting, both electric and oxy-acetylene
o Polishers
o Machinery assembly lines
o Strip mills
o Farm machinery
o Sawing, planing, surfacing, etc. of small wood pieces
80-89 dB
o Textile dying
o Typsetting
o Warehouse operations
o Raw material processing, chemical

(adapted from Bugliarello et al., 1976, p. 221)

Construction

Construction noise, a major source of noise pollution, is emitted by construction equipment,

which Leasure (1979) defines as "that equipment utilized at construction sites for the fabrication,
erection, modification, demolition, or removal of any structure or facility, including all related
activities such as clearing of land, site preparation, excavation, cleanup, and landscaping" (p. 31-1).
Like industrial equipment, construction equipment tends to produce more noise in the lower end of
the frequency spectrum. But unlike industrial equipment, which emits noise that primarily affects
workers within a facility, construction equipment tends to be used outdoors, and thus affects many
other people besides the workers at the site. Additionally, construction equipment tends to emit
noise at lower peak intensities than industrial equipment, with the exception of impact pile drivers
and ballast cleaning machines, which can reach peak intensities of over 105 and 120 dB,
respectively (Bugliarello et al., 1976; Leasure, 1979).

Bugliarello et al. (1976) describe five categories of construction equipment: earthmoving

equipment, materials handling equipment, stationary equipment, impact equipment, and other
types of equipment. Whereas the first three categories include machines that are powered by
internal combustion engines, machines in the latter two categories are powered pneumatically,
hydraulically, or electrically. Additionally, exhaust noise tends to account for the majority of noise
emitted by machines in the first three categories -- those that use internal combustion engines --
whereas engine-related noise is usually secondary to the noise produced by the impact between
impact equipment and the material on which it acts. Machines in the last category ("other types of
equipment") vary in their primary source of noise, of course. (Leasure, 1979)

Consumer Products

Consumer products represent a wide range of noise-producing items, and Clark (1991)
divides them into four categories: recreational (e.g. guns, model airplanes, motorcycles,
snowmobiles, go carts, all-terrain vehicles, video arcades, and private planes), hobbies/workshop
(e.g. chain saws, power saws, shop vacuums, routers, lawn mowers, and snow blowers), household
(e.g. garbage disposals, food blenders, vacuum cleaners, washers and dryers, air conditioners, and
refrigerators), and music (e.g. personal stereos, rock concerts, symphony concerts, and home
stereos). Among these, guns are the loudest, with peak intensities well above 120 dB, followed by
motorcycles and rock concerts, each of which can approach 120 dB in their peak intensity levels.
The least noisy consumer products belong to the household category, such as refrigerators and air
conditioners, which do not exceed peak intensities of more than 75 dB (see figure below).

Rock concerts have long been recognized as a significant source of noise pollution, and
1970's bands such as Slade and The Who were known to produce noise levels of up to 125 dB,
though most rock bands produce levels closer to 100 dB (Bugliarello et al., 1976). However, these
events are of rather short duration, especially when compared to work environments, such as
industrial facilities and construction sites, where workers typically spend eight or more hours a day,
five days a week, for years or even decades. Thus, when put in perspective, perhaps it is noisy work
conditions that warrant the attention often given to loud rock concerts.
Other Sources

In addition to the sources of noise pollution discussed thus far, there are several other
sources, as well, such as sirens, agricultural noise, military noise, and noise generated by humans
themselves. Since sirens are intended to convey urgent messages, it is necessary for them to be loud
enough to attract attention (Bugliarello et al., 1976). Sirens are most often used by ambulances,
police vehicles, and firetrucks, but are also used to indicate situations such as severe weather. Sirens
used for this latter purpose are usually tested regularly, and thus are not simply used during the
rare situations for which they are designed. Though obviously important for the safety of a
community, sirens can also be considered bothersome, especially by those who live near hospitals,
police stations, fire stations, or severe weather stations.

While noise pollution is generally considered an urban phenomenon, the increased

motorization of agriculture has also brought noise into rural areas, as well. Indeed, according to
Bugliarello et al. (1976), "a countryside undisturbed by the noise of engines and motor vehicles is
increasingly rare" (p. 230).

Military activities represent another source of noise worth considering, especially since
"military activities can generate some of the loudest man-made noise" (Bugliarello et al., 1976, p.
230). Four main categories of sources of military noise sources include explosions (e.g. from
firearms, bombs, artillery, etc.), airplanes and rockets, engines (e.g. in combat vehicles and in ships),
and other equipment (e.g. generators). While the first category includes many activities that are
largely restricted to military activities (except gunfire, which is common in hunting and recreational
shooting), the other three categories are not unlike corresponding civilian activities, such as
commercial aviation and industrial processing. (Bugliarello et al.)

A final source of noise to consider is humans. While activities such as basketball games in
indoor arenas can obviously be accompanied by high levels of noise , smaller-scale human activities
can be just as troublesome. For example, Bugliarello et al. (1976) describe how "voices, dropping of
objects, children jumping, or even just walking" can be irritating, especially in dwellings that are
poorly insulated. Further, even our pets can be a significant source of the damaging effects of noise
(Baxter, 1984).

Effects of Noise Pollution

Noise has many effects on humans, including hearing loss, non-auditory physiological
effects, sleep disruption, annoyance, communication interference, and other effects.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss

Exposure to sufficiently intense noise for a long enough duration results in damage to the
inner ear and thus decreases one's ability to hear. In addition to a general decrease in the ability to
detect sounds, the quality and clarity of auditory perception can be affected, as well. While these
effects are often temporary, it is not uncommon for some residual permanent damage to persist for
the remainder of the affected person's life. (Miller, 1979a)

Whether temporary or permanent, hearing loss due to noise exposure primarily affects the
inner ear, especially when the noise is presented over a significant period of time. Specifically, it is
the organ of corti that is most commonly affected (Bugliarello, Alexandre, Barnes, & Wakstein, 1976;
Miller, 1979a). (View discussion of the anatomy and physiology of the ear). Sataloff (1965)
describes the effect, "sound induced motion of the fluid in the cochlea induces shearing and bending
movements of the hair cells in the Organ of Corti, which, in turn, result in electrical stimuli
transmitted by the auditory nerve. Prolonged and excessive noise eventually produces deterioration
and, finally destruction of hair cells, and thus disrupts the sound transmission mechanism" (p. 225).
Liberman (1990) continues, "the most vulnerable elements in the ear are the sensory cells
themselves, in particular their stereocilia and the rootlets which anchor them to the cuticular plate"
(p. 17).

