Debate over the F-35 has been dominated in recent weeks by the plane’s opponents. But supporters of basing the fighter jets at Burlington International Airport went on the offensive Wednesday.
Their tactics did not prove as creative or as colorful as the opposition’s deafening F-35 noise simulation and the fudge-gifting event staged at Sen. Patrick Leahy’s downtown office. The organizer and two prominent backers of the Green Ribbons for the F-35 campaign held a traditional press conference at the Main Street headquarters of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce.
The pro-F-35 speakers nevertheless made controversial claims that were met with skepticism from some of the reporters in attendance.
Chamber president Tom Torti argued, for example, that there’s no validity to the case against the plane on the basis of the noise it makes. “We believe that’s a red herring,” he declared.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“The pro-F-35 speakers nevertheless made controversial claims that were met with skepticism from some of the reporters in attendance.”
Which particular “claims” did the reporters greet with skepticism? Are those reporters trained in disciplines like audiology, engineering, medicine? And did those same reporters greet the claims and tactics of the anti-F35 with skepticism as well? Gee, I don’t remember reading a word about any reporters greeting any of the claims of the protesters with any skepticism. I don’t remember reading that any reporter expressed “skepticism” at the obviously unscientific, unreliable nature of Chris Hurd’s noise stunt. And I don’t remember reading that any reporters asked any of the anti-F35 people: 1) who conducted the cited studies about noise and children? 2) who sponsored the studies? and 3) whether the studies were published in creditable, peer-reviewed medical journals? Did those reporters just accept and report the claims being made about those studies and their conclusions? Why is the reportorial skepticism one-sided?
Sounds like some of these reporters are biased against the planes. Should they be reporting on this issue?
Mr. Hoo again fails to understand the issues related to the F-35. Here’s the most interesting fact of all. Mr. Hoo , LCRCC, GBIC, Ms Citro and all the F-35 supporters never quote the draft Environmental Impact Statement or any other scientific study. On-the-other-hand, the opponents of the F-35 always provide direct quotes from the Air Force’s dEIS or clearly state what studies they are quoting. It certainly appears that the supporters of the F-35 simply do not believe the Air Force and are not interested in solid international research. Strange!
Sutton Hoo wrote “Which particular “claims” did the reporters greet with skepticism? Are those reporters trained in disciplines like audiology, engineering, medicine?”
Umm… Is Chamber President Tom Torti trained in disciplines like audiology, engineering, medicine? After all, he’s the one claiming to know what the effects will be, and dismissing a 2011 United Nations study, which I guarantee you was done by people trained in disciplines like audiology, engineering, medicine.
“She declined to divulge the cost or the sources of money for the Green Ribbons postcard campaign. “It’s not pertinent to what’s going on,” Citro said.” Actually, it is very relevant.
A more truthful answer would be “Revealing who pays for the Green Ribbon Campaign would discredit the image we want to project that this is a grassroots effort.” If GBIC members and other corporations are providing $100,000s or more, then that would explain the lies on the post card–such as the F-16 sounds like the F-35. (Reporters would be skeptical of this claim since the Air Force says that the the F-35 is 2 to 4 times as loud on take off and landing.) The wealthy F-35 boosters like Pomerleau and some GBIC members certainly stand to economically benefit from the war plane basing and the continual flow of Pentagon contracts to Vermont. That is relevant.
http://7d.blogs.com/offmessage…
Dr. Reuwer is quoted here as giving an outrageous opinion, and no one in the media even questions it.
Dr. Szilva cites unnamed “studies” and no in the media asks what they are.
The anti side is engaging in rhetoric, hyperbole, and questionable tactics to justify its NIMBYism and the media is critiquing only the pro side.
The supposed ‘Red Herring’ of sound is directly from the Air Force report that makes the statement ‘incompatible for residential use’ for up to 7,700 people. If the Air Force and FAA got that wrong – then what else might they have erred on? The only reason people seem to be ‘hitting this hard’ is that the largest investment many of these people have made is in their home – which (again according to the Air Force report) will lose up to 42% of it’s value. Apparently the Air Force just hates itself and ‘the sound of freedom.’
If an EIS were required of just regular daily life in Winooski or any city — which it’s not — you’d find that any densely populated urban environment is already “incompatible with residential use” due to cars, roadwork, construction, commercial activity, blaring speakers, sirens, etc. It’s a constant cacophony, a constant, loud cacophony.
Not to mention the constant, loud, private noise we all voluntarily subject ourselves and our children to daily: loud TVs, loud stereos, loud movies, loud concerts, video games, air travel, fireworks, carnivals and fairs, earbuds with music so loud that other people can hear it. On and on and on it goes. This is all daily and all constant, and undoubtedly much worse for you than a few minutes a week of jet noise. People who are objecting to the jet noise in isolation are fools or hypocrites.
Don’t want noise? Move to the country.
Sure – let’s relocate Winooski because headphones can be loud too. There’s a huge difference between a jet measured at 131 dB (2-6X louder than the F-16) and fireworks. First of all, fireworks and sirens and an idiot cranking up their headphones don’t require a EIS (and you would think you might wonder why) because they won’t reduce the property value of the most densely populated area in VT up to 42% because ‘sound of freedom’ and crash zones. Listening to music won’t put ‘up to 7,700 people’* (*actually up to 8,915 total) in an area called ‘incompatible for residential use’. There are laws and policies there to make the F-35 issue a non-issue – but money and politics wants to pillage your neighbors and you want to hand them the keys. To put this in perspective – the blithering idiots in congress understood the harm from noise and officially acted on it over 40 years ago (requiring an EIS and making policies about noise) – but people who don’t like it should ‘just move’. So where in the state should we make this magical move to since Winooski has a population larger than about 233 of the 255 towns in VT and one of the highest concentrations of affordable housing in Chittenden County?
