Do you know what a decibel (dB) is?
It's a tenth of a Bel. A Bel is a unit of sound energy. Ten dB (or a Bel) is one power of ten greater. Twenty decibels increase is TWO powers of ten, or one-hundred times the sound energy. Just gave you that so those who aren't used to dealing with dB can interpret this request from Sound Transit. Not syaing it should be approved, not syaing it shouldn't be approved. I don't live close enough to the construction for it to make any difference to me. But for those that do, they might want to understand the physics behind this request before they make up their opinion.

Sound Transit seeks permit to be noisy at night 'til 2006 

by Andrew Garber 
Seattle Times staff reporter 

Sound Transit wants permission to make more construction noise at 
night than is allowed under Seattle ordinances. 

The agency, which is building a $2.1 billion, 21-mile light-rail system 
between SeaTac and the University District in Seattle, has applied for a 
noise variance for construction from 2001 to 2006. 

The variance is for work that will take place from the north end of the 
downtown transit tunnel to the University District. The work will be 
concentrated in these areas: 


*	First Hill: Two sites between Minor and Harvard avenues on East 
Madison Street. 
*	Capitol Hill: Three sites between East Thomas and Howell streets. 
*	University District: Two sites along 15th Avenue between Northeast 
Boat Street and Northeast 40th Street, and one site on the corner of 15th 
Avenue Northeast and Northeast 45th Street. 
*	Convention Place.

The agency wants permission to make noise from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. on 
weekdays and from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. weekends. 

Noise levels are based on a scale that measures the sensitivity of the 
human ear to sound. Noise from light-rail construction is not expected to 
exceed five decibels over background levels on average, according to 
Sound Transit. 

Overall, Sound Transit expects construction-noise levels no higher than 
55 to 77 decibels on average, depending on the location. A person using 
a vacuum cleaner is exposed to 76 decibels, the agency says. 

Work on the rail project is expected to go on around the clock. 

City ordinances do not allow construction at night without a noise 
variance, said Alan Justad, a spokesman for the city Department of 
Design, Construction and Land Use. 

the craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 06, 2000

Answers

For anyone interested, Sound Transit does have a video concerning light rail noise. The consultant takes the meter to various places on the Portland Max system, and to MLKing Way in Seattle. The camera is set up to view the meter while it samples the source in the background. You can find this at the public library.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), May 06, 2000.

The above refers to construction noise, Jim. Not to the noise of operation of the system. If you want me to state upfront that light rail is reasonably quiet in operation, I will. Particularly for the north end, where they'll bury the tracks to gain community acceptance.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 07, 2000.

The video does a good job of explaining noise levels and making other comparisons. Even with the built in bias, since it is a Sound Transit video, it's very straightforward. The only thing that I thought was missing was a sampling of the rail line where there is no adjacent road noise.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), May 08, 2000.

"The only thing that I thought was missing was a sampling of the rail line where there is no adjacent road noise"

Did they have a sampling of the construction noise that they are trying to get the waiver for?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 08, 2000.

Hey, the City of Seattle is doing a revision on the Stormwater, Grading, and Drainage Control Code. I don't live in Seattle, nor do I think that these revisions will have anything more than a slight impact on maybe a few people within the city. But if Craig wants to create a new thread on some laughably insignificant item, then I might as well too.

The City of Seattle is revising its Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code (SMC 22.800 - SMC 22.808). Updating the Stormwater Code is a regulatory requirement under the Citys NPDES stormwater permit issued by the Department of Ecology, and with SPU as the lead agency, the City has been working closely with the Department of Ecology to ensure that these revisions address the Citys unique characteristics. Flexibility and options for innovation that best work in a highly urbanized metropolitan center have been incorporated into the Code language. Most importantly, however, changing the Stormwater Code is part of the Citys larger strategy of environmental stewardship. It is envisioned that these revisions will further protect the Citys valuable water resources, and produce a positive benefit for all of Seattles residents and our visitors. Finally, these changes reflect Seattles commitment to being part of a larger, regional approach for addressing problems related to urban stormwater runoff.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.

