‘If you fly you destroy other people’s lives.’

George Monbiot in his book ‘HEAT’ discusses the various issues related to reversing global climate change. One chapter is dedicated to aviation. Monbiot covers the significant issues related to aviation and summarizes his findings with the following statement;

‘If you fly you destroy other people’s lives.’

Read his book and visit www.Monbiot.com for additional subjects.

Boycott Aviation Now

I have followed a learning curve over the past months trying to understand the pending struggle with the aviation industry for the skies and our health. One thing is certain. Aviation is winning and without challenge.

There are many reasons for our complacency in the face of challenges that far exceed those created by other battles for the public good. One recent example was the unregulated tobacco industry. Leveling the playing field regarding the issues of tobacco took several decades and the battle is far from over. Smoking bans in public places is recent for many areas of the country. Smoking was allowed and accepted everywhere as recently as the 1980’s.

People liked to smoke and many remain addicted. Medical doctors endorsed their chosen brands in television ads. Educated people argued against scientific findings that revealed links to cancer and other life threatening maladies. The same rancor currently ensues over the matters of global climate change.

There are many examples of modern cultures blindly consuming and living with products that were later found to be carcinogens. Asbestos was once a modern and benign miracle product. Formaldehyde is another slightly obscure carcinogen that lingers in almost every modern household. Mercury is still pumped into children and forged into cavity ridden teeth.

And we should not forget lead. Much effort was made in the 1970’s and 80’s to rid our culture of this very dangerous element. Except for highly leaded fuel [avgas] that remains the standard fuel for general aviation.

Which brings me back to the subject at hand. What is so exceptional about aviation? Maybe because aircraft manufacturers are a major component of the military industrial complex? Maybe law makers are disproportionately wealthy and thus likely to be pilots or benefit from aviation in special ways? Maybe we all want to be ‘jetsetters’.

I have listened to several interviews of Bill McKibben, climate change environmentalist. Mr. McKibben, bless his heart, always mentions how many miles he’s traveled over recent periods of time. This is from an educated man that understands the ravages of global climate change yet does not sense the incongruency of his beliefs and actions. Maybe he believes his efforts are worth the cost and incongruency. Sounds like exceptionalism to me.

And then there is the culture itself. I recently read a major vacuum cleaner designer / manufacturer makes separate models for America. Know why? The American models are louder because Americans equate noise with power!

How bad is aviation? We know that even low levels of jet noise causes an elevation in blood pressure and hyper tension. We know exhaust from jet engines creates some of the deadliest carcinogens know to science. We know high levels of noise cause aggressive behavior. We know that tiny levels of lead can permanently damage a child’s brain. These are facts.

But what about the large communities in major cities that are blasted day and night by the noise and pollution of aviation. Is it simply a coincidence that areas of significant gang violence in Los Angeles fall beneath the flight patterns of LAX airport. Every major city has a similar relationship. Coincidence? Considering the many know facts related to health issues prompted by aviation can we really believe these are coincidences? Can a civilization afford to overlook these types of coincidences?

Aviation remains basically an unregulated industry with the punitive and well funded arm of the FAA defending and promoting the industry down to the most minuscule facility. Anytime there is a conflict between citizens and aviation there will always be the battle cry; ‘if the peasants cause trouble for aviation the FAA will step in and cancel any advances made.’

There are many examples of aviation exceptionalism. Ground citizens cannot identify individual aircraft as identification is not required to be visible from the ground. Even if you could discern the tail wing ID number FAA considers ownership information to be confidential. Hey, they are part of the military industrial complex, aren’t they?

Helicopters can fly anywhere they want. They can hover right over your house for hours and there is nothing any ground citizen can do.

This is just a small set of justifications for a Boycott Aviation Now effort.

What can be done to support sanity in our skies? We need to communicate with our neighbors, friends and coworkers. We need to write our newspapers and email news programs in an effort to educated a very illiterate public. Everyone needs to know how often aviation is supported by our purchases and decisions and what aviation means to our health and the health of our children.

We need to create a ‘bank’ of basic letters ready for personalizing and forwarding to all that will listen.

We need bumper stickers that say:

Boycott

Aviation

N ow

Santa Monica fights aviation arrogance

A portion of the following letter was forwarded to the Southern California newspaper; The Argonaut. The Argonaut published an article discussing a growing controversy regarding safety and pollution issues surrounding the Santa Monica Airport. The original article can be found here; http://argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2010/07/22/news_-_features/top_stories/2v.txt

More detail regarding leaded aviation fuel can be found here; http://www.sccgov.org/keyboard/attachments/Commission%20Agenda/2010/April%206,%202010/202906098/TMPKeyboard203012296.pdf


Dear Argonaut Editor,

I have read the discussion regarding the Santa Monica Airport controversy. I have much sympathy for the residents of Santa Monica. Unfortunately this is a national / international issue. I offer the following comments:

Comparing the airport to the LA freeways: The freeways benefit millions of citizens every day. The entire economy of Southern California depends on the freeway system with all it’s flaws. The Santa Monica Airport benefits hundreds at the most.

