COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	noise[e85,jmc]		The politics of noise
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
noise[e85,jmc]		The politics of noise

	To me and my wife the largest single environmental irritant
is noise.  We also believe that noise is bad for our health.  I believe
there is some scientific literature offering evidence to that effect,
but I haven't seen it recently.

	The noises that annoy are many.  In our offices at Stanford
University we experience leaf blowers, power lawn mowers, noisy
air conditioning, noisy motorcycles, buses and trucks.  The recent
introduction of backup beepers for trucks and other vehicles
presumably increased safety, but whoever sets the standards for
them made them too loud, since they are annoying at at distance
of several blocks.

	At home there are also the neighbors' leaf blowers and lawn
mowers, rock concerts in the fraternities and our own noisy refrigerator.
(If one complains about how noisy refrigerators are these days, one can
get a pamphlet from General Electric explaining how that's good for you.
Modern refrigerators have thinner insulation and hence more interior space
and motors that run all the time and so are energy-efficient.  Sometimes
small airplanes annoy by flying too low over Stanford University, but
airplanes are one of the minor sources of noise.

	If one thinks about the matter technically, there are many
possibilities for relief.  The largest of them is to muffle engines
better.  This makes the engines less efficient and perhaps heavier, but
this seems to me to be a small price.  My impression is that
noise was formerly a larger consideration in the design of equipment
than it is today.  For example, gas refrigerators were advertised
as being noiseless.  They are not available any more, and my impression
is that there are almost no advertisements today promising noiselessness
for anything.

	Now for the politics.  Suppose many people are irritated by
noise, and suppose that in addition to the irritation, scientific
studies purport to show that the noise is harmful to health.  What
ways are there for getting relief?  There are many.  First publicity
about the desirability of reducing noise.  Second the development of
noise level standards for various kinds of equipment and for various
envirnoments.  For example, environments like universities in which
people are actually expected to think require low noise.
Third better enforcement of existing laws limiting noise and better
enforcement by institutions of their own internal regulations.
Fourth lawsuits against noise polluters and against institutions
that fail to enforce laws and internal rules.  Finally, new laws
and rules.

	However, there is a difficulty that has made noise abatement
take a back seat recently.  Namely, the ability to muster indignation
depends on the social character of the offender.  For many years,
the preferred target for social indignation has been the corporation.
Indeed the main area of successful legal action against noise has
been the noise from airliners.  There the airline companies and the
airplane manufacturers constitute targets fully consonant with the
ethos of those who file lawsuits.