Which one of you was this? 78% of noise complaints lodged against Reagan Airport were made by one household!

[Anonymous]

Since this is the political forum, should the discussion be on the citizen coalitions and political action?

All of a sudden that astronaut is looking pretty good.

[Anonymous]

Can anybody find any evidence of health issues in the areas affected by the noise? I lookup the Georgetown zip code, 20007, and then looked at the health disparities observed for that area. I didn’t notice much and actually that area seemed to do better for certain metrics, such as cancer..

https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/

[Anonymous]

No kidding, socioeconomic factors and all. Tell you what, they can measure UFPs. Unless DC is the only place where they are magically not right under the flight path in huge concentrations, you are breathing in lots and lots of UFPs. Does that sound good to you?

Again, personal risk assessment. I haven’t seen a longitudinal study showing I shouldn’t breathe in kerosine 24/7, but I’m assuming it’s a really bad idea.

[Anonymous]

And actually, if DC had the political chops they would commission a study from Georgetown or JH. But then the special interests get involved and even if it’s done, it will be set up in such a way that nothing will be found just like with the JH study of the Spring Valley.

So then it’s up to you: live in a toxic dump or under a flight path or don’t? DC is big and most of it is neither.

[Anonymous]

There were over 200,000 complaints in 2022.

[Anonymous]

UMD did a study of living under the BWI flight path but only the noise, not the pollution.

They found a loss of quality adjusted years of life over 30 years to be nearly 20k from health effects of noise alone. And the negative health effects to cost $1.2 billion. From noise alone.

[Anonymous]

Georgetown.edu:

In a study conducted by faculty at the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the British Medical Journal, researchers found that there was a 3.5% increase in cardiovascular hospital admissions for those aged 65 and older, living in and around 89 of the United States busiest airports. The often overlooked 10db increase in noise caused by the departure or arrival of a large commercial aircraft was found to be a significant contributor to these hospital admissions. The demographics of the population included over 6 million people in over 2000 zip codes with the statistics taking into account for those already with ischemic heart disease or other related factors that would contribute to cardiovascular problems. A factor to note was that the higher the airport’s activity, the greater the risk was for cardiovascular hospital admissions for the elderly residents living around those specific airports.

Not even the UFPs just the noise. 3.5% increase is considered a significant risk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roberto Vitori. Former European astronaut. Lived in Georgetown. Filed 6,852 complaints about aircraft noise in one year. 18 per day, everyday, for an entire year.

He’s an Astronaut.

Let that sink in.

Cool he’s an old Nut bag clearly

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t this study just prove that the vast majority of people aren’t bothered by the noise? It’s all a handful of older people with nothing to do.

Imagine if they complained this much about crime..which is an actual issue impacting Bethesda/NWDC residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are studying the exposures. They only discovered UFPs recently. For now, they know it’s worse than exposure to diesel. And for diesel they know that indeed people have had increased morbidity and mortality for decades due to occupational hazards or living next to the highway.

“In a meta-analysis of exposure to diesel exhaust and lung cancer occurrence in three occupational studies, the identified dose-response relationship showed that occupational exposure to 1 μg EC/m3 during a 45 year work life would cause 17 excess lung cancers per 10,000 exposed using the EC content of diesel exhaust as metric [80]. Another recent analysis of 14 case-control studies estimated exposure to diesel exhaust particles using job-exposure matrices. In this study, occupational exposure to 1 μg EC/m3 during a 45 year work life would cause 4 excess lung cancers per 10,000 exposed using the EC content of diesel exhaust as metric.”

I would not take the chance. If my work required the exposure, I would wear a mask (and they do — earmuffs and masks and goggles). Just like I wouldn’t buy a house next to the highway, I wouldn’t buy one under the flight path. How is that confusing?

DP. Definitely calling bullsh!t here[b]. Jet A is essentially highly refined kerosene, with some additives (mostly ethanol and naphtha based) for anti-gelling in cold temps. Diesel is competitively quite dirty compared to regular kerosene, and extremely dirty compared to Jet A. I was in the Army, and many military vehicles have what are called “multi fuel” engines, which can run on diesel, kerosene, Jet A, gasoline, or any combination of any or all of these. We would always try to run our trucks in our motor pool on Jet A, which was always available because the M1A1 uses Jet A. We liked using Jet A because unlike diesel, it gave NO exhaust soot or smoke, and the exhaust was far less stinky than diesel, which was really important because sometimes you’d be parked somewhere all day with the engine and generator running, and you’d be inhaling diluted fumes from the exhaust all day. The diesel was awful compared to Jet A. There’s no friggin way Jet A is more harmful than diesel. Nope. You are never going to convince me of that. It’s quite the opposite. I lived it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two people between averaged more than 9 complaints a day? Who has that kind of time?

That seems like dementia or something similar.

+1.

[Anonymous]

I think you’re being purposefully obtuse and misleading which makes me think you are a real estate agent or someone with a vested interest.

As an easy search or the articles linked here explain, the citizens organized to have a few focal points make the reports. This was a legitimate civic action and organization by honest people despairing over the flight path (or as the Palisades citizen coalition for quiet skies calls it, a “sewer” overhead).

