The Adverse Health Impacts of
Airport Expansion with
Particular Reference to Sea-Tac International
Airport
THE ADVERSE HEALTH IMPACTS OF AIRPORT EXPANSION
WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO
SEA-TAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
From the Health Subcommittee of the Environmental Impact
Committee of the Regional Coalition on Airport Affairs
Prepared by:
D. Dennis Hansen, M.D.
Lee A. Sanders M.D., Ph.D.
With assistance from:
Mark Benedum (Associate Administrator Highline Hospital)
Rose Clark (Concerned local citizen)
10/5/92
[Page 1]
SUMMARY OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIRPORTS
Fiction:
Airport noise is a minor annoyance and people living near
the airport should be "good sports" and learn to ignore it.
Fact:
Airport noise results in a significant increase in community
use of tranquilizers and sleeping pills. Airport
communities have an increased rate of alcoholism, and
admissions to psychiatric hospitals. Airport-related noise
can literally drive people mad.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Fiction:
Communities near the airport offer affordable housing and
would be suitable for young families.
Fact:
Infants born to mothers living under the flight path have
lower birth weights and higher likelihood of prematurity.
There is some experimental evidence to suggest that serious
birth defects are more likely when the mother is exposed to
high noise levels during pregnancy. Airport communities are
unsafe for pregnant women and their children.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Fiction:
Although it is annoying, airport noise will not affect your
physical health.
Fact:
Excessive noise has been positively associated with the
development of hypertension, high cholesterol, and high
blood sugar, all of which place people at increased risk of
heart disease and stroke.
[Page 2]
///////////////////////////////////////////
Fiction:
Sea-Tac airport has become so quiet in recent years that it
no longer impacts learning in our schools.
Fact:
Speech and communication are affected when noise levels
exceed 60 decibels. Excessively noisy schools have been
shown to adversely affect the ability to solve simple
problems as well as to learn mathematics and reading.
Actual noise measurements in several Highline Schools in
1992 exceeded 85 decibels in the class room and 100 decibels
in the school yard. Since the beginning of jet traffic at
Sea-Tac airport, standardized test scores in the Highline
School District have fallen from among the highest in the
state to the third from the bottom.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Fiction:
Airport-related noise is merely an annoyance to neighboring
citizens and has minimal impact on sleep patterns or sense
of well-being.
Fact:
On a typical recent weeknight at Sea Tac Airport, at least
110 planes including more than 70 jets took off or landed
between 10:00pm and 7:00am. The level of noise produced
severely impacts thousands of people in South King County.
Disturbance of sleep is one of the most significant sources
of distress caused by airport noise. Airport noise causes
difficulty in attaining deep sleep, shortened REM sleep, and
premature arousal from sleep. Both deep and REM sleep are
thought to be physiologically important. Sleep deprivation
leads to impaired reaction times, fatigue, lethargy,
decreased efficiency, anxiety and desire to be left alone.
///////////////////////////////////////////
[Page 3]
Fiction:
Sea Tac Airport is only a minor contributor to regional air
pollution.
Fact:
A 1991 State Department of Ecology study indicated that Sea
Tac Airport operations generate up to 5% of all air
pollution in King County. The bulk of this pollution
occurs over a very small, but densely populated area (less
than 0.25% of the area of King County) leading to relatively
high and potentially damaging concentrations of various
pollutants and particulates in communities surrounding Sea-
Tac Airport.
/////////////////////////////////////
Fiction:
Detailed studies indicate no increased risk for development
of cancer in communities nearest the airport.
Fact:
The study of cancer and its causes is highly complex. To
date, no detailed comparative studies of actual cancer
incidences have been performed to address this crucial
question. 1990 U.S. Census Tract data programs necessary
for beginning such studies will not be available to the Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center until early in 1993.