Airport was here first: City planning simply stated often refers to the highest and best use of resources. Orange County would still be farms without a bias to the ‘highest and best’. By the way Orange County gained improvement in quality of life by the closing of a much more important air facility. There comes a time for poor and unappreciated ‘public’ resources to be recycled.

Keep it up and the FAA will step in and nullify ANY regulations the town has passed: The FAA does have this reputation. So did the Minerals Management Service before the Gulf oil spill. When it comes to serving industry instead of the citizens of America, Minerals Management Service is just one recent glaring example of fraud and misuse of authority gone mad. As the nation will one day discover, the FAA is yet another federal agency in the pockets of industry and private profit. The FAA serves aviation without regard for the health and safety of American citizens. Profit and collusion will lead to disaster. Without change of attitude, it’s just a matter of time.

Other matters not yet mentioned in discussions regarding your article include aviation’s use of highly leaded fuel. Following are quotes from a recent Santa Clara Airport Commission report regarding the dangers of lead in aviation fuel:

"…medical research into the effects of lead on children is showing virtually any amount of lead in the blood of a child, or fetus, can result in permanent, measurable, cognitive impairment (brain damage, IQ loss).

"…In addition to causing permanent IQ loss in children, lead in the blood is associated with aggressive, antisocial behavior in children and adults.

"…The first study to follow lead-exposed children from before birth into adulthood has shown that even relatively low levels of lead permanently damage the brain and are linked to higher numbers of arrests, particularly for violent crime.

According to the report, exhaust from one gallon of aviation fuel can measurably lower the IQ of thousands of children. Based on this fact alone how can a civilized society allow this assault on our children?

It’s time for aviation to become a responsible civilized member of society.

Thank you,

Phillip Gilbert
Formerly of Santa Monica and currently fighting arrogant aviation in rural Kentucky.

Women's Issue

How bad is jet noise for humans? A German study comes to some distressing conclusions.

Results of the study, published in January 2010 and commissioned by Germany's Federal Environment Agency, is based on the analysis of data from public health insurers that were drawn from more than 1 million Germans ages 40 and over.

According to Eberhard Greiser, an emeritus professor of epidemiology at Bremen University. "Jet noise is more dangerous than any other kind of road-traffic noise or rail noise because it is especially acute and sharp and it induces stress hormones."

The study indicates men who are exposed to jet noise have a 69% higher risk of being hospitalized for cardiovascular disease. Women living under flight paths fare even worse, logging a 93% higher rate of hospitalization with cardiovascular problems, compared with their counterparts in quiet residential areas. Essentially all Americans live under flight paths! The study found that women who are exposed to jet noise equal to conversational speech during the day are 172% more likely to suffer a stroke.

This is a Women’s issue!

In a separate study it was discovered that women near Cologne-Bonn Airport had an increased risk of developing breast cancer and leukemia. Research found that women who are exposed to 60 decibels [loudness of conversational speech] of jet noise at night are twice as likely to contract breast cancer. "It seems women are more sensitive to jet noise than men, but I would advise everyone to think twice about living near an airport because it's not just aircraft noise which can be deadly; aircraft emissions are also dangerous," says Greiser.

"When it comes to expanding airports, governments and the courts all over the world will have to weigh the benefits of commercial interests against the danger to public health," Greiser says. "How many additional diseases is society prepared to accept?"

Do Americans care?

Complete article can be found here:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1947782,00.html

More Institutional Lying

The United States Congress supports Institutional Lying with it's support of the FAA a prime example. According to a recent PBS report a 1996 change to FAA's charter removed the mandate to promote aviation. A recent post at AviationWatch explains :

The law isn't what it says it is
Posted by: "Howard Beckman" hpb@frys.com
Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:41 am (PDT)


Remember how gratified we were when the Congress did away with the FAA's
"dual mandate" in the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act (Public Law 104-264,
Sec. 401)? The dual mandate to the FAA had been to maintain safety and
"promote aviation". After numerous scandalous disclosures about FAA's
practice of allowing airlines to monitor their own safety practices, the
Congress yanked the "promote aviation" prong. But did it?

Thanks to a documentary aired recently on the PBS Frontline series ("Flying
Cheap"), I learned to my astonishment that, while the cheerleading mandate
was removed from the language of the statutes, it was done with a wink to
insiders. Tucked into the conference report (House Report 104-848) was
language that told another story. Here is the excerpt (I added boldface):

Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference

29. Dual Mandate

House bill

Section 401: Amends sections 40101(d) to make safety and security FAA's
highest priority and to strike promotion language in two other paragraphs.
Amends 40104(a) to strike promotion language.

