Whether on earth or in space, the specific province of acoustics, of which noise is one specialty, is the domain of a small group of specialists who literally call the tune we all must listen to. No decibel legislation will be enacted without the direct or tacit approval of these advisors to government and industry.
Scientists themselves can weaken the noise abatement movement. Science and engineering students, according to articles in The New York Times and Physics Today, are not devoted solely to social values; they are as much or even more interested in personal status as other students, and they often reveal an indifference to the welfare of others. In the course of their training the engineers and physicists who will work in acoustics are taught to look with a jaundiced eye at the complaining public. They cannot be expected to take noise seriously when they are taught, by one of their standard reference books, the Handbook of Noise Control, that: "The annoyance produced by some sounds does not mean that they are bad for health, any more than an unsightly billboard is bad for health."
For good measure engineers are further taught that neurotics complain more than others but that "one is not justified in ignoring the likes and dislikes of another because he helps psychiatrists to earn a living." With this kind of indoctrination, which is continued during his professional career, it is not surprising that the noise control worker looks upon protest against noise as the peculiar problem of a peculiar minority; in short, the noise complainer is labeled a kook.
At a meeting of the noise section of the Acoustical Society of America, I asked the assembled noise experts what to advise a couple whose bedroom window was fifteen feet from a neighbor's two window air conditioner units operating day and night, year-round. This couple's physician had recommended sedation, and I thought these experts might have a more practical answer. They did.
"Tell 'em to buy an air conditioner for themselves."
I later received a letter from one of the more understanding members of that audience who apologized for the cynical behavior of his colleagues, to whom this illustration of human suffering had been a big joke.
Civilian noise abatement does not appeal to many scientists, especially the physical scientists. Physical scientists—especially physicists—appear to dominate the scientific establishment. Next come chemists, engineers, and mathematicians. Conspicuous by their absence from the upper echelons of the science complex are men from the behavioral sciences: anthropology, ecology, sociology, psychology, political science.
In practice the top scientists of government and private sectors are one family, with members of the President's Scientific Advisory Committee often holding interlocking positions with the National Academy of Science (NAS) and the newer National Academy of Engineering (NAE). Any President of the United States is both captor and captive of this scientific establishment. Though he decides the goals, the scientists, through their influence and "expert" opinions, mold his decisions. Dissenters from orthodox scientific or Federal policies are kept out.
It is difficult to imagine that the research priorities of the nation have not been influenced by this closely knit complex.
Therefore, as long as Science tells the public, and Congress, that everyday noise is a mere nuisance we must put up with, we will not get the research we need to arouse us to action, and we will not get the legislation that will be needed.
Though there is no formal acoustic establishment, the small size of the acoustic world, the control of policy by a few academic and private consultants, the allocation of government contracts, all tend to create the semblance of an "in" group, or establishment. The main pipeline for noise knowledge between the private and government sectors is the National Research Council Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (formerly the Armed Services Committee...), referred to as CHABA.
Why CHABA has had little, if anything to offer the public is indicated by its sponsors and its function. The sponsors are the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Departments of Health, Education and Welfare and of Housing and Urban Development are affiliated with CHABA, but not as sponsoring members. Composed of acoustic and noise control experts, CHABA "gives direction and advice toward the solution of acoustic problems submitted by [its] sponsoring agencies." In other words, CHABA serves the military and space, not the civilian earth agencies. There are some who would like to see CHABA pay more attention to the civilian noise problem, but without a radical restructuring it is unlikely CHABA would have its heart in the abatement of everyday noise.
In 1967 I had the opportunity of observing for myself at least one example of how some scientists inadvertently help to perpetuate the noisy status quo. The event was a "Seminar for Science Writers on Noise Pollution" sponsored by the American Institute of Physics. Those in attendance were members of the National Association of Science Writers. This is what they were told about noise and health by the medical speaker, a past officer of CHABA:
On the sonic boom: "Not in the ball park as to injury. Pounds per square inch not significant enough when compared with that of artillery pressures. Sonic boom won't hurt you. Maybe you'll get hit by a piece of flying glass, but not if you jump fast enough."
Bodily harm: "There is hazardous noise exposure that causes hearing loss. But this type of injurious effect has little to do with noise pollution and is of no concern to the community. It is an industry problem and industry is solving it."
Noise pollution: "Noise pollution is the community noise problem—it is a problem of intrusion, of speech interference, and annoyance. There is inadequate information on the significance of speech interference and sleep disturbance. Annoyance is psychological, all in the mind."
Effect on body chemistry; endocrine glands: "That's animal research."
One writer asked if the doctor wasn't concerned because of the additional stresses to which human beings were now being subjected, plus the new ones around the corner. He answered that the human being, as proven by history, has tremendous capabilities for adapting, and that he had every confidence it would adapt to noise stress.
This credo, that the human being can and must adapt to the machine, and not the reverse, helps maintain a noisy world.
Lack of progress in understanding the complex human response to noise is due, in part, to the fact that hearing-oriented specialists dominate the field. These men have consistently downgraded the extra-auditory impact of noise. They take a dim view of those who claim that everyday noise is more serious than a mere nuisance. Some become emotional and let fly at any who dare to challenge their "expert" opinions. At the National Conference on Noise as a Public Health Hazard, one otologist presented a paper covering questions frequently asked about the effects of noise. A brief excerpt illustrates how this "dispassionate" scientist reacts to critics of noise:
Finally, is it true that we are continually surrounded by ultrasound—sound too high infrequency to be heard—and so as a result we are being deafened and maddened by this sound we cannot even hear, as some fanatics claim? I trust the answer to this question is implicit in the way the question was phrased.
If these men are so secure in their belief that noise is not a serious problem, except as they define it, why do they get so upset at their critics?
I had occasion to witness a histrionic display of intolerance of noise critics, at an institute for occupational hearing loss operated for industrial hygienists and factory medical directors. One of the speakers was a Fellow of several scientific and professional societies and a consultant on toxicology, air pollution, water pollution, noise, and environmental health. As part of his lecture he had repeated the traditional doctrine that the only damage from noise was hearing loss, as defined. He was upset because the public was told there may be other forms of harm. To illustrate how the public was being given distorted information, he held up a copy of a popular household magazine sold in food markets. He made it very clear this was not a scientific magazine. He became more and more emotional as he read excerpts from the article that suggested noise was a health hazard, that kitchens were unduly noisy, and that the inner ear was like a snail. This anatomical description was as much as he could take, and with a dramatic gesture he ripped out the three pages of the offending article and said: "Now this magazine is fit to come into my home."
As calmly as possible I asked him this carefully-worded question: "Is it your contention that, other than hearing loss from specific exposures, noise has no significant non-auditory health effects?"
He gasped at this unexpected question, and while he fumbled for a reply, the institute's medical director rephrased my question.
"Baron wants to know if it isn't true that noise gives you heart attacks, and ulcers, causes divorce..."