Plane noise
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Then they should stop eating most of the foods, definitely stop eating out, and start organic farm and chicken ranges in their backyards. They should also stop using most electronic products, disconnect wifi, forget about wireless anything and spend less time in front of the screens. They should switch to all natural and preferably homemade skincare products, upholster their own furniture (because most fabrics are treated with toxic substances) and most furniture emits VOCs. Etc, etc. All of these things add up a lot more damage than airline traffic in the sky and I doubt "new generation" cares to give up their modern amenities they are so used to. They won't stop staring at their phones which they carry on their body at all times with their ears plugged with wireless buds. And departure of our new generation from this world into the metaverse via VR is beginning too. They have bigger issues to worry about. |
Anonymous
|
That’s ridiculous. What a deflection. How about they don’t pay stupid money for an objectively blighted area to put themselves and their children at risk? That money will buy in much nicer areas of DC without that problem.
It’s like saying keep living in Delhi even though you have plenty of choice of other cities and countries (in this case neighborhoods) but grow organic chickens (which you can buy by the way, newsflash). Who cares what you breathe in? Guess which is going to harm you with more certainty and quicker? |
Anonymous
| Bloody hell, I bet lack of any understanding of environmental health is why dementia and cancer wards are full and we are hurtling towards a bleak future. |
Anonymous
True, but it's still noisy.. We have high flying planes, but you can hear them very well, and it's not like a hum of a highway, it's a lot more annoying and unpleasant to human ear and brain. I am not worried about pollution, but can use less airline noise. I would be fine with a plane flying overhead ever 10 min and won't even notice it. But during the hours when most traffic is directed along specific lines (there is more than one) in our auditory range, there is no relief, because planes fly every 45 sec on average. Noise lingers, one plane leaves auditory range when the other one enters. It's why I think it's unfair to have these beelines in the sky unless you make more of them, so that traffic is dispersed and everyone gets a little, but nobody gets most of it for hours on end every day. |
Anonymous
And put the money where they don’t have to worry if they can sell in a decade? Like 2 miles to the right? In an even nicer area? With no risk. Only upside. |
Anonymous
People, they are. It doesn’t disperse, please read the most recent science. It gets pushed downwards by jets into your major organs. Not to be too graphic, but you’re better off standing in the middle of the Beltway. |
Anonymous
What happened in 2015 and why? Why would they make it worse? Why not go back to previous flight patterns or try to improve the situation instead of worsening it? |
Anonymous
Back up your last sentence or nobody will take you seriously. |
Anonymous
Because nobody cares about noise in a handful of neighborhoods. They care about safety, short flight times, and fuel economy. |
Anonymous
I have different air quality monitors. I have a device that measures fine and ultrafine particles, we have very very low levels, we are also in a heavily wooded area, which maybe helps with this. Or maybe it's because the planes are taking off and not exactly right over our heads? Like I said, they don't need to be right over your house to be audible and annoying, they fly over other homes but we hear them and see them, they fly in a line, sometimes you can see 2 planes one after another. This has to stop, no more highways in the sky. |
Anonymous
|
Read the paragraphs already posted. Not my problem. But here you go, just one of many such articles, with serious studies behind them.
To your point: “In terms of their ultrafine exposure, it’s like people under that flight path are standing in the roadway,” said Dr. Joel Kaufman, a University of Washington epidemiologist unaffiliated with the airport study. But you LIVE under a flight path and can’t LIVE on the actual Beltway. And roadway particles agglomerate into larger ones that don’t enter your organs easily and disperse sideways. The jet ones don’t have time to agglomerate and are still super tiny by the time they are “pushed” (air physics to do with jets, vortices etc. explained in the study) into your body. |
Anonymous
|
Surprised nobody posted the DOT noise maps, see here:
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/National-Transportation-Noise-Map/ri89-bhxh Mass Ave seems to be the dividing line for noticing things. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
That’s illuminating! Aligns with the no fly zone over VPs residence |
Anonymous
Worth noting that the UW study (a) looked primarily at communities directly under the Sea Tac flight path, (b) focused primarily on locations where airplanes were at 750m (~2,500 feet) or lower altitude, and (c) involved a far busier airport than DCA. Palisades is not directly under the DCA flight path, as the path follows the river. There is of course variance -- some flights go directly over Palisades, some go over McLean, some go straight over the river. The Sea Tac flight path has less variance as the flights are generally on a straight path to/from the runway (unlike the weaving path along the Potomac on the river approach/departure from DCA). If you've ever lived in Seattle, this is easy to observe. Flights taking off from DCA are typically at a higher elevation when they pass Palisades. From Flightradar24, the typical elevation seems to be 3,000-3,500 feet. The extra altitude presumably makes a difference. Sea Tac has ~50% more flights per day than DCA (and with bigger aircraft, which presumably pollute more). Be careful in extrapolating. |