(/ 4. TITLE (and lkibdilte) S.

* TYPK, OF REPORT I PERIOD CIOVIIRE

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND0ADDRESS Al, Force ELF.MENT. ROJECT. TASK

10PROGAM

Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory)'rerospace 62202OF UI NNSR

Medical Division, Air Force Systems Commnand, e 62F
4 0 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433i210-7 78-45
11. CONTROLLING OFFICE HAVdE AND ADDRESS Feb 8

_ _15 _ _ _

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAM~E 0 mtinllsd Olic 16. SECURITY CLASA. ( POI eccPr)

4C UNCLASSIFIED
f. MEiIN11A OWNGRADI NG

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT rot tisI ftepect)

tAP~rv~fpRr;Iase 3 distribution unlimited

19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

To be published in the Proceedings of the Conference on Low Frequency Noise
and Hearing. For presentation at the Proceedings of the Conference on Low
Frequency Noise and Hearing, Aalborg, Denmark to be held on 7-9 May 1980.
19. Key WORD,, (Continue on tevose side #I necossay and Identify by block nmbot)

Auditory Threshold Vibration

Hearing Loss Whole Body Effects
Performance Respiration
Annuyance
20. ABSTRACT (Coutinue an revee mid* It noceeey mind identify by block numb~t)

DD I 04, 147 3 EDITION OF INOV 65 IS OBSOLETE

SECURITY CL ASIFICATION Of THIS PAGE (When Datai ffntermo

 - :v ,,- ,,

Conference On '- Ma 1
at Aelborg Unlversity Centre
Low Frequency Noise o, Denak
Proceedno gedited by
and Hearing Henrik Moller and Per Rubak

THE EFFECTS OF HIGH LEVEL INRFASOUND

DANIEL L. JOHNSON
Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433

INTRODUCTION

This paper will attempt to survey w current knowledge on the effects of rela-
tive high levels of Infrasound on humans. While this conferenice 14; concerned
mainly about hearing, some discussion of other physiological efftcts is
appropriate. Such discussion also serves to highlight a basic quejAtion, 'Is
hearing the main concern of infrasound and low frequency exposurt, or is there
a more sensitive mechanism?". It would be comforting to know tiriat the focal
point of this conference is indeed the most important concern.

Therefore, besides hearing loss and auditory threshold of infrasonic and low
frequency exposure, four other effects will be provided. These aro performance,
respiration, annoyance, and vibration.

ATIDrroEY THRESHOLD
A most common misconception about infrasound is that it cannot bii heard. A

glance at the results of various tnvestigations 1 , 2,3 summarized in Figure 1

shows thrt infrasound can be heard (at least down to 1 Hz). Single frequencies
of infrasound are not perceived as pure tones. Instead they are described as
more of a chugging or motorboating sound. This leads one to the oonclus lon
that what a person really hears is not a pure tone of infrasound, but instead
th3 harmonics generated by the distortion from the middle and inninr ear.
80 3 13 25

.......
........ -. ', ,.
 I~ie
- -''
I~ . . I ,I I • I I ;I *- I ,

0 VfO T.MAP - jg0

0 VE'OWMIT.MAFTPEtIO '
so- 4I"5 2J) 0 ,

r4 It 7 'a 11 1'2 0 0
"lWOENC" IN N.M
11 - - I-N.
Figure 1. Hearing threshold levels for Minimum Audible'
Pressure (MAP), ,Minimum
oo--E AP Audible Field y(MAP), and for
bands
110 of noise.
YEOWRT.Curve
MAP A- depicts the threshold of audibility
due to middle ear distortion.

140. _ THRESHOLD OF AUDBLITY DUE TO MIDDLE EAR

or DISTORTION ,
130 8Hz, 124 dB'

