Air Guard Sticking to Its Guns on Basing F-35 in Vermont

1. Well the problem here is that local observers have a choice of either believing the Air force or believing the Vermont Air National Guard. Who do you believe?

2. Recordings in Tucson comparing several samples of audio show the F-35 was an average of 26.4 dB louder than an F-16. Also, the Air Force and Air Guard have already stated the F-35 would potentially use afterburner as objectives and missions dictate. Oddly enough, the FAA, HUD, EPA, Noise Reduction Act of 1972, Quiet Communities Act of 1978 and Air Force Draft Environmental Impact Statement all disagree with your claim that noise is not harmful. The mitigation myth is jut that, a myth. The *only* mitigation option is locating the F-35 elsewhere.

3. It is the very last paragraph that sums it up.

4. So residents can listen to afterburners constantly, or listen to afterburners that are louder 1/20th the amount of the time. Would you rather listen to the F-16’s take off twice a week, or an F-35 take off 5 times a year?
   Also Ma, a quick note… from this article there are an additional 2100 homes that fall with in the zone. To make up the $700 million number at a 42% reduction in property value the average value of affected homes would be $794,000. Clearly, that’s not the case. I’m not going to get back into that set of arguments, they are posted enough, just wanted to make that point as a clarification, and to give you pause about trusting government numbers.

5. “Recordings in Tucson comparing several samples of audio show the F-35
   was an average of 26.4 dB louder than an F-16. Also, the Air Force and
   Air Guard have already stated the F-35 would potentially use afterburner
   as objectives and missions dictate.”
   That is consistent with what was just reported in the article. The F-35 is louder then the F-16 under the same conditions. And the Guard will use afterburners on the F-35 approximately 5% of the time, instead of nearly 100% the time.
   Secondly, They did not say noise wasn’t harmful, they simply disputed what the speakers said the other day, that the noise would be harmful to the residents. The problem is how the argument is framed. Noise above 65 decibels is harmful… is only partially accurate as it only gives you part of the necessary information. Noise from 65 – 85 decibels is harmful IF the exposure is more then 4 hours. Ergo, the planes taking off and landing would not be harmful since the exposure would be relatively minimal. That is the point the Air Guardsman is making.
   To put it in perspective, HUD’s goal is a day/night AVERAGE of 55 decibels, if an F-35 takes off with afterburners everyday (which clearly won’t happen) for a total of 10 minutes at 115 decibels it would increase the noise level average less then 1 decibel, which unless your house already had an average of 54.3 you would still be within the limits.
   Sound level is not really important without an exposure time to go along with it… at least not until 140 decibels.

6. What I’m stating about Afterburner use is that it cannot be reduced to a specific percentage. The Air Guard and Air Force have no idea what orders will come down in the future, except to know that the afterburners can and will be used. Without Afterburners the F-35’s are still 2X louder (what they often refer to as a ‘similar noise level) and 4-6X louder with afterburner according to the aircraft sound profiles and recording samples taken.
   As for your comments on Average dB DNL – your math disagrees with the Air Force reports and FICON (Federal Interagency Commitee on Noise) who determined: “DNL is the 24-hour average sound level in decibels (dB). This average is derived from all aircraft operations during a 24-hour period that represents an airport’s average annual operational day” and I trust they know how to do it better.
   The Air Force reports show the areas that would be in a 65 db DNL or higher zone, according to their own maps, which were converted to a Google Map for easier viewing at http://tinyurl.com/nv884mg . You are simply incorrect about exposure. What you are likely referring to is permanent cellular level damage at high dB exposure levels. Also according to FICON: “The Schultz Curve relates specific DNL levels to the percent of people in a community whom those noise levels highly annoy. The Curve provides a widely accepted dose-response relationship between cumulative environmental noise and a health and welfare parameter, annoyance. Like other Federal agencies that have established Federal land use guidelines for noise, FAA used the Schultz curve, when it designated the DNL 65 dB contour as the cumulative noise exposure level above which residential land uses are not compatible.” The reality is if you visited someone in Winooski for a week, you would likely have no long term effects from that short term exposure. However, exposed to that sound level over time would expose adults to a measurable decay in quality of life (sleepless, awakening, change in mood) and in health (increased risk of heart attack, high blood pressure, myocardial infarction, etc.) when compared to otherwise similar people outside of the 65 dB DNL zones. The results for children add cognitive issues (learning disabilities, hearing loss, attention span) to those suffered by adults.

