Biofuels for the Manifest Destiny Crowd

How special is aviation in America? The federal government through the USDA is working on a plan, subsidized by the US taxpayer to create biofuels for the aviation industry. ‘Farm to Fly’ is the supporting lymric. Biofuels have been largely discredited for various reasons, not the least is the intensive use of petro fuels and chemicals to produce this misnamed product.

Recently we saw the beginnings of food riots in Mexico and other countries when a similar biofuels effort drove up the cost of corn. Wait until starving people realize the limited availability of food is caused by the production of aviation fuel for privileged members of the manifest destiny crowd.

Other issues to consider? How about the increase in petro chemicals into our water sheds thus increasing the impact of a growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Scientists say the farming areas of the mid west are headed to a resurgent dust bowl of unprecedented magnitude. At least us chosen people will be able to fly into the dusty sunset.

More detail regarding this news can be found here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AviationWatch/message/21266;_ylc=X3oDMTJwNWtxazVpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzY1OTg0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2NDE3NwRtc2dJZAMyMTI2NgRzZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMjg4MDA1NDIz

Again, Aircraft Noise Associated with Mortality

Once again a medical study has shown that aircraft noise causes serious health problems. As aviation noise becomes louder the incident of heart attack increases.

In science speak the conclusion indicates:

Aircraft noise was associated with mortality from myocardial infarction, with a dose-response relationship for level and duration of exposure. The association does not appear to be explained by exposure to particulate matter air pollution, education, or socioeconomic status of the municipality.

The complete study results can be found here:

http://journals.lww.com/epidem/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2010&issue=11000&article=00013&type=abstract

‘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)