Let's get a feel for this issue...
The State of California passed a new sound limit for off-road vehicles. The new limit is 96DbA. It used to be 101DbA. They also reinforced the law concerning spark-arresters.
It is unclear as to how this issue will be handled at the ISDRA.
Full Version: How doyou feel about "Sound Enforcement" at Glamis
Uh-oh, I just threw my spark arrester away couple months ago :shock: :shock:
I don't think the law should apply to the ISDRA. Glamis is not close enough to the city and does not impact and leisurely camping. When I say leisurely camping I mean no one goes to glamis just to camp like you would in a national forest. The people that go to glamis go to ride and be apart of the noise...
My initial thought is that it shouldn't be enforced for the reasons Mr. DUNE cited. But I'm not sure how much impact the 96db limit will have. Is it difficult to get to 96 db?
Someone stated that for every 3 decibals you cut the noise in Half The big Gun race system is 101 db that would make my bike whisper quite.
Doc
Doc
No new rules. Period.
State of CA isn't funding them any more, so why enforce it? It's not a federal rule.
gman
State of CA isn't funding them any more, so why enforce it? It's not a federal rule.
gman
No new laws. Exhust noise has never been a problem.
They are chipin aways at the stone.
alittle here alittle there?
a compromise here? /there?
till theres nothin left.
alittle here alittle there?
a compromise here? /there?
till theres nothin left.
Noise restrictions? for what? Who are we going to bother, the engineers on the train? and Spark Arrestor issue, whats a spark going to do? Even if it does catch a "bush" on fire, its only going to burn that bush. Nothing else in the dunes.
ANdy
ANdy
If they enforce this law then I probably won't be able to run my generator. :shock: :dis:
The sound restrictions only apply to OHV's...
You can run your generater as loud as you wish, until 10PM...
Hmmmm... That gives me an idea!!!
Vor
You can run your generater as loud as you wish, until 10PM...
Hmmmm... That gives me an idea!!!
Vor
That's good news for me since my quad doesn't have an engine, it has a power generator!
:dozey: :burn: :burn:
:dozey: :burn: :burn:
Environmental Effects of ORVs. By Wilshire and Webb,
Springer-Verlag, NY. 1983.
This book is out of print, but you can get it through inter-library loan.
The authors show the steps of how they did their experiments. For
example, to test the hearing of a Kangaroo Rat they did the following:
1. They got 14 rats from the desert.
2. They observed them in captivity for 4 months.
3. They exposed them to a live sidewinder 87 times and observed their
behavior.
4. They found that rats would kick sand at sidewinders (either a
real one or a freeze-dried one) whenever it was detected.
5. They blocked off the rats view of the snake, but the
rats could still smell it, but only at close range.
6. They played a tape of the sound of a sidewinder crawling through the sand
and saw the rats kick sand at the loudspeaker.
7. They measured the voltage at which the sound became audible to the rats.
8. They then exposed the rats to tapes of a dune buggy on and off for 500
seconds (eight minutes, twenty seconds), and observed the following:
(the rats) exposed to dune buggy sounds ran in circles, defecated,
pushed at the openings of their cages, started at each new sequence of recorded sounds, frantically
groomed themselves and performed repeated slides and finally shivered on hind legs below the
loudspeaker, with head lowered. After the sounds were terminated, the rats assumed a
cautious stance with heads raised to about 20 degrees above the substrate. No external or middle ear
damages were found in (any of the) exposed rats (p198).
After further testing, they found that the rats went partially deaf and did not fully recover their
hearing for 21 days. The scientists went on to conclude:
Dune buggy sounds of 95dba delivered in a non-continuous duration of 500 sec. seriously
impaired the behavioral hearing of the rats and deprived these animals of one of
their primary dark-adapted predator detection skills. The dune buggy sounds immediately
lowered the fitness of rats by removing their primary ability to detect the approach of predators
in the dark for up to 21 days after their exposures. (p200)
Springer-Verlag, NY. 1983.
This book is out of print, but you can get it through inter-library loan.
The authors show the steps of how they did their experiments. For
example, to test the hearing of a Kangaroo Rat they did the following:
1. They got 14 rats from the desert.
2. They observed them in captivity for 4 months.
3. They exposed them to a live sidewinder 87 times and observed their
behavior.
4. They found that rats would kick sand at sidewinders (either a
real one or a freeze-dried one) whenever it was detected.