In general, the effects of noise exposure on hearing can be divided into three categories:
acoustic trauma, noise-induced temporary threshold shift (NITTS), and noise-induced permanent
threshold shift (NIPTS). Acoustic trauma, which results from a single or relatively few exposures, is
defined as "immediate organic damage to the ear from excessive sound energy" (Melnick, 1979, p.
9-1). If the noise is intense enough, other structures outside the inner ear may also be affected, such
as the eardrum, which may become ruptured. However, Miller (1979a) notes that such damage is
rare, and occurs only in instances involving "extremely intense noise and blasts" (p. 114).
Additionally, acoustic trauma often causes some degree of permanent damage to the auditory
system (Melnick).
 The second and third types of effects on the hearing system that are produced by noise,
NITTS and NIPTS, involve an increase in a person's auditory threshold. That is, a person's auditory
sensitivity decreases. The difference between these two effects is that in NITTS the threshold
eventually returns to its original level, whereas in NIPTS the threshold shift is permanent. Thus, a
person with NIPTS has "no possibility of further recovery" (Melnick, 1979, p. 9-1). Though NIPTS
can sometimes result from acoustic trauma, as described above, it more often results from long
periods of repeated exposure to noise. This exposure is often the result of one's occupation
(Hallberg, 1996), and hearing damage has been shown to increase with higher average occupational
noise levels (van Dijk, Souman, and de Vries, 1987).

Non-Auditory Physiological Effects

In addition to its effects on hearing, noise has also been implicated as having other
physiological effects. Indeed, according to Ruback, Pandey, and Begum (1997), "individuals who
complain about environmental stressors are probably also more likely to complain about other
aspects of their life, including their health" (p. 29). Specifically, non-auditory physiological effects of
noise pollution that have been identified thus far include cardiovascular, autonomic, and gastric
effects. Further, it appears that noise can exert its non-auditory effects independent of hearing loss.
For example, Peterson et al. (1981) effectively raised the blood pressure of rhesus monkeys by
exposing them to elevated noise levels that did not decrease their auditory sensitivity.

The first category of non-auditory physiological effects includes effects on the

cardiovascular system. In 1977, Knipschild and Oudshoorn indirectly demonstrated this effect by
noting an increase in antihypertensive medication consumption in a village near an airport that
correlated with an increase in aircraft traffic. A control village that was not near the airport did not
demonstrate an increase in cardiovascular medication consumption during the same period.

The cardiovascular effects of noise have been the most abundantly researched non-auditory
noise effects. According to Abel (1990), "loud noise. . . is purported to cause vasoconstriction with a
consequent increase in blood pressure. This leads in turn to smooth muscle hypertrophy, narrower
lumen in small vessels, and increased resistance to blood flow. The end result is hypertension" (p.
5). To investigate this effect, both laboratory and field studies have been conducted.

First, field studies have often been utilized to study the hypertensive effects of noise. These
field studies can take place in either a community setting or an occupational setting. In an example
of an occupational field study, Melamed and colleagues (1997) "studied the association between
industrial noise exposure, noise annoyance, and serum lipid/lipoprotein levels in male. . . and
female. . . blue-collar workers" (p. 292). The researchers concluded that "exposure to high industrial
noise levels may be a risk factor for [cardiovascular disease] via increased plasma lipids" (p. 296),
especially in younger male workers. Van Dijk, Verbeek, and de Fries (1987) and van Dijk, Souman,
and de Vries (1987) also studied the non-auditory effects of noise in industrial occupational
settings, but in neither case was a relationship found. In his review of occupational studies, van Dijk
(1990) then concludes that "in about half of the studies a positive relation [between occupational
noise levels and blood pressure] has been found. . . . Unfortunately, still no definite conclusions can
be drawn" (p. 285). Thus, although occupational noise appears to be involved with cardiovascular
disease, more research is needed before any definite conclusions can be drawn.

Community field studies have also attempted to demonstrate a relationship between noise
and cardiovascular effects. For example, Otten, Schulte, and von Eiff (1990) studied healthy
individuals who moved to residential areas in the city of Bonn that had either high traffic noise
levels or low traffic noise levels. The results indicated that the people who moved to the noisier area
were more likely to develop high blood pressure than the people who moved to the quieter area.
Again, as in Melamed et al.'s occupational noise study discussed above, this relationship was
stronger in males than in females. On the other hand, a study conducted by Pulles, Biesiot, and
Stewart (1990) did not find a relationship between community noise and blood pressure. Thus,
again it appears there may be a relationship between noise and cardiovascular effects, though the
current research has proved somewhat inconclusive. Futher, Pulles et al. speculate that coping style
may influence one's sensitivity to noise, while von Gierke and Harris (1990) speculate that attitude
toward noise may be an influencing factor.

In addition to field studies, laboratory studies have also been conducted to study the
relationship between noise and cardiovascular effects. An example of such as study includes one
that was described by Abel (1990), in which volunteers were confined to a dormitory and exposed
to pulsed tones over the course of 30 days. In this study, plasma cortisol and blood cholesterol levels
increased with increases in noise beyond 85 dB, an effect that persisted for several days after the
noise was ceased. Another study described in the same article found that diastolic but not systolic
blood pressure was higher in subjects exposed to higher noise levels, an effect that was independent
of family history of hypertension.

Autonomic effects have also been implicated in noise research, in addition to cardiovascular
effects. For example, Levi (1966) found that urinary adrenaline and noradrenaline levels were
higher in subjects who were exposed to short durations of noise and that in some cases "the
changes bordered on the pathological" (p. 68). However, when exposed to similar noise levels over a
relatively long period of time, adrenaline and noradrenaline levels changed very little. Thus, it
appears that habituation may be involved in the autonomic effects of noise. Further, while in many
cases noise levels do not appear to correlate with various hormonal activities (Burns, 1979), this
area of study should not be overlooked.

Exposure to noise can lead to gastric changes, as well. For example, Bugliarello et al. (1976)
describes a study in which exposure to 80 dB noise levels resulted in a reduction in stomach
contraction strength. Additionally, Burns (1979) discuss the results of a study in which subjects
who were unable to control their noise environment experienced increased gastrointestinal motility
compared to subjects who could shut the noise off by pushing a switch. Thus, although research on
this topic is somewhat sparse, it appears that noise can lead to changes in one's gastrointestinal
system. And because gastric changes are related to ulcers, Bugliarello et al. (1976) and Bragdon
(1972) both suggest that noise may be related to ulcer development, as well.

Effects on Sleep
 It is common knowledge that noise can disturb sleep (that's why we use alarm clocks). In
fact, a study published in 1963 by McKennell reported that 40 percent of the London residents who
were interviewed had been awakened by aircraft noise at least "occasionally," and since the volume
of air traffic has certainly increased substantially since then, it is likely that even more people are
affected now. Additionally, Knipschild and Oudshoorn (1977) found that increased levels of noise
from aircraft were associated with an increased use of sedatives by people in a village near an
airport, further indicating that aircraft noise disrupts sleep. And air traffic is not the only culprit;
Thiessen and Olson (1968) found that most of their subjects were awakened by 70 dB truck noises,
which Bugliarello et al. (1976) consider "a comparatively modest intensity" (p. 44). Further, Abel
(1990) describes several studies, including laboratory studies and home studies, and found that in
almost all cases increased levels of noise were associated with sleep disturbances, including shorter
sleep duration, more frequent awakenings, downward shifts in sleep stages, and increased sleep
latency (i.e. difficulty in falling asleep).

Bugliarello et al. (1976) describe several factors that affect sleep disturbance: factors
involving the stimulus itself (e.g. type of noise, repetition, duration, intensity, etc.), the stage of sleep
at which the stimulus occurs, and individual variables (e.g. state of health, motivation to wake, etc.).

First, sleep disturbance by noise is affected by characteristics of the noise itself. For
example, stimulus intensity is related to sleep disturbance, with more intense stimuli awakening
people more often. However, disturbance thresholds vary widely among people, with some people
being disturbed by levels as low as 35 dB and others being able to sleep through 90 dB levels. And a
person's threshold depends on the type of stimulus, as well. For example, it appears that most
people can sleep through 60 dB of aircraft noise, but only 40 dB of street traffic noise (Bugliarello et
al., 1976).

Another factor affecting sleep disturbance is the stage of sleep during which a noise occurs.
In general, it requires greater intensity stimuli to awaken people in the deeper stages of sleep, and
REM sleep appears to be particularly easy to disturb (Berry and Thiessen, 1970). However, this can
sometimes be avoided by incorporating the stimulus into dreams, which occurs most often in REM
sleep.

Individual variables also affect noise's ability to awaken a person. For example, lower
intensities of noise are generally required to awaken people as they grow progressively older. Thus,
an elderly person is more likely to be awakened by a given stimulus than a young adult in a similar
situation. Additionally, motivation to wake must also be considered, as must a person's state of
health, since certain disorders (e.g. depression) are known to affect sleep behavior. Further, people
have been shown to be capable of habituating to various stimuli that they encounter repeatedly (i.e.
they "get used to it"), especially stimuli that are lower in frequency and that are similar to stimuli
encountered during the waking day. However, according to Bugliarello et al. (1976) "adaptation to
noise during sleep is at best very limited" (p. 62).

Annoyance
 One of the most salient effects of noise on humans is annoyance, which Molino (1979)
defines with the statement, "a noise is said to be annoying if an exposed individual or a group of
individuals would reduce the noise, avoid, or leave the noisy area if possible" (p. 16-1). And as
Miller (1979a) points out, annoyance "is distinct from judgments of loudness and perceived
noisiness. . . . [It] is a response to noise rather than a dimension of auditory experience" (p. 137).

Annoyance due to noise depends on many factors, including several parameters of the noise
itself. For example, louder noises are generally more annoying than quieter noises (e.g. van Dijk,
Verbeek, & de Fries, 1987), though two sounds with equal intensity (i.e. loudness) may still result in
different levels of annoyance. Indeed, patterned sounds appear to be less annoying than sounds that
are randomly produced (Bragdon, 1972). Also, noises that are higher in pitch are generally rated as
more annoying than lower-frequency noise. And finally, annoyance depends on the regularity of the
noise. That is, noises that remain constant in pitch (Bragdon, 1972) and intensity (Molino, 1979)
are generally rated as less annoying than noises that change in pitch or intensity.

Another factor affecting annoyance appears to be the source of the noise. For example, it
appears that noise produced by street traffic is less annoying than equally-intense noise that is
produced by aircraft (Kryter, 1982), an effect that was observed by Hall and colleagues (1981), as
well. As such, much of the research on noise-induced annoyance has focused on aircraft noise (Abel,
1990; Miller, 1979a).

There are other factors that influence noise-induced annoyance, as well. For example, Miller
(1979a) asserts that noise of a given intensity is more annoying during the night than during the
day, an effect that was also observed by Gyr and Grandjean (1984). Additionally, the neighborhood
that one is in is also important to consider. That is, for a given noise exposure, annoyance is greatest
in rural areas, followed by suburban, urban, residential, commercial, and industrial areas in
decreasing order of annoyance. And noise appears to be more annoying in the summer than in the
winter (Miller, 1979a).

Finally, it is important to consider the influence of individual characteristics on noise,

especially attitude. According to Miller (1979a), "highly annoyed persons are likely to believe that
those responsible for the noise are not concerned about those being exposed to the noise, and they
are also likely to believe that the source of noise is not of great importance to the economic and
social success of the community" (p. 137). Additionally, "highly annoyed persons are likely to have
negative attitudes toward many kinds of noise; to be generally sensitive to irritation produced by
noise; to believe that their neighbors share their annoyance; to say that they would be unwilling to
accept further increases in noise levels; and to believe that noise is a health hazard" (pp. 137-138).
Further, it does not appear that annoyance due to noise pollution exhibits habituation. That is,
continued exposure to noise does not appear to decrease annoyance. Rather, it appears that in some
cases continued exposure to noise actually increases annoyance (Abel, 1990; Borsky, 1970).

In addition, it appears that the annoying effects of noise are cross-cultural. Indeed, Abel
(1990) states that there is "high similarity of community reactions to changes in noise exposure
level" and that the annoying effect of noise "does not appear to be significantly influenced by
nationality" (p. 9).
Communication Interference

Noise pollution can have a considerable effect on communication. According to Berglund

and Hassmen (1996), "there can be no doubt that noise can mask speech" (p. 2994). And as Miller
(1979a) points out, even when speech is accurately understood, background noise may result in
"greater pains of the part of the talker and listener than otherwise would be needed" (p. 124).

Many factors contribute to the effect of noise on communication interference. For example,
according to Berglund and Hassmen (1996), noise that has a similar frequency to speech will mask
it better than noise at other frequencies, especially higher frequencies, since lower frequency noise
is capable of an "upward spread" (p. 2994) that is rather effective at masking speech.

Miller (1979a) discusses several other factors affecting noise-induced speech interference.
For example, communication that involves a higher ratio of speech intensity to noise intensity is
more likely to be understood. In addition, speech content is also important, since a person that is
trying to convey personal information is less likely to raise his or her voice to compensate for
background noise. As a result, personal information is less likely to be understood. This also relates
to another influencing factor, culture, which governs how close two people can be to each other.
Since two people who are close together have a higher speech to noise intensity ratio than two
people who are farther apart, people in cultures that emphasize personal space are more likely to
encounter communication difficulties in noisy situations.

