IMPACTS OF NOISE POLLUTION, MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONCERNED
LAWS
By
REHAN
RAUF,
Advocate
M.A, LL.B, P.G.D.E.L
E-mail: RehanRauf1@yahoo.com
The noise is a slow agent of death.
(Dr. kundenson) 1
INTRODUCTION
The word noise is of the Latin origin word nausea and means seasickness. Noise pollution and human-created noise is
harmful to health and life itself. Transportation vehicles are the worst offenders,
with aircraft, railroad stock, trucks, buses, automobiles, and motorcycles all
are producing noise beyond the human auditory stress. Construction equipment,
e.g., jackhammers and bulldozers also produce substantial quantity of noise
pollution. Noise is displeasing to human and animal both it disrupts the human
activity and causes imbalance to animal life. In
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE
No express provision has been made for the prohibition and
control of noise pollution in the constitution of Islamic republic of Pakistan,
1973 but a noise free environment has been regarded a Fundamental Right of
every citizen of Pakistan. This fundamental right is contained in Article 9 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and was firstly interpreted in
landmark case namely Shehla Zia and others vs. WAPDA, PLD 1994 SC
NOISE POLLUTION
Some
scientists have defined that as any audible acoustic energy adversely affecting
the physiological or psychological well being of the people is called noise.
The term noise is commonly used to describe in harmonious sounds which
are disagreeable and unpleasant produced by acoustic waves of random
intensities and frequencies.
SOURCES OF NOISE POLLUTION
The known worldwide outdoor source of noise is transportation systems, including motor vehicle noise, aircraft noise and rail noise.2
Poor urban planning may
give rise to noise pollution, since side-by-side industrial and residential
buildings can result in noise pollution in the residential area and use of
amplifier in the mosques other than praying time.
Other sources of indoor and outdoor noise
pollution are car hooters, emergency service sirens, factory machinery,
construction work, grounds keeping equipment, barking of dogs, humming lights,
audio entertainment installations in the streets and the paddler use of
amplifiers for enchanting of ice creams, vegetables, air firing and cracker
explosions on the arrival of Barat.
EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
Effects are both health and behavioral in nature on
human beings. The unwanted sound is called noise. This unwanted sound can
render damage to physiological and psychological health. Noise pollution may cause
hypertension, tinnitus, loss of hearing, sleep disturbance and
other displeasing effects. Furthermore, stress and hypertension are the main
causes of health problems, whereas tinnitus can lead to forgetfulness, severe
depression and at times panic attacks. 3
Chronic exposure to noise may cause noise-induced loss
of hearing. Senior males exposed to occupational noise demonstrate significantly
reduced hearing sensitivity than their non-exposed peers, though difference in
hearing sensitivity decrease with time and the two groups are indistinguishable
by age
Noise pollution is also a cause of
annoyance. A 2005 study by Spanish researchers found that in urban areas
households are willing to pay approximately four Euros
per decibel per year for noise reduction.6
EFFECTS OF NOISE POLLUTION ACCORDING TO
VIKAS VASHISHTH
The effects of noise pollution are
multifaceted and inter-related. Though it is easy to show that excessive noise
could result into loss of hearing but it is difficult to show up to what extent
the effects of noise can prevail on individual. The effects of noise pollution
on human mechanism could be physiological and behavioral. The physiological
effects of noise pollution may result into loss or impairment of hearing.
What makes a sound or noise unpleasant or
irritating to the ear is a matter of psychology. So whether a sound is regarded
as a noise and how noisy it is depends also on who causes the noise and his
relationship with the person who hears it. The noises are recognized as major
contributing factors in accelerating the already existing tensions of modern
living. 7
In U.S.A. 11 Million adults and 3 million
children suffer from some form of hearing loss. 8
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Noise can have a detrimental effect on animals by causing
stress, increasing risk of death by changing the delicate balance in predator/prey
detection and avoidance, and by interfering with their use of sounds in
communication especially in relation to reproduction and in navigation.
Acoustic overexposure can lead to temporary or permanent loss of hearing.
An impact of noise on animal life is the reduction of usable
habitat that noisy areas may cause, which in the case of endangered
species may be part of the path to extinction. Noise pollution has caused the death
of certain species of whales that beached themselves after being exposed to the
loud sound of military sonar. Noise also makes
species communicate louder, which is called
European Robins living in urban environments are
more likely to sing at night in places with high levels of noise pollution
during the day, suggesting that they sing at night because it is quieter, and
their message can propagate through the environment more clearly.