P HARMONICS GENERATED

70.
Fiur 2 Te to mldle
amoic ear distortion
pedctddue

t -0'i so-
0o
ton of 14ddB .8"-
10 -

40-

110YEWAT.MA
30-

1 2 3 4 56 S810 20 30 40506080100
FREQUENCY Hi

Figure 2. Te Harmonics predicted due to middle ear distortion

from a 8 Hz tone of 124 dB.
 In our laboratory, we have investigated the possibility of known non-Itnearities
of the middle ear causing inframound to generate audible distortion. From Just
the middle ear non-linearities described by Kobrak 4 , we can predict that infra-
swurO, should be audible by the time the levels reach the curve labeled A in
Figure 1. For instance, a 8 Hz tone at 124 dB will produce harmonics due to
the middle earthat lie on the audibility curve 5 , Figure 2 Illustrates this example.
Now if the audibility of Infrasound is due to harmonic distortion, then it should
be possible to mask the harmonics that are above 20 Hz. This ts indeed the
case. For instance a 7 Hz tone of 120 dB was easily masked in 5 out of 6 sub-
Jects if a 110 dB background noise (10-100 Hz) was presented 5 . A 10 lit tone
at 123 dB was detected by 3 of 6 subjects when it was added to the background
noise shown in Figure 3. Often when analyzing noise in general, noise control
engineers have blamed some bizarre effects on infrasound just because narrow
band analysts showed that the highest Sound Pressure Level (SPL) was a narrow
band in the infrasound region. The point I want to make here is that for most
noises I'm aware of, it is not the infrasound that causes problems such as
annoyance, chest vibration, etc., but alidible frequencier about 20 Hz which
tare present in the noise.
e 130

i0 2123dB PURE TONE

2120-
2 SIGNAL IN DPC SECONDARY

110-

so /
Le
100

110 d8 MASKING

g 7OI .. . I
.I 10 100 I000
FREOUENCY IH0i

Figure 3. An oveil,.y of both the one-third octave band analysis

of a 110 dB background noise and a 123 dB 10 Hz tone. Only
about one-half of the subjects could sense a difference betweeii
the combination of these noises and the background noise alone.

It can be noted that harmonic distortion could possibly cAuse levels of noise at
higher frequencies that might be responsible for some Temporary Threshold
Shift (TTS) at higher frequencies. This leads us into the next topic, the effect
of infrasound ci the auditory system.

r
 HEA1TNG LOSS
One of the more possible adverse effects of infrasound io the damage to the hear-
Ing organ. For excposures above 140 dB, TTS of the audlometric frequencies
above 125 Hz of hiumans has been observed 6 , although the frequencies above
1000 Hz seem to be the most sensitive. The TTS observed was usnually small
(less than 10 dB) and recovered rapidly. Figure 4 is a summary of results of
various exposures to infrasound and the resulting TTS6. ]Recent whole body
responses of 16 subjects to 142 dB at 7Hz for 15 minutes did not show statisti-
cally significant TTS.

300 130-14141
0120- 129 dB
FLLEO SYMMUS IkWUICATE
TWATINE TTS OCCUR~D

lo I M
CI6D91 OD2
anQENY.N ET

obere th rag 3n
f15 to
6 6000 Hz. 3

soundAt 172etina
e dipaBonivda of1re(cor,4Hz(5mmadedH
exposures
(7. 5 u prdulb)rallrperfoatos
n of theqetmnc membdraine
winh hencls
whil
exposures t6 r odB
idnot bo.Hio atoothat investgtowasof
tm oal bon ve ofrne expse 125c~la
tosuch lHesiniaemao.trcua
Thdamae inls the nnsreab.ligur interpetdbyD.ei onf
5f prddepeardmagndutvr
7 .Hz(1
OonStAt Univrsi,expourres c 60mage
daz mnn)ichdp and
H
(.5mnalprdcdperforations
aclr of the ee ommpafnings Thisan expeinhilas

been repeated In greater detail and the final results will be reported this year.
However, these structural changes seem to occur even at 1'0 dB, and the
Ohreshold of such effects may be as low as 150 dl] for the chinchillas.

