This particular study explains the (LFN) impact which we have had from reports in the Beaufort area : Vibrations/rattling from jet noise within our homes have been reported as broken china, a clock falling off the wall, liquid "dancing" in a pitcher.
It also explains why those living in near take-off rolls and landings may experience more annoying noise as well as why LFN travels further.
The study suggests a change/enhancement in FAA's noise impact modeling to better identify LF aircraft noise.
Main index: http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/about/index.html
Decibel Exposure Time Guidelines (How loud is too loud?): http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
Topics on Hearing Research: http://www.hei.org/
The effects of noise on the unborn and on infants: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/4/724.full
July 27, 2015 -- Truth Out
Dahr Jamail | Sounds of War: Navy Warplanes Producing Deadly Noise Around US Bases
Read more: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32045-sounds-of-war-navy-warplanes-producing-deadly-noise-around-us-bases#
August 25, 2013 -- The New York Times
A Rumble in the Sky, and Grumbles Below
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/nyregion/planes-roar-from-above-creates-a-rumble-on-the-ground.html?hp
August 24, 2013 -- The New York Times
I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/im-thinking-please-be-quiet.html?_r=1&
February 2013 -- A report produced by the Stop-the-F35 Coalition, Vermont
The Threat to Public Health from the Proposed F-35 Basing at Burlington International Airport"Current scientific consensus confirms that health effects of aviation noise, in both children and adults, are far more severe than the Air Force acknowledges."
Read more: http://www.stopthef35.com/sites/default/files/F-35%20Health%20Report.pdf
March 2007 -- Southern Medical Journal
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
"Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Environmental noise consists of all the unwanted sounds in our communities except that which originates in the workplace. Environmental noise pollution, a form of air pollution, is a threat to health and well-being. It is more severe and widespread than ever before, and it will continue to increase in magnitude and severity because of population growth, urbanization, and the associated growth in the use of increasingly powerful, varied, and highly mobile sources of noise. It will also continue to grow because of sustained growth in highway, rail, and air traffic, which remain major sources of environmental noise. The potential health effects of noise pollution are numerous, pervasive, persistent, and medically and socially significant. Noise produces direct and cumulative adverse effects that impair health and that degrade residential, social, working, and learning environments with corresponding real (economic) and intangible (well-being) losses. It interferes with sleep, concentration, communication, and recreation. The aim of enlightened governmental controls should be to protect citizens from the adverse effects of airborne pollution, including those produced by noise. People have the right to choose the nature of their acoustical environment; it should not be imposed by others.
* Noise pollution is a growing problem that remains unaddressed.
* Society now ignores noise the way it ignored the use of tobacco products in the 1950s.
* Until people at all levels recognize the inherent dangers of noise pollution, nothing will change. In our view, health professionals will have to lead the way in this effort."
Read more: http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Fulltext/2007/03000/Noise_Pollution__A_Modern_Plague.16.aspx
March 23, 2012 -- The Wall Street Journal
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Unsafe
Noise is one of the great neglected health hazards of our time—the secondhand smoke of our ears.
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577297582674911356.html?mod=djemLifeStyle_h
MIT paper by Ian A. Waitz, Stephen P. Lukachko, and Joosung J. Lee
Military Aviation and the Environment: Historical Trends and Comparison to Civil Aviation
Although the data in a 1960-2000 abstract paper conducted by MIT Professors, Ian A. Waitz, Stephen P. Lukachko and Joosung J. Lee, on "Military Aviation and the Environment" is 12 years ago, it gives a good idea as to the air and noise pollution of the F-18s we are now experiencing and an idea of how the F-35Bs and the 2 new Navy Squadrons will effect Beaufort County and the City of Beaufort. "...Noise is likely to be the most important of all adverse aspects of the community environment" per a table published by the professors. They describe 75 dBs (DNL)as creating a very severe community reaction but we have been recording 85 to 95 dBa on a consistent basis with readings as high as 114dBA ....."High temperatures and pressure of military engines are the most difficult of local air quality to control...All emissions occur below 3000 ft. altitude....Therefore, the local air quality impact around any one base may be expected to increase as new aircraft such as the Joint Strike Fighter are introduced to the fleet. This is a particularly important issue for the military with respect to the community requirements of the CAA (Clean Air Act)."
Read the paper in its entirety at:
NYC TV broadcast of Aircraft Noise in Bedford-Stuyvesant
"Some Bedford-Stuyvesant residents say constant noise from commercial airlines flying above is making it impossible to rest in one's own home, or even open a window."
Neighborhoods around and in Beaufort, SC, are reporting more noise than Brooklyn, NY!