[Page 4]
NOISE- GENERAL EFFECTS
Noise is considered to be a non-specific biologic stressor,
eliciting a response that prepares the body for "fight or
flight". The physiologic mechanism thought to be responsible
for this reaction is the stimulation by noise of the brain's
reticular activation system1. Neural impulses spread from
the reticular system to the higher cortex and throughout the
central nervous system. By means of the autonomic nervous
system, noise can influence perceptual, motor, cognitive,
behavioral, glandular, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal
function. "Noise promotes stress and anxiety, disrupts
sleep and is a major threat to human health"2.
(Figure 1)
[Page 5]
Mental Health
Over 60% of people in heavily noise-impacted areas complain
of moderate to severe annoyance with airport noise. Chronic
annoyance results in increased need for and use of sedative
hypnotic medications and an increase in the frequency of
nervous breakdowns. Studies have shown a marked increase in
the use of tranquilizers and sedatives around jet airports
3,4, and an increase in the rate of alcoholism and its
associated medical problems 5. Experts have said that noise
heightens aggressive behavior and dampens helpful impulses,
which may in part explain an increased incidence of crime
and domestic violence in airport communities6. Many
studies have shown an increased number of psychiatric
admissions from noise-impacted neighborhoods around jet
airports 7,8,9,19,11. More than simply being annoying,
airport noise can have a measurable impact on mental health
(see Figure 2).
Cardiovascular Disease
Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in
this country. Hypertension is second only to smoking as a
cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Workplace
noise of 85 to 95 dBA produces sustained hypertension in
monkeys, even after the stimulus is withdrawn 12. Systolic
and diastolic hypertension has been produced experimentally
in elderly people exposed to recorded aircraft noise 13.
Hypertension has also been demonstrated in school children
under a jet flight path 14. Prescriptions for
antihypertensive medications gradually doubled in one
airport community after the building of a new jet runway 15.
Similar observations have been made in other communities 16.
The result of excess hypertension in airport noise-impacted
communities may well be an increase in heart disease and
strokes. A study of 6000 noise-impacted people near the
Amsterdam Airport found an increase in the use of [Page 6]
cardiovascular drugs, an increase in the medical treatment
of heart disease, and an increase in pathological heart
shape on x-ray in people exposed to aircraft noise17. One
author has reported a 15% increase in the incidence of
stroke near the L.A. International Airport compared to
quieter communities18. Another study has failed to
substantiate this finding 19.
In addition to raising blood pressure, noise can affect at
least two other important risk factors for cardiovascular
disease. A large epidemiologic study on road noise found
that noise-exposed people had higher blood cholesterol
levels, and higher blood glucose levels, both of which are
associated with heart disease and stroke. The public health
implications of these findings in a noise-exposed, urban
population could be enormous20. Note the striking effects
of increasing noise levels on mental and cardiovascular
disease (Figure 2).
(Figure 2)
[Page 7]
Pregnancy and Birth Defects
Heavily noise-impacted areas around jet airports are
probably unsafe for pregnant women. Several studies have
shown reduced birthweights and a higher rate of preterm
labor and premature births in airport communities21,22,23.
Studies have shown decreased fertility rates and increased
birth defects when laboratory animals were exposed to loud
noises during pregnancy 24. One study has found an increase
in the rates of neural tube defects (spina bifida and
anencephaly) in children born to women living under the
flight path of a large international airport 25. Another
study found a similar increase but felt it was statistically
insignificant 26.
Gastrointestinal Disease
The effects of chronic noise exposure are not limited to the
cardiovascular system. The Environmental Protection Agency
(E.P.A.) has reported that people working in noisy areas
have 5 times as many stomach and duodenal ulcers as the
general population27. One study found that prescriptions for
antacids, commonly used to treat ulcers and related acid
peptic problems, nearly doubled in a community after the
building of a new jet runway 28. Another author found a
100% increase in the rate of cirrhosis of the liver related
to alcoholism around a large international airport 29.
Immunology
Experts have also claimed that loud and disturbing noises
trigger changes in circulating hormones and may lower
resistance to disease and infection30.
