Much
was made in the news this week of the findings published in the
British Medical Journal, of the link between aircraft noise and the
risk of stroke and heart disease, despite the fact that there is
nothing new in this; research along these lines has been well aired
in recent years. Yes, the noise of low-flying aircraft can be
stressful, which may well be enough to raise one’s blood pressure,
especially if it prevents you from getting a good night’s sleep.
However, I feel that they are missing the point. What matters more, I
would suggest, is the demographic make-up of those living under
flight paths.
No one in their right mind would actually choose to
live with the constant noise of a busy airport intruding morning noon
and night. Those that can, choose with more care where they opt to
live, whether along tranquil country lanes or amidst the hustle and
bustle of a big city, with sound insulating triple glazed windows.
The point is, the people who cannot afford to live elsewhere have
little option but to live where the cost of housing is within their
grasp. They are likely to be on lower incomes, if in employment at
all, and will have fewer options about their lifestyles, with little
means of escape. This in itself will have a significant impact on
their health, with the close proximity to aircraft noise just an
additional factor. Mention is made of the account planners
should take when making decisions on the siting of airports, where
once again those that have the wherewithal to shout longest and
loudest are more likely to ensure their lives are not blighted, and
their house values remain intact, or they up sticks and move. Those
living in rented accommodation or social housing may not have that
option. One thing we should not do is to blame the airlines. If we
want to continue flying off to sunny Spain at the drop of a hat,
sadly this is the price that many will pay. Let's hope they live long
enough to enjoy it, provided the NHS has sufficient funds to keep
them in pills.
No comments:
Post a Comment