At the end of a two-hour conversation on the F-35, headlined by two Vermont business leaders, a public interest lawyer and the retired Air Force colonel who has led the opposition to basing the aircraft in South Burlington, many of the basic facts remained in dispute.
For example, Tom Torti, Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce president, argued to about 300 people gathered in the recital hall at St. Michael’s College that F-35s will be less noisy on takeoff than the F-16s they are expected to replace. But Col. Rosanne Greco, who chairs the South Burlington City Council, cited the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. Air Force to show that thousands of households would experience increased noise effects that could affect property values and potentially make them “unsuitable for residential use.”
Greater Burlington Industrial Corp. President Frank Cioffi suggested that up to 1,100 jobs sustained by the presence of the Vermont National Guard would be threatened if 18 to 24 of the joint strike fighters are not based at the Burlington International Airport. However, Greco pointed out that other future missions are possible, no senior official has suggested the National Guard station will be phased out, and the arrival of F-35s may not even mean more jobs.
The fourth member of the panel, Jim Dumont, a Vermont lawyer for more than three decades, posed a series of questions to supporters of basing the planes in Vermont, including whether they believe the EIS is wrong. He asked Cioffi whether GBIC will retract a study Dumont described as “inaccurate.”
The GBIC study, released in July, says that property values surrounding the airport have held steady compared to trends across Chittenden County. At that time, Cioffi expressed confidence that housing values would not be adversely affected by F-35 noise. During the same month, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce launched a statewide petition in support of bringing the F-35 to Vermont.
Five locations are currently being considered, but Burlington’s airport is one of two “preferred alternatives.” The other is Hill Air Force Base in Utah, an Air Force command center. Modifications to the Burlington airport would cost $4.6 million, while changes at Hill are estimated at $40 million.
According to the Air Force analysis, quoted extensively by Greco on Wednesday, between 1,820 and 2,863 households could be affected by the increased noise from the aircraft. The EIS concluded that “the number of complaints received by the installation and level of annoyance experienced by underlying communities and residents would likely increase.”
Under socioeconomics, the EIS concluded that if 18 jets are bedded in Burlington there will be no impact on “regional employment, income, or the regional housing market.” However, the arrival of 24 planes might lead to 266 more military jobs.
Greco challenged the jobs assumption, citing a statement by Maj. Gen. Michael Dubie, former adjutant general of the Vermont National Guard, that maintenance jobs might actually be lost. Most of the 266 jobs cited in the EIS would be filled by people transferred from other bases, Greco added.
The EIS also discusses “environmental justice,” a reference to the disproportionate number of low-income and minority residents living in areas that would experience the greatest noise impacts. Seven neighborhoods and two churches, as well as the Chamberlain School and St. Michael’s College, would experience “incompatible land uses for residential purposes.”
The St. Michael’s event, which began as a debate between the four speakers and became a forum for public comments and questions in its second hour, was organized by an F-35 committee at the college. Many of the arguments reprised statements made during an Air Force public hearing in May.
Greco spent most of her first 10 minutes quoting from the EIS, concluding that its findings indicate “relocation is the only alternative” for thousands of people. She pointed specifically to the impacts of high background noise on the ability of children to learn.
Torti mentioned his past support for unions and opposition to the war in Vietnam when he was in college, but he argued that the evening’s discussion was “not a forum to question the military” or “a place for histrionics and diatribes.” On the other hand, he called the arguments of F-35 opponents “red herrings,” “not true,” and taken out of context.
“Logic and common sense tells me we live in a loud, cacophonous world,” Torti said, “a society of noise.” At full power the F-35 is less noisy than a rock concert and only slightly louder than a football game, he contended. The noise will not “hurt kids,” he promised, and “24 minutes a week of inconvenience is a small price to pay for the men and women who protect our country.” The 24-minute figure is based on an estimated six minutes of take-off noise four days a week.
