SierraActivist
Joined: Aug 07, 2001
Posts: 34
From: New Jersey
 |  Posted: 2004-03-27 09:31
Written by Pat Kenschaft, a Montclair activist leading local efforts on a number of issues...
When I mention my top priority local environmental issue these days, the reaction reminds me of that to the early efforts to restrict public smoking. "Why can't you be more tolerant of the quirks of others? Besides, you can't fight the tobacco companies." Now we know that smoking is the cause of about a third of the U.S. cancer cases, and cancer is he #2 killer in our country. The tobacco companies, while still powerful, do not always have their way in court.
It will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to numerically evaluate how much mental illness is caused by leafblowers or how many tottering marriages fell into divorce because the spouses were irritated by leaf blower noise. However, there is already ample evidence that a third of the users have measurable hearing loss in only a few years even with modern ear protection, and it already appears to me that the yards spared from the soil destruction of leaf blowers on our block are consistently more attractive than those victimized by the (often) 200-mph assault on their soil structure. If raising food locally should ever become important (or if we care about the long-term appearance of our community) the damage to our soil may have serious consequences. Havana now raises half of its vegetables within the city limits, for political reasons. Montclair has the space to raise more than enough vegetables for all its citizens (and some to share with NYC) IF we don't destroy our land. With rapidly rising costs of petroleum (currently U.S. food typically travels 2000 miles), dubious economic practices (e.g. enormous unfavorable balance of payments), and the increasing unfriendliness of others toward the U.S., having our land useful for raising food may prove important in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, preserving it has other advantages.
For these reasons and others given below, my personal top environmental priority for Montclair has become the banning of leaf blowers. I still, of course, encourage home and community gardening, and discourage SUV's. I am very pleased with the efforts to get Montclair NWF-certified and more bike-friendly. I am delighted that our township government is looking at energy usage and plans to examine its vehicular fleet. I was thrilled at the packed Council Chambers for Thursday's excellent program on keeping our waterways clean. For me personally this year, however, banning leaf blowers takes top priority.
The use of leafblowers is based on two falsehoods:
1. They are faster than rakes and brooms. Not so! (a) When Montclair State abolished the use of leaf blowers one day, they did not add any more staff and the grounds look just as clean. (b) When the City of Claremont CA stopped using leaf blowers to maintain city property, it resulted in no net increase in labor hours. See page 9 of http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/leafblow.htm#air (c) A grandmother in California matched leaf-blowing with rakes and brooms in a carefully supervised contest. Ibid p.10, http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/new.htm
(d) There have been numerous sightings near me of property cleaning with leaf blowers taking an hour for three or four people. It is obvious that a rake in the hands of one person could clear properties of this modest area in less than three or four hours. One such observation recently was of three leaf-blower users taking over four hours for a nearby property!
2. They save money for local lawn services. Not so! A survey of six
California cities that have banned blowers indicates that the cost of lawn care did not rise, and that those providing it did not suffer economically. http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/leafblow.htm#air p. 8. Why would they, given the evidence in number (1) above?
Of course, leaf blowers do benefit the corporations that make them,
advertise them, and lie about them, just as cigarettes benefit tobacco companies. I do not think the local landscapers are lying; they are merely victims of corporate greed. They would be healthier and happier if Monclair provided a healthy "level playing field" that did not allow leaf blowers.
Further reasons for banning leaf blowers include:
* Blowers use fossil fuel needlessly. We should not become needlessly more dependent on those nations that provide us petroleum. It is unpatriotic.
* The American Lung Association says that a leaf blower causes as much smog as 17 cars. We do not need more air pollution; we need less.
* A study of 9535 workers exposed to noise greater than 85dB with modern hearing protection programs indicates that 34% had noise-induced hearing loss. Fourteen percent had severe hearing loss. (The September 2003 CONSUMER REPORTS indicates that very few brands of leaf blowers emit less than 90dB to the person using them.)
* A German study indicates that cardiac patients have a 25% greater chance on hearth attacks in environments that were persistently exposed to noise above 65 decibels. According to the September 2003 CONSUMER REPORTS very few brands of leaf blowers are less than 65 dB at 50 feet. Given the number of heart attacks annually in the U.S., that is a huge increase!
* A Japanese study of 1000 babies produced evidence of high proportion of low-weight babies in noisy areas.
* The World Health Organization says that noise levels should be less than 55 dB to prevent "significant community annoyance." 65 dB is twice as loud as 55 dB.
* The September 2003 CONSUMER REPORTS claims that electrically powered leaf blowers, although lighter, cheaper, and less polluting than gas powered ones, are not generally much quieter. Personally, I find the high-pitched piercing shriek of the electrical ones MORE painful than the lower-pitched ferocious roar of the gas powered ones. I have unusually perceptive hearing, especially at higher pitches; I can hear some dog whistles. I don't think this should preclude my enjoying my yard and garden.
* Even some leaf blower manuals say that anyone within 50 feet of a leaf blower should be provided hearing, eye, and breathing protection. We know this cannot be done in a place like Montclair.
* Studies show that loud noises, especially uncontrollable noises, cause stress. (Do we need "studies?") A Los Angeles maintenance contractor cleaning a sidewalk with a leaf blower was stabbed by a man trying to talk on a telephone nearby before Los Angeles prohibited leaf blowers within 500 feet of any residence. Should Montclair wait until a similar incident prompts us to ban leaf blowers?
* People who pay the taxes of Montclair should have the right to use their homes and yards for work, pleasure, and sleep during the work day without being invaded by persistent loud noises.
* Leaf blowers have no redeeming features. They do not give individuals a "power high" as SUVs reputedly do. They are not more convenient than rakes. They are not less expensive. Eliminating them does not involve an initial expense as installing solar energy or windmills does. The people who use them are not addicted to them (as smokers are to smoking), but typically immigrants without the power to protest what is happening to their own hearing, but who badly need jobs, however risky.
If you MIGHT be willing to sign an email letter to the Montclair Township Manager that would be widely circulated with "signatures," please send me your name and street address. Tell me whether you want to read the wording before giving permission, and whether you would like to be part of the email discussion group wording the letter. If you tell me what you would or would not sign, that is efficient. Here's to happy reading, napping, and conversing in Montclair backyards before long!
Pat Kenschaft
[ This message was edited by: SierraActivist on 2004-04-05 09:45 ]
 Profile
 www
 Quote
|
