When we really think about it, there are many places we see every day but never really pay much attention to beyond a quick notice and perhaps a brief thought. We can’t help but notice when we are near an airport due to the noise, but when you live near one, what else should you be noticing? The scientific community for a long time focused much of their research on the effects of airport noise on human health. The past decade or so, however, scientists and health officials have been looking at other potential risks to health. The results, which have been coming from a continuing investigation into other potential health risks of people living and working near an airport, are becoming increasingly concerning. Very little has been done over the years to attempt to manage the associated health risks. Some scientists even say living near airports is a greater risk to health than the impacts of living near a major highway.
The sheer size of some metropolitan airports and the enormous volume of planes, cars, trucks, and buses all combine to make an invisible toxic cloud. Every vehicle, whether an airplane or ground transport, runs on gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. Recently, though, some effort to use electric vehicles where possible is beginning to occur. All of these combustible fuels create very large amounts of toxic particulate matter. This chemical cloud and its toxic gases have been measured at elevated levels up to 10 miles from the airport. Depending on weather conditions, the flow of fumes from the airport can surround the entire area. There are very few business operations that have the sprawl and intensity of activity to create such a dense and toxic cloud that almost never goes away or disappears. It hangs over the area like a shroud.
It is not only large international airports such as the ones in Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles that are the most hazardous. While in volume they may be on top of the list, there are also dozens of smaller regional airports with many flights coming and going all day too. As Tony and I discovered in our research, some of the hazards that the government regulates at big airports are not regulated with as close scrutiny at smaller airports. Thus, some smaller airports still present hazards.
A study published in Environmental Science and Technology addressed issues at these smaller airports. In Southern California, thousands of private planes and corporate jets use the small, regional Santa Monica Airport. Ultra fine particles, the most dangerous ones, were found in significantly elevated levels downwind of the airport. This is in addition to spewing lead from their engines because airplanes are still allowed to use leaded fuel due to a loophole in EPA regulations that tried to phase it out years ago. While the EPA has the power to regulate aircraft emissions, they must take into consideration the technology available, the cost, and potential negative impact to the airlines and aircraft safety.
Between the noise pollution and air pollution, the bodies of the people living nearby are being continuously assaulted in five major ways.
The pollution caused by the aircraft, especially the ultra fine particles, are the biggest concern. Those particles because of their small size are able to pass through the lungs’ filters and imbed themselves deep inside of the lungs. From there, they pass into the bloodstream and spread into the vital organs such as the brain, heart, and others. These particles also worsen conditions in people with any heat and lung conditions, aggravate bronchitis and emphysema, and may lead to blocked arteries in some cases.
Unfortunately for people living near airports, the EPA somewhat regulates larger size particles but the most dangerous, these ultra fine particles, are not. Because of the large number of airports throughout the country, that is a huge health concern and a big gap in regulations. Health reviews have shown this pollution increases asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by 17% and heart problems by 9%.
In Los Angeles, a study of the particulate matter in neighborhoods within several miles of the airport done by University of Southern California showed people living near the airport breathe higher levels of fine particles and toxic gases than people sitting on one of California’s jammed freeways. In fact, the study said there was more pollution in the areas near the airport than almost all the pollution on 190 miles of L.A. freeways.
A Massachusetts study has found children living near Logan International Airport in Boston were up to four times more likely to exhibit signs of undiagnosed asthma than children living in communities further away. In addition, adults living in neighborhoods bordering the airport were almost twice as likely to have COPD than their farther-away peers.
While lead in jet fuel was phased out of use in large aircraft, small jets and planes still use fuel containing lead. The same lead that was phased out many years ago in automobiles due to its toxic effect on humans is being used in tens of thousands of small planes across America every day. Many small regional airports such as Teterboro Airport in New Jersey are still coating nearby neighbors with lead emissions long after large airports stopped doing so.
The pollution is not just airborne. The dust and particles of lead from years of exhaust live on in the soil and on the surfaces near the airport. Children still play in the yards and are exposed to more lead than they would be had there not been an airport. People living near airports where these planes fly are being continuously exposed to lead emissions in the exhaust. The EPA has stated without a doubt children exposed to lead may develop learning disabilities and brain damage.