Read more: http://www.prospectparkquietskies.org/watch-the-movie.html
May 27, 2011 -- dailybreeze.com
Wyle involved in military jet 'noise exposure' studies
"Wyle's work predicted "noise exposure" from the F-35 to assess potential impacts on nearby communities, such as speech interference, sleep disturbance and human hearing loss."
April 12, 2011 -- The Australian
Noise triggers legal bid to down jet fighter
"Mr Gavagna told The Australian that according to the RAAF's data, the JSF was likely to be 2 1/2 times noisier than the RAAF's Super Hornet fighter-bombers now operating from Williamtown. That would be loud enough to deafen anyone close to the aircraft, he said."
"For the technical experts, Mr Gavagna said the RAAF suggested the JSF would emit approximately 96 decibels."
Docs Say F-35B Too Hot, Noisy
By Colin Clark Wednesday, April 14th, 2010 3:44 pm
Posted in Air, International, Naval, Policy on dodbuzz.com
UPDATED: Lockheed Says Test Data “Out of Date;” Hill Aide Responds
When the Marine Corps commandant says equipment he is buying for his people works and is safe, we listen. So when Gen. James Conway told us the vertical takeoff version of the Joint Strike Fighter was not too hot to damage carriers or amphibious ships and was not too loud to harm crews or communities, we listened. So did some folks on Capitol Hill and they questioned whether the Marine leadership was singing too sweet a song.
Testing documents obtained by DoD Buzz, said by congressional sources to be the most recent available, raise serious questions about the effects of heat and noise from the F-35B on pilots and ships’ crews, on ship decks and on critical flight equipment.
For example, an operational assessment of the JSF says that heat from the STOVL version may result in “severe F-35 operating restrictions and or costly facility upgrades, repairs or both.” The OT-IID report says “thermal management” will “increase the number of sorties required to prepare an operational unit for deployment during summer months” at most American bases. Overall, it rates basing as red: “unlikely to meet criteria — significant shortfall.”
Another document, a briefing chart rating the plane’s systems, rates as “red” flight operations noise “below deck and island structure” and “on the flight.” Direct exhaust “deck personnel burns” are rated red, as is “personnel blow down” and “off-gassing.” On top of that, the non-skid coating is rated red, as is the impact of the plane’s power systems on “spotting” and the plane’s outwash “on spotting of adjacent aircraft.”
A congressional aide was biting in his reaction to Conway’s assurances that the plane was marginally hotter than the AV-8B Harrier and about as loud as existing planes.
“AV-8B and F-35B temperatures might be the same, but so far they haven’t shown anyone their data; plus, you have to look at it from the perspective of total kinetic energy of the engine thrust. AV-8B has a thrust rating of 23,000lbs, whereas an F-35B thrust rating is 41,000lbs. He’s comparing a cigar torch lighter to a blow torch. Additionally, he’s got other thermal issues he needs to worry about as well, like overheating avionics and cockpit temperatures,” the aide said.
The testing report says that “continued cycling” of the engine for carrier takeoff raises “serious issues” because a pilot’s backup oxygen supply is depleted when the integrated power package (IPP) is disengaged to give the plane more thrust. Cutting off the IPP also means there is “potential that overheating of the radar and avionics may result.” On top of all that, temperatures inside the cockpit on the ground and in low altitude, high-speed fly “will be high,” more than 90 degrees even during a day when the mercury hits 59 degrees outside. That could “hamper pilot performance” during such missions.
The congressional aide then went on to noise. “As for the noise issue, the concern is not in the aircraft flying pattern, the noise concern is for those onboard ship, both above and below deck that are going to have issues. If none of this is a concern, why is the risk matrix still red after developmental testing mitigations are removed?” the aide asked.
We showed the documents to Winslow Wheeler, a top defense analyst at Washington’s Center for Defense Information. “The documentation makes extremely clear that the Navy and Marine Corps know they have a problem on their hands. But they don’t know the dimension of the problem and they don’t know how to address it. But the problem is very clear,” he said.
Lockheed Martin spokesman John Kent responded to the story this morning, saying, without providing any documentation, that the documents “cited in your story are out of date and incorrect.The information presented in those documents was based on worst-case analysis before extensive testing of the actual F-35B aircraft was conducted during January through March 2010. Results of the aircraft testing show that the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of AV-8B is very small and is not expected to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”
Kent also said that the “noise data is wrong.” He cited testing conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory in October 2008. However, that data pertains to the F-35A. That version of the plane was “found to be comparable to that of other high-performance jets — louder than some, quieter than others.”
