Monday, April 6, 2009

Pollution smothering Karachiites




KARACHI - Despite launching several awareness campaigns to control the air pollution in the major cities of the country especially in Karachi, the metropolitan is still confronting this problem, The Nation learnt on Saturday.
The government agencies, several institutions and law enforcers have been failed to control the air pollution in the urban parts of the country, while lack of interest by the local government and other organisations towards controlling the smoke emitting from the vehicles, especially public transport and two-stroke vehicles.
In different times, the government departments as well as the environment protection agencies had launched several massive campaigns against air pollution and smoke-emitting vehicles, but failed to achieve their goals. Meanwhile, Qazi Ali Athar, advocate of Sindh High Court (SHC) and Environmental Law Attorney, moved the SHC against the air and noise pollution in the metropolitan, while his petition is under process in the court.
He mentioned the statistics, in his petition, by submitting that approximately 2,08,861 public vehicles are operating in the City. The vehicles comprised of 34,959 rickshaws, 3,665 buses, 10,700 mini buses, 2,324 contract careers, 4,321 mini coaches, 49,396 pick-up vehicles, 49,396 taxis, while 45,972 private vehicles are operating across the City. These vehicles used to release 1,75,935 tons of different toxic gases.
The diesel engines and two-stroke vehicles are the main cause of air pollution. There is no solution for these diesel automobiles because they emit a huge amount of smoke and noise, as they carry massive loads, which is the major factor for the smoke emission.
Only those vehicles emit smoke and produce noise whose engines are almost out of order and are running on low quality fuel and spare parts, whereas most of them are the models of 70s.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Radioactive Pollution - Nuclear Power Plants


Many environmentalists are critical of nuclear power generation. They claim that there is an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic accident, and that nuclear power plants generate large amounts of unmanageable nuclear waste.


The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has strict requirements regarding the amount of radioactivity that can be released from a nuclear power reactor. In particular, a nuclear reactor can expose an individual who lives on the fence line of the power plant to no more than 10 millirems of radiation per year. Actual measurements at U.S. nuclear power plants have shown that a person who lived at the fence line would actually be exposed to much less that 10 millirems.



Thus, for a typical person who is exposed to about 350 millirems of radiation per year from all other sources, much of which is natural background, the proportion of radiation from nuclear power plants is extremely small. In fact, coal- and oil-fired power plants, which release small amounts of radioactivity contained in their fuels, are responsible for more airborne radioactive pollution in the United States than are nuclear power plants.



Although a nuclear power plant cannot explode like an atomic bomb, accidents can result in serious radioactive pollution. During the past 45 years, there have been a number of not-fully controlled or uncontrolled fission reactions at nuclear power plants in the United States and elsewhere, which have killed or injured power plant workers. These accidents occurred in Los Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Richland, Washington; and Wood River Junction, Rhode Island.



The most famous case was the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, which received a great deal of attention in the press. However, nuclear scientists have estimated that people living within 50 mi (80 km) of this reactor were exposed to less than two millirems of radiation, most of it as iodine-131, a short-lived isotope. This exposure constituted less than 1% of the total annual radiation dose of an average person.



However, these data do not mean that the accident at Three Mile Island was not a serious one; fortunately, technicians were able to reattain control of the reactor before more devastating damage occurred, and the reactor system was well contained so that only a relatively small amount of radioactivity escaped to the ambient environment.



window.google_render_ad();
By far, the worst nuclear reactor accident occurred in 1986 in Chernobyl, Ukraine. An uncontrolled build-up of heat resulted in a meltdown of the reactor core and combustion of graphite moderator material in one of the several generating units at Chernobyl, releasing more than 50 million Curies of radioactivity to the ambient environment. The disaster killed 31 workers, and resulted in the hospitalization of more than 500 other people from radiation sickness.



