Background: Tens of millions of Americans suffer from a range of adverse health outcomes due to noise exposure, including heart disease and hearing loss. Reducing environmental noise pollution is achievable and consistent with national prevention goals, yet there is no national plan to reduce environmental noise pollution. Objectives: We aimed to describe some of the most serious health effects associated with noise, summarize exposures from several highly prevalent noise sources based on published estimates as well as extrapolations made using these estimates, and lay out proven mechanisms and strategies to reduce noise by incorporating scientific insight and technological innovations into existing public health infrastructure. Discussion: We estimated that 104 million individuals had annual LEQ(24) levels > 70 dBA (equivalent to a continuous average exposure level of >70 dBA over 24 hr) in 2013 and were at risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Tens of millions more may be at risk of heart disease, and other noise-related health effects. Direct regulation, altering the informational environment, and altering the built environment are the least costly, most logistically feasible, and most effective noise reduction interventions. Conclusion: Significant public health benefit can be achieved by integrating interventions that reduce environmental noise levels and exposures into the federal public health agenda. Citation: Hammer MS, Swinburn TK, Neitzel RL. 2014. Environmental noise pollution in the United States: developing an effective public health response. Environ Health Perspect 122:115–119; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307272

This report is one of three synthesis documents produced via an integrated assessment (IA) that aims to increase understanding of artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) in Ghana. Given the complexities surrounding ASGM, an IA framework was utilized to analyze economic, social, health, and environmental data, and co-develop evidence-based responses with pertinent stakeholders. The current analysis focuses on the health of ASGM miners and community members, and synthesizes extant data from the literature as well as co-authors’ recent findings regarding the causes, status, trends, and consequences of ASGM in Ghana. The results provide evidence from across multiple Ghanaian ASGM sites that document relatively high exposures to mercury and other heavy metals, occupational injuries and noise exposure. The work also reviews limited data on psychosocial health, nutrition, cardiovascular and respiratory health, sexual health, and water and sanitation. Taken together, the findings provide a thorough overview of human health issues in Ghanaian ASGM communities. Though more research is needed to further elucidate the relationships between ASGM and health outcomes, the existing research on plausible health consequences of ASGM should guide policies and actions to better address the unique challenges of ASGM in Ghana and potentially elsewhere.

The urban soundscape, which represents the totality of noise in the urban setting, is formed from a wide range of sources. One of the most ubiquitous and least studied of these is street-level (i.e., sidewalk) noise. Mainly associated with vehicular traffic, street level noise is hard to ignore and hard to escape. It is also potentially dangerous, as excessive noise from any source is an important risk factor for adverse health effects. This study was conducted to better characterize the urban soundscape and the role of street level noise on overall personal noise exposure in an urban setting. Street-level noise measures were obtained at 99 street sites located throughout New York City (NYC), along with data on time, location, and sources of environmental noise. The relationship between street-level noise measures and potential predictors of noise was analyzed using linear and logistic regression models, and geospatial modeling was used to evaluate spatial trends in noise. Daily durations of street-level activities (time spent standing, sitting, walking and running on streets) were estimated via survey from a sample of NYC community members recruited at NYC street fairs. Street-level noise measurements were then combined with daily exposure durations for each member of the sample to estimate exposure to street noise, as well as exposure to other sources of noise. The mean street noise level was 73.4 dBA, with substantial spatial variation (range 55.8-95.0 dBA). Density of vehicular (road) traffic was significantly associated with excessive street level noise levels. Exposure duration data for street-level noise and other common sources of noise were collected from 1894 NYC community members. Based on individual street-level exposure estimates, and in consideration of all other sources of noise exposure in an urban population, we estimated that street noise exposure contributes approximately 4% to an average individual’s annual noise dose. Street-level noise exposure is a potentially important source of overall noise exposure, and the reduction of environmental sources of excessive street- level noise should be a priority for public health and urban planning.

This review was conducted to address three questions related to recreational sound exposure: (1) what criteria are used to determine noise exposure limits, (2) are there differences in the risk of hearing loss from occupational noise versus recreational sound, and (3) what is an appropriate exposure limit for recreational sound? For the first question, most standards specify an 8-h occupational noise exposure limit (LEX) of 85 dBA. This limit assumes that some workers exposed at the limit will develop hearing loss. To eliminate the risk of hearing loss, a 24-h equivalent continuous level (LEQ24h) limit of 70 dBA is appropriate. For the second question, there is some evidence that the effects of occupational noise on hearing may be worse than energetically equivalent recreational sound. Limits developed for noise are nevertheless applicable to recreational sound, and use of existing statistical models to predict hearing loss from recreational sound is appropriate, with the caveat that these models are limited to durations ≤40 years. For the third question, a recreational sound limit of 80 dBA LEX, equivalent to a 75 dBA LEQ24h, will virtually eliminate the risk of recreationally induced hearing loss in adults. Lower limits may be warranted for vulnerable or susceptible individuals.