An alleged homicide recently happened in Kaohsiung, apparently over a noise dispute. While it is common that neighbors see each other in court over noise complaints, it is shocking that such a dispute led to a fatal stabbing.
Noises not only irritate people, but also disrupt the harmonious relationship between neighbors. Whether a neighbor behaves properly is an ethical issue, and it is only by chance that one might have an ethical neighbor living upstairs or next door. To prevent an unfortunate homicide from happening again, a fundamental solution should be sought at technical and legal levels.
There are two kinds of noise. One is transmitted by sound waves and the other through vibrations. The former is easier to deal with. The noise levels of external sounds can be reduced by using acoustic panels: To prevent the sounds inside the house from influencing others, people can use acoustic absorbers.
Noise transmitted through vibrations is more difficult to deal with. People have to rely on buffers for noise control. When building an apartment, if those buffers are not installed for individual walls and floor slabs, it takes more effort to control noise afterward.
Moreover, the installation of buffers involves upstairs and downstairs neighbors, and certainly not everyone would be happy with the construction.
After the Ministry of the Interior’s Construction and Planning Agency revised the Building Technical Regulations (建築技術規則), Article 46-6 specifies that soundproofing materials should be installed for each individual wall and floor slab. The regulations defining what kind of materials should be used, how thick the acoustic panels should be and the noise level index are already in place.
However, even after years of going back and forth, no one can agree on how the rules should be enforced. Some corporations were against the changes, as they did not want their costs to increase, nor did they want the space of each floor to be reduced.
As a result, it was not until January 2021 that the amended regulations came into force. If the regulations could have been implemented sooner, thousands of new buildings would have been designed better in terms of noise control. Noise disputes involving neighbors would have been avoided as well.
Even so, construction companies nowadays might not follow the regulations, and the acoustic panels and soundproofing buffers they use might not abide by the law.
There is no investigative mechanism to check all the buildings, and when people want to buy a house, they tend to look at its appearance and interior layout. Most people do not know much about noise control. More often than not, people only find out about the noise levels after they have moved in, and even if they want to install more noise-control buffers, it is too late.
Officials and agencies must carry out professional, strict inspections before a construction project is under way. The interests of consumers should be safeguarded, to prevent another homicide.
Besides, if construction companies used more green materials for noise control, consumers would definitely favor their buildings.
Chen Wen-ching works in environmental services.
Translated by Emma Liu
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS