8/19/2019 EPA Leads the Quest for Quiet- Noise Pollution- Environmental Battle of the 1980s

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epa-leads-the-quest-for-quiet-noise-pollution-environmental-battle-of-the 1/4

EPA Leads the Quest for Quiet: Noise Pollution: Environmental Battle of the 1980sAuthor(s): Susan WaltonSource: BioScience, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Mar., 1980), pp. 205-207Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1308053 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 18:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org

8/19/2019 EPA Leads the Quest for Quiet- Noise Pollution- Environmental Battle of the 1980s

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epa-leads-the-quest-for-quiet-noise-pollution-environmental-battle-of-the 2/4

EPA Leads the Quest forQuiet--

N o i s e Pollution

nvi ronmental a t t l e o t h 198 s

The world is a noisy place these days,

and as the cacophony grows, researchersand federal agencies are becoming moreand more concerned about the possibleill effects of noise on humans. The Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) es-timates that the amount of noise inAmerica will double by the year 2000.Noise, it is becoming evident, can nolonger be considered merely a nuisance.Like toxic chemicals in the air and wa-ter, noise is a form of pollution, and ithas detonated a quiet explosion of inter-est among biological scientists con-cerned about the physiological effects of

excess sound.Noise wreaks its most obvious damageon human hearing. The auditory effectsof noise, which are irreversible, havebeen the subject of intensive investiga-tion and government regulation by nu-merous federal agencies. But noise regu-lations, most of which were generated bythe Noise Control Act of 1972, do notcover one increasingly apparent prob-lem: The damage that noise causes doesnot stop at the ear.

The question of the nonauditory ef-fects of noise keeps being raised, says

David DeJoy of the EPA Office of NoiseAbatement and Control. It has reachedthe point where the evidence is such thatthere is ample justification for further re-search. But, DeJoy adds, none of thenonauditory areas of noise research hasyet received the amount of attention thatauditory research has.

Such investigations are not simple.Noise, by its very nature, attacks its vic-tims on many levels at the same time--psychologically, socially, and phys-

ically. And there is a great deal of indi-

vidual variation in noise susceptibility,even with regard to hearing loss. The dif-ficulties in isolating noise as a variable,then, have rendered less useful manystudies of its nonauditory, particularlycardiovascular, effects.

Most nonauditory noise research hasinvolved epidemiological field studies;some work has been with rodents andsome with primates. The major criti-cism of the epidemiological studies isthat there are so many uncontrolled vari-ables, DeJoy says. But they do lookat the long-term effects of noise, and the

results have been provocative and fairlyconsistent.Animal studies, in contrast, provide

the controls that epidemiological studieslack, but they have looked mostly at theshort-term effects of noise. And the rat,otherwise a favorite laboratory model forhumans, is not a good model for studyingnoise effects. Rats have a different sortof auditory system, with different sensi-tivities, explains DeJoy, so it is not en-tirely valid to compare them to humans.The rats may not be hearing the samesounds that humans would, and the ef-

fects on their physiological processesmay not be similar. Furthermore, noise,unlike other potentially harmful agents,cannot be delivered to laboratory ani-mals in mammoth doses because the re-sulting hearing loss would invalidate theresults.

Miami Monkey Trial

To remedy the shortcomings of exist-ing studies, as well as to make a more

realistic appraisal of the nonauditory ef-

fects of noise, EPA is sponsoring a four-to-five-year study of the cardiovasculareffects of long-term noise exposure onrhesus monkeys. Under the direction ofErnest Peterson at the University of Mi-ami (Florida) Medical School, the pro-gram is now in its second year. So far theresults are ominous: Not only does noiseaffect the monkey's cardiovascular sys-tem, but the effects linger after the noisestops.

To establish an environmentally real-istic condition, the Miami researchersexpose the monkeys to the same kinds of

noise for the same amount of time as mil-lions of American industrial workers ex-perience over a six-to-nine-month peri-od. Awakened by an alarm, the monkeysthen listen to the taped sounds of show-ering, shaving, television viewing, eatingbreakfast, driving to work, working foreight hours-with a break for cafeterianoise-driving home, eating dinner, andmore television viewing. After bedtime,they hear night noises: airplanes flyingoverhead, traffic, sirens, and other noc-turnal intrusions.

The researchers try to control rigidly

for all factors that might cloud the effectsof noise. The stimulus is carefully spec-ified with regard to the usual physical pa-rameters. Light, heat, and humidity areall controlled so that the interactions areminimized, Peterson says. There are anendless number of factors to consider, headds, but the controls in the study are asstringent as possible.

During the noise exposure period, themonkeys are monitored continuously(and the measurements computerized)

March 1980 205

This content downloaded from 19 5.78.108.60 on Tue, 17 Jun 20 14 18:23:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/19/2019 EPA Leads the Quest for Quiet- Noise Pollution- Environmental Battle of the 1980s

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epa-leads-the-quest-for-quiet-noise-pollution-environmental-battle-of-the 3/4

for heart rate and blood pressure, mea-sured systemically through the ascend-ing aorta. So far, the two noise-exposedmonkeys (apart from the others used inpreliminary trials) have developed ele-vated blood pressure-a condition thatmuch of the medical community consid-ers one of the major health problems ofthe modern western world. From a pre-noise exposure level of roughly 106 mm

systolic--average for a young rhesus--the exposed monkeys experienced a 30%rise in blood pressure, up to an averageof 133 mm systolic. 'In a human being ofthe same age and sex-young, female,and extremely healthy-this would meanan increase in blood pressure from 120/80 to 155/110, says Peterson, whichaccording to most authorities would bethe lower limits of hypertension. Forthe monkeys, this increase represents ajump from the 55th percentile to the 97thpercentile.

Noise as an effective catastrophicchange was the stimulus condition thatmost likely caused the elevation in bloodpressure, Peterson says. Furthermore,after a subsequent month without all thenoise, the monkeys' blood pressure stillhad not returned to the pre-noise ex-posure level. The least I can say is thatthe parameters did not return to nor-mal, Peterson says. In fact, severaldays after the noise was turned off, themonkeys experienced another rapid risein blood pressure. It could be that theblood pressure would drop some in time,but probably not back down to the pre-exposure level.

It would be difficult to conduct such astrictly controlled experiment using hu-man beings. The results with monkeys,however, are suggestive of what thenonauditory effects of noise may be onhumans, according to Peterson. If theydo respond that way, it would be verytroublesome, he adds, particularlysince none of the noise exposure levelsused in the study exceed the Occupation-al Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) standards for industrial noiseexposure. We went below the upperlimits recommended by OSHA becausethe rhesus' hearing may be more sensi-tive to noise.

The OSHA limits involve an intricatesystem of 'time-weighted noise ex-posure: The worker may be exposed to alower level of noise for eight hours, alouder noise level for four hours, and soon. The standards are based on averagenoise exposure, since noise levels varythroughout the day and from industry toindustry. The peak sound level

OSHA allows is 102 decibels (dB); theMiami study exposed monkeys to a peakof 97 dB, and the overall level for 24-hour exposure was 86 dB, which did notcause a hearing loss or threshold shiftin the monkeys.

The mechanism behind the change inthe monkeys' blood pressure is not yetclear. Peterson believes the elevation isessentially a stress reaction. Noise can

be considered a stressor in the sense that[Hans] Selye uses the term. That is, itcan produce the triad that he describes:enlargement of the adrenal cortex,shrinking of the lymphatic structures,and gastric ulcers.

The next step in the study will be toexamine the more subtle physiologicalchanges that may accompany the noiseexposure. Peterson says that he will em-phasize the dynamic basis for thechanges in blood pressure, which couldbe related either to cardiac changes or tovascular changes. Other physiologicalchanges, in glucose and cortisol levels,for example, have been measured as aninformal part of the study and have alsoshown some clear-cut differences. Thesewill be examined in greater detail.

The Miami study represents a first in-depth look at the nonauditory effects ofnoise. As such, it will probably raise asmany questions as it answers. If noisedoes in fact have a profound effect on thephysiological processes of young,healthy female monkeys, how would itaffect individuals who are in some way

compromised, because of either ageor health conditions? Other physicalagents can interact with noise: Somedietary deficiencies that are otherwiseclinically insignificant, for example, in-teract with noise to change the structureof the heart; noise and vibration may acttogether to cause significant damage;noise enhances the neurotoxic effects oflead. In short, noise may affect us all ina nearly infinite number of ways.

The next parameter Peterson willstudy is age. If the evidence of noise'spernicious effect on young, healthysubjects continues to accumulate, noisemay be even more of a hazard for oldersubjects.

