Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Why Labour chose Ed not David Miliband (Guardian)

David Miliband rejects my pro-state policy ideas as 'Reassurance Labour'. That's why he's not leader, writes Roy Hattersley.

2. David Miliband: the sniping and self-pity of a truly feeble man (Daily Telegraph)

The best thing that David Miliband could do for the Labour Party would be to shut up, says Matthew Norman.

3. Chris Huhne's downfall began the day he sacrificed his wife for his career (Daily Mail)

I still hope that my old friend is innocent, as he assured me he was, writes Stephen Glover.

4. Huhne's departure will sadden all who care about the environment (Independent)
His brilliant brain was never put to better use than when he saved the day at the Cancun talks, argues Michael McCarthy.

5. Huhne isn't hated. He just hasn't any friends (Times) (£)

Clegg will feel more comfortable without him, writes Matthew Parris. But the high priest of differentiation will not fade quietly away.

6. Chris Huhne, David Cameron and the RBS boss don't have it, but Al Gore did (Guardian)

From bonuses to knighthoods, the leaders we put in high office prefer jaw-jutting certainty to thoughtful judgment, argues Jonathan Freedland.

7. Fred Goodwin: a modern-day knight made to suffer a medieval punishment (Daily Telegraph)

Fred Goodwin should challenge the judgment of David Cameron's kangaroo court, says Charles Moore.

8. Our burn-a-banker frenzy is tempting - but wrong (Financial Times)

Gut reactions do not make good policy, writes Martin Dickson. We still need a banking industry.

9. Chris Huhne's resignation: the destructive result of love turned sour (Guardian)

Huhne made himself vulnerable to his enemies the minute he left his wife for his mistress, says Gaby Hinsliff. It's a curiously undignified way to go.

10. Lucky Dave's show goes on as an(other) irritant departs (Financial Times)

The Prime Minister is riding high in the polls in spite of deep economic gloom, says John Kampfner.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.