.'The chinchilla is prob.ably more sensitive to infrasound than humans. There

f'4 (have been exposures of tie auditory systcm in humans as high as 172 d1l for
 less than 30 see (1-8 lz), 160 dB for 1 min (8 Hz) and 155 dB for several
minutes (7 Hz). For these short times, no damage to the tympanic membrane
or middle ear system occurred. However, the chinchilla results do indicate
the need of caution in exposing humans to extremely intense (greater than
150 dB) levels of infrasound. This is in keeping with Tonndorf's reported
scarring of the tympanic membrane of German submariner's 8 . The exposure
of men on snorkel subs constituted quite high infrasound exposures for long
time periods. Unfortunately, the exact exposure lev6l received by the men is
unknown except that it is estimated to be considerably above 120 dB. It does
not seem ns clear to me as it has earlier, that the middle ear is the mort
sensitive part of the body. Nevertheless the middle ear certainly sets the
~physiological tolerance limit to infrasound due to pain. When we look at pain,
we see that it is related to mechanical displacement of the middle ear system
beyond its mechanic" limits. Thresholds for pain ac determined by Beksey
and the Benox report9 are summarized in Figure 4. -There is some deviation
in the data, but for the most part this depends on the type of stimulus used and
" interpretation of the sensations identified; the pain threshold, tickle threshold,
threshold is the best
probablylimit.
or the touch
indicator this time as tothe
we know atNevertheless,
thatthreshold. thepain
physiological tolerance

.. . .. :-,," '\ ," ... - .,-- .- ,, .. ,,. ,"

.- -- , ., ,,.. I .*.

J /
IY

STRIAL -. .
SEPARATION . . 'i.. /

HYDlROPS

N V*

Figure 5. Structural changes due to exposure of 170 dB at

8 Hz for 10 in and 30 min exposures to levels of 153 dB
7
to 166 dB from 12 to 30 Hz by Dr. Lim'

_. 5
 F7

Also in Figure 6 is a range of the threshold of pressure buildup due to whole

body exposures. This pressure sensation in the middle ear first starts from
about 127 to 133 dB and is one of the most consistent findings in our Infra-ound
exposures with humans 5,9, 10. The sensation does not necessarily becoens
more intense as the SPL is raised and has been relieved temporarily by
valsalva0,11 This pressure sensation can be explained in terms of a reotifi-
cation effect caused by the eustachian tube and2 differs little from what one would
feel during a 50 or 100 meter altitude change1 .

I I -
T" " ' ,1"1jIr TI11

I?'W ."
NEGATIVE
90

'., PlAIN" BE[NOX

1-0 ,

• 1140 TRSODF
PRESSURI SENSATION
' ;.................
....
IV

JOHNSON)}_ _l _ __ , ".o "i, N ose]~il

5130-
1 101 1'

rtco [CV
N I" CyCk.is PER SCCOND

Figure 6. Thresholds of pain, tickle and pressure sensations.

PERFORMANCE

From the time Gavreau 13 first stated that weak infrasound could affect the
balance or equilibrium mechanism in the ear, produce fatigue, induce nausea,
etc., there have been a number of contradictory results. Various authors
have suggested that infrasound can make you drunk 14,15 and adversely affect
human performance. Even levels from 105 dB to 120 dB can supposedly affect
reaction time, and thus are equivalent to a drunken state. Nevertheless, the
experimentation done by Dr. Stan Harris, myself, and others in our laboratory
during the past 6 years still indicates infrasound below 130 dB should be quite
innocuous. The work by Borredon 16 , who found a 130 dB, 7.5 Hz infrasound
stimulus presented for a period of 50 min had negligible affect on human reac-
tion time, also supports this contention. As I presented to the 1973 Paris
Colluiqutum on Infrasound, animal studies conducted in our laboratory yielded
no results that would suggest any adverse effects at levels below approximately
160 dB12 ,17. Similarly, informal observations of human subjects exposed to
infrasound suggested levels greater than 160 dB might be necessary to produce
-,adverse effects. We then used nystagmogrphy ond a rail test of equilibrium
'a
IN. 6
 to measure human responses to infrasonic stinrulaton objeotively 1 8 .
Nystagmus was not produced at intensity levels to 165 dB, and decrements in
rail task performance wre not observed at levels at 14) dB.

As these experiments did not absolutely prove that cognitive performance was
not degraded, the cognitive performance of 40 subjects was measured by
Dr. Harris during exposure to infrasound in three experiments 19. In experi-
ment 1, 12 subjects performed a serial search task while exposed for 15 min to
each of faur experimental conditions; 65 d2B ambient noise, a low-frequency noise
at 110 dB (see the 110 dB masking noise of Figure 3), a 7 Hz tone at 125 dB plus
the ambient noise, and the 125 dB tone plus the low frequency noise. The second
experiment was the same as the first except a Complex Counting Task was used
aid the exposure duration was increaset" from 15 to 30 min. In the third experi-
ment eight female and eight male subjects w,re used. The Complex Counting
Task was again used ana the subjects were exposed for 15 min to 110 dB low
frequency noise alone (wse Figure 3) or with low frequency noise and 125 dB tone
at7Hz, 132dBat7Hz, cr 142dBat7Hz.