Another factor influencing communication interference is the age of the people involved.
Specifically, because children have poorer articulation skills than adults, "their lack of vocabulary or
different concepts of the rules of language may render speech unintelligible when some of the cues
in the speech stream are lost" (Miller, 1979a, p. 125). Thus, noisy conditions are more likely to
interfere with the speech of children than with that of adults. Additionally, the ability to understand
partially masked or distorted speech appears to begin deteriorating at around the age of 30. Thus,
"the older the listener, the lower the background noise must be for practical or satisfactory
communication" (p. 125).

Spatial factors also contribute to communication interference, in that noises that are
produced in areas containing highly reverberant materials become less localized, resulting in
greater interference with communication. Further, situational factors are also important in their
influence on message predictability and on the availability of non-verbal cues. That is, predictable
messages can often be understood despite highly noisy backgrounds, such as the snap count of an
NFL quarterback in a noisy stadium, whereas less predictable messages are more poorly
understood, such as speech about unexpected situations that firemen encounter during a fire.
Though forms of non-verbal communication such as lip-reading or bodily gestures are often utilized
to compensate for such noisy environments, these again are more efficient in conveying predictable
information, and may not be very useful regarding unexpected events. Further, some situations
preclude the use of such forms of communication, such as situations often encountered by firemen
in which their visibility is limited due to smoke and as a result lip-reading and gesturing are useless.
(Miller, 1979a)
 Noise can obviously be very hazardous, in that it can preclude the conveyance of vital life-
saving information. However, it is the more benign, everyday conversation that is more often what is
disrupted by noise. This is not to say, though, that such disruption is not damaging. On the contrary,
everyday conversation disruptions can lead to increased annoyance and anxiety (Bragdon, 1972),
and as result may indirectly contribute to physiological complications such as the non-auditory
physiological effects discussed previously.

Other Effects

There are many other effects of noise other than those discussed thus far, and some of these
innumerable effects involve cognitive performance, occupational performance, psychological
functioning, effects on prosocial behavior, and effects on aggression.

Various aspects of cognitive performance have been demonstrated to be related to noise,

and Abel (1990) reviews several studies that have demonstrated such effects. For example, several
studies reviewed by Abel indicated that recall is detrimentally affected by background noise, though
this effect has not been invariably demonstrated (Broadbent, 1979). Other studies reviewed by Abel
indicated that vigilance and attention are also impaired by noise, an effect that was also found by
van Dijk, Souman, and de Vries (1987). Additionally, even if a person performs well on a cognitive
task, there may be other costs, including a "reduced psychological [or] physiological capacity to
react to additional demands and increased fatigue after completion of the task" (Miller, 1979a, p.
140).

Occupational performance can also be hindered by noise, which can exert its influence
either directly or indirectly through annoyance or job dissatisfaction (Abel, 1990). Although many
early studies indicated that industrial workers were capable of performing their work tasks
unhindered by noise, more recent research has indicated otherwise. For example, Bragdon (1972)
states that noise impairs occupational performance mainly when it is unexpected and unfamiliar to
the worker. Further, Bragdon also reports that in situations involving noise levels over 90 dB "there
are increases in errors and in failures to notice unexpected events" (p. 231) in tasks requiring
continuous attention. In addition, Broadbent (1979) also asserts that occupational tasks involving
sensory input can also be hindered by noise.

Noise can have other psychological effects, as well. For example, there are many cases of
noise apparently driving a person to insanity, including this account by Bugliarello et al. (1976): "In
a quiet part of Middlesex with an ambient noise level of 30 to 40 decibels lived Fred, a lusty, healthy
builders labourer. The M4 Motorway was built within a few feet of his cottage home. The resultant
traffic caused the noise level to rise to 80 and 90 decibels. . . . He took it for some weeks. Discovered
there was nothing he could do about it and his action was also directed against the self. He left a
note which read 'The Noise; the Noise; I just couldn't stand the Noise'" (p. 71). In addition, Stansfeld
(1992) reviews several studies that demonstrated a relationship between higher rates of
psychiatric morbidity and noise, at least within certain subgroups. However, Reijneveld (1994)
found that following an aircraft disaster, though nearby residents exhibited a heightened sensitivity
to noise, this expression of fear did not lead to widespread psychiatric disorders. Further, Stansfeld
also reached the conclusion that research has demonstrated "so far that noise per se in the
community at large does not seem to be a frequent, sever, pathogenic factor in causing mental
illness," though it can be associated "with symptomatic response in selected subgroups of the
population" (p. 5), such as professionals and college graduates.

Other psychological effects of noise are also described by Bugliarello et al. (1976), such as
increased irritability and problems of adjustment to hearing loss. First, irritability appears to be
related to noise, though perhaps indirectly through hearing loss. That is, "it is not as much noise
that makes people irritable as the hearing loss" (Bugliarello et al., p. 72). Additionally, Jansen
(1959) found that individuals who worked in very noisy jobs reported a higher occurrence of
problems with interpersonal relationships, perhaps further implicating noise as an indirect cause of
irritability due to hearing loss. In addition, it appears that individuals who suffer from less than
severe hearing loss have less severe psychological ramifications than individuals with severe
hearing loss (Bugliarello et al.).

Another effect of noise on humans is that it appears to hinder prosocial behavior. For
example, Sherrod and Downs (1974) found that participants who were subjected to 15 minutes of
noise completed about half as many problems as a favor for a confederate than the control
participants did. Stimulus overload was presented as a possible explanation for the observed effect.
Additionally, Matthews and Canon (1975) also demonstrated experimentally that "with increasing
ambient noise levels, the likelihood of simple helping behavior decreases" (p. 575). Further, after
reviewing the research, Broadbent (1979) concluded that "there is more risk of hostile behavior in
noise" (p. 17-16). For example, the results of one experiment reviewed by Broadbent showed that
subjects were more likely to shock a confederate if given the opportunity to in higher noise level
conditions than in lower noise level conditions, but only if provoked by an insult from the
confederate.

Finally, noise can cause property and environmental damage, especially when sonic booms
are involved. For example, Bragdon (1972) asserts that people who live near airports not only
complain about sleep disruption, but that they also report damage to their homes due to subsonic
commercial flights. Additionally, although commercial supersonic flights are rather uncommon,
sonic booms associated with the flight of smaller supersonic military planes have reportedly
resulted in property damage, as well. Further, a report cited in Bragdon also claims that sonic
booms have damaged the natural landscape and prehistoric cliff dwellings in two national parks in
the United States.

Conclusions

Noise is produced by almost everything we humans do. It makes sense, then, that we would
get used to it. But unfortunately this attitude also leads us to accept excessive and damaging
amounts of noise. Exposure to noise no louder than people shouting for eight hours a day, five days
a week can lead to substantial hearing loss in a matter of a few years, yet we continue to work and
allow others to work amidst heavy machinery, impact tools, and screaming turbofan jet engines.
And we live along approach paths to the major airports of the world (view image). We accept
hearing loss as a part of the normal aging process, even though in many cases it doesn't have to be.
 Many of the problems discussed here are the result of ignorance, and that is where this
website fits into the scheme of things. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is a lonely, frustrating bliss
when you can't hear a word spoken to you unless it's shouted. Educating oneself may not guarantee
a lifetime of good hearing, but it certainly gives a person better odds. And the people around them,
too. A parent educated in safe auditory practices has kids who will grow up in a safe environment
and who will learn safe auditory practices themselves. And maybe with enough educated parents,
teachers, co-workers, and policy-makers our children and our children's children won't have to
grow up in an annoying world, a world where it is difficult to communicate, a world where noise-
induced hearing loss is accepted as part of the normal aging process.

The interested reader is encouraged to consult the abundance of other websites on the topic
of noise pollution and related issues

SITE: http://www.macalester.edu/academics/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Audition/site/bj.html

Research Article:

Environmental Noise Pollution Monitoring and Impacts On Human Health in Dehradun City,
Uttarakhand, India.

By: Singh Vartika, Dev Pramendra

Abstract

Noise pollution monitoring and environmental impacts on human health in Dehradun City
of India are discussed. Major source of noise pollution includes transportation and frequent use of
horn in vehicles. Dehradun is at a cross road and prominent national institutions like Survey of
India, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Forest Research Institute, Indian Military Academy, Indian
Institute of Remote Sensing, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Central and State Government
offices are changing Dehradun into a busy, economically active vibrant city. Noise pollution levels
(50.70 82.54 dB) more than recommended permissible limits (30 -75 dB) are observed in the
Survey Chock, Prince Chock, Saharanpur Chock, Gandhi Park and Clock Tower. Exposure to high
levels of noise cause stress on human health such as auditory, nervous system, insomnia, hearing
loss, reducing efficiency, sexual impotency, cardio-vascular, respiratory, neurological damages and
limiting the human life. The execution of an appropriate management strategy for limiting noise
pollution on affected sites is recommended.

Keywords: Environmental monitoring, Noise pollution, Human health, Dehradun,

Uttarakhand, India.

1. Introduction

Environment has been described as that surrounds an individual or community, including

both the physical and cultural surroundings. It is also sometimes used to designate a certain set of
the circumstances surrounding a particular occurrence for example, environment of the deposition
(Keller, 1976). According to Coates (1981) the environmental geology is a mission oriented and
problem solving discipline. Valdiya (1987) remarked that the geologist plays a very crucial role in
understanding, preserving, ameliorating and restoring the natural environment, and considered
that environmental geology is an integrated application of geology for the benefit of man and his
living and inanimate world.

The natural environment is one of the most valued elements of Dehradun city, being placed
in the attractive Doon Valley that is having the Himalayas to its north, the Shivalik range to its south,
the sacred river Ganga to its east and the river Yamuna to its west. Dehradun area (latitudes 30 15'
to 30 30' N; longitudes 78 00' to 78 15' E; Survey of India, toposheet no. 53J/3) is surrounded by
river Song on the east, river Tons on the west, Himalayan ranges on the north and Sal forests in the
south. Dehradun is bordered by dense forest all around and number of streams and canals dissect
the city in the north-south direction. The high hills in the east and north and Shivalik in the south
present an interesting topographical setting to the city. All the hill ranges around Dehradun are rich
in limestone reserves. The demands and challenges of development and preservation of its rich
natural environment require to be met concurrently. The present environmental pollution problems
are universal in almost all the countries. Road traffic, jet planes, garbage trucks, construction
equipment, manufacturing processes, and lawn movers are some of the major sources of this
unwanted sound that are routinely transmitted in to the air (Birgitta & Lindvall, 1995). All these
problems are resulting as a consequence of rapid growth of population, self centered human
mentality, fast life style, no of vehicles, use of large number of instruments in daily life, excessive
exploitation of natural resources, rapid rate of urbanization and industrialization. In the present
scenario, noise is becoming an increasingly source of discomfort and danger in the vicinity of
Dehradun city.

1.1 Concept of noise pollution

The simple expression of term noise is an unnecessary sound and important form of energy,
which is emitted by a vibrating body and on reaching the ear causes sensation of hearing through
nervous system. The noise generally consists of three inter-related elements - the source, receiver
and transmission path followed by the noise to reach receiver. This transmission path is usually the
atmosphere through which sound is propagated, but can include structural materials of any
building containing the receiver. Discrimination and differentiation between sound and noise also
depends upon the habit and interest of the person or species receiving it, the ambient conditions
and impact of the sound generated during that particular duration of time. Singh & Davar, (2004)
explained that the noise is an unwanted sound that may cause some psychological and physical
stress to the living and non-living objects exposed to it.

At present, noise pollution is considered as one of the key problems of urban communities
that has numerous hazardous effects on the urban environment and may result in a great deal of
costs on the society (Martin et al., 2006; Chien & Shih, 2007). Gangwar (2006) described that the
increasing number of vehicles, musical instruments, small scale industries, urbanization and human
activities are the main sources of noise pollution. Traffic noise levels increase with increasing
density of traffic related with the traffic composition, the road slope, width, and surface structure
distance to crossroad (Williams & McCrae, 1995). Important factors affecting noise values are
continuity of the city centre traffic, and the dimension, position, and surface materials of roads with
city centre crossroad signal system (Tang & Tong, 2004). Traffic can be considered as the major
source of noise pollution in large cities (Jamarah et al., 2006; Murthy et al., 2007; Omidvari & Nouri,
2009).

Hence, the term Noise refers to a sound without agreeable musical quality or as an
unwanted or undesired sound. Noise is no less a pollutant than the toxic chemicals in the
environment. As a result of increasing mechanization, the use of increasingly voluminous and
complicated machinery, equipment and the stepping up of the pace of production, the noise is
becoming an increasingly widespread and serious source of discomfort and danger (Singh & Dev,
2010). The noise is commonly measured as sound intensity that is determined in terms of the
pressure of sound waves on the eardrums, and the scale is logarithmic. Loudness of sound
corresponds to the degree of sensation depending on the intensity of sound and sensitivity of ear
(Garg et.al., 2007). The unit of sound intensity measurement is decibel (dB) and each decibel rise
depicts ten-fold increase in sound intensity. The permissible noise tolerance levels are displayed
(Table 1). Noise is causing environmental pollution as well as human health hazards.

