From the Dec. 28, 1905 NYT is a story about Francis Hamilton, then solicitor to the Collector of the Port (of New York), who intended to prosecute boat captains for "unnecessary" whistle blowing. The statute enforced was U.S. Revised Statutes section 4.450 which provided for punishment of steamboat Captains for "misbehavior, negligence, or unskillfulness."

The basic idea was that the noise associated with the shipping traffic along the waterfronts of NYC was too great and was causing heath problems and even death amongst the citizens of NYC. Similar to today's "new study," the whistles-cause-death hypothesis had support:

From a health viewpoint, Dr. John H. Girdner, who has made a special study of the effects of noises on the brain and the general condition of the human anatomy, testified that he believed that death has frequently resulted from the terrific wear and tear on the brain and the nerves by noises [emphasis added].

"I believe," he said, "that many a man who has died on July 5 was hurried to his grave by the noises of July 4. The difference between noise and music is the difference of rhythm. The steady gallop of a horse will not injury one; it is when the animal's hoofs strike a loose manhole cover and the like, and the sound is harsh and sudden, that the effect is harmful."

I'll grant that loud, sudden noises are not the best things for hospital patients, but manhole covers cause death? It seems that the noise-causes-death hypothesis rests on unsustained "studies," but was there a more practical reason for cutting down the amount of whistle blowing?

"Has the increase in the night noises from the river front hurt property on the upper west side?" he [George Carrol, a real estate man] was asked by Mr. Hamilton.

"It has cut down rents of one apartment house that I know of about one third."

Mr. Carroll added that he had fewer places rented, as well as less rent, on account of the din at night.

This makes sense - a compensating differential must be paid to the tenant for bearing the costs of noise, much like property values are lower near airports.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure that the noise of the big city is annoying, but this is why I don't live in a big city. I would have thought there are a number of different compensating differentials that accompany living with noise, beyond the obvious issue of lower rent. Are there higher wages, more "culture," and other quality of life issues such as the ability to get Chinese takeout at 4am? Nevertheless, the concern about noise affecting quality of life and health has not completely disappeared.

The EU has introduced noise abatement regulations for member-country cities, with fines on the way, especially for those pesky bagpipes.

The last Wednesday in April is International Noise Awareness Day, although this seems focused on hearing loss/damage rather than death.

While there are plenty of ways to reduce noise and maintain economic activity, I wonder if the anti-noise activists understand this? What grabbed me when reading the 1905 story was how, in many cases, the activists of the twenty-first century are not as sophisticated/progressive/avante garde as they first appear.