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

"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...,4334719.story

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?

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

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...ov19,0,4334719
.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.

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

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...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- 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."

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.

"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...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- 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.

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/...5f?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...9%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.

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...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- 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.