Aircraft noise - have your say...

[StraferJack]

You think I'm ranting? How so?

I've been posting on this forum for 7 years now. Approx 15000 posts from me haven't cowed people into silence. This forum expands and expands. No one could give two hoots about my contribution

Far more likely that people, aren't posting on this topic because you are in a teeny minority

Which is ok, that's fine. But urging people, to sign petitions and using language describing now it will damage our children is not fine. That is scaremongering. And that is why I am posting on this thread

[fazer71]

StraferJack

The people who are annoyed probably don't frequent this forum.

This forum contain a wafer thin selection of East Dulwich inhabitants who have time on their hands to write posts and chat about local issues 99% of ED residents don't.

Many people "not on this forum" who you ask say they have noticed an increase in aircraft noise.

I believe the increase has been dramatic over the last 18 months and has impacted the southern edge of ED and Dulwich Village where it was previously not an issue.

I accept you haven't seen any noticeable difference and you're not bothered by aircraft noise.

WHY do YOU fail to accept I have see a dramatic change and I am very bothered by the aircraft noise?

Is it because you are afraid of something? Is I because you don't care about other peoples problems? Is it because you only care about yourself?

I really really really do not understand your viewpoint on this.

"on this forum for 7 years now. Approx 15000 posts from " and you haven't learn't to stop being a C$NT ?

[mikeb]

got to say, I've been on this forum for 7 years as well (not 15,000 posts though) and the vitriol from this one has really surprised me. Just for the record, I'm another of this tiny minority who detests the noise from airplanes and the attitude of the government / Heathrow that we just have to put up with it. Problem is that for those are who bothered by the noise, arguments and data don't actually reduce their problems. And someone else saying "not a problem for me, you should just deal with it" is just adding accelerant to the fire.

take a step back: we land 350,000 flights each year right over 3m+ people starting at 4:45am and finishing around midnight. Just maybe we could do this better? maybe before we further entrench Heathrow with a third runway?

[JamesMS]

I wholeheartedly agree with the 'minority' who believe that the aircraft noise is awful and has gotten much much worse recently (I don't really care if there is evidence this is not the case. In my view the planes are more frequent and much lower which has made the noise pollution an issue which seriously affects a number of East Dulwich's residents' quality of life in East Dulwich).

I also noticed the fact that there were no planes going overhead during Saturday - I woke to the sound of birds rather than the whining of jet engines every couple of minutes. It was quite a revelation.

Only a few more decades until hopefully they shut down Heathrow and build an airport in the estuary. In the meantime, surely there are some things government, MPs, councillors, Heathrow, whoever can do to try and alleviate the concerns of those people living directly under/near to the approach paths.

[mockney piers]

"I don't really care if there is evidence this is not the case. In my view... "

This is the homeopathy thread and I claim my five pounds

[Penguin68]

I think the point that a number of us have been trying to make is that the aircraft noise is ED is not as uniformly annoying as it is, I would think, for those living much closer to Heathrow. The planes are much higher, and thus less intrusive.

The ?facts? (that recorded flights have not got very much more frequent) suggest that the perception that some have that they have done so, suggests that it is as much ?in the eye of the beholder? as a matter of observable evidence.

I (and I suspect many of those taking the same position as I do) do not believe that those ?suffering? are either inventing or exaggerating their levels of anxiety about the noise. For you the problem is entirely real.

What we are saying, however, is that it may be more effective to adjust your own perceptions than to think you will be able to get all night flights banned from Heathrow or Gatwick (which would be your only reasonable end-game ? to get them diverted to fly elsewhere than over ED is to selfishly try to shift your problem to someone else?s shoulders). I think that if night flights were banned you would then start to find day-time flights intolerable also. You live in a major economic global hub city ? with all the benefits that brings as regards job prospects, quality of cultural life etc. etc. It requires travellers (business and pleasure) to operate successfully. With that benefit may come penalties.

There are numbers of effective strategies (CBT, Mindfulness etc.) which would help you in adjusting ? as those of us without your problems have - to the annoyance of the noise. Sometimes it is possible to change the world, sometimes it may be more realistic to change yourself.

[Peckhampam]

Good, sensible post.

[StraferJack]

indeed PP, but it is a post and point that has been made several times on this thread, to no avail

[fabfor]

mikeb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> got to say, I've been on this forum for 7 years as

> well (not 15,000 posts though) and the vitriol

> from this one has really surprised me. Just for

> the record, I'm another of this tiny minority who

> detests the noise from airplanes and the attitude

> of the government / Heathrow that we just have to

> put up with it. Problem is that for those are who

> bothered by the noise, arguments and data don't

> actually reduce their problems. And someone else

> saying "not a problem for me, you should just deal

> with it" is just adding accelerant to the fire.

