Since the opening of the parallel north-south runway at Sydney airport in November, independent reports have emerged highlighting the adverse health effects suffered by residents living under the new flight paths. DEAF — Doctors and Allied Health Professionals Educating About Flyovers — grew out of the concerns of several general practitioners who have surgeries under these flight paths. CAMERON PARKER of 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly spoke to ANN LONG, an occupational diseases expert and representative of DEAF, about the possible long-term health effects caused by the burn-off of aircraft fuel.
Benzene is a by-product of spent aircraft fuel. Why should we be concerned about it?
Benzene is a known carcinogen that causes leukemia. In the case of carcinogens, we don't know what is a safe level. The analogy is with smoking: the more you smoke, the more likely you are of getting cancer of the lungs.
The known safe level of benzene has been falling over the last few years. While emission standards help diminish exposures, they only tell you a safe level given the knowledge and quality of measuring equipment at the time.
What has the Federal Airports Corporation been doing to monitor the levels of benzene around Sydney airport?
The FAC in 1994 published a Draft Air Quality Management Plan (DAQMP) which is quite deficient. It bases its calculations on data that are not presented, nor does it show how the data were arrived at. The FAC has taken the line that the extra emissions from the airport are diluted across the entire Sydney basin. They quote the additional levels of carbon monoxide as being 0.6% and about 3.4% for polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
The fallacy in this argument is, while the increase in aircraft emissions may be diluted across the whole Sydney basin, the levels underneath the flight paths could be as much as 100-fold above the figures quoted by the FAC. Nobody's measuring it to find out how much higher the emission levels are, and yet the DAQMP says emissions are not a problem.
So Sydney airport is lowering the air quality of the areas around it?
We've already got a polluted environment, and the airport is adding to that. The National Health and Medical Research Council has certain levels which we shouldn't go beyond for certain substances, expressed as averages. In a month you may have excursions way above or below these averages, but the average on its own looks OK.
What's happening with Sydney airport is that, in certain areas, the number of excursions per month is going to go way above the average. If you're getting an average in one month of 20 parts per billion [ppb], then on some days you're likely to be getting excursions that are 10-fold or 100-fold above that.
Do other countries have standards specifying safe levels of aircraft emissions?
There are two different standards: workplace and environmental. In Australia we have a workplace standard for benzene, but we don't have one for the environment, like they do in Britain.
Manchester Airport, for example, is in the country and monitors aircraft emission levels 24 hours a day. Sydney airport, situated in a suburban and industrial area, doesn't monitor aircraft emissions at all. The only monitoring the FAC did was for the DAQMP, where they took levels for a short period of time at one site in Botany and at the northern boundary of the airport.
At Manchester, they can actually link emissions from individual engines of aircraft. They will fine aircraft companies whose emissions are above certain levels.
In some months, there are benzene emissions above 20 ppb, but the British standard for air is 3 ppb — and Manchester is supposed to be environmentally sensitive. One can only assume that a non-environmentally sensitive airport like Sydney has much higher levels than Manchester.
Is Badgerys Creek airport going to be a healthier solution than Sydney?
If planes are producing these kinds of emission levels, then you had better put airports where people won't be exposed. That means out in the country where the emissions will be diluted, not in the middle of a city of 3« million people.
One would expect lower levels of pollution at Badgerys Creek, with fewer people being exposed. However, Badgerys Creek is subject to particular weather conditions, where pollution from the Sydney basin gathers. Pollution problems will still exist at Badgerys Creek.
There are measures that can be used to reduce both the noise and emissions, but they cost money. Planes take off to the north not just because of wind direction, but because of economics. Planes don't take off and land over water because it means flights might be 20 minutes longer.
What should the government be doing to alleviate the health effects of aircraft flyovers?
A proposal is before the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney to get proper measurements and proper monitoring over time to find out what the emissions from Sydney airport are. The proposal, costing between $15,000 and 20,000, is to rent the appropriate measuring equipment; the people who wish to do the monitoring will donate their expertise.
DEAF considers that the general practitioner study proposed in the original FAC funding should be done because it already has data prior to the opening of the third runway. Some of the proposed sleep disorder studies should also be funded. It would be very worthwhile to get proper measurements of the aircraft emissions. Studying the compounded effects upon people with respiratory problems, like asthma, would also be very worthwhile.
As well, a study looking at the performance of school children, using data that are available before the opening of the runway for comparison, should be initiated.
My personal position is that there is sufficient evidence that the airport is an inappropriate thing to put in the midst of 200,000 people who are directly affected and 600,000 people who are indirectly affected. It is retrograde and urban hooliganism.