Light Pollution

I live in a small country town, and the nearest astronomy group is 460km.
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:14:02 +1000, Geoff wrote:

What kind of locations do you look for when seeking a dark sky site?
I tried once throwing my scope in the car and driving out to the
country.

You need friends or relations in the country. The real problem is
that the lights follow you. Everything is fine and then suddenly
there is a subdivision all around you.

Your friendly local astronomy club probably has sites already arranged
for. Go join up. Now. Uncle Al wants you!

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 21:59:53 +1000, "Philip"
wrote:

Can anyone please give me some information, on turnung street lights off.
How do the streets lights without photocells turn on and off? Thanks for you
help.


Heres another solution (serious )

http://www.cloudynights.com/howtos2/shield.htm

In article ,
Geoff wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 19:39:26 GMT, William Hamblen
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:21:34 GMT, Alex Kilpatrick
wrote:
Instead go to a dark location or
watch the moon and planets, which are bright enough for streetlights
not to be a bother.

What kind of locations do you look for when seeking a dark sky site?
I tried once throwing my scope in the car and driving out to the
country. I found farmers fenced off properties everywhere and not a
single open publicly accessable area to be found

You could go to Sweden..... :-)

We have something called "everybody's right", which gives everyone
the right to enter the private property of others as long as they
do it on foot or by bicycle as individuals or in small groups, and
if they also obey these two simple rules:
1. Don't disturb -- e.g. don't go too close to other's living quarters
2. Don't destroy -- e.g. don't enter a farmer's crop field
So the problem you've encountered does not exist here.

Note that "everybody's right" does not apply to motor vehicles. So
if you want to bring your car, you must find somewhere to park it: a
public place or another place where parking is permitted. But if
your desired observing location is within a short distance from your
parking spot, it works anyway. Another method would be to choose a
portable scope and then walk the last kilometer or so.

I have also considered the BB gun option, but my neighbours know I
have a telescope and they would know who to look for

If so, Sweden is not for you: here (as well as in most of Europe) you
must have a special license for owning guns, and to get a license you
must have a good reason. To just "protect yourself" is not
considered a good reason.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/

Fortunately, we have our 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
otherwise known as Article II of the Bill of Rights (of the people).
TW


If so, Sweden is not for you: here (as well as in most of Europe) you
must have a special license for owning guns, and to get a license you
must have a good reason. To just "protect yourself" is not
considered a good reason.

We have something called "everybody's right", which gives everyone
the right to enter the private property of others as long as they
do it on foot or by bicycle as individuals or in small groups, and
if they also obey these two simple rules:
1. Don't disturb -- e.g. don't go too close to other's living quarters
2. Don't destroy -- e.g. don't enter a farmer's crop field
So the problem you've encountered does not exist here.

While we have private property, it is generally a simple matter to get
the owners verbal permission to set up scopes on his land....it's not
that big of a deal; if not, we have State Gamelands (our group uses one
of those),
Parks, National Forests, State Parks and State Forests, wild life
preserves, any little used public gravel road in a rural area, etc
etc...its really not that difficult to find a dark, secluded spot...
just ask any teenager with a car. ;-)



If so, Sweden is not for you: here (as well as in most of Europe)

Of course its *not* for us....that's why our ancestors came over here...
to get away from the meglomaniacs like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tse
mao whatever, Khan, Fred, Pete, and Kate the Greats (all tyrants)
plus all that King/Queen absolute power and authority bull****....
All Eastern Hemisphere despots! Maybe if the people had been permitted
to keep and bear arms, you would not have had........the above.
TW

In article ,
bwhiting wrote:

We have something called "everybody's right", which gives everyone
the right to enter the private property of others as long as they
do it on foot or by bicycle as individuals or in small groups, and
if they also obey these two simple rules:
1. Don't disturb -- e.g. don't go too close to other's living quarters
2. Don't destroy -- e.g. don't enter a farmer's crop field
So the problem you've encountered does not exist here.