>

> take a step back: we land 350,000 flights each

> year right over 3m+ people starting at 4:45am and

> finishing around midnight. Just maybe we could do

> this better? maybe before we further entrench

> Heathrow with a third runway?

Very well stated, Mikeb, and JamesMS.

Unfortunately, your sensible posts have been largely shouted down - again - by those who aren't affected by the noise.

Sj - why are you wasting your time here? You've said your bit time and time again to protect the public from our lies. Move on to things that affect you, please (as EP, who agrees with you, advised).

Pardon me saying this but you seem "obsessed".

[StraferJack]

no one has been shouted down fabfor since mike and james posted

mike and james both added their points which agree with you and that's fair enough

I see that james' post has been mocked by el pibe for obvious reasons but other than that noone is shouting apart from you.

to say this doesn't affect or concern me when you have a petition to change something pretty fundamental is a bit off tho

[Lowlander]

Actually, from an acoustic point of view, it's quite interesting.

Some people are more senstitive to sound, some are tone deaf, and some are practically deaf.

On top of that, some people have different sensitivities. I'm completely immune to someone dragging their fingernails down a blackboard for instance, whilst some people's spine tingle just thinking about it.

Aircraft noise is real and affects people. Advising them to take CBT is not realistic...

[Penguin68]

Aircraft noise is real and affects people. Advising them to take CBT is not realistic...

Claustraphobia is also real, many people are really frightened about rats, and mice, and spiders and open spaces and closed spaces and.... the point about CBT and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (like, for instance, yoga) is that they help people operate in real world situations to address issues which are causing them anxiety. It is clear from some of these postings that the noise sufferers are in states of anxiety, not just about themselves but about others (the children, oh the children!..)

Some annoyances (such as noisy parties and annoying neighbours) are within your personal remit to address - an entire industry tends not to be, particularly when your levels of annoyance and anxiety are not generally mirrored in others. I am perfectly sensitive to sound (my hearing has been tested as being 'much younger' than my calendar age) and many sounds do annoy me. I have chosen (and I think that's right, it has been my choice) not to be annoyed or made anxious by aircraft noise as evidenced in ED. There are perfectly good remedies which others could use to achieve my equilibrium about aircraft noise here.

By all means sign as many petitions as you want to - I am merely suggesting a route which has worked for others and may for you. I would suggest that it will be a lot quicker (to achieve relief) than following the lobbying route (and, as has been noted before on this thread, aircraft are anyway being made to be less noisy now than they were in the past - so the problem is (simply in terms of sound measurements) possibly now decreasing and will decrease).

But for those with aircraft noise anxiety problems this decrease may not be 'heard' or benefited from.

[Lowlander]

Well if you can tell me how (a) CBT will help these people (b) you would illuminate the many people who have joined HACAN and other organsations © they are going to afford it; ?60 a session? How many sessions? And if it doesn't work?

[Otta]

I haven't trawled through the 288 previous posts on this thread, so sorry if I'm going over old ground.

But what exactly do those that have issues with the noise propose be done about it? And what are the petitions petitioning for? Serious questions.

[fabfor]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I haven't trawled through the 288 previous posts

> on this thread, so sorry if I'm going over old

> ground.

>

> But what exactly do those that have issues with

> the noise propose be done about it? And what are

> the petitions petitioning for? Serious questions.

Serious questions deserve serious answers:

get a secretary to research it for you or, if you're really interested, do some footwork. Otherwise, and for the umpteenth time, don't be a "busybody".

[fabfor]

I should explain to those who may not be aware that I think we're dealing here with a sustained attempt to kill this thread.

A simple check on the historic posts of members should give some idea of allegiances.

[Penguin68]

Well if you can tell me how (a) CBT will help these people (b) you would illuminate the many people who have joined HACAN and other organsations © they are going to afford it; ?60 a session? How many sessions? And if it doesn't work?

I am not a CBT practitioner but:-

(a) - CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) gives those who have anxieties or phobias (or depression, some types of OCD etc. etc.) a toolkit which allows them to 'think' through their particular problems and learn how to address/ suppress them. It is not the only therapy which could help here - as I have said Mindfulness or possibly some of the relaxtion therapies like yoga might also help.

(b) - I am not sure I understand here what you mean about 'illuminate' - those who have joined anti-noise action groups may well (e.g. those much living closer to Heathrow etc.) have a much clearer and less contested set of issues - i.e. a much greater percentage of those living im these areas are being more directly effected by aircraft noise - the points that I and others have been trying to put here is that quite a few living in ED are not so extremely effected as others - suggesting the problem may be one of perception and focus as much as of absolute noise levels.