A study done by Duke University found that people, especially children, who lived within a half mile of an airport where leaded fuel was still being used had lead levels in their blood higher than children further away. The EPA estimates show 16 million children live close to one of these 22,000 airports where leaded fuel is regularly used, and the lead in air near the airports can be inhaled by breathing or ingested after settling on soil and other places in the area.
Lead pollution is a serious problem in northern Sonoma County,California where several local airports, including the Sea Ranch, Healdsburg Municipal, and Cloverdale Municipal, service small piston engine powered aircraft typically used for corporate and private travel. Such planes used avgas. According to the EPA, more than 167,000 piston engine planes in operation are responsible for nearly half of all lead emissions nationwide.
Traffic converges at airports. Thousands of cars, trucks, and buses enter and exit all day. Many idle while they load or drop off passengers, adding to the toxic load already present at the airport. All of them move at slow speeds, exacerbating the tons of particulate matter emitted each day. Diesel engines from trucks and buses are especially high contributors of toxic and hazardous emissions. Computer modeled images showing the extent of pollution near airports look like a thick dense cloud completely enveloping the local area with several dense streams representing the roadways covered in fog of pollution as well. The fog density stays quite high for up to two miles from the airport in all directions.
Sound has been recognized as a pollutant since 1972 with the Noise Control Act . A study published by the National Institute of Health found a tie between health issues and the amount and volume of sound a person is exposed to. People who are exposed to constant high levels of sound, such as those caused by jet engines taking off and landing, experienced several effects. Constant lack of sleep or continually interrupted sleep can lead to irritability and depression. In addition, hearing loss, hypertension, and heart problems may develop.
Two studies in particular pointed to the already suspected conclusion that people living near airports, especially in the noisiest areas, are exposed to health risks as a result. Experts at the Massachusetts General Hospital agreed that exposure to excessive amounts or volume of environmental noise triggers a stress response in the brain that in turn causes the blood vessels to become inflamed. Health issues like hypertension and continuous inflammation can lead to elevated risk of cardiovascular issues like heart attacks and strokes. The body continues to be affected by elevated blood pressure, especially during the night from the continued noise, even if not realized consciously. Conclusions were airport noise has negative health effects far beyond simply losing a good night sleep.
The National Institute of Health also published a paper on a group of studies showing a direct correlation between airport noise and a decrease in learning ability. They concluded that continuous aircraft noise at home or at school led to poorer reading and memory skills. There was growing evidence that the noise also was a cause for children to test lower on standardized tests compared to children not exposed to aircraft noise.
Aircraft noise can be so disruptive and unpleasant that, in Palm Beach, Florida, President Trump sued the FAA for $100 million in damages relating to the “unreasonable amount of noise, emissions and pollutants” from planes flying over his Mar-a-Lago Club near Palm Beach, Florida. If this is recognized as unacceptable to President Trump, it is unacceptable to the rest of us.
Like highway expansion, never say never. As air travel is becoming the preferred way of long distance traveling for more people, airports are finding themselves at capacity and running delays for flights more than ever before. This puts pressure on the airport to find a solution. Even those airports that are landlocked have been expanding.
Air travel and airports are regulated by the federal government. That means no matter what city or town the airport is located in, they have minimal say in final operations of the facility. Some airports have extra space to grow, but the new runways may impact previously unaffected neighborhoods. In cities, the government has even invoked eminent domain and taken property for airports. Sometimes, the airport gives residents the ultimatum of selling or simply dealing with the unwanted consequences.
In Atlanta, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport already handles 2,500 flights a day. During busy times there is a plane arriving or taking off every 45 seconds. The airport facility is looking at adding a third runway. While the expansion will not evict people, the runway directly impacts thousands of people in the areas the planes take off and land. The new runway and flight pattern run directly overhead existing housing.
