Location, Astronomy, Protection, and Location

(Inspired by the females in amateur astronomy thread)
The issue of protection while observing is relative.
It's relative to location and location.

Rural Wyoming is a different world than urban New York.
Most remote sites lie between the extremes.

Many drive miles to remote sites.
But not all such sites are equal in their remoteness.

Some remote sites are subject to law enforcement patrols.
Some are subject to invasion by thrill seekers, the party crowd, etc.

Some are borderline remote.
Far enough from most people to be mostly isolated.
Close enough to warrant an awareness toward possible intruders.

Other sites are remote in a Wyoming sense of the word --
You will see no other human life forms.
You will hear no sounds from manmade machinery or vehicles.
There will be no lights from motorized vehicles.
No lights from un-natural sources --
Excepting those you brought with you.

It's possible to camp out for days in a "real" remote site
Without detecting any signs of the civilized world,
Excepting perhaps a rare sighting of an isolated aircraft
High overhead -- and satellites at night.
(One can never escape the satellites!)

What about dogs?
Dogs are good at barking at bears,
They *attract* bears to your location!
I don't take a dog with me to remote sites.
For other locations a dog might make a fine companion.

Coyotes:
Who cares?
They present no real danger
Not even toward a 'lone' adult human.
Their singing can be a welcomed break to the silence.

Firearms?
They have their place.
They have their practical
(and recreational) uses.
But they're definitely *not* for everyone!
They're *not* appropriate for all observing sites.

There are no absolutes in the world of protection.
In some locations friendly human companionship will suffice.
In some locations one may observe alone, unarmed, in perfect safety.
A canine companion can be a welcomed companion in some locations.
Yet there are locations where a firearm can be appropriate;
But not for all people, and not for all locations.

Those from one location
Should not be quick in condemning the
Protective measures taken by others in other locations.
The people of sci-astro-amateur live in widely varying locations.

Bill Greer

Those from one location

Should not be quick in condemning the

Protective measures taken by others in
other locations. The people of
sci-astro-amateur live in widely varying
locations.

Bill Greer

A well thought out post, Bill. The best protective device is really
one's head.
Marty

"John Steinberg" wrote in message I've never seen
any serious data to support the argument that
astronomers are more at risk than anyone else in the general public.
Certainly more people are injured or die on ski slopes every year, and
that hasn't stopped folks from enjoying that pursuit. The /problem/ with
amateur astronomy is that it's mostly practiced at night, and darkness
is and always has been a place where the human animal feels most
vulnerable. That doesn't ipso facto mean they are, just that our
nighttime visual acuity wasn't optimized for most nocturnal activities.

We are hardwired to function best during daylight hours, although many
of us, myself included, do so love the night.


I think the main danger is being alone in a remote location. A very small
injury can be life threatening if it incapacitates. Several years ago, a
friend suffered this fate, resulting in permanent brain damage and severe
frostbite. Don't go alone.
dm

Bill Greer wrote in message . ..

Those from one location
Should not be quick in condemning the
Protective measures taken by others in other locations.
The people of sci-astro-amateur live in widely varying locations.

True enough. But in my experience, most of the variation is in
people's subjective reactions, not in their objective realities.

But then, one might ask, so what if it is subjective? Does that
make it any less real? Fear is counterproductive to good
observing, just as being cold is counterproductive.

The only difference is that if the fear is irrational, there is
at least some hope of overcoming it by internal discipline rather
than by changing the external circumstances. As a former mountain
climber, I have spent a lot of time doing that. The key to being
a good climber is to make fear your friend rather than your
enemy, to learn to distinguish between rational fears and irrational
fears, to listen very carefully to the rational fears without being
paralyzed by the irrational fears.

In my experience, most Americans live in fear much more than they
should, and their lives suffer accordingly. People were much bolder
when I was a child, and I see no evidence at all that it is the
realities that have changed -- I think that the change is almost
entirely in attitude.

- Tony Flanders

In article ,
says...

Those from one location
Should not be quick in condemning the
Protective measures taken by others in other locations.
The people of sci-astro-amateur live in widely varying locations.

Bill Greer

Bill, Nicely put Sir.

In 25 years of remote site observing (mostly solo) here in Australia I've
only ever had a couple of events that were remotely approaching what I'd
call dangerous. In each case it was drunken louts who were more curious
than agressive and a bit of chat, and a closely supervised look through
the scope calmed them down and they soon left me alone.

It's also fair to say that I've had some fantastic times out observing
solo, especially when I've had "visitors" from local towns and farms show
up unannounced to have a look through the telescope. That alone offsets
any potential dangers as far as I'm concerned.

Ian

"Ian W" wrote in message
. ..

In 25 years of remote site observing (mostly solo) here in Australia I've
only ever had a couple of events that were remotely approaching what I'd
call dangerous. In each case it was drunken louts who were more curious
than agressive and a bit of chat, and a closely supervised look through
the scope calmed them down and they soon left me alone.
[SNIP]

Ian,

One of our dark sites has, in the past, been the site of the roving high
school weekend beer party. Our presence has pretty much put an end to it -
they see a bunch of cars and telescopes and go elsewhere. (I suspect they
have found a less traveled location, as they have not been seen in recent
years.)

Actually, one group of young ladies pulled in one night and got out of their
car before realizing it wasn't a beer party. