PUBLICATION: Bangor Daily News
DATE: July 24, 1997
DATELINE: Bangor, Maine
The Bangor Daily News printed an editorial that discusses the ways in which the personal watercraft industry has started to respond to the irresponsible behavior of many Jet Skiers. The editorial goes on to argue that in the face of strong opposition against personal watercraft on Maine lakes, the industry needs to take more dramatic actions if it doesn't want to see their product banned or restricted on many lakes.
The editorial says that many lake users have clearly had enough of the noise and irresponsible behavior of many Jet Skiers. As they are currently operated, the editorial says, Jet Skis or personal watercraft are the "deerfly of the boating industry." They have attracted many operators who don't understand that lakes are a shared resource, the editorial reports.
Personal watercraft and their drivers have irritated other lake users so much that last year, legislation was introduced to ban the use of the watercraft on many Maine lakes. The bill didn't become law, but other versions of it will return, the editorial opines, as long as irresponsible behavior on the machines continues.
In response to the problem, the personal watercraft industry has started to ask Jet Skiers to use their vehicles more responsibly. One dealership has produced a contract called Ride Smart, Save the Sport, which lays out a 15-point pledge for owners, the editorial reports. Some of the pledges in the contract read as follows:
I will respect the property and rights of others.
I will not ride in one spot for an extended period of time.
I will not follow other boats too closely, especially for the purpose of wake jumping.
I will not make excessive noise.
The editorial goes on to wonder whether Jet Skiers can really follow these rules. Because riders are limited to whooping it up by the boundaries of the lake, they often cannot avoid riding in one spot for extended periods of time because of the size of the lake. And the pledge to not make excessive noise is a problem for the manufacturers, not the drivers, the editorial says.
The editorial argues that the personal watercraft industry deserves credit for starting to work on the problem, but it must do more to avoid a broad ban on the watercraft or a Jet Ski cop at every lake. The editorial suggests that the industry could follow the model of the snowmobile industry, which has worked to bring peer pressure through clubs on reckless drivers. Or, the editorial suggests, a public recognition by the industry that some lakes should be off-limits also would help.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 21, 1997
SECTION: Life & Style; Part E; Page 1; View Desk
BYLINE: Roy Rivenburg
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kenneth Feith, senior scientist and noise specialist, Environmental Protection Agency; Rex Julian Beaber, psychologist and attorney; Raphael Mostel, New York composer; Russell Baker, columnist; Father Rusty Shaughnessy, Franciscan friar, Mission San Luis Rey; Matthew Kelly, Australian Catholic mystic
The Los Angeles Times reports that people tend to avoid silence. Several theories for why this is so include: humans are addicted to audible sensory input, we need noise to replace a lack of spiritual satisfaction, and sound can designate personal space
According to the article, silence was considered important by monks, composers, and scientists in the past.
However, the article reports, absolute silence does not exist for us; in an anechonic chamber -- which absorbs all sound -- we can hear our blood circulating and even our nervous system running. Some can even hear the bones of their fingers rubbing as they move their hands. The quiet room unnerves most people after a few minutes. In World War II and subsequent wars, quiet was sometimes used as torture; nevertheless, some quiet is important for "mental and spiritual well-being."
The article notes several unexpected sources of noise where silence used to be: elevator music, music in restrooms, telephone hold music, even music at cemeteries. In the 1960s, some radio stations started using a machine that removes silence automatically from pre-made tapes. Quieter Broadway plays actually resulted in lower ticket sales. One composer notes that on a recent trip to Switzerland, for several days "he couldn't hear certain birds because 'my ears were closed down from the bombardment of noise at home.'"
The article says that loud car stereos may be an example of how people still like to mark territory sometimes, in this case enveloping oneself in sound.
The article goes on to say that the brain may be addicted to noise, and "that the mind's hunger for information is like the body's drive for food.... The drive that once helped us survive is enslaving us because we can't turn it off." It is suggested that humans are at our best in the "when-and-if" of contemplation, while noise stalls us in the hear and now. However, "a symmetry of both silence and sound is a spiritual or musical way of looking at it."
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: July 22, 1997
SECTION: Local/State, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Gordon Russell
DATELINE: Sarasota, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: William Myers, resident
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports that a group of residents is still opposed to a new flight path for aircraft leaving the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport that will route planes over Longboat Key, near Sarasota, Florida. The Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority several months ago voted 6-2 to approve the new flight pattern, after extensive public hearings that pitted mid-Longboat Key residents against Manatee County residents who hoped to get some relief from aircraft noise. But now William Myers, an unsuccessful 1996 candidate for the authority, has brought the issue back, taxing the patience of the authority members, the article says.
According to the article, Myers took out a large ad in the Herald-Tribune last Friday that urged opponents of the new flight path plan to show up at Monday's airport authority meeting. The ad also accused the authority of "playing Russian roulette in the sky." Opponents responded to the ad and showed up at the meeting, but because the issue was not on the agenda, each side of the issue was given only 15 minutes. Myers and other opponents used the time to say that according to several commercial pilots, the proposed flight paths were "not practical" or even "unsafe," and that board members were playing politics and were not sufficiently worried about safety.
Meanwhile, the article reports that members of the airport authority said their vote was the final word on the subject, and they weren't interested in hearing residents views anymore. Authority member John Keller and Board Chair Rosie Turner, who both voted against the new flight path, said the issue was dead. Authority member Tim Rocklein said, "The more this type of stunt is manufactured, the less tolerant this board will be." Rocklein, also a commercial pilot, added that fears about safety problems with the new flight path are unfounded. Rocklein lives in Manatee County under the proposed flight path, and said he supported the plan even though it would result in more noise at his home. But he said he wouldn't have voted for it if he thought his family could be harmed.
However, Myers vowed after the meeting not to give up. "I will fight them in Sarasota," he said. "I will fight the FAA in Orlando. I will fight them in Atlanta. I will fight them in Washington. I will fight them in the halls of Congress. I have not yet begun to fight."
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: July 24, 1997
SECTION: East; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Tyrone Beason
DATELINE: Duvall, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Janice Belt, Ray Foley, residents
The Seattle Times reports that officials for Northwest Pipeline have announced they will install two large containers around an underground gas pipeline in order to muffle the constant thumping noise that has been disturbing residents in Duvall, Washington. The fix is expected to be installed by late August, the article says.
According to the article, the announcement came at a community meeting last night called by the Woodinville Fire and Life Safety District to review what happened when a valve on the pipeline erupted in June, forcing more than 100 people to be evacuated. However, by the meeting's end, the focus had shifted to the noise of the pipeline. The noise, which some residents say resembles the sound of helicopter blades, has been disturbing people who live along the pipline's path west of Duvall since spring. The path of the pipeline runs mostly along 216th Avenue Northeast, the article says, and the problem noise is actually the echo created as pistons force natural gas through a compression chamber at a facility north of the affected area. The company sped up the engines that drive the pistons this past spring. Northwest Pipeline District Manager Grant Jensen told about 80 people at the meeting that the company will install two "pulsation bottles," at a cost of $500,000, to muffle the noise. The company has already successfully installed the devices near the Chehalis section of the pipeline, Jensen said. The pipeline transports natural gas between Canada and New Mexico.
However, the article reports, the company's solution didn't satisfy many residents. For instance, resident Janice Belt wanted the company to turn down the compressor at night. Jensen responded that the company is not willing to do that, because at night, less natural gas is being used and it can therefore be moved more quickly through the pipeline. Some residents have talked of a lawsuit against the company to stop the noise immediately. Another resident, Ray Foley, said he uses earplugs and sleeping aids at night. He added, "As of late, I'm almost embarrassed to have people over. That's the first thing they ask about, and then they say, 'That would drive me crazy.'"
PUBLICATION: Mail on Sunday
DATE: July 20, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 5
DATELINE: United Kingdom
The publication Mail on Sunday reports that more than a third of the local councils in Britain have seized noisy stereos from residents after a Mail on Sunday campaign. The article says that most local authorities have services to deal with nighttime noise, and nearly one-half plan to use the new confiscation powers they have been given by the government, according to a survey released today. However, the article goes on to say, less than a tenth of local authorities are likely to impose $100 on-the-spot fines, because they lack resources or believe existing measures are adequate.
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune
DATE: July 20, 1997
SECTION: News; If you ran the newspaper; Pg. 21A
BYLINE: Lou Gelfand
The Star Tribune reports that a Minneapolis city official and some Minneapolis residents were upset by the wording of a Star Tribune article on July 12 which described the new noise ordinance passed by the Minneapolis City Council. Residents and the city official claim the article was hyperpole and editorializing, and misled readers into believing the ordinance is unreasonable. The article goes on to quote the offending paragraph of the article, and to print more information about the city's ordinance.
According to the article, the offending July 12 story written by reporter Kimberly Hayes Taylor began: "Shhhhh! If you're speaking above a whisper in Minneapolis and your neighbor doesn't like it, watch out. You risk violating the city's new noise ordinance. Don't play your stereo loudly. Forget about house parties, unless you invite the neighbors." Reader Susan Maricle said it was clear the reporter didn't agree with the City Council's action, and that the article was "blatant editorializing." Bill Anderson, the city's environmental supervisor, called the Star Tribune and said the first paragraph portrayed the city as "capricious and unreasonable," and said many citizens who read it "as fact, not hyperbole," called to vent "anger and frustration."
The article goes on to say that the city's new noise ordinance sets measurable decibel levels for many uses, including loud stereos in vehicles, which Anderson said is the city's major noise problem. The new ordinance adopts language in St. Paul's noise ordinance, which stipulates that if an officer or inspector hears a car stereo from 50 feet away, a misdemeanor citation can be issued. Another major noise problem, according to Anderson, is loud music at parties. The new ordinance states that noise cannot be audible over the level of conversation at a distance of 50 feet or more from the point of origin, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Cincinnati Enquirer
DATE: July 23, 1997
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B03
BYLINE: Janet Wetzel
DATELINE: Deer Park, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Francis Healy, Mayor
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that a new noise ordinance is being considered by the city council in Deer Park, Ohio to deal mostly with loud car stereos. The proposed ordinance has the support of the city's mayor, but is being opposed by at least two outspoken residents.
According to the article, Deer Park Mayor Francis Healy said the new ordinance is needed to control loud car stereos. He said, "I get a lot of complaints, particularly about loud boom boxes in cars," with some "playing so . . . loud you couldn't hear a fire engine if it pulled up beside you." The mayor added that the new ordinance would give police the power to tell drivers of such vehicles to turn down the volume. Critics say the city's disturbing the peace law covers the problem, but that law requires someone to sign a warrant. Many people are afraid to sign their name to a warrant, the mayor said, because they don't want the noise violator to find out they complained to the police. The proposed noise ordinance would not require a resident to sign a warrant.
The article goes on to report that at least two residents, Tom Callahan and Hermann Tegenkamp, are loudly opposing the proposed ordinance. According to Callahan and Tegenkamp, the proposed ordinance could lead to abuses by neighbors who could complain anonymously. In addition, Tegenkamp argues that the proposed ordinance would allow police to cite people who they believe are too noisy without a clear definition of what is too noisy. Both men agree that the language in the ordinance is too broad and too vague, prohibiting loud "human voice" and "plainly audible" audio emissions 50 feet away, with no decibel guideline. Callahan said he plays in a band that practices at his home, and although he's worked to be considerate of his neighbors, he's worried that the new ordinance could create problems. Tegenkamp added, "I've talked to a lot of people in Deer Park, and everyone I've talked to is against it. We have an ordinance that works. It's called 'disturbing the peace.' There's no need to have a new one."
The article says that Mayor Healy responded to the criticisms by saying "police are not going to to be out there picking on anyone," and citations likely would be infrequent. He added that noise ordinances are common, and that the cities of Cincinnati, Sharonville, and Springdale have them.
The article concludes that at a July 14 city council meeting, councillors turned down the mayor's request to pass the ordinance as an emergency measure, saying they wanted more input from residents. The mayor said he has heard no opposition to the ordinance except from Tegenkamp and Callahan, and hopes the council will pass it on August 11. The council voted down a similar proposed ordinance about five years ago after deciding the disturbing the peace law was adequate, said David O'Leary, safety service director.
PUBLICATION: The Orlando Sentinel
DATE: July 22, 1997
SECTION: Local & State; Pg. C3
BYLINE: Elaine Backhaus
DATELINE: Sanford, Florida
The Orlando Sentinel reports that the Sanford (Florida) City Commission is expected to pass a proposed noise ordinance next week.
The article reports that the proposed ordinance sets noise levels for residential, commercial, and industrial areas, and sets fines for violators who do not lower the sound level when requested by an officer. The proposed ordinance stipulates that police measure the noise level from the edge of the property belonging to the person who is complaining about the sound. In residential neighborhoods, the proposed ordinance calls for noise limits of 55 to 65 decibels, depending on whether it is day or night. (Recent decibel tests made by Orlando Sanford Airport officials showed that traffic on a wet street and rolling thunder produce decibel readings of between 59 and 65, the article says.) In addition, the proposed ordinance prohibits noise above 70 to 85 decibels during certain hours in an office, commercial, or industrial area. (By comparison, airport officials found that decibel readings in that range were created by a bus, a muted crack of thunder, a dump truck, a motorcycle, and a hedge-trimmer.)
The article goes on to say that some noises are exempted from the proposed ordinance. Temporary construction noise and routine maintenance activities are permitted only between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday. In addition, noise from warning signals, airplanes, trains, and fireworks is permitted. Music and voices during special events also are allowed, but the City Commission must approve and give a permit to all such special events, under the proposed ordinance.
In a related matter, the City Commission granted a special permit to the Tsunami Beach Club to hold an outdoor concert from 1 to 7:30 p.m. Aug. 3 at the West End Theater on U.S. Highway 17-92, the article reports. Harry Tiyler, the owner of the club, earlier expressed concern that the proposed ordinance would prohibit his club from having outdoor concerts.
PUBLICATION: The Times
DATE: July 26, 1997
SECTION: Features
BYLINE: Stephen Anderton
DATELINE: United Kingdom
The Times printed an editorial that outlines which lawn mowers that can be purchased in Britain are the noisiest and the quietest. It also discusses the noise restrictions on lawn mower use in Germany, and talks about the fact that the European Community is considering new noise regulations for mowers. The writer concludes by giving a ranking of the types of mowers from noisiest to quietest.
The editorial argues that when we buy a lawn mower, we should consider how noisy it is because lawns are often mowed in the evening and on weekends when many neighbors want to relax in their gardens or yards. The writer advises that lawn mower noise on the other side of the fence can be a cause for neighborhood feuds.
However, the editorial claims, lawn mowers are as quiet as we can afford them to be. For example, some of the Rolls-Royces of lawn mowers include the Ransome's Super Certes and the Atco Royale. The writer says these are petrol-driven cylinder mowers that cost several hundred pounds, and their engines are well-silenced and baffled. At the other extreme, rotary mowers howl even when they're not moving. Because half the noise of a rotary mower comes from the air being drawn into the machine, manufacturers can't really quiet rotary mowers significantly, the editorial says.
The writer goes on to say that he used to consider electric mowers to be expensive toys, but nowadays he can see their virtue. The trailing cords of an electric mower can be annoying, but a petrol-driven mower for a small garden or yard makes to sense, the writer says. Petrol mowers are more expensive to buy, and they cost considerably to maintain, which is important to do in order to keep the noise down.
Another option for those who want the mobility of a petrol-driven mower and the quietness and cheapness of an electric mower is a battery-powered mower. For example, Black & Decker now has a battery-operated 33-cm rotary mower (the GRC730) at a cost of about 200 Pounds. This mower is about 50 Pounds more than a comparable cord-electric mower, and can cut 300 square meters of grass on a fully charged battery. The 12-volt battery in the mower can be charged from empty in 24-36 hours. The writer reports that on dry grass it works perfectly, but when the grass is completely wet, the mower struggles a bit. However, the writer points out, if you have a small lawn, you can easily wait for it to dry.
The editorial notes that hover mowers are the noisiest because of the noisy fan that makes them float. Mulch mowers have about 50% of the American market, but only a small fraction in the U.K., the writer sayd. These mowers are not very noisy, but they generally are petrol-driven.
The editorial writer says that theoretically, electric cylinder mowers should be the quietest because the ratio of engine noise to blade noise is about 20%-80%. However, efficient large electric cylinder mowers are not possible yet due to limitations in battery technology. But, the writer speculates, in a few years maybe battery technology will bring us an electric lawn mower as the norm, along with electric cars.
The editorial also points out that in Germany, the use of lawn mowers that create more than 88 decibels of noise are restricted on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. All Britain's petrol-driven mowers produce noise above that level, the writer says. European regulations stipulate that mowers up to 50 cm in width cannot produce more than 96 decibels. But the European Community currently is considering lowering those decibel limits. The writer points out that this could force the use of electric mowers, because petrol-driven mowers are difficult to quiet.
The editorial concludes with a ranking of the types of lawn mowers, from noisiest to quietest:
1 Petrol hover rotary
2 Petrol rotary
3 Petrol cylinder
4 Electric hover
5 Electric rotary
6 Electric cordless rotary
7 Electric cylinder
8 Push-mower
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: July 24, 1997
SECTION: Snohomish; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Diane Brooks
DATELINE: Everett, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John and Barbara Wilson
The Seattle Times reports that the Everett (Washington) City Council yesterday introduced an ordinance that would limit operations in the switching-yard of The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad near Everett Marina due to resident complaints about noise. The ordinance would forbid excessive noise between 10 pm and 7 am. However, federal laws protect railroads from local regulations due to constitutional restrictions on interfering with interstate commerce, leading to speculation that the city may not have the power to enforce its ordinance.
According to the article, residents on the bluff overlooking the Everett Marina have lived for years with the constant noise of the railroad's "makeup" yard, where freight trains are assembled by crashing rail cars together to connect their couplings. Some homeowners say the noise has cracked their foundations, crumbled their fireplaces, and sent pictures crashing to the floor, the article reports. And, residents say, the noise has gotten worse.
The article goes on to say that the ordinance introduced yesterday by the city council may well be pre-empted by federal law. Three weeks ago, the federal Surface Transportation Board denied a petition from the cities of Kent and Auburn which sought to force Burlington Northern to obtain local permits before re-opening the Stampede Pass line in South King County, the article reports. This decision has made Everett city officials realize they may face the same fate. Mayor Ed Hansen said, "Our hands may be relatively tied because of federal pre-emptions. Changing federal law may be the ultimate action that's necessary." Meanwhile, the article says, City Attorney Mark Soine is researching federal noise laws regarding car-coupling operations to determine whether Burlington Northern is breaking federal rules.
The article also says that Gus Melonas, a spokesperson for Burlington Northern, declined to comment yesterday on whether his company might be willing to negotiate with Everett about its hours of operation. Melonas said that railroads have operated that particular car-coupling yard around-the-clock since about 1900. He said that millions of dollars of research has gone into improving car-coupling system, and he believes the railroad yard is a quieter operation today as a result. Melonas added that more than 300 railroad cars per day move through that yard, and an additional 400 cars per day are handled at another Burlington Northern yard along the Snohomish River a mile away. Combined, the two yards handle 100 more cars per day than they did five years ago, Melonas said, because of the region's good business climate.
The article also notes that a new hotel opened at the Everett Marina last month as part of a $7.5 million complex to include offices and a restaurant. C.J. Ebert, project developer and owner, is leading the most recent fight to restrict the railroad's night operations which, by his recordings just outside his hotel, can reach up to 112 decibels.
PUBLICATION: The Times Union
DATE: July 24, 1997
SECTION: Main, Pg. A8
BYLINE: Carol Wallace
DATELINE: Albany, New York
The Times printed an editorial in which the writer reports at the last caucus of the Albany Common Council, the council president circulated a letter from residents of Central Avenue asking the council to pass an ordinance directed at cars with loud boom boxes. The writer points out that the city's ordinances are already very tough on noise, but the codes are not very well-publicized or used.
The editorial says that Section 255-24 of the city's noise codes forbids excessive noise both during the day and night, especially between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. The writer reports that noise violators get one warning by police, but if they repeat the offense within the next 30 days, they can receive a $250 fine. In addition, Section 255-29 of the noise code states that no one may operate a vehicle which has apparatus for amplification of sound on a public street without a permit issued by the police chief. So, the editorial recommends, the next time you're annoyed by excessive noise, write down the particulars, such as address, people involved, or car license, description of car, street, and direction in which the car is driving, and insist the police enforce the noise ordinances. The editorial writer concludes that we don't need more laws, we need more citizens providing evidence to the police so they enforce the laws we already have.
PUBLICATION: Sunday Times
DATE: July 20, 1997
SECTION: Home news
BYLINE: Jonathan Leake
DATELINE: United Kingdom
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Keith Abnett, member, Federation of Airport Noise Groups, a group representing 32 residents' associations in Britain
The Sunday Times reports that a new device invented by a British firm may help reduce aircraft noise experienced by people on the ground. The announcement comes in the midst of a fight to add another terminal to the Heathrow Airport in London, and opponents of the expansion believe the announcement is a red herring being used to divert attention from the issue.
The article reports that the device was invented by the company Cambridge Concept, and is called a digital pneumatic actuator (DPA). The DPA is modeled on simpler devices already in use in aircraft cabins that utilize computers and sensors to measure changing noise emissions and adapt its own output to counteract them. The DPA uses compressed air blasted through pipes to generate noise at an equal intensity and frequency to that of an engine, but 180 degrees out of phase. In theory, the two noises should cancel each other out, creating the impression of noise reduction for those living around airports, the article says. An experimental version of the device already has been successfully used at Cranfield University in Bedfordshire, and will soon undergo tests at Heathrow Airport. Plans are to miniturize the device and put it in jet engine casings so that aircraft noise is muffled, perhaps by as much as one-half for certain engines. The development of the DPA is being sponsored by British Airways, the Department of Trade and Industry, and BAA, the airport's operator, the article notes.
The article goes on to say that the announcement of the new device comes in the midst of a protracted planning inquiry into demands by Heathrow and BAA for a fifth terminal. If approved, the terminal would increase the capacity of the airport from 56 million passengers a year to 80 million by 2016, and would significantly increase the number of take-offs and landings. Residents living around the airport have campaigned for years against aircraft noise, and they say the added terminal would cause a huge increase in the noise levels. The planning inquiry is scheduled to hear evidence on noise levels starting next month. In June, the BAA made an effort to address the noise issue by offering a legally binding guarantee that noise levels will not increase, even if the fifth terminal is built, due to new engine technology and a forthcoming ban on older, noisier aircraft. However, promises by BAA did not excite opponents of the airport expansion. Keith Abnett of the Federation of Airport Noise Groups, which represents 32 residents' associations in Britain, said of the latest announcement, "They have timed this just before the inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow reaches its discussions on noise levels. It is a red herring. Noise depends largely on the number of flights and the only real way of cutting it is to reduce the number of planes using an airport."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 24, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; No Desk
BYLINE: Chris Chi
DATELINE: Oxnard, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that Oxnard, California City Council -- which was considering restrictions on leaf blowers because of noise and pollution issues raised by residents -- has decided instead to encourage a dialogue among landscapers and residents to develop a compromise solution.
The article reports that gardeners and landscapers told the council at a hearing that noise complaints were not made very often, since most landscapers try to limit the time that blowers are operated. They also warned that they would have to raise their fees under blower restrictions.
The article notes that few people at the hearing were for the restrictions; not even the pastor who started the campaign locally was in attendance.
Council members, the article reports, saw the restrictions as too strict, and decided instead to think about developing a tutorial that would teach landscapers how to use the blowers most quietly and effectively.
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: July 23, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Richard Whittle, Todd Gillman
DATELINE: Dallas, Texas
The Dallas Morning News reports that Legend Airlines has proposed to offer long-haul passenger service from Love Field in Dallas, Texas, which would compete with airlines at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Legend Airlines officials recently convinced members of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee to approve legislation that would let them use Love Field in a way barred by the U.S. Transportation Department's interpretation of the Wright amendment. However, the committee also has adopted language that would give the Dallas City Council the final decision on the issue, in a concession to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who opposes Legend's plan. Meanwhile, residents living near Love Field already have been fighting noise and traffic from the airfield.
According to the article, the 1979 Wright amendment was designed to protect the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (D/FW) from competition by barring passenger flights from Love Field to destinations beyond Texas and the four neighboring states using planes with more than 56 seats. Legend Airlines wants to offer flights in Boeing 727s and 737s outfitted with 56 first class seats, charging coach fare and also carrying cargo to make the flights profitable. But the Transportation Department blocked Legend's proposal in September, ruling that the 56-seat limit applied to a plane's design capacity, not actual seats. Legend appealed that ruling in federal court, but simultaneously lobbied Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), chair of the Senate Transportation Appropriations subcommittee, to write legislation stipulating that the 56-seat limit in the Wright amendment applies only to actual seats. Sen. Shelby included the language in this year's transportation appropriations bill, which the full Appropriations Committee considered Tuesday. However, the article goes on to say, Sen. Hutchison had urged members of the committee recently to reject the provision, and in a concession to Hutchinson, Sen. Shelby agreed to an amendment giving the Dallas City Council the final decision. The bill, as approved by the full committee, would make Legend's interpretation of the Wright amendment law, the article says. However, the bill also stipulates that within 60 days of becoming law, the City Council, "as owner of Love Field," can ban the use of reconfigured planes to meet the 56-seat restriction "by a majority vote of all City Council members." Sen. Shelby also agreed to change the language in the provision that would not allow the more liberal interpretation of the Wright amendment to apply to apply to "wide-body" planes such as Boeing 747s.
The article reports that Dallas officials are divided on the issue. Mayor Ron Kirk, who is a member of the D/FW Airport board, is opposed to Legend's plan, saying that Dallas has an obligation to uphold its original deal with Fort Worth to restrict most passenger air travel in the area to D/FW Airport. But city councillor Bob Stimson, who chairs the council's business and commerce committee, said Legend's plan would bring lower flights to air travelers because of competition. Stimson said, "I would hope that the City Council would do what is right and best for the city of Dallas." Mayor Kirk warned that changing the Wright amendment would jeopardize the "peace and harmony" between Dallas and Fort Worth, as well as between Love Field and surrounding neighborhoods, which have fought noise and traffic. However, Councillor Stimson said that neighborhoods around Love Field are protected by strong noise requirements, and the planes Legend is proposing to fly "would not be any bigger than what's being flown out of there now." City officials on both sides of the issue said they were surprised federal lawmakers wanted to leave the decision to them and would not speculate on how a council vote might turn out, the article says.
Meanwhile, in Fort Worth, officials have long maintained that the Wright amendment should remain intact. Mayor Kenneth Barr said Fort Worth would probably go to court to block any changes to the amendment. He called the Wright amendment a "carefully balanced, carefully worked-out compromise," and said the Dallas City Council should not have unilateral authority to change its terms. He added that if federal lawmakers couldn't come to a decision, "the ultimate decision ought to be left to the D/FW board or the two city councils acting in concert."
Others also expressed reactions to the decision, the article reports. Legend company chair T. Allan McArtor said he was happy about the committee's deicison, and he believes the company has strong support within the city council. Sen. Hutchinson, who opposes Legend's plan, said the compromise in the bill is an improvement because it "allows the city to prohibit this from happening." In addition, most members of Congress from the Dallas-Fort Worth area have defended the Wright amendment, but Rep. Joe Barton (R-Ennis) said he supported Legend's plan and would try to help the airline get congressional approval, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: Bangor Daily News
DATE: July 23, 1997
BYLINE: Robert Siegler, Lincoln resident
DATELINE: Bangor, Maine area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Robert Siegler, Lincoln resident
The Bangor Daily News printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Robert Siegler, a Lincoln resident, regarding noise from personal watercraft on Maine waters:
I had to write to correct one thing in your paper's article on personal watercraft (BDN, July 21). The 200-foot no wake zone is from the shoreline. This means a person can not make a wake unless the craft is over 200 feet from the shoreline.
I would also like to say something on the noise. It might be nice to move to a new spot once in a while, but on a small lake it doesn't do much good. If a car or truck made the amount of noise these watercraft do they would be banned from the roads.
Your article might sway some people to the side of the watercraft people, the money-hungry dealers, but as I live by a lake and have to live with the noise and the damaging wake these watercraft make, it would take more than a ride on one to change my mind about them. I am against personal watercraft on lakes in Maine.
PUBLICATION: Bangor Daily News
DATE: July 22, 1997
BYLINE: Patricia Thurston, Bass Harbor resident
DATELINE: Bass Harbor, Maine
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Patricia Thurston, Bass Harbor resident
The Bangor Daily News printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Patricia Thurston, a Bass Harbor (Maine) resident, regarding the incessant noises she experiences:
I find Edward Kurtz's letter, "Noise spoils Castine," (BDN, July 17) extremely interesting as I had thought, in my own case, this annoyance with noise was old age. At the nursing home the washing machines, etc., are so disturbing that one must yell to converse. Teen-agers have their car radios turned to such a high volume that when I stop for a red light beside one, I wonder how they endure the excessive sound.
It used to be so tranquil here that after supper you could hear birds and crickets. Now it seems the motors never stop. Noise pollution is on every side, and at night I hear big trucks, old cars repeatedly "revving up," newfangled chimney-less furnaces insistently pounding in 90-degree weather, dogs barking from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., even children (long past a proper bedtime) screaming as though their very life was in danger. Mr. Kurtz may shy away from noise pollution, but I know most tourists flock to the crowded, turbulent areas, and our quiet country life is a memory only. I surely hope I am mistaken.
PUBLICATION: The Herald
DATE: July 23, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 15
BYLINE: Margaret Vaughan
DATELINE: Glasgow, Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: World Health Organization; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection
The Herald reports that today is Scotland's National Noise Awareness Day, with the aim of increasing understanding of noise issues and considering the effects our lifestyles, transport, and businesses have on noise pollution. The article outlines some of the ways noise pollution is on the increase, and what Scotland is doing about it.
The article reports that noise is usually defined as unwanted sound; noise might be too loud, too intrusive, or just might happen and the wrong time or too quickly. Some sounds that are noise to one person might not bother another, the article says. For example, a night camping in a rainforest may be noisy for some, but for others the sounds might be positive. Water pipes gurgling in an old house might keep one person awake and lull another to sleep. However, the article says, excessive noise is a pollutant, and can reduce or destroy quality of life.
The article goes on to say that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that noise pollution is all around us and on the increase. Offices are filled with noise from electronic devices, telephones, announcements over loudspeakers. Streets are filled with noise from car engines, brakes squealing, and wailing sirens. Even home is noisier than it ever has been, the article reports, with washing machines, the television, computer games, kitchen appliances, and neighbor's activities all contributing.
According to the article, the World Health Organization has said that noise is "the first environmental nuisance of industrialized countries." Too much noise can reduce productivity, cause hearing loss, aggravate physical and mental illnesses, and increase stress-related illnesses. The article says that various researchers have found that 70% of Scots report suffering excessive noise. Environmental health officers say that noisy neighbors prompt the most complaints.
The article goes on to approve of National Noise Awareness Day, which should act as a focus for information and discussion. The awareness day is co-ordinated by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, whose Scottish Office recently sent copies of a new booklet titled Bothered by Noise to all local authorities and Citizen's Advice Bureaux. The booklet describes recent changes to Scottish and U.K. noise legislation and ways to take action against unwanted noise.
The article also notes that in Scotland, police can issue noise abatement notices to polluters. If noise violators do not comply with the notice, they are liable for a fine of up to 5,000 pounds, and a further fine of 500 pounds for each day the offense continues. Noise violations involving industrial or business noise can draw a maximum fine of 20,000 pounds. Police can also seize noisy equipment, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Scotsman
DATE: July 23, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 7
BYLINE: Christopher Cairns
DATELINE: Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: National Society for Clean Air; Lord Sewel, Scottish environment minister
The Scotsman reports that today is Scotland's Noise Awareness Day, and the government is calling for people to be more considerate of their neighbors to help control noise, the least recognized form of environmental pollution.
The article reports that according to a survey conducted by the National Society for Clean Air, the most common causes of noise complaints to local authorities in Scotland are amplified music, pubs, and barking dogs. However, the article says, more people are reporting more noise from all sources, including televisions, children, banging doors, DIY and traffic. In fact, the survey found that more than 80% of Scottish councils that responded to the survey said reports of loud music had increased, and 54% said complaints against dogs, pubs, and clubs have increased. In addition, the survey found that 62% of authorities responding to noise complaints in Scotland suffered verbal abuse from the noise violators; in England, 76% were verbally abused and 5% were physically assaulted.
According to the article, Lord Sewel, the Scottish environment minister, gave the following comments to commemorate Noise Awareness Day: "Noise is a fact of life. We all make it: talking, playing music, entertaining, driving, or simply going about our daily business. What represents noise to one person may be pleasurable to another. But excessive noise can reduce quality of life and, sadly for some, can even destroy it entirely. National Noise Awareness Day offers an excellent opportunity to consider the effect which our lifestyles, transport and businesses may have on our neighbours and the wider community, in terms of noise."
PUBLICATION: Chapel Hill Herald
DATE: July 20, 1997
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 4;
BYLINE: John Welter
DATELINE: Chapel Hill, North Carolina
The Chapel Hill Herald printed a humorous editorial in which the columnist laments the loss of silence in America and bemoans the constitutional right of people to use leaf blowers, which he finds are louder than dynamite.
According to the editorial writer, a leaf blower, which he calls "the gardener's noise bazooka," is a "shoulder-mounted, hand-held anti-personnel weapon that produces a wind velocity comparable to a tropical storm" that can blow away yard debris, adults, children, pets, and obviously, silence. The writer argues that the main product of Western Civilization seems to be noise, as evidenced by the "advanced devices" of the noise bazooka, lawnmower, weed-eater, and chain saw. He considers it strange that you can legally maintain your backyard with a noise level "comparable to a NATO military exercise," but that you would be arrested for exploding dynamite in your backyard, a slightly less disturbing sound.
The editorial writer goes on to say he contacted a city official, who came to the house and tested both the noise level of a neighbor's leaf blower and that of a stick of dynamite going off in the backyard. Just as the writer expected, the sound level from the dynamite was lower than the leaf blower. But, the city official pointed out, the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to silence.
The writer then talked with a constitutional scholar at Georgetown University, who said that operating lawn equipment constitutes free speech. The writer asked, "Well how are Americans expected to live lives of quiet desperation with all that damn noise going on?" The scholar replied that there is no Constitutional right to quiet desperation, the editorial says.
The editorial laments that since Americans broke both the Liberty Bell and the sound barrier, neither have been repaired. The writer says he just wants the domestic tranquility promised by the Constitution, but he supposes "the U.S. Supreme Court would agree that domestic tranquility involves driving to the liquor store on a riding mower."
PUBLICATION: The Capital
DATE: July 23, 1997
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A14
DATELINE: Annapolis, Maryland area
The Capital printed an editorial which argues that speed limits on Maryland's Severn, South, and Magothy Rivers should be passed, and noise limits on the rivers also should be strictly enforced.
According to the editorial, the writers strongly favor speed limits on the three rivers, as well as on many other arms of the bay. The editorial says that the speed limit should be high enough to allow water-skiing, but not as high as the 60 to 90 mph some boats can reach. The editorial claims that the county's rivers and creeks are too crowded too often for that kind of speed. The Department of Natural Resources should be praised for looking into speed limits on the rivers, the writers say.
The editorial goes on to argue that there is no reason for the excessive noise that the large, cigarette-type boats produce without mufflers or underwater exhausts. Motorcycles, cars, and trucks are required to have mufflers, the writers point out. The editorial says that we cannot expect to reduce the normal noise of boats, but the "muscle boats" are at a different order of magnitude in noise and speed. Restrictions that might require boaters to go slightly slower after they're already going 50 mph or more won't be a big inconvenience. The editorial argues that the currently noise limit of 90 decibels should be strictly enforced and possibly should be lowered. The editorial concludes that if the boats can't abide by noise limits, they should be banned.
PUBLICATION: Chapel Hill Herald
DATE: July 20, 1997
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 4;
BYLINE: Peter Aitken, Chapel Hill resident
DATELINE: Chapel Hill, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peter Aitken, Chapel Hill resident
The Chapel Hill Herald printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Peter Aitken, a Chapel Hill resident, regarding noise from the Horace Williams Airport:
In his Thursday letter regarding Horace Williams Airport, Zemo Trevathan claims that residents have no right to complain about airport noise because the airport was there first. This argument is nonsense. If we carry this argument to its logical extreme, we would have to return the entire country to the Native Americans.
On a more reasonable level, we can liken the situation to a person who builds a house in an uninhabited area and finds that nobody complains about his loud, all-night parties. If someone then buys the land next door and builds a house, do they lose the right to complain about the noise simply because the other person was there first? Of course not, yet this is what Trevathan is claiming.
The arguments of the airport supporters boil down to one thing: that Horace Williams is convenient for them. I do not doubt that this is true, but they must realize that a location that was appropriate for an airport 20 years ago is not appropriate now. Things change, and the personal convenience of a small number of airport users is only one factor -- and a minor one at that -- to be considered in deciding the future of the airport.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: July 22, 1997
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-01
BYLINE: Peter Chronis
DATELINE: Denver, Colorado
The Denver Post reports that the Denver International Airport Study Coordinating Group has been formed to undertake a $200,000 independent study of noise from the Denver International Airport. The non-profit group will consist of representatives from up to nine counties and two citizen groups, the article says, with congressional monitoring by Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Joel Hefley (both Republicans). Denver's Mayor, Wellington Webb, joined the group Monday to launch the study, which is expected to be completed by the year's end.
According to the article, residents along the near the airport have been complaining about aircraft noise since the airport opened in February 1995. Sen. Allard, who has been involved in the issue for two years, said it is "vital to have everybody working together on this problem." He added that all the counties should be involved in the process of finding a solution, because a solution for one county could mean a problem for another county. The new coordinating group hopes to get "unbiased, scientifically sound information out there so we can make some good decisions on public policy," Allard said.
The article reports that Mayor Webb said that several counties have agreed to participate in the group, although some have not. One county which has refused to be on the panel is Adams County. County Commissioner Marty Flaum said Friday that the Commission believes the noise issue has been studied to death. In addition, the article says, some critics say the study is a ploy to get Congress to lift a ban on funding for a $60 million sixth runway at the airport.
Meanwhile, county commissioners from other counties expressed hope that the study would represent positive progress, the article says. Douglas County Commissioner Chris Christensen said, "I think the [Federal Aviation Administration] probably has done as much as they can without further direction, and I'm hoping that this study will provide that." Arapahoe County Commissioner Polly Page said in her county, there are still complaints about the Denver Airport from the city of Aurora, but their major problem is noise from Centennial Airport, a general aviation airport. Weld County Commissioner Barb Kirkmeyer said she thought the group represented a "new era of cooperation" among the counties and hoped it could find a solution. Elbert County Commissioner Dan McAndrew expressed similar thoughts, the article says.
The article also notes that the city of Denver will pay about $175,000 of the cost of the approximately $200,000 study.
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star
DATE: July 24, 1997
SECTION: Life; Pg. E5
BYLINE: Jeffrey Chuang
DATELINE: U.S.
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Acoustical Society of America; Carl Crandell, audiology professor, University of Florida at Gainesville; David Lubman, chair, classroom acoustics committee at a recent Acoustical Society of America conference
The Toronto Star reports that at a recent conference of the Acoustical Society of America, experts told conference attendees that classroom noise levels are often so loud they impair childrens' speech perception, reading and spelling ability, behavior, attention, and academic performance.
The article reports that Carl Crandell, an audiology professor from the University of Florida at Gainesville, presented a summary of scientists' recent findings at the conference. He said, "Some normal children, when put in an average classroom, break down tremendously." Crandell went on to say that in a classroom that has an above-average listening environment, grade-school children with no hearing problems can make out only 71% of the words a teacher at the front of the room says. In the worst environments, according to Crandell, kids can process just 30% of the sounds. Crandell went on to say that kids don't develop an adult-like ability to understand speech until they're 15. As a result, noisy classrooms can encourage children to tune out not only extraneous noises, but also the teacher. Crandell said, "If a child cannot hear, attentional and/or behavioral problems often occur. When we can get a child to hear well, we often see a reduction or elimination of those problems."
The article says that researchers have measured classroom noise, tested children's recognition of monosyllabic words in classrooms, and interviewed teachers about classroom noise during the past several years. In addition, Crandell recently began comprehensive tests in elementary schools. The article reports that in the classrooms surveyed, many had sound intensities 30 times higher than the maximum recommended level of 35 decibels that acousticians generally agree is appropriate for a learning environment. In addition, the article notes, echoes in classrooms often persisted for a full second, which is twice as long as the cutoff suggested by the acoustical society committee to avoid interfering with teaching.
The first studies on classroom noise were prompted two decades ago by concerns for hearing-impaired children, the article reports. However, scientists have not realized until recently that many kids who did well on standard auditory tests were being adversely impacted by classroom noise as well. Crandell noted that one solution to the problem would be to install "acoustic tile" in the walls of classroom that would absorb unwanted noise.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: July 21, 1997
SECTION: Local (News), Pg. 3B
DATELINE: Westminster, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ronald Frederick, resident
The Baltimore Sun reports that the Maryland Department of the Environment checked the noise level of model planes flown by the Westminster Aero Modelers on a farm north of Westminster, Maryland in response to a complaint from a neighbor, and found that while the noise is "distinctively noticeable," it does not violate state regulations.
According to the article, Ronald Frederick of the 300 block of Kowomu Trail, north of Westminster, complained about the noise from the model planes flown on a nearby county-owned farm. David Jarinko, an investigator from the Department of the Environment, found that noise from the model planes registered between 47 and 60 decibels at the flying field, and between 38 and 42 decibels at Frederick's home. To violate state regulations, a noise must measure 65 decibels, the article says. Jarinko's report said, "Although the sound levels measured at Mr. Frederick's home probably will not exceed [about] 50 decibels, they are distinctly noticeable because of the low background sound level of approximately 35 decibels in this rural area." Frederick said that "the surrounding area is completely quiet," which makes the noise more noticeable. "It may not be a technical violation of the noise requirements, but it certainly is disturbing," he added. Frederick said he would continue to lobby the County Commission to find a more suitable location for the model airfield, although so far the commission has ignored his suggestions of 10 other sites tht would be more suitable.
PUBLICATION: M2 Presswire
DATE: July 23, 1997
DATELINE: United Kingdom
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Mary Stevens, co-ordinator of National Noise Awareness Day, at the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection
M2 Presswire reports that the provisions of the United Kingdom's Noise Act 1996 come into effect today, National Noise Awareness Day, for those local authorities which adopt the provisions of the Act. The Act sets a permitted noise level for nighttime noise on domestic premises.
According to the article, the nighttime noise offense provisions of the Noise Act were designed to take effect on National Noise Awareness Day so that people could be made more aware of unnecessary noise, Environment Minister Angela Eagle said. She added that the noisy neighbor is a serious problem in Britain, and complaints about domestic noise have been rising at a rate of about 10% per year for the last few years.
The article goes on to say that under the Noise Act, local authorities for the first time will be able to use an objective noise standard to control violations. Under the provisions, which can be used three months after a local authority adopts them, domestic noise between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. cannot exceed 35 decibels. (If the underlying noise level is greater than 25 decibels, then any domestic noise level cannot be greater than 10 decibels more than the underlying noise level.) The Noise Act also clarified local authority powers to confiscate equipment that is making noise, and those provisions came into effect in September 1996.
Meanwhile, a number of resources are available to those who want to learn more about Britain's new noise regulations and ways to deal with noise pollution, the article says. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) has a new booklet available titled Bothered by Noise (available from Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Publications Despatch Centre, Blackhorse Road, London, SE99 6TT, tel: 0181 691 9191). Information for local authorities about the provisions of the Noise Act can be found in a Noise Act Circular being distributed by the Secretary of States. For information about National Noise Awareness Day, which is being coordinated by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, with support from the DETR, contact Mary Stevens, National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, tel: +44 (0)1273 326313.
PUBLICATION: The Herald
DATE: July 22, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 8
DATELINE: Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mary Stevens, National Society for Clean Air
The Herald reports that a survey by the National Society for Clean Air in Scotland has found that only about 8% of local authorities are likely to adopt new curbs on noise between 11 pm and 7 am which come into force this week, enabling environmental health officers to seize noisy stereos, radios, and TVs. The survey was released yesterday to coincide with National Noise Awareness Day tomorrow, the article says.
According to the article, the survey found that local authorities are more likely to continue with their current noise abatement measures due to insufficient funds and human resources. Mary Stevens, of the National Society for Clean Air, said, "Many councils cannot afford to pay overtime rates and to do follow-up calls. But 86% of them have some sort of service for dealing with nighttime noise nuisance."
The article also notes that the survey found noise complaints about neighbors, pubs, clubs, and barking dogs has increased dramatically.
PUBLICATION: Business Wire
DATE: July 24, 1997
DATELINE: Charlotte, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Danny De Miglio, contact person, United States Postal Service's Environmental Communications Dept.
Business Wire reports through a press release that the U.S. Postal Service is launching a pilot program in North and South Carolina to test the use of battery-operated lawn mowers. The press release goes on to outline the project and to give data on the environmental impacts of switching to electric lawn mowers.
According to the press release, the Postal Service, in cooperation with Carolina Power and Light, has purchased 18 cordless, battery-powered lawn mowers from Black and Decker, which will be used in the Greensboro District and the Mid-Carolinas District in North Carolina, and the Columbia District in South Carolina. The Postal Service will test the mowers and battery-powered hedge trimmers over the next year, and if the test is successful, will expand the use of the equipment nationwide. According to Sam Obeidallah, Mid-Atlantic Area Environmental Compliance Coordinator for the Postal Service, "We expect this test to demonstrate that these battery-powered mowers will both reduce pollution and operating costs for the Postal Service."
The press release explains that the project came about after a study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed that cordless battery-powered lawn mowers outperformed gasoline mowers by a wide margin. In response, the Postal Service decided to undertake the project, and advertised nationally for bids from corporations interested to supply them with cordless battery-powered lawn care equipment for a test of the differences between that equipment and gasoline-powered lawn equipment. No companies answered that call for bids, so the Postal Service advertised in a national magazine that goes to utility companies, the press release reports. Carolina Power and Light answered that ad, and formed an agreement with the Postal Service to purchase mowers from Black and Decker for the three Carolina districts.
The press release also gives the following findings, facts, and figures from studies by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about battery and gasoline-powered mowers:
Replacing gasoline mowers with cordless battery-powered lawn mowers results in a 99% reduction in carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and methane, and a 38% reduction in emissions of carbon monoxide.
Battery-powered mowers emit 50% less noise than gasoline-powered mowers.
Consumers taking part in tests overwhelmingly preferred battery-powered mowers in safety, durability, convenience, ease of use, and handling.
Battery-powered mowers require no flammable materials to be stored and require much less maintenance than gasoline mowers.
Battery-powered mowers will run for about 90 minutes and mow about 15,000 square feet of lawn before they need to be recharged. They can be fully recharged in about 20 hours, and 60% recharged in four hours. They use about 0.8 kilowatt-hours of electricity to recharge, for a yearly electricity cost of about $4. On average, life expectancy of the batteries is five to seven years.
Gasoline mowers emit eight times more nitrogen oxides, 3,300 times more hydrocarbons, 5,000 times more carbon monoxide, and about two times more carbon dioxide per hour of operation than battery-powered mowers.
A national switch from gas-powered mowers to electric mowers would eliminate 55,000 cars worth of nitrogen oxide emissions, 1.3 million cars worth of carbon monoxide emissions and 65,000 cars worth of carbon dioxide.
Battery-powered mowers are available with power equivalent to 5 HP, and electric mulching mowers are also available.
For more information, contact: Danny De Miglio, U.S. Postal Service Environmental Communications Dept., 415-536-6490; or Carol Larson, U.S. Postal Service Corporate Relations Dept., 704-424-4442
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: July 21, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: V. David Sartin
DATELINE: Cleveland, Ohio area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Beverly Smith, Council President and Olmsted Falls resident; Richard and Wendy Kohler, residents
The Plain Dealer reports that the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in has soundproofed about 150 homes in Cleveland, Brook Park, Olmsted Falls, and Olmsted Township (Ohio), and is planning to make another 1,200 homes available for the soundproofing program. However, the article reports, some residents are not happy about the terms under which their homes can be soundproofed. The program requires that homeowners give up their right to sue the airport over aircraft noise.
The article reports that the 150 homes already soundproofed are those at both ends of the most active pair of runways at the airport. Another 1,200 homes near the ends of those runways, which run northeast and southwest, are being made eligible for the soundproofing program as a result of a series of recent agreements between the city councils in Brook Park and Cleveland. The soundproofing measures, which cost between $15,000-$35,000 per house, can include new central heating and air conditioning, ducts, sound-reducing windows and doors, insulation, upgraded electrical systems, and certain interior treatments, the article reports.
According to the article, the plan to add 1,200 homes to the program before the end of 2001 was announced recently by aides to Cleveland Mayor Michael White. The plan will be financed with a passenger surcharge at the airport, grants from the Federal Aviation Administration, money from an agreement between Cleveland and Brook Park to expand the airport, and other sources. The total cost of the program, which includes buying out some homes, is expected to be about $85 million by the end of 2001. Ken Silliman, an executive assistant to Mayor White, said is has not been determined which homes will be eligible first for the soundproofing, which is expected to start next year. He added that computer studies will be used to analyze which homeowners experience the most noise, giving them first priority in the program. The article notes that the new homes which will be eligible include those in parts of northern and northeast Olmsted Township, western Brook Park near Sheldon and Grayton roads, northwest Berea, and much of Olmsted Falls. In Cleveland, the homes include stretches north of the airport past Puritas Rd.
But, the article reports, not everyone is happy about the soundproofing program. Homeowners who receive the soundproofing measures are required to sign easements that stipulate they cannot later sue Cleveland or the airport over any issues "arising out of noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, fuel, particles and all other effects [caused] by the operation of aircraft" at the airport. Beverly Smith, Council President and resident of Olmsted Falls, said, "You just cede your entire property rights to Cleveland Hopkins." Smith was among the citizens who settled a lawsuit in 1985 over the jet noise after the city agreed to start the soundproofing program. Other Olmsted Falls residents were initially happy about the soundproofing, but later changed their minds. Residents Richard and Wendy Kohler wanted the soundproofing, but backed out of the plan after their lawyer reviewed the easement agreement. Wendy Kohler said, "Our lawyer said, 'You are signing everything away and getting nothing in return.'" The Kohlers say that noise from the airport has increased dramatically in the past 30 years they've lived in their home, and they believe it will increase more with the proposals to lengthen the main runways at the airport.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 21, 1997
SECTION: Life & Style; Part E; Page 1; View Desk
BYLINE: Roy Rivenburg
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Albert Mehrabian, professor emeritus of psychology, University of California - Los Angeles
The Los Angeles Times reports the psychologists believe people need to have quiet in their lives occasionally. The Environmental Protection Agency lost it's noise pollution division in 1982, but the article offers some ways to find the quiet you need. Try turning off the car stereo. "If you're just beginning, take five minutes a day and go outside and find a nice, beautiful place and just think about things." Avoid TV once a week, and think or read instead. Remember, Blaise Pascal said "All human evil comes from . . . a person's inability to sit still in a room."
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: July 23, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A12
BYLINE: David Millward
DATELINE: London, Ontario
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Monica Waud, Jean Rodger, residents
The Ottawa Citizen reports that citizens in London, Ontario protested outdoor performances of the Garsington Opera by synchronizing their lawnmoving, hedge trimming, and other yard work during the opening night of the opera festival, June 9. In response to the long feud between the villagers and opera officials, the South Oxfordshire District Council has decided to prosecute the opera company.
According to the article, the opera has divided the village since it started in 1990. Supporters say the opera brings money and people into the village, while opponents living near the 17th-century Garsington Manor, where the open-air performances take place, complain that the 23 opera nights are too disturbing to their neighborhood. The District Council's decision to prosecute the opera company is based on claims from professional noise consultants that the opera violated the conditions of its entertainment license, which stipulated that the music would not be more than five decibels louder than surrounding background noise, on three occasions. In 1995, a judge overturned a $2,300 fine imposed by magistrates on the opera company, leaving the council with a $138,000 legal bill. Nonetheless, the article says, the council has decided to continue its prosecution.
Meanwhile, the article reports, neighbors of the opera company turned to more direct action during the opera's opening night. The orchestra had just started its overture when lawnmowers and hedge trimmers chimed in, followed later by a car alarm and a light aircraft. However, neighbors are reluctant to admit that the synchronized desire to mow lawns was anything more than coincidental, the article says. Monica Waud said, "My garden is in the National Garden Scheme. The stage is only 80 metres away; I always cut my lawn in the evening." Another neighbor, Jean Rodger, said, "In the past we haven't done any mowing, we have tried to be good neighbors, and that is why we are in the position we are now."
PUBLICATION: The Dayton Daily News
DATE: July 24, 1997
SECTION: Metro Today, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Associated Press
DATELINE: Columbus, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Don Wuertz, president, Delaware County Commission
The Dayton Daily News reports that Columbus (Ohio) City Council President Michael Coleman will meet with Delaware County commissioners to discuss complaints about noise and violence at the Polaris Amphitheatre. The amphitheatre, about five miles north of Columbus, is under the jurisdiction of the city, and county commissioners recently have said Columbus officials have been lax about controlling concert-related noise. Residents living near the amphitheatre have complained about its noise since it opened in 1994. Meanwhile, the city attorney's office is drafting a new noise ordinance, the article reports.
According to the article, officials in the suburb of Westerville recently wrote a letter to Council President Coleman, demanding that Columbus toughen its noise ordinance to force Polaris to lower concert volumes. Westerville's complaints will be one of the topics of the upcoming meeting between the city and the county, tentatively set for the first week of August. The noise ordinance currently being drafted is expected to be submitted to the council in September.
In addition to noise problems at Polaris, the latest round of complaints also involved complaints of violence. At a June concert, some concert-goers set small fires and tore down a section of fence after Ozzy Osbourne failed to appear at the show. Police arrested 23 people, and the Ohio Department of Liquor Control issued 99 liquor citations, the article says. In addition, two Polaris security guards and one patron suffered minor injuries.
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star
DATE: July 24, 1997
SECTION: Brampton; Pg. BR1
BYLINE: Mike Funston
DATELINE: Mississauga, Ontario
The Toronto Star reports that the proposed new Official Plan in Mississauga, Ontario is being appealed by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority because it will allow development in high-noise areas near Pearson International Airport. The authority is afraid that such development will result in residents opposing future operations and expansion of the airport. The authority's appeal also is supported by the Air Transport Association of Canada, an umbrella group representing airlines and helicopter operators. The appeal will be heard by the Ontario Municipal Board, the article reports.
According to the article, Transport Canada has issued proposed guidelines stating that areas near flight paths with noise levels of 30 to 35 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) are not suitable for residential development. The province issued a policy statement last February that supported those guidelines, the article says. Stanley Stein, an attorney for the authority, wrote in legal documents, "Noise mitigation . . . measures are inadequate against aircraft operations in the 30 to 35 NEF range. It is therefore inappropriate to knowingly expose new residential communities to this level of aircraft noise." Stein also wrote, "It is essential the Transport Canada and provincial policies be clearly expressed in the City of Mississauga Official Plan."
PUBLICATION: The Pantagraph
DATE: July 20, 1997
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A13; Letters
BYLINE: Lois and Eugene Perrine, Bloomington residents
DATELINE: Bloomington, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lois and Eugene Perrine, Bloomington residents
The Pantagraph printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Lois and Eugene Perrine, residents of Bloomington, Illinois, regarding proposed noise mitigation measures at the Bloomington-Normal Airport:
The July 15 Pantagraph editorial ("Merger of airlines fits in with growth at B-N airport") points out that one of the airport's growing pains is the increased noise that nearby residents are subjected to.