While we have private property, it is generally a simple matter to get
the owners verbal permission to set up scopes on his land....it's not
that big of a deal;

But if you're out travelling at night, say at 2 AM, and it unexpectedly
clears up and you feel like taking a break and looking at the sky with
your portable scope. Suppose you find a suitable small hill nearby.
Then you have two problems which I don't have:

1. WHO is the land owner? Where do I find that out?
2. And even if you know who the land owner is, he'll most likely NOT
appreciate being contacted at 2 AM......

The most likely outcome would be that you skip the idea and just
continue your journey, because it would be too much trouble obtaining
the needed permission. While I don't see any problem at all but just
discreetly go to that hill with my scope, have my observing session,
and then continue.

if not, we have State Gamelands (our group uses one of those),
Parks, National Forests, State Parks and State Forests, wild life
preserves, any little used public gravel road in a rural area, etc
etc...its really not that difficult to find a dark, secluded spot...
just ask any teenager with a car. ;-)

I know it can be done -- but it requires planning in advance, and
sometimes you have to travel quite far, depending on where you live.
And spontaneous observing sessions are often out of the question.

If so, Sweden is not for you: here (as well as in most of Europe)

Of course its *not* for us....that's why our ancestors came over here...
to get away from the meglomaniacs like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tse
mao whatever, Khan, Fred, Pete, and Kate the Greats (all tyrants)

....several of whom didn't live in Europe, and they're all history
by now. Otoh you have George W. Bush ---- now ---- to deal with....

plus all that King/Queen absolute power and authority bull****....

:-) .....perhaps you should learn some more about the Kingdom of Sweden,
a kingdom where the king has absolutely no political power at all. He
rarely even expresses any personal opinion publicly at all..... he's
not supposed to do that, and he knows it.

When kings last had absolute power in Europe was at about the same
time as when your fellow country men killed off most native americans
and also went to Africa, kidnapping black people and bringing then to
the US as slaves. No, those were not nice times, neither in Europe nor
in the US.....

All Eastern Hemisphere despots! Maybe if the people had been permitted
to keep and bear arms, you would not have had........the above.

Dream on ..... privately owned weapons are just toys compared to the
weapons possessed by the military powers. Btw, there were Western
Hemisphere despots too, in several South American countries, several
of whom received US support. And even today you have the Western
Hemisphere despot Fidel Castro......


If so, Sweden is not for you: here (as well as in most of Europe) you
must have a special license for owning guns, and to get a license you
must have a good reason. To just "protect yourself" is not
considered a good reason.

Fortunately, we have our 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
otherwise known as Article II of the Bill of Rights (of the people).
TW

I don't understand why you consider that fortunate. I would consider
it very unfortunate -- thanks to that, the risk of being murdered by
a gunshot is some 100 times higher in the US than in Europe. Is that
your idea of "protection" ??

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/

Paul,
Just as a side observation, I have never been shot at,
or even *know* of anyone who has been shot at, or murdered
by a gun in the USA....I know we hear about it on the nightly
news and all....mainly in the high minority...or high drug
and crime areas, and mainly in big cities...but personally,
I know of no-one. (same for airplane deaths- none I
personally knew of).

BUT I did know several people, friends killed in vehicular
accidents and one in a serious fall off a roof.
Evidently the gun-killings are blown out of proportion
in the USA. Besides, it isn't guns that kill people,
its people that shoot people. Knives and baseball bats
can be just as deadly, yet no one proposes that we
eliminate baseball and/or all kitchen knives, or even driving
vehicles, where over 150 a day are lost on the US highways,
far more than any other method, except maybe illness and
old age.
FWIW,
Tom W.

In article ,
bwhiting wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
bwhiting wrote:

But if you're out travelling at night, say at 2 AM, and it unexpectedly
clears up and you feel like taking a break and looking at the sky with
your portable scope. Suppose you find a suitable small hill nearby.
Then you have two problems which I don't have:

1. WHO is the land owner? Where do I find that out?
2. And even if you know who the land owner is, he'll most likely NOT
appreciate being contacted at 2 AM......

The most likely outcome would be that you skip the idea and just
continue your journey, because it would be too much trouble obtaining
the needed permission. While I don't see any problem at all but just
discreetly go to that hill with my scope, have my observing session,
and then continue.

(and what are the odds on that)?? Actually, the most likely scenerio is
that you simply head to one of your pre-approved designated observing
areas. Which generally are the darkest skies in your area anyway.

I don't have any pre-approved observing areas --- I don't need any,
since I can choose them quite freely myself. But of course people
learn to work around the constraints they're subjected to.

Well yes, of course, some pre-planning is involved here...I personally
scouted out all the good locations in our county during the daytime, and
then got verbal permission to use a rural cemetery grounds and a
gameland area for our club, (with no problems) plus we automatically
know of other public areas.....How many people are driving around at 2
am and suddenly feel like setting up a scope on the spur of the moment?

How many people even bother looking at the sky at all? :-)

If so, there are plenty of rural public roads, rest stops, and
pull-over spots (very un-used at 2 am) where one could set up if one
really wants to. No permission needed. But generally, an observing
session out in the rural area is much more pre-planned than you suggest.

Perhaps it's so because it _requires_ planning? If spontaneous
observing sessions are too much of a hassle, the people naturally
will avoid them. Think about it a bit: suppose your country too had
the freedom to let people choose for themselves where they wanted to
observe, hike, etc, without needing to ask for permission in advance.
Suppose almost all parks never closed. Don't you think that would
change your observing habits a bit?

I know it can be done -- but it requires planning in advance, and
sometimes you have to travel quite far, depending on where you live.
And spontaneous observing sessions are often out of the question.

We conduct many 'spur of the moment' unscheduled observing sessions
within our club...at our pre-designated sites where we have prior
verbal permission. They are located within 10-15 miles of most
members' homes, no more than a 20 minute driving time. AND they are
the darkest spots in the county...so why go anywhere else??
Plus we always have a club cell phone on site, so anyone can call
in for weather, directions, who's there/how many, etc.

Again -- you can surely learn to live with these constraints.

If so, Sweden is not for you: here (as well as in most of Europe)

Of course its *not* for us....that's why our ancestors came over here...
to get away from the meglomaniacs like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tse
mao whatever, Khan, Fred, Pete, and Kate the Greats (all tyrants)

...several of whom didn't live in Europe, and they're all history
by now. Otoh you have George W. Bush ---- now ---- to deal with....

(actually the polls show that 60% feel G.W. is doing a great job....)

People outside your country are usually of a different opinion....

Yeah, they are history (thank God)....so who is next, over there?
That crazy N. Korean guy ain't history...

....he's not European....

neither is that Liberian guy.

....he's not European either.....

Maybe even that Saddam Insane guy ain't history yet...who knows?

....and Usama bin Ladin.... they both live on as myth, even if they
would be physically dead.

some rambling snipped

plus all that King/Queen absolute power and authority bull****....

:-) .....perhaps you should learn some more about the Kingdom of Sweden,
a kingdom where the king has absolutely no political power at all. He
rarely even expresses any personal opinion publicly at all..... he's
not supposed to do that, and he knows it.

Yeah, for now...what if he changes his mind?...becomes
'mad'..insane...power hungry....like that current N. Korean leader?

Well, what happens if anyone without power tries to act as a dictator?
He'll be ignored. If he's persistent enough, he'll be captured.

Then what protects...the people??

What is there to protect against? Our king is not in command of
military forces or so..... perhaps he could gather a few dozen people
and arm them, but that's all. And ordinary criminals can do that
too.... in both cases it would be a matter for the police. True,
if our king really did such a thing he would probably not be jailed;
instead he'd be considered insane and put into a mental hospital.

Actually, I was not particularly referring to Sweden...I know nothing
about it. In fact, I was referring to the 17th century Kings/Queens.
Although just your word "Kingdom" scares the hell out of me.

Does the word "Satan" also scare the hell out of you? C'mon, forget
about that bull****! This is the 2100's, not the 1800's.....

Do you know who Franco was? He was a fascist dictator in Spain, who
cooperated somewhat with Hitler before WWII but later decided to mind
his own business. Franco remained the dictator of Spain until he
died in 1975. After Francos death, Spain again became a monarchy and
king Juan Carlos (who was brought up by Franco) stepped up on the
throne. Almost everyone expected him to be Franco's puppet, but his
actions soon proved otherwise: soon he made those political parties
which were illegal during Franco's regime legal. After some years a
number of fascist militaries became so dissatisfied that they
attempted a military coup. They expected the king to join them,
but they were wrong: king Juan Carlos publicly spoke out strongly
against them, and the coup failed. So there you have an example of
what a kingdom could do in the late 1900's: it could _protect_ a
newly born democracy.


Maybe that's why Bjorn Borg, the tennis player, switched
countries....

:-) ...hardly....

or was that for the insane taxes to pay for all those socialized
"freebies"?

That's correct -- it was due to greed that he switched countries.
But he did so only for awhile -- now he's again living in Sweden.
Perhaps he discovered that money alone doesn't make you happy ???

Just like our own social security in the USA...

WHAT social security? You hardly have any.....

cynical ramblings snipped

When kings last had absolute power in Europe was at about the same
time as when your fellow country men killed off most native americans
and also went to Africa, kidnapping black people and bringing them to
the US as slaves. No, those were not nice times, neither in Europe nor
in the US.....

Many still do have 'hidden' powers....I'm sure that if the King/Queen
of 'any country' wanted a particular person...eliminated....a way
would be found to do it. It's just covert instead of overt, now.

True - but that would apply not to just kings, presidents, etc but to
almost anyone: if someone is really, truly, determined to kill me, or
you, and if he at least avoided being clumsy or thoughtless, it would
be next to impossible to stop such a guy. A king would probably have
a greater chance of also getting away with it than an ordinary guy,
but so would a president, a prime minister, or any person with some
power.

But yes, I agree with you...some of our ancestors screwed up
badly....but I do believe the US gov't gives a monthly stipend to the
Native Americans in remuneration for their land...

Why don't they just give them their land back instead? g

could be wrong about that, but I read that somewhere. Or maybe that
program has been discontinued now...I really don't know.

All Eastern Hemisphere despots! Maybe if the people had been permitted
to keep and bear arms, you would not have had........the above.

Dream on ..... privately owned weapons are just toys compared to the
weapons possessed by the military powers.

Not really...there is real power in numbers...just ask the North
Vietnamese who did eventually take over the south V.

:-) ....may I humbly remind you that Viet Nam is one country, and
the split up in N and S was forced upon them towards the end of
the French colonisation of Viet Nam.

Btw we could describe the US Civil War in similar terms: the North USA
eventually took over the South USA......


And just wait until the Chinese (Red China)

"Red China" doesn't exist anymore, really. The Chinese "communism"
is nowadays just empty rhethorics, with the sole purpose of keeping
the current dictators in power. In practice, they employ capitalism.

decide to go on an expansion kick... wave after wave of Chinese
with their rifles and AK-47's.... What or who is going to stop them???

Your fellow country men have been scarred about that for some
50 years now ... but it didn't happen yet.

BTW, just wait until the USA (Blue USA) decide to go on an expansion
kick... wave after wave of americans with not just rifles and
AK-47's but hi-tech weapons and tons of nukes. What or who is going
to stop them???

From my point of view either scenario are about equally likely.
But I understand if your view is different.

(Don't call the US...we'll call you).

We know that...... :-(

more cynical ramblings snipped

Btw, there were Western Hemisphere despots too, in several South
American countries, several of whom received US support. And even
today you have the Western Hemisphere despot Fidel Castro......

Yes, there is Fidel....his continued existence a *tribute* to USA
freedom of choice and tolerance....allowing a ruthless communist
dictator only 90 miles away....You know, of course, that if the USA
really wanted to, he could be eliminated in 30 minutes or less.

Sure, you _could_, but earlier you would then have to face an armada
of Soviet nukes afterwards if you did that. Today's Russia is
probably too weak to do such a thing, but it would be an enormous PR
failure for the US to act so brutally. Despite his stupidity, even
George W. Bush realizes that....

more ramblings snipped

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/

In article ,
bwhiting wrote:

Just as a side observation, I have never been shot at,
or even *know* of anyone who has been shot at, or murdered
by a gun in the USA....I know we hear about it on the nightly
news and all....mainly in the high minority...or high drug
and crime areas, and mainly in big cities...but personally,
I know of no-one. (same for airplane deaths- none I
personally knew of).