5. They blocked off the rats view of the snake, but the
rats could still smell it, but only at close range.
6. They played a tape of the sound of a sidewinder crawling through the sand
and saw the rats kick sand at the loudspeaker.
7. They measured the voltage at which the sound became audible to the rats.
8. They then exposed the rats to tapes of a dune buggy on and off for 500
seconds (eight minutes, twenty seconds), and observed the following:
(the rats) exposed to dune buggy sounds ran in circles, defecated,
pushed at the openings of their cages, started at each new sequence of recorded sounds, frantically
groomed themselves and performed repeated slides and finally shivered on hind legs below the
loudspeaker, with head lowered. After the sounds were terminated, the rats assumed a
cautious stance with heads raised to about 20 degrees above the substrate. No external or middle ear
damages were found in (any of the) exposed rats (p198).
After further testing, they found that the rats went partially deaf and did not fully recover their
hearing for 21 days. The scientists went on to conclude:
Dune buggy sounds of 95dba delivered in a non-continuous duration of 500 sec. seriously
impaired the behavioral hearing of the rats and deprived these animals of one of
their primary dark-adapted predator detection skills. The dune buggy sounds immediately
lowered the fitness of rats by removing their primary ability to detect the approach of predators
in the dark for up to 21 days after their exposures. (p200)
Reminds me of an excellent story on www.satirewire.com:
"(The) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals deplored the experiments as well as the possible use of remote-controlled rats." Associated Press, May 4, 2002
PENTAGON INSISTS REAL RATS NOT BEING USED
Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) Under withering fire from animal rights activists, who blasted the Pentagon's plan to fit live rats with electrodes so they could be steered toward hidden bombs or disaster victims, the U.S. Defense Department today promised that actual rats will not be used.
Instead, said Pentagon spokesman Art Kekich, the military will use baby chicks surgically altered to look like rats.
Robochick
More to follow...
Update: 7:53 a.m. Note correction
PENTAGON INSISTS CHICKS
NOT BEING USED
Washington, D.C. Vilified by animal rights groups for its new plan to use live, remote-controlled, rat-like chicks to find explosives and rescue disaster victims, the U.S. Defense Department today said it had been misquoted.
"We are not using baby chicks. We would never use baby chicks," said Pentagon spokesman Art Kekich. "We'll be using week-old kittens."
In response, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said putting surgically altering kittens was "possibly more horrific than using chicks."
Replied Kekich: "So then, what's the issue? The anesthesia?"
Update: 8:06 a.m.
UNDER FIRE, PENTAGON CLARIFIES RAT-KITTEN PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. With outrage from animal rights groups worsening, the Pentagon today clarified its remote-controlled-kittens-mutated-into-rats program, saying it had never intended to use live kittens.
Instead, explained U.S. Defense Department spokesman Art Kekich, the kittens would be dead.
In response, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), threw up.
Robokitty
Bulletin: 8:14 a.m. Updates previous story.
PENTAGON BACKS DOWN
ON RAT-KITTEN PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. With ethics and humanitarian groups still up in arms, the Pentagon today said it would abandon plans to use dead kittens altered to resemble rats for its remote-controlled-animal surveillance project.
Instead, said spokesman Art Kekich, the program will go back to using rats with electrodes attached to their brains. However, Kekich added, whenever an explosive or disaster victim is found, rescuers will club a baby sea otter.
In response, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, shot Pentagon spokesman Art Kekich.
Update: 8:27 a.m.
OTTERS SAVED UNDER AMENDED ROBOT RAT PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. Attempting to fend off further violence from animal rights activists, the U.S. Defense Department today said it will not club baby sea otters as part of its remote-controlled-rat surveillance project, but will instead go back to the original plan and include just the rats.
However, hoping to appease its critics, the Pentagon pledged to go to great lengths to treat the rodents humanely.
Roborat
"Under our new guidelines, the rats won't be asked to rescue every victim," said spokesman William Longley. "They can just maybe point out the healthy ones. We'll let them eat the others."
In response, the Pentagon press corps threw up.
Clarification: Editors please note. 8:42 a.m.
PENTAGON AMENDS CONTROVERSIAL
ROBORAT RESCUE PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. Failing to fend off swarming critics, the Pentagon today amended the guidelines for its remote-controlled rat program. According to spokesman William Longley, any person trapped, regardless of injury status, will now have to wait until they are dead before being rescued.
Bulletin. Update: 9:02 a.m..