For more information on how insignificant this little nugget that Craig brought us is, here's some more background factoids on some real world noises around the expected 55 to 77 decibel range:

50 dBA: light traffic at 100 ft 60 dBA: normal conversation at 5 ft, air conditioning unit at 100 ft 70 dBA: passenger car going 65 mph at 25 ft, living room stereo at 15 feet, vacuum cleaner at 3 feet, electric typewriter at 10 feet 80 dBA: kitchen garbage disposal at 3 feet

Another example at 80 dBA (over the expected noise level of construction) is "high urban ambient sound." So these people living in these areas (and these are rather high density zones) probably experience this range of loudness at this time of night ALL THE TIME!

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.

"For more information on how insignificant this little nugget that Craig brought us is, here's some more background factoids on some real world noises around the expected 55 to 77 decibel range: "

Actually the EPA established quite different standards. If this doesn't format well (which I kind of expect), I'd recommend you go to the URL cited.

Summary
On the basis of its interpretation of available scientific 
information, EPA has identified a range of yearly Day-Night Sound 
Levels sufficient to protect public health and welfare from the 
effects of environmental noise. It is very important that these noise 
levels, summarized in Table VIII, not be misconstrued. Since the 
protective levels were derived without concern for technical or 
economic feasibility, and contain a margin of safety to insure their 
protective value, they must not be viewed as standards, criteria, 
regulations, or goals. Rather, they should be viewed as levels below 
which there is no reason to suspect that the general population will 
be at risk from any of the identified effects of noise.
Table VIII
Yearly Ldn Values That Protect Public Health and Welfare with a 
Margin of Safety 
EFFECT	LEVEL	AREA
Hearing	Leq(24) 
< 70 dB	All areas (at the ear)
Outdoor activity interference and annoyance	Ldn 
< 55 dB	Outdoors in residential areas and farms and other outdoor 
areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other 
places in which quiet is a basis for use.
Outdoor activity interference and annoyance	Leq(24)
< 55 dB	Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time, 
such as school yards, playgrounds, etc.
Indoor activity interference and annoyance	Ldn 
< 45 dB	Indoor residential areas
Indoor activity interference and annoyance	Leq(24) 
< 45 dB	Other indoor areas with human activities such as schools, etc.
Outdoor yearly levels on the Ldn scale are sufficient to protect 
public health and welfare if they do not exceed 55 dB in sensitive 
areas (residences, schools, and hospitals). Inside buildings, yearly 
levels on the Ldn scale are sufficient to protect public health and 
welfare if they do not exceed 45 dB. Maintaining 55 Ldn outdoors 
should ensure adequate protection for indoor living. To protect 
against hearing damage, one's 24-hour noise exposure at the ear 
should not exceed 70 dB.

http://www.batnet.com/askmar/Noise/EPA%20Levels/Noise_Frame.html

So Patrick-

Do you concur with the Reagan administrations actions in defunding the EPA ambient noise program as a lot of busy-bodies who were just causing trouble?

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 08, 2000.

And of course Patrick MAY be entirely correct that 80dB is no big hairy deal, and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta may just be alarmists (Nattering Nabobs of Negativism, as Spiro Agnew used to say.before we sent him to jail) for not allowing THEIR employees to exceed 80dB on a 16 hour/day 40 hour week without hearing protection and an annual monitoring program.

http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/manual/hearing.htm?

The CDC Office of Health and Safety (OHS), aware that excessive noise 
exposure is a potential cause of hearing loss, is establishing a 
hearing conservation program that is more conservative than that 
required by OSHA. The Office of Health and Safety has adopted the 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) 
noise exposure limits referred to as threshold limit values (TLV): 
Duration per day, hours 	Sound level (dBA)
16 	80
8 	85
4 	90
2 	95
1 	100
1/2 	105
1/4 	110
1/8 	115
When the sound levels listed above are exceeded, feasible 
administrative or engineering controls will be instituted. If the 
controls fail to reduce the sound levels to within those listed 
above, hearing protection will be provided and used to reduce the 
sound levels to an acceptable level. In addition, OSHA requirements 
dictate that whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-
hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 dBA, slow response, a 
continuing effective hearing conservation program shall be 
instituted. 

Or it may simply be that Patrick doesnt care about reality, anything that would interfere with something that he believes is a philosophically superior idea or urgent necessity, just doesnt count. Hes not the first to feel that way. Thats how we got Commencement Bay trashed by Asarco, and Hanford trashed by the DOE/AEC.

The craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 08, 2000.