[Page 8]
Learning Disabilities
Several Highline schools (up to 6000 students) are located
in heavily noise-impacted areas. Sound measurements done in
schools in the Highline district in 1992 recorded levels of
85 dBA in the classrooms31. Noise levels outside the schools
reached 100 dBA. Noise begins to interfere with speech and
learning when it exceeds 60 dBA. Although airport
authorities would prefer to describe the noise as a day-
night average (LDN) of 65 to 75 decibels, the actual effect
in the classroom is similar to starting a gasoline lawn
mower or running a food blender every 2 to 3 minutes.
Studies have shown that students in noisy classrooms are
more likely to read at least 1 year below grade level
compared to students in quiet classrooms 32. Another study
found that children in schools exposed to airport noise were
more likely to give up on a task, and less likely to succeed
at simple problem solving compared to students in quiet
schools. These effects were most marked in students who had
been attending the noisy school the longest33.
Mathematics testing was carried out in the Highline School
District during the 1970's by Dr. Breysse of the University
of Washington. He found that students in the noisiest
schools did significantly worse on standard mathematics
testing when compared to students studying in quieter
schools in the same district. Highline School District
M.A.T scores have fallen from among the best in the state
to the 3rd lowest in the state concomitantly with the growth
of jet aircraft traffic at Sea-Tac airport. For many
students, the noise is not limited to the school
environment. Many students live in homes impacted by
aircraft noise. They arrive at school tired and inattentive
from sleep disturbance and are expected to listen and
concentrate in class rooms where noise levels significantly
interfere with their education31. [Page 9]
Sleep and Speech Disruption
Electrical brain activity as measured by the
electroencephalogram (E.E.G.) indicates four states of
consciousness according to certain brainwave patterns34:
______________________________________________________
BETA >13 hz Normal state of alertness, stress,
anxiety
ALPHA 8-12 hz State of light relaxation, super
learning, positive thinking
THETA 4-7 hz Deep relaxation, meditation,increased
memory and focus
DELTA 1-3 hz Deep sleep, lucid dreaming
______________________________________________________
(Figure 3)
[Page 10]
Sleep researchers described the drowsy period just preceding
Stage 1 sleep as being characterized by a slowing of the
alpha rhythm (8-12 hz) accompanied by slow rolling eye
movements (SEM). As Stage 1 sleep is attained, the slowed
alpha rhythm begins to break up and is replaced
predominantly by an even slower, smaller amplitude (lower
voltage) theta rhythm (4-7 hz) associated with
unconsciousness. Deep sleep and lucid dreaming (Stages 3
and 4 Sleep) follow in association with rapid eye movements
(REM) and a delta rhythm (1-3 hz)34,35.
Disturbance of sleep is probably the most widespread source
of distress caused by noise. Indoor threshold for falling
asleep is 35 - 40 dBA. The indoor threshold for arousal
from deep sleep is 70 dBA. Children are less susceptible
and the elderly are more susceptible. Disruptions of sleep
lead to symptoms of fatigue, lethargy, decreased efficiency,
anxiety, and desire to be left alone 36.
According to one sleep study, 10% of people living 19
kilometers from Kennedy Airport reported difficulty sleeping
compared with 60% of those within 6 kilometers of the
airport. Falling asleep takes considerably longer with peak
levels of 60 dBA and ambient levels of 50 dBA. Forty to 50
dBA are capable of changing the stage of sleep without
producing complete awakening. The threshold for complete
awakening is variable but violently fluctuating noise is the
worst. Complete awakening can be seen with an increase of
only 10 dBA over baseline. A study in a community in France
done before and after the opening of a new noisy road found
that noise levels of 40 +/- 3 dBA and peaks of only 55 +/-5
dBA caused people to take 16 minutes longer to fall asleep.
Since deep and REM sleep are thought to be physiologically
[Page 11]
important, sleep impairment may well be damaging. People
living in very noisy houses did worse in measurements of
unprepared reaction time after noisy nights and showed
improvement after simple sound insulation. This research
supports the recommendation that night time noise levels not
exceed 35 dBA36.