According to Ukrainian authorities, during the decade following the Chernobyl disaster an estimated 10,000 people in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine died from cancers and other radiation-related diseases caused by the accident. In addition to these relatively local effects, the atmosphere transported radiation from Chernobyl into Europe and throughout the Northern Hemisphere.



More than 500,000 people in the vicinity of Chernobyl were exposed to dangerously high doses of radiation, and more than 300,000 people were permanently evacuated from the vicinity. Since radiation-related health problems may appear decades after exposure, scientists expect that many thousands of additional people will eventually suffer higher rates of thyroid cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, and other radiation-related diseases.



Unfortunately, a cover-up of the explosion by responsible authorities, including those in government, endangered even more people. Many local residents did not known that they should flee the area as soon as possible, or were not provided with the medical attention they needed.



The large amount of radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants is another an important problem. This waste will remain radioactive for many thousands of years, so technologists must design systems for extremely long-term storage. One obvious problem is that the long-term reliability of the storage systems cannot be fully assured, because they cannot be directly tested for the length of time they will be used (i.e., for thousands of years). Another problem with nuclear waste is that it will remain extremely dangerous for much longer than the expected lifetimes of existing governments and social institutions.



Thus, we are making the societies of the following millennia, however they may be structured, responsible for the safe storage of nuclear waste that is being generated in such large quantities today.

The problems in freshwater ecosystems caused by heat (thermal pollution)

HEAT IN AQUATIC FRESH WATER

There are various effects on the biology of the ecosystems when heated effluents reach the receiving waters.
The species that are intolerant to warm conditions may disappear, while others, rare in unheated water, may thrive so that the structure of the community changes. Thermal pollution can have a great influence on the aquatic ecosystem.

Species that are restricted to heated waters, can build up large populations in the receiving waters. Respiration and growth rates may be changed and these may alter the feeding rates of organisms. The reproduction period may be brought forward and development may be speeded up. Parasites and diseases may also be affected.


An increase of temperature also means a decrease in oxygen solubility. Any reduction in the oxygen concentration of the water, particularly when organic pollution is also present, may result in the loss of sensitive species.
window.google_render_ad();


Where does heated water come from?Possibly the most damaging environmental effect of a power station is the many organisms that may be sucked in through the water intake. Larger creatures, such as fish, are killed on the intake screens while smaller species pass through the plant. Even algae may be damaged, with permanent impairment of the photosynthetic mechanism. Liquid water changes temperature slowly because it can store a large amount of heat without a large change in temperature.


This high heat capacity helps protect living organisms from temperature fluctuations, moderates the earth’s climate and makes water an excellent coolant for car engines, power plants and heat-producing industrial processes. But when water is used in the industry, it is hot and it will be spilled through a discharge pipe into a river. This increase in temperature will reduce the amount of oxygen in the river.


That can affect the level of oxygen freely available to organisms, which in turn affects respiration and essentially their way of life. For example, the metabolism rate is largely dependent upon the temperature of an animal's body. Animals display several different types of thermal adaptations to their environment.


Two particularly prevalent types include ectotherms and endotherms. In ectotherms (an animal whose body temperature varies with the temperature of its surroundings; any animal except birds and mammals), the body temperature will be low in a cold environment and high in a warm environment.


For example, in summer fish may have high metabolic rates because their body temperatures are elevated in the warm water. At the same time they are faced with relatively low oxygen availability because warm water holds less dissolved oxygen than cold water. The interaction of these factors may prove critical.


For this reason there is a growing concern among ecologists about the heating of aquatic habitats by effluents from industrial and nuclear generating facilities. Heated water can kill animals and plants that are accustomed to living at lower temperatures.

Pollution Solutions


May 19th, 2006
Our pollution problem seems utterly hopeless. But other cities have been where we are – and cleaned up. Five pollution-busters who beat the smog in their own cities give some advice to Hong Kong. By Scott Murphy.

LOS ANGELES, USA
Population: 6 million
Problem-solver: Jim Lents, executive director of South Coast Air Quality Management District from 1986-1997.

The Problem: “In the 1970s and into the 80s, your eyes burned so bad that it was difficult to be on the streets in the afternoon. You could only take about half a breath of air. Visibility was so bad that tourists wouldn’t even be able to see the mountains surrounding the city.
“The cities weren’t doing a lot because they were afraid of offending the industries. But after pressure from environmental groups, the government started passing laws. One of the most important groups was the state legislature. Each county had individual agencies blaming each other and not wanting to do anything. So the state legislature created a single agency (the South Coast Air Quality Management District, or CAQMD) overseeing them all. It had a $30 million budget and 300 employees even in the 70s.” The Solution:
“You first have to identify the problem. Then the government has to be inspired to say, ‘We’re not going to take this anymore. We’re going to make radical changes.’ In our case, in1975, they started to hold legislative hearings to raise the visibility of the pollution issue. After the environmental groups made a big issue out of it with the state legislature, the first round of cleanup started in the 70s. A statewide Clean Air Act passed in 1987, starting the second round. In the 80s, we spent a lot of effort to understand the sources of our emissions. Then we started to develop cost-effective control measures. We looked at the situation in economic terms.
We decided to spend up to US$10,000 per person on cleanup measures and pollution control equipment. You can clean up pollution for cheaper than that per person, but that’s the figure we decided on. “We also came up with strict regulations on automobile and factory emissions. We even set regulations on barbecues and restaurants. Those that didn’t comply were fined heavily. When our group (CAQMD) had 1,000 employees and a budget of about US$100 million, the board of directors was changed because we thought it was getting too cozy.
I believe these agencies need to reinvent themselves every decade or they become too interconnected with the industries they regulate. We put together a comprehensive air pollution management plan in 1989. It was revised in 1994, 1997 and 2000. Every few years, you have to step back and take a look at what new control measures should be considered.”
The Result: “Air pollution levels came down dramatically throughout the 90s. We were able to cut pollution in half from 1977 to 1987. And then we cut that in half from 1987 to 1997.
Since then, our progress has been slower. The mobile sources of pollution have been controlled, but not the ports. That’s where the big battle is looming now. The ports are protected by international laws. Trains and ships are just being addressed.
Los Angeles has one of the busiest ports in the world, second to Hong Kong or Singapore. It’s much more difficult to regulate. Now we are trying to get cleaner fuels and set up shore-side agencies. Otherwise, now you can see the mountains everyday. The job isn’t over, but we’ve made tremendous progress. It’s slow, very slow, but in the end, it’s very rewarding.”

Lessons for Hong Kong
➔ “Identify ways to clean up, develop regulations and decide what is a fair regulatory burden.”
➔ “Establish an authority to implement those regulations.”
➔ “Police the regulations. In Los Angeles, there was a huge contingent of people enforcing the rules. They tried to tailor the fines to the size of the industry, sometimes in the millions of dollars. Offenders were identified and prosecuted.”
➔ “Recognize that you can’t walk away. Plans have to be reviewed at regular intervals. New technologies have to be looked at to see what can be added to the plans.”

BOGOTA, COLOMBIA
Population: 7 million
Problem-solver: Gil Penalosa, former Commissioner of Parks, Sports and Recreation (1995-97), who worked with his brother, then-mayor Enrique Penalosa (pictured right, with Gil in helmet), to clean the air.

The Problem: “During the early 90s, Bogotá was one of the most polluted cities in South America. There were a lot of respiratory problems, mostly caused by cars. Traffic was chaotic. Buses were running everywhere they wanted. There were no regulations. Everybody would park their cars on the sidewalks. It was crazy. People had almost given up. There was no sense of pride.”