The Noise Compatibility Study prepared in 1990 for the Bloomington-Normal Airport Authority by Aviation Planning Associates Inc. provided a "1995 Recommended Strategy." This was based on estimated noise levels to be expected in areas around the airport in 1995. It was assumed that the new runway would be completed and that growth in airport use would be as predicted at that time -- 1990. The recommendations included: the construction of an acoustical barrier to shield residential areas from the noise associated with commercial jet activity; and an acoustical structure to reduce maintenance run-up noise.
Since the activity at the airport has increased beyond what was anticipated in 1990 for 1995, the proposed noise mitigation measures are long overdue.
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: July 23, 1997
SECTION: Baylife, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Philip Morgan
DATELINE: Tampa, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kenneth Gerhardt, professor of audiology, University of Florida
The Tampa Tribune reports that according to Kenneth Gerhardt, a University of Florida professor of audiology who specializes in the effects of noise on hearing, occupants of "boom cars," are placing their hearing at risk from the loud music.
The article reports that Gerhardt said if people are exposed to the noise levels in boom cars on a regular basis, permanent, irreversible, and hearing loss can gradually occur. In fact, Gerhardt said, it may take 10 or 20 years before victims notice the hearing loss. He said with hearing loss, people lose their clarity -- they can pick up lower-frequency vowels, but can no longer hear the higher-pitched consonants. People who continue to listen to loud music for long periods will start to lose their ability to hear lower-frequency sounds, too, Gerhardt said. In addition, the article reports, he noted that workers are prohibited from being exposed to 105 decibels of noise for more than one hour by federal regulations. Gerhardt said he guessed the decibel levels inside some boom cars exceed that level. Gerhardt added that although victimes of this kind of hearing loss have difficulty communicating with others, they don't go completely deaf. Instead, they hear everything like it's a song on a poor quality radio, he concluded.
PUBLICATION: Bangor Daily News
DATE: July 25, 1997
DATELINE: Cherryfield and Surry, Maine
The Bangor Daily News printed the following letter-to-the-editors from residents in Surry and Cherryfield, Maine regarding noise from personal watercraft on local lakes:
To the editor:
I am writing in response to the article of Monday, July 21 on the front page titled, "Case made for personal watercraft." I was quite dismayed at the lack of concern for the wildlife, and for the apparent lack on reporting one side of the controversial story. I have lived on a lake for over 10 years and have seen the different progression of technology and development of the personal watercraft. Maybe my story is one-sided, but true.
Let me tell you what I have seen. I have seen people towing skiers without a spotter, how can you spot with your back to the water skier? I have seen operators, oblivious to rocks jutting out of the water, running down loons, cutting off slow-moving fishing boats. I have been personally cut off in my path while water skiing. I have heard the mournful shrill of a loon calling out to her mate with the approach of a fast moving watercraft. How can you pick up an injured or tired skier if you already have a passenger with you on your watercraft?
I don't pay my waterfront taxes to have my solitude interrupted by the buzzing of one of those personal watercrafts.
People who sell these things are very conscientious, the majority of the people who buy them are not.
The key phrase is this, "How are we going to make people use them wisely?" Mandatory training and education including a practical exam, you need one for motorcycles and automobiles, maybe this will work. I believe this is something the watercraft dealers should sponsor, but they should be implemented by an impartial party.
It is ignorance, inexperience, and lack of conscience that irritate me the most. But it is this population that is giving the jet skiers a bad reputation. They, by far, outweigh the responsible owners. It is unfortunate that the policing of these is left to the few game wardens we have on our fresh water lakes.
Theresa Richardson, Surry resident
To the editor:
My family, at a sand beach with another large family, are enjoying a wonderful day on quiet Spring River Lake in Township 10.
Suddenly from the other end of the lake, four personal watercraft machines zoom toward us, swinging around in a large circle, actually causing young children, mothers and fathers to immediately go to the beach, where they stand in awe as these machines were in front of us. The noise is awful. The peace and quiet of a pristine lake has been destroyed.
The people on these machines even stop in front of us. It seems that they may think we are impressed with their tremendous noise and circling maneuvers. To the man nearest us I say, "We don't need this, we don't need you!" He thrusts his finger up toward me then continues his circling for some five minutes. Then the four zoom toward the other end of the lake.
I operate a bed and breakfast business in Cherryfield. Spring River Lake is a primary recommendation for our visiting guests. Our local people love to take children to the lake. Personal watercraft, with the horrible noise and dangerous maneuvers, will destroy the quiet and beauty of their lake.
It is my hope that many Mainers will contact their state representatives and implore them to not give in to efforts of the people who want to sell these machines. And why any compromise? Ban them completely.
William Conway, Cherryfield resident
PUBLICATION: Occupational Health and Safety Letter
DATE: July 21, 1997
SECTION: No. 15, Vol. 27; ISSN: 0196-058X
DATELINE: Europe
The Occupational Health & Safety Letter reports that the European Commission (EC) has applied to the European Court of Justice, seeking legal retribution against Italy and Belgium for failing to adopt limits on construction workers' exposure to noise from construction machinery.
The article reports that the EC claims the two countries have violated two EC directives to adopt and send to the commission national legislation that imposes limits on noise emitted by earth-moving machines used in civil engineering and building sites. The machinery includes hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, bulldozers, front-loaders, and excavator loads.
In addition, the EC has issued a warning to France on the same issue, according to an EC statement, the article reports. The warning essentially gives France one last chance before the EC will take the country to court.
These actions are part of a series of legal actions the EC has recently taken against nations that are not complying with its safety and environmental directives. At a press briefing on July 1, a spokesperson for the EC said that the commission is considering increasing its use of penalties against nations that don't comply with its directives as well.
PUBLICATION: The Northern Echo (England)
DATE: July 22, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 49
BYLINE: Alison Jesney
DATELINE: Sedgefield, England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Glyn Hall, director of housing and environmental health; Keith Parkinson, environmental control officer
The Northern Echo of England escalating complaints of domestic noise from barking dogs, loud music and other sources have prompted the town of Sedgefield, England, to take action.
According to the article, barking dogs and loud music are making people's lives miserable in Sedgefield. Last year, 144 residents in the borough of Sedgefield complained of barking dogs, compared with just 19 people being bothered by industrial noise. Another 141 residents said they were aggravated by domestic noise, including excessively loud washing machines and neighbors vacuuming the carpets at inappropriate times. And eight other people said they were being deafened by loud music. Altogether, 406 noise complaints were received by the council - about 70 more than had been received the year before. The number of protests has been steadily increasing.
The article says on the eve of National Noise Awareness Day, officers at Sedgefield Borough Council are preparing to launch a six-month noise exposure survey, which has been designed to pinpoint noise trouble spots in the area. "Traffic, industry and aircraft noise can all take their toll," said environmental control officer Keith Parkinson, "but neighborhood noise is more likely to disturb the peace. By noise mapping we can plan our strategy to avoid unnecessary increases, and if there are problems we can take action." Any complaints about noise can be registered with the local council, which can serve a noise abatement notice.
The article notes that in an effort to encourage people to be more aware of the problem, the council has published a leaflet outlining the causes of excessive neighborhood noise. It also offers advice on how to avoid it, or deal with it if it becomes a problem. The leaflet lists the effects of neighborhood noise as: disturbed sleep; emotional stress; interference with other activities, such as homework or watching television. Endless loud music, dogs, parties, burglar alarms, revving cars and motorbikes are the culprits in most of these cases. "It's not that we are saying nobody should ever have a party or play music, but you should respect your neighbors," said the council's director of housing and environmental health, Glyn Hall. "If somebody is disturbing you, try to approach them first," he said. And while the new leaflet attempts to help people to be more neighborly, he admits that people in general are becoming more intolerant. "The World Health Organization's recommendations about what is acceptable stand at 55 decibels during the day and 45 at night," said Mr. Parkinson. "The lowest it ever gets naturally is about 30 decibels, but that is on a very quiet, still night." A kettle boils at 50 decibels at half a meter and a vacuum cleaner registers at 70 decibels at three meters.
Previous week: July 13, 1997
Next week: July 27, 1997
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index