Are LRADs Really Necessary?
Is it OK for police forces to use acoustic warfare to disperse unruly crowds and political protestors?
That's the question I'm currently pondering, as I'm sure are many in the hearing industry (and, to be honest, the entire country) after the events that transpired in Pittsburgh last week.
For those who are unaware, a quick summary: Pittsburgh police used a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) to disperse protestors at the Group of 20 summit last week. The device, which targets large volumes of sound in specific directions, was developed initially for military use. It can be used to communicate, but the military has used it to repel battlefield insurgents and Somali pirates with a piercing, car-alarm like noise that is louder than a jet engine (over 150 decibels) at close distances and still audible two miles away, according to an article in The Washington Times.
The use of the device has been staunchly opposed by a variety of organizations, including the American Tinnitus Association, who said protestors "were ‘acoustically assaulted' with sound over 140 decibels, which it described as ‘like the kind of sound pressure members of the armed service might face from an Improvised Explosive Device (IED)," according to the Times article.
As many in the hearing industry know, sound at half of this level can be seriously detrimental to hearing health. This concept was covered in my last blog, and has been a major talking point in the industry for organizations like the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), whose "Listen to Your Buds" campaign has gone to great lengths to warn iPod-loving youth of the potential for noise-induced hearing loss.
However, with these LRADs we're talking about a completely different ballgame-we're talking potential immediate hearing damage. The device's creator, American Technology Corp., told the Times the device is not meant to be used as a weapon, but rather "to influence the behavior and gain compliance," from people, but that comment really just sounds like a softened definition of, well, weapons.
The company's spokesperson went further in defending the technology to the Times, saying it was meant as a communications device for delivering "critical information, instructions and warnings." He said that while they can be harmful, the officers using the devices have been trained. To be fair, police reported that they were aware of potential dangers, and so they used it about 12 feet off the ground so that no one would be in their direct path, according to an article in the Associated Press.
However, regardless if someone was severely hurt in this instance, it unnerves me that these LRADs are growing in popularity and being bought by more and more cities. I understand the officers have been trained, but the margin for error is slight--defenders of the technology talk about its ability to maintain order without hurting people, but it seems every use of the technology will walk a fine line between being effectively annoying enough to be successful and extremely dangerous. And let's be real: police officers are occasionally going to overstep their bounds and/or make mistakes when it comes to enforcing the law-it's why cities all over the country pay millions upon millions in settlement fees. Sometimes, such collateral damage payments are necessary, but I ask, "Are they necessary here?" (especially when the collateral damage can also include permanent hearing damage).
Furthermore, the fact that people would be so disturbed by the sound that they need to cover their ears and flee, indicates the sound may be more problematic than defenders are letting on. The spokesperson for American Technology Corp. has said that those complaining have probably exposed themselves to worse noise at rock concerts, but that doesn't make it better (just because someone inflicts the damage on themselves, doesn't mean it justifies others to do so). Nor does it add up, as Witold Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania pointed out to the Associated Press: "People don't flee from the front row of a rock concert. Why would they be fleeing here? Because it's loud, it's painfully loud."
The deployment and use of LRADs points to, I think, the nation's overall inability to "get it" when it comes to hearing. Real political movement to protect hearing is hard to come by, and the population as a whole doesn't worry about their hearing either. Similarly, in attempting to find a non-violent means of crowd control, defenders of this technology are missing the big picture.
Arguing against this technology makes me feel like somewhat of an idealist, because I understand it can be tough for police forces to maintain order, and it's not like these protestors were being totally peaceful (they damaged property and even rolled a dumpster down a hill at cops, for Pete's sake). But I just can't get past the potential drawbacks of this technology.
If LRADs have the capability to be sonic weapons, they are sonic weapons. There's no softening it or arguing it-as the saying goes, "a duck is a duck is a duck." Likening LRADs to some sort of overpowered microphone that enables communication with unruly crowds seems to be simplifying the issue to a cartoonish degree-it's like giving police forces bazookas and saying they are merely meant for protection. It's dangerous, excessive and ridiculous, but because it only concerns hearing, people aren't seeing it that way.