The Solution: “We created a mass rapid traffic system which has since become a model for many other countries. We set up dedicated lanes for buses. People cut their commuting time by three-quarters. We made 180 parks. We cleaned up the creeks and put monetary sanctions on companies that were polluting them. We created 250 kilometers of dedicated bicycle paths citywide. My brother and I closed 113 kilometers of road every Sunday and got 1.5 million people out each weekend to enjoy it. We introduced a citywide car-free day once a year, which created a lot of talk.
It was a way to take measurements of how contaminated the city was on a regular day. But it was also a way to get people thinking about their future, and to force future governments to think about public transport options in the future. After initial opposition, it’s now an annual event. When my brother initially made these changes, he was nearly impeached. But by the end of his term, he was our most popular mayor of the past 30 years. But at the end of that first year things were rough.”

The Result: “We changed the way residents thought about the city. Now anybody running for office has parks, environment and the quality of life as major issues on their platform. For many years, people were thinking cars, cars, cars. All of a sudden, people got to thinking that the issue was essentially about moving people. So it became pedestrians first, then bicycles, mass transit, and finally, if there was any money left, cars.
People realized it’s better to have a sidewalk than a road. That’s a major shift. There will always be many more needs than resources. Once you start saying pedestrians are first, then you can find the way. Now all streets built in the city have to be designed for use by pedestrians, then mass transport and then by cars. It’s important for people to realize this.”

Lessons for Hong Kong
➔ “Just do it. There will always be people who can give you 101 reasons why something cannot be done.” ➔ “People said nothing could be done with mass transit. In 36 months, we changed it.”
➔ “It takes leadership. Leadership includes having the vision and the capacity to do the things you set out to do. Vision with no action creates frustration. It takes both to change things.”
➔ “You have to start with projects that are highly visible and have a really high chance of success. They provide you with the credibility to tackle more difficult ones.”

CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, USA
Population: 170,000
Problem-solver: Wayne Cropp, lawyer and director of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau
The Problem: “In 1969, Chattanooga was recognized as having the worst air in America. On an anecdotal basis, there were days when you’d go outside and you could only see a few yards in front of you because of the pollution. You’d have to turn on your headlights to drive in the middle of the day. There was a TNT plant (producing more of the explosive than any other factory on Earth), which released nitrogen dioxide into the air everyday. Women’s clothes hanging out to dry would be eaten up by the pollution.
Men would carry changes of shirts with them because they would stain just from walking around in the air. We had the highest amount of total suspended particulates (TSP or simply “soot”) in the country. We were first runner-up to Los Angeles in benzene-soluble organic particles (BSO). When you’re cited on national news by Walter Cronkite as being the worst city in the US, you know something has to be done.” The Solution: “The medical community was one of the first that came on board.
They rose up and started to educate the public about the health effects of pollution. They held annual seminars and invited national speakers to talk about respiratory problems. This was cutting edge in those days.“We also created our own air pollution control program, which pre-dates state and national efforts.
A local ordinance was created, calling for companies to comply with certain standards. Companies that came into compliance by the deadline were recognized publicly. Those that didn’t were heavily fined. The business community responded and led the effort to clean up. There was also tremendous community support for the effort, which meant there was strong political support.
You need political muscle to make things like this happen. Two thousand citizens submitted letters and telegrams, which arrived in bushel baskets at the mayor’s office, demanding something be done about the problem. Eventually, there was a ‘visioning process’ in the late 70s, where 2,000 ideas were submitted for what Chattanooga could, should and ultimately has become.
A lot of these were public-private partnerships.”The Result: “We were the first metropolitan area on the US national ‘dirty air list’ that achieved what was called ‘attainment’ status – or clean air (one of the few cities in America to do so). Chattanooga is now in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency for control of particulate matter.
We have a program in place to maintain and inspect automobiles. We will soon be in compliance with the new national EPA standards, which are the toughest standards yet. The air quality continues to get better every year.”