Ldn 55 from aircraft noise is equivalent to 50 daily
episodes of aircraft noise with a peak level of 81 dBA.
Noise can interfere with sleep at or above 40 dBA and will
interfere with speech communication at or above 50 dBA.
Each disruption lasts for about 1 minute, and there are at
least 25 million U.S. citizens exposed to Ldn 55 or higher.
At Dallas Fort Worth airport, Ldn 55 is not reached until 6
miles from the end of the runway. Intermittent noise such
as aircraft noise is much more annoying and disruptive than
continuous noise such as noise generated from traffic.
Aircraft noise at an Ldn of 55 could cause interference with
sleep and communication whereas Ldn 55 automobile noise
would be below the threshold levels capable of such
interference37. (Figure 4)
[Page 12]
Additional information regarding sleep disturbance and its
impacts appeared in the 3/15/92 edition of the Seattle Times
in Bob Ortega's article entitled "Life Beneath the Roar --
Escaping Jet Noise Means Sleeping in the Basement and
Turning on the Radio" The following is a brief excerpt
from "Life Beneath the Roar"31:
"If you change the quality
of sleep on a chronic basis,
in the long run it will affect
your health," says Peter
Breysse, professor emeritus of
environmental health at the
University of Washington.
Even when people aren't
awakened, he said, noise can
disrupt the dream and deep-
sleep cycles.
On a typical recent week
night, at least 110 aircraft,
including more than 70 jets,
landed or took off from Sea-
Tac between 10:00pm and
7:00am. According to Port
records, among them were at
least 24 Boeing 727s and other
louder, older jets.
Within two miles of the
airport, consultants to the
port have measured peak noise
from older jets reaching 100
decibels - about as loud as a
diesel locomotive trundling
directly across the street.
"People believe they get used
to night-time noise," said
Alice Suter, a Cincinnati-
based research audiologist.
But studies show that even
after five years of exposure
to aircraft noise, physical
responses - higher blood
pressure, higher stress levels
- continue..."
[Page 13]
AIR POLLUTION
The Seattle Tacoma International Airport Air Pollution
Contribution Study of May, 1991 (generated by the Washington
State Department of Ecology) identified the airport as being
potentially a major contributor of air pollutants to South
King County. The worst case scenarios produced estimates of
carbon monoxide, fine particulates, nitrous oxide and
benzene far in excess of recognized safe levels. According
to the study, which utilized computer models, the airport
probably contributes up to 5% of the total air pollutants in
King County (including both the contributions of aircraft
and motor vehicles going to and from the airport). Since
the bulk of the emissions probably occurs on airport
property or within its immediate vicinity, the concentration
of various pollutants is expected to be far higher than in
other parts of the county, since the area of the airport is
less than 0.25% of the total area of King County (relative
areas calculated by Don and Beth Williams, personal
communication).
The health effects of releasing these pollutants and
particulates in high concentration would be expected to lead
to increased incidence of asthma and other respiratory
diseases. Benzene is a known carcinogen, especially in
settings of repeated exposures over a long period of time
(see next section re cancer).
Gordon Baker, M.D. (allergist) has observed and has begun
documenting an increased incidence of respiratory problems
including bronchitis and asthma near the airport (personal
communication). In a recent talk to Sea Tac area citizens
on 9/11/92, Dr. Baker stated that many of his local
patients complain of the same problems encountered in areas
of high industrial air pollution or commonly seen during air
thermal inversions. These problems include bronchitis,
[Page 14]
asthma, decreased lung function and capacity, emphysema,
sinusitis, rhinitis, sore throat, chest congestion, wheezing
and runny eyes or ocular (eye) burning.
In spite of the significant concerns long-raised by local
citizens and by the 1991 Department of Ecology Study, the
Port of Seattle (P.O.S.) currently "has no data" regarding
its emission levels (quoting P.O.S. representative Michael
Feldmann during the Air Quality Study meeting of 8/24/92;
see Appendix I). However, the Port is planning to perform
"Pilot Studies" of "Air Quality" -- probably beginning in
the near future (possibly in Fall, 1992).