Interestingly, the same study showed that daytime noise was a stronger
predictor of nocturnal singing than night-time Light pollution, to which the phenomenon is
often attributed.
Zebra finches become less faithful to their
partners when exposed to traffic noise. This could alter a population's
evolutionary trajectory by selecting traits, sapping resources normally devoted
to other activities and thus lead to profound genetic and evolutionary
consequences. 10
GENERAL LAWS
Following are a few general laws governing noise
pollution.
I.
II.
Section 2 (1) (a) of the West Pakistan Regulation and
Control of Loud Speakers and Sound Amplifiers Ordinance, 1965 describes that No person shall
operate or use or cause to be operated or use a loudspeaker or a sound
amplifier in a public place, in a manner so as to cause or to be likely to
cause annoyance or injury to persons residing in any residential locality.
III.
The Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969
Following Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1969 are relevant to the topic.
Rule 154(2): No motor vehicle shall
be fitted with horn giving a succession of different notes or any other sound
producing device playing unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise.
Rule 155(1): Every motor vehicle
shall be fitted with a device (hereinafter referred to a silencer) which by
means of an expansion chamber or otherwise reduces as far as may be reasonable
and practicable the noise that would otherwise be made by the escape of exhaust
gases from the engine.
Rule 158: Every motor shall be so
constructed and maintained as not to cause undue production of noise when in
motion.
Rule 226(1): No driver of motor
vehicle driver shall sound the horn or other device for giving audible warning
with which the motor vehicle is equipped or shall cause or allow any other
person to do so continuously or to an extent beyond what is necessary to ensure
safety.
Rules 252: Except to avoid an
imminent accident no person shall sound the horn or other audible warning
device of any motor vehicle within the limits of a stand, parking place or
cab-rank.
SPECIAL LAWS
Special law relating to prohibition of noise
pollution in excess of National Environmental Quality Standards is Pakistan
Environmental Protection Act, (PEPA) 1997. Following are a few provisions of
PEPA dealing with noise.
I.
Section
2(xxx) of PEPA defines as "Noise"
means the intensity, duration and character from all sources, and includes
vibrations.
II.
Section 11 of PEPA describes that “ No Person shall discharge or emit
or allow to discharge or emission of any effluent or waste or air pollutant or
noise in an amount, concentration or level which is in excess of the National
Environmental Quality Standards.
III.
Section 15(1) declares "Subject to the provisions of this Act
and the rules and regulations made there under, no person shall operate a motor
vehicle from which air pollutants or noise are being emitted in an amount,
concentration or level which is in excess of the National Environmental Quality
Standards, or where applicable the standards established under clause (g) of
sub-section (1) of section 6".
CASE LAWS
Following are a few
case laws relating to prohibition of noise pollution in
1.
Anjum Irfan vs. LDA and others, PLD 2002
In
February 2001 the Lahore High Court appointed Dr. Parvez Hassan as the amices
curiae to assist the court in the Writ Petition, Anjum Irfan vs. LDA and
others. Dr. Parvez Hassan filed certain proposals for controlling Vehicular and
other Pollution in
2.
Abdul Qayyum vs. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1999 PLR 640
The
petitioner, in this case filed a writ petition against the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) because of noise and other emissions from the
industrial units in their residential area. The petitioners have approached the
EPA several times to control the pollution by utilizing their power under PEPA
but EPA failed to do so.
The
Court while disposing of the petition held that the provisions of the PEPA do
show that the same are comprehensive and the agencies and authorities created
under the Act have also given the powers to lay down the necessary standards as
also to enforce the same by invoking penal provisions in accordance with law.
While the EPA in its comments has claimed that it has recommended shifting of
industries, it is failing to prosecute the offender in the event of its
reaching the conclusion that the discharges and emissions are not lawful or
more than prescribed. Therefore, the court issued a mandamus direction
to the EPA to deal with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the
PEPA.
3.
The Supreme
Court took suo motu action in Islamabad Chalets and Pir Sohawa Valley Villas,
restraining the construction of the chalets and villas situated at a distance
of
4.
Islam Hussain vs. City District Government
The Sindh
High Court in this case directed the DIG traffic Police to ensure that no smoke
emitting vehicle or one causing noise pollution should ply the city of
5.
Islam din vs. Ghulam Muhammad, PLD 2004 SC 633
In
this case the court restrained the defendant from creating public nuisance in
their workshops constructed on the commercial plots by declaring that the
functioning of workshops had to prove to be injurious of life, health and
property of residents of the area. It was further held that a noise made in
carrying on of lawful trade under license, if injurious to physical comfort of
community is a public nuisance.
6.
Abdul Qayyum vs. Director General, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1999 PLR 640
The
petitioner, in this case filed a writ petition against the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) because of noise and other emissions from the
industrial units in their residential area. The petitioners have approached the
EPA several times to control the pollution by utilizing their power under PEPA
but EPA failed to do so.
The Court
while disposing of the petition held that the provisions of the PEPA do show
that the same are comprehensive and the agencies and authorities created under
the Act have also given the powers to lay down the necessary standards as also
to enforce the same by invoking penal provisions in accordance with law. While
the EPA in its comments has claimed that it has recommended shifting of
industries, it is failing to prosecute the offender in the event of its
reaching the conclusion that the discharges and emissions are not lawful or
more than prescribed. Therefore, the court issued a mandamus direction
to the EPA to deal with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the
PEPA.
7.
Pollution of Environment Caused by Smoke, Emitting Vehicle,
Traffic Muddle H.R. No. 4-k of 1992, 1996 SCMR 543,
In this case
the Supreme Court passed interim order for taking effective and remedial
measures in order to streamline the process of checking as a first step in
eliminating the air and noise pollution from
In order to
streamline the process of checking as first step in eliminating the pollution
caused by the smoke emitting vehicles, the following interim order was passed
by the Supreme Court: -
(a)
A minimum of two mobile checking per week per district for
at least 2-1/2 hour’s duration should be arranged in terms of the earlier
order, which is being practiced. Henceforth the Honorary Magistrate appointed
by the Provincial Government with the approval of the Chief Justice, High Court
of Sindh, be associated with the checking team and if S.T.Ms are not available,
the honorary magistrate shall try and dispose of summary cases at the time of
checking.
(b)
The monthly schedule of the mobile checking shall be issued
by the S.T.M. or any person authorized by the commissioner without mentioning
the checking location, which shall be decided by the checking team at the time
of starting the checking on that day.
(c)
A weekly repot of such checking shall be issued by the
S.T.M/ Honorary Magistrate to the C.P.L.C., Central Reporting Cell, which shall
compile the same and submit a consolidated report with comments and suggestions
to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Karachi after every three months.
(d)
A report shows that M.T.C Government vehicles including
Police vehicle and certain “marked” private transport vehicles are not
challaned. This discrimination should end and all vehicles irrespective of their
owner/driver should be brought to book in case they violate the law. On query
what is meant by “marked” transport private vehicle it was disclosed that these
vehicle bear a particular mark, inscription, insignia or certain word which are
understood by certain persons involved with the traffic checking and they just
allow them to pass without checking that they belong to influential persons.
This is a deplorable attitude. The authorities concerned are directed to check
vehicles irrespective of fact whether they are marked or not, but if this
policy of not challaning marked vehicle persists, the representative of
C.P.L.C. associated with the checking team should note down the number of such
vehicle and report it to the C.P.L.C. reporting center which shall forward it
to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court, Karachi.
(e)
Motor vehicle inspection Procedure should be totally
overhauled and every week, D.I.G., shall obtain the particular of such vehicles
to which fitness certificates have been issued by Motor Vehicle Rules. And
forward them to C.P.L.C., central Reporting Cell that shall submit with
comments to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Karachi, along with the
quarterly reports.
As regards Noise Pollution following interim order
is passed.
(i)
As required by the Motor Vehicle Ordinance the concerned
authorities should ensure that the motorcycle rickshaws are not allowed to ply
without silencers. It has been pointed out that there has been a practice in
(ii)
Many vehicles are found with fitted pressure horns or
multi-tone horns giving unduly harsh shrill loud or alarming voice. Rule 154 of
the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 prohibits fitting of such horns. The practice
seems to be that such vehicles are challaned and pressure horn are disconnected
or seized by the police. However, in order to make it more effective whenever
any authority seizes such horn, it should deposit it with
8.
Rafique Nasir vs. The State and 4 others, 2000
YLR 393
In
this case heavy machines were being installed which were causing nuisance and
creating tremors and vibrations resulting in cracks in the walls of the
residential houses adjacent to the workshop. Contention that since the
applicant was carrying on trade under license proceedings against him under
section 133 Cr.P.C. were not maintainable was replied. Issuance of license did
not authorize the licensee to cause nuisance and trouble to the public.
Magistrate under section 133 Cr.P.C. had the jurisdiction to regulate the
manner in which a trade was to be conducted in such a way as not to be nuisance
to the community. Applicant had carried on trade not only in violation of the
conditions of the license issued to him, but had also caused nuisance by
installing hammer and machines which were causing heavy tremors and vibrations
resulting on cracks in the walls of the residential houses adjacent to the
workshop. Operation of such machines was injurious to human life and also for
environment. Impugned concurrent orders of the two Courts below did not suffer
from any legal or factual infirmity and the same were upheld accordingly.
9.
Arif and another vs. Jaffar Public School
through Principal/Administrator and 8 others, 2002 MLD 1410
In this case claim of the
plaintiffs/applicants was that entire locality where their house was situated,
was leased out by the authority exclusively for residential purposes. Lease
agreement showed the properties given on lease would be used for residential
purposes only and would not be converted to other use and in case of breach,
lessor would be entitled to forfeit lease and to resume property. Defendants/ respondents
started school in a house which was opposite to the house of applicants which
had created a nuisance for applicants and other residents of the locality. Use
of residential house for running a school therein was an act which was not only
breach of express terms of lease, but also was a patent illegality. Plaintiffs
had served a notice on defendants/respondents calling upon them not to venture
for opening of school and had been prompt in their action against the
respondents. Opening of any number of school in other residential bungalows,
would not furnish any justification for perpetuating illegality committed by
respondents in starting school in their residential house because two wrongs
would not make one right. Plaintiffs, in circumstances, had succeeded in making
out a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction as balance of
convenience was in their favor and they would suffer an irreparable loss and
injury in case injunction was refused to them. Application for grant of interim
injunction was allowed in circumstances.
10.
Salamat Ali vs. Deputy Commissioner and others,
1997 MLD 2122
In
this case chilly grinding machine and rice husking machines were being operated
by the petitioner in a densely populated area where it could be difficult even
to take breath and the vibration caused by the machines was a source of
nuisance. Operation of the two said machines had, thus, been rightly stopped by
the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order which did not suffer from any
illegality. Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine in
circumstances.
11.
Haji Hafeezudin and others vs. LUCAS Service
Pakistan LTD, PLD 2000
In
this case respondent/defendant was installing a plant in premises in question
along with a powerful generator in a commercial area, which prima facie, seemed
to be in violation of zoning laws. Applicants/plaintiffs, in circumstance, had
made out a reasonable prima facie case for the grant of injunction. Damage
cause by potential nuisance value of the generator in question could not be
quantified. Balance of convenience was also in favor of granting injunction
rather than rejecting same. High Court allowed application for grant of interim
injunction and respondent/defendant was restrained from installing the proposed
filter assembly plant and generator within premises in question till disposal
of suit.
INDIAN LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
Following are a few leading Indian judgments on
prohibition of noise pollution.
Ajeet Mehta vs. State of
In this case the Rajisthan high Court observed:
"If one works for his own benefits and causes any
inconvenience to others, he would not be excused. Whatever be the nature of
nuisance, be that as it is, a trivial or major, the individual's freedom and
liberty cannot be compromised by any other person except in according with law.
If one works for gain and causes discomfort to any individual that cannot ne
countenanced. "
The High Court upheld the Magistrate's order and
strongly felt that public health cannot be allowed to suffer on account of
personal business of any individual. The petition was allowed and the view
taken by the Additional Session Judge reversed.
Mahdavi vs. Thalakan, 1989
CR.L.J 499
In this case, the court projected the importance
of the value of environmental protection for the mankind by making the
following observation:
"The right to life is far more than right to animal
existence. Personal autonomy, free `from intrusion and appropriation is thus a
constitutional reality. The right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the
right to repose and health are part of the right to live. We recognize every
man's home to be his castle which cannot be invaded by toxic fumes and
tormenting sounds. The principles expressed through law and culture consistent
with nature's ground rules for existence had been recognized in section 133(1)
(b) of Cr.P.C. The conduct of any trade or occupation or keeping of any goods
or merchandise injurious to health or physical comfort of community could be
regulated or prohibited under this section.
Mukul Ray vs. The State and others, AIR 1999
In this writ petition the petitioner who is the
General secretary of All India Trinamul Congress prays for cancelling the
elections programme of the elections to the Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad and also
to the Panchayat Samities and the Gram Panchayats within the jurisdiction of
the said Mahakuma Parishad in the District of Darjeeling scheduled to be held
on 18-04-1999 or for rescheduling the Madhyamik and Higher Secondary
Examinations programmes, and alternatively for making suitable relaxation of
the bar use on loudspeaker and microphone during the period covered by the said
examinations with a view to facilitating making of election campaigns. The
Madhyamik examination commenced on and from
Mr. Panja appearing on the behalf of the
petitioner submits that immediately on receipt of the tentative election
programme issued by the state Election Commission on 03-03-1999 the petitioner
wrote to the Commission on 05-03-1999 to fix another programme for the
elections so that the election programme may not coincide with the programmes
of Madhyamaik and Higher Secondary examination already announced a few months
back and thereby facilitate use of loudspeaker/microphone for election
propaganda. His grievance is that without paying any heed to the objection
raised by the petitioner the Department of Panchayat and R.D. issued the
notification dated 12-03-1999 fixing 18-04-1999 as the date of the said
election and Election Commission in turn issued a letter on the same date
forwarding therewith the Model Code of Conduct required to be maintained by all
political parties and candidates in connection with the said elections. The
said Model Code refers to restrictions about use of loudspeaker and inter alia
requires compliance of the extent orders of the Court in this regard.
The Court by its order dated 20-11-1997 passed
in C.O. No. 4303(W) of 1996 imposed a ban on the use of boxes or amplifier in
open air function during the period
commencing from 15 days prior to the important examinations like
Secondary, Higher Secondary, Delhi Board, etc. examination till such
examinations are over. This total ban on the use of microphone during
examination period was virtually reiterated in the subsequent order dated
It has been the consistent submission of all the
learned Advocates of the case that the elections process has already commenced
and there is no scope or question of deferring the elections at this stage. It
is also the consistent submission of all of them that there is also no question
of deferring the Council examinations which have already been scheduled.
However,
having regard to the situation obtaining in this matter the Court directed that
while there will be total ban on the use of microphone in any residential area
or mixed residential area and within half a kilometer of such area during the
period covered by the examination schedules, microphone fitted with sound
limiter may however be used for the purpose of election propaganda outside such
area only from 5 p.m to 7 p.m but maintaining a sound level not exceeding 45
db. and not affecting any silence zone. The relaxation
allowed by this order will be applicable only to rural areas within the
jurisdiction of the Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad during the ensuing Panchayat
elections there. Prior permission of the concerned authority will however have
to be taken as required under law for making use of microphone. The benefit as
well as the restriction of this order will be equally applicable to all
political parties and candidates taking part in the said elections and any
violation of the same will be amount to the violation of the Model Code of
Conduct and entail consequences accordingly.
Moulana Mufti Syed Mohammad
Noorur Rehman Barkati and others vs. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1999
In this case, writ petition was filed by Moulana Mufti
Syed Muhammad Noorur Rehman Barkati, Imam and Khatib Tipu Sultan Shahi Masjid,
Dharamatala and Chairman Gharib Nawaz Educational And Charitable Society,
Calcutta and eight others for a declaration that Rule 3 of the Environmental
(Protection) Rules 1986 vis a vis Schedule III of the said Rule do not apply in
case of Mosques more particularly at the
time of call of Azan from the Mosques and for the further declaration that
Schedule III of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 is ultra vires
Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution. The petitioner also prayed for
withdrawal of all conditions and restrictions which were notified by the Police
and other authorities pursuant to the order passed in the case on Om Birangana
Religious Society Vs. State, reported in 100 CWN 617.
By
the judgment dated 1st of April, 1996, certain restrictions and
conditions on the use of microphones in the state of West Bangal were imposed.
One of the important conditions that was laid down was that there will be no
user of any microphones between 9 p.m to
After hearing contentions of the parties Court
declared that Azan is certainly an essential and integral part of Islam but use
of microphone and loud-speakers are not an essential and an integral part.