Lessons for Hong Kong
➔ “The medical community responded first, letting everyone know the dangers of what they were breathing.”
➔ “Once the community understood, they responded and demanded that the government do something. The community, alongside business leaders, stepped forward with a plan to attack the problem.”
➔ “We applied the ‘carrot and the stick’ method to offending companies. Those that complied were recognized. Those that didn’t were fined heavily.”
➔ “We created a continuous education process with the public and children. Children were educated about the effects of air pollution, which are still being felt today.”

SUDBURY, ONTARIO, CANDADA
Population: 155,000
Problem-solver: Dr. Peter Beckett, associate professor of biology at Laurentian University The Problem: “Sudbury is an industrial town with three different smelters belonging to two different companies.
The smelting industry here goes back to about 1929. When they roasted the ore, they were essentially burning off the sulfur, which would come out of the chimneys as sulfur dioxide. Up to two million tons of sulfur dioxide was coming out a year during maximum production in the 50s and 60s.
It wiped out all vegetation. Seventeen thousand hectares of land was devastated. There was also a nearby forest that had its growth stunted – another 64,000 hectares. It all became a barren zone, just rock that turned black from the sulfur. The national notion of Sudbury was, ‘Who wants to go and live in that hellhole?’ It was called a moonscape, a horrible place to live. Less is known about the effect on the people, but you can be assured that there were all kinds of lung problems.”

The Solution: “The first thing to happen was the environmental movement of the 60s, which spurred on the will to change. The Ontario government then set up the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, which established emission limits on sulfur dioxide. This was followed by the typical business reaction of trying to delay the implementation of the limits. But the government held firm. The only choice the industry had left was to modernize. They rebuilt one of the smelters in the west end of town, a 381-meter chimney.
This sent the pollution higher up into the air, where it would be more diluted. They also installed electrostatic precipitators, which remove most of the metal particles from the emissions. The sulfur was added to water to create sulfuric acid, which was then sold to the chemical industry (a benefit to the company). “In the 70s, as pollution started to go down, people started to wonder if they could do anything to improve the landscape.
This led to the Sudbury Regreening Project of 1978, which was launched to improve the environment and the quality of life. People realized if Sudbury were to survive, it would have to diversify. To do that, they would have to improve the city’s image to attract new industries and business.
An advisory committee comprised of citizens, organizations and technical people was formed. It would go off into the communities with black hills and green them. Next they worked on the 330 lakes in the area and started cleaning up the watersheds. After all this time, the cleanup is only about halfway completed.”

The Result: “Sulfur dioxide levels are now less than 10 percent of what they were in the 60s, with further government-mandated reductions due by 2008. Mining is still the largest industry, but it doesn’t dominate the way it used to. Now, Sudbury is not only a regional hub, it even has a tourist industry. It has some of the best air in Canada. Ironically though, the biggest chimney is now criticized for wasting energy.”

Lessons for Hong Kong
➔ “Nobody was going to rock the boat in the 60s. Business had control. But then the university opened. This brought in people who weren’t dependent on industry, people who had nothing to lose by complaining.”
➔ “People pointed fingers both locally and internationally. The local and provincial government started working together to make changes. Once changes started, people in the community got involved.”
➔ “The Ontario Ministry of the Environment was set up and charged with creating a clean environment in Ontario. The government came down with orders and laws. If you didn’t meet them, you were fined. These were hefty fines. The first step was big. But now it’s like a technological challenge. The industry wants to improve itself.”
➔ “Cleaning pollution has to be a partnership between industry, various levels of government and concerned citizens. It has to be a real cross-section of the community, from professionals to the average citizen. Now we have a Clean Air Sudbury committee. It’s no longer an us-versus-them scenario. It’s a ‘What can we all do together?’ situation.”