At the recent planning meeting for the upcoming "Air Quality
Studies", there seemed to be considerable initial
differences of opinion between Port officials and the
representatives from both the E.P.A. and the Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency over whether to use badge
monitoring (passive diffusion) or the more expensive but
more generally accepted evacuated canister sampling methods.
Please refer to the report of that planning meeting included
as Appendix I for further details.
CANCER
"Cancer" implies malignant neoplasm (new growth). Most
cancers have the capability of killing their host either by
direct spread from their site of origin or by metastasis to
distant body sites via the blood or lymphatic systems. The
study of cancer is highly complex in part because there are
so many types of cancers for each human organ system. In
addition, the causes of cancer seem to be multifactorial --
often involving multiple different physiologic insults
working cooperatively through repeated exposures over a long
period of time.
[Page 15]
Among the known causes of cancer (carcinogens) are the
following: ionizing radiation (X-rays, gamma-rays),
viruses (Human papilloma virus with cervical cancer, Epstein
Barr virus with nasopharyngeal cancer and with lymphoma,
etc.), chemicals (benzene with leukemia, aniline dyes with
bladder cancer, hydrocarbons in soot with scrotal cancer in
chimney sweeps, etc.), ultraviolet light with various skin
cancers, tobacco smoke with lung cancer, asbestos with
malignant mesothelioma, etc.
Due to the long latency period between exposure to chemicals
such as benzene and the development of disease, it may not
be possible to detect an increased incidence of cancer in
airport communities. The problem is compounded by the fact
that thousands of people with previous lengthy exposures
have left the Sea Tac area over the past 20 years. (1200
families were moved out of the immediate Sea Tac community
north end between about 1973 - 1978 according to Ms. Rose
Clark, (personal communication). None of these people will
show in any current epidemiologic studies).
Dr. Lee Sanders has requested the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center (F.H.C.R.C.) to conduct preliminary studies
to determine the relative proportions of breast cancer,
colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia and lymphoma in the
areas surrounding the airport. In these initial studies,
there were no definite increases in the ratios of one cancer
compared to another, suggesting that at least the relative
proportions of these diseases are no different near the
airport than in non-airport-impacted communities.
The study of proportional variations of various cancers is a
useful but relatively crude screening tool. David B.
Thomas, M.D., Dr. P.H., of the University of Washington
Division of Public Health Sciences and head of the
Epidemiology Program at the F.H.C.R.C. states that more
[Page 16]
complete study would involve significant time and
resources. In order to study possible relationships between
airport pollution and cancer, the denominators (number of
people by sex and age) in each census tract or an
appropriate group of census tracts around Sea Tac Airport
would need to be evaluated for various cancer types and then
proper comparisons of actual incidences of each cancer type
could be made to the incidences encountered in the
surrounding 13 county area. The F.H.C.R.C. Epidemiology
Department will not have the necessary 1990 census data
programs to begin such a study until about February, 1993.
Such studies should probably be provided by and funded by
the Port of Seattle as part of any complete environmental
impact statement, and ideally include an attempt to track
the already-evacuated populace.
The potential inability to document increased cancer
incidence does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.
The estimated concentrations of benzene in some airport
communities (although not measured) may at times exceed
24,000 parts per trillion. The acceptable source impact
level for new sources proposed by WAC is 0.63 parts per
trillion. Out of interest, Hartfield airport in Atlanta is
in Clayton County. Clayton County had more than twice the
national rate of lung cancer. A grand jury has been charged
with conducting studies of the increased cancer risks38.
