Any establishment that has loud noises that could endanger the workers and doesn't provide ear protection should be reported to OSHA.
Talk about OSHA, it was established by Nixon in 1970. Too bad many people (mostly liberals) today are reluctant to give credit to Nixon for his domestic policies.
Really? But dont' you agree if noise rises to level of exterior nuisance, it necessarily is at or approaches the level of interior health hazard? Anyway, if you live upstairs from noisy neighbors, I'd say the legal remedies available in that instance are stronger than if you live upstairs from smoky neighbors - so that dog doesn't hunt. As I said, I'm not sure if it's the perfect analog anyway. In fact, I think that individualized noise pollution (as opposed to individualized air pollution) is even more stringently regulated than cigarrette smoking anyway so this doesn't really work. I mean, you can't go to a smoking lounge in an airport and play "hell's bells" at full blast on a ghetto blaster, or go up to smokers and start screaming in their ears, so I'm not that worried about it.
irony, i work in a small office, its divided between sales and admin, I work in admin, we have music playing from a satellite station, one of the ladies complained it was turned up too loudly, so they turned it off. now admin is complaining.
yea and opening up china was a good thing (i think?) but that is what happens to your legacy when you break the law. See George Bush in 10 yrs.
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven, I told Bill that if Sandra is going to listen to her headphones while she's filing then I should be able to listen to the radio while I'm collating so I don't see why I should have to turn down the radio because I enjoy listening at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven.
But since it could be loud enough inside to cause damage, and not be loud enough to cause a nuisance complaint, the ordinances you claim 'already handle' the problem in fact don't. Aside from the point that the thread is about noise damage, not nuisance claims....Woof Woof: Jury finds heavy smoking to be grounds for eviction Verdict is said to be one of first in nation By Ralph Ranalli and Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | June 16, 2005 In a case that tobacco law specialists say is one of the first of its kind in the nation, a Boston Housing Court jury ruled that a South Boston couple could be evicted from their rented water-view loft for heavy smoking, even though smoking was allowed in their lease.The landlord who rented the Sleeper Street unit to Erin Carey and Ted Baar ordered them out within a week last November, after neighbors complained of the smoke odors filtering into their apartments. Carey and Baar, who each smoke about a pack a day and run an information technology sales business out of the one-bedroom unit, fought the eviction, arguing in court that the converted warehouse's shoddy construction and aging ventilation system were to blame for the wayward odors. Last Friday, a jury ruled in favor of the landlord and the eviction. Even though the landlord could have written a nonsmoking clause into the lease and didn't, the jury found that the couple's heavy smoking violated a more general clause banning ''any nuisance; any offensive noise, odor or fumes; or any hazard to health." ''It is very important, because it is a sign that people are more aware of how dangerous second-hand smoke is," said Professor Richard Daynard, chairman of Northeastern University's Tobacco Products Liability Project, which tracks second-hand smoke litigation nationally. ''I believe this decision could accelerate the willingness of courts to decide that, if you are creating smoke that is seeping into other people's units, you are doing something that has to stop," Daynard said.. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/06/16/jury_finds_smoking_grounds_for_eviction/ Yes, I realize you said you weren't sure if it was the perfect analogy. Yet you continue to claim it is regulated when it isn't. It is a health risk more verifiable than second hand smoke. It is common practice. The market is not adjusting. Let's not seek an optimal or close to optimal solution. Let's ban it. Huh?
excessive noise pollution is heavily regulated, whether as a nuisance or as a health risk. And let me be clear, aside from the health risks, I'm for the public smoking ban on simple nuisance grounds as well. But if you went around to public places screaming at people at the top of your lungs at a dangerous or excessively loud level, you'd be arrested. Thankfully, we're finally beginning to get the same level of protection from instances wehre you go around spewing noxious fumes.
No, excessive noise pollution as a nuisance is heavily regulated. Excessive noise levels inside a bar or restaurant or club are NOT heavily regulated, as the original articles I quoted point out. Yes, it is clear that you have been arguing on nuisance grounds. That is why I indicated earlier I would not dispute your experience/opinion about that part of the situation. In bars and restaurants and club music is played so loud as to be a health risk and there is no ban in place on those situations. Your comparison is flawed.
What should be banned is those F****** leaf blowers!!!! They're so loud the operator has to wear ear plugs, yet there seems to be no problem with one right outside your window at 8am in the morning
Yeah it is. If you brought a megaphone to a bar and talked into it at max volume, you'd be asked to leave and or arrested if you persisted, likely. If you turned it up loud and put it in somebodys ear, making it a health hazard, you'd defintely be arrested. Simply because noise pollution is physically different in nature from air pollution and generates nuisance based regulation more often then health based regulation - well, I don't know what that proves, and in many ways nuisance based regulation can be.more stringent. For example, the jury verdict you posted said it was the first tobacco-nuisance jury case ever; I'm sure we're not waiting for the first noise-nuisance jury case. There isn't but maybe there should be; I know that OSHA regulations limit the amount of noise employees can be exposed too but I'm not sure how they apply here. I do know that the availability of substitutes for dangerously loud music in bars seems a lot more varied than the 5states worth of Applebees that I can go to if I don't want to breathe in smoke and drink, in my personal experience. I think the other thing to realize is that while excessive noise is harmful - non-excessive noise is largely beneficial and a feature of our daily life. I don't think we can say the same thing for smoking.
You would not be arrested for causing a health hazard, Sam. C'mon. You might be arrested for causing a nuisance. But that doesn't address this thread. But we aren't talking about non-excessive noise. And non-smoking environments are the staple of our daily lives.
