Vince Cachia (June 20) was critical of the opinion piece I wrote on the Mosta shooting range plans (‘The objective evidence’, May 30). While thanking him for reading my article, I invite him to be more objective in his response.
My contribution was a challenge to encourage the research of objective evidence to inform the discussion that is taking place of the noise impact of the national shooting range.
Such evidence is freely available on the internet and conclusively demonstrates that the noise impact of numerous shooting ranges has been successfully mitigated in diverse European countries.
Large ranges have been built within towns and villages without disturbing the peace and quiet of neighbouring communities. There is no question that such an outcome is achievable in Malta and that the range developers have already publicly committed to achieving it.
In fact, the recent court decision to re-open a local shooting range, which was temporarily closed down due to allegations of noise impact on a neighbouring farm, is another example of how objective evidence has effectively disproved claims that shooting ranges produce harmful noise.
It is surprising what can be achieved with space-age materials and engineering.
Those who signed the Mount St Joseph petition are bombarded with wild tales of bullets ricocheting hundreds of metres in the air
In the same way that one can make an aeroplane invisible to radar, one can reflect sound around and absorb it to degrees that make the seemingly impossible effectively possible. This is only confirmed by a letter by John Fenech (June 19), which lists noise levels generated by various firearms and exemplifies methods of sound absorption. However, it does not specify the distance from the firearm at which the remarkably high noise levels have been measured and only lists some of the multitude of available noise reflection, absorption and cancellation systems.
Additionally, the conclusion that such measures are undesirably expensive is not Fenech’s to make but, rather, the developers of the shooting range.
It is encouraging to read that my letter has been extensively discussed on various social media platforms.
My disappointment is that I had originally been included in the Facebook page set up by supporters of Mount St Joseph, only to be subsequently excluded (in both cases without my consent).
I was banned when I posted comments about actual range noise levels and the effective use of noise abatement technology. Such evidence was not what the group administrators wanted to read. Instead, those who signed the Mount St Joseph petition are bombarded with wild tales of bullets ricocheting hundreds of metres in the air and unsubstantiated claims of target rifles generating more noise than a jet engine on full throttle.
The retreat house is depicted as a unique place of absolute silence, even though numerous residents have asked for a room change due to background noise from adjacent roads and low-flying aircraft.
As such, it is not surprising that the signatories of the Mount St Joseph petition are not ready to accept objective evidence.
Most shooting disciplines involve air rifles and small-calibre firearms, which are hardly audible at any distance from the shooting points, most making as much noise as a child’s squeeze toy or less.
The use of larger calibre rifles and pistols is limited, however, even in such cases, the off-range noise, after attenuation, would be less than the sound of two people having a normal conversation next to the huts in il-Busbesija.
I have demonstrated this in practice at a local range and presented my findings in this paper and during the public discussion of the range project at the local council in Mosta. Anecdotal accounts of neighbours hearing shots from existing local ranges are of limited relevance because all current local ranges are open air and do not have effective sound-abatement measures in place.
It is now high time that the discussion in Times of Malta addresses possible alternative motives for the feverish objections to the range project.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Planning has categorically stated that the management of Mount St Joseph is parte in causa with an alternative proposal for il-Busbesija. It is time for details of this alternative project to be made available for public scrutiny.
Is it possible that such a development would be perfectly silent? Did the Environment Commission of the Church vet the plans before the Jesuits issued a letter of comfort to the developer?
Jean Karl Soler specialises in family and occupational medicine.