There were no decrements in performance revealed by analysis of variance in

any of the three experiments. As with previous studies, there were no spontan-
eous comments from any of the subjects that would indicate they felt "drunk."
Six subjects reported they were distracted by nfrasound at the 142 dB level
because of pressuie in the ear, vibration, or inability to concentrate; however,
corresponding degradation of performance was not measured for therx as a
group. It seems unlikely that any of these symptoms was caused by a direct
stimulation of the vestibular system of our subjects, particularly, since there
were no reports of vertigo, symptoms of motion sickness, or any illusionary
movements of the visual field. While this experiment was not designed to note
changes in auditory threshold, there was not statistical difference pre - post
test thresholds in the normal audiometric range of 500 to 6000 Hz.

The lack of performance decrements from these experiments again support

the contention that infrasound criteria proposed in the Paris Colloquium are
reasorable 2 0 . There may be tasks that will show significant changes due to
Infrasound, but we have about given up looking for them.
IESPTRATION

One of the first studies accomplishsd by our laboratory was a short range pro-
gram to confirm 140 dB would not jeopardize the mission of the crew of the
Apollo rocketl 1. In the infrasound range, exposures of four experienced human
subjects to discrete frequencies of as high as 151-153 dB were obtained for as
long as 90 sec 1 1 . At these levels the subjects could feel the abdominal wall
and chest wall moving. These sensations increased above 145 dB and at the
150-153 range the limit of voluntary tolerance was reached for the low fre-
quency (above 10 1z) exposures. This was due to the subject reporting a

£ 7 -
tickling and choking sensatior In the throat, which led to the coughing response.
The cause 3f thi 3 coughing reaction is most certainly the result of the oscillat-
ing air movement in the throat due to the pressure fluctuation. This air is
undoubtedly drying the mucous membrane In t1 ts area, leading to tickling and
choking sensations. This pressure oscillation .an be increased such that
infrasound can provide a means of artificial respiration, As I mentioned in the
Colloquium at Paris, with the anesthetized animals respiration rate decreases
once a SPL of 166 dB is reached. At 171 to 173 dB, respiration normally
ceases for the larger dogs 12, 21. The explanation of this phenomenon is that
air molecules are being exchanged between the ambient air and the lungs of the
dog since each pressure fluctuation causes a density change of 10%. Thus
infrasound at 172 dB serves to ventilate artifically the dog's lungs. The fre-
quency range for which I have found this effect is 0. 5 to 8 Hz, and it is
interesting to uote that below 1 Hz the chest is virtually motiorless. This
phenomenon was recently reverifLed for animals paralized with drugs; however,
the practical use of this method of artificial respiration has not been developed.

ANNOYANCE

From a practical viewpoint, the greatest effect infrasound may have with
respect to the general health and welfare is via all those many factors that make
up the annoyance response. I am convinced people in general do not like to hear
or feel infrasound. However, it is clear that infrasound should not annoy a
person is it cannot be heard or sensed. Thus, the threshold curves of Yeowart
should serve as the threshold of any human annoyance. Using this concept, a
general annoya-roe criteria has been developed in Figure 7. The most sensitive
curves of Yeowart are shown in Figure 1. Unfortunately, there are differences
In the audibility of tuces versus bands of noise as well as d!fference in Minimum
Audible Pressure and Minimum Audible Field. Thus Figure 7 has a cross
hatched range in which the Infrasound may first be audible.
in keeping with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's suggested yearly
Ldn of 55 dB as the value for audible sounds required to protect public health
and welfare, it should be appropriate to equate the corresponding loudness
curves for the Ldn of 55 dB to the loudness of infrasound, Whittle 2 2 et al,
have the necessary loudness curves and the 45 phon curve (which is roughly
approximate to an Ldn of 55) is estimated from their data. This is also
drawn in Figure 7 for SPLs less than 120 dB. Note that there is relatively
little difference between the threshold curves and the 45 phon equal loudness
curve. This Illustrates the fact, unlike noises in the 100 to 1000 Hz range,
the effects of infrasound can go from absolutely nothing to quite severe with
relatively little change in Sound Pressure Level.
serve as a rationale
However, there are other important factors which should
for limiting exposure of uncontrolled population to levels above 120 dB. The
main consideration is with respect to the annoying rattling of buildings or
even damage to such structures. It is intercsting to note that around Cape

