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

[JG]

"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, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle emissions
were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of the
runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were 2.5
times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.
....
Officials for the Federal Aviation Administration said that air
traffic control at Santa Monica has taken several steps to limit
emissions from taxiing and departing aircraft. They include
positioning planes so their exhaust is directed away from
neighborhoods and instructing pilots not to start their engines until
five or 10 minutes before they are cleared for takeoff.

But Martin Rubin, a community activist involved in airport issues,
disputes the effectiveness of those procedures. Aircraft are still
idling for up to 30 minutes, back to back, he said, and wind can send
emissions into neighborhoods despite a plane's position on the
runway."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-santa-monica-air19-2009nov19,0,4334719.story

[Jim Logajan]

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 word "poison" doesn't appear anywhere in the article.

> The study, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle emissions
> were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of the
> runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were 2.5
> times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.

Why didn't the study compare these levels with being 300 feet downwind of
an LA freeway?

> But Martin Rubin, a community activist involved in airport issues,

So which was there first - Martin Rubin and the people in the community or
the airport?

[george]

On Nov 20, 1:56 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:

> So which was there first - Martin Rubin and the people in the community or
> the airport?

My guess would be the Airport with the current complainers recent
arrivals on the scene having bought cheap land -because- it is near
the Airfield

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
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, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle emissions
> were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of the
> runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were 2.5
> times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.
> ...
> Officials for the Federal Aviation Administration said that air
> traffic control at Santa Monica has taken several steps to limit
> emissions from taxiing and departing aircraft. They include
> positioning planes so their exhaust is directed away from
> neighborhoods and instructing pilots not to start their engines until
> five or 10 minutes before they are cleared for takeoff.
>
> But Martin Rubin, a community activist involved in airport issues,
> disputes the effectiveness of those procedures. Aircraft are still
> idling for up to 30 minutes, back to back, he said, and wind can send
> emissions into neighborhoods despite a plane's position on the
> runway."
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-santa-monica-air19-2009nov19,0,4334719
> .story

Now, just how many planes are "idling for up to 30 minutes, back to
back" at SMO? Does he have any idea how much jet fuel that consumes, or
what "idling for up to 30 minutes" would do to a regular piston GA
engine? Clearly, Mr. Rubin is talking through his hat.

IMHO, Mr. Rubin probably is exposed to more air pollution from
recreational drugs than from SMO.

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

[george]

On Nov 20, 5:38*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *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, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle emissions
> > were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of the
> > runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were 2.5
> > times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.
> > ...
> > Officials for the Federal Aviation Administration said that air
> > traffic control at Santa Monica has taken several steps to limit
> > emissions from taxiing and departing aircraft. They include
> > positioning planes so their exhaust is directed away from
> > neighborhoods and instructing pilots not to start their engines until
> > five or 10 minutes before they are cleared for takeoff.
>
> > But Martin Rubin, a community activist involved in airport issues,
> > disputes the effectiveness of those procedures. Aircraft are still
> > idling for up to 30 minutes, back to back, he said, and wind can send
> > emissions into neighborhoods despite a plane's position on the
> > runway."
>
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-santa-monica-air19-2009nov19,...
> > .story
>
> Now, just how many planes are "idling for up to 30 minutes, back to
> back" at SMO? Does he have any idea how much jet fuel that consumes, or
> what "idling for up to 30 minutes" would do to a regular piston GA
> engine? Clearly, Mr. Rubin is talking through his hat.
>
> IMHO, Mr. Rubin probably is exposed to more air pollution from
> recreational drugs than from SMO.
>
You'd imagine that all that airmass getting shoved about by the
propellers and jeteflux would keep the air movements in the area over
and above that of that over a highway for example :-)
His claims are based more upon a lack of education than overuse of
recreational drugs

[JG]

On Nov 20, 1:27*pm, george > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:38*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *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, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle emissions
> > > were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of the
> > > runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were 2.5
> > > times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.
> > > ...
> > > Officials for the Federal Aviation Administration said that air
> > > traffic control at Santa Monica has taken several steps to limit
> > > emissions from taxiing and departing aircraft. They include
> > > positioning planes so their exhaust is directed away from
> > > neighborhoods and instructing pilots not to start their engines until
> > > five or 10 minutes before they are cleared for takeoff.
>
> > > But Martin Rubin, a community activist involved in airport issues,
> > > disputes the effectiveness of those procedures. Aircraft are still
> > > idling for up to 30 minutes, back to back, he said, and wind can send
> > > emissions into neighborhoods despite a plane's position on the
> > > runway."
>
> > >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-santa-monica-air19-2009nov19,....
> > > .story
>
> > Now, just how many planes are "idling for up to 30 minutes, back to
> > back" at SMO? Does he have any idea how much jet fuel that consumes, or
> > what "idling for up to 30 minutes" would do to a regular piston GA
> > engine? Clearly, Mr. Rubin is talking through his hat.
>
> > IMHO, Mr. Rubin probably is exposed to more air pollution from
> > recreational drugs than from SMO.
>
> You'd imagine that all that airmass getting shoved about by the
> propellers and jeteflux would keep the air movements in the area over
> and above that of that over a highway for example :-)
> His claims are based more upon a lack of education than overuse of
> recreational drugs- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Once again I'll stick with UCLA scientists vs. GA shills, but thanks
for playing.

"The study, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle
emissions were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of
the runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were
2.5 times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.

A tiny fraction of the width of a human hair, ultrafine particles can
travel deep into the lungs, penetrate tissue and even travel to the
brain. Studies show that elevated exposure to the particles presents a
health risk for children, older adults, and people with respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases."

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article
>,
JG > wrote:
>
> Once again I'll stick with UCLA scientists

Scientists-for-hire are a dime a dozen. Sometimes literally.

> vs. GA shills, but thanks for playing.
>
> "The study, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle
> emissions were 10 times higher than normal

Define "normal".

Compare it with levels for drivers stuck in daily commute traffic in the
L.A. basin.

> about 300 feet downwind of
> the runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were
> 2.5 times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.
>
> A tiny fraction of the width of a human hair, ultrafine particles can
> travel deep into the lungs, penetrate tissue and even travel to the
> brain. Studies show that elevated exposure to the particles presents a
> health risk for children, older adults, and people with respiratory
> and cardiovascular diseases."

The which has been known for the better part of 60 years. Emissions from
GA aircraft are neither something new, nor a significant fraction of
total manmade particulate emissions, not even in the L.A. area.

Once again, how about those commute hours?

Mr. Rubin can go on at length, but that's his job; his employers should
expect no less.

[Aluckyguess[_5_]]

"JG" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 1:27 pm, george > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > 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, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle emissions
> > > were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of the
> > > runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were 2.5
> > > times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.
> > > ...
> > > Officials for the Federal Aviation Administration said that air
> > > traffic control at Santa Monica has taken several steps to limit
> > > emissions from taxiing and departing aircraft. They include
> > > positioning planes so their exhaust is directed away from
> > > neighborhoods and instructing pilots not to start their engines until
> > > five or 10 minutes before they are cleared for takeoff.
>
> > > But Martin Rubin, a community activist involved in airport issues,
> > > disputes the effectiveness of those procedures. Aircraft are still
> > > idling for up to 30 minutes, back to back, he said, and wind can send
> > > emissions into neighborhoods despite a plane's position on the
> > > runway."
>
> > >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-santa-monica-air19-2009nov19,...
> > > .story
>
> > Now, just how many planes are "idling for up to 30 minutes, back to
> > back" at SMO? Does he have any idea how much jet fuel that consumes, or
> > what "idling for up to 30 minutes" would do to a regular piston GA
> > engine? Clearly, Mr. Rubin is talking through his hat.
>
> > IMHO, Mr. Rubin probably is exposed to more air pollution from
> > recreational drugs than from SMO.
>
> You'd imagine that all that airmass getting shoved about by the
> propellers and jeteflux would keep the air movements in the area over
> and above that of that over a highway for example :-)
> His claims are based more upon a lack of education than overuse of
> recreational drugs- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Once again I'll stick with UCLA scientists vs. GA shills, but thanks
for playing.

"The study, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle
emissions were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of
the runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were
2.5 times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.

A tiny fraction of the width of a human hair, ultrafine particles can
travel deep into the lungs, penetrate tissue and even travel to the
brain. Studies show that elevated exposure to the particles presents a
health risk for children, older adults, and people with respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases."

If they dont like move the airport was there fist.

[Jim Logajan]

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/presspac/full/10.1021/es900975f?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/Documents/Zhu%202002%20%282%29%20405Fwy.pdf

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.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
JG > wrote:

> On Nov 20, 1:27*pm, george > wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 5:38*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > > >,
> >
> > > *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, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle emissions
> > > > were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of the
> > > > runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were 2.5
> > > > times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.
> > > > ...
> > > > Officials for the Federal Aviation Administration said that air
> > > > traffic control at Santa Monica has taken several steps to limit
> > > > emissions from taxiing and departing aircraft. They include
> > > > positioning planes so their exhaust is directed away from
> > > > neighborhoods and instructing pilots not to start their engines until
> > > > five or 10 minutes before they are cleared for takeoff.
> >
> > > > But Martin Rubin, a community activist involved in airport issues,
> > > > disputes the effectiveness of those procedures. Aircraft are still
> > > > idling for up to 30 minutes, back to back, he said, and wind can send
> > > > emissions into neighborhoods despite a plane's position on the
> > > > runway."
> >
> > > >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-santa-monica-air19-2009nov19,...
> > > > .story
> >
> > > Now, just how many planes are "idling for up to 30 minutes, back to
> > > back" at SMO? Does he have any idea how much jet fuel that consumes, or
> > > what "idling for up to 30 minutes" would do to a regular piston GA
> > > engine? Clearly, Mr. Rubin is talking through his hat.
> >
> > > IMHO, Mr. Rubin probably is exposed to more air pollution from
> > > recreational drugs than from SMO.
> >
> > You'd imagine that all that airmass getting shoved about by the
> > propellers and jeteflux would keep the air movements in the area over
> > and above that of that over a highway for example :-)
> > His claims are based more upon a lack of education than overuse of
> > recreational drugs- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Once again I'll stick with UCLA scientists vs. GA shills, but thanks
> for playing.
>
> "The study, released Wednesday, shows that ultrafine particle
> emissions were 10 times higher than normal about 300 feet downwind of
> the runway's east end, where takeoffs generally start. The levels were
> 2.5 times higher than normal at a distance of about 2,000 feet.
>
> A tiny fraction of the width of a human hair, ultrafine particles can
> travel deep into the lungs, penetrate tissue and even travel to the
> brain. Studies show that elevated exposure to the particles presents a
> health risk for children, older adults, and people with respiratory
> and cardiovascular diseases."

I hadn't seen JG's postings for such a long time that I thought that he
had fallen into the slop and the hogs ate him! I am truly disappointed.

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

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

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/presspac/full/10.1021/es900975f?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/Documents/Zhu%202002%20%282%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.

[JG]

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/presspac/full/10.1021/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/Documents/Zhu%202002%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.

[george]

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?

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

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?

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

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/presspac/full/10.1021/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/Documents/Zhu%202002%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.

[spanky]

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-me-santa-monica-air19-2009nov19,...

[JG]

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.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

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.