La seguridad aérea es de interés público y afecta a toda la sociedad (Javier Aguado del Moral)


In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act (George Orwell)


Cuando el sabio señala la luna, el necio se queda mirando el dedo (Confucio)

Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta AEROPUERTOS DEL MUNDO. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta AEROPUERTOS DEL MUNDO. Mostrar todas las entradas

jueves, 18 de diciembre de 2014

NORMAN FOSTER DISEÑARÁ EL NUEVO AEROPUERTO DE CIUDAD DE MÉJICO


Es una regla casi universal que un político adquiere la talla de estadista si deja un legado por el que le recordarán las generaciones futuras, o eso es lo que creen cuando gobiernan. Bien sea ganando una guerra, provocada o sobrevenida, una revolución, administrando un cambio de época, etc., etc., o gastando el presupuesto en alguna obra faraónica en lugar de en mejorar las condiciones de vida de su pueblo.

El presidente de Méjico no pasará a la historia como el que erradicó la violencia, ya convertida en un mal endémico y que ha convertido a este país en un estado fallido en muchos sentidos, ni el que sacó a la población de la miseria en la que aún vive en un nada despreciable porcentaje, a pesar de contar con nombres ilustres en la lista Forbes, etc. Enrique Peña Nieto quiere pasar a la historia como el que dotó a la capital de un nuevo aeropuerto; para lo que cuenta con un dúo magnífico: el arquitecto británico Norman Foster y el yerno de Carlos Slim, Fernando Romero. El presupuesto inicial es de 10.000 millones de dólares (unos 8.000 millones de euros), y la factura final rondará seguramente el doble.


En España, sin ir más lejos que no es necesario en cosa de aeropuertos, la ampliación del Aeropuerto de Madrid-Barajas, ahora de Adolfo Suárez, fue inaugurada dos veces, una por Aznar y otra por Zapatero. Resulta que Aznar se iba y, aunque las obras estaban a medio terminar, dijo que esa obra era suya y la inauguraba él. Nada que ver con el Aznar de la primera legislatura que huía de esas celebraciones innecesarias y llenas de pompa y peloteo. La segunda, la buena, la hizo Zapatero.

Esta gran obra está llamada a ser el emblema de un gran plan de inversión pública. Será la obra de mayor coste y visibilidad nacional e internacional y el emblema del aura de modernidad y transformación que acompaña al presidente Peña Nieto en sus últimas apariciones como un ritual. En fin, una forma de desviar la atención de la espiral de violencia que ha convertido a Méjico en un destino a evitar.

La elección del proyecto de Norman Foster llegó tras un concurso de ideas en el que participaron arquitectos como Zaha Hadid, Richard Rogers o Teodoro González de León. La traza de la obra, inspirada en la simbología mexicana del águila y la serpiente, se caracteriza por su amplitud de volúmenes y ligereza de líneas. En la presentación del proyecto, Foster destacó la influencia del exiliado republicano español Félix Candela (1910-1997), cuyas desafiantes estructuras han marcado a generaciones de creadores.

En una primera etapa, la instalación, de una sola terminal, se limitará a dos pistas paralelas, con una separación 1,2 kilómetros, suficientes para dar servicio a 50 millones de viajeros al año y que permitirán despegues y aterrizajes simultáneos. Es decir, llevando a cabo las reglamentarias y seguras operaciones segregadas y simultáneas a pistas paralelas. Aunque con la posibilidad de ampliarlo en un futuro a seis pistas y una capacidad para 120 millones de pasajeros al año, cuatro veces más que el actual.




La obra se ejecutará en cinco o seis años, por lo que no será Peña Nieto quien la inaugure. A buen seguro que el nuevo o nueva presidente le hará un hueco en un lugar destacado en la celebración. La apertura del nuevo Aeropuerto de Ciudad de Méjico implicará el cierre del antiguo aeropuerto, cuyos terrenos se reciclarán en jardines y espacios para viviendas. Un aspecto clave del aeropuerto será su respeto medioambiental: emisiones mínimas de dióxido de carbono, producción propia de energía y bajo consumo de agua.

El espacio elegido para el nuevo aeropuerto está situado junto al actual y se extiende desde el Distrito Federal hasta el Estado de México por una superficie de 12.500 hectáreas, todas ellas de propiedad federal. Para evitar la oposición vecinal, que en la etapa del presidente Vicente Fox (2000-2006) tumbó otro intento similar, el nuevo proyecto prevé no sólo que la instalación esté rodeada de una amplia zona verde que sirva de pulmón y espacio de esparcimiento para la megalópolis, sino también de complejos residenciales y empresariales y hasta una universidad.

Esta obra y otras del ambicioso plan de infraestructuras han atraído la atención de gobiernos y empresas de todo el mundo, entre ellos, el español. La ministra de Fomento, Ana Pastor, que visitó Méjico junto a los presidentes de Renfe y AENA, recordó el interés de España por participar en el plan y la fortaleza de sus empresas públicas y privadas en los sectores implicados. En Fomento se sigue con especial atención el desarrollo del nuevo aeropuerto, cuya parte operacional es codiciada por AENA, que ya participa junto a la Administración mexicana como socio operador de la zona del Caribe, una de las tres en que se divide México.

Desde Las mentiras de Barajas les recomendamos a las autoridades mejicanas que mantengan lejos a AENA de este proyecto, no vaya a ser que lo pifie como hizo al apostar por la ampliación de Madrid-Barajas en lugar de un nuevo aeropuerto de cuatro pistas paralelas en los terrenos de Campo Real.

Adjuntamos el enlace de la nota de prensa de Foster and partners y un vídeo explicativo del proyecto (si no puede ver el vídeo pulsar aquí).


viernes, 28 de marzo de 2014

NON À L’AÉROPORT DE NOTRE DAME DES LANDES



Up to 60,000 people took part in the “Non à l’aéroport de Notre Dame des Landes” huge march through the city of Nantes, held on february, 22nd, against the proposed airport at Notre Dames des Landes.

These are two videos from the demonstration. (Click here to watch video 1 or video2).





We also attach an article written by John Stewart, from European Aviation Campaigners, who attended the march.

On Saturday Nantes was ablaze. The anger at the proposed new airport outside this city in Western France boiled over: http://youtu.be/eIgNvAHIVmw. Up to 60,000 people took part in what was largely a peaceful demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyZ9aDDqWfQ&list=PLYfjo3JyLy2TBtLWV_afrBLvUCVOzdOWa&feature=share The local campaign group ACIPA say that the tension rose when the police refused to allow the march to take the normal route through the city. When part of the march tried to do so it “faced violent police repression shot with rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades”: http://communiques-acipa.blogspot.co.uk/.

I have been to Nantes several times over last few years (although wasn’t there not on Saturday). The campaign has become a cause célèbre in France. It has “support committees” in over 200 towns and cities across France and Belgium. On a regular basis each committee lobbies and demonstrates in its own area. Over 60 coaches arrived in Nantes on Saturday with supporters from across the nation.

During the last Presidential elections four “peasant” farmers, whose land was threatened by the new airport, went on hunger strike for a month.
They were visited by most of the presidential candidates. All, except for Hollande and Sarkozy, came out against the airport.

The profile of the campaign wasn’t always so high. I first met the campaigners in 2008 when five desperate farmers drove through the night to promote their case at a major Heathrow rally. They subsequently modelled much of their campaign on the successful fight against the 3rd runway. In particular, they built up the widest possible alliance of support.

The proposed new airport would be built around 15 miles from the city of Nantes in a landscape dotted with small farms and attractive villages. It is the classic French countryside, but without the British and their second homes!

The rationale for the new airport has never been entirely clear. Nantes already has a single runway airport which is under-used. The regional government argues that the new airport would regenerate the area. This is hotly contested by the campaigners who commissioned their own report which challenged the government’s economic case: http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/review_of_the_social_cost-benefit_analysis_of_grand_ouest_airport_%3Cbr%3E_comparison_with_improvements_of_nantes_atlantique/1191 They argue that the new airport has more to do with boosting the egos of the local politicians - including the former Mayor of Nantes Jean-Marc Aryault who was made Prime Minister under Hollande – than beefing up the economy.

It remains unclear how much support there may be from people in Nantes living under flight path to the current airport for the new airport. Certainly, it is not visible. In contrast, the opposition has mushroomed over the last six years. Local people have been joined by a range of political and environmental organizations as well as the direct action campaigners, many of whom live in tents and tree houses in a local wooded area known as the ZAD.

There have been tensions from time to time between the local community and the direct action activists in the ZAD but last winter the ZAD won huge respect from other parts of the coalition when, in freezing cold conditions, they defied attempts by authorities to remove them.