Noise may also have an influence onrates of birth defects and low birthweights. In Los Angeles, UCLA re-searchers F. Nowell Jones and JudyTauscher found a higher incidence of re-ported birth defects among babies ofpeople living in the census tracts underthe loudest parts of the Los Angeles air-port landing pattern. But a similar studycarried out in Atlanta, Georgia, failed to

show any such effects. In Japan, re-searchers found a higher incidence oflow birth weight infants among the popu-lations most affected by airport noise.

Striking at the Source

Meanwhile, the fight to control noise isproceeding on a practical if somewhatlimited level. EPA is attacking the prob-lem by seeking to limit the noise fromspecific products and by encouragingconsumers to buy, and manufacturers toproduce, quieter products. The agencyannounced a new labeling program lastSeptember, which requires manufac-turers to affix labels to products thatproduce noise capable of adversely af-fecting public health or welfare, andproducts that are sold to reduce noise(i.e., earplugs and other protection de-vices). Such products will carry a noiserating : a number indicating how manydecibels of noise they emit. The same la-

bel will feature an outline of the decibelrange for other manufacturers' versionsof the same product. For example, a con-sumer would know that a particularproduct labeled 79, with a range of

50-80, is one of the noisier versionsof that item. Noise-reducing productswill have similar labels, but the numberswill refer to the number of decibels bywhich the product reduces noise.

EPA Administrator Douglas M. Costlesays that his agency will put primaryemphasis on requiring labels on productsused in and around the home : homeshop tools, household appliances such asvacuum cleaners and air conditioners,and lawn and garden equipment. Manu-facturers may establish programs of theirown to test products for noise and labelthem appropriately.

EPA is also attacking some of theprime producers of urban noise: garbagetrucks, buses, pavement breakers, bull-dozers, and front-end loaders. All gar-bage trucks manufactured after 1 Octo-ber 1980 may not emit noise in excess of79 dB measured at 7 meters; after 1 July1982, the level will be 76 dB. The busregulations should, according to EPA es-timates, reduce the bus noise to whichcity dwellers are subject by nearly half.And the new regulations require motor-cyclists to 'roar into the sunset at anaverage reduction of 5 dB.

For industrial workers, OSHA nowhas an exposure standard of 90 dB for aneight-hour exposure, with a 'time-in-tensity trade-off for shorter exposuresto louder noise. By the end of this year,OSHA officials hope to have a new stan-

206 BioScience Vol. 30 No. 3

This content downloaded from 19 5.78.108.60 on Tue, 17 Jun 20 14 18:23:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/19/2019 EPA Leads the Quest for Quiet- Noise Pollution- Environmental Battle of the 1980s

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epa-leads-the-quest-for-quiet-noise-pollution-environmental-battle-of-the 4/4

dard in effect, which may reduce thepermissible exposure to 85 dB for eighthours, with concomitant decreases inthe time-intensity trade-off. First pro-posed in 1974, the suggested change hasgenerated some 25,000 pages of hearingtestimony. The time-lag has mostly beendue to the need to study the financial im-pact of the standard, according to AliceSuter of OSHA's physical agents sector.

If this proposal weren't going to costanything, it would have been set in regu-lations a long time ago, she says. But itmay cost industry billions of dollars.

The financial cost of reducing noiseis-as is usual in the volley between re-search findings and regulation--beingmeasured against its potential health ef-fects on the population. If the nonaudi-tory effects of noise are indeed as pow-erful as the auditory effects, the impacton regulation could be great. But sinceno one knows exactly what the nonaudi-tory effects are, no one knows preciselyhow to regulate them.

We need a dose-response crite-rion, and we have none yet for the non-auditory effects of noise, says one EPA

official. If the research proceeds andthe effects are quantified, then the regu-lations would proceed from there. Su-ter agrees that the nonauditory effectsneed to be better understood beforeOSHA can set standards, and points outthat the safe levels for nonauditory ef-fects may well differ from what is safewith regard to hearing loss.

The quest for quiet, then, is likely to

be long and tedious, as it takes its placealong with the fight for clean air and wa-ter on the environmental agenda of the1980s. -Susan Walton

March 1980 207

Censure USSR .Continued from p. 152

good opportunity for U.S. scientists tovoice their opinion to the Soviets and therest of the world.

