by Effie Moore Salem

Created on: November 26, 2007   Last Updated: March 30, 2009

Airplanes produce an enormous amount of carbon dioxide by their extensive use of fuel. Airports are noisy. Airports do damage to the environment the same way other places of high impact do, but more so. The increased travel by air and the necessity for the use of fossil fuels to run the vehicles and shuttles that transport people and luggage are all massed together in one large noisy area.

The first question I when I read the topic, how can you expect anything but noise and air pollutions from such demands for air travel? I did not say that to the citizens group that's out to monitor airports, however; I said it to myself.

The group: CAAP (Citizens against Airport Pollution) that thinks of itself a league of neighborhoods is national in scope and is headquartered in San Jose, California. Their main purpose is to see that the federal standard is met.

The complaints are mainly because of the excessive noise of the takeoff and landing of planes; the danger of polluted ground and stream water by spilled fuel and de-icers and anti-icing methods; and smog and air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels. As I said about the same as other big businesses, only louder, more concentrated, and more visible.

Airport officials admit it is often impossible to comply with regulations although their intention is to do so; and they are working on the problems as best they can. The newer planes are quieter than the older ones, but new planes simply cannot be bought everyday, not with most airlines in danger of bankruptcy and often operating in the red. It's the people who live in surrounding areas that are most affected by this noise pollution.

If you've ever lived close to a large airport the booming noise that breaks through into your silence is horrendous. No one should have to live with this night and day, but many have no other choice.

The ground water run off that is a potential threat to nearby streams is another concern. At first thought who thinks this is much a problem, only a trickle here and there; but when you learn that that the runways in the colder regions have to be kept de-iced and clear you begin to get the picture.

The chemical components of the de-icers and anti-icers contain glycol, a known stream polluter. These are water soluble and break down fast and are real threats to nearby streams and waterways.

One possible solution, that some airports are using are alternative chemicals such as potassium acetate or calcium magnesium sulfate instead of the glycol products. These, experts say, pose no risk to waterways while keeping runways clear.

Air quality being the third concern and possibly the largest complaint of the watch-dog groups will be solved only by switching to alternative fuel sources to power their vehicles that transport and shuttle people and baggage on and off planes. All these are being thought through by all involved by for the airports it is a little more complicated.

To be on the safe and sure way of reducing airport noise, water runoff pollution and to bring the air quality standards to what it should be for maximum health for the maximum amount of people, people will simply have to stop traveling.

They will have to stop commuting to and from work and will have to do the next best thing: Keep in touch with bosses, friends and family by way of the internet. It has it pollution problems but nothing compared by airports and airplanes. Feel free to disregard these last suggestions, but the truth the matter forced me to offer them as a possible solution.

Source:
http://www.faa.gov http://www.airportairquality.com

Learn more about this author, Effie Moore Salem.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.