CONCLUSION
This paper is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the
literature regarding airport-related health issues. Many
additional small studies can be cited supporting our
conclusions and there are a few that do not. Small studies
often lack the sensitivity required to demonstrate an effect
(Beta or Type 2 statistical errors) and should not be used
[Page 17]
to refute a cause and effect relationship between airports
and public health. Even relatively small effects of
airport noise and pollution on public health may be
significant when large numbers of people are exposed. The
weight of scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the
conclusion that airports are harmful to the health of people
in surrounding communities. The health problems related to
airport proximity are greatly compounded at Sea-Tac due to
its relatively small size. Compared to most other airports
with similar freight and passenger traffic, Sea-Tac has
only one-fifth the land area, and there are a
disproportionate number of schools and homes in heavily
noise-impacted areas. Put simply, citizens around Sea-Tac
are more likely to have airport-related health problems
because the airport has an inadequate clear zone. Money
earmarked for expansion of Sea-Tac would be better spent on
alleviating the noise and pollution effects already felt by
airport neighbors from existing operations. Cost estimates
of further expansion of Sea-Tac must include more than the
prices of fill dirt, concrete and construction. The
additional numerous impacts of airport expansion on human
health should be considered carefully before any decision is
made to build. When these impacts and other community-
born costs are thoroughly considered along with the actual
construction costs, expansion of Sea-Tac airport probably
will not be financially feasible or ethically reasonable.
[Page 18]
REFERENCES
1 Coen et al. Nonauditory Effects of Noise on Behavior and
Health. J. Social Issues 37:36-70 1977
2 Dr. Alice Suter, Science News Vol. 140
3 Grabdjean et. al. Ref. 214 The Effects of Noise on Man
second edition Karl Kryter 1985.
4 Knipschild, P et al. Medical Effects of Aircraft Noise:
Drug survey. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 40:197-200, 1977.
5 Meechan, W Shaw, N. Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality
Rates. British Journal of Audiology 13:77-80, 1979.
6 Dr. Jeffrey D. Fisher and Dr. Paul A Bell and Dr. Andrew
Baum in Environmental Psychology
7 Kryter, K.D. Association of Heathrow Airport Noise with
Psychiatric Admissions. Psychol Med 20:1022, 1990.
8 Abbey-Wickrama, L et al Mental Hospital Admissions and
Aircraft Noise Lancet 2:1275-1277, 1969
9 Jenkins, L Psychiatric Admissions and Aircraft Noise from
London Airport. Psychol Med 11:ISS 4 765-82, 1981.
10 Kryter, K.D. Aircraft Noise and Social Factors in
Psychiatric Hospital Admission Rates: A Reexamination of
Some Data Psychol. Med May:20(2): 395-411, 1990.
11 William, W.C. Smith, H. G., Effects of Jet Aircraft Noise
on Mental Hospital Admissions. British J. of Audiology 11:81-
85, 1977.
12. Peterson, E.A. et al. Noise Raises Blood Pressure
without Impairing Auditory Sensitivity. Science 211:1450-
1452, 1981.
13 Ising et al. Effects of Noise From Military Low-level
Flights in Humans part 2In: Berglund, B. dBA Lindvall, T.,
eds. Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol 4, Swedish
Council for building Research, Stockholm.
14 Cohen, Sheldon et al. Physiologic, Motivational, and
Cognitive Effects of Aircraft Noise on Children. American
Psychologist 35:3 p231-243, 1980. [Page 20]
15 Drug survey. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 40:197-200, 1977.
16 Archives of and Environmental Health 1977.
17 Knipschild et al. in Ref. 215 The Effects of Noise on
Man second edition Karl Kryter, 1985
18 Meechan, W Shaw, N. Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality
Rates. British Journal of Audiology 13:77-80, 1979.
19 Frerichs, R et al Los Angeles Airport Noise and Mortality-
- Faulty Analysis and Public Policy American Journal of
Public Health 70:357-362, 1980.
20 Babisch, W. dBA, J.E.J, The Caerphilly and Speedwell
Collaborative Heart Disease Studies, In: Berglund, B.
Lindvall, T., eds. Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol 4,
Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm.
