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...ir19-2009nov19,...
.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