It is probably impossible at this stage to know what will happen next in Nantes. But I think it is part of an emerging pattern: it is becoming increasingly difficult to build major new projects anywhere in Western Europe. The Nantes campaigners have links with those opposing the HS2 high-speed link in Britain (http://stophs2.org/news/5792-les-grands-projets-inutiles-imposes) through what is known as the Campaign against Useless Imposed Mega-Projects. It is what is says on the tin! It includes the NO-TAV movement against high-speed rail in Northern Italy and Save Rosia Montana, the Romanian campaign against a vast cyanide-mined gold extraction project in Western Transylvanian. Last year the Nantes campaigners hosted the Useless Imposed Mega-Projects’ annual meeting.

Iain Martin wrote in the Daily Telegraph (14/1/09) about the Heathrow anti-third campaign: “the coalition assembled outside Parliament is extraordinarily wide. It runs from radical eco-warriors to middle-class mothers in west London, hedge fund managers in Richmond, to pensioners and parents in Brentford”. The links now being made by opponents of mega-projects are in some ways an extension of this. The anarchist on the streets of Nantes has little in common with the millionaire executive in the Chilterns…….except they are both passionately against a mega-project.

Certain conditions seem to need to be present for a mega-project to attract opposition from very disparate people.

• There is a real doubt whether the mega-project is essential for the economy. The economic case for the new Nantes Airport, HS2, the Rumanian gold-mine and the third runway at Heathrow are all hotly contested.

• The mega-project is site-based, i.e. there is land, homes, countryside or communities to defend.

• The mega-project is attracting significant local opposition. If the local opposition is non-existent or small, the essential first building block is missing.

• The mega-project must attract outside opposition. Nantes has become a magnet that has drawn a diverse range of protesters each there for a differ reason: environmentalist; anti-capitalist etc.

The new Nantes airport proposed for this unfashionable part of France has become the classic ‘useless’ mega-project. I suspect Heathrow Airport – and probably also the promoters of HS2 – will be looking closely at what happens next at Nantes.


John Stewart

EuropeanAviationCampaigners

lunes, 11 de noviembre de 2013

AIRCRAFT NOISE AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE NEAR HEATHROW AIRPORT IN LONDON: SMALL AREA STUDY


This article, published on the 8th of October in the British Medical Journal, shows the relation between aircraft noise and risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease in the general population. The study considers twelve London boroughs and nine districts west of London exposed to aircraft noise related to Heathrow airport in London.

This article is complementary to the HYENA (Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports) Study, aimed at assessing the relations between noise from aircraft or road traffic near airports and the risk of hypertension (published in this blog in 2009).


Aircraft noise and cardiovascular disease near Heathrow airport in London: small area study

BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5432 (Published 8 October 2013)

Anna L Hansell, assistant director, honorary consultant; Marta Blangiardo, non-clinical lecturer in biostatistics; Lea Fortunato, research associate; Sarah Floud, PhD student; Kees de Hoogh, senior research officer; Daniela Fecht, research associate; Rebecca E Ghosh, research associate; Helga E Laszlo, acoustician; Clare Pearson, research assistant; Linda Beale, honorary research fellow; Sean Beevers, senior lecturer in air quality modeling; John Gulliver, lecturer in environmental science; Nicky Best, professor in statistics and epidemiology; Sylvia Richardson, visiting professor in biostatistics, director; Paul Elliott, director.

Correspondence to: P Elliott p.elliott@imperial.ac.uk

Accepted 16 August 2013

Abstract

Objective To investigate the association of aircraft noise with risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease in the general population.

Design Small area study.

Setting 12 London boroughs and nine districts west of London exposed to aircraft noise related to Heathrow airport in London.

Population About 3.6 million residents living near Heathrow airport. Risks for hospital admissions were assessed in 12 110 census output areas (average population about 300 inhabitants) and risks for mortality in 2378 super output areas (about 1500 inhabitants).

Main outcome measures Risk of hospital admissions for, and mortality from, stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease, 2001-05.

Results Hospital admissions showed statistically significant linear trends (P<0.001 to P<0.05) of increasing risk with higher levels of both daytime (average A weighted equivalent noise 7 am to 11 pm, LAeq,16h) and night time (11 pm to 7 am, Lnight) aircraft noise. When areas experiencing the highest levels of daytime aircraft noise were compared with those experiencing the lowest levels (>63 dB v ≤51 dB), the relative risk of hospital admissions for stroke was 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.43), for coronary heart disease was 1.21 (1.12 to 1.31), and for cardiovascular disease was 1.14 (1.08 to 1.20) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, and a smoking proxy (lung cancer mortality) using a Poisson regression model including a random effect term to account for residual heterogeneity. Corresponding relative risks for mortality were of similar magnitude, although with wider confidence limits. Admissions for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease were particularly affected by adjustment for South Asian ethnicity, which needs to be considered in interpretation. All results were robust to adjustment for particulate matter (PM10) air pollution, and road traffic noise, possible for London boroughs (population about 2.6 million). We could not distinguish between the effects of daytime or night time noise as these measures were highly correlated.

Conclusion High levels of aircraft noise were associated with increased risks of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease for both hospital admissions and mortality in areas near Heathrow airport in London. As well as the possibility of causal associations, alternative explanations such as residual confounding and potential for ecological bias should be considered.

Introduction

Although the literature on population annoyance associated with aircraft noise is extensive,1 2 little research has been conducted on the potential effects of aircraft noise on cardiovascular health.2 Most studies of the health effects associated with aircraft noise have focused on blood pressure and the risk of hypertension.3 4 5 6 7 8 The few reports of aircraft noise and risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, or cardiovascular disease are inconsistent,9 10 11 12 partly reflecting reduced statistical power because of the small proportion of the population exposed to high aircraft noise levels.10 11

Noise levels show a graded, direct relation with prevalence of annoyance. This is greater for aircraft noise than for other environmental noise sources—that is, road traffic or rail1; community annoyance due specifically to aircraft noise seems to have increased in the past 30 years.13 Noise is associated with activation of the sympathetic nervous system.14 In animal models, chronic exposure to noise leads to increases in blood pressure,15 16 and in humans noradrenaline (norepinephrine) levels,17 whereas acute exposure to non-habitual loud noise increases adrenaline (epinephrine) levels.17 Experimental studies of humans acutely exposed to noise at very high level also show increases in blood pressure18 and heart rate.19

Heathrow airport, situated in a densely populated area in west London, is one of the busiest airports in the world. Reports have shown an association between aircraft noise, especially at night, and hypertension,3 acute increases in blood pressure,7 and self reported cardiovascular disease12 in the population living near airports, including Heathrow. We investigated the risks of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease hospital admissions and mortality in areas exposed to aircraft noise near Heathrow airport.

Methods

We carried out analyses comparing rates of hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease and mortality in neighbourhoods (small areas) exposed to different levels of aircraft noise related to Heathrow airport. We used a standard noise metric, the A weighted equivalent (Aeq) sound pressure level (L), denoted as LAeq. The human ear is more sensitive to some frequencies than others. The LAeq devalues lower frequencies compared with medium and higher frequencies,20 and uses a set of mathematical curves to adjust the sound pressure level to the relative loudness perceived by human hearing. We defined daytime noise (LAeq,16h) as the average A weighted equivalent noise from 7 am to 11 pm and night time noise (Lnight) from 11 pm to 7 am.

Study area and population

The study area comprised 12 London boroughs and nine districts west of London exposed to aircraft noise related to Heathrow airport, defined as being partly or wholly within the 2001 50 dB noise contour for Heathrow aircraft during the daytime (LAeq,16h) supplied by the Civil Aviation Authority (fig 1⇓). Additionally, we had confounder data for particulate air pollution and road traffic noise for the 12 London boroughs (data for districts outside London were not readily comparable with the data available for London).


Fig 1 Contextual maps of study area and Heathrow airport showing (top) London boroughs and districts outside London overlaid with the 2001 annual average aircraft daytime (7 am-11 pm, LAeq,16h) noise contours; (bottom) annual average night time noise contours (11 pm-7 am, Lnight )

We defined neighbourhoods (small areas) by using the national census geographical units, which are census output areas and super output areas. The study area comprised 12 110 census output areas (average 297 inhabitants, area 0.13 km2) and 2378 super output areas (1510 inhabitants, area 0.65 km2). We used the census output area as the unit of analysis for hospital admissions and the super output area, an aggregate of on average five census output areas, for mortality as the numbers of deaths were insufficient for meaningful analyses at census output area level. We used Office for National Statistics annual mid-year population estimates by age and sex for 2001-05 at London borough or district level, which we then disaggregated to census output areas and super output areas using the UK 2001 census age-sex distribution.

Aircraft noise data

From the Civil Aviation Authority we obtained aircraft noise data related to Heathrow airport for 2001 on 10 m × 10 m grids. The noise data had been modelled using the UK Civil Aircraft Noise Contour Model ANCON, which uses information on flight paths of arriving and departing aircraft along with factors such as height, speed, and engine power to derive noise at ground level.21

We calculated population weighted annual average noise levels for daytime and night time aircraft noise for census output areas and super output areas. This was done because the noise grid was smaller than the area of the census output area or super output areas and populations are not evenly distributed (for example, a census output area has on average 125 addresses and six postcodes that may cluster to one or other side of the census output area) so a simple area averaging would not accurately represent population exposures (see supplementary appendix).

Health data

We extracted post coded data on hospital admissions (main reason for admission, first episode of stay in a given year) and deaths (by underlying cause) for the study area, 2001-05, from Office for National Statistics and Department of Health data held by the UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College London. Data were obtained for stroke (ICD-10 codes I61, I63-I64, international classification of diseases, 10th revision), coronary heart disease (ICD-10 I20-I25), and cardiovascular disease (ICD-10 Chapter I) and then linked these by postcode (average 23 households) to census output area and super output area.

Data on potential confounders

We included ethnicity, deprivation, and a smoking proxy at census output area and super output area level as potential confounders. Area level ethnic composition and deprivation from the 2001 census were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. For the two major ethnic groups in London, we categorised areas by South Asian ethnicity (census term “Asian or Asian British,” for which we included only “Indian,” “Pakistani,” and “Bangladeshi”) and black ethnicity (census term “Black or Black British,” which includes “Black Caribbean,” “Black African,” and “Other Black”). We used the following cut points: the national average (%) for England and Wales at census output area level (4% for South Asian, 2% for black ethnicity), double the national average (8%, 4%), and 50% South Asian or black ethnicity—areas where these comprised the majority ethnic group. This gave us four categories for each ethnicity, where the reference categories were less than or equal to the national average (%) for that ethnic group (≤4% for South Asian and ≤2% for black ethnicity). The deprivation score used was Carstairs index,22 categorised in fifths. As a proxy measure for area level smoking we used smoothed lung cancer mortality (ICD-10 codes C33-C34) relative risk estimates, 2005, for census output areas and super output areas,23 since data on individual smoking or smoking prevalence were not available.

For the 12 London boroughs within the study area we also obtained data on air pollution and daytime road noise. For air pollution, the Environmental Research Group at King’s College London provided estimates of annual mean particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10) at spatial resolution of 20 m × 20 m for 2001, using dispersion modeling as detailed in the London Emissions Toolkit and London Air Pollution Toolkit.24 We obtained data on daily average road traffic noise for 2001 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), expressed in continuous A weighted equivalent sound pressure levels (LAeq,16h,road) on 10 m × 10 m grids at 1 dB resolution between ≥50 dB and ≤75 dB. Road traffic noise data (major roads) had been generated to comply with the European Noise Directive 2002/49/EC (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm) and modeled using the calculation of road traffic noise method at a height of 4 m above ground using characteristics of the road network.25 We linked the air pollution and road noise data to census output area and super output area using population weighting (see supplementary appendix).

Statistical analyses

Correlations between aircraft noise and potential confounders were assessed using Goodman Kruskal tau rank correlation coefficients.

For the entire study area we carried out a small area analysis of aircraft noise and the three cardiovascular outcomes, adjusted for potential confounders at area level (census output area or super output area): age, sex, South Asian and black ethnicity, deprivation, and smoking proxy (lung cancer mortality risk). We conducted a sensitivity analysis for the 12 London boroughs (London area) additionally including particulate air pollution (PM10) and road noise as potential confounders.

We grouped daytime aircraft noise and road noise into six categories from ≤51 to >63 dB in increments of 3 dB, which represents a doubling in sound intensity that is just perceptible as a change in loudness to the human ear. For aircraft noise, 57 dB LAeq is taken as the point at which noticeable community annoyance starts to occur26 27; the Civil Aviation Authority attempts to minimise areas exposed to this level of noise or higher, measured as the daytime LAeq,16h over a 92 daytime summer period.27 Our LAeq,16h aircraft noise categories include a 57 dB cut point, although we use an annual not summertime average (fig 1). Night time aircraft noise affected fewer areas (fig 1), and 5 dB categories (≤50, >50-55, and >55 dB) were used.

To aid comparisons between daytime and night time aircraft noise, we also ran daytime analyses using the same 5 dB categories. The correlation between daytime and night time aircraft noise categories was almost perfect (τ ≥0.98, see supplementary table 2) so we did not include these together in the statistical models, but analysed them separately.

To allow for small numbers and unstable rates of hospital admissions and mortality we used random effects models to produce smoothed relative risk maps. To examine the effects of noise we fitted Poisson regression models with an additional random effect term to account for over-dispersion and residual heterogeneity, using the R software (www.r-project.org/) and tested for linear trend across noise categories using the median noise value for each category.

Results

Figure 1 shows the study area; the population (2001 census) was 3.6 million. During 2001-05, 189 226 first episodes of hospital stay in a given year for cardiovascular disease (16 983 stroke, 64 448 coronary heart disease) and 48 347 cardiovascular disease related deaths (9803 stroke, 22 613 coronary heart disease) occurred in the study area (table⇓). Supplementary figures 1 and 2 show the maps of hospital admissions at census output area level and mortality at super output area level, respectively. Only 2% or fewer of the study population lived in areas exposed to the highest category of daytime (>63 dB) or night time (>55 dB) aircraft noise (see supplementary table 1).

The area affected by night time noise was less extensive than that for daytime noise (fig 1). Supplementary figure 3 shows the spatial distributions of the confounder data. Areas with a high proportion of South Asian and black ethnicity population were concentrated in the north eastern and eastern part of the study area, respectively, which were also areas with higher deprivation and higher risks of lung cancer. Within the London area, higher levels of PM10 were found in the eastern part towards central London; distributions of both PM10 and road noise differed from that of aircraft noise (supplementary figure 3 and figure 1). Correlations between aircraft noise and potential confounders are shown in supplementary table 2 where τ=1 denotes perfect positive correlation and τ=−1 denotes perfect negative correlation. Correlations between confounders and aircraft noise were all ≤|0.30|. In the London boroughs, aircraft noise was modestly correlated with PM10 (τ=−0.2 for daytime noise and τ=-0.3 for night time noise) but not with road traffic noise (τ ≤0.02).

Hospital admissions

Figure 2⇓ and supplementary table 3 show the results for hospital admission for daytime and night time noise adjusted for age and sex, and with additional adjustment for ethnicity, deprivation, and the smoking proxy. For each of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease the pattern was of increasing risk of admission with increasing aircraft noise, and all linear tests for trend were statistically significant (P<0.001 to P<0.05). The risk of coronary heart disease in particular, and to a lesser extent cardiovascular disease, was noticeably reduced by adjustment for multiple confounders, in particular South Asian ethnicity.

Fig 2 Relative risks (95% confidence intervals) for associations between hospital admissions for stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease in 2001-05 and annual population weighted average daytime aircraft noise (relative to ≤51 dB) and night time aircraft noise (relative to ≤50 dB) in 2001, census output areas

In multiple adjustment models, for daytime aircraft noise (>63 dB v ≤51 dB) the relative risk for stroke was 1.24 (1.08 to 1.43), for coronary heart disease was 1.21 (1.12 to 1.31), and for cardiovascular disease was 1.14 (1.08 to 1.20). Corresponding relative risks for night time noise (>55 dB v ≤50 dB) were 1.29 (1.14 to 1.46), 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20), and 1.09 (1.04 to 1.14). Results using the same categories for daytime as for night time noise (supplementary table 3) suggested higher relative risks for night time noise.

Mortality

Figure 3⇓ and supplementary table 4 show the results for mortality for daytime and night time noise. The relative risks of mortality were numerically similar to those for hospital admissions at the higher noise levels, although confidence intervals were wider, reflecting the smaller numbers of events. In multiple adjusted models, for daytime aircraft noise (>63 dB v ≤51 dB) the relative risk for stroke mortality was 1.21 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.49), for coronary heart disease was 1.15 (1.02 to 1.30), and for cardiovascular disease was 1.16 (1.04 to 1.29). The corresponding relative risks for night time aircraft noise (>55 dB v ≤50 dB) were 1.23 (1.02 to 1.49), 1.11 (0.99 to 1.24), and 1.14 (1.03 to 1.26). Results using the same categories for daytime as for night time noise (supplementary table 4) suggested higher relative risks for night time noise. Tests for linear trend across noise categories in the fully adjusted models were significant (P<0.05) for daytime noise and coronary heart disease but not for stroke or cardiovascular disease, nor night time noise.

Fig 3 Relative risks (95% confidence intervals) for associations between mortality from stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease in 2001-05 and annual population weighted average daytime aircraft noise (relative to ≤51 dB) and night time aircraft noise (relative to ≤50 dB) in 2001, super output areas

Sensitivity analyses

Results were materially unchanged with additional confounder adjustment for particulate air pollution and road traffic noise in the 12 London boroughs (data not shown).

Discussion

In this small area study covering a population of 3.6 million people living near Heathrow airport in London, we identified significant excess risks of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease, especially among the 2% of the population affected by the highest levels of daytime and night time aircraft noise.

Strengths and weaknesses of this study

Strengths of this study include the large general population sample, inclusion of both incident events (hospital admissions) and mortality, and wide range of aircraft noise levels, providing sufficient statistical power to detect modest associations. Common to some other epidemiological studies,11 12 we analysed aircraft noise separately from other transport noise as it is currently unclear whether noise may be additive or whether aspects of noise such as sound frequency and number and duration of noisy events may be important. Limitations include inability to adjust for confounders at individual level. We were able to adjust at small area level for ethnicity, deprivation, and a smoking proxy (and additionally for particulate air pollution and road traffic noise for a subset of 2.6 million people), but we did not have access to individual level information on confounders such as smoking; therefore results at the area level may not be applicable to individuals (ecological fallacy). Admissions for coronary heart disease and to a lesser extent for cardiovascular disease were particularly affected by adjustment for South Asian ethnicity, which itself is strongly associated with risk of coronary heart disease28; hence these risk estimates should be interpreted cautiously. We restricted our hospital admission analyses to the first admission within one calendar year; as we did not link across years it is possible that some may be readmissions if they occurred in different calendar years. However, point estimates at higher noise levels were similar for mortality and hospital admissions, making it less likely that this was an important source of bias.

We examined exposures to aircraft noise in 2001 and health outcomes in 2001-05. We were unable to distinguish between short and longer term effects of noise in the present study and this needs to be examined in further research. Some studies9 12 have suggested larger effect estimates with longer duration of residence, but this may reflect exposure misclassification among more recent residents. Our data on noise exposure are left censored because of concerns about the accuracy of noise models at low levels. It is difficult to determine the resulting misclassification bias; this may also have affected the size of our risk estimates by restricting the range of noise levels across which effect sizes were estimated. A further potential source of bias is that we did not have information on migration in and out of the study areas.

Possible explanations and implications in the context of previous studies

Potential for causality of the observed associations needs to be considered in the context of previous studies, including consideration of biological plausibility and coherence. Much of the research effort concerning adverse effects of noise on cardiovascular health has focused on effects on blood pressure and risk of hypertension, hypertension being the leading cause of stroke and a major risk factor for heart disease.29 Acute exposure to noise activates the neuroendocrine system, leading to short term increases in heart rate or blood pressure, or both18 19 30 and in stress hormone levels31; neuroendocrine effects are also seen with chronic exposures17 offering potential mechanisms by which environmental noise may be related to cardiovascular risk. Although these effects have mainly been studied at high exposure levels in the occupational30 32 or experimental setting,31 they may also occur at ambient environmental noise levels.31 In a study conducted near four European airports (including Heathrow), noise disturbance by aircraft noise at night was associated with short term increases in blood pressure of 6-7 mm Hg.7

Increased risks of stroke and coronary heart disease would be expected if such physiological changes were to lead to sustained raised blood pressure.29 A meta-analysis published in 20098 of five studies (totalling nearly 45 000 participants) of aircraft noise and risk of long term hypertension gave a pooled relative risk estimate of 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.28) per 10 dB increase. A subsequent study of approximately 5000 adults in Sweden found long term effects on hypertension risk only in subgroup analyses, but half the study population had a family history of diabetes, which may affect generalisabilty.5

The previous literature concerning aircraft noise and cardiovascular disease and mortality is sparse and not fully consistent. In a cross sectional study of people living near seven European airports (including Heathrow), a significant association was observed between night time average aircraft noise and self reported heart disease and stroke (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.51) in those who had been living in the same place for 20 or more years.12 A census based study of 4.6 million adults aged more than 30 years in Switzerland reported an association with mortality from myocardial infarction in those exposed to the highest level of aircraft noise and who had lived at least 15 years in their place of residence; no associations were seen with stroke or cardiovascular mortality.9 A study of adults aged 45-85 years living in Vancouver, Canada10 did not find associations of aircraft noise with coronary heart disease mortality, neither did a population based study of about 57 000 adults aged 50-64 years in Denmark with stroke mortality.11 These previous studies had lower population exposures to aircraft noise than in London.

As with our findings for aircraft noise, significant associations have been reported for road traffic noise and heart disease10 33 34 35 and stroke.11 A meta-analysis of 24 population studies of road traffic noise found a dose-response association with hypertension,36 with a combined odds ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.06) per 5 dB increase of road traffic noise, in the range 45-75 dB.
We were unable to distinguish between night time and daytime noise as they were highly correlated and so their effects could not be differentiated. More research is needed to determine if night time noise that disrupts sleep may be a mechanism underlying observed associations.2

Conclusions

How best to meet commercial aircraft capacity for London and other major cities is a matter of active debate, as this may provide major economic benefits. However, policy decisions need to take account of potential health related concerns, including possible effects of environmental noise on cardiovascular health. Our results suggest that high levels of aircraft noise are associated with an increased risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. As well as the possibility of causal associations, alternative explanations should be considered. These include the potential for incompletely controlled confounding and ecological bias, as we did not have access to individual level confounder data such as ethnicity and smoking. Further work to understand better the possible health effects of aircraft noise is needed, including studies clarifying the relative importance of night time compared with daytime noise, as this may affect policy response.

What is already known on this topic

• Few studies have examined aircraft noise and risk of incident or fatal cardiovascular disease or stroke
• Previous studies have found an increased risk of hypertension associated with aircraft noise and increased risk of hypertension, stroke, and coronary heart disease with road traffic noise
• These findings are consistent with those from studies of occupational noise exposure, and experimental studies examining short term effects of noise on the cardiovascular system

What this study adds

• Areas with high levels of aircraft noise related to Heathrow airport in London had increased risks of stroke, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease
• Interpretation should consider not only causal associations but also possible alternative explanations such as residual confounding and ecological bias

Notes

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f5432

Footnotes

• We dedicate this paper to Lars Jarup who helped initiate this project and passed away in 2010. We thank Peter Hambly, Margaret Douglass, Eric Johnson, Kayoung Lee, and David Morley for technical support and the advisory group members: Tim Williams, Yvette Bosworth (Defra), Stephen Turner (Bureau Veritas/Defra), and Nigel Jones (Extrium) who provided traffic noise data, and Darren Rhodes and Kay Jones (Civil Aviation Authority) who provided aircraft noise data.

• Contributors: PE and ALH with MB, LF, SF, KdH, DF, LB, and SR conceived and designed the study. MB, LF, SF, KdH, DF, REG, LB, JG, and SB were involved in data extraction and preparation. JG, KdH, and DF were responsible for the Geographical Information System analyses. JG, KdH, and HEL interpreted the aircraft noise data. LF and MB with REG and CP carried out the statistical analyses, supervised by PE, ALH, SR, and NB. The analyses were interpreted by PE, ALH, MB, LF, NB, SR, HEL, and JG. ALH and PE drafted the initial report; all coauthors revised the report and approved the final version. MB and LF contributed equally to this paper and are joint second authors. PE is the guarantor of this paper.

• Funding: The work of the UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit is funded by Public Health England as part of the MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, funded also by the UK Medical Research Council. Support was received from the European Network for Noise and Health (ENNAH), EU FP7 grant No 226442. PE acknowledges support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. PE is an NIHR senior investigator. The funders had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the article; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. The advisory group provided advice on methodology but was not involved in the analyses, interpretation of results, or writing of the paper. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR, or Department of Health.

• Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: financial support for the submitted work through the funding of the UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit by Public Health England as part of the MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, funded also by the UK Medical Research Council; financial support from the European Network for Noise and Health (ENNAH), EU FP7 grant No 226442; PE acknowledges support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London; PE is an NIHR Senior Investigator; ALH and HEL declare consultancy fees from AECOM as part of a Defra report on health effects of environmental noise; ALH declares a Greenpeace membership but has not received any money from the organisation nor been involved in campaigns; nor other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

• Ethical approval: The study was commissioned by the Department of Health in England; ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Service reference 12/LO/0566 and the Imperial College Research Ethics Committee.

• Data sharing: Data are available from the data providers on application with appropriate ethics and governance permissions, but we do not hold data provider, ethics, or governance permissions to share the dataset with third parties.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.