21 Schell, Lawrence M., Environmental Noise and Human
Prenatal Growth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
56:63-70, 1981.
22 Ando, Y., Hattori, H., Statistical Studies on Effects of
Intense Noise During Human Fetal Life. J. Sound and
Vibration 27:101-110, 1973.
23 Ref. 232 The effects of Noise on Man, 2nd ed. Karl
Kryter, 1985.
24 Peter S. Strassburg, M. Stress Als Terarogener Faktor.
Arzneim Forsch 19: 1106-1111, 1969.
25 Jones, Nowell Tauscher, J., Residence Under an Airport
Landing Pattern as a Factor in Teratism. Archives of
Environmental Health 33:10-12, 1978.
26 Edmonds, L.D. et al, Airport Noise and Terataogenisis.
Archives of Environmental Health 34:243-247, 1979.
27 Family Circle 11/91
28 Drug survey. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 40:197-200 1977.
29 William Meechan, Ph. D. Human Behavior May 1979.
30 Bruce Rabin, M.D. Professor of Pathology and Psychiatry
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Family Circle
11/91.
31 Ortega, B., Life Beneath the Roar, Seattle Times March
1992
[Page 21]
32 Green, K.B., Effects of Aircraft Noise on Reading Ability
of School Age Children, Archives of Environ. Health, 37:ISS
1 p. 24-31, 1982
33 Coen, S. et al. Physiologic, Motivational, and Cognitive
Effects of Aircraft Noise on Children, American Psychologist
35:3 p231-243, 1980.
34 T.H. Budzynski, Ph.D., Selected Research on Light and
Sound, Synetic Systems, p. 15, 1991.
35 Foulkes and Vogel, Mental Activity of Sleep - Onset,
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70, 231-243 (1964)
36 Gloag, Daphne. British Medical Journal 282: 1044-1046
1980.
37 Kryter, Karl NASA Reference Publication 1115 (1984)
Physiological, Psychological and Social Effects of Noise.
38 Airport Noise Report, November 29, 1990
REFERENCES FOR FIGURES IN TEXT
Fig. 1. NASA Reference Publication 1115, 1984, p. 391
Fig. 2. NASA Reference Publication 1115, 1984 p. 495
Fig. 3. ref. 34 above
Fig. 4. NASA Reference Publication 1115, 1984, p. 553
[Page 22]
APPENDIX I
Report on Planning by the Port of Seattle for Upcoming
"Air Quality" Studies in and Around Sea Tac Airport
This reporter is a pathologist on the medical staff at
Highline Community Hospital (HCH) and a member of the Health
Subcommittee of the Environmental Committee regarding Sea
Tac Airport expansion.
At the request of Mark Benedum (our subcommittee chairman)
and at the invitation of the Port of Seattle (POS), I
attended the "Airport Air Quality Working Group meeting"
held at Sea Tac Airport on 8/24/92. The meeting was chaired
by Michael Feldman (POS). As shown on the attached
attendance list, multiple parties were represented including
Department of Ecology (WA), EPA (Region 10), FAA, Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA), U.W. Department
of Environmental Health, Sea Tac Office Center, City of Sea
Tac and, of course, POS. POS hopes that use of the air
quality working group will lend credibility to any analysis
performed. They profess to want real credibility and
reliability of the studies.
Mr. Feldman stated that the meeting and pending studies had
evolved because of multiple factors including (1) concerns
raised from the 1991 Department of Ecology study using an
"EDMS model" suggesting a significant potential impact of
Sea Tac Airport on regional pollution (with particular
reference to possible benzene "hot spots"), (2) A letter of
concern written by the Medical Staff of HCH to PSATC, (3)
Recent newspaper articles citing citizen concerns about
possible relationships between Sea Tac Airport and cases of
cancer in the adjacent neighborhoods, and (4) various
comments made at the regional PSATC hearings regarding
citizen concerns about air pollution and fuel dumping.