8
 WT 7 7R7

I40

Kennedy, 120 dB was used as the upper limit for short term exposures of
people or communites In the vioinity of the large rocket launch siteA2 3 . After
1~8 years of experience, this levol seems to still be valid, Another reason for
choosing 120 dB as the upper limit is the phenomenon of the middle ear
pressure. The 120 dB value prcvides a '7dD cushion againat tWs distuarbing
phenomeuon.

ISO.......

1-0SOUND -PRESSURE LEVEL BELO WHitH

INFRASOUNO 15 NOT EXPECTED TO
4 PRODUCE ANY AWRVIM~ PHYSIOLOGICAL
130 -I I

~Ito
110 -DUE TO BUILDING STRUCTURE LOUDNESS OF
aVIBATION OR IOL9 45PHON (ANNOYANCE

I "gC PROPOSED INFRASOUND

O.I'4Z 0.2 0. 1N1 a ION2Z gONZ

FREQUENCY IH2 )

Figure j. Various criteria proposed for tifrasound exposure.

Curve A first preseuted at Colloquium, on Infrasound, Parts

In a recent CRABA publication, "Guidelines for Environmental Impact

Statements, ,~24 the tnfrasound limits for uncontrolled populations for 1 min or
less was suggested as:
less than 120 dB,. .* . . . . 0.1 Hzto 5 ll

less than 120 dB -30 log. .f 5.0 Hzto 20IHz

These levels are reduced by (10 log t) dB, where t is the total time and is be-
tween 1 and 100 minutes. Exposures longer than 100 min should use the 100
ini limit. in other words, exposures 20 dB less than the 1 min criteria should
dov'nicidntl,
oin, bsicllyInsures that the infrasound is Inaudible.

OneprctinImehodfo reucngthc nfrnsound was first

det inone
sugse byl Gavreau 13 , and later by Weostin 2. Gavreau reported relief of
the problemis of infrasound was ganined by masictng the infrasound with high
9
N-*~ "~e~-
 r.'

intenstty sound such as music. This stratcgy certainly is in keoping ww our

experience that Infrasound can be easily mrsknd by higher froirency sounds.
In fact, Figure 2 is , good example of such a strategy. Of course, care Is
required in order . l sure the "cure is not worse than the bite."

VIBRATION FROM .NFFlASOUND

There are some definite similarities between whole body itfrasoad exposure
and vib&'tion exposure in that for both exposures it is the compressiLle air
spaces which determine the resonances of the body. Although the force acts on
all the body masses when sitting on a vibrating surface, it is the action of the
abdominal mass, which rioves in and out of the rib cage compressing the air in
the .lurgs, which pauses tolerance limiting resonance at 4 - 8 Hz 2 3 . Infrasound,
because of the long wove length versus body size, a.ts uniformally on the whole
body. Displacement of tissue primarily occurs if air is displaced or comnpres-
sed, and the main air enclosures of importance in the body arc the lungs and the
middle ear. L.ow frequency sound and infrasound will act simultaneously on the
abdomen, chest walls, and mouth, all of which ;,ill affect the lungs. This
uniform pressure will cause the system to act much stiffer than if the stimulus
is unidirectional vibration. This is why the main thorax/abdominal resonances
to sound are in the 40 to 60 Hz range23 . Such resonances have been measured
by Leventhal12 6 at Sound Pressure Levels as low as 105 dB, and if anyone sees
the muvie "Earthquake" (the Sound Pressure Level was measured as high as
120 dB in the 60 - 100 Hz region). The effect of such resonances are quite
obvious. I would emphasize, however, that such resonances at these relative
low sound pressure levels are in the low frequency range above 20 Hz, not Il
the Infrascund range. Our experiments do indicate subjects do sense vibration
of the abdomen or chest once e ifrasound levels reach 132 dB or above in the
frequency rpnge of 4 to 20 Hz ' . Interestingly, none of the four subjects
exposed to 144 dB at 2 Hz or 1 Hz Fensed any vibration.
CONCLUSIONS

This review emphasized those facts which, in my view, were the most pertinent.
Fortunately, the present state of knowledge is more extensive than can be writ-
ten in a few pages. The reader should be aware of other review articles, thd
better of which are the chapters of von Gierke and Parker, one of which is in a
27 and the other in the Handbook of
recent book on Infr ound edited by Tempest
Sensory Physiology . A review of the exaggerations of the effects of Infra-
sound is ,pjvided by reference 29 while Westin provides a somewhat different
viewpoint . A short summary of the effects of infrasound is shown in Table 1.

- lReturning to the initial question concerning the importance of hearing loss from
* bifrasound, the answer is a qualified yes. The auditory system does appear to
be the most sensitive system with respect to direct physiologricnl damage.
, Curve A of Figure 7 still seems reasonable, although T expect there is a moder-
ate safety factor in this curve. However, exposures high enough to threaten

10
£-A

° , "4
 the auditory system are somewhat rare. From the practical viewpoint,
therefore, annoyanne In the main factr that dictates permissible levels of
Itfrrsoutc exposure. Unfortunately, little work has been accomplished on this
problem. Our laboratory is continuing research on the effects of Lnfrasound on
bearing in the 150 dB to 170 dB range. I know of no one actively pursuing the
annoyance question. In my opinion, annoyance provides one of the more
timely research topics for tnfrasound.

AUDITORY THRESHOLD. .. Infrasound is %dLble down to 2 Hz,

but loses tonal quality at 16 Hz. Infra-
sound ts easily nasked by low
frequency noise.

HEAING LOSS . . . . . . . . A small amount of TTS has occurred

for exposures longer than 20 min,but
generally a level below 150 dB is not
expected to produce adverse results
if exposure duration is less than
30 min,

PERFORMANCE. . . . . . . The threshold level of performance

decrements has not been reached. No
dec;iements, except for speech bater-
ference, have been found at levells
below 142 dB.

RESPIRATION. .. . . . . Definite effect once 166 dB is reached.

Artificial respiration can occur for
. Hz - 8 Hz once 172-173 DB is
reached.

ANNOYANCE..... . . . . A definite problem. The threshold is

probably the same level As the
threshold of audibility.

VIBRATION...... . . Approximately 132 dB from 4-20 Hz.

WHOIE BODY EFFECTS.. Start noticing adverse subjective

effects past 150 dB. Tolerance lilmit
not reached. Middle ear pressure
buildmi, starts at 130 dB as well as
voice communication modulation,.

Table 1. Summary of thresholds where various effects should

occur.
111

iti

":
; ,,,. ' ...." . ... ... ............. .. ' " ' : ,''°;'/' '+ + ; " a w:- mi k ld .' ';' . . . . . 'r
 This -- 8pk a compilation of AMIML-TR-76-17,
Is AMEL-Tit-77-51, WW
c Mec l, posre of Four Chinchills to infraomd.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN'

L Special thanks are due Alice Trnka for the typing and location of figurse.

BIBUOGRAPHY

1. von Bekes,, G. (19"), ieport in Experiments in Hearing, edited by

E.G. Wever ,'Ae'G-aw-Hill, New York, 1960) pp 257-267.

2. Yeowart, N. S.; Bryan, M.; and Tempest, W. (1968). "Low Frequency

Noise Thresholds," J. Sound Vib. 9, pp 447-453.

3. Yeowart, N. S., "Low Frequency Threshold Effects." Proceedings of

Fall Meeting of British Acoustical Society 71.103, Nov 1971.

4. Kobrak, H. G., "Construction Material of the Sound Conduction System

of the Human Ear," J. Acoust. So. Amer., 1948, 20, 125-130.

5. Johnson, Daniel L. and von Gierke, H. E., "The Audibility of Infrasound,"

presented at Acoustical Society of America Fall Meeting, Nov 1974.