Senate amendment

Section 407: Amends section 40104 to require FAA to encourage the safety of
air commerce in addition to the development of civil aeronautics.

Conference substitute

Section 401: House changes to section 40101(d) and Senate changes to
section 40104(a). The Managers have adopted provisions from both the House
and Senate bills to clarify that the FAA's highest priority is safety and
security. The managers do not intend for enactment of this provision to
require any changes in the FAA's current organization or functions.
Instead, the provision is intended to address any public perceptions that
might exist that the promotion of air commerce by the FAA could create a
conflict with its safety regulatory mandate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp104:FLD010:@1(hr848)

Institutional Lying at FAA

When it comes to serving industry instead of the citizens of America, Minerals Management Service is just one recent glaring example of fraud and misuse of authority gone mad. This recent revelation is prompted by the Gulf oil disaster. As the nation will one day discover, the FAA is yet another federal agency in the pockets of industry and private profit. The FAA serves the airlines without regard for the health and safety of American citizens. The world be damned.

When I first became alarmed with the massive increase in flights over my Southeastern Kentucky farm I naturally turned to the FAA for information and explanation. They do work for me, don’t they? I am a taxpayer. Sure they do.

I called several times and was put in contact with FAA’s regional manager for this area. I explained the increase in air traffic and noise and asked if this was a temporary change or permanent. This pleasant sounding man took my phone number and said he would call me back with an answer. On my third try to re-connect with the regional manager I finally got through, by accident I do believe.

I reintroduced myself and he informed me that there were no flights over my area. And even if there were I wouldn’t be able to hear them. I was a bit surprised with his response. Why would a big bad federal agency need to lie to me? At that time I was estimating about 1600 flights per day starting about 5:30AM and finally stopping about 2:00AM.

A political friend contacted a member of the House of Representatives who was told the same lie by the FAA: there are no flights over this area.

I contacted others at the FAA and was always handled in a friendly manner and always told that I would receive a return call with an answer. One lady said this would be easily answered. And she would get back to me soon. No call was forthcoming. Others were jovial and said that there were 1600 flights over many areas of the United States. One jovial gentleman called back in a very somber manner and reiterated; ‘there are no flights over your area.’

I was experiencing Institutional Lying! But why? Why even go to the trouble to lie to one little citizen?

The aviation industry is treated very favorably. No excise tax on fuel. Any complaint goes through a federal agency that acts to protect the industry. Airports, navigation systems, air traffic controllers, TSA, security equipment and personnel, and other massive support functions are primarily paid for with taxpayer dollars. In Kentucky there are over 100 general aviation airports all presumably receiving tax dollars. And for all this investment of tax dollars I am the recipient of Institutional Lying.

As Vance Morrow stated in a 2001 Time Magazine editorial:

Eventually, the FAA will be forced to abandon its disgracefully intimate collusion with the aviation industry.

The original article can be found here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,108904,00.html

More Aviation PR [aka BS]

Climate Progress ran an article about future fuel efficient aircraft from a study by M.I.T. Below is my response to their article. By the way Climate Progress is a great blog dealing with the issues of climate change. Check it out at www.climateprogress.org



I am surprised Climate Progress would give voice to aviation’s future. The aviation industry maintains a hold on the imagination of the modern public. The term ‘jet setter’ will cause most people to become glassy eyed. A very powerful addiction indeed.

Our addiction to the aviation industry is very similar to tobacco addiction in the 1950 - 60’s. We wanted to believe in the goodness of participation. Smart and good people believed in the merits of tobacco, supported of course by high quality tobacco industry PR. Medical doctors advertised their choice of smokes. This Climate Progress piece is aviation PR. Sierra Club and Metropolis magazines have recently fallen for the same PR [aka BS]. How many ways will aviation meet the challenges of global climate change? Biofuels? Lighter weight? These are subject to debate. Should we be air shipping flowers half way around the globe? Does aviation really contribute to the loss of Arctic ice? These are questions that need scientific answers before promotion of future comforts.

Aviation is a very dirty industry. Jets are blast furnaces over our collective heads burning a low grade kerosene in tremendous quantities. General aviation still runs on highly leaded fuels.

The flying public is a very small group within the Human community. Big carbon footprint / small population. This small community reaps the benefits while the rest of the world suffers from the results of this ‘special’ benefit.

While some express concern about the carbon footprint they leave by flying, they attempt to assuage their respective consciences by offering to plant trees to compensate. While a nice gesture, planting trees in no way reverses the damage to millions of people’s health and happiness.

There are many industries contributing to the destruction of our environment for profit. Time is short. Environmentalists and Scientists everywhere must be clear and stand up to these threats, no matter how important to our lifestyle.