The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Collision Course of Aviation and the Community by M. Wiggin, B.A. Sc., The recent supplement prepared and published by the Ontario Government was intended to describe the proposed airport and the off ect that it would have on its environs. It was a "nice" article, but did little te explain the real im- pact cf an airport on surroun- ding comuunlties. T1h. uap appearing in the supp- lement lllustrated 0 noise lands" associated vlth the prevailing north.westerly and westerly winds, and the result ing take-off patterns. if south-easterly or ea-sterly wlnds occur, howover, fllght take-off and landing direct- ions would b. reversed and the "noise land" would probably extend south-easterly and easterly ta include Whitby Ajax, Western Oshawa and Myrtle as indicated on the uap It might aima be in order ta comment on the manner in which a westerly corner was out off ta spare Richmond Hill the probleus of hf e wlthin the noise area. A good maneouver for minimizing opposition at thîs time; but is it real- istic? Having shown a more probable picture of the noise area, lette examine lufe within it. NOISE AND THE PEOPLE A utudy* of the effect ai JFK airport revealed many aspects of lhf. within the airport "noise land" seemingly ovér- loaked and omitted in the gov- erflmeflt5publication. 0f a sample af 1000 persons selected from within a noise land af NEF 30 illustrated above, 93% were irritated by noise, 80% faund conversations difficult at tîmes, 96% ex- perienced interference with televîsion watching, 53% had problems with sleeping, 37% exporienced nervousness, 29% headaches and 11% weariness du. to extended sleeping prab- les. A similar atudy irdicated that about 32 % sufferide at times fr0. insomnia, of which almost one haif have had nervous breakdowns or iapending break- downs. This implis that al- most an. person in seven with- In the "noise land" will prob- ably have such nervous problema Lif e in Stouffville, Claremont and even Whitby, appears a bit gria. Over and above the mentioned problems, how will aur edu- cational institutions fare? It lsesetimated that in schools within the noise area, teaching becomes impossible, for about 20 seconda when a jet passes overhead. In busy periode, a plane might f17 over as aiften as once every two minutes, A simple calcu- lation reveals that aImost 10 minutes per hour of net teach- ing time will be wasted, or almost one day per week--over two montha per year. Consider also the negative effect that constant interruption, or as some teachers say, "the jet- pause teaching method" might have on children and their learning experience. landinga. Trom this, it can b. postulated that we might eventually experience on. maj- or air disaster every 14 montha; mont of which occur within ton miles of the air- port.* A comfort ing thought.no doubt. T1h. mont obvious impact of the airport on land use je that, chiefly because of noise levels, the are& included with- in the so-called "noise land" la undesirable for residency Those who romain or move into the "noise area"t hovever, znay improve conditions by "beefing upP sound insulation in the home. Fine If you sperid mont of your time inuid.. AVIATION AND THE COW4UNITY 0f great concern to those liv- ing away from the airportfs influence is the fate of ex- isting recreational areas;the Claremont and Greenwood Con- servation areas in particular These parks are fully within the noise areas and experierice ail af the asisociated problems. It in reasonable ta expect that the advent of the airport would preclude the conserva- tion area's use for pleasure and relaxation. FALLING OBJEOTS Ini conclusion, it should b. noted that the effects of the In> addition to the drapping proposed airport here des- ohim. and particulate matter cribed are but a f ew; none af '#hat'has become so much a part which were previously brought of urban lire, past studios ta the public's attention. It predict with aîarming con- would be refreshing ta see the stancy that ans major air dis.' governuent spending nome cf aster occurs every 740,0C0 aur money making lire more take-affs and landing. pleasant here for everyonet rather than making it easioe Cansidering that the proposed f ar a f ew to get away from it airport is ultimately suppased al ta handle 48 million passen-. gers per year, let us assume that aircraft carry an average ai 150 persans; thus, we uigbt anticipate that about 320,000k aircraft uight use the airport about 640,000 take-offe and Attention Federal and Provincial Cabinet Mi nisters "In a democratic system it is not the roie of professionai experts or advisors to mnake basic decisions about. . .priorities. Such decisions are properiy made by governments, business firms, labour unions, consumners. . .and ultimnately are subject to ratification or rejection by the Canadian public, in their dual role as consumers and voters." Sixth annuai review of the Economnic Councii of Canada. LATE NEWS A poil is to be distributed to get an in- dication of those for or opposed to the New Toronto Airport. The Peopie or Planes Committee has requested sufficient time for dispersai of ail information before any such poli be made. It is suggested that if any poil be distributed before ahl information is dispersed, vote against and note that further information is requested. c, Why becouse?