"Hey, the City of Seattle is doing a revision on the Stormwater, Grading, and Drainage Control Code. I don't live in Seattle, nor do I think that these revisions will have anything more than a slight impact on maybe a few people within the city. But if Craig wants to create a new thread on some laughably insignificant item, then I might as well too. "

So create your new thread but before expressing your opinion on this or any other topic you might want to educate yourself to what's involved first. This gets easier all the time with so much available on the Web. It get's harder and harder to excuse ignorance in Web posters. If you want to disagree over how to interpret facts, that's OK. But you at least ought to pretend that you are paying attention to facts, rather than just picking sides because you don't like the politics of the guy on the other side of the issue. Reminds me once of something I read in a magazine. It stated that liberals don't really hate guns, but rather they hate people who like guns. Same principle might be in evidence here.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 08, 2000.

Golly Gee, that sure got Craig's panties in a bundle over an issue that doesn't make any difference to him!

I don't quite get what you're trying to prove here Craig. OSHA has standards that say that you shouldn't be exposed to noise at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours a day. At 80 dBA you can be exposed to 16 hours continuously. Although I'm sure there is a lower limit to where the dBA rating allows for an infinite amount of exposure time, a logical extension of the OSHA requirements would allow for 32 hours of exposure at 75 dBA, 64 hours at 70 dBA, 128 hours at 65 dBA, 256 hours at 60 dBA, and 512 hours at 55 dBA.

If you'll review your own post, the maximum average noise level expected by Sound Transit is 77 dBA. Not even something OSHA worries about, but theoretically you could listen to that for about 24 hours constantly without any ear damage.

Why you're posting stuff about ear damaging noise levels when the proposed levels aren't at even the lower limit is beyond me. I checked the L&I website before I posted, which is WHY I posted my comments.

There is NO chance at there being any sort of ear damaging noise levels at these sites. At most the sounds will be a slight annoyance, at the least people will sleep right through them. YOU'RE the one who is letting his philisophical ideology get in the way of the fact here. YOU'RE the one who's trying to make a mountain out of something that wouldn't even qualify as a mole hill by OSHA standards.

Just admit it Craig, you wanted to try to further stir up some controversy on Sound Transit, and were hoping that your lame little explanation of decibel ratings would scare people into thinking that ST was trying to do something that would damage people's hearing. I DID look up all sorts of information on decibel ratings, and DID find out that there is absolutely no reason for alarm. I can't help it if I rained on your parade, but you're just making it worse on yourself by demaning that we recognize your mountain when it has clearly been identified as a mole hill.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.

So the question I'm thinking of right now is whether Craig really is this paranoid about noise damage, or if he is really desperate for dirt on Sound Transit.

Does he run over to his neighbor and demand that he turn off his lawn mower? (90 dBA)

Does he threaten to sue a person if they honk their horn? (110 dBA)

And I assume he's never been to a rock concert or won't allow his kids to attend one (120 dBA)

I'm not even going to get into the Fourth of July....

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.

"I don't quite get what you're trying to prove here Craig. OSHA has standards that say that you shouldn't be exposed to noise at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours a day. At 80 dBA you can be exposed to 16 hours continuously. Although I'm sure there is a lower limit to where the dBA rating allows for an infinite amount of exposure time, a logical extension of the OSHA requirements would allow for 32 hours of exposure at 75 dBA, 64 hours at 70 dBA, 128 hours at 65 dBA, 256 hours at 60 dBA, and 512 hours at 55 dBA. . " Which demonstrates a few issues amongst which are:
1. Patrick apparently never was good at logarithms. Also, most of the world went to a 3dB doubling years ago. Certainly NIOSH does.

NIOSH previously recommended an exchange rate of 5 dB for 
the calculation of time-weighted average (TWA) exposures to noise. 
However, NIOSH now recommends a 3-dB exchange rate, which is more 
firmly supported by scientific evidence. The 5-dB exchange rate is 
still used by OSHA and MSHA, but the 3-dB exchange rate has been 
increasingly supported by national and international consensus.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/98-126.html 2. Patrick doesn't understand that the OSHA standards are predicated on a 40 hour a week exposure with unexposed rest the other 128 hours in the week. By depriving people of the noise free other 128 hours in the week, you do indeed put some people who work in marginal workplaces at risk.
"At most the sounds will be a slight annoyance, at the least people will sleep right through them. YOU'RE the one who is letting his philisophical ideology get in the way of the fact here. YOU'RE the one who's trying to make a mountain out of something that wouldn't even qualify as a mole hill by OSHA standards. "

3. That the EPA standards are not based upon healthy workers exposed 40 hours a week, but rather the general population exposed 168 hours a week. Nor are they based exclusively on the criteria for noise induced hearing loss. They are based upon broader criteria including annoyance and adequate sleep.
You are the one alleging that these are no big deal:
"Another example at 80 dBA (over the expected noise level of construction) is "high urban ambient sound." So these people living in these areas (and these are rather high density zones) probably experience this range of loudness at this time of night ALL THE TIME! "
and all I was doing was demonstrating that even for levels as low as 80dB for a forty hour week, the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), a well respected national body recommends a hearing conservation program with annual audiograms and appropriate personal protection.

"So the question I'm thinking of right now is whether Craig really is this paranoid about noise damage, or if he is really desperate for dirt on Sound Transit. "

And the question I'm thinking right now is whether Patrick will ever get past the ad hominem argument stage and really address the issues.

So far, he has tried to change the subject (the Stormwater, Grading, and Drainage Control Code ploy), posted information that was factually in error, then when he was called on it, posted information that he didn't understand. Then followed it with the above ad hominem argument. I'm not saying the worlds going to come to an end, not saying that a lot of people will be at risk for noise induced hearing loss, that strawman was set up by Patrick. And for people ignorant that dB is a decilogarithmic function, they really ought to consider that. But relative to what the Mercer Island folks are fighting like fury about over the threat of noise from flight path changes out of Sea-Tac, Sound Transit is asking for a waiver to make a fair amount of noise. It is well above what EPA believes to be acceptable, and there really isn't much debate there, whatever "chaff and flares" Patrick wants to put up. the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 08, 2000.

I think you are wasting your time on old Patrick, Craig. His mind's made up. Don't bother him with the facts. Here's a press release from the EPA noise people, before the got de-funded:

EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare Noise levels requisite to protect public health and welfare against hearing loss, annoyance and activity interference were identified today by the Environmental Protection Agency. These noise levels are contained in a new EPA document, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

One of the purposes of this document is to provide a basis for State and local governments judgments in setting standards. In doing so the information contained in this document must be utilized along with other relevant factors. These factors include the balance between costs and benefits associated with setting standards at particular noise levels, the nature of the existing or projected noise problems in any particular area, the local aspirations and the means available to control environmental noise.

The document identifies a 24-hour exposure level of 70 decibels as the level of environmental noise which will prevent any measurable hearing loss over a lifetime. Likewise, levels of 55 decibels outdoors and 45 decibels indoors are identified as preventing activity interference and annoyance. These levels of noise are considered those which will permit spoken conversation and other activities such as sleeping, working and recreation, which are part of the daily human condition.

The levels are not single event, or peak levels. Instead, they represent averages of acoustic energy over periods of time such as 8 hours or 24 hours, and over long periods of time such as years. For example, occasional higher noise levels would be consistent with a 24- hour energy average of 70 decibels, so long as a sufficient amount of relative quiet is experienced for the remaining period of time.

Noise levels for various areas are identified according to the use of the area. Levels of 45 decibels are associated with indoor residential areas, hospitals and schools, whereas 55 decibels is identified for certain outdoor areas where human activity takes place. The level of 70 decibels is identified for all areas in order to prevent hearing loss.

(Excerpt of an EPA press release, April 2, 1974) http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/noise/01.htm

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 08, 2000.

Oh you guys are hilarious when you're cornered. And you know you're in trouble when Zowie gets into the debate. That pretty much means that he's confident enough that someone else has the upper hand in the debate so it's safe to enter it. Unfortunately for him, he's always wrong.

I also find Craig's attitude about the 3 dBA revelation quite funny too. This "oh Patrick is an idiot becase he's not aware of the switch over from 5 dBA to 3 dBA" might be compelling if CRAIG HADN'T FIRST DESCRIBED DECIBELS USING THE 5 dBA SYSTEM TOO!!! You are SUCH a loser Craig. So if you knew about the conversion, why didn't you bring it up before? Am I an expert on sound measurements? No, but at least I don't try to fake it like you do. You're about as experienced as I am on this (although my dad's a physics teacher, so I may have an edge in that casual family talks sometimes involved stuff like the doppler effect). But you take the cake when you try to pass off information you found on the internet 5 minutes previously as something you've known all along. Little tip for next time: when presenting information that attempts to prove how knowledgeable you are on a subject, try to make sure that it DOESN'T conflict with the information you've already presented.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), May 09, 2000.

Well it does appear that there is enough interest to warrant an article in today's Seattle Times. And it also appears as if there were a number of concerned citizens. HOWEVER, as detailed in the article, an EXPERT on the subject has concluded that there will be NO health threats associated with this work, and most of the noise will be about equal to the noise of a car driving from smooth to rough pavement (something citizens in Seattle are used to hearing). So is the word of a professor emeritus in mechanical engineering and a professor of environmental health at the UW good enough for everyone, or will Mr. Craig "I'm an expert in cutting and pasting" Carson try to show us all that he's more knowledgeable in this area?

Here's the article:

Hearing things go bump in the night may become routine for many Seattle neighborhoods starting in January.

Sound Transit, which is building a $2.1 billion, 21-mile light-rail system from SeaTac to Seattle's University District, wants permission from the city of Seattle to run construction equipment around the clock.

The agency is seeking a variance for work concentrated at nine construction sites, stretching from the north end of the downtown transit tunnel to the U District.

The city held a public hearing last night at Seattle Central Community College. More than 60 people attended.

Residents worry about getting enough sleep when construction workers toil all night, running pumps, fans, compressors, generators, and possibly backhoes, cranes and other construction equipment.

Stan Beetham said he and his wife live about as close as people can get to a future construction zone. "We're confronted with the site literally being 35 feet from our sleeping quarters," he said before the hearing started.

The couple are concerned about dust, noise and being able to sleep during construction, which is expected to last a couple of years at each location.

Tim Sheppard shares their concerns. He manages the nearby First Hill Plaza condominium building on Spring Street.

Sheppard said he supports building light rail. He just wants more done to lessen the effect of construction.

Sheppard wants Sound Transit to enclose the construction site near his building, complete with a roof.

Sound Transit is requesting permission to work at night so it can finish the light rail faster. It expects the project to be completed in 2006.

If the agency can't work at night, construction could take two years longer and cost more to complete, officials said.

Light-rail construction noise is not expected to exceed five decibels over background levels on average.

"The majority of people will notice it at first," said Michael Morgan, a professor of environmental health at the University of Washington.

Some people may get used to it, others may not, he said. The increase in noise doesn't present a health threat, but can be a annoyance to people and cause them to lose sleep, he said.

Driving a car from smooth pavement onto rough pavement creates about a five-decibel change in noise, said James Chalupnik, an acoustics expert and professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at the University of Washington.

Sound Transit said there also could be brief periods when noise increases up to 10 decibels.

That could happen up to four times an hour, although officials said they expect it to be a rare occurrence.

A 10-decibel change is considered a doubling in noise levels. Chalupnik said he doubts a 10-decibel jump would startle people out of their sleep.

However, Morgan said, "My guess is half the people would be roused by a 10-decibel change."

Overall, Sound Transit expects construction noise levels no higher than 55 to 77 decibels on average, depending on the location.

A person using a vacuum cleaner is exposed to noise of about 76 decibels, according to the agency.

Sound Transit officials said they're doing a lot to keep noise levels to a minimum.

The agency will require contractors to put 12- to 16-foot-high walls around construction sites. Sound Transit will run a 24-hour complaint hotline answered by a "real person" who will track down noise that's bothering the caller.

Sound Transit wants permission to make noise from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays and from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. on weekends.

City ordinances do not allow construction at night without a noise variance.

The agency wants a variance for work that starts in 2001 and lasts until 2006.

However, the work is expected to progress in shifts, lasting about two years at each location.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), May 09, 2000.

Actually, this is an area I DO know real well, and I have to believe that the reporter is fouling up the reporting a little bit, particularly with this comment:
"A 10-decibel change is considered a doubling in noise levels. Chalupnik said he doubts a 10-decibel jump would startle people out of their sleep. "

As even Patrick knows, a 10dB increase is NOT a doubling of noise levels. Patrick posted the old (5 dB equates to a doubling) OSHA equation while I posted the current (NIOSH) 3dB equals a doubling standard. Both are approximations for field use, for the reality is that 10 dB is and will always be a Bel, and a Bel is a 10-fold increase in sound energy. You can see why the 3dB approximation is better, since 9 dB equals 3 and a fraction doublings (2x2x2x1+ = 10). So Patick, who is accusing ME of being a cut and paste artist, apparently doesn't even understand the things that he pasted (or conversely didn't read this article). "I also find Craig's attitude about the 3 dBA revelation quite funny too. This "oh Patrick is an idiot becase he's not aware of the switch over from 5 dBA to 3 dBA" might be compelling if CRAIG HADN'T FIRST DESCRIBED DECIBELS USING THE 5 dBA SYSTEM TOO!!! You are SUCH a loser Craig. " And would you care to highlight where in MY postings I ever used a 5dB equivalency? You are the one that continually confuses OSHA (40 hour a week standards) with EPA (168 hour a week) standard. Why don't you stop the ad hominem attacks and simply admit that you don't know how to do logarithms? It's not a crime. Most people don't. Of course, you appear to know as much about them as you do most things you have opinions about. ;-) the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 09, 2000.

In my medical opinion, Patrick is ceasing to act rationally (or even read what he is posting) not because of the issue involved, but because he has an inferiority complex with Craig. Thus the ad hominem attacks. He cares less about the realities of the issue, than coping with his inferiority complex in relation to Craig.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Zowie-

What do you mean inferiority complex? He IS inferior. He IS addressing the realities.

Mark

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Well, that might also be a valid interpretation.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Patrick- I already explained why the OSHA standards dont really apply in a non-work environment, and why the EPA standards are better. If you dont want to accept the EPAs definition of acceptable noise level, probably the next best thing would be a comparison with aviation noise. What we are talking about is acceptability from a number of perspectives, including sleep disturbances, general irritation and fatigue, etc. I guess I cant really believe that you are going to such lengths to minimize the effects. Are you seriously implying that there was no public purpose served by the original ordinance from which a waiver is being requested? Conversely, if the ordinance is valid, a two year waiver is not inconsequential. In any event, heres what the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise uses as their standard, a DNL of 65dB. Kindly note that this standard doesnt preclude people from griping, but literally billions of dollars have been spent by the FAA and others to put in buffer zones (or modify engines) to comply with this standard.

Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise page 6
http://www.fican.org/download/annrpt98.pdf
< DNL 65 dB Standard and Methodology
Issues Raised by Attendees: Several issues were raised on the subject 
of Day Night Average Sound
Level (DNL): (1) Many people do not feel that DNL adequately 
addresses noise from single events, and
that additional metrics should be developed which take into account 
single event, peak level, duration,
frequency, tone, vibration, boom effect, contrast with background 
noise, and noise characteristics
(Krahkne, N.O.I.S.E.). (2) Some people accept the position that DNL 
may be the best indicator of
response to aircraft noise, but disagree with the recommendation of 
DNL 65 dB as the threshold of
residential land use incompatibility: It is suggested that at this 
level [65 dB], about 12% of the
population is highly annoyed. The implication is that this is an 
acceptable level at which to establish
a national acceptance level ... Any time that I have 12% of my 
constituency highly annoyed I have a
political problem of major importance (Handy, City of Louisville, 
KY). (3) One attendee stated her
belief that the use of annoyance as the response variable in the 
development of dose-response curves for
land use planning is inappropriate.
FICAN Response: FICAN continues to support the use of DNL 65 as the 
level of aircraft noise which
indicates a threshold incompatibility with residential land use. 
FICAN has discussed the need to review
other proposed metrics and findings regarding annoyance.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 09, 2000.

Patrick-

I believe you have either blundered (or were sand-bagged by Craig) into a field where Craig has some fair degree of expertise, certainly more than just "cutting and pasting" and clearly more than you.

If he sand-bagged you, he got you. If he was just trying to make a point (while venting his own obvious dislike of transit in general and Sound Transit in particular), you have apparently entered into a minefield that he knows much better than you.

Just a recommendation, but if I were you I'd slink quietly away, salvaging what shreds of dignity you can.

Mikey

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 09, 2000.

Actually, page 3.1 of this document http://www.fican.org./download/nai-8-92.pdf gives an excellent overview of the types and levels (and chronology) of noise that is most irritating to people. Id strongly recommend it for anyone who wants to understand the effects of environmental noise, rather than just blowing it off as no big hairy deal.

For a quick assessment, look at figure 3.1 on page 3-6, that indicates the percentage of people that will be highly annoyed. The metric used is the LDN which is approximately the dBA with an extra 10dB tossed in for night time noise. At an LDN of 77 you have about half of the people highly annoyed.