References

1. Miedema HME, Vos H. Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am1998;104: 3432-45.
2. World Health Organization. Burden of disease from environmental noise. WHO, Regional Office for Europe. JRC, European Commission; 2011.
3. Jarup L, Babisch W, Houthuijs D, Pershagen G, Katsouyanni K, Cadum E, et al. Hypertension and Exposure to Noise Near Airports: the HYENA Study. Environ Health Perspect2008;116::329-33.
4. Eriksson C, Rosenlund M, Pershagen G, Hilding A, Ostenson CG, Bluhm G. Aircraft noise and incidence of hypertension. Epidemiology2007;18:716-21.
5. Eriksson C, Bluhm G, Hilding A, Östenson C-G, Pershagen G. Aircraft noise and incidence of hypertension—gender specific effects. Environment Res2010;110:764-72.
6. Rosenlund M, Berglind N, Pershagen G, Jarup L, Bluhm G. Increased prevalence of hypertension in a population exposed to aircraft noise. Occup Environ Med2001;58:769-73.
7. Haralabidis AS, Dimakopoulou K, Vigna-Taglianti F, Giampaolo M, Borgini A, Dudley ML, et al. Acute effects of night-time noise exposure on blood pressure in populations living near airports. Eur Heart J2008;29:658-64.
8. Babisch W, van Kamp I. Exposure-response relationship of the association between aircraft noise and the risk of hypertension. Noise Health2009;11:161-8.
9. Huss A, Spoerri A, Egger M, Röösli M, Swiss National Cohort Study Group. Aircraft noise, air pollution, and mortality from myocardial infarction. Epidemiology2010;21:829-36.
10. Gan WQ, Davies HW, Koehoorn M, Brauer M. Association of long-term exposure to community noise and traffic-related air pollution with coronary heart disease mortality. Am J Epidemiol2012;175:898-906.
11. Sørensen M, Hvidberg M, Andersen ZJ, Nordsborg RB, Lillelund KG, Jakobsen J, et al. Road traffic noise and stroke: a prospective cohort study. Eur Heart J2011;32:737-44.
12. Floud S, Blangiardo M, Clark C, de Hoogh K, Babisch W, Houthuijs D, et al. Exposure to aircraft and road traffic noise and associations with heart disease and stroke in six European countries: a cross-sectional study. Environ Health2013 (in press).
13. Babisch W, Houthuijs D, Pershagen G, Cadum E, Katsouyanni K, Velonakis M, et al. Annoyance due to aircraft noise has increased over the years: results of the HYENA study. Environ Int2009;35:1169-76.
14. Babisch W. The noise/stress concept, risk assessment and research needs. Noise Health2002;4:1-11.
15. Medoff HS, Bongiovanni AM. Blood pressure in rats subjected to audiogenic stimulation. Am J Physiol1945;143:300-5.
16. Yeakel EH, Shenkin HA, McCann SM. Blood pressures of rats subjected to auditory stimulation. Am J Physiol1948;155:118-27.
17. Ising H, Braun C. Acute and chronic endocrine effects of noise: review of the research conducted at the Institute for Water, Soil and Air Hygiene. Noise Health2000;2:7.
18. Andrén L, Hansson L, Björkman M, Jonsson A. Noise as a contributory factor in the development of elevated arterial pressure. Acta Med Scand1980;207:493-8.
19. Holand S, Girard A, Laude D, Meyer-Bisch C, Elghozi JL. Effects of an auditory startle stimulus on blood pressure and heart rate in humans. J Hypertens1999;17:1893-7.
20. Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH. Guidelines for community noise. WHO 1999.
21. Ollerhead JB, Rhodes DP, Viinikainen MS, Monkman DJ, Woodley AC. The UK Civil Aircraft Noise Contour Model ANCON: improvements in version 2 (R&D Report 9842). Civil Aviation Authority; 1999.
22. Carstairs V, Morris R. Deprivation and health in Scotland. Aberdeen University Press; 1991.
23. Best N, Hansell A. Geographic variations in risk: adjusting for unmeasured confounders through joint modeling of multiple diseases. Epidemiology2009;20:400-10.
24. Kelly F, Anderson HR, Atkinson R, Barratt B, Beevers S, Derwent D, et al. The impact of the congestion charging scheme on air quality in London. Part 1.Emissions modeling and analysis of air pollution measurements. Res Rep Health Eff Inst2011;155:5-71.
25. Department of Transport and the Welsh Office. Calculation of road traffic noise. HMSO; 1988.
26. Critchley JB, Ollerhead JB. The use of Leq as an aircraft noise index. Civil Aviation Authority, Directorate of Operational Research and Analysis 1990.
27. Lee J, Edmonds L, Patel J, Rhodes D. Noise exposure contours for Heathrow Airport 2011. ERCD report 1201; 2012.
28. Balarajan R. Ethnic differences in mortality from ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease in England and Wales. BMJ1991;302:560.
29. Elliott P, Stamler J. Primary prevention of high blood pressure. In: Elliott P, Marmot M, eds. Coronary heart disease epidemiology. From aetiology to public health. Oxford University Press; 2005;751-68.
30. Lusk SL, Gillespie B, Hagerty BM, Ziemba RA. Acute effects of noise on blood pressure and heart rate. Arch Environ Health2004;59:392-9.
31. Babisch W. Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise Health2003;5:1-11.
32. Tomei G, Fioravanti M, Cerratti D, Sancini A, Tomao E, Rosati MV, et al. Occupational exposure to noise and the cardiovascular system: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ2010;408:681-9.
33. Sørensen M, Andersen ZJ, Nordsborg RB, Jensen SS, Lillelund KG, Beelen R, et al. Road traffic noise and incident myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One2012;7:e39283.
34. Babisch W, Beule B, Schust M, Kersten N, Ising H. Traffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction. Epidemiology2005;16:33-40.
35. Selander J, Nilsson ME, Bluhm G, Rosenlund M, Lindqvist M, Nise G, et al. Long-term exposure to road traffic noise and myocardial infarction. Epidemiology2009;20:272-9.
36. Van Kempen E, Babisch W. The quantitative relationship between road traffic noise and hypertension: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens2012;30:1075-86.

lunes, 20 de mayo de 2013

¿ESTÁN LOCOS ESTOS INGLESES?

Parece mentira, un pueblo tan orgulloso de su forma de ser, elegantes, educados, trabajadores, prácticos, orgullosos, y con sentido común, aunque a los ojos de los demás parezcan altivos, cínicos, clasistas, y poco afectos a la lealtad. Uno sospecha cuando se muestran orgullosos de su gastronomía, si la comida inglesa puede clasificarse como tal, y de la altura de sus montañas; claro, que a cualquier cosa llaman gastronomía y a cualquier colina monte. Al contrario que los españoles, que a montañas de tres mil y pico metros llamamos sierra y hasta hace bien poco las migas, los huevos con jamón y el cocido eran platos humildes y de andar por la casa de cada uno. Las cosas cambian con el tiempo, y a la par que en España empezábamos a sentirnos orgullosos de nuestros paisajes y gastronomía, aunque los mayores reconocimientos vengan de fuera, desde las Islas Británicas parece que últimamente están perdiendo el sentido común y ese espíritu práctico que había que reconocerles.



Primero, ¿a qué viene que los parlamentarios británicos apuesten por la ampliación del Aeropuerto de Londres-Heatrow cuando el 26 de marzo de 2010 la justicia paralizó de la construcción de la tercera pista del proyecto de ampliación del Aeropuerto de Londres-Heathrow? Un proyecto que se aprobó en enero de 2009 y que un año después los tribunales británicos paralizaron, antes de iniciarse la obra, ordenando la revisión de la autorización por insuficiencia del trámite de participación, consulta o debate público y por la insostenibilidad de una autorización contraria a la estrategia del Reino Unido contra el cambio climático.

En el informe del comité de Transporte de la Cámara de los Comunes, se argumenta que construir un nuevo aeropuerto sería extremadamente caro para el erario público teniendo en cuenta los recortes del gasto que el Ejecutivo lleva a cabo en la actualidad, y recomienda al ejecutivo la ampliación del Aeropuerto de Londres-Heathrow con la construcción de una tercera pista e incluso una cuarta.

Las conclusiones de este informe choca con la propuesta del alcalde de Londres, Boris Johnson, que apostó a principios del año pasado por crear un aeropuerto en la "Isla de Grain", en la desembocadura del río Támesis en el condado de Kent (sureste), el nuevo Aeropuerto de Londres-Támesis (London-Thames Airport). Un proyecto conocido como "Isla Boris" que iba a ser diseñado por el arquitecto Norman Foster y que permitiría disponer de una nueva base aérea a 56 kilómetros de la ciudad. El nuevo aeropuerto dispondría de cuatro pistas de aterrizaje y despegue, de unos cuatro kilómetros cada una funcionando las 24 horas del día, y tendría una capacidad para gestionar el tránsito anual de 150 millones de pasajeros.

Además resulta que ahora los parlamentarios conservadores se han vuelto ecologistas, de salón claro, porque otro de los argumentos que esgrimen es que un proyecto de semejante envergadura perjudicaría la vida animal presente en el Estuario del Támesis. Como si a los parlamentarios tories les importase la naturaleza después de amparar, promover y justificar las mayores tropelías contra el medio ambiente cometidas en su tierra y fuera de ella.

Así, para que Londres no pierda pasajeros e incluso mejore el flujo de pasajeros, los parlamentarios proponen la ampliación de Heathrow con una tercera pista e incluso sugieren que se construya una cuarta, aunque reconocen que no son soluciones a largo plazo. Contradictorio razonamiento, entonces ¿cuál sería la solución a largo plazo? Se lo decimos nosotros, construir otro aeropuerto nuevo. Parece que en Londres van por el mismo camino equivocado que tomaron en Madrid con la nefasta ampliación del Aeropuerto de Barajas, en lugar de la construcción del Aeropuerto de Campo Real.

La ampliación de Londres-Heathrow cuenta con la oposición de los ayuntamientos y residentes del oeste de Londres que se niegan a soportar más ruidos como consecuencia del aumento de vuelos y que exigen el cierre nocturno definitivo. Afortunadamente para ellos, los pueblos inglés, escocés y galés, británicos todos, aún conservan las virtudes que han perdido sus dirigentes, o algunos de ellos. Y como disponen de los medios, como una justicia rápida y eficaz, y saben organizarse, seguro que vencerán. Desde Las mentiras de Barajas les enviamos todo nuestro ánimo y apoyo. Ellos sí sabrán librarse de gobernantes incompetentes y alejados de la realidad y los deseos de progreso y bienestar de la inmensa mayoría de los británicos.

Y segundo, la entrevista a Willie Walsh, el irlandés consejero delegado de IAG, publicada en ABC el pasado 13 de mayo. Aunque sea irlandés.



Éstas son algunas de las memorables frases de su entrevista realizada tras el anuncio de que IAG había perdido 630 millones de euros en el primer trimestre:

Esperamos que Iberia sea rentable en 2014 tras aplicar las medidas previstas

Este irlandés parece haberse contagiado de la indolencia del aprendiz de brujo que preside el gobierno de España, aunque al menos concede entrevistas.


¿Por qué están a punto de adquirir 36 aviones para BA y, sin embargo, ninguno para Iberia? Es muy simple. Iberia no se podía permitir comprar ninguno. Hemos asegurado reservas de aviones para Iberia, que se harán efectivas cuando reestructure su negocio. Si Iberia operara sola, no en IAG, no habría sido capaz de financiar nuevos aviones, porque no dispone de caja y no sería capaz de solicitar financiación porque su calificación crediticia no sería suficiente. Iberia no tendría acceso a los mercados financieros. Es tan simple como eso.

Entendemos que quiere decir que si British operase sola no habría tenido dinero para pagar las pensiones de su convenio. Iberia tenía de sobra para comprar los nuevos aviones y muchos más, tal y como contemplaba en su plan inicial de renovación de flota.


IAG premió recientemente a su consejo de administración con un bonus cuyo valor en el momento de la entrega ascendía a 7,5 millones. ¿Considera esta medida apropiada, teniendo en cuenta los resultados que presentan y la crisis de Iberia? Sí, es un bonus de largo plazo, de tres años, pero sólo se aplica para los objetivos que se han conseguido. La gente no se reparte los bonus hasta que los resultados se han satisfecho. Y, por supuesto, creo que es lo correcto hacerlo, porque todo el mundo está interesado es que se cumplan esos objetivos, para que se logre el regreso de Iberia a la rentabilidad.



Mientras los trabajadores tendrán que bajarse el sueldo, bien, bien; y todavía habrá sindicatos conformes con el acuerdo o como se llame.

Desde Las mentiras de Barajas le preguntamos ¿cómo es posible que Iberia haya perdido el liderazgo del transporte entre Europa e Iberoamérica a favor de Air France y más cuando la América que habla español y portugués va como un tiro y su economía crece sin descanso? Sencillo porque a los británicos Iberia no les importa nada. Su objetivo, y no nos cansamos de repetirlo es trocear a Iberia, succionarle todo lo que pueda y luego convertirla en un operador regional de bajo coste bajo la denominación única de Iberia Express, una vez fusionada con Vueling.

lunes, 25 de febrero de 2013

VICTORIA EN VITERBO (A VITERBO HA VINTO LA LOTTA DELLE PERSONE ONESTE)




Reproducimos la carta que el 28 de diciembre pasado hizo pública el Comitato che si oppone al mega-aeroporto di Viterbo e s'impegna per la riduzione del trasporto aereo, in difesa della salute, dell'ambiente, della democrazia, dei diritti di tutti.

Los planes para construir el megaaeropuerto deViterbo a 40 kilómetros de Roma han sido finalmente descartados. Felicitamos a todos los luchadores implicados, futuros afectados que ya no lo serán y ciudadanos italianos en general. Nos felicitamos porque en esta Europa mediterránea, que algunos consideran decadente, hay espacio para el sentido común y la rectificación.

La base aérea militar de Viterbo, cerca de la pequeña Viterbo, señalada en 2007 por el Ministerio de Transportes italiano para albergar el nuevo y gigante aeropuerto de Roma, y así aliviar el tráfico de los existentes de Ciampino y Fiumicino, ha pasado a ser un mal sueño. Una pesadilla de la que han despertado los italianos. Y esto no habría sido posible si no es por los contundentes argumentos de reputados científicos, jueces, profesores de varias universidades y la acción conjunta y decidida de grupos ecologistas, vecinales y de defensa de los derechos humanos, en contra de este monstruo de cemento y acero, que iba a barrer del mapa una zona de alto valor ecológico y arqueológico.

Mucho, muchísimo tienen que aprender las asociaciones en contra del ruido de España.

Nella conferenza-stampa di fine anno il sindaco di Viterbo ha dovuto finalmente ammettere che il mega-aeroporto non si fara'.

E' stata definitivamente sconfitta la lobby affaristica e vandalica di estrema destra (cui si prostitui' gran parte dell'insipiente ed irresponsabile ceto politico locale) che dal 2007 ha condotto una scellerata e forsennata azione per tentare di imporre a Viterbo un nocivo e distruttivo, illegale e insensato mega-aeroporto.

Ha vinto la lotta delle persone oneste

Ha definitivamente vinto la lotta delle persone oneste che dal 2007 hanno denunciato l'illegalita' e la follia della realizzazione di un mega-aeroporto nocivo e distruttivo nel cuore della preziosa area naturalistica, archeologica e termale del Bulicame; ha definitivamente vinto la lotta delle persone oneste che dal 2007 si sono battute contro l'illegale ed insensato mega-aeroporto di Viterbo e per la riduzione del trasporto aereo, in difesa della salute, dell'ambiente, della democrazia, dei diritti di tutti.

Il Bulicame salvato

La realizzazione del mega-aeroporto nel cuore della preziosa area naturalistica, archeologica e termale del Bullicame, di cui fece memoria Dante (che usava la grafia con una sola elle: "Bulicame") nella Divina Commedia, avrebbe avuto come inevitabili immediate e disastrose conseguenze:

a) lo scempio dell'area del Bulicame e dei beni ambientali e culturali che vi si trovano;

b) la devastazione dell'agricoltura della zona circostante;

c) l'impedimento alla valorizzazione terapeutica e sociale delle risorse termali;

d) un pesantissimo inquinamento chimico, acustico ed elettromagnetico di grave nocumento per la salute e la qualita' della vita della popolazione locale (l'area e' peraltro nei pressi di popolosi quartieri della citta');

e) il collasso della rete infrastrutturale dell'Alto Lazio, territorio gia' gravato da pesanti servitu';

f) uno sperpero colossale di soldi pubblici;

g) una flagrante violazione di leggi italiane ed europee e dei vincoli di salvaguardia presenti nel territorio.

L'area del Bullicame va invece tutelata nel modo piu' adeguato: istituendovi un parco naturalistico, archeologico e termale; e fin d'ora respingendo ogni operazione speculativa, inquinante, devastatrice, illecita.

E nell'ambito della mobilita' la provincia di Viterbo ha bisogno piuttosto di migliorare la rete ferroviaria ed i collegamenti con Roma, Orte e Civitavecchia; una mobilita' adeguata e coerente con la difesa e la valorizzazione dei beni ambientali e culturali e delle vocazioni produttive dell'Alto Lazio.

Continuare nell'impegno per ridurre il trasporto aereo

E' necessario non incrementare, ma ridurre il trasporto aereo.

1. Un aeroporto provoca gravi danni alla salute della popolazione che vive nei dintorni: sia attraverso l'inquinamento dell'aria, che causa gravi patologie, sia attraverso l'inquinamento acustico.

2. Il trasporto aereo provoca gravissimi danni al clima: contribuisce enormemente al surriscaldamento del pianeta.

3. Il trasporto aereo danneggia gravemente l'ambiente: sia a livello globale, sia a livello locale.

4. Il trasporto aereo e' antieconomico: consuma piu' energia di ogni altro mezzo di trasporto; danneggia gravemente la biosfera; costa molto alla comunita' poiche' e' fortemente sovvenzionato sia da finanziamenti pubblici sia da esenzioni ed agevolazioni fiscali (mentre si effettuano sciagurati tagli di bilancio per sanita' ed assistenza): paradossalmente la maggior parte dei costi del trasporto aereo li pagano i cittadini che non lo usano; danneggiando l'ambiente e sottraendo risorse pubbliche non aiuta le economie locali ma le impoverisce; l'occupazione nel settore e' limitata, spesso precaria, e le compagnie hanno spesso condotte gravemente antisindacali.

5. Il trasporto aereo e' iniquo: statisticamente e' dimostrato che e' soprattutto un privilegio dei ricchi; ma i costi li pagano soprattutto i bilanci pubblici, usando i fondi della fiscalita' generale ricavati cioe' dalla tassazione di tutti i cittadini: chi paga le tasse e' costretto, a sua insaputa e contro la sua volonta', a finanziare le compagnie aeree (le quali invece le tasse le pagano ben poco, godendo di agevolazioni e addirittura di esenzioni incredibili); le nocive conseguenze del trasporto aereo le pagano innanzitutto i poveri.