We showed the Lockheed comments to a congressional aide familiar with the data and the reaction was pointed, and skeptical: “Temperature may be the same, but at what force over time is the temperature being applied to the flight deck material and surfaces? The ‘extensive test results’ have not been provided to date. However, if that’s the case, then why was all the modeling and simulation of forecasted heating effects contained in the material incorrect, and why is the risk chart mostly red? Why is the test community very concerned about it in their [annual test] report? Why is the Naval Facilities Engineering Command concerned about it in how they build the VSTOL landing pads? What’s the temperature difference between AV-8B and V-22 engine exhaust, and why does V-22 require special landing mats aboard ship? Why does the Navy plan to not allow the Marine Corps to land F-35B aircraft on aircraft carriers?”
As to noise levels, the congressional aide noted that the “test report was dated September 2009; the briefing was dated April 2009. If the test community was convinced by the April briefing, they wouldn’t have included the concern in their September 2009 report. ”
Hopefully, we will get more details from Lockheed or the JPO. Those who know can provide data to us without any fingerprints.
The congressional staff who spoke said they were concerned that the Marines are unwilling to address what could be fundamental problems for the fifth-generation STOVL plane and, one said, “are purposely disingenuous in their misrepresentation of facts.”
Tuesday Dec 15, 2009
Living under a flight path can seriously damage your health. German researchers have discovered that people who are exposed to jet noise have a substantially increased risk of stroke, high blood pressure and heart disease. The findings are bound to provide further ammunition to anti-airport campaigners and make uncomfortable reading for world leaders at this week's climate summit in Copenhagen.
According to the unpublished study, commissioned by Germany's Federal Environment Agency, 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. The study found that women who are exposed to jet noise (of about 60 decibels) during the day are 172% more likely to suffer a stroke. (See the top 10 science stories of 2009.)
The report, due to be published in January (2010), is based on the analysis of data from public health insurers that were drawn from more than 1 million Germans ages 40 and over who live near Cologne-Bonn Airport in western Germany. "These figures are worrying. It's quite clear that living near an airport is very dangerous for your health," says 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."
People living close to Cologne-Bonn Airport also tended to suffer from psychological illnesses. "There was a higher incidence of depression among women who live near the airport," says Jens Ortscheid of the Federal Environment Agency. "This report should come as a warning signal to all governments and authorities that are planning to expand airports — there are serious health effects which need to be considered." Ortscheid says the report is in line with previous studies on the health effects of jet noise. (See pictures of a village fighting Heathrow's expansion.)
In a separate study commissioned by the local Bonn authorities, Greiser discovered that women near Cologne-Bonn Airport had an increased risk of developing breast cancer and leukemia. His research found that women who are exposed to 60 decibels 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.
That's not what the proponents of schemes to expand airport capacity wish to hear. In the U.K., the government faces strong opposition to its plans to build a third runway and sixth terminal at the congested Heathrow Airport in London. In February, campaigners are set to mount a legal challenge against the scheme in London's high court, saying the consultation process was flawed and the plans could prevent Britain from meeting its commitments to lower carbon emissions. (See "Heathrow's Expansion: A New Kind of Blitz in England.")
German authorities face similar obstacles in their struggle to win consent to boost the capacity of airports in Berlin and Frankfurt. The expansion of Schönefeld Airport, in the southern outskirts of Berlin, has already drawn fire from environmental campaigners and residents who are demanding a ban on night flights. The new international airport — called Berlin Brandenburg — Willy Brandt, after the former German Chancellor — is due to be completed by October 2011 and will be the capital city's main hub, catering up to 27 million passengers. That means over two years, hospitals near the new airport can expect a rise of about 5,000 patients suffering from cardiovascular disease, including 1,350 men and women with a stroke, if Greiser's predictions are accurate.
Plans to expand Frankfurt's airport are also controversial. In August, a court in the state of Hesse gave a green light for the expansion of the airport but recommended imposing tougher restrictions on nighttime flights to protect residents from aircraft noise. The German airliner Lufthansa has launched legal action against the night-flight curbs, saying they threaten its freight business. But the local Green Party has renewed its calls for an outright ban on night flights, and the legal battle is set to drag on. (See the top 10 green ideas of 2009.)
"The new airport at Schönefeld is crucial for the Berlin economy, as it'll provide up to 40,000 new jobs," Ralf Kunkel, a spokesman for Berlin Airports' Authority, tells TIME. "By closing all the inner-city airports in Berlin, we are relieving tens of thousands of Berliners from the perils of aircraft noise, and so there's a positive ecological balance," he says. (See the Year in Pictures 2009.)
Greiser is convinced his report provides unequivocal evidence of the health risks associated with jet noise. "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," he says. "How many additional diseases is society prepared to accept?"
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1947782,00.html# ixzz0yJ982W8r
Naval Research Advisory Committee, Report on Jet Engine Noise Reduction, April 2009, definitely read pages 8 and 49:
Letter to the editor: F-35Bs will be more than twice as loud