Torti cited support for basing the F-35s in Burlington from the entire Vermont congressional delegation, as well as Gov. Peter Shumlin and Mayor Miro Weinberger. “Bernie (Sanders) has vetted this project. I vote with Bernie,” he said.
Dumont followed Torti with his five key questions. The first was whether the millions of dollars provided by the Federal Aviation Administration to purchase homes near the airport, primarily because of excessive noise, represent “a massive fraud.”
Homeowners are on a waiting list to sell, he noted. Displaying enlargements of various documents, Dumont also revealed a recent email exchange between airport personnel suggesting that home buyouts triggered by the arrival of F-35s could take up to 20 years.
And what will Winooski be like when all the affected homes are bought? Dumont asked. The attorney projected that 78 percent of the tiny city’s residential units could be impacted.
Cioffi delivered the last statement before the discussion opened up. “For GBIC, it’s a question of economics,” he explained, citing a series of statistics familiar to those who have followed the debate – 1,100 jobs “provided by the Air Guard,” $55 million in payroll, and $2.4 million in support of fire and safety services.
“Without the F-35, there is no apparent other mission,” he said. The presence of the plane, on the other hand,“will secure the Air Guard for 40 to 50 years.”
Like Torti, he stressed that airport noise has been significant for decades, yet has not hurt Winooski’s development or property values. “We’re talking about six minutes a day” of noise, he summed up, versus more than a thousand jobs.
During the exchanges following the formal remarks, Greco challenged Torti’s noise level comparisons and recommended that judgments should be based on research, studies and data rather than subjective perceptions. She also pointed out that the F-16 may not be phased out for as much as 20 years. In the meantime, “other possible missions” may be assigned to the Vermont National Guard.
Torti repeatedly insisted that the F-35 will produce less noise. “That’s a fact,” he declared, at one point advising hecklers in the audience to “chill out.” He also asserted that the entire congressional delegation has expressed concerns about the future of the Air Guard if the F-35 is not deployed to Vermont.
Protesters voiced their disappointment with Vermont’s leaders’ drive to bring the F-35 to the state at a Democratic Party fundraiser in July. VTD File Photo/Taylor Dobbs
Challenged about precisely when Sens. Sanders and Patrick Leahy, along with Rep. Peter Welch have expressed this concern, Torti bristled and replied, “Call them. They’ll give you the answer.”
In a statement released Thursday, the day after the meeting, Sanders said, “I’m deeply concerned about the possible loss of many hundreds of jobs in Vermont if the current aging fleet of F-16s is phased out and not replaced here by an advanced fighter jet.
Sanders acknowledged the worries of those who would be affected by the noise.
“Along with other members of the congressional delegation,” he said, “I pledge to do all that I can to see that the Vermont National Guard works closely with its airport neighbors to mitigate noise and other environmental concerns.”
David Ross, a Vietnam-era veteran in the audience, attempted to broaden the discussion by calling the F-35 a deep penetration, first-strike weapon. “Are 1,100 jobs worth more death?” he asked.
In response, Cioffi suggested a personal preference for different military priorities, but added, “If the F-35 is included in the budget, then we want the men and women on Vermont to have the best equipment.” Several Guard members also weighed in, one suggesting that Vermont’s 158th fighter wing “deserves” the new aircraft because of its exemplary record.
Addressing F-35 opponents in the hall, Cioffi finished up by saying, “I get it. You’re concerned about the unknown.” To reassure them he expressed his trust that the Vermont Guard will be honest in working with communities and strive to“ mitigate impacts.”
In his final comment, Dumont argued that the two supporters of the F-35 had not produced “a shred of evidence that says not basing them here will affect jobs.”
Torti said he “would rather fight poverty and disease.” But he thinks how to spend federal money is a political decision beyond his control. “If the plane is going to be built, then I want our soldiers to have the best,” Torti said.
The noise produced by this and other aircraft “stinks,” he added, “but it’s been a reality for a while.”
Greco got the last word. “Plenty of other bases” would be preferable to Burlington, she argued, and “we can oppose a weapons system and still be a friend of the military.”
