Re: Noisy workplaces bad for the heart, says new study

[Guest guest]

It did occur to me that too much chit chat can be noisy, although most NT's would probably think of equipment noise....rl 'My cat Rusty is a servant of the Living God....'adapted from a poem by SmartFrom: environmental1st2003 <no_reply >To: FAMSecretSociety Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 10:35:42 PMSubject: Noisy workplaces bad for the heart, says new study

Another reason to tell people to shut up.

Aspies probably already knew what this article is reporting.

Administrator

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/home/noisy_workplaces_bad_for_the_heart_says_new_study/bad6c8ce

Noisy workplaces bad for the heart, says new study

[Guest guest]

Chit chat can be really annoying. Several times when I was traveling on the train, people would gather in the corridor and chat. Very annoying when trying to read or focus on something. Worse was business class when people would sit on opposite sides of the car and talk across ways rather than sit close together. I ended up sitting all the way in the back of the car or moving between there and the snack car to find more quiet spots.

It did occur to me that too much chit chat can be noisy, although most NT's would probably think of equipment noise....rl

[Guest guest]

Chit chat in offices seems to be what everybody does these days. But the more of

it there is, the less I want to be in that office. The same goes for anywhere

else, including trains.

If I buy a ticket for a train, I rather want silence. I suppose others buy

tickets and enjoy chatting on the trip. Because it is a public venue, I am

loathe to complain aloud. But in my own workspace in an office, I feel a right

to ask others to carry on their conversations away from where I am working.

Administrator

Chit chat can be really annoying. Several times when I was traveling on the

train, people would gather in the corridor and chat. Very annoying when trying

to read or focus on something. Worse was business class when people would sit on

opposite sides of the car and talk across ways rather than sit close together. I

ended up sitting all the way in the back of the car or moving between there and

the snack car to find more quiet spots.

[Guest guest]

Since my train trips tended to be long, I would spring for the sleeper compartment. This would cost about as much as flying first class, just slower. If some of the old rail routes were still in existence, my trips would be much shorter. Then again, one of the old routes is no longer in service. It really appalls me that the Europe, which is about the size of the Continental US and was a fragmented bunch of nations, was able to build a first rate rail service. The US, which doesn't have those problems, can't. AMTRAK could be great and I like the service on the Silver Service (the Sunset Limited stank, sometimes literally). We certainly could do it, but the government is too incompetent and schizophrenic, meaning one party thinks all government services must turn a profit and the other doesn't care how much costs run over. Its also funny how they'll just throw money at the airlines and pretend they are private industry, but scream bloody murder again giving a tenth of that to make a first class rail service.

I took coach once and that was as bad as riding a bus. Business class was a bit better. Still, it was always the same problem: people are animals in the bathroom, just can't keep it clean.

In a message dated 10/7/2010 1:21:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

If I buy a ticket for a train, I rather want silence. I suppose others buy tickets and enjoy chatting on the trip. Because it is a public venue, I am loathe to complain aloud. But in my own workspace in an office, I feel a right to ask others to carry on their conversations away from where I am working. Administrator

[Guest guest]

" It really appalls me that the Europe, which is about the size of the

Continental US and was a fragmented bunch of nations, was able to build a first

rate rail service. The US, which doesn't have those problems, can't. "

Even Canada is expanding their transportation infrastructure.

There is some talk of high speed rail in the midwest with Chicago being one of

the terminal points, but right now it is mostly just talk.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

The US is talking about it too, but just a limited number of highly expensive high speed rail links. What I think the US needs to do is:

1. Help the rail companies buy back the right of ways they sold off over the decades, when they were stupid and chasing short term gains rather than competing effectively with the trucking companies. Two such lines between my Alabama place and the nearest town were closed down and cleared. By help get them back I mean that it is hard to buy back right of ways from current owners. This would not be a gift to the rail companies, but a loan that would be paid back, so they would apply this to the most profitable routes and not just go wild snapping up land. This point is because it is much more fuel efficient to ship heavy freight by rail than by truck. Trucks would still be needed for long range express, but most could be cut back to local and regional shipping.

2. Work the deal with the rail companies that passenger trains would have right of way. It might cost a little money if freight sits idle for 30 minutes waiting for the passenger train to go by, but I can tell you from experience that sitting on the rails for a couple of hours in the same spot waiting for freight trains to go by is beyond irritating. Of course, that only happened on the Sunset Limited and then only because there were only two track for the whole of Gulf Coast rail traffic. It would get jammed up around Mobile Alabama and so you'd just sit. I remember one being within site of the station and hotel, less than a mile up the track, stopping, backing up at least 2 miles then sitting for an hour as freighters were sorted out up ahead at the port. Nothing like that ever happened in my travels on the Silver Service (the north-south line).

3. I once read that airlines loose money on flights less than 300 miles. So, it would make sense to limit the number of such flights. I'm not saying eliminate them or legislate them away, just make them less necessary. An effective rail network would take up that slack. The trips might take longer, but aren't affected by weather and with growing security at airports and the waits that entails time could be saved there as well.

4. The way it worked at one time, and does in some locations, is that bus and train stations are either in the same building or next to each other. This would allow rail to serve variation heads and bus traffic could service the surrounding areas. This would work better is AMTRAK had more rail mileage and more stations thus meaning shorter bus rides. The buses would also have to clean up some too.

In a message dated 10/7/2010 3:16:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Even Canada is expanding their transportation infrastructure. There is some talk of high speed rail in the midwest with Chicago being one of the terminal points, but right now it is mostly just talk.Administrator