…And FAA is Failing to Consider the Impacts on our Children.
FAA and the moneyed interests in the aviation industry (the airlines, the manufacturers, the employee unions, the contractors and the lobbyists) have been selling the spin for decades: that Aviation is a great economic engine. Well, if you spend a little time researching the facts, and if you recognize that the money invested in aviation-growth would have been invested creating jobs and quality of life in other areas of the economy, you will quickly see that this is just SPIN.
Propaganda. PR. No thanks, FAA, you have better ways to spend our money.
On top of that, there are negative consequences of excessive aviation development. Airport vicinities tend to be blighted for miles, even uninhabitable. A zone where, due to noise and air pollutants, people become sleep-deprived and burdened with asthma and other illnesses. Most residents are quick to move away; only the poorest remain behind, often because they cannot afford to leave.
Aviation noise is known to undermine focus and concentration, critically needed by students. And the air pollutants are connected to IQ loss in growing children. Here are links to the two articles tweeted in the photo above:
…and a new Stainless Steel Sarcophagus.
Sometimes, when a problem develops such as a burning Li-Ion battery on the Boeing 787, months are spent engineering a solution. Why not just seal the problem inside a box? The picture on the left gives a sense of the size of the blue-boxed original battery; on the left is the new 150-pound stainless steel sarcophagus version.
Has this solution been tried before…
…where other technologies have failed? YES!!
It was used to contain escaping radiation after the Chernobyl reactor melted down in April 1986. Many of those responding to the emergency were irradiated (and died) in the struggle to build a massive concrete and steel sarcophagus. In truth, that shell leaks, and is rapidly disintegrating, so a new sarcophagus is being constructed nearby, and will eventually be slid into place to protect the first sarcophagus (the radiation over the reactor was too intense and dangerous to construct in-place).
There is a clear difference of scale…
…between the 1986 technology failure at Chernobyl and the 2012 failures on board the Boeing 787. But, Boeing’s fix does beg the question: why not just revert to NiCad battery technologies, with a safer record? After all, by adding the expensive sarcophagus, there is no longer any weight-savings. One commentor to the Seattle Times article nailed it with this: