External and internal noise surveys of London primary schools

Internal and external noise surveys have been carried out around schools in London, UK, to provide information on typical levels and sources to which children are exposed while at school. Noise levels were measured outside 142 schools, in areas away from flightpaths into major airports. 86% of the schools surveyed were exposed to noise from road traffic, the average external noise level outside a school being 57 dB LAeq. Detailed internal noise surveys have been carried out in 140 classrooms in 16 schools, together with classroom observations. It was found that noise levels inside classrooms depend upon the activities in which the children are engaged, with a difference of 20 dB LAeq between the 'quietest' and 'noisiest' activities. The average background noise level in classrooms exceeds the level recommended in current standards. The number of children in the classroom was found to affect noise levels. External noise influenced internal noise levels only when children were engaged in the quietest classroom activities. The effects of the age of the school buildings and types of window upon internal noise were examined but results were inconclusive

Hearing Threshold of Korean Adolescents Associated with the Use of Personal Music Players

Purpose: Hearing loss can lead to a number of disabilities and can reduce quality of life. Noise-induced hearing losses have become more common among adolescents due to increased exposure to personal music players. We, therefore, investigated the use of personal music player among Korean adolescents and the relationship between hearing threshold and usage pattern of portable music players. Materials and Methods: A total of 490 adolescents were interviewed personally regarding their use of portable music players, including the time and type of player and the type of headphone used. Pure tone audiometry was performed in each subject. Results: Of the 490 subjects, 462 (94.3%) used personal music players and most of them have used the personal music player for 1-3 hours per day during 1-3 years. The most common type of portable music player was the MP3 player, and the most common type of headphone was the earphone (insert type). Significant elevations of hearing threshold were observed in males, in adolescents who had used portable music players for over 5 years, for those over 15 years in cumulative period and in those who had used earphones. Conclusion: Portable music players can have a deleterious effect on hearing threshold in adolescents. To preserve hearing, adolescents should avoid using portable music players for long periods of time and should avoid using earphones

Noise in Schools: A Holistic Approach to the Issue

Much of the research evidence relating to the physical learning environment of schools is inconclusive, contradictory or incomplete. Nevertheless, within this confusing area, research from a number of disciplines, using a range of methodologies, points to the negative impact of noise on students’ learning. In this paper, drawing on our systematic review of learning environments we review the weight of evidence in relation to noise, considering what implications the results of these studies have for the design and use of learning spaces in schools. We make four key points. Firstly that noise over a given level does appear to have a negative impact on learning. Secondly that beneath these levels noise may or may not be problematic, depending on the social, cultural and pedagogical expectations of the students and teachers. Thirdly we argue that when noise is deemed to be a difficulty, this finding cannot simply be translated into design prescriptions. The reasons for this indeterminacy include differing understandings of the routes through which noise produces learning deficits, as well as relationships between noise and other elements of the environment, particularly the impacts of physical solutions to noise problems. Finally, we suggest that solutions to noise problems will not be produced by viewing noise in isolation, or even as part of the physical environment, but through participatory approaches to understanding and adapting the structure, organisation and use of learning spaces in schools

Environmental strategies of affect regulation and their associations with subjective well-being

Environmental strategies of affect regulation refer to the use of natural and urban socio-physical settings in the service of regulation. We investigated the perceived use and efficacy of environmental strategies for regulation of general affect and sadness, considering them in relation to other affect regulation strategies and to subjective well-being. Participants from Australia, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, India, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden (N = 507) evaluated the frequency of use and perceived efficacy of affect regulation strategies using a modified version of the Measure of Affect Regulation Styles (MARS). The internet survey also included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), emotional well-being items from the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, and a single-item measure of perceived general health. Environmental regulation formed a separate factor of affect regulation in the exploratory structural equation models (ESEM). Although no relations of environmental strategies with emotional well-being were found, both the perceived frequency of use and efficacy of environmental strategies were positively related to perceived health. Moreover, the perceived efficacy of environmental strategies was positively related to life satisfaction in regulating sadness. The results encourage more explicit treatment of environmental strategies in research on affect regulation

Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Wind power has been harnessed as a source of power around the world. Debate is ongoing with respect to the relationship between reported health effects and wind turbines, specifically in terms of audible and inaudible noise. As a result, minimum setback distances have been established world-wide to reduce or avoid potential complaints from, or potential effects to, people living in proximity to wind turbines. People interested in this debate turn to two sources of information to make informed decisions: scientific peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals and the popular literature and internet.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to review the peer-reviewed scientific literature, government agency reports, and the most prominent information found in the popular literature. Combinations of key words were entered into the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge^SMand the internet search engine Google. The review was conducted in the spirit of the evaluation process outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Conclusions of the peer reviewed literature differ in some ways from those in the popular literature. In peer reviewed studies, wind turbine annoyance has been statistically associated with wind turbine noise, but found to be more strongly related to visual impact, attitude to wind turbines and sensitivity to noise. To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects. If anything, reported health effects are likely attributed to a number of environmental stressors that result in an annoyed/stressed state in a segment of the population. In the popular literature, self-reported health outcomes are related to distance from turbines and the claim is made that infrasound is the causative factor for the reported effects, even though sound pressure levels are not measured.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>What both types of studies have in common is the conclusion that wind turbines can be a source of annoyance for some people. The difference between both types is the reason for annoyance. While it is acknowledged that noise from wind turbines can be annoying to some and associated with some reported health effects (e.g., sleep disturbance), especially when found at sound pressure levels greater than 40 db(A), given that annoyance appears to be more strongly related to visual cues and attitude than to noise itself, self reported health effects of people living near wind turbines are more likely attributed to physical manifestation from an annoyed state than from wind turbines themselves. In other words, it appears that it is the change in the environment that is associated with reported health effects and not a turbine-specific variable like audible noise or infrasound. Regardless of its cause, a certain level of annoyance in a population can be expected (as with any number of projects that change the local environment) and the acceptable level is a policy decision to be made by elected officials and their government representatives where the benefits of wind power are weighted against their cons. Assessing the effects of wind turbines on human health is an emerging field and conducting further research into the effects of wind turbines (and environmental changes) on human health, emotional and physical, is warranted.</p