Noise - The Third Pollution: Suggested Guidelines for Action Now

Abstract

One of the things that sets man ahead of other animals is that he is supposed to learn faster from his mistakes. In the case of the first two pollutions, those of air and water, premature regulations enforced by Governments caused a waste of millions of dollars because new technologies with more positive, more economic solutions were on the horizon. Perhaps in recognition of this, Governments in the United States and Canada appear bogged down in coming to grips with firm regulations on noise. None of us, I am sure, would like to repeat the classic errors of the automotive industry that: - reduced some pollutants to within limits, but simultaneously introduced new toxics at the same time, and also greatly increased our consumption of dwindling petroleum. Lo and behold! We now have broken new frontiers with lean-burn engines and smaller cars which are economic logical answers to thinking citizens who recognize that we live beyond our energy supply. In spite of squabbles over: - 85 dBA vs 90 dBA, all known technology applied against practical technology, administrative controls or not, economic impact against union demands for removal of the need for hearing protection regardless of cost; industry must continue to move toward prevention of noise induced hearing loss of its employees by enforcement of hearing protectors and the elimination of noise in a logical economically feasible manner.