PENTAGON MAKES MAJOR CHANGE IN RAT PROJECT
Washington, D.C. Reacting to an outcry from animal and victims rights advocates over its remote-controlled-animal surveillance program, the U.S. Defense Department today said it has fired spokesman William Longley.
In response, the Pentagon press corps ate a koala.
Ratpeople
Update: 9:44 a.m.
PENTAGON SPOKESMAN MAKES
STARTLING ALLEGATIONS
Washington, D.C. In a shocking tell-all book, former Pentagon spokesman William Longley alleges that the U.S. Defense Department originally intended to use remote-controlled disaster victims, not rats, to undertake dangerous missions such as uncovering buried bombs or disaster victims.
In response, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said that would have been fine.
Final Update: 10:10 a.m.
PENTAGON DENIES ALLEGATIONS IN NEW BOOK
Washington, D.C. At an emergency press conference today, the Pentagon vehemently denied it planned to use people to help find explosives or disaster victims, and insisted the technology to control human movements by remote was not possible.
In response, the Pentagon press corps twitched violently, stood up, sniffed the air, and ate PETA President Ingrid Newkirk.
A Defense Department spokesman added that the Pentagon would continue with its original roborat program, and did not expect any further protests.
"(The) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals deplored the experiments as well as the possible use of remote-controlled rats." Associated Press, May 4, 2002
PENTAGON INSISTS REAL RATS NOT BEING USED
Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) Under withering fire from animal rights activists, who blasted the Pentagon's plan to fit live rats with electrodes so they could be steered toward hidden bombs or disaster victims, the U.S. Defense Department today promised that actual rats will not be used.
Instead, said Pentagon spokesman Art Kekich, the military will use baby chicks surgically altered to look like rats.
Robochick
More to follow...
Update: 7:53 a.m. Note correction
PENTAGON INSISTS CHICKS
NOT BEING USED
Washington, D.C. Vilified by animal rights groups for its new plan to use live, remote-controlled, rat-like chicks to find explosives and rescue disaster victims, the U.S. Defense Department today said it had been misquoted.
"We are not using baby chicks. We would never use baby chicks," said Pentagon spokesman Art Kekich. "We'll be using week-old kittens."
In response, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said putting surgically altering kittens was "possibly more horrific than using chicks."
Replied Kekich: "So then, what's the issue? The anesthesia?"
Update: 8:06 a.m.
UNDER FIRE, PENTAGON CLARIFIES RAT-KITTEN PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. With outrage from animal rights groups worsening, the Pentagon today clarified its remote-controlled-kittens-mutated-into-rats program, saying it had never intended to use live kittens.
Instead, explained U.S. Defense Department spokesman Art Kekich, the kittens would be dead.
In response, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), threw up.
Robokitty
Bulletin: 8:14 a.m. Updates previous story.
PENTAGON BACKS DOWN
ON RAT-KITTEN PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. With ethics and humanitarian groups still up in arms, the Pentagon today said it would abandon plans to use dead kittens altered to resemble rats for its remote-controlled-animal surveillance project.
Instead, said spokesman Art Kekich, the program will go back to using rats with electrodes attached to their brains. However, Kekich added, whenever an explosive or disaster victim is found, rescuers will club a baby sea otter.
In response, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, shot Pentagon spokesman Art Kekich.
Update: 8:27 a.m.
OTTERS SAVED UNDER AMENDED ROBOT RAT PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. Attempting to fend off further violence from animal rights activists, the U.S. Defense Department today said it will not club baby sea otters as part of its remote-controlled-rat surveillance project, but will instead go back to the original plan and include just the rats.
However, hoping to appease its critics, the Pentagon pledged to go to great lengths to treat the rodents humanely.
Roborat
"Under our new guidelines, the rats won't be asked to rescue every victim," said spokesman William Longley. "They can just maybe point out the healthy ones. We'll let them eat the others."
In response, the Pentagon press corps threw up.
Clarification: Editors please note. 8:42 a.m.
PENTAGON AMENDS CONTROVERSIAL
ROBORAT RESCUE PROGRAM
Washington, D.C. Failing to fend off swarming critics, the Pentagon today amended the guidelines for its remote-controlled rat program. According to spokesman William Longley, any person trapped, regardless of injury status, will now have to wait until they are dead before being rescued.
Bulletin. Update: 9:02 a.m..