She reiterated that no senior military official has actually said publicly that the future of the Vermont Guard operation is in jeopardy, but she acknowledged that it could be smaller in 20 years. The number of future jobs will depend on many variables, she explained.
“The planes can go elsewhere,” Greco concluded. “People cannot.”
This story was updated on Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012, at 9:30 p.m. with parts of statement released by Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterating his support of the Air Force housing the F-35s at the Burlington airport.
Permalink |
Wow, an entire article about noise and no math or science!
Sound intensity is defined as the sound power per unit area. The usual context is the measurement of sound intensity in the air at a listener’s location.
We usually measure sound intensity using the decibel scale.
You can Google the terms sound intensity and decibel and learn a lot in 20-30 minutes.
After you have the basics down, track down the F-35 EIS in question and go to the back where the data tables are. Read down the tables to see the transient noise levels for F-35 (measured in those pesky decibels). Take-off is the noisiest: it take 10 times the engine thrust power to take off than it does to land.
You are looking for transient sound intensity values which are a function of noise level, background noise, distance to the acoustic sensor (your ear) and many other factors.
Another way to do this is to book a flight to Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. Rent a car and drive to one of the residential neighborhoods outside the fenceline on either side of Runway 10L – 28R (the southernmost E-W runway) and hang around for a few hours.
The F-35 noise at Burlington will sound like the sound of stone skipping over a pond in comparison.
Permalink |
Here is some info regarding the noise.
Low frequency noise, 20-200 Hz, and infrasound, 0-20 Hz, are the most health-damaging; they prevent children from learning, deprive people of restful sleep.
The Air Force is refusing to do some landings, take-offs and maneuvers near the airport to demonstrate to the people within about a mile of the runway that all is OK and there is nothing to worry about….
Europe is requiring that commercial planes are designed to be quieter. Boeing and Airbus are bragging about how much quieter their planes are, and here comes along the Air Force and make things worse. Insanity run amok.
This is not about defending the US. This is about federal money coming to Vermont to fund operations and maintenance jobs in the Greater Burlington Area. That is why government leaders Leahy, Sanders, Welch, etc., are for it.
Those planes need not be in Burlington, Vermont, to defend the US. They should be in forward bases, such as northern Maine, to defend the US from any enemy fighters coming from Europe.
Typical rural nighttime ambient noise is 20-40 dBA and urban residential nighttime noise is 58-62 dBA. Higher noise levels adversely impact restful sleep of people; restful sleep is a basic requirement for good mental and physical health.
Doubling the sound pressure level, SPL, increases the dB instrument reading by 6 dB.
For example: If at 800 uPa (micropascal) the SPL = 20 log (800/20) = 32 dB, at 1600 uPa it is 38 dB, and at 3200 uPa it is 44 dB, where 20 micropascal is the lowest SPL the human ear can sense, it is used as the reference pressure.
http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/soundpropagation.html
The increase in SPL = 115 dBA (F-35) – 94 dBA (F-16) = 21 dBA. This appears to be an innocent number, but it is anything but.
A 6 dBA increase means a doubling of SPL
A 12 dBA increase means a quadrupling of SPL
An 18 dBA increase means 8 times SPL
24 dBA is 16 times; 30 dBA is 32 times; 36 dBA is 64 times; 42 dBA is 128 times, 48 dBA is 256 times, 54 dBA is 512 times.
A nighttime fly-over of an F-35 would have a 115 dBA – 60 dBA (nighttime residential) = 55 dBA greater sound; such a sound increase is sure to wake up everyone, except the dead.
A nighttime fly-over of an F-16 would have a 94 dBA – 60 dBA (nighttime residential) = 34 dBA greater sound; residents near the end of the runway are barely tolerating such a sound increase.
The F-35 sound will be 21 dBA greater than of the F-16, which will be perceived by residents as being about 7-10 times louder.
http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/17/leas-burlington-free-press-got-it-right-on-f-35-sound-level/
http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/19/undecided-on-f-35s-two-communities-want-more-questions-answered/#comment-36539
Permalink |
Pete,
“The F-35 noise at Burlington will sound like the sound of stone skipping over a pond in comparison.”
Your conclusion appears to be based not on math and science, but on something else.
I was at the end of a runway with F-16s taking off and the wave of noise is EAR-HURTING LOUD, i.e., well above 110 dBA.
Here is some math and science:
A nighttime fly-over of an F-35 would have a 115 dBA – 60 dBA (recommended nighttime residential) = 55 dBA greater sound; such a sound increase is sure to wake up everyone, except the dead.
A nighttime fly-over of an F-16 would have a 94 dBA – 60 dBA (recommended nighttime residential) = 34 dBA greater sound;
- residents near the end of the runway are barely tolerating such a sound increase.
- many houses have been bought by the city and the people relocated.
The F-35 sound will be 21 dBA greater than of the F-16, which will be perceived by residents as being about 7-10 times louder. See below table.
A 6 dBA increase means a doubling of sound pressure level, SPL
A 12 dBA increase means a quadrupling of SPL
An 18 dBA increase means 8 times SPL
24 dBA is 16 times; 30 dBA is 32 times; 36 dBA is 64 times; 42 dBA is 128 times, 48 dBA is 256 times, 54 dBA is 512 times.
For further information, please read this article:
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
Permalink |
I understand that after attending last night’s meeting John MacGovern, Republican candidate for US Senate, held a press conference today opposing the F-35′s.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/2012/10/18/macgovern-doesn-want-planes-airport/HAXoeVriLLKlHmioG85lON/story.html
Permalink |
Jessica,
Here is Sanders’ take:
“The F-35, whether one may like it or not, is the plane of choice not only for the U.S. Air Force, but for the Navy, Marines and much of NATO,” Sanders said in a statement issued by his Washington office. “If the F-35 ends up not being located here, it will end up at a National Guard base in Florida or South Carolina. I would rather it be here.”
This an inappropriate statement not addressing the issues raised by the people near the airport.
A much larger area and many more households (about 2,400, according to an Air Force study, equivalent to about 7,000 people) will be adversely impacted and disrupted by the noise of the F-35 because it is MUCH LOUDER than the F-16.
How much louder is explained below:
http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/17/leas-burlington-free-press-got-it-right-on-f-35-sound-level/
http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/19/undecided-on-f-35s-two-communities-want-more-questions-answered/#comment-36539
The Air Force is refusing to do some landings, take-offs and maneuvers near the airport to demonstrate to the people within about a mile of the runway that all is OK and there is nothing to worry about….
Europe is requiring that commercial planes are designed to be quieter. Boeing and Airbus are bragging about how much quieter their planes are, and here comes along Bernie, et al, and the Air Force and make matters worse. Insanity run amok.
This is not about defending the US. This is about federal money coming to Vermont to fund operations and maintenance jobs in the Greater Burlington Area. That is why government leaders Leahy, Sanders, Welch, Weinberg, Shumlin, etc., are for it.
Those planes should not be in Burlington, Vermont, to defend the US. They should be in forward bases, such as northern Maine, to defend the US from any enemy fighters coming from Europe.
The cost of relocating these families into new housing would be about $200,000/house, including moving expenses, or about $480 million. During the period up to their relocation (many years of waiting time) their lives would be miserable. Does Bernie really care for these people, or is it just a front to get reelected?
Typical rural nighttime ambient noise is 20-40 dBA and urban residential nighttime noise is 58-62 dBA. Higher noise levels adversely impact restful sleep of people; restful sleep is a basic requirement for good mental and physical health.
Doubling the sound pressure level, SPL, increases the dB instrument reading by 6 dB.
For example: If at 800 uPa (micropascal) the SPL = 20 log (800/20) = 32 dB, at 1600 uPa it is 38 dB, and at 3200 uPa it is 44 dB, where 20 micropascal is the lowest SPL the human ear can sense, it is used as the reference pressure.
http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/soundpropagation.html
The increase in SPL = 115 dBA (F-35) – 94 dBA (F-16) = 21 dBA. This appears to be an innocent number, but it is anything but.
A 6 dBA increase means a doubling of SPL
A 12 dBA increase means a quadrupling of SPL
An 18 dBA increase means 8 times SPL
24 dBA is 16 times; 30 dBA is 32 times; 36 dBA is 64 times; 42 dBA is 128 times, 48 dBA is 256 times, 54 dBA is 512 times.
A nighttime take-off/fly-over of an F-35 would have a 115 dBA – 60 dBA (recommended nighttime residential) = 55 dBA greater sound; such a sound increase is sure to wake up everyone, except the dead.
A nighttime take-off/fly-over of an F-16 would have a 94 dBA – 60 dBA (recommended nighttime residential) = 34 dBA greater sound.
- many residents near the end of the runway are barely tolerating such a sound increase,
- many residents already had their houses bought by the City.
The noise of the F-35 will be 21 dBA greater than of the F-16, which will be perceived by residents as being about 7-10 times LOUDER.
Permalink |
What we heard on Wednesday evening at Saint Michaels College boils down to who you want to believe and trust. The representatives of the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation repeatedly said believe and trust Senators Leahy and Sanders, Congressman Welch, and Governor Shumlin as they have carefully reviewed all aspects of the F-35 and they support the plane coming to Vermont. The opponents of the F-35 coming to Burlington cited in great detail the Air Force’s draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS). They suggested we should trust and believe that the Air Force knew what they were doing when they set forth a long list of facts in the dEIS. Who should we believe? Who should we trust? Should we believe and trust the political rhetoric of our politicians or should we believe and trust the facts set forth by the Air Force in the dEIS? The question is not about noise, not about real estate values, not about supporting VTANG, it is about whom do we trust and believe, the Air Force or the politicians?
Permalink |
George Cross has it right. Bernie’s argument is with the Air Force.
The FAA manual on airport noise says that noise reduction insulation is acceptable for schools and churches but not for residential. The only solution for residential is to demolish homes in the noise zone. This explains why the airport is spending $40 million to purchase and demolish 200 homes in South Burlington. Bernie’s statement says that by working closely with neighbors the Guard can mitigate the noise. Despite working closely the Guard was obviously not able to mitigate the F-16 noise to save those affordable homes. In fact, the Guard substantially increased noise level. Here is why: metal fatigue analysis showed that adding weight to the wings would extend plane lifetime. Thus the wing-mounted fuel tanks. Adding external fuel tanks required more power on takeoff. Thus, the afterburner and increased noise. Thus, the guard demonstrated what “working closely with neighbors” really means.
The Air Force Times reported on September 19 that the Air Force will be upgrading the F-16-C fleet so it will remain in service past 2030. Bernie wants Burlington to be first to get the F-35 but he does not explain why Burlington has to be first when the F-16-C will be upgraded and will remain in service for a long time.
The Air Force reports that other missions for the Vermont Air National Guard are available. Bernie says not. Does Bernie know more than the Air Force about whether other missions are available?
A closer look at the 1100 jobs: The Air Force draft EIS states that 730 of them are “traditional guardsman” who generally hold fulltime jobs outside the Air National Guard and train only one weekend a month and two additional weeks per year. Information in the draft EIS indicates that these traditional guardsman are paid an average of only $3787 per year for their service. Supporting the Vermont guard is one thing. Overstating the worst-case economic effect is another.
Bernie’s argument is with the Air Force, the Guard, and with the FAA.
Permalink |
Tom Torti and Frank Cioffi remind me of something the muckraker and writer Upton Sinclair once observed: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Permalink |
War and killing should not be a jobs program. There are some things that are even more important than the economy – the lives of those we kill.
Vermont R/Ds never met a weapon system they didn’t like… except for one republican.