If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise
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/...75f?cookieSet= 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...%29%20405Fwy.p 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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise
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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise
Jim Logajan writes:
Why didn't the study compare these levels with being 300 feet downwind of an LA freeway? Because everyone drives on the freeways, whereas hardly anyone is a pilot, and the objective is to eliminate the airport and turn over the valuable real estate to developers. So which was there first - Martin Rubin and the people in the community or the airport? It's not a matter of how is first, but of who has the best (read: most expensive) lawyers. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise
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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise
On Nov 19, 5:35*pm, JG wrote:
.....well, let's see. about 300 feet from the east end of 21 at samo, there are two gas stations, one of which is probably where they took the measurements. go about 2000 feet northeast of the runway, and you have interstate 10, which starts to bottle up most days right around samo because it ends and/or becomes the PCH in a couple miles; go one mile straight down the approach path to the runway, and you have one of the more notorious highway interchanges in california: the 10/405, where it is not uncommon for cars (and large trucks) to sit idling for a good bit more than 30 minutes, after having navigated the sepulveda pass from the getty on down to the interchange itself at about 3 mph. oh, and by the way: when you're holding for departure at samo, your exhaust is pointed AWAY from the houses and apartments. then there's bundy drive, ocean park blvd. and national blvd, all of which are heavily travelled day and night. think any of those might contribute to local pollution? having lived near (and worked at) smo the la times article in question is yet another attempt to boost lagging subscription and readership by pandering to potential customers with utter nonsense like this. for example, over the course of four years i never, ever, saw anyone hold for longer than five minutes, and that was on a day like, for example, today, when everyone and their brother is beating feet to grandma's house. bottom line, smo goes away, and property values increase exponentially, and this article is nothing more than an attempt to help make that happen. interesting that in the somewhat less pricey westchester neighborhood abutting (as in .4 miles from) 24R (the northernmost runway) at lax you don't get this kind of crap coverage in the l.a.t.. and there it is NOT uncommon to see a line of ten or twelve 747-400s, airbus 340s and other oceanic hardware holding for an hour, with all four turning. been there, done that (as a pax). at this point, sadly, the l.a.t. is good for finding out what britney's been up to, paper training your puppy and lining your bird cage. for anything approaching "real" journalism, the weekly star or national inquirer is a far better bet. as for ucla scientists and the studies their students (actually) do, it'd be interesting to see how many of them live in... santa monica. just my $.02 worth. "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. ....snip the usual nimby b.s. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ir19-2009nov19,... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise
On Nov 25, 10:33 am, spanky wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:35 pm, JG wrote: ....well, let's see. about 300 feet from the east end of 21 at samo, there are two gas stations, one of which is probably where they took the measurements. go about 2000 feet northeast of the runway, and you have interstate 10, which starts to bottle up most days right around samo because it ends and/or becomes the PCH in a couple miles; go one mile straight down the approach path to the runway, and you have one of the more notorious highway interchanges in california: the 10/405, where it is not uncommon for cars (and large trucks) to sit idling for a good bit more than 30 minutes, after having navigated the sepulveda pass from the getty on down to the interchange itself at about 3 mph. oh, and by the way: when you're holding for departure at samo, your exhaust is pointed AWAY from the houses and apartments. The prevailing wind is from the WEST so all the exhaust crosses BUNDY and heads into the houses. bundy drive, ocean park blvd. and national blvd, all of which are heavily travelled day and night. think any of those might contribute to local pollution? Typical of GA shills to change the subject or attack the sources. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
G.A. Fumes Poison Neighbors...No Surprise
In article
, JG wrote: On Nov 25, 10:33 am, spanky wrote: On Nov 19, 5:35 pm, JG wrote: ....well, let's see. about 300 feet from the east end of 21 at samo, there are two gas stations, one of which is probably where they took the measurements. go about 2000 feet northeast of the runway, and you have interstate 10, which starts to bottle up most days right around samo because it ends and/or becomes the PCH in a couple miles; go one mile straight down the approach path to the runway, and you have one of the more notorious highway interchanges in california: the 10/405, where it is not uncommon for cars (and large trucks) to sit idling for a good bit more than 30 minutes, after having navigated the sepulveda pass from the getty on down to the interchange itself at about 3 mph. oh, and by the way: when you're holding for departure at samo, your exhaust is pointed AWAY from the houses and apartments. The prevailing wind is from the WEST so all the exhaust crosses BUNDY and heads into the houses. bundy drive, ocean park blvd. and national blvd, all of which are heavily travelled day and night. think any of those might contribute to local pollution? Typical of GA shills to change the subject or attack the sources. Well, if the subject is bull**** and the sources are corrupt -- or at least highly suspect, they are fair game. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
U.S.A.F. - C.A.P. take note from our Canadian neighbors | karen[_2_] | Soaring | 1 | September 28th 09 01:20 AM |
Welding and fumes | Michael Horowitz | Home Built | 2 | August 19th 09 04:05 PM |
pick your poison on tow | [email protected] | Soaring | 8 | April 1st 06 07:42 AM |
Cape Cod Airport Neighbors Sign On!!! | Skylune | Piloting | 26 | December 7th 05 05:07 PM |
YF-23 re-emerges for surprise bid | noname | Military Aviation | 8 | July 21st 04 12:40 PM |