|
Poet: e.e. cummings
Poem: here is little Effie's head
Poem of the Day:
Dec 14 2004
Comment 9 of 9, added on April 23rd, 2012 at 11:08 PM.
GiSpgElbbShM
Credit where credit is due. Author Jim Cummings as done a good job exalpining why the industry is doing itself no service with a head in the sand strategy on noise. Setbacks per se are not the problem. Sound and infrasound levels are:Chris Bajdek, in a 2007 paper aimed at helping the industry alleviate noise fears, suggests that 44% of those within about 1900 feet (575m, McGuinty take note!) of a typical wind farm would be “highly annoyed,” and that only as sound drops below 40db (at around a half mile), ((800m) will annoyance drop substantially. He cites a survey from Wisconsin that found similar results, with about 50% of respondents living with in a half mile saying noise is a problem; over a third of those between a quarter and half mile had been awakened by turbines.While community noise standards never aim to eliminate negative impacts, few would suggest that disrupting a third to half of the nearby population is an acceptable goal. It’s become clear, in both experience and the literature, that modern turbines trigger adverse reactions at lower sound levels than other community noise sources. A growing number of acoustics professionals have been proactively seeking answers to why this may be, some looking at characteristics of turbine noise for clues, and others at psychoacoustics and rural “place identity.” These researchers appear to be coalescing around recommended wind farm noise standards of 30-35dB, which do in fact come closer to the familiar goal of keeping new noise intrusions to within 5-10dB of existing ambient conditions (rural night ambient is often around 25dB, even when winds aloft trigger turbines into action).Unfortunately, this work has been relentlessly attacked by many in the industry, despite the fact that these more cautionary acousticians aren’t activist yahoos, but longtime industrial and military consultants with decades in the field of noise control. It’s time to step back from stubborn “lines in the sand” and really assess what they’re finding.But we all know the science is settled!
Omar from Thailand
Comment 8 of 9, added on February 11th, 2012 at 6:27 PM.
iZkmbdwUtuJyp
u3VCqn I must admit, the webmaster is a cool guy..!!
oem software from Venezuela
Comment 7 of 9, added on June 16th, 2011 at 9:18 PM.
ee cummings poems
i too love this poem and the premise is so profound may might should could would must) have i done everything i must? it is an eternal question.....
i also have several of cummings books, and he does use capital letters quite frequently, not so much in the way we have learned grammar, but subtly, and in the same way he uses punctuation, more to call attention to his thoughts and ours
donna bishop from United States
Are you looking for more information on this poem? Perhaps you are trying to analyze it? The poem, here is little Effie's head, has received 9 comments. Click here to read them, and perhaps post a comment of your own.
|
Comments
Credit where credit is due. Author Jim Cummings as done a good job exalpining why the industry is doing itself no service with a head in the sand strategy on noise. Setbacks per se are not the problem. Sound and infrasound levels are:Chris Bajdek, in a 2007 paper aimed at helping the industry alleviate noise fears, suggests that 44% of those within about 1900 feet (575m, McGuinty take note!) of a typical wind farm would be “highly annoyed,” and that only as sound drops below 40db (at around a half mile), ((800m) will annoyance drop substantially. He cites a survey from Wisconsin that found similar results, with about 50% of respondents living with in a half mile saying noise is a problem; over a third of those between a quarter and half mile had been awakened by turbines.While community noise standards never aim to eliminate negative impacts, few would suggest that disrupting a third to half of the nearby population is an acceptable goal. It’s become clear, in both experience and the literature, that modern turbines trigger adverse reactions at lower sound levels than other community noise sources. A growing number of acoustics professionals have been proactively seeking answers to why this may be, some looking at characteristics of turbine noise for clues, and others at psychoacoustics and rural “place identity.” These researchers appear to be coalescing around recommended wind farm noise standards of 30-35dB, which do in fact come closer to the familiar goal of keeping new noise intrusions to within 5-10dB of existing ambient conditions (rural night ambient is often around 25dB, even when winds aloft trigger turbines into action).Unfortunately, this work has been relentlessly attacked by many in the industry, despite the fact that these more cautionary acousticians aren’t activist yahoos, but longtime industrial and military consultants with decades in the field of noise control. It’s time to step back from stubborn “lines in the sand” and really assess what they’re finding.But we all know the science is settled!
Omar from Thailand