Plane noise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

How will they do this? A lot of flight paths are along residential SFH areas where people use their outdoor space and move there specifically to have access to outdoor space. The only answer to this problem is dispersing the traffic in as many directions as possible to create overall low concentration of particles over any specific areas allowing each area to recover air during breaks.

This is not the “only answer.” In fact, it’s not an “answer” at all. Dispersing traffic as you suggest would create unacceptable risk and chaos in the skies. Flight patterns are designed to keep the flying pubic safe.

[Anonymous]

I just bought after months of searching for a quiet street not near any major roadways. Because I wanted to avoid road pollution. Now I realize we have a flight path overhead. We are about 9 miles away from airport. WWYD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For example.
They state that roadway UFPs agglomerate more easily and so might stay in your respiratory tract. Not great. But with jet ones, there’s not time or defenses and so living under a flight path is much much much worse for that reason too. Plus some claim these are so small by the time they get from a jet to one’s airway that they cross bloodstream barrier and even blood brain barrier.

"previous studies suggest smaller pollution particles are more likely to be inhaled and to penetrate the body than larger particles," officials said.

Researchers said other studies have linked the exposure of ultrafine particles to breast cancer, heart disease, prostate cancer and a variety of lung conditions.

I’m PP who just moved to flight path and my neighbor living here since 1996 has aggressive prostrate cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example.
They state that roadway UFPs agglomerate more easily and so might stay in your respiratory tract. Not great. But with jet ones, there’s not time or defenses and so living under a flight path is much much much worse for that reason too. Plus some claim these are so small by the time they get from a jet to one’s airway that they cross bloodstream barrier and even blood brain barrier.

"previous studies suggest smaller pollution particles are more likely to be inhaled and to penetrate the body than larger particles," officials said.

Researchers said other studies have linked the exposure of ultrafine particles to breast cancer, heart disease, prostate cancer and a variety of lung conditions.

You have now typed “prostrate cancer” twice. Take a seat.

Firstly, that’s your take away?! Secondly, it’s a frequent autocorrect. Finally? Not even true. The above is a direct quote from an article summarizing the UWA study.

[Anonymous]

This was a sobering article, directly quoting the Palisades and Bethesda residents (some of whom have since left).

https://wamu.org/story/16/10/26/jet_noise_is_no_joke_for_residents_burned_by_report_on_airport_complaints/

[Anonymous]

So this thread has sent me down a rabbit hole of reading about ultrafine particles, and one conclusion I took away that any risk from them is NOT limited to the areas directly beneath the flight path. Apparently all of West London has a high level of them. They don’t fall straight down. So this would be an issue for everyone in the area.

[Anonymous]

We’ve excluded the Palisades, Foxhall, Kent and Spring Valley. We couldn’t justify the risk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this thread has sent me down a rabbit hole of reading about ultrafine particles, and one conclusion I took away that any risk from them is NOT limited to the areas directly beneath the flight path. Apparently all of West London has a high level of them. They don’t fall straight down. So this would be an issue for everyone in the area.

I agree with that if you are already in the Palisades etc. If not, I think the calculation changes to why one would invest where they have to assume a higher risk?

[Anonymous]

You guys and gals, it’s simple. Just NO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was a sobering article, directly quoting the Palisades and Bethesda residents (some of whom have since left).

https://wamu.org/story/16/10/26/jet_noise_is_no_joke_for_residents_burned_by_report_on_airport_complaints/

The iphone is not a dB meter.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32108336/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

How will they do this? A lot of flight paths are along residential SFH areas where people use their outdoor space and move there specifically to have access to outdoor space. The only answer to this problem is dispersing the traffic in as many directions as possible to create overall low concentration of particles over any specific areas allowing each area to recover air during breaks.

This is not the “only answer.” In fact, it’s not an “answer” at all. Dispersing traffic as you suggest would create unacceptable risk and chaos in the skies. Flight patterns are designed to keep the flying pubic safe.

I was just trying to imagine air traffic controllers trying to manage planes that are flying patterns dispersed “in as many directions as possible.” All while avoiding planes from DCA, Andrews, BWI, the no fly zones, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the only answer is silent, battery powered airplanes.

The issue with this is the fact that there is an amount of thrust provided by the combustion of fuel. It’s not a prohibitive problem but electric engines are not as powerful as combustion engines.

[Anonymous]

I know this issue is a big deal but I struggle with the fact that I know a total DB real estate agent who could never afford to live in any of the impacted areas who always used to make a big deal about it. It was like he was trying to drive down property values. I used to say to him, I am sure it’s an issue but it’s fundamentally an issue for those who live in the flight path(s). He still wanted to talk about it and make it a big deal. I am sure he has posted here. I hope for the best for the people having the problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve done what PP suggested and have hard data. Roughly every 1.5 minutes, breaking 60 and often 70 dB on a workday morning in the Palisades. Absolute disaster. 6-8 planes every 10 minutes

What you can’t hear is the worst. Chronic disease in the making

Oh please, what is your real issue here? I lived in line of sight of National for 15 years. Not once did the noise wake me up, or have any negative effect.

I can tell you things woke me up, the garbage trucks (the worst), the train, but never the planes. You are obviously pushing something here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the only answer is silent, battery powered airplanes.

The issue with this is the fact that there is an amount of thrust provided by the combustion of fuel. It’s not a prohibitive problem but electric engines are not as powerful as combustion engines.

I thought there was a compelling stay-up-in-the-air problem?