It was made clear that the POS wishes to perform "air
quality" and emission studies to evaluate the situation and
hopefully to allay various concerns or to enable the POS to
mitigate problems which might exist. The clear reference
was made by Mr. Feldman that if pollution problems are
found, that a "more efficient" airport including a third
runway might actually improve the situation (no mention
being made of added motor vehicle traffic and 100,000 or
more added flights per year!!). Mr. Feldman said that the
POS has a 1992 budget of up to $50,000 for initial (pilot)
studies. Multiple bids from several accredited local or
regional testing laboratories had been obtained (ranging
from about $35,000 to 55,000). The bids involving badge
sampling (via passive diffusion) were favored by POS because
that type of testing is about 25% less expensive than using
evacuated canister sampling (or charcoal filter active
sampling) followed by liquid or gas chromatography badge
equipment would be less bulky and more easily and more
safely placed in and around the airfield than would canister
systems, according to Feldman.
A map of Sea Tac Airport was presented with about 10 sites
proposed for testing on Airport property. The POS clearly
wants to do a quick pilot study in 9/92 (using badges) to
gather initial data. The implication was clear that if a
decision is made to proceed with planning for a third Runway
that more funds would be made available for more
comprehensive and complete studies. September was felt to be
a good month for sampling because of wind and weather
conditions, and various committee members agreed.
Input from the group was welcomed by Mr. Feldman and
included the following:
1. Dr. Sanders was concerned that the POS might only
study one or two analytes including benzene and recommended
doing a comprehensive analysis including benzene,
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur
dioxide, particulates, formaldehyde, etc.. Mr. Feldman
stated that more than just one or two compounds would be
studied but cited high costs of studying a large number of
pollutants.
2. Marsha Lee (EPA) was concerned that badge (passive
diffusion) monitoring was not as accurate or sensitive or as
established as using evacuated canisters or active sampling
of known volumes of air over set periods of time. Canister
methods can detect down to 1-2 parts per billion. Michael
Morgan (an industrial hygienist from UW Department of
Environmental Health disagreed in part and felt that badge
testing was useful if accurately standardized. However, Ms.
Lee stated that EPA has tried to avoid passive sampling in
almost all of their previous studies. EPA recommends time-
integrated active sampling methods. After much discussion
and further input from Gerry Pade (PSAPCA), a consensus was
reached that the gold standard for studies would be the very
expensive use of on site gas chromatography. The next best
method (next most established by previous studies and also
acceptable to the EPA would be to use evacuated canister
sampling or active sampling of known air volumes over
charcoal filters). The least preferred or established
method would be using badges (passive diffusion). Mr.
Feldman will discuss these issues further with EPA. Mr. Pade
felt that active canister samplers could be readily anchored
on the field and that such methods would add credibility to
the studies.
3. A final important suggestion made by Mr. Pade
(PSAPCA) and seconded by Dr. Sanders was that the POS should
also include some sampling at remote sites off airport
property in order to provide some comparative data re:
pollution levels. Sites suggested included U.W. Campus,
Bellevue, etc.. POS representatives seemed interested in
doing some off site testing at some point but it wasn't
clear if that would be part of a pilot study. POS said it
might test at one of the Highline Schools, corner of 188th
and Pacific Highway etc.. but timing was uncertain.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Local citizens, RCAA and Rick Arambaru et. al. should
monitor the pending studies and data very carefully. If the
POS uses only badge monitoring without parallel
canister/active monitoring, questions of validity could be
raised, especially in view of the concerns raised by the EPA
and PSAPC representatives. Also, if a significant number of
types of pollutants from both motor vehicles and airplanes
in and around Sea Tac Airport are not measured, the study
would be less than thorough or comprehensive. Also, if
enough off-site comparison locations are not studied, the
needed comparative data would be missing or at least
incomplete. Finally, we must be aware that if pollution
problems (and/or fuel dumping problems) are identified by
any of the pending studies, that POS will probably use those
findings to support building a "more efficient" airport
including a third runway as a means of reducing rather than
increasing air pollution.