G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise

On Nov 20, 10:17*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article ,
*Jim Logajan wrote:





JG wrote:
"UCLA scientists have found that people who live and work near Santa
Monica Airport are exposed to high levels of air pollution -- a
significant health concern that has been largely associated with major
commercial airports such as LAX.

The study appears to be online here (not just the abstract):

http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/...21/es900975f?c...
1

According to it (section 3.3.2) it appears a heavy-duty diesel truck and
a jet taking off yield nearly identical particle concentrations. It would
seem that the neighbors are in the same situation as if they had moved near
a commercial site that had large trucks coming and going and the neigbors
got together to shut down the commercial site.

For comparison, I did a quick search for comparable studies on ultrafine
particle emissions near major roads. I only picked out just one that seemed
comparable (also LA area):

http://sunscreamer.com/publiccomment...02%20%282%29%2...
df

Figure 4(c) (90 m downwind) and 4(f) (300 m upwind) seem to indicate that an
exposure factor about 17 times greater than background (comparing the peaks
in fig 4(c) and 4(f) and dividing: 1.0E5 / 6.0E3) Comparable to the airport
study finding a factor of about 10 for about the same distance from the
source.

As far as I can tell, the numbers seem to indicate that living near a busy
airport is about as dangerous as living near a major highway with respect to
ultrafine particle emissions. It seems that demanding that aircraft takeoffs
be reduced or shut down entirely at an airport would be equivalent to
demanding that the number of vehicles on a major highway be reduced or
shut down. The options to neighbors appears to be roughly the same in
both cases.

Did the study include particulate matter from tire dust that occurs
comes from tires rolling down the freeway? That matter would be minimal
from an airport but available in quantity from freeways.

The whole thing sounds to me like cherry-picked data.

--
Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.

Typical of shills to try and change the subject. I support closing SM
airport.

On Nov 22, 7:50*am, JG wrote:

Typical of shills to try and change the subject. I support closing SM
airport

You would.
Now, about the highway particulate counts?
Which highways do you demand also be closed?

In article
,
JG wrote:

On Nov 20, 10:17*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article ,
*Jim Logajan wrote:

As far as I can tell, the numbers seem to indicate that living near a
busy
airport is about as dangerous as living near a major highway with respect
to
ultrafine particle emissions. It seems that demanding that aircraft
takeoffs
be reduced or shut down entirely at an airport would be equivalent to
demanding that the number of vehicles on a major highway be reduced or
shut down. The options to neighbors appears to be roughly the same in
both cases.

Did the study include particulate matter from tire dust that occurs
comes from tires rolling down the freeway? That matter would be minimal
from an airport but available in quantity from freeways.

The whole thing sounds to me like cherry-picked data.

Typical of shills to try and change the subject.

Subject being inhaled airborne particulates, since when is bringing up
another common major source of them "changing the subject"?

I support closing SM airport.

Of course you do. And any old cudgel will do, whether it makes sense or
not.

Obsessive much?

In article
,
JG wrote:

On Nov 20, 10:17*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article ,
*Jim Logajan wrote:





JG wrote:
"UCLA scientists have found that people who live and work near Santa
Monica Airport are exposed to high levels of air pollution -- a
significant health concern that has been largely associated with major
commercial airports such as LAX.

The study appears to be online here (not just the abstract):

http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/...21/es900975f?c...
1

According to it (section 3.3.2) it appears a heavy-duty diesel truck and
a jet taking off yield nearly identical particle concentrations. It would
seem that the neighbors are in the same situation as if they had moved
near
a commercial site that had large trucks coming and going and the neigbors
got together to shut down the commercial site.

For comparison, I did a quick search for comparable studies on ultrafine
particle emissions near major roads. I only picked out just one that
seemed
comparable (also LA area):

http://sunscreamer.com/publiccomment...02%20%282%29%2...
df

Figure 4(c) (90 m downwind) and 4(f) (300 m upwind) seem to indicate that
an
exposure factor about 17 times greater than background (comparing the
peaks
in fig 4(c) and 4(f) and dividing: 1.0E5 / 6.0E3) Comparable to the
airport
study finding a factor of about 10 for about the same distance from the
source.

As far as I can tell, the numbers seem to indicate that living near a
busy
airport is about as dangerous as living near a major highway with respect
to
ultrafine particle emissions. It seems that demanding that aircraft
takeoffs
be reduced or shut down entirely at an airport would be equivalent to
demanding that the number of vehicles on a major highway be reduced or
shut down. The options to neighbors appears to be roughly the same in
both cases.

Did the study include particulate matter from tire dust that occurs
comes from tires rolling down the freeway? That matter would be minimal
from an airport but available in quantity from freeways.

The whole thing sounds to me like cherry-picked data.

--
Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.

Typical of shills to try and change the subject. I support closing SM
airport.

Of course JG supports closing SMO -- he is an addlepated ignoranus (and
probably a developer, too!)

Of course, the hogs didn't eat him! There some things a hog just refuses
to eat!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.