The need for international cooperationhas never been greater, stresses Scienceand Technology Subcommittee Chair-man George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.),while the climate for fruitful coopera-tive activity has seldom been worse.Ironically, this is also a time when, ac-cording to Presidential Science AdviserFrank Press, the quality of Soviet par-ticipation in cooperative activities underthe bilateral agreements had begun to im-prove in some ways. Press says that the

tempo of joint activities in the last 12months has increased in such areas as

physics, electrometallurgy, fusion, andmagnetohydrodynamics- subjects inwhich the Soviets have high levels ofachievement. Exchanges in some ofthese areas have taken years to develop,Press adds, and they recently had begunto pay dividends. Furthermore, the So-viets lately had been permitting moreand better scientists to attend scientificmeetings and participate in exchange vis-its. In previous years, eminent scientistswho were invited to present papers wereoften replaced by scientists with lowerprofessional but higher political status.

The fruits of exchange are not entirelynew. Kansas State University PresidentDuane Acker, one of the three U.S. dele-gates to the forum, points out, Ourmost fertile source for alternate planttypes of our principal crops is the SovietUnion. The best plant-breeding materialswe can get to improve our alfalfa andother legumes can be obtained from theUSSR. And Press has said that Sovietwastewater treatment technologies havesaved the United States $55 million, and

their work on nuclear fusion has savedup to two years of experimental workand about $10 million.

In spite of the progress, both the gov-ernment and the scientific organizationsare now convinced of the need for cen-sure. The government already has taken

action to limit exchange. On 7 January,the Soviet government was notified thatthree high level meetings were being

indefinitely postponed : the Agricul-tural Joint Committee meeting, scheduledfor 14-15 January in Moscow; a HousingJoint Committee meeting, scheduled forFebruary in Moscow; and the HealthJoint Committee meeting, scheduled forFebruary in Washington. Mid-Januarymeetings of the working groups on re-search and technology, and economic re-search and information (both under theAgricultural Agreement) were also can-

celled. On the same day, the U.S. em-bassy in Moscow informed the SovietInstitute of High Temperatures that theU.S.-built magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)channel would not be shipped to Moscowas planned, and the U.S. delegationwould not attend the MHD steering com-mittee meeting set for the same time.

Government officials are aware thatany efforts to prohibit American scien-tists from working with Soviet scientistswould make the U.S. just as guilty as theRussians of suppressing individual free-dom. They realize too that some projectsshould not be shelved until the world set-tles down; activities that have great sci-entific or humanitarian value to theUnited States or the Soviet Union will becontinued. Other programs will beslowed but not stopped; the three mostactive working groups under the Energyand Atomic Energy Agreements-fu-sion, fundamental properties of matter,and magnetohydrodynamics- haveplans to reduce cooperative exchangesbelow the level agreed upon. As Assist-

ant Secretary of State Thomas R. Pick-ering said in his testimony, there is no

blanket cancellation of all activities.Some work continues not only be-

cause it is valuable, but also becausethere is general consensus that it wouldbe a mistake to slam the door between

the two scientific communities. The Fed-eration of American Scientists and otherAmerican scientific organizations are ad-vising individual U.S. scientists to followtheir own conscience in regard to Sovietconnections, and most hearing witnessesagreed that a show of solidarity from pri-vate U.S. scientists would be more ef-fective than any government prohibi-tions. The American delegation to theScientific Forum, which includes NASPresident Handler and Paul Flory ofStanford as well as Acker, will probablyspeak for many scientists as they expresstheir dismay to the Soviets: Our mes-sage will be clear, Handler says. Byflouting the standards of human decency,by creating an atmosphere of tension andfear, Soviet authorities have angered andalienated the scientists of the UnitedStates and of the West; in doing so, theyhave isolated their scientific communityfrom the one resource they crave morethan any other-the stimulation and cre-ativity of free minds. That message willbe conveyed in the presence of delega-tions from all of the other East Europeannations. May it strike home.

The tone of the hearing was hopeful ofsomeday restoring the exchange of sci-entific knowledge to its former healthystate, but no one ventured any estimatesof when this might be. The importantthing seems to be that the scientists ex-press their extreme dissatisfaction whilesimultaneously making certain that thedoors of exchange remain at least partial-ly ajar. As Handler concludes, If westop talking, we will have given up.

-Susan Walton

This content downloaded from 19 5.78.108.60 on Tue, 17 Jun 20 14 18:23:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions