Plane noise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another way to ask the question is: is it good for people and children to live under a flight path? Is it the same as not? Who could possibly say yes, and be honest?

Obviously it's terrible, but apparently nobody cares. Would dispersing airline traffic in all directions be better for everyone ultimately as particles won't be concentrated over some areas and not others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hope you are an atmospheric scientist and can explain the issue better. Several studies found the same thing, and it’s that ultra fine particles are smaller and in effect are pushed down without time for them to become bigger and so are more easily inhaled. If the jets couldn’t push stuff down, what would the the use of jets or basic airplanes in crop dusting? No idea if that’s anything but that’s how it helped me to visualize what they call effect of velocities, wind and wing vortices below.

Anyway, here you go, but there’s a ton more from Europe, Australia etc, so perhaps you could come back and explain it to us, with the view as to not reassuring people but being objective.

UWA MOV-UP study:

To get a better picture of the potential extent of population exposures to aircraft- related ultrafines, and to model the potential extent of elevated ultrafine particles, we assigned emissions to aircraft landing and wind patterns observed during our study (Figure 20).
There is a relatively rapid downward transport of these aircraft-emitted UFPs and relatively little time for their physical aging due to coagulation with larger particles. This downward transport is due to a combination of large-scale daytime, convective velocities of up to one meter per second and local scale wingtip vortices that can extend vertically downward for several hundred meters at similar, superimposed velocities.47 This results in plumes from descending aircraft reaching ground level in approximately a few minutes near the airport and up to 15 to 20 minutes at 15 km downwind from the airport.
At these plume transport times, 10 to 20 nm UFPs emitted by jet engines have a characteristic coagulation half-life of about an hour, assuming that they are emitted into a background aerosol with a number concentration of 1x104 particles per cubic centimeter and count mean diameter of 0.2 μm.48 It is not surprising that the typical size of these UFPs in the downwind footprint are typically between 10 and 30 nm, indicating minimal coagulation losses.
The model results are similar to the spatial pattern of the Ultra-UF PCA feature derived from mobile monitoring measurements. The air quality model results and the map of Ultra-UF from mobile monitoring both suggest that communities underneath and downwind of landing aircraft may be exposed to this source of air pollution.
The differences in the spatial extent of aircraft versus roadway traffic UFP are important
to consider from a population impact perspective. We observed concentrations of total
UFP (10 – 1000 nm sized particles) to be higher at the near-roadway fixed site compared to concentrations observed at the near-airport fixed sites. However, most people spend a relatively small proportion of their time on a major roadway (e.g., during commuting), and because of
the relatively short distances over which roadway UFP decays downwind of major roadways, roadway UFP would affect only a narrow swath of near-roadway residences and other buildings.
In contrast, the affected areas experiencing elevated aircraft UFP tend to be larger. Therefore, considering the map shown in Figure 20, there is the potential for more people to be affected by UFP from aircraft than from roadway sources, albeit at lower concentrations. Moreover, those living within the area affected by landing aircraft emissions may be exposed to relatively higher concentrations of smaller sized ultra-UF particles.

Nothing in this quote gives any measurements for particulate concentrations. It says the model gives results “similar” to actual measurements, but it doesn’t give those measurements, other than to note that they are less than measurements from roadways. Do they give that info elsewhere?

[Anonymous]

Just one of the studies, appreciate the read, but please note there are more, including literature reviews, and other countries etc. (it’s a nascent field, because we’ve only been able to measure ultra fines for a few years). My motivation is environmental health — we are finding all these links to things that sicken people slowly to the point where can no longer help. Talk about painful to watch. As long as everyone knew and could asses personal risk.

https://deohs.washington.edu/mov-up

[Anonymous]

https://www.iqair.com/us/blog/ultrafine-particles-near-airports-cause-concern

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another way to ask the question is: is it good for people and children to live under a flight path? Is it the same as not? Who could possibly say yes, and be honest?

Obviously it's terrible, but apparently nobody cares. Would dispersing airline traffic in all directions be better for everyone ultimately as particles won't be concentrated over some areas and not others?

This is a legitimate q; how linear are particular dosage to health effects on a population basis? Also the palisades are the least dense part of DC, so it makes sense to route all traffic over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another way to ask the question is: is it good for people and children to live under a flight path? Is it the same as not? Who could possibly say yes, and be honest?

Obviously it's terrible, but apparently nobody cares. Would dispersing airline traffic in all directions be better for everyone ultimately as particles won't be concentrated over some areas and not others?

It would be more equitable in one way.

[Anonymous]

But not in the way PP said, so?

[Anonymous]

In an ideal world, you’d concentrate, and give people under a buy out at the market rate. Then you could put some short term exposure (per day) stuff there: corporate HQs with passive buildings and air filtration, industry, naval and coast guard stuff etc (hey, Raytheon, Amazon, don’t move to VA). Net positive for everyone. Revitalize EOTP too.

[Anonymous]

Then if some people still are ok with it, they can stay, and Spring Valley could become a golf course. Golf courses are already v toxic so assumed risk is implicit.

Much much healthier future for DC!

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to pay for all that pooled risk for chronic disease. So I’m sold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I will also say that learned people scoffed at “rumors” of increased incidence of prostrate cancer in firemen. It took a dedicated non-scientist wife to prove it was absolutely true the whole time. Something to do with asbestos in the uniform crotch. Painful to read, right, for a scientist? But totally true. And now accepted as a fact.[/quote

PFAS (not asbestos)

[Anonymous]

How come DC takes no responsibility? San Diego has a sound insulation program where they’ll install new windows, doors insulation etc for houses affected by the airport.

Includes air filtration due to the pollution and funded by FAA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just one of the studies, appreciate the read, but please note there are more, including literature reviews, and other countries etc. (it’s a nascent field, because we’ve only been able to measure ultra fines for a few years). My motivation is environmental health — we are finding all these links to things that sicken people slowly to the point where can no longer help. Talk about painful to watch. As long as everyone knew and could asses personal risk.

https://deohs.washington.edu/mov-up

How near to the airport do you have to be? If planes fly high above, you can still hear them, but are you really in danger from these particles, especially in wooded areas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is geography. Nothing can or should be done. Close your windows.

I was in a house that had double pane plus sound blocking window inserts. They said they got 4 hours of sleep a night. Sold and got out

Weird bc the planes don’t fly at night.

I grew up here on the flight path and when I moved back didn’t hesitate to purchase in thr same area. It doesn’t bother me at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another way to ask the question is: is it good for people and children to live under a flight path? Is it the same as not? Who could possibly say yes, and be honest?

Obviously it's terrible, but apparently nobody cares. Would dispersing airline traffic in all directions be better for everyone ultimately as particles won't be concentrated over some areas and not others?

This is a legitimate q; how linear are particular dosage to health effects on a population basis? Also the palisades are the least dense part of DC, so it makes sense to route all traffic over it.

I don't think they route all traffic there. I visit DC frequently and I am around Georgetown/Foggy Bottom/Dupont. It would be unbearable to walk around Georgetown if all the planes were sent along the Potomac towards Palisades. They do however send a lot of planes over NOVA inland from the river. These areas of NOVA are densely populated, not all are SFH areas, many TH and multifamily communities too. I think all these maps with routes are bunk. They just show the paths that exist, not the paths that are highly utilized. and when they are utilized. I don't agree with your comment about routing all the traffic along where the housing is less dense. It's far from rural housing, it's still very dense, and nobody should be bearing all of the traffic anyway. I think dispersing it is the answer. If you don't send airplanes in a line for hours on end over a certain area, then particles there won't be concentrated and will have time to disperse. Having a little bit of traffic wouldn't be as detrimental as having a lot of it, especially given that it's open air and there are breaks in traffic.