Vermont Guard Commander Tries to Downplay F-35 Bomber Noise
The Vermont Guard Commander, General Dubie, held a brief press conference last week to defend the basing the F-35 bombers. “Vermont Guard commander defends basing of F-35s” While attempting to downplay noise impacts, and to seemingly cast doubt on the validity of the Air Force’s own draft Environmental Impact Statement, the General offered no actual data to back up his claims and assurances.
Reasons to say no to the F-35….
1. According to the Air Force Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the F-35 bomber is much louder than the F-16. The EIS also shows that basing the F-35 here will place 1366 additional houses in Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski, Williston and Colchester within the FAA-defined “incompatible with residential use” 65 dB noise level contour. Over 100 homes within that contour have already been demolished in S. Burlington because of F-16 noise. The F-35 will bring half the houses in Winooski and a dozen streets in Burlington within that “incompatible” contour.
Draft EIS Contact List
Please contact the people listed below before June 20th and tell them you don’t want the F-35s coming to Vermont. Postal mail needs to be postmarked by June 20th.
— Main Air Force Contact for the Draft EIS —
[email protected]
Mr. Nicholas Germanos
HQ ACC/A7PS
129 Andrews St., Suite 337
Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769
Ms. Kathleen Ferguson
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations – SAF-IEI
1665 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1665
*Required to read letters sent directly to her
EIS: F-35 has a maximum loudness that is more than 4 times louder than maximum loudness of the F-16
Sound level, sound intensity, and loudness are explained in the Air Force draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The bottom line is, according to figures in the EIS, the maximum loudness of the F-35 is more than four times louder than the the maximum loudness of the F-16 both at takeoff and landing.
The EIS explains the difference between three concepts: sound level, sound intensity, and perceived loudness
Here are the numbers and explanation, all from the EIS:
Table BR3.2-1 on page BR4-18 of the EIS gives the Lmax for the F-16C and the F-35A
More reasons to say no to the F-35….
1. According to the Air Force Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the F-35 bomber is much louder than the F-16. The EIS also shows that basing the F-35 here will place 1366 additional houses in Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski, Williston and Colchester within the FAA-defined “incompatible with residential use” 65 dB noise level contour. Over 100 homes within that contour have already been demolished in S. Burlington because of F-16 noise. The F-35 will bring half the houses in Winooski and a dozen streets in Burlington within that “incompatible” contour.
Jimmy Leas’ Letter to Governor Shumlin
Dear Peter,
The only argument you raise for supporting basing the F-35 in South Burlington is economic.
However, the issue on the table right now is the environmental impact of the basing the F-35 in South Burlington. I notice that nothing in your response disputes the facts about the devastating impact on South Burlington, Winooski, and Williston and part of Burlington and Colchester that are specified in the Air Force’s own Environmental Impact Statement. Surely these devastating impacts will be felt economically as well as environmentally. Already over 100 houses have been razed in South Burlington. The F-35 will cause 1300 houses, as well as businesses, churches, and schools to fall in the same noise range or a greater noise range that condemned those homes. Is there no economic loss involved?
Invitation to Sign on to Lawsuit
Repost from stop the f35 website Fri, 09/14/2012 – 12:51pm — odmin Dear Fellow Vermonter, Now is the time for action. We, the members of the stop the F-35 coalition, are preparing a two-pronged legal challenge to the basing of the F-35 in Vermont. This legal challenge comes in addition to our campaign of education […]
Federal Budget Fact From Fiction
From http://www.tedauch.com/
So President Obama released his much anticipated budget today and I took a couple of minutes to analyze the numbers to find the winners and losers. The results will surprise those on the right and left alike (See Figure Below).
The big winners are:
1. the Natural Resource Conservation Service with respective 2011-2012 and 2010-2012 budget increases of 123{33979494efa9b9c28f844b5c37a1ddedf4bb90a2eb3dac7a83ede58b7eac2e67} and 167{33979494efa9b9c28f844b5c37a1ddedf4bb90a2eb3dac7a83ede58b7eac2e67}.
2. the Department of Energy with a 2010-2012 increase of 134{33979494efa9b9c28f844b5c37a1ddedf4bb90a2eb3dac7a83ede58b7eac2e67}.
3. the Department of Transportation with 2011-2012 and 2010-2012 increases of 113{33979494efa9b9c28f844b5c37a1ddedf4bb90a2eb3dac7a83ede58b7eac2e67} and 115{33979494efa9b9c28f844b5c37a1ddedf4bb90a2eb3dac7a83ede58b7eac2e67}
From Pentagon, a Buy Rating on Contractors
By JOE NOCERA
At the Cowen & Company military industry investment conference on Wednesday, the breakfast speaker was a man named Ashton B. Carter. A former academic and industry consultant, Dr. Carter, as he likes to call himself — he has a doctorate in theoretical physics, in case you were wondering — is the Defense Department’s under secretary for acquisitions, technology and logistics. That is, he’s the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer.