Since the opening of the parallel north-south runway at Sydney airport in November, independent reports have emerged highlighting the adverse health effects suffered by residents living in the suburbs underneath the extended flight paths. DEAF — Doctors and Allied Health Professionals Educating About Flyovers — grew out of the concerns of several general practitioners who have surgeries under these flight paths. CAMERON PARKER of Green Left Weekly spoke to Dr ANNE LONG, an occupational diseases expert and representative of DEAF, about these doctors' concerns and some recent studies undertaken by the group.
Why was this doctors' group formed?
DEAF is primarily about looking after patients. I'm not a GP and don't have patients, but I was astonished about the local GPs' overt concern.
After the opening of the third runway, local doctors began to see an increase in people requesting sedation in order to sleep, as well as some of their previously stabilised psychiatric patients becoming destabilised. They held public meetings in December and were surprised to find quite a lot of support among their colleagues.
We now have a really good information network because we want to provide current published information to patients and the public in a form they can understand. DEAF members — who also include prominent doctors from some of Sydney's universities as well as specialists with particular interests, like paediatricians — felt they needed to be active about protesting against the aircraft noise and poor air quality.
Can you tell us about DEAF's studies on health effects of aircraft flyovers?
DEAF formed links with the Department of Health at the University of Sydney because some of the people there had done critical appraisals of Federal Airports Corporation studies. The FAC had promised to spend $5-10 million on health studies, which later ended up becoming three small studies worth $500,000. However, two of those studies were compromised because the FAC opened the third runway earlier than planned. Now the FAC doesn't have the before-and-after data required for those studies to be of any value.
DEAF then applied for and was granted $14,500 by the Coalition of Councils [an alliance of 12 councils currently affected by the increase in aircraft noise] to conduct a telephone hot line, collect together the records of patients who had complained to their GP about the effects they believed were due to the new runway, and to get self-reports, in the form of questionnaires in doctors' waiting rooms, from people who went to a doctor.
How effective was the hot line and what health complaints did people report?
The hot line lasted for two weeks and collected fairly uniform data by asking the same questions of everyone who phoned in. We collected cost information, like time taken off work and visits to health services, because no economic costs have yet been collected.
There were over 1700 complaints from more than 500 people. The main complaints were sleep loss (366 or 20%) and tension. People reported that they were anxious, fatigued and got headaches. There were reports that people could actually smell things in the air that they didn't smell before. There were complaints of breathing and hearing problems, like ringing in the ears. People reported skin problems, which may be related to anxiety, as well as their children's concentration being affected.
Of the 500 people, 262 said that they had sought care or the opinion of a health professional of some sort. Sixteen people went to another health professional for treatment. Forty-one people went to a specialist and 10 people, mostly those with psychiatric disease who were functional and became non-functional, went to hospital. There were 251 GP visits and, of those, 70 people said they were given medication.
The hot line found that, averaged across those 500 people, 263 days were taken off work that could be attributed to the third runway.
A number of people said that the noise was an extra load on their families and relationships. They suddenly found that everyone was more crabby, irritable and irritating. Their partner's and children's behaviour became more irritable or irritating.
The people running the hot line were trained not to ask leading questions. This is a true report of what 500 people said when they rang up, which is enormously valid. We are not saying that all these things are linked, but in response to the questions, this is what you get.
Have there been any similar government studies?
The NSW Health Department had a hot line. I rang it myself and they weren't interested in any information other than if the noise was upsetting me. I've seen no published figures of the information that they gathered.
Some of the FAC's scientific work and discussions so far have taken a very narrow view of what is a health effect. The World Health Organisation's definition of health includes good health and well-being. The FAC studies have taken the narrower perspective of ill health. DEAF is very concerned that the lack of well-being is not being considered by the FAC research.
What can people do if they believe they have an illness attributable to aircraft flyovers?
People should make an appointment with their doctor, say that they are affected and ask that it be reported. They should fill out the case report forms in the waiting rooms. People shouldn't suffer in silence. If their doctor is not listening with some sympathy, then they should go to another doctor who will deal with their concerns.
DEAF is very conscious that it and other GPs don't have the time or expertise to do more than they have done. We want to monitor the literature and raise the community's awareness of the problems they're experiencing.