© CBT (there are other therapies which might be of use) can be availble through the National Health Service as part of the government's IAPT programme (Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies). In which case, if your response is acute enough, there would be no charge. However many people are quite happy to pay e.g. physiotherapists (and othery types of therapist) to address their own problems. The CBT success rate (for those who attend all sessions and complete the 'homework') can run at 50-60% - which is a good score for psychological therapy - the close measurement of success and failure forms part of the IAPT protocols) - the IAPT programme envisages 3 face-to-face sessions and 3 telephone consultations for low intensity therapy (which is what this would be).

If it doesn't work (and it might not be your first choice anyway) there are other therapies.

[Lowlander]

"I am not a CBT practitioner but:- "

Then I'd argue you're not qualified. If you can point me towards evidence supporting your theories, happy to read...

[Otta]

fabfor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I haven't trawled through the 288 previous

> posts

> > on this thread, so sorry if I'm going over old

> > ground.

> >

> > But what exactly do those that have issues with

> > the noise propose be done about it? And what

> are

> > the petitions petitioning for? Serious

> questions.

>

> Serious questions deserve serious answers:

>

> get a secretary to research it for you or, if

> you're really interested, do some footwork.

> Otherwise, and for the umpteenth time, don't be a

> "busybody".

Thread on a public forum inviting people to have their say.

I make first post on said thread asking what is being proposed because I really don't have time to read 288 posts, most of which will be petty arguing.

Am called a busybody who is trying to derail a thread.

Okay then.

[Otta]

fabfor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A simple check on the historic posts of members

> should give some idea of allegiances.

You should dig deeper mate. Myself and the likes of SJ have never shied away from disagreeing with each other. The fact we both happen to be asking questions is nothing to do with an allegiance. I really don't have any strong feelings on this, certainly not strong enough to form a gang to bring your thread to it's knees. I was just taking an interest.

But rather than taking the opportunity to set out clearly what you're after (which would be quite useful for new readers given that this thread originated from 2011), you were just dismissive and rude.

[Penguin68]

am not a CBT practitioner but:- "

Then I'd argue you're not qualified. If you can point me towards evidence supporting your theories, happy to read.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Cognitive-behavioural-therapy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

https://www.myptsd.com/c/articles/cognitive-behavioral-therapy.19/

http://www.healthcentral.com/anxiety/c/1950/17898/10-reasons-cbt/

http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/services/

http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/

http://www.nhs.uk/Service-Search/Counselling-NHS-(IAPT)-services/LocationSearch/396

http://cognitivetherapyonline.com/cbt4panic/evidence-for-cbt

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/social-anxiety-disorder-and-the-effectiveness-of-cbt

http://www.dailystrength.org/treatments/Cognitive_Behavioral_Therapy

Do please let me know how you would like my posts referenced in future, personally I prefer 'Harvard' but I will consider other reference styles.

Oh, and I'm not a practitioner, but a close family member (and a number of friends) are, and we do talk about issues arising.

[picmicnic]

Not sure if this has been posted before but I recieved the following message for HACAN yesterday

E-mail was entitled - Public Meetings on aircraft noise in SE London

"Dear All,

This is to let you know there are two meetings which have been organized by local residents in SE London re: Heathrow aircraft noise coming up. Apologies for the short notice re: the Greenwich one but we just heard about it at the end of last week.

John Stewart

HACAN

13th March, Public Meeting, 7.30 pm, Ashburnham Arms, Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich SE10 8UH

Tuesday 18th March, Public Meeting, 7.30pm, and run till 9.30pm, Howell Hall, upstairs at St. John's Church, Brockley, London SE8 4EA. Right next to St John's train station. Heathrow Airport will be present at this one"

[Lowlander]

"Do please let me know how you would like my posts referenced in future, personally I prefer 'Harvard' but I will consider other reference styles. "

ED Polytechnic? None of these links state that CBT is effective in eliminating sensitivity to noise. When you can demonstrably state that it does, do let us know!

[Otta]

How can a therapy designed to alter behaviour do anything to reduce sound sensitivity? I'm not an expert, but that seems as absurd as saying CBT can cure autism.

[Penguin68]

None of these links state that CBT is effective in eliminating sensitivity to noise.

If you believe that you have a clinical intolerance to noise then there are drug therapies which may help you by reducing sensitivity - perhaps amitryptoline (which is also a mild specific against anxiety) - but then all noise and not just that of aircraft should trigger this. If your intolernace to noise is a psychological response to a specific source of noise then it may form part of an anxiety spectrum, in which case CBT can certainly be effective. It may also possibly belong to an OCD spectrum (you are unable to 'tidy' the noise away) - again CBT can address some of these issues. It may also be a focus for a depressive illness - again CBT can help here.

So - if you are intolerant (compared with others) to all noise sources over a particular Db then I weould suggest looking towards drug therapy - if a specific set of noises (which do not impact all others exposed to the same stimuulus) is your problem it does suggest that a psychological remedy may be more useful for you.