Commentary on the Tétreault et al. 2012 article "Risk Assessment of Aircraft Noise on Sleep in Montreal"/Authors' Response to Boivin and Savard Commentary

• Published in: Canadian journal of public health Vol. 104; no. 3; p. E275
• Main Authors: Boivin, Diane B, Savard, Jacques, Tétreault, Louis-François, Plante, Céline, Perron, Stéphane, Goudreau, Sophie, King, Norman, Smargiassi, Audrey
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ottawa Springer Nature B.V 01.05.2013
• Subjects: Aviation; Estimates; Field study; Population; Sleep; Canada
• ISSN: 0008-4263; 1920-7476

Using a tool that overestimates risks when the estimated risks remain low raises significant concerns. [...]Tétreault et al.1 justify using an attenuation factor of 15 dB between indoor and outdoor noise levels based on Basner et al.2 However, this choice is not experimentally supported, does not constitute an accepted norm, and would imply that windows are open at all times. Given all the uncertainties associated with the authors' estimates, carefully designed field studies with indoor noise and validated sleep measurements are required before such conclusions as they have drawn can be made.2,6 Although it is important to question the clinical implications of noise produced by various sources of urban activities, a variety of confounding factors must be carefully considered before reaching conclusions which have substantial societal implications. [...]Boivin and Savard did a thorough job of restating the limitations already discussed in the original article, although they sometimes seem to confuse validity with precision.