7. What your stating about afterburner use is you don’t believe what the Air Guard is telling you. Unless you can demonstrate you have ESP then your argument that the after burners maybe used more is irrelevant. The article states the planned uses for the future AND it gives a reason why it will not be used more then that. If you have a reason why it would be necessary to use the afterburners more then that, and would compromise the design and use of the plan I would suggest you contact Lockheed, they would gladly give you a job and a fat paycheck. But since the Air Force is infinitely more knowledgeable about the plane and its intended uses you have to pretty much trust they know what they are talking about. If you don’t, then you also must disregard all information they have provided which you are so heavily relying on for all of your other arguments. You really can’t have it both ways.
   As for the noise levels, you are correct, my statement concerning HUD and noise levels is incorrect. The rest of your spiel is largely irrelevant.
   For argument’s sake, as I am tiring of this one, lets say you are 100% correct. The noise will be awful for the 5-10 times / year they are actually used. Isn’t that still better then the 200-400 times / year the F-16’s take off at a “lower” noise level?

8. 1.
   As the mascot for Vermont’s $1 billion a year Pentagon contract pipeline, the VTANG is obviously under tremendous pressure from Vermont’s military-industrial-real estate leaders to win basing of the boondoggle F-35.
   2.
   That VTANG is promising to reduce noise levels on a plane they have never flown and that is still under development is not remotely
   credible.
   3.
   The Air Force’s unsuitable for residential use map for the F-35 includes thousands of more people, especially in Winooski.
   4.
   That map assumes a very small percentage of afterburner use. Expert Pierre Sprey predicts that this small percentage will actually be much, much larger if and when the F-35 is deployed, further expanding the extreme noise zone.
   5.
   Read the about the basis for the severe health effects here: http://www.stopthef35.com/wp-c…
   6.
   Those wanting to support people over the warplanes that just benefit the military-industrial-real estate complex, and wanting to support a path for the future of our society that doesn’t further commit the economy to weapons that cause violence and destruction at home and abroad should join the big rally in Burlington tomorrow, 2 pm @ City Hall.

9. No – what I’m stating is the Air Guard doesn’t have ESP. For example – when the F-16’s came they didn’t use afterburner more than 5% of the time. Now, due to a modification to outer fuel tanks, they use afterburner 90-95% of the time. The F-35’s are being built while the plans are being modified 200X per month (on average). It’s not outside of reason to believe that they may be modified to a point, or the mission may be modified to a point, where they will require afterburner on takeoff. The Air Force knows this and it’s why the afterburner sound profile must be included in the Draft EIS.
   The rest is only irrelevant to you as you don’t seem interested in the facts behind 65 dB DNL, how it’s computed and the measured effects on people – preferring to grab your own numbers out of the air and not use science.

10. The Air Force included afterburners in the Draft EIS because THEY WILL BE USED. Listen, the plan is for 5% of the time. You can hypothetically guess that they may be used more if you like but it’s just not reasonable. Ultimately you can only base a decision on the here and now, and what’s projected. Regarding the F-35, as one of its major benefits is it’s stealth, if there comes a day when they have to add so much weight to the plan that afterburners become necessary and stealth is no longer a priority then I’m pretty sure noise is going to be the least of anyones concerns.
    That said, I am done talking with you because of this last bit
    “The rest is only irrelevant to you as you don’t seem interested in the
    facts behind 65 dB DNL, how it’s computed and the measured effects on
    people – preferring to grab your own numbers out of the air and not use
    science.”
    You are utterly intent on arguing with someone, and it’s clear you are no longer interested in reading what they write. If you had you would have noticed where I said you were correct and therefore I was wrong. Your explanation was irrelevant because your numbers were right and mine were wrong, I wasn’t arguing with you and as such the explanation wasn’t needed. SO, saying that I don’t seem interested in the facts and prefer to use numbers I grabbed out of the air, after I in fact admitted your numbers were correct just goes to show how much of a closed minded, argumentative fanatic you are. You choose to ignore the question I posed to you, address the discrepancy in the numbers I pointed out that you have posted repeatedly and instead choose to argue over a point I conceded. Since you are so intent on arguing rather then conversing you can go ahead and find someone else to do so with.

11. I have been attempting at having a discussion where I’m clearly stating the facts as reported by the appropriate government agencies.
    I am stating an opinion that the Air Force and Guard are only guessing at the 5% number – but it is not a guess to state that Stealth is a myth. ‘Stealth’ aircraft are detectable by multiple forms of radar. from 1960’s Soviet era ‘Gecko’ units to photon measuring laser radar systems that can detect the displacement of photons from any object.
    Also – your question seemed based on an incorrect assumption. So it seemed irrelevant. I personally have no issues with the F-16 taking off whatsoever and, in my opinion the Air Force can keep those, or aircraft with a similar sound profile, flying in our skies as long as they care to.

12. Tough question, since neither is reliably credible.
    The Air Force is probably more credible more often than the Guard,
    which has such a blatant conflict of interest as well.

13. Does it matter what the F-35-ophiles promise?
    Just get it in writing and make it enforceable
    before the planes show up.

Comments are closed.