LOW-LEVEL FLYING AS HEALTH RISK AND 'CHILD ABUSE'
Jeannie Rosenberg is a physician who has done research on the
effects of low-level flight noise on human health. Her research was
published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1991 -- the
following is a version she has written in 'laypeople's language.'
What is the matter with having a jet fighter pass 100 feet above
your head? Do the Innu have a valid complaint when they say that
the noise is damaging to their health?
Noise, as we may remember from high school physics, is measured
in decibels. This is a logorithmic scale. Every rise of 10 in the decibel
scale doubles the perceived noise, so 20 decibels is twice as loud as
10 decibels, and 120 decibels is 4 times as loud as 100 decibels. To
put these numbers in perspective: 0 is the threshold of hearing; a
whisper is around 30 decibels, a washing machine around 50, a
chainsaw around 100. 120 decibels is the level of pain, also the level
in a noisy discotheque, or of an F4 fighter jet from 60 metres away.
We all know that loud noise damages hearing. But although this is
true, the damage to hearing is not what the people being overflown
are complaining about.
Being exposed to noise on a long-term basis, for instance working in
a noisy factory or living close to an airport, has been shown to be
associated with an increase in "stress-related" illnesses: high blood
pressure, peptic ulcer disease, insomnia, etc. These problems can be
mitigated to a certain extent -- wearing ear protectors at work, for
instance, or keeping windows shut at night.
But the noise from low level flights has a particular quality, related
to what is called the "rise time". Rise time refers to the speed at which
a noise gets louder. If the rise time is faster than 30 or 40 decibels
a second the noise causes a "startle reaction" in humans. The startle
reaction has been described scientifically but you know what it is: it's
what you do when someone sneaks up behind you and yells "BOO!"
It's easy to imagine the difference between the noise of a flight heard
in the distance, gradually building to a crescendo and then fading away;
and one 100 feet directly overhead, from which the noise comes on so
rapidly that it hits you with an abrupt, unexpected jolt of sound.
Less research has been done of the health effects of impulse than
of steady-state noise. However, those studies comparing the two
have shown the physiological effects to be more intense from low-level
flight noise than from the same level of steady-state noise. We do
know that people exposed to this kind of noise find it intolerable. In
Germany, where low-level flights were limited to 75 metres above
ground level (as compared to 30 metres, or 100 feet, in Canada), there
was so much public opposition that the German government has banned
low-level flights in that country. One of the main complaints of German
citizens in areas overflown by low-level flights was the devastating
effect on the children; not only panic and screaming at the time of the
event, but ongoing behaviour problems and fear. One German child-care
authority went so far as to label low-level flights "child abuse".
Although German and Innu cultures are very different, the description
of the effects on children are very similar.
But, of course, the complaints of a relatively less powerful group
of native Canadians have not been treated with the same seriousness.
While certain of our politicians with an interest in promoting NATO
flights in Canada have denigrated the problem -- John Crosbie scoffed
that there was more noise "going around all winter on your posterior
on a snowmobile" -- there is little doubt that the noise from low-level
flights has a negative effect on the health of humans overflown, and
especially of children.