2. Noise pollution analysis

Deharadun city is facing noise pollution majorly because of being the capital of Uttarakhand
state, where several major government offices and people have shifted, good job opportunities and
facilities are available and hence people intend to prefer to reside here, which create extra pressure
on the environmental scenario of the city. In order to realize concrete reasons of the noise pollution
in Deharadun city, it is necessary to study the road network, transport system, escalating number of
vehicles and rising rate of population growth that plays a vital role in the physical, social and
economic development of the city.

2.1. Increase in population and vehicles

Dehradun is one of the most important city and capital of new born state of Uttaranchal and
is situated at the nodal point of roads connecting it to the other part of the country. Geographically
the valley lies between latitude 29 55N and 38 30N, longitude 77 35E and 78 20E covering an
area of about 3088 sq. km, with a population of 12, 82,143 (2001 census). The grim situation of
tremendous increase in number of vehicles is generating multiple problems such as encroachment,
poor parking facilities, poor condition of roads, no control system of passing heavy traffic through
the city, no facility of bypass or flyovers connecting the main roads from border of the city.
Therefore, traffic has to bear the load of local traffic as well as heavy traffic passing through the core
of city without concern (Singh & Dev, 2010). In the past, Dehradun city was having slow moving
traffic namely the bicycles, rickshaws etc., but at present, the senario has totaly changed, and city
traffic is mainly occupied by the heavy vehicles, motor-cycles, vikram (type of auto-mobile), cars
and others generating the noise pollution.

2.2. Road network

The road network of the Dehradun city has been categorized into three types: (1) Zonal and
inter-zonal roads, (2) Main city roads, and (3) Local roads. In the present effort, the noise pollution
data have been recorded in the silence zone, residential zone and commercial zone of Dehradun city
during the period from 2008 to 2010. The noise data have been measured with the help of D. B.
Meter and are displayed herein (Table 2, Figure 1).

2.3 Effects of noise pollution

Noise causes significant impact on the quality of life and health ailments, such as
cardiovascular tribulations, hypertension, increased levels of diabetes, changes in social behavior
and induces the depressive tendencies. The disorders of human, animal and plant bodies due to the
noise pollution are described in the following lines:

Human Efficiency - Regarding the impact of noise on human efficiency there are number of
experiments, which shows that the human efficiency increases with noise reduction.
Lack of concentration - For better quality of work there should be concentration, Noise causes
lack of concentration. Mostly all the offices are on main road and the noise of traffic or the
loud speakers of diverse types of horns, divert attention of people working in the offices.
Memory loss - The effects of excessive noise could be so severe that either there is a
permanent loss of memory or a psychiatric disorder (Bond, 1996).
Fatigue - Because of noise pollution, people cannot concentrate on their work. Hence they
spent more time for completing the work and they experience exhaustion.
Digestion problem - The digestion, stomach contractions, flow of saliva and gastric juices all
stop proper working due to the high frequency of noise, because the changes are so marked,
repeated exposure to astonishing noise should be kept to a minimum (Broadbent, 1957).
Abortion crisis - There should be cool and calm atmosphere during the pregnancy. The
unpleasant sounds create a lady to be of irritative nature. Sudden noise causes the abortion.
Blood pressure problem - Noise pollution causes certain diseases in human sue to traffic
noise such as the headache, high blood pressure and other stresses among the exposed
individuals in adjoining working places in Varanasi City (Pathak et al., 2008).
Deafness disaster - The effect of noise on audition is well recognized. Mechanics, locomotive
drivers, telephone operators etc., all have their hearing impairment as a result of noise at the
place of work. Physicians and psychologists are of the view that sustained exposure to noise
level above 80 to 100 dB is risky and thunderous noise causes temporary or permanent
deafness.
Hypertension - Relatively low level of noise affects human health adversely and it may cause
hypertension, disrupt sleep and or hinder cognitive development in children (Kiernan, 1997).
Animals - Noise pollution damage the nervous system of animals. They lose control of the
mind and may become dangerous.
Plants - Noise pollution causes poor quality of crops even in a pleasant atmosphere.

3. Conclusion

This research paper elucidates the levels of noise pollution in different zones in Dehradun
city. The measurements of noise levels have been recorded at the different Silence, Residential and
Commercial zones of the city. The analysis has revealed that noise pollution levels are rather higher
than prescribed Indian Standards at all the examined sites. such as Survey Chock, Clock Tower and
Prince Clock. It is evident from the noise data analysis (Table, 3; Figure 5) that during the months of
September to March, noise pollution of the Dehradun city is higher than in comparison to other
months of the year. This could be due to celebrations of the festivals and marriages during this
period. It is not possible to impose a ban on the celebrations in the society, however, the use of
higher frequency loud speakers should be allowed for specified period only.

Suggested that frequent use of the vikram may be prohibited principally in the city area,
because horn and music from auto rickshaw or vikram generate noise as well as air pollution.
Implementation of a scheme for plantation of trees and buffer zones must be shaped in diverse
parts of the city. People can be consistently educated through newspapers, magazines, radios,
televisions, and exhibiting adds in cinema halls relating to reduce noise pollution. The regular
monitoring of pollution, proper maintenance of vehicles, ban on use of old vehicles, plantation,
widening of roads and public awareness are the most vital, and essential measures to be
implemented in order to improve present status of environmental entity in the Dehradun City.

Evaluation of noise pollution caused by vehicles in the city of Tokat, Turkey

Introduction

Noise pollution is recognized as a major problem for the quality of life in urban areas all
over the world. Because of the increase in the number of cars and industrialization, noise pollution
has also increased. Noise in cities, especially along main arteries, has reached up disturbing levels.
Residences far from noise sources and near silent secondary roads are currently very popular.
People prefer to live in places far from noisy urban areas (Ylmaz and zer, 1998).

Many surveys addressing the problem of noise pollution in many cities throughout the
world have been conducted (Li et al., 2002; Morillas et al., 2005; Zannin et al., 2002; Alberola, 2005;
Lebiedowska, 2005; Pucher, 2005; Tansatcha et al., 2005), and have shown the scale of discomfort
that noise causes in peoples lives (Butcha and Vos, 1998; Kura et al., 1999; Ali and Tamura, 2003;
Marius et al., 2005). Depending on its duration and volume, the effects of noise on human health
and comfort are divided into four categories; physical effects, such as hearing defects; physiological
effects, such as increased blood pressure, irregularity of heart rhythms and ulcers; psychological
effects, such as disorders, sleeplessness and going to sleep late, irritability and stress; and finally
effects on work performance, such as reduction of productivity and misunderstanding what is heard
(Job, 1996; Evans and Hygge, 2000; Stansfeld et al., 2000; Passchier-Vermeer and Passchier, 2000;
Quis, 2001; Marius, 2005).

