The Tyranny of Noise

Robert Alex Baron

Part IV — Chapter 8 — Potential For Control

To obtain and disseminate its noise control know-how, private industry sponsors factory noise control research, industrial noise symposia, and hearing-conservation programs. It supports the work of professional societies responsible for developing standards. On its payrolls are acoustical engineers and medical specialists in industrial hearing loss.

Enlightened management knows the danger signs for hearing loss and accidents: if conversation at arm's length is impossible in the plant; if warning signals are inaudible; if telephone use is made difficult because of noise. Design goals for factory machinery are usually concerned with reducing the noise level to as close as possible to 85 decibels in the critical speech frequencies (500, 1,000, and 2,000 cps.). Given the noise emission of a particular machine or process, management can take steps to regulate the amount of time the worker is exposed to dangerous noise, or urge him to use ear protectors.

Bethlehem Steel, DuPont, Western Electric, and Ford are among the big companies that undertake internal noise control and hearing-conservation programs. General Motors' new foundry at Defiance, Ohio, was designed to incorporate current concepts in noise control. The interior of all outside walls is covered with acoustical paneling four inches thick. Individual high-noise-level operations inside the buildings are housed in sound-barrier construction.

Industrial hearing-conservation programs include an analysis of noise exposure and the measurement of the employees' hearing acuity. An ideal plant hearing conservation committee is comprised of the plant manager, the company physician, the industrial relations manager, labor relations supervisor, workmen's compensation representative, plant engineer, and manufacturing engineer.

Noise-conscious industry does not expect that it will be able to buy every noise-control product it needs "off the shelf." Many noise controls must be engineered within the plant or especially designed by vendors.

Not only is some industry willing to custom-build when necessary, it is willing to experiment. It recognizes that the consideration of noise in design is, as Jim Botsford puts it, "in its infancy—there are few established guidelines to follow. Each noise problem is unique. Many noise problems can be solved from an evaluation of the environment, by proper use of available criteria or guidelines, and by use of available information on noise control. The job does not end with the design of the noise control measures. Their performance must be checked after installation and modifications made if needed because noise control in industry is still based partially on trial and error."

What a contrast to the attitude of local bureaucrats who turn a deaf ear to pleas for noise control, on the grounds that the equipment to implement it is not readily available on the market, and do not seem to be imaginative enough to think in terms of having the needed equipment devised.

Nothing representing industrial awareness and use of noise control permeates the public sector of American life. Why should it? Industry expects a payoff in fewer claims for hearing loss and accidents, more productivity, and public acceptance of the plant's presence and activities, Its noise control program is further testimony to a double standard: noise control for the private (and military) sector, and just plain noise for the public. Yet with motivation, the builder or maker of things could provide convenience and speed to the public, without the excessive noise.