Decades ago, my father was to take an airplane -- it was a domestic
flight in Sweden. He had never flown before, and since he was a bit
scarred of flying, he cancelled his flight and took a train instead.
And that plane crashed, killing everyone on board..... he survived
only because he decided to take the train instead.

But personal observations like these are of course irrelevant. What
matters is the statistics. One shouldn't fall into the
same trap as many astrologers do: believing a few personal
observations implies general validity of something.

BUT I did know several people, friends killed in vehicular
accidents and one in a serious fall off a roof.
Evidently the gun-killings are blown out of proportion
in the USA.

Since deaths are kept track of pretty carefully, the statistics of
deaths can be considered quite reliable. The way media reports it
may of course be considerably less reliable....

Besides, it isn't guns that kill people, its people that shoot
people.

:-/ ... a very BAD argument !!!!!! In any large population of
people, such as a country, there are enough irresponsible people
to make general easy accessibility of guns dangerous.

Do you think anyone should be allowed to own a nuke too? No?
Why not? It isn't the nukes themselves that kill people, its
people that nuke others who kill people. Right?

So if you think anyone should be allowed to own a gun, but not a
nuke, please explain why you think differently of the two cases. The
arguments are the same really: if people are trustworthy, they should
be trusted with these things, but if they aren't trustworthy they
shouldn't be trusted with these things. Right?

Knives and baseball bats can be just as deadly, yet no one
proposes that we eliminate baseball and/or all kitchen knives,
or even driving vehicles,

And do you know why? Because all these items (with the possible
exception of baseball bats; otoh hammers are just as deadly if
misused) have great utility if used properly. What utility does
a gun, intended to shoot people, have if you don't intend to
shoot people? None.....

Make cars illegal -- sure, the car deaths will vanish, but so
will most transportations. Make knives, hammers and all other
potentially dangerous tools illegal -- sure, the deaths from
these will go down dramatically -- but how many will now
die because they e.g. cannot build a house to live in, or
prepare food, etc ????

With the exception of hunting guns (which btw are legal in Sweden too
-- if you pass the proper examination first), guns have no other use
than killing or injuring people. Therefore you cannot compare guns
with cars or kitchen knives, whose primary purpose is to do other
things than kill.

where over 150 a day are lost on the US highways,

On the highways ONLY? How many are dying daily on non-highways?
With those figures the risk of dying from a car accident is some 4
times higher on the US highways than in all of Sweden.... (we now
have some 500 traffic related deaths per year. When I was a teenager
it was about 1000 per year -- and there were much fewer cars back
then --- but also fewer highways).

far more than any other method, except maybe illness and old age.
FWIW,
Tom W.

Actually I think the No 1 cause of death in the entire western world
is heart and lung related diseases (except lung cancer). And most of
these diseases are due to bad food: we simply eat too much and the
wrong type of food so we get too fat. And the fattest of all are
americans, but Europe isn't that far behind. And a lot of those fat
people often eat at fast food restaurants.

So the No 1 killer is: MacDonalds !!!!!!

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/

(Paul Schlyter) wrote:

(snip)

where over 150 a day are lost on the US highways,

On the highways ONLY? How many are dying daily on non-highways?
With those figures the risk of dying from a car accident is some 4
times higher on the US highways than in all of Sweden.... (we now
have some 500 traffic related deaths per year. When I was a teenager
it was about 1000 per year -- and there were much fewer cars back
then --- but also fewer highways).

(snip)

Total traffic deaths (not just on highways) in the U.S. are around 35,000
per year, down from a high of about 50,000 per year maybe 10 or 15 years
ago.

Probably one of the best ways to compare risk is deaths per million miles
traveled. The last numbers I remember showed the U.S. as somewhat (but not
hugely) lower than most European countries -- probably due to having more
miles of divided highways per capita. I don't know if this has changed
lately.

Zane