6. Il trasporto aereo non e' sicuro: di tutte le modalita' di trasporto e' la piu' pericolosa, per i viaggiatori e per chi vive nelle aree sorvolate.
Solidali coi cittadini di Ciampino e Fiumicino

Continua il nostro impegno di solidarieta' con i comitati ed i cittadini di Ciampino e di Fiumicino, per la drastica riduzione del trasporto aereo e contro ogni ampliamento di sedimi aeroportuali.

Il comitato che si oppone al mega-aeroporto di Viterbo e s'impegna per la riduzione del trasporto aereo, in difesa della salute, dell'ambiente, della democrazia, dei diritti di tutti

Viterbo, 28 dicembre 2012

Mittente: "Comitato che si oppone al mega-aeroporto di Viterbo e s'impegna per la riduzione del trasporto aereo, in difesa della salute, dell'ambiente, della democrazia, dei diritti di tutti", recapito postale: c/o Centro di ricerca per la pace e i diritti umani, strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, e-mail: info@coipiediperterra.org, sito: www.coipiediperterra.org


Y adjuntamos, en inglés, el dramático llamamiento que realizaron en agosto de 2011 a todo el mundo de la cultura y la educación el Profesor Osvaldo Ercoli, Dr. Antonella Litta, Dr. Emanuele Petriglia y el Profesor Alessandro Pizzi en nombre del comité en contra del aeropuerto de Viterbo por la reducción del transporte aéreo y en defensa de la salud, el medio ambiente, la democracia y los derechos humanos. Para consultar la carta en italiano pulsar aquí.

This is an appeal published in August 2011

An appeal to the world of culture and education:

Ladies and gentlemen, we turn to you, people who love the culture to the point of having made the call and the professional commitment of your life, asking for your urgent help. The archaeological area and spa Bulicame in Viterbo, an area of emergencies and valuable historical memories and cultural and natural heritage and resources less valuable therapeutic, and threatened with destruction by the will of a lobby speculative-fulfillment of a mega-airport.

The realization of the mega-airport would have the immediate consequences:

a) the destruction of the area Bulicame and environmental and cultural heritage found there;

b) to the devastation of agriculture of the surrounding area;

c) the ground for therapeutic exploitation of thermal resources, and social;

d) a heavy chemical pollution, noise and electromagnetic will be ‘serious harm to the health and quality’ of life of local people (and the area ‘also near the populous districts of the city’);

e) the collapse of the infrastructure network of Lazio, the territory already ‘weighed down by heavy servitude’;

f) a colossal waste of public money;

g) a flagrant violation of laws and constraints of the Italian and European safeguard the territory.

Certain irresponsible promoters of this senseless attack have announced that the Interministerial Committee for Economic Programming (acronym: CIPE) is about to finance the mega-airport, despite its blatant illegality ‘.

We appeal to the entire world of culture and education ORDER ‘help us to prevent the irreversible destruction of the place you wanted to remember Dante’s Divine Comedy.

We ask you to join this call for ‘the government does not fund the destruction of the archaeological and spa Bulicame in Viterbo, not finance a mega-airport harmful and destructive, misguided and illegal.

Professor Osvaldo Ercoli
Dr. Antonella Litta
Dr. Emanuele Petriglia
Professor Alessandro Pizzi

for the committee who opposed the mega-airport of Viterbo and is committed to the reduction of air transport, in defense of health, environment, democracy, human rights all.

Coordination of Associations of Lazio for the Mobility Alternative

domingo, 9 de diciembre de 2012

24 DE NOVIEMBRE: DÍA EUROPEO POR LA PROHIBICIÓN DE LOS VUELOS NOCTURNOS


El pasado 24 de noviembre se celebró en numerosas ciudades europeas el Día Europeo por la Prohibición de los Vuelos Nocturnos (European Day of Action Against Night Flights)

Ciudadanos europeos afectados por el ruido provocado por el vuelo nocturno de aviones de sus aeropuertos se unieron en una protesta masiva para solicitar la prohibición de la actividad aeroportuaria nocturna.

El ruido nocturno es especialmente dañino para la salud de las personas, y así lo demuestra el estudio HYENA (Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports, Hipertensión y exposición al ruido cerca de los aeropuertos) en el que se evaluó la relación entre el ruido del tráfico aéreo y del tráfico rodado cerca de los aeropuertos y el riesgo de sufrir hipertensión. (Consultar en el siguiente artículo LAS AUTORIDADES SANITARIAS ADVIERTEN: AENA MATA).

A pesar de los éxitos conseguidos por la presión vecinal, como el cierre nocturno del Aeropuerto de Frankfurt, la paralización de la construcción de la tercera pista del Aeropuerto de Londres-Heathrow, o la cancelación de los vuelos nocturnos programados también en Londres-Heathrow, la inmensa mayoría de los residentes en las áreas de influencia están afectados por unos niveles de ruido nocivos para su salud y molestos para su sueño.

No dormir no es una simple molestia, y de ello ya hablamos en el artículo ¿DEJARÍA QUE A SU HIJO LO OPERASE UN MÉDICO QUE NO DUERME POR CULPA DE LOS AVIONES?, en el que tratamos de sensibilizar al resto de la población sobre este problema de salud pública y de cambiar la percepción que tienen aquellos que no sufren el ruido nocturno de los aviones.

Así, en un ambiente festivo pero muy reivindicativo, ciudadanos de toda Europa se echaron a la calle para solicitar la prohibición de los vuelos nocturnos de sus aeropuertos vecinos.

Reino Unido, Alemania, Italia y Bélgica, fueron testigos de estas protestas. ¿España? Esperemos que la próxima también estén presentes ciudades de nuestro país, donde centenares de miles de personas están afectadas por el ruido de los vuelos nocturnos.

Es lamentable ver y padecer el empecinamiento de unas autoridades aeroportuarias y de las compañías aéreas en seguir operando de noche. ¿Han evaluado económicamente y contrastado el coste de mantener las infraestructuras operativas las ocho horas del horario nocturno y el beneficio que reportan unos cuantos vuelos? Todo ello sin tener en cuenta el coste social y medioambiental.

Adjuntamos el enlace en el que se informa desde Airportwatch de las protestas, y unas cuantas fotografías de los carteles y de las manifestaciones.









Y si a lo largo y ancho de Europa gritaban en contra de los vuelos nocturnos:

NESSUN VOLO NOTTURNO!
BAN NIGHT FLIGTHS!
NEIN KEINE NACHTFLÜGE!
NON PAS DE VOLS DE NUIT!
STOP DE NACHTVLUCHTEN!
NEI TIL NATTFLYVNING!



Desde España nos sumarnos a esta marea social:

¡NO A LOS VUELOS NOCTURNOS!

lunes, 11 de junio de 2012

AUSBAU DER FLUGHÄFEN IN FRANKFURT, MÜNCHEN, BERLIN,…? NEIN, DANKE


La fiebre de la expansión aeroportuaria se ha trasladado de España a Alemania; eso sí, con alguna diferencia; así, mientras en España contaba con el beneplácito de casi todos, en Alemania la mayoría social parece no estar por la labor de convertir las zonas residenciales cercanas en infiernos inhabitables. ¡Ninguna capital de provincia sin aeropuerto ni estación del AVE! Era el eslogan suicida de unos políticos suicidas que convencieron a una sociedad suicida para financiar unos proyectos suicidas por unos bancos suicidas… hasta que llegó alguien y les dio una pistola. Los alemanes son muy cabales, conocen el riesgo al que se enfrentan y actúan preventivamente en la calle, con la movilización social, y en los juzgados, con demandas.

En Alemania, como en España, el diseño y ejecución de los planes de expansión aeroportuaria se llevan a cabo en el ámbito local y regional ¿Nos suena familiar? En ninguno de los dos países ha existido ni existe un debate nacional sobre esta cuestión.

Pero Alemania no es España y la sociedad civil germana no es la española, y los planes de expansión aeroportuaria de Frankfurt, Munich y Berlín se han topado con la oposición de los actuales y futuros afectados por la contaminación acústica.

En España primero se aplaude y se exigen inversiones y luego se lamentan las consecuencias, alguno protesta y decide ir a los juzgados, y si alguien osa ganar una sentencia entonces llega el gobierno y con el apoyo cómplice de la oposición cambia las leyes. En Alemania primero se quejan, se manifiestan y acuden a los juzgados y si ganan una sentencia se ejecuta y se respetan las leyes existentes. Así, en España, desde la aprobación de la reforma de la Ley de Navegación Aérea, es obligatorio soportar el ruido, bien porque reside en zona de servidumbre acústica en cuyo caso no puede hacer nada, bien porque su vivienda no está afectada legalmente y entonces se fastidia igualmente. En Alemania ya han conseguido el cierre nocturno del Aeropuerto de Frankfurt.

En España no hay una movilización nacional contra la locura aeroportuaria y sus consecuencias sobre la salud y la calidad de vida de los residentes en las zonas afectadas. No obstante, hay que reconocer y aplaudir el titánico esfuerzo que lleva a cabo la Asociación Nacional de Afectados por el Impacto del Tráfico Aéreo, ANAITA, en su lucha desigual contra AENA y la Dirección General de Aviación Civil del Ministerio de Fomento.

En Alemania, desde las primeras manifestaciones nacionales contra el ruido del pasado mes de octubre, hay una conciencia y un movimiento nacional emergente contra los planes de expansión aeroportuaria. Los números son contundentes: entre 10.000 y 20.000 personas se manifiestan regularmente en Frankfurt, entre 7.000 y 15.000 asisten a las manifestaciones contra el nuevo Aeropuerto de Berlín y 7.000 en Munich contra la construcción de una tercera pista.

Adjuntamos un artículo en el que se informa de las campañas y actuaciones que están llevando a cabo las asociaciones vecinales en defensa de su salud y calidad de vida con un lema claro: progreso sí pero no a cualquier precio.



Desde Las mentiras de Barajas animamos a los alemanes a continuar con las movilizaciones y la batalla judicial hasta que la razón alcance a los políticos y responsables de la locura aeroportuaria por las buenas, o los juzgados la impongan por el peso de la ley.



A new third runway at Munich airport?



The German Spring: Young Friends of the Earth Bavaria opposing airport expansion

Young Friends of the Earth Bavaria in Germany have been campaigning against the expansion of airports in Germany. Florian Sperk tells us about the campaign against a new third runway at Munich airport.

Written by Florien Sperk, Young Friends of the Earth Bavaria

Since the first nationwide anti-noise demonstrations took place last October in Frankfurt, rumours of an emerging national movement against airport expansion have grown. So what's up in Germany?

Over the last few years local protest groups around Germany's three main airports - Frankfurt, Berlin and Munich – have been growing. In Frankfurt about 10,000 to 20,000 people are demonstrating regularly. In Berlin 7,000 to 15,000 people have marched against the new airport. And in Munich up to 7,000 people have taken part in protests. But this spring something new happened.

Something big is coming up

This spring the different groups started noticing each other, and began to recognise the power they can have in working together. In Germany all aviation issues are planned and decided at a local and regional level by town halls, not at a national level. Thus there has been a lack of a national debate around aviation. Germany has never really asked itself key questions: about the value of the different airports to the economy, or whether there should be limits to growth, or what role a reduction in domestic flights could play in the national strategy to stop climate change. Many people are arguing that the time is now right to put the expansion of the aviation industry on the national agenda. And they could be right. The profits of Germany's main airline, Lufthansa, are tumbling. There may be no need for further expansion.

The third runway in Munich!

We now look at the current protest in Munich within the context of the bigger, national picture. In Munich the expansion of the airport is said to be needed to keep possible delays below 4 minutes over the next 20 to 30 years, assuming maximum usage of the airport. Some people might think this is a joke. But is not. It is actually the main justification given for the third runway. The authorities want to make sure maximum delay shall always be less than 4 minutes, even if the demand for flights doubles. The reality is, though, that the demand for flights is decreasing every month. So there is already evidence that the biggest climate-killer of Bavaria simply does not need to expand. The third runway in Munich can and will be stopped.

No third runway in Munich!

The main reasons Young Friends of the Earth Bavaria want to stop the third runway are explained in the following short movie, made by Young Friends of the Earth Bavaria.



But, for those how don't speak German, the reasons are:

1) The airport has debts of about 2.7 billion Euros.

2) The airport has made a profit only three times in its 20 year existence

3) The third runway will cost more than 1.2 billion Euros. And all this money will be spend for a saving of 4 minutes, at a time when the budgets for social projects are cut every year.

4) The airport is Bavaria's biggest climate-killer - with about 10 % of the total emissions of Bavaria.

5) More than 1000 hectares of a conservation area for birds will be destroyed.

6) One of the last big fens in Bavaria will be critically damaged.

7) About 40,000 to 80,000 people will suffer of noise and air-pollution

Munich can become Germany's Heathrow, the London activists say

Young Friends of the Earth Bavaria invited the successful activists of Plane Stupid and AirportWatch to Munich this spring. And guess what: John Stewart, one of the activists, told us that the current situation at Munich is very similar to the situation in London in the years before the third runway at Heathrow was finally stopped. And if the strategic mastermind of the Heathrow third runway campaign says something like this, it's up to us in Young Friends of the Earth to answer with massive campaigning.

Find out more about the movement against airport expansion in Germany

lunes, 16 de abril de 2012

CIERRE NOCTURNO FRANKFURT: MISIÓN CUMPLIDA


El activismo vecinal en contra del ruido nocturno de los aviones ha logrado una importante y definitiva victoria en Alemania con la prohibición de las operaciones nocturnas en el Aeropuerto de Frankfurt.

Adjuntamos la nota de prensa distribuida por UECNA (Union Européenne Contra les Nuisances des Avions) informando al respecto.

Press Release 4/4/12

Frankfurt Campaigners win Night Flight Ban

“I suspect this ruling has brought a Heathrow night flight ban a step closer”


The campaigners at Frankfurt Airport have won a night flight ban after the German courts today ruled in their favour (1). Flights will be banned from 11pm until 5am. It is thought the ruling could have implications for night flights at other European airports. Both Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol airports, where flights operate through the night, have been watching the ruling closely.

The German decision could also influence the situation at Heathrow where the Government will begin consulting later this year on plans for a new night flight regime after the current agreement with the airlines runs out in 2014. At present, no night flights are allowed at Heathrow between 11.30pm and about 4.15am but the Government is under pressure to introduce a ban from 11pm until 6am.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths, said: “This is a very significant ruling which could have implications for airports across Europe, including Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. Critically, the German court rejected arguments by Lufthanza that its business would be damaged by a night flight ban. This is the same argument that has been made by BAA and British Airways to justify night flights at Heathrow. I suspect this ruling has brought a Heathrow night flight ban a step closer”.

The night ban at Frankfurt is only one of the demands of the German protesters, thousands of whom occupy the airport terminal every Monday night (2). They are objecting about the impact of the 4th runway which was opened in October. The night flight ban will apply to all the airport’s runways.

ENDS

(1). For the full story: http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre8330bd-us-frankfurt-nightflights/

LEIPZIG/FRANKFURT, Apr. 4, 2012 (Reuters) — A German court on Wednesday ruled in favor of a night flight ban at Frankfurt airport, Europe's third busiest, dealing a blow to German flagship airline Lufthansa and airport operator Fraport.


File photo of a Lufthansa airplane landing at Frankfurt Airport December 9, 2010. REUTERS/Alex Domanski

Lufthansa says it needs night flights at the airport so its cargo operations can compete with fast-growing Gulf airports and has warned the freight unit's future investment plans of up to 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion) rest on the decision.

After the local government said in 2009 it would allow 17 flights between 11 pm and 5am local time from the end of October 2011 on economic grounds, residents under the flight paths took the case to court.
Their complaint was upheld in October by a local court just ahead of the opening of the Fraport operated airport's fourth runway, drawing howls of protest from airlines.

On Wednesday, the judge at a higher court in Leipzig confirmed the ban and said the federal state of Hesse must make a new decision on whether to allow night flights. He cautioned, however, that there was little room for maneuver.

Lufthansa shares fell 2.4 percent while Fraport was down 1.1 percent.

At a hearing last month, the judge had indicated mistakes had been made in the approval process for the new runway, under which a mediator proposed a night flight ban, before the local government unilaterally decided to allow 17 flights.

Since the temporary ban was implemented, regular Monday protests at the airport have also seen up to 5,000 people calling for the ban to be extended by two hours each night and for the new runway to be shut down.

(2). Pictures from the protest this week (Monday 2nd April):
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.249227888507015.54981.210719355691202&type=1


Como se indica en la nota de prensa, los residentes afectados por el ruido nocturno del Aeropuerto de Londres-Heathrow y otros aeropuertos a lo largo y ancho de Europa, han recibido con alivio, entusiasmo y esperanza la decisión de la justicia germana. La Unión Europea debería legislar al respecto a favor de las personas y contemplar una prohibición generalizada de las operaciones nocturnas en los aeropuertos europeos, con la excepción de los casos de necesidad extrema, como pueden ser, por ejemplo, los vuelos especiales para misiones humanitarias.


AENA debería tomar nota y no demorar lo que ocurrirá, esperamos, más temprano que tarde, y es no operar vuelos programados en horario nocturno (de 23:00 a 7:00) en los aeropuertos en los que haya vecinos afectados por el ruido, empezando por el Aeropuerto de Madrid-Barajas.

¡Que actúe el gobierno de España ya!, y no tengan que ser, una vez más, los alemanes, británicos o franceses los que vengan a poner orden en nuestra casa.