In Turkey, noise is beginning to be considered as one of the main environmental problems

(Ylmaz and zer, 2005). With the increase in urbanization and the number of cars, especially after
1980s, noise reached up a disturbing volume in Turkish cities. Several studies have been carried out
in Turkey and the world to determine noise levels in big cities. The city of Tokat is a small city in
terms of its population. This study was planned to determine the extents of noise levels in a small
Anatolian city and suggest solutions. Anatolia (continental) Regions and mean temperature in the
city is 12.3C. According to the census in 2000, population of the city is 113,100 (nal, 2004).
Population increase was faster especially after 1990 (Figure 2). Depending on the population
increase and economic development, the number of vehicles has begun to increase since especially
1980s and in 2000s this increase became more apparent (Figure 3). Although the city had an
agriculture- dependent economy, over the last few years it has become a service, industry and trade
centre. The settlement form of the city is given in the Figure 4.

Figure 1. Location map of the city of Tokat.

Figure 2. Population increase of the city of Tokat over years.

 Figure 3. Increase in the number of vehicles in the city of Tokat over years.

Methods

The first step of the study was to select the main streets and roads in the city. In order to
determine the measurement points, primary and secondary streets of the city were surveyed
before the study. Thus, noise pollution was determined in seven main streets and vehicle number
was counted on the pre-determined roads and streets and by this way, primary and secondary
streets where noise problem was thought to take place were determined (Piccolo et al., 2005). In
addition, vehicle number according to their types was obtained from citys traffic administration. On
these streets, the most suitable 65 measurement points were selected in the light of observations
and data obtained. Thirty three of 65 measurement points were on the primary streets and 22 are
on the secondary streets (Figure 5). Measurements were performed on Monday, Wednesday and
Friday. Noise measurements were conducted at five different points in a street. Data from 65
selected points were obtained at a height between 1.20 m and at a distance 2 - 3 m from noise
sources as defined by the previous studies of Ramis et al. (2003), http://poweracoustics.com
(2009), Piccolo et al. (2005) and Jamrah et al. (2005). Measurements were carried out through a
sonometer, Anoloque Cel 254 K2. Erroneous situations tried to be prevented by calibrating
sonometre. At each measurement points, totally 50 noise values were recorded in five seconds by
taking one noise value in every six seconds. Because the obtained raw data was given according to
the limit value of Turkish noise control regulation, Leq and sound ranges are wide in traffic noise,
values were converted into Leq Measurements were performed considering noise control
regulation in Turkey and WHO and international standards used in previous studies (NCI, 1986;
ISO, 1996; WHO, 1999; Gaja et al., 2003). Leq represents the equivalent energy sound level of a
steady-state and invariable sound. It includes both intensity and length of all sounds occurring
during a given period (Piccolo et al., 2005). Measurements were done out when the effects on the
noise sources of variable factors were at minimum. All the data were obtained on weekdays and
under suitable meteorological con- ditions, that is, in the absent of wind and rain. Because the
transportation distances in the city were short, the noise measurement intervals were also short.
For this reason, values density is higher than that at other hours.

Statistical evaluation was done on the results of the noise measurements. A variance
analysis procedure was applied to the data through SPSS software programme. Duncan Multiple
Range Test was used to compare the significance of the differences between the mean values.

A noise map of the city was created after the evaluation of the data and the results of the
study were transferred in to the map. Noise map showed totally four different classifications
considering the values lower than 55 dB(A), which are not seen as problematic; 55-65 dB(A), which
are permitted values; 65-75 dB(A), which are higher values and 75 dB(A), which is the highest
value. The obtained noise values were grouped and similar groups were combined. From this map,
by determining the reasons for noise in the area where it was high, measures to be taken against
noise were proposed.

Results

Evaluations on noise Measurement were based on limit value of 65 dB(A) in noise control
regulation in Turkey and international standards used in previous studies (EPA, 1978; NCI, 1986;
ISO, 1996; EUC, 1986]) and it was found that allowed limit values were exceeded at 50 of 65
measurement points. In the city, excessive noise levels were found on especially primary streets
(Figure 4). Among 65 measurement points, 31 were on primary streets and the rest on main (1
road) roads. Noise values were beyond the 65 dB(A) limit value on 30 measurement points on
primary streets and 20 on secondary streets. The highest noise value (81.6 dB(A)) was determined
on the 2nd Street while the lowest (49.1 dB(A)) was on the road next to suburban area. Noise
exceeded the 65 dB(A) allowed limit values in six of seven primary streets in the city. On most of
these streets, noise level was over Leq = 70 dB(A). These were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 7th streets,
important parts of the city. The highest noise values were recorded on the 1st street with 77.1
dB(A). On only one of these seven streets, 6th street, the noise level was below the limit value of 65
dB(A) with 60.6 dB(A). Differences between noise levels of streets were found to be statistically
significant (P < 0.01). While allowed limit value of 65 dB(A) was exceeded at 50 (76.9%) of 65
selected measurement points, at 15(23.1%) of them, values were found to be in the allowed range
(Table 1).
 Figure 5. Noise measurement points in the city of
Figure 4. Settling form of the city of Tokat. Tokat .
 Street bearing the heaviest traffic load was the 1st street. On this street, 2,248 vehicles on the
average passed in an hour. Among the various vehicles passing on the street in an hour, 1,714 were
automobiles, followed by minibus and bus 298 and 36 vehicles (Figure 6). Of the noise levels obtained
from the points on seven streets, values of 1st, 4th, 5th and 7th streets were found to be statistically very
significant while those of 2nd, 3rd and 6th were not significant compared to limit value. Differences
between the noise levels were found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05; Table 2).

Overall noise chart was prepared on the basis of the measurements conducted in the city (Figure
7). As can be seen from the chart, along the main streets of the city, 1210 Sci. Res. Essays 2004), Messina
(Piccolo et al., 2005) noise levels exceeded the allowed values. In Turkey, measurements in Adana (Uslu,
l995), Trabzon (Demirel et al., 1997) and especially in the 1st and some parts of the 2nd street noise level
was observed to be above 75 dB(A). Neighborhoods in suburban areas were found to have lower noise
levels.

