Tracy K Swinburn1, Monica S Hammer1, Richard L Neitzel2. 1. Risk Science Center, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Risk Science Center, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Environmental Health Sciences (Neitzel), School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rneitzel@umich.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Environmental noise pollution increases the risk for hearing loss, stress, sleep disruption, annoyance, and cardiovascular disease and has other adverse health impacts. Recent (2013) estimates suggest that more than 100 million Americans are exposed to unhealthy levels of noise. Given the pervasive nature and significant health effects of environmental noise pollution, the corresponding economic impacts may be substantial. METHODS: This 2014 economic assessment developed a new approach to estimate the impact of environmental noise on the prevalence and cost of key components of hypertension and cardiovascular disease in the U.S. By placing environmental noise in context with comparable environmental pollutants, this approach can inform public health law, planning, and policy. The effects of hypothetical national-scale changes in environmental noise levels on the prevalence and corresponding costs of hypertension and coronary heart disease were estimated, with the caveat that the national-level U.S. noise data our exposure estimates were derived from are >30 years old. RESULTS: The analyses suggested that a 5-dB noise reduction scenario would reduce the prevalence of hypertension by 1.4% and coronary heart disease by 1.8%. The annual economic benefit was estimated at $3.9 billion. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest significant economic impacts from environmental noise-related cardiovascular disease. Given these initial findings, noise may deserve increased priority and research as an environmental health hazard.
INTRODUCTION: Environmental noise pollution increases the risk for hearing loss, stress, sleep disruption, annoyance, and cardiovascular disease and has other adverse health impacts. Recent (2013) estimates suggest that more than 100 million Americans are exposed to unhealthy levels of noise. Given the pervasive nature and significant health effects of environmental noise pollution, the corresponding economic impacts may be substantial. METHODS: This 2014 economic assessment developed a new approach to estimate the impact of environmental noise on the prevalence and cost of key components of hypertension and cardiovascular disease in the U.S. By placing environmental noise in context with comparable environmental pollutants, this approach can inform public health law, planning, and policy. The effects of hypothetical national-scale changes in environmental noise levels on the prevalence and corresponding costs of hypertension and coronary heart disease were estimated, with the caveat that the national-level U.S. noise data our exposure estimates were derived from are >30 years old. RESULTS: The analyses suggested that a 5-dB noise reduction scenario would reduce the prevalence of hypertension by 1.4% and coronary heart disease by 1.8%. The annual economic benefit was estimated at $3.9 billion. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest significant economic impacts from environmental noise-related cardiovascular disease. Given these initial findings, noise may deserve increased priority and research as an environmental health hazard.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; David Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Pamela J Schreiner; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gregory A Flamme; Mark R Stephenson; Kristy Deiters; Amanda Tatro; Devon van Gessel; Kyle Geda; Krista Wyllys; Kara McGregor Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Anna L Hansell; Marta Blangiardo; Lea Fortunato; Sarah Floud; Kees de Hoogh; Daniela Fecht; Rebecca E Ghosh; Helga E Laszlo; Clare Pearson; Linda Beale; Sean Beevers; John Gulliver; Nicky Best; Sylvia Richardson; Paul Elliott Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-10-08
Authors: Mette Sørensen; Zorana J Andersen; Rikke B Nordsborg; Steen S Jensen; Kenneth G Lillelund; Rob Beelen; Erik B Schmidt; Anne Tjønneland; Kim Overvad; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Baylah Tessier-Sherman; Deron Galusha; Linda F Cantley; Mark R Cullen; Peter M Rabinowitz; Richard L Neitzel Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Maia N Terashvili; Kaleigh N Kozak; Debebe Gebremedhin; Linda A Allen; Alison L Gifford; Kenneth P Allen; Joseph D Thulin; Julian H Lombard Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Thomas Münzel; Mette Sørensen; Frank Schmidt; Erwin Schmidt; Sebastian Steven; Swenja Kröller-Schön; Andreas Daiber Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 8.401
Authors: Zafar Zafari; Boshen Jiao; Brian Will; Shukai Li; Peter Alexander Muennig Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 3.390