6. Nixon, C. W. and Johnson, D. L., "Infrasound and Hearing," Proceedings

of International Conference on Noise as a Public Health Hazard, Dubrovnlik,
Yugoslavia, May 1973. EPA Document 550/9-73-008, pp 329-347

7. Johnson, D. L., "Exposure of Four Chinchillas to Infrasound," Research

Memo dated Mar 1976, AMRL, WPAFB OH.
8. Tonndorf, J., "The Influence of Service on Submarines on the Auditory

Organ," Chapt, DII, Appendix to German Aviation Medicine in World War 11,
Dept of the Air Force, 1950.

9. von Gierke, H.E.; Davis, H.1 Eldredge, D.H.; Hardy, J.D., "Aural
Pain Produced by Sound," Benox Report, Contract N6cri-020, Task Order 44,
ONR Project No. 144079, University of Chicago, Dec 1953.
10. Slarve, 1. N. and Johnson, D. L., "Human Whole Body Exposure to
Infrasound." Aviat Space Environ Med, 46(4): 428-431, 1975.

11. Mohr, G.C.; Cole, J.N.; Guild, E.; and von Gicrke, H.E., "Effects of
Low Frequency and Infrasonic Noises on Man." Aerospace Med, 36, 817-824
(1965)

412
 12. job-noon, Daniel L. , "Various Aspects of Infrasound," Proceeding. of the
colloquium on Jnfrasound, Centre National de Is Peoherche Scientifique, Parts,
Sept 1973.

13. Gavresu, V., ' nrasounde" Science Journal Jan 1968, pp 33-37.

14. Bryan, M., and Tempest, W., ,Does Infrasound Makes Drivers 'Drunk'?"
FNew Scientist, 1972, 16 Mar, pp 584-586.
15. Evans, M.J. and Tempest, W., "S)me Effects of Infrasonic Noise in
Transportation."1 Journal of Sound Vibraktion, 1972, 22 (1), 19-24.
16. Borredon, "Reaction Physiologiques De Sujets Humains Exposes A Des
Infrasons,"1 Centre de Recherches de Medeclne Aeronatuique, Report 3713,
Dec 1972.

17. Parker, D. L. ; Ritz, L. A. ; Tubbs, R. L. ; and Wood, D. L. , "Effects of

* Sound on the Vestibular System," AMRL-TR-75-89, Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1976.

* 18. Harris, C. S.; Sommier, H. C.; and Johnson, D. L . "Human Equilibrium

During Exposure to Infrasound."1 Presented at annual meeting of Aerospace
Medica Association, San Francisco, 1975.

1k).alrist;S.,ai~ddhflson, D. L. , "Effects of Infrasound on Cognitive

erfdriance, A'tat Space Environ Med, 49(4):582-586, 1978.

O.i6Roundtable Discussion Section, "Proceedings of the Colloqutun on Infra- 7

sounpd, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, Sept 1973.
2L~ Johi -son, Daniel L., "Effects of Infrasound on Respiration." Paper pre-
sntdat Aerospace Medical Association Meeting, May 1973. Pages 37 and
38of preprints of scientific program.

22. Whittle, L.D.; Collins, S.J.; and Robinson, D.W., "The Audibility of
Low Frequency Sounds," Journal of Sound and Vibration, 21(4)431-448, 1972.

23. von Gierke, H. E. , "Effects of Infrasound on Man," Proceedings of the

Paris, Sept 1973, 417-435.

24. Guidelines for Prcpinrtng Environmental Impact Sttmnson Not..-e.

Report of Working Group 69, H.E. von Gierke, Chairman, Corniittee on
Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics, National lRcseai'ch Council, National
Academy of Scicnce3, W~ashington DC, 1977.

'13
 25. Westin, J, B, "Infrasound;, A Short Review of E~fcts on Man," Aviat.
Space Environ Med. 46(g): 1135-1140, 1975
7
F 26. Leventhall, HG. and Kyrtakides, K., "Acoustically Induced Vibrations
of the Body," Paper read at annual confererice of the U. X, Group on H1uman
Response to Vibration, Yeovil, Sept 74.

27. von Gierke, HE.and Parker, D. E.., "Effects of Ifitense !nfrasound on Man,"
In Infrasound and Low Frequency Vibrattbn, W. Tempest editor, Capter 6,
127, Academic Press, N.Y., 1976

28. von Glerke, H. E. and Parker, D.E., "Infrasound,"1 Handbook of

Sensory Physiology, Vol V; Auditory System, Springer-Verlog, NK Y., 1976

II w

'I - 14