Table 1. Classification of the noise values at 65 65-69 10 15.4

points. 70-74 11 16.9
75-79 20 30.8
Noise Range (Leq) Measurement %
Points 80 > 9 13.8
50 < 2 3.1 Total 65 100.0
50-54 3 4.6 Table 2. Statistical analysis of the values
55-60 5 7.7
60-64 5 7.7
Streets N X Mean Sd Sig. P
Street 1 5 77.1 2.87402 .001 (a) Xx
Street 2 5 70.86 6.58506 .117 (ab) Ns
Street 3 5 69.64 5.21325 .117 (b) Ns
Street 4 5 70.56 1.00648 .000 (ab) Xx
Street 5 5 74.96 3.91254 .005 (ab) Xx
Street 6 5 60.62 7.79083 .277 (c) Ns
Street 7 5 74.36 4.21224 .008 (ab) Xx
Discussion

There have been many studies on noise levels in recent years in various countries including
Turkey. In one of these studies (Zeid et al., 2000), the noise level in Arrabba, a city in Palestine, was found
to be 67 dB(A), from 20 measuring points. At 60% of these points, the level exceeded 65 dB(A). In
Curitiba in Brazil, at 93% of the measurement points, the noise level was over the limit value of 65 dB(A)
and it was over high noise level of 75 dB(A) at 40.3% of these points (Zannin et al., 2002). In Beijing (Li et
al., 2002) and Cceres (Morillas et al., 2002) Capital Cities (Brown and Bullen, 2003), Assiut (Ali, 2004),
Messina (Piccolo et al., 2005) noise levels exceeded the allowed values. In Turkey, measurements in
Adana (Uslu, l995), Trabzon (Demirel et al., 1997) and Erzurum (Ylmaz and zer, 2005) showed that
noise levels reached significant values.

Similar results with the studies mentioned above were also obtained in Tokat city centre.
Depending on the fast increase in the number of vehicles, noise pollution has reached important levels in
the last fifteen years. On densely utilized roads, the equivalent sound pressure levels can reach up to 75
80 dB(A) (Yoshida et al., 1997). From the measurements, noise levels were found to exceed the limit value
of Leq = 65 dB(A) and reach up to 82.8 dB(A). The noise levels above 65 dB(A) was measured on the 1st,
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th streets, which are the primary streets of the city. The only noise value under 65
dB(A) was determined in the 6th street.

High levels of noise determined on these measurement points are also true across the whole city.
Except for one, at all the points on primary streets and majority of those on secondary streets noise levels
were beyond 65 dB(A). From the statistical analysis, it was found that noise values exceeded permitted
limit of (65 dB(A)) (NCI, 1986) in the six of seven evaluated streets and in four of them differences were
highly significant (P < 0.05).

Although the roads in the city was newly constructed ones and the number of old vehicles was
relatively low; Nevertheless, noise levels were found to be high, which is due to the highway road passing
through the city from West to East. For this reason, a heavy traffic road is seen in the 1st street, which
causes the highest noise level on this street. Because of this density, traffic flow was slow.

Majority (43.0%) of the active city population works in the service sector (nal, 2004). On this
street, service sector of the city was collected. Public service structures susceptible to noise on the 1st
street are exposed to a noise level over 70 - 75 dB(A). Disturbing conditions because of this high noise
level are largely experienced by the people using the facilities such as hospital, school, park and houses
along these roads. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that the acceptable noise
level in a hospital should not exceed 40 dB(A) (Marius et al., 2005).

Planning should be done using the prepared noise map. Success should not be expected from
struggle with the noise pollution without partnership of the people. Ozer et al. 1211
 Figure 7. Noise map of Tokat city.

Conclusion

In Turkey, more attention is now being paid to noise pollution. In most of the studies conducted
on noise pollution so far all over the world, it was found that noise pollution reached considerably high
levels; thus, noise pollution is the candidate for the most important environmental problem of the city.
The outcomes of the study showed that noise values reached up to significant levels even in a small sized
city with a population of 100,000. Although the city of Tokat is a small sized city, noise values were as high
as those in mega and crowded cities.

City centres are the places where noise problems are very high. Similarly noise level in Tokat city
was also found to be high, which is increased by a ring road passing through the city centre. This road
should be out of the city and it should be surrounded by effective plant materials on noise reduction (zer
et al., 2007; Ylmaz and zer, 1998). In addition, long and large vehicles should not pass through the city
centre. Routes of public transportation vehicles should be reorganized so as not to accumulate at one
point in the city. Motor bikes also cause a considerably high noise level; therefore, city people should be
encouraged to use bicycles on their ways to work. In addition, suitable tyre use and the increase in the
volume of noise preventive devices, suitable road covering materials, changing road eleva- tion, increasing
the public awareness can be mentioned among other noise preventive methods (Uslu, 1995).

Therefore, protections related to planning, technical, biological, legislative and educational issues
should be taken in order to avoid negative effects of noise pollution on environment. Noise pollution
levels should be mea- sured continuously, and the critical levels should be kept. Indeed, the most effective
noise control measure is to promote awareness of the population about the risks of daily exposure to high
noise levels.

This study has revealed that even in Tokat one of the small-sized cities, noise pollution has
reached serious levels, showing that the noise has become one of the major environmental problems of
the country to be urgently overcome. Enforcement of more effective regulations and constraints on the
noise problem seems to be promising for the cities in Turkey, which is at the stage of accession
negotiations with European Union.

The Effect Of Noise On Wildlife: A Literature Review

By: Autumn Lyn Radle

Abstract:

Noise pollution, as it effects humans, has been a recognized problem for decades, but the effect of
noise on wildlife has only recently been considered a potential threat to animal health and long-term
survival. Research into the effects of noise on wildlife, which has been growing rapidly since the 1970s,
often presents conflicting results because of the variety of factors and variables that can effect and/or
interfere with the determination of the actual effects that human-produced noise is having on any given
creature. Both land and marine wildlife have been studied, especially in regards to noise in the National
Parks System and the onslaught of human- made cacophony in the oceans from military, commercial and
scientific endeavors.

Most researchers agree that noise can effect an animal's physiology and behavior, and if it
becomes a chronic stress, noise can be injurious to an animal's energy budget, reproductive success and
long-term survival. Armed with this understanding it should follow that humans would attempt to
minimize the threat to wildlife by reducing the amount of noise that they are exposed to in natural areas;
but this has not been the situation. Natural areas continue to be degraded by human-made noise, wildlife
continues to suffer from these disturbances, and to date the majority of the debate revolves around the
egocentric demands of people to either produce more noise in nature (through motorized recreation,
scientific research, military exercises etc.) or experience natural areas in the absence of anthropogenic
noise. Neither side has adequately addressed the issue from the biocentric view of wildlife and the known,
or as yet undiscovered, damage that our increasingly noisy human-altered environment is inflicting upon
them.