You leap to the assumption that a few seconds of really loud noise is worse than sustained exposure to loud noise. Why?
And an EIS is required because the basing of the jets is a federal action. Just like an EIS was required for the Circ, which was to be a federally-funded highway. An EIS is required for every federal action that has an environmental impact — the EIS in this case wasn’t conducted only because of noise. If something similar to an EIS was required for, say, the locating of a municipal fire station, or 4th of July fireworks, they wouldn’t pass muster, either.
No – I make no assumptions about the sound – I quite understand the levels of sound that are harmful. There are sound levels that can cause permanent cellular level damage and there are the seemingly lower level – yet still harmful sounds – that can cause health issues only with long term exposure.
The difference is that you can choose to attend a Fireworks show close up or turn up your music – neither one will raise the sound at or above 65 dB DNL in your neighborhood – unless the sound system is quite large, or the fireworks displays are occurring once a day. The EIS is required because it is a change that affects a residential area with substantially more noise. A new high speed rail system or significant change to an existing rail system would trigger the same EIS process – based upon provisions in the Noise Reduction Act of 1972, Quiet Communities Act of 1978 and HUD standards for residential areas.
You are, however, quite mistaken as to the average levels of sound that busy ‘rush hour’ traffic @ 70dB (@3 feet in NYC), sirens 120 dB (@ 3 feet) and other day to day noises – like a lawnmower 106 dB (@ 3 feet). Noise from those sounds diminishes dramatically even a few feet away. It’s different here as the F-35 was measured at 131 dB flying *500 feet above ground level* – nearly 30 dB more than an F-16’s 104 dB at the same altitude. In other words the F-35 500 feet overhead is as loud as a jackhammer 3 feet from you, while an F-16 500 feet up is equivalent to your lawnmower. Both are loud, but one is absolutely more damaging than the other. Just for fairness, were you to light your typical Firework 3 feet from your face the sound would be measured at 150 dB.
My point. All the people who are complaining about the jet sound are willingly exposing themselves to harmful noise on a daily basis.
Now that’s a huge leap to an assumption! I don’t willfully place my head near fireworks, jackhammers, loud music, sirens, etc. I can’t think of any neighbors that do either – but here’s one huge difference. Willfully placing yourself near something that’s mildly loud is very different than a government organization forcing 8,915 locals exposure to sound that is known to be damaging – in contrast to known government health standards & Air Force protocols – removing the choice and having a significant impact on the health and financial well being of the area.
“I don’t willfully place my head near fireworks, jackhammers, loud music, sirens, etc.”
Not true. If you choose to live in an urban environment, you do exactly that. You choose to expose yourself to a constant barrage of very loud noise.
And even if you live in a suburban and rural environment and you put in earbuds and listen to music or watch loud TV or do a thousand other things we do everyday — or allow your kids to do so — you’re voluntarily harming yourself.
First – it’s not OK to expose people to damaging noise simply because they have neighbors. I don’t voluntarily harm myself – pity you seem to believe all should be forced into submission from damaging sound levels just because you choose to ‘watch TV loud’. Personal choice goes both ways – while you choose to turn your TV up I can make other choices. I wear earplugs when I’m operating machinery or attending concerts – and shouldn’t have to wear them inside my house or in my backyard.
Second – you display a fundamental misunderstanding of how sound works. Sound drops by a measurable amount (about 6 dB or 2-3 X quieter) with a doubling of distance. For an F-35 measured at 131 dB 500 feet away, you need to be 1,000 feet away for the sound to drop to 124 dB. An F-35 at even 5,000 feet is still substantially louder at 103 dB than a lawnmower would be at just six feet away (88 dB). Things like Lawnmowers, sirens and traffic are also on the ground. The ground itself, any object on the ground, and any organic material (grass or trees) will block and diffuse the sound. However, when something is overhead in the air – that is not the case.
” I wear earplugs when I’m operating machinery or attending concerts”
You go to concerts? Oh, my! You’re harming yourself!
And you allegedly wear earplugs? So why go at all?
Earplugs, since you aren’t aware, can be purchased that allow normal speech to pass right through and block out damaging levels (under about 120 dB). I can go to a concert, still have normal conversations and not have any ringing or discomfort and – as a result – minimize or eliminate the sounds I’m exposing myself to. I usually go because it’s a great time – why else would anyone go to a concert?
You probably don’t though since you want to avoid all that loud racket from the jackhammers and sirens every ten feet here in the big city.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct: I do try to avoid exposing myself to loud noises.
Unlike the people who are hypocritically complaining about the F35s.
Care to cite any examples of this ‘hypocrisy’ in Winooski?
Care to prove to me that Winooski-ites all wear earplugs all day and night, stay in their homes, don’t hear car horns, car alarms, sirens, and jackhammers, don’t put iPod earbuds in their ears and crank the tunes, don’t listen to loud stereos, don’t go to the movies, don’t go to concerts, don’t play video games, don’t do any air travel, don’t watch fireworks, and don’t go to carnivals and fairs and fun parks?
Seems like you need to get a dictionary – and spend some time in Winooski. Preferably on a Monday when the Air guard doesn’t normally schedule training flights. You might be surprised at what you find in each.
Seems like you need to spend some time in Reality, not Politicallycorrectia, Delusiana, Antimiliteria, or Nimbyana. You might be surprised what you find there.
Based of the factual statements in my responses above – it’s plain to see I spend my time in reality and let facts guide my judgement of situations. By the responses you make it’s clear that you live in the land of ignorance (in the age of information no less). Not a bad place, especially because it’s so close to reality you can visit
Whatever you say! You’re right and those who disagree are wrong! Must be nice! And you say you live in Reality!
Ok think this conversation has gone about as far as it can go, thanks everyone.