Table 3.2 is good too. Ill try to paste it here, but Ive got no idea how well it will format. If it isnt understandable, go to page 3-8.

FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON NOISE (TECHNICAL) Table 3.2 Effects of Noise on People (Residential Land Uses Only)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 09, 2000. Actually Patrick, I think Craig DID dandbag you, and I think he's now turning the knife. OK Craig, have pity on him. He's been humiliated quite enough. Mikey -- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 09, 2000. Loads of technical information, but for those affected by the construction noise, not enough research has been conducted on the long term effects of noise on physical and mental health. From the website LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING NOISE CENTER OF THE LEAGUE 1 888 NOISE 88 NOISE & HEALTH FACT SHEET Noise Harms More Than Our Ears Continued exposure to loud noise will cause hearing loss. Exposure to noise, or unwanted sound, however, is far more than just a threat to our ears. William H. Stewart, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated, "Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere." Studies have correlated noise with physiological changes in sleep, blood pressure and digestion. Studies have also linked noise with a negative impact on the developing fetus. Noise & Sleep According to Alice Suter, noise expert, noise is one of the most common forms of sleep disturbance and when sleep disruption becomes chronic, adverse health effects are great. Research shows that intermittent and impulsive noise is more disturbing than continuous noise. The Environmental Protection Agency identified an indoor day-night average sound level (DNL) of 45 dBA (equivalent to a night-time average sound level of 35 dBA) to protect against sleep disturbance. Noise & Cardiovascular Changes Studies show that exposure to noise is associated with elevations in blood pressure. There is some disagreement as to whether or not these changes are permanent or temporary. Rehm (1983) reported increased levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine suggesting cardiovascular involvement. Rehm also found a correlation beyond noise annoyance and adverse cardiovascular effects. Noise & Gastrointestinal Changes Studies have linked noise exposure with increased gastric emptying (Kaus & Fell, 1984), with increased peristaltic esophageal contraction (Young, 1987), as well as increased anxiety. Another study found an increase in the use of antacids and hypnotics, sedatives and antihypertensives in a noisy community, as compared to a quiet community (Knipschild, 1977). Noise & Annoyance Noise is also a significant source of annoyance. In a 1997 study, Arline Bronzaft, Ph.D. et al., found that nearly seventy percent of the residents surveyed living within the flight corridors reported that they were bothered by aircraft noise and that these noises interfered with daily activities. Further, the subjects who were bothered by aircraft noise were more likely to complain of sleep difficulties and more likely to perceive themselves to be in poorer health. Noise & Mental Health We all know the stress created by unwanted sound. Even noise that may not be at hazardous levels to our hearing can make us tense and angry. Consider how irritating the simple dripping of a faucet can be in the middle of the night, let alone more intrusive noises. Studies have found noise to be associated with increased aggression (Donnerstein and Wilson, 1976) and less helpful behavior (Mathews and Cannon, 1975). Numerous articles in major newspapers have reported noise disputes leading to violence and in England, (August, 1995) the Daily Mirror reported that in the previous six years, 16 people or more were murdered or committed suicide due to chronic noise. Beyond the Research Although more research is necessary, anecdotal reports to the Noise Center indicate that noise has devastating effects on health. People report that noise interferes with the ability to sleep, eat and causes a wide range of health problems which affects the overall quality of life. People not only have the right to peace and quiet, their health depends on it. Noise also has an adverse affect on children and learning/behavior. Laughably insignificant? I don't think so. Patrick, you need to SHUT UP and LISTEN, instead of trying to upstage Craig all the time. -- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000. Moderation questions? read the FAQ Effects Hearing loss %of population highly annoyed Average Community Reaction General Community Attitude Towards Area N Effects 75 DNL and above 70 DNL 65DNL 60DNL 55DNL and below Hearing loss May begin to occur Will not likely Will not occur Will not occur Will not occur %of population highly annoyed 37% 22% 12% 7% 3% Average Community Reaction Very severe Severe Significant Moderate to slight Moderate to slight General Community Attitude Towards Area Noise is likely to be the most important of all adverse aspects of the community environment Noise is one of the most important adverse aspects of the community environment Noise is one of the most important adverse aspects of the community environment Noise may be considered an adverse aspect of the community environment Noise considered no more important than various other environmental factors