Talk:NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen

Economic assessment

The economic assessment is problematic as:
(1) It is based on a single source that cannot be found anywhere as it is a report, and gives no web location
(2) As phrased is discussing impact in a 200 km radius, apparently assuming that the economic benefit is distributed more or less equally within that radius (while it stands to reason that most goes to the town closest to the base). This is important, as the noise pollution is not spread equally and most to the detriment of the Netherlands, so an equal distribution of economic profit is actually the lower limit for any kind of fair distribution of cost and burden
(3) If the economic benefit is distributed more or less geographically (as the 200 km radius implies) benefit should also go to Belgium and possibly even Luxembourg. These are not mentioned making the 200 km radius claim highly unlikely. (4) Even if it is indeed a 200 Km radius the model assumes it is a continuous economic zone, while borders, different language and tax regimes will definitely create heterogeneity in the economic benefits. There is no indication any of such socio-economic factors are taken into account, making the economic assessment shaky at best for this situation.
Altogether this makes the use of the source, or the source itself extremely crude estimations of what is truly happening, and without access to the original source, this makes the source unusable. User:Arnoutf 11:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the following source from the article "NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen, Final Comprehensive Study, Final Report May 2009, page 179, Landrum & Brown, Mestre Greve Associates, the MPD Group". I cannot find it anywhere, nor do I have enough information to access it through the library. I seriously doubt whether the content of this report is publicly available, and if it is not, it is not verifiable and hence unusable. If anyone thinks the report should be in, please provide more complete information how and where a copy can be accessed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias

It appears to me that this page is quite biased towards the air force base: "Despite stringent self-imposed flight restrictions, [...people still complain of noise]" What I miss is a clear justification of why we need such AWACS flights at all, what is the point of flying around these planes if we're not at war? The NY times article seems to suggest it is only for training purposes, which makes me wonder why they don't move to a much less populated area. 62.194.124.13 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003031434/http://www.stopawacs.nl/pdf/Nederland%20wil%20strengere%20geluidsregels%20voor%20AWACS%2027-02-2008.pdf to http://www.stopawacs.nl/pdf/Nederland%20wil%20strengere%20geluidsregels%20voor%20AWACS%2027-02-2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)