New Haven, Connecticut, has a local activist group facing off against the airport authority seeking to expand the runways. The group says they will not be bought out and will fight the expansion. The fight against the expansion of the runway continued for a decade, and even the state eventually joined with the opposition. The entire issue was settled in March of 2020 when the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal from a lower court ruling allowing the expansion to move forward. Airports come under the ruling of the federal government, and the court agrees with the expansion decision, allowing it to move forward. At the time of writing this, the airport authority is in discussions with the airlines to see how long a runway they need and any other requirements. While the people eventually lost this battle, it does not mean their efforts were not worth it. They gained the extra ten years they managed to delay the expansion.
In the past five years, the number of aircraft flying into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport—one of the fastest growing in the U.S.—increased almost 30 percent, and annual passenger traffic jumped from 35 million to 47 million people. Large airport facilities are under construction, and plans for further expansion, including a second passenger terminal, are taking shape.
Even smaller airports such as in San Luis Obispo, California, have the potential to not just double or triple the size of the facilities but add dozens of new flight routes and several new airline carriers in addition. Its location between Los Angeles and San Francisco makes it perfect for people seeking a smaller airport to use instead of dealing with the large cities. The city and the surrounding areas are growing with many new companies opening offices. Based on all those factors, airport traffic increased over 40% between 2015 and 2017 requiring the need for a large expansion. The new terminal is three and a half times the size of the old one. Runways are handling larger planes, and more carriers are already using much of the new space. The surrounding areas, which had been much quieter up until about 2016, are now feeling the effects of increased noise and pollution the much busier airport has. Since the expansion, noise complaints have tripled. Neighbors living under the busier flight paths and new landing patterns are being subjected to the noise and pollution from the planes. Flights are fairly common as early as 4:30 in the morning and run until 11 or so at night. The airport says it runs a 24/7 operation and will not restrict hours based on the complaints as the airlines are the ones setting the schedules.
Airlines highly value efficiency because it creates higher profits and drives the industry. As a result, changes in flight patterns to save fuel or maximize runways are quite common. This can come as a surprise to the people who suddenly find themselves under the bellies of hundreds of planes.
At Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, flight patterns were suddenly switched to a new route. The new pattern took thousands of flights over several neighborhoods not heavily impacted with noise before. It took a lengthy four-year court battle, but the people won, and the pattern went back to the old one.
In Los Angeles, the FAA changed flight plans in and out of LAX. The planes now fly directly over downtown and the central district. The city is suing the FAA to change them back. Thousands of people have been affected by the noise and pollution.
In the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, construction is about to start during the night for work needed on a taxiway near one of the runways at the airport. The airport is shifting the flight patterns over the nearby neighborhoods during the seven months the construction is expected to take. While the people living near the airport are already used to the landings and takeoffs over their homes during the day, they will now be getting all these additional flights all night long. Officials at the airport feel badly about this, but they say the construction is needed, so there is nothing the residents of Charlotte can do but suffer through.
One new concern that must have been around for years but is starting to get some attention from forward thinking cities and towns is the prospect of groundwater pollution from airport activities, especially fuel storage and firefighting foam as PFOS chemicals have already infiltrated and contaminated groundwater across the country.
In Bellevue, Idaho, the city council realized much of the property the airport is in lies directly above the city and the groundwater flow. Potential sources of contamination are from eight underground storage tanks at the airport, of which three are known to be leaking. The airport also operates 21 injection wells close to the surface for storage or water disposal purposes. Chris Johnson, a member of the city council said most of the airport property lies within a six- to 10-year course of projected downhill groundwater flow to Bellevue, which could put the city’s wells at risk.
All told, living near an airport can be a fairly miserable existence. People we spoke with said they lived near the airport because the housing there was the only place they could afford. Others added it was not quite so bad when they moved there 10-15 years ago. However, when the population of the area grew, the number of flights increased and the airport expanded, making the problem much worse. The only positive anyone has ever told us about being so close to an airport was that they did not need to drive far to get to their flight. They said that in a sarcastic manner and added they would very gladly drive a half hour rather than be so close.
Living near an airport can be quite damaging to a person’s health. There are no reasons to place yourself in the situation of having your body assaulted everyday with the noise and pollution the airport creates. If at all possible, stay away from any airport for at least five miles or more. While some air traffic patterns may still run over your neighborhoods, the noise and pollution levels are substantially less than if you were close. If there was an ideal distance to be, we would estimate 10 miles or further.