Microphone is a gift of technological ages. Its adverse effect is well felt all
over the world. It is not only a source of pollution but it is also a source
which causes several health hazards. Traditionally and according to the religious
order, Azan has to be given by the Imam or the person in charge of the Mosques
through their own voice, this is sanctioned under the
religious order. Azan is not a form of propagation but it is an essential and
integral part of religion to meet at prayer from a call being made through
Azan.
Furthermore, use of microphone is not an integral of
Azan and/or necessary for making Azan effective. Azan is there and will be
there. But simply because microphones has been invented and ultimately it is
found that it is one of the major source of sound pollution and it effects the
fundamental right of the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
and making the citizens captive listeners, suspending all their fundamental and
legal rights. None can claim an absolute right to suspend other rights or it
can disturb other basic human rights and fundamental rights to sleep and
leisure. The argument that Environmental (Protection) Act, Rules and the
Schedule therein are ultra vires under Articles 14 and 25 is wholly
misconceived as it had not resulted any discrimination
and so far as Sound Pollution is concerned, citizens have a right to be
protected against excessive sound under Article 19 (I) (a) of the Constitution.
The restrictions on the use of the microphone as imposed by the Court, Central
Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Board have to be
carried out by all concern at any cost. Simply because no such formal
restrictions have been imposed in other parts of
INTERNATIONAL LAWS
These are two leading cases on prohibition of
Noise Pollution.
I. Gatwick case
II. Church bell case
MITIGATION AND CONTROL
There are a variety of strategies for
mitigating roadway noise
including: use of noise barriers,
limitation of vehicle speeds, alteration of roadway surface texture, limitation
of heavy vehicles, use of traffic controls that
smooth vehicle flow to reduce braking and acceleration, and tire design. An
important factor in applying these strategies is a computer model for roadway noise, which is capable of addressing
local topography, meteorology, traffic operations and hypothetical
mitigation. Costs of building-in mitigation can be modest, provided these
solutions are sought in the planning stage of a roadway project. Aircraft noise can be reduced to some extent by
design of quieter jet engines, which was
pursued vigorously in the 1970s and 1980s. This strategy has brought limited
but noticeable reduction in urban sound levels. Reconsideration of operations,
such as altering flight paths and time
of day runway use, has demonstrated benefits for residential populations near
airports.
EPITOME
To sum it up, I would say that Noise has
become a very important “stress factor” in the environment of man. Noise has
many effects on exposed population. The blood pressure can increase during
exposure to noise and a number of pituitary hormones are affected by noise. The
adverse behavioral effects of noise include annoyance, interference with
performance and efficiency, interference with communication and fatigue. High
noise levels are associated with higher accident rates. There is
positive association of noise with increased risk of threatened or spontaneous
abortion, pregnancy induced hypertension, abnormal labor and low birth weight.
A number of temporary physiological changes occur in human body as a
direct result of noise exposure. The noise contributes and aggravates tension
in related disease such as stomach ulcer, neurosis and mental illness to
allergies and cardinals and circulatory factors in accelerating the already
present tensions of modern living.11
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Senate Public Works Committee, Noise Pollution and Abatement Act
of 1972, S. Rep. No. 1160, 92nd Cong. 2nd session
3.
J.M. Field, Effect of personal and situational
variables upon noise annoyance in residential areas, Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 93: 2753-2763 (1993).
4.
Rosenhall U, Pedersen K, Svanborg A (1990).
"Presbycusis and noise-induced hearing loss". Ear Hear 11 (4):
257–63.
5.
S. Rosen and P. Olin, Hearing Loss and Coronary Heart
Disease, Archives of Otolaryngology, 82:236 (1965).
6.
Jesús
Barreiro, Mercedes Sánchez, Montserrat Viladrich-Grau (2005), "How much
are people willing to pay for silence? A contingent valuation study",
Applied Economics, 37 (11)
7.
Vikas
Vashishth, "Law & Practice of Environmental Laws in
8.
Bromer,
Noise Pollution: A Growing Menance, Saturday Review,
9.
Bahamas Marine Mammal Stranding Event of 15–16
March 2000
10.
(Fuller RA, Warren PH, Gaston
KJ (2007). "Daytime noise predicts
nocturnal singing in urban robins." Biology Letters 3 (4): 368–70)