Must We Live Like Moles?

The Editorial “An Airport Windstorm” (The Times, April 4) states that “the economic benefits of airport expansion have never been more apparent” and cites as examples LAX and the Ontario Airport in a discussion of the proposed expansion of the Burbank Airport.

However, the situation at the Burbank Airport is quite different with regard to noise impact on the environment.

The great majority of LAX takeoffs are over the ocean. The Ontario Airport is located in more of a rural area. Burbank Airport is one of the few, if not the only, airport of that size in the world with takeoffs over a densely populated area.

Obviously, economic benefits would be derived from expanding Burbank Airport, but few would reap the benefits, compared to the thousands of residents and workers in the impacted area who would suffer from the considerable increase in noise pollution, air pollution and traffic congestion.

Some proponents have said that the larger buildings of the new planned terminal would not necessarily mean an increase in air traffic, but this is in complete contradiction to the obvious purpose of building a much larger terminal--to bring in more revenues by increasing the number of flights.

Must we keep our windows closed to keep the soundproofing effective, and therefore live like moles?

MAURICE MARSAC

Studio City