PENTAGON MAKES MAJOR CHANGE IN RAT PROJECT
Washington, D.C. Reacting to an outcry from animal and victims rights advocates over its remote-controlled-animal surveillance program, the U.S. Defense Department today said it has fired spokesman William Longley.
In response, the Pentagon press corps ate a koala.
Ratpeople
Update: 9:44 a.m.
PENTAGON SPOKESMAN MAKES
STARTLING ALLEGATIONS
Washington, D.C. In a shocking tell-all book, former Pentagon spokesman William Longley alleges that the U.S. Defense Department originally intended to use remote-controlled disaster victims, not rats, to undertake dangerous missions such as uncovering buried bombs or disaster victims.
In response, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said that would have been fine.
Final Update: 10:10 a.m.
PENTAGON DENIES ALLEGATIONS IN NEW BOOK
Washington, D.C. At an emergency press conference today, the Pentagon vehemently denied it planned to use people to help find explosives or disaster victims, and insisted the technology to control human movements by remote was not possible.
In response, the Pentagon press corps twitched violently, stood up, sniffed the air, and ate PETA President Ingrid Newkirk.
A Defense Department spokesman added that the Pentagon would continue with its original roborat program, and did not expect any further protests.
I'm confused, I thought there was a reference to how loud granola chomping enviros were! If I remember correct, it is about 101db!
How can I be expected to hear my shift points with all of those thousands of granola chomping greenies out hiking the dunes?
How can I be expected to hear my shift points with all of those thousands of granola chomping greenies out hiking the dunes?
I dont think I could bear it?
MichaelAZ was good enough to debunk BlueSkys "study" from 1973.
So Blue STFU, AGAIN!
RoostKing...
QUOTE
They then exposed the rats to tapes of a dune buggy on and off for 500
seconds (eight minutes, twenty seconds), and observed the following:
“(the rats) exposed to dune buggy sounds ran in circles, defecated,
pushed at the openings of their cages, started at each new sequence of recorded sounds, frantically
groomed themselves and performed repeated slides and finally shivered on hind legs below the
loudspeaker, with head lowered. After the sounds were terminated, the rats assumed a
cautious stance with heads raised to about 20 degrees above the substrate. No external or middle ear
damages were found in (any of the) exposed rats” (p198).
After further testing, they found that the rats went partially deaf and did not fully recover their
hearing for 21 days.
8 minutes 20 seconds ??? cmon now. time for class :
lets assume a reasonable high yet safe speed of 60 mph
60 mph = 1 mile per minute
1 mile = 5,280 feet per minute
60 seconds per minute / 5280 feet = 88 feet traveled per second
A car that fast lets say was 16 feet long.
16/88 = .18
So your \"rats\" are exposed 1/5th of a second not 8min 20 secs.
The \"scientific\" experiment over exposed the test subjects 2500x more than in a real word situation. You would run arund in circles and $hit yourself if you were exposed to noises 2500 longer and louder than in a real life setting.
seconds (eight minutes, twenty seconds), and observed the following:
“(the rats) exposed to dune buggy sounds ran in circles, defecated,
pushed at the openings of their cages, started at each new sequence of recorded sounds, frantically
groomed themselves and performed repeated slides and finally shivered on hind legs below the
loudspeaker, with head lowered. After the sounds were terminated, the rats assumed a
cautious stance with heads raised to about 20 degrees above the substrate. No external or middle ear
damages were found in (any of the) exposed rats” (p198).
After further testing, they found that the rats went partially deaf and did not fully recover their
hearing for 21 days.
8 minutes 20 seconds ??? cmon now. time for class :
lets assume a reasonable high yet safe speed of 60 mph
60 mph = 1 mile per minute
1 mile = 5,280 feet per minute
60 seconds per minute / 5280 feet = 88 feet traveled per second
A car that fast lets say was 16 feet long.
16/88 = .18
So your \"rats\" are exposed 1/5th of a second not 8min 20 secs.
The \"scientific\" experiment over exposed the test subjects 2500x more than in a real word situation. You would run arund in circles and $hit yourself if you were exposed to noises 2500 longer and louder than in a real life setting.
So Blue STFU, AGAIN!
RoostKing...
QUOTE
8 minutes 20 seconds ???
on and off--not continuous
QUOTE
lets assume a reasonable high yet safe speed of 60 mph
60 mph = 1 mile per minute
1 mile = 5,280 feet per minute
60 seconds per minute / 5280 feet = 88 feet traveled per second
A car that fast lets say was 16 feet long.
16/88 = .18
So your \"rats\" are exposed 1/5th of a second not 8min 20 secs.
60 mph = 1 mile per minute
1 mile = 5,280 feet per minute
60 seconds per minute / 5280 feet = 88 feet traveled per second
A car that fast lets say was 16 feet long.
16/88 = .18
So your \"rats\" are exposed 1/5th of a second not 8min 20 secs.
that's one vehicle. Ever think that maybe more than one vehicle travel together over the same area? or maybe they circle around an area? You're ignoring reality in order to disprove an experiment. Are you saying that there is never an area that is impacted with 95 db sounds intermittantly for 8min? if so you are lying and you know it.
QUOTE
You're ignoring reality in order to disprove an experiment.
This from the GlamisDunes Troll again? Oh geez, you slay me. What a card.
You really oughta be in stand up. No kidding, you seem to have a knack for it.
Vicki
Rats don't vote.
Vor
Vor
WHITECOAT SOUND TESTING
--#5 Rat---testing in progress--quiet please...
--#5 Rat---testing in progress--quiet please...
QUOTE
They are chipin aways at the stone.
alittle here alittle there?
a compromise here? /there?
till theres nothin left.
alittle here alittle there?
a compromise here? /there?
till theres nothin left.
A compromise? Ya right. We eventually will be suckered out of everything.
Its better to be loud?
it gets the rats outta my way! :dis:
it gets the rats outta my way! :dis:
QUOTE
QUOTE
They are chipin aways at the stone.
alittle here alittle there?
a compromise here? /there?
till theres nothin left.
alittle here alittle there?
a compromise here? /there?
till theres nothin left.
A compromise? Ya right. We eventually will be suckered out of everything.
You got it!! have a cigar!
Heres your sign
I know...I should ignore him, but...
About the Kangaroo Rat study...Blu, pay attention to the key words in BOLD text.
It took six months before the hapless study group figured out that the rats are nocturnal!
The rats don't hang in the sand. We ride in the sand.
They are found east of the tracks in the bushes and the surrounding area is hard pack (rocky)
We ride in the sand with sand tires. Hardpack destroys sand tires
There is virtually no riding at night through the tules east of the tracks except for the road to Boardmanville...did I point out that the rats are nocturnal?
If virtually no one is out there where they play, does the rat still hear the exhaust noise?
Since my two dogs working in concert can't catch a rat at night, and they are much more maneuverable through the bushes that any OHV, how do you figure that someone on a buggy, quad, or bike with sand tires will fare on hardpack?
Why would anyone even try?
If you subjected me to any of those tests, I would also crap my pants, go deaf, and twitch like a spastic...but, this is the real world and those circumstances do not exist...unless Mickey caught me with another woman !!
Blu, we had this discussion over at the DUSA board. Remember? I conceded that the study as conducted was factual...the fact that none of the conditions (that were OHV related) are in any way representative of everyday life for the little critters seems to escape you.
About the Kangaroo Rat study...Blu, pay attention to the key words in BOLD text.
It took six months before the hapless study group figured out that the rats are nocturnal!
The rats don't hang in the sand. We ride in the sand.
They are found east of the tracks in the bushes and the surrounding area is hard pack (rocky)
We ride in the sand with sand tires. Hardpack destroys sand tires
There is virtually no riding at night through the tules east of the tracks except for the road to Boardmanville...did I point out that the rats are nocturnal?
If virtually no one is out there where they play, does the rat still hear the exhaust noise?
Since my two dogs working in concert can't catch a rat at night, and they are much more maneuverable through the bushes that any OHV, how do you figure that someone on a buggy, quad, or bike with sand tires will fare on hardpack?
Why would anyone even try?
If you subjected me to any of those tests, I would also crap my pants, go deaf, and twitch like a spastic...but, this is the real world and those circumstances do not exist...unless Mickey caught me with another woman !!
Blu, we had this discussion over at the DUSA board. Remember? I conceded that the study as conducted was factual...the fact that none of the conditions (that were OHV related) are in any way representative of everyday life for the little critters seems to escape you.
No new Laws >:< 
HELL, they cant enforce the existing laws, how can we expect them to enforce this issue?
Another way to attack people who ride and nothing aimed at the idiots who trash it.. >:<
Another way to attack people who ride and nothing aimed at the idiots who trash it.. >:<
Good point Chumster...