These people are not crazy, obsessed or suffering a mental illness. They are telling the truth and doing a public service. You don’t like it, but the reality is that the properties under the flight path are unlivable now and will become more unlivable as people start to be honest and understand the horrible toll that takes.

Everywhere else in the world such properties are at a 30%-50% discount. In some states, the citizen coalitions admitted the problem and then worked to divert the flight path and in one case the government moved the airport. In one case, the government condemned the houses under the flight path.

In DC, we conveniently forget or deny the obvious. We forgot for close to 50 years that the Spring Valley used to be called Death Valley. We are now denying the thousands of planes per day overhead visible to the naked eye. I think what you’re doing is shameful. But it’s your risk to take although I suspect you’re just earning a commission and not actually having your family live in these neighborhoods.

How can we fix a problem we don’t want to acknowledge exists?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you’re being purposefully obtuse and misleading which makes me think you are a real estate agent or someone with a vested interest.

As an easy search or the articles linked here explain, the citizens organized to have a few focal points make the reports. This was a legitimate civic action and organization by honest people despairing over the flight path (or as the Palisades citizen coalition for quiet skies calls it, a “sewer” overhead).

These people are not crazy, obsessed or suffering a mental illness. They are telling the truth and doing a public service. You don’t like it, but the reality is that the properties under the flight path are unlivable now and will become more unlivable as people start to be honest and understand the horrible toll that takes.

Everywhere else in the world such properties are at a 30%-50% discount. In some states, the citizen coalitions admitted the problem and then worked to divert the flight path and in one case the government moved the airport. In one case, the government condemned the houses under the flight path.

In DC, we conveniently forget or deny the obvious. We forgot for close to 50 years that the Spring Valley used to be called Death Valley. We are now denying the thousands of planes per day overhead visible to the naked eye. I think what you’re doing is shameful. But it’s your risk to take although I suspect you’re just earning a commission and not actually having your family live in these neighborhoods.

How can we fix a problem we don’t want to acknowledge exists?!

The level of hypochondria here is to the moon.

What’s it like to have a life sooooooo awesome and fulfilled that you have to manufacture things to be alarmed about? Like, you’re better off than probably 7.7 billion other people on earth….but you gotta have something to complain about, so you can still be down with the struggle. Rich white people absolutely fascinate me in this regard. I just don’t understand y’all.

SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone remember the person who constantly posted about airplane noise on the Real Estate forum? Maybe they are represented in those statistics.

Maybe you should reread that forum or did the brain damage from the jet fuel micro particles get to you already?

Do you think the particles fall straight down? I'm assuming those particles travel long distances before hitting the ground.

I don’t think anything. I read the science and it says these particles are so dangerous because they are so tiny and pushed down by the forces that have to do with how the jets fly straight into your lungs and organs; the issue is that they are too tiny and pushed down too fast to be addressable in any meaningful way. The articles say you are better off standing in the middle of a highway the whole day and breathing the fumes than living under a flight path.

It’s all laid out if you search for it, including yes on this website. I honestly don’t understand the gaslighting and vitriol of the people who claim the planes aren’t flying over these few neighborhoods in DC low and every minute or so. I understand that your personal risk tolerance is way higher and your personal comfort bar too; but don’t get why you feel the need to so aggressively call everyone else crazy etc? I mean these people protesting the flight paths are objectively right.

Can you define under a flight path? I am assuming if the plane is over your house, their particles don't actually fall on your house. The wind and atmosphere carry them much further, presumably miles away?

It’s under the flight path, not miles around. It’s concentrated and it’s 10 miles w/n the airport up and down under the flight path and the worst where flights are at 3,000 or less which is the river neighborhoods in DC.

Here’s a great presentation. This is all a relatively new science, but seems unequivocal. The only people immune to both the science and the noise are the real estate agents.

https://www.uecna.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/UECNA-UFP-presentation.pdf

When aircraft switch to electrical motors or hydrogen fuel cell motors in the decades ahead, and cease emitting ANY exhaust pollutants AT ALL, what cause will you switch too to oppose airplanes then?

Noise? Probably. Because even electric motors and the propellers driven by them still make noise. And the air flowing around and aircraft and over the wings is actually quite loud as well.

But at least then you’ll have to admit that it was never a pollution issue to begin with. It has everything to do with just wanting to see or hear aircraft all day long.

Which begs the question- the did you move to a place that you KNEW was in the flight path to begin with? The airport is older than most everyone living there. You all made the CHOICE to live there in spite of the planes, because it’s a tony and exclusive place to live. You could’ve lived in lots of places in the DC area that aren’t under the flight paths, but you specifically chose not to. Instead, you moved right under it, knowing it was there, and now you want the airport closed.

Why didn’t you buy a home in PG county? There’s no flight paths like this over there. But nooooooo, you’ve gotta be over in Palisades, because that’s more fitting for someone in your station in life. Barf.

[Anonymous]

Of course it is pollution. Denying it is like denying the climate change. You can, but at your own peril.

The future you’re describing is uncertain and far ahead.

We moved in DC, prohibited air space overhead. That doesn’t mean I don’t care what happens in DC or that a small group is holding up the resolution of this issue due to either willful ignorance, special interests, or both.