MEXICO CITY, MEXICO
Population: 17 million
Problem-solver: Nancy Kete, director of EMBARQ, a US-based center for international transportation and environment. The Problem: “The combination of a very dense urban population, a high elevation and the volume of emissions make Mexico City one of the worst places in the world for air pollution. Two- to three-hour rush hours a day are not uncommon. But it’s also one of the most studied pollution problems on the planet. Over the past two decades, the city has taken some measures to reduce the problem.
Some worked for a while, but they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of cars. They have what was once one of the best metro rail systems in the world, but it doesn’t reach into the suburbs, which is where the major population growth is. Fifty-five to 60 percent of trips made by commuters are on unregulated private transit services.
They cost more than the public services, and they pollute more. They are dangerous and crime-ridden. But they’re fast and convenient. Fortunately, there is a high level of understanding that pollution is very bad and there’s a lot of pressure on the city to clean it up.”
The Solution: “The Secretary of the Environment of Mexico’s Federal District, Claudia Sheinbaum, was empowered to take on air pollution and congestion. We formed a public-private partnership between the city, EMBARQ and the World Resources Institute to find sustainable solutions to the air-quality problem.
We achieved three concrete goals: We started a ‘bus rapid transit system,’ a dedicated bus lane which is now the fastest way around the city. (There are plans to extend it to the suburbs.) We modernized the bus fleet.
And we installed pollution-control equipment on the new buses, aiming to achieve the emission reductions seen in the US or Europe. We had a 90 percent reduction in particulate matter.” The Result: “Working with a national laboratory in Mexico, we put personal exposure monitors on passengers to discover what they were breathing at both street level and on the bus.
We found they had 35 percent less exposure to particulate matter and 50 percent less exposure to carbon monoxide when on the new buses. Riders now want more bus routes. The plan was a pilot – but it was successful. Now Mexico is committed to feeding this service into the suburbs. What we did was merely a drop in the bucket, but for those 250,000 daily passengers, these are huge improvements.”

Lessons for Hong Kong
➔ “No city will succeed unless it has a champion at a very high level. There needs to be a politically empowered champion. They have to want it, understand the political risks and be ready to take them.”
➔ “If I were to give the Chief Executive of Hong Kong advice, it would be this: Be bold. The political gains will outweigh the risks if you do it right.” ➔ “You have to have public-private partnerships. They’re important. The role we had was as creative and constructive disrupters of the status quo.”
➔ “You’ll need to fix the transit system through a combination of segregated corridors, congestion and parking charges, and new standards on fuel quality and emissions.”
➔ “The biggest barriers are not technological, but lie somewhere between the political and the inertial.”

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Monday, March 30, 2009

Soil contamination




Soil contamination is caused by the presence of man-made chemicals or other alteration in the natural soil environment. This type of contamination typically arises from the rupture of underground storage tanks, application of pesticides, percolation of contaminated surface water to subsurface strata, oil and fuel dumping, leaching of wastes from landfills or direct discharge of industrial wastes to the soil. The most common chemicals involved are petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, lead and other heavy metals. This occurrence of this phenomenon is correlated with the degree of industrialization and intensity of chemical usage.

The concern over soil contamination stems primarily from health risks, both of direct contact and from secondary contamination of water supplies[1]. Mapping of contaminated soil sites and the resulting cleanup are time consuming and expensive tasks, requiring extensive amounts of geology, hydrology, chemistry and computer modeling skills.

It is in North America and Western Europe that the extent of contaminated land is most well known, with many of countries in these areas having a legal framework to identify and deal with this environmental problem; this however may well be just the tip of the iceberg with developing countries very likely to be the next generation of new soil contamination cases.

The immense and sustained growth of the People's Republic of China since the 1970s has exacted a price from the land in increased soil pollution. The State Environmental Protection Administration believes it to be a threat to the environment, to food safety and to sustainable agriculture. According to a scientific sampling, 150 million mi (100,000 square kilometres) of China’s cultivated land have been polluted, with contaminated water being used to irrigate a further 32.5 million mi (21,670 square kilometres) and another 2 million mi (1,300 square kilometres) covered or destroyed by solid waste. In total, the area accounts for one-tenth of China’s cultivatable land, and is mostly in economically developed areas. An estimated 12 million tonnes of grain are contaminated by heavy metals every year, causing direct losses of 20 billion yuan (US$2.57 billion). [2].

The United States, while having some of the most widespread soil contamination, has actually been a leader in defining and implementing standards for cleanup[3]. Other industrialized countries have a large number of contaminated sites, but lag the U.S. in executing remediation. Developing countries may be leading in the next generation of new soil contamination cases.

Each year in the U.S., thousands of sites complete soil contamination cleanup, some by using microbes that “eat up” toxic chemicals in soil[4], many others by simple excavation and others by more expensive high-tech soil vapor extraction or air stripping. At the same time, efforts proceed worldwide in creating and identifying new sites of soil contamination, particularly in industrial countries other than the U.S., and in developing countries which lack the money and the technology to adequately protect soil resources.

Stress and Noise Pollution: How You May Be At Risk



What Is Noise Pollution?
Noise pollution can be defined as intrusive noise that disrupts, distracts, or detracts from regular functioning. And while people mainly think of noise pollution as a problem of the big cities, with the competing sounds of more people in a smaller space, noise pollution can also be found in suburban neighborhoods (in the form of leaf blowers, lawn mowers, and home construction) and even individual homes and offices at levels that can have a negative impact on your health and productivity.

Causes of Noise Pollution
While there are many different sources of noise pollution, there are some main culprits that have been researched and found to have a negative impact on health. They include the following:
Airplanes—It’s been well-documented that noise pollution from airplanes has a significant negative impact on the health and wellbeing of those who live close to airports. This can include heart disease, high blood pressure and chronic stress. (About.com’s Environment Guide has more information on the effects of airports and noise pollution.)
Cars--One of the complaints of those who live in big cities or on busy streets is the disruption from the sounds of traffic. Interestingly, though, even low levels of traffic noise can be damaging to people, and traffic noise is one of the most commonly experienced contributors to noise pollution.

Workplace Noise
Most of us may think of loud assembly lines or construction sites when we think of noise pollution in the workplace, and while these examples definitely apply, regular offices are not immune. With more people packed into busy office spaces, office noise is a common complaint. Co-workers who talk, drum their fingers on the desk, or offer other distracting noises can decrease the productivity of those around them without realizing it.

Home Sound--
Many people don’t think of their homes as ‘noisy’, but if there’s a lot of activity in the home, including a constantly running t.v., this overall noise level can actually be a threat to concentration and a cause of stress. In fact, children from more noisy homes do suffer ill effects from this type of sound pollution that include less cognitive growth, delayed language skills, increased anxiety, and impaired resilience, according to a Purdue University professor in a related press release.

Negative Effects of Noise PollutionMany studies have been conducted to study the effects of noise pollution on health and wellness, and the results have shown that noise pollution can negatively impact you in the following ways:

Productivity: We all know that noise can be distracting, and research proves this. One study examined children exposed to airport noise and found that their reading ability and long-term memory was impaired. Those working in noisy office environments have also been found to be less cognitively motivated, and to have higher stress levels, according to a Cornell University study.

Health: Perhaps the most serious problem created by sound pollution is the impact it has on our health. Because sound pollution can trigger the body’s stress response, one of its major health effects is chronic stress and the high levels of stress hormones that go with it. As a result, noise pollution has also been linked with health problems such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke.
It’s also been linked with musculoskeletal problems, as a Cornell University study on office noise found that those working in noisy office environments can also be less likely to ergonomically adjust their workstations for comfort, which can contribute to physical problems.
Noise pollution can also impact sleep quality by preventing sleep and disrupting sleep cycles. And, perhaps most significantly, because chronic stress can lower your immunity to all disease, noise pollution is a general threat to health and wellness.
What can you do to protect yourself from chronic stress? This article on reducing the effects of noise pollution has some important ideas for you.