QUOTE
It took six months before the hapless study group figured out that the rats are nocturnal!
have you read something on this? Where did you get this info? I would be interested to read it.
QUOTE
The rats don't hang in the sand. We ride in the sand.
The rats make burrows in the sand. they live in the sand according to the study. Have you ever seen the tracks of a kangaroo rat? you can see the unmistakeable mark made by theirtail dragging on the ground.
QUOTE
this is the real world and those circumstances do not exist...
The test required only 95db. The limit is only now being lowered to 96db. There are vehicles out in the dunes running straight pipes. How loud can that be? 110db? The experiment proved that the loud sounds of vehicles can affect the hearing of the dunes wildlife.
Yes. I did...I don't recall because it was a while ago...I ain't gonna look it up. It has no bearing on the study, other than to embarress the research team! :oops:
I have seen countless tracks..The consistency of the sand where we generally ride does not support burrows very well...unless the critter burrows next to or under a bush, and that is what they do. We generally don't ride where the bushes are abundant...
I agree...the test did prove that under the testing conditions that were applied. there was an impact...once again the fact that the test does not in any way reflect real life conditions makes this study irrelevant for practical purposes.
I suppose that if we could somehow surround a rat and rap the pipes while it sat there and listened for an extended period of time, the damn fool would go deaf..
I have seen countless tracks..The consistency of the sand where we generally ride does not support burrows very well...unless the critter burrows next to or under a bush, and that is what they do. We generally don't ride where the bushes are abundant...
I agree...the test did prove that under the testing conditions that were applied. there was an impact...once again the fact that the test does not in any way reflect real life conditions makes this study irrelevant for practical purposes.
I suppose that if we could somehow surround a rat and rap the pipes while it sat there and listened for an extended period of time, the damn fool would go deaf..
I say we issue them a bunch of "rat sized" earplugs.
Vor
Vor
QUOTE
Yes. I did...I don't recall because it was a while ago...I ain't gonna look it up. It has no bearing on the study, other than to embarress the research team!
Hey there Oldtimer, Are you enjoying the weather? A little rain is a good thing ya know. Some water for the critters in the dez and no blue sky! Just thought I'd add my 2 cents! :wink: :cheese:
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
here's some relevant info on sound levels:
http://www.usq.edu.au/users/ayers/tengmod19.htm
"Noise
The perception of sound by a human is a remarkable process. The individual evaluates sound by at least four distinct criteria. These are loudness, frequency, duration and subjectivity.
Loudness
The loudness or intensity of sound is directly related to the amplitude of the pressure fluctuations transmitted through the air. The pressure fluctuations cause the ear drum to be flexed and thereby create the sensation of sound. The ear can sense pressure fluctuations as low as 50 micro Pa (the threshold of hearing) and up to about 5 Pa which is considered the threshold of pain.
This large range of pressure fluctuation is clumsy to use in reporting. In addition, as a protective mechanism, the auditory response is not linearly related to pressure fluctuation. To overcome these difficulties another unit is used to describe loudness the decibel (dB). In outdoor situations a change of 3 dB is required to be noticeable. A change of 10 dB is generally perceived to be a doubling of the sound level.
Frequency
The human ear can hear a large range of frequencies, or changes in the rate of pressure fluctuations in the air. The pressure changes per second, or oscillation per second, have the unit of hertz (Hz). The ear can detect a range of frequencies from about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. However, not all frequencies are heard equally well with low frequencies (less than 500 Hz) and high frequencies (greater than 10,000 Hz) being more difficult to hear.
Duration
A gunshot may be loud but it only lasts a fraction of a second. Road traffic noise may not be as intense but it is continual. Therefore measures have been developed to describe how sound varies with time.
Subjectivity
Individuals have different responses to various sounds. What one person perceives as music another person may regard as a noise. Unwanted sound is commonly referred to as noise. Transport noise is a common problem in urban areas. Noise annoyance is a subjective thing and criteria for noise control are usually based on attitudinal surveys.
Single loud noises may result in hearing loss and these noises may need to be controlled from a community viewpoint. However transport noise is usually of a longer duration and not as loud. Short term effects are likely to be annoyance or irritation. Transport noise can lead to problems in emotional well being and cause increased tension by interfering with sleep patterns or causing disruption to the routines of daily life. Long term exposure may result in reduced hearing ability. "
http://www.usq.edu.au/users/ayers/tengmod19.htm
"Noise
The perception of sound by a human is a remarkable process. The individual evaluates sound by at least four distinct criteria. These are loudness, frequency, duration and subjectivity.
