Despite the fact that
it appears that he intends to do so nonetheless.
Characterizing “some” statements by community members in opposition to the project as “inaccurate,” Dubie proposed to share his “thoughts” on the subject; however, the Free Press notes that he didn’t get particularly specific about what those innaccuracies were, other than to suggest that the facts on which opponents base their concerns are somehow incomplete or inconclusive. Swell.
Continuing to “not be a part of the public relations campaign,” Adj.General Dubie had this comment about the complaint that there has been a hint of economic blackmail in the mix:
He said it is incorrect to say he has used “scare tactics” about base closing to deflect F-35A critics. But if the base doesn’t replace the F-16 (which will be mothballed within the decade) with the new fighter/bomber, he said, the Air Guard station has “no clear path forward” and is likely to become “much smaller.”
I am sure that the folks in South Burlington and Winooski feel greatly reassured.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I was discussing the proposal to locate F-35’s at Burlington airport with an engineer friend who had worked in the Canadian aircraft industry some years back. While he was sympathetic to the noise issue, he seemed to think that the greater concern for environmental impacts might come from the accompanying, more powerful radar station that will have to be built to serve the expanded capabilities of these jets.
It was his view that, while the effects on humans would be negligible, flying creatures might not fare so well.
Bear in mind that, so far, the jets do not seem to have been tested in areas with the same population density (human and otherwise) or natural topography as that of the Burlington area.
I couldn’t find a great deal of data readily available on possible threats to living organisms from radar radiation; but two studies caught my attention.
The World Heath Organization opinion seems to be that the effects on humans are inconclusive, but not particularly concerning.
However, a limited study on the effects of radar on bird populations invites a very different conclusion.
Remember that the observations in both of these studies were drawn from examples of older, and presumably less-powerful generations of radar equipment.
I’m just throwing this out there. Should anyone have useful perspective to offer on the subject, please weigh-in and set me straight.
I still can’t understand why, with the noise issue being the most compelling argument against, there has been no actual demonstration of one of the jets in South Burlington. This would answer a lot of people’s questions.
Could it be that the Air Force/Air National Guard is fearful that a real-life demonstration might awaken the concerns of people who are not now actively engaged in opposing the plan?