Loudness
The loudness or intensity of sound is directly related to the amplitude of the pressure fluctuations transmitted through the air. The pressure fluctuations cause the ear drum to be flexed and thereby create the sensation of sound. The ear can sense pressure fluctuations as low as 50 micro Pa (the threshold of hearing) and up to about 5 Pa which is considered the threshold of pain.
This large range of pressure fluctuation is clumsy to use in reporting. In addition, as a protective mechanism, the auditory response is not linearly related to pressure fluctuation. To overcome these difficulties another unit is used to describe loudness the decibel (dB). In outdoor situations a change of 3 dB is required to be noticeable. A change of 10 dB is generally perceived to be a doubling of the sound level.
Frequency
The human ear can hear a large range of frequencies, or changes in the rate of pressure fluctuations in the air. The pressure changes per second, or oscillation per second, have the unit of hertz (Hz). The ear can detect a range of frequencies from about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. However, not all frequencies are heard equally well with low frequencies (less than 500 Hz) and high frequencies (greater than 10,000 Hz) being more difficult to hear.
Duration
A gunshot may be loud but it only lasts a fraction of a second. Road traffic noise may not be as intense but it is continual. Therefore measures have been developed to describe how sound varies with time.
Subjectivity
Individuals have different responses to various sounds. What one person perceives as music another person may regard as a noise. Unwanted sound is commonly referred to as noise. Transport noise is a common problem in urban areas. Noise annoyance is a subjective thing and criteria for noise control are usually based on attitudinal surveys.
Single loud noises may result in hearing loss and these noises may need to be controlled from a community viewpoint. However transport noise is usually of a longer duration and not as loud. Short term effects are likely to be annoyance or irritation. Transport noise can lead to problems in emotional well being and cause increased tension by interfering with sleep patterns or causing disruption to the routines of daily life. Long term exposure may result in reduced hearing ability. "
Geez, the sound of the weather can be annoying! :roll:
Yep, and it's especially pesky when it's nothing more substantial than a hot breeze.
The continuity is interesting. I posted this elsewhere not so long ago...
[quote]I'm sure others have caught the pattern by now...
The Troll disappears for a short time and when it returns it is much more lucid. Sentences gel better, some semblence of a thought process can be gleened from its posts. (my theory is the absence is caused by adjustments to medication or possibly electric shock).
But after just a short time, whatever magic was worked in its absence starts to wear off. It becomes increasingly more hostile, baiting its traps with stronger insults.
Just when you're sure it's about to go too far and do something that will get it banished it *poof* disappears again for a brief respite.
And the pattern repeats. [/quote]
Vicki
The continuity is interesting. I posted this elsewhere not so long ago...
[quote]I'm sure others have caught the pattern by now...
The Troll disappears for a short time and when it returns it is much more lucid. Sentences gel better, some semblence of a thought process can be gleened from its posts. (my theory is the absence is caused by adjustments to medication or possibly electric shock).
But after just a short time, whatever magic was worked in its absence starts to wear off. It becomes increasingly more hostile, baiting its traps with stronger insults.
Just when you're sure it's about to go too far and do something that will get it banished it *poof* disappears again for a brief respite.
And the pattern repeats. [/quote]
Vicki
I hear ya Vicki, there is nothing more annoying than a bunch of hot wind! :wink: 
:cheese: 
:cheese:
[quote]Transport noise can lead to problems in emotional well being [/quote]
Blue if your that big of *****, why dont you just **** ******** now, and avoid the emotional trauma?
That would spare us as well.
RoostKing...
Blue if your that big of *****, why dont you just **** ******** now, and avoid the emotional trauma?
That would spare us as well.
RoostKing...
**** the **** are you *******talking about RK? :wink: :shock:
:shock:
Hey.....What about the "NOISE" the train makes??? Probobly scares furry little critters every time it passes......
Actually, the anti-access groups have been pretty quiet about how noise effects the critters out there.
Instead, this restriction focuses on non-motorized access types mingling with motorized access noise. Like MX tracks near manicured neighborhoods.
Vicki
Instead, this restriction focuses on non-motorized access types mingling with motorized access noise. Like MX tracks near manicured neighborhoods.
Vicki
So does this mean I have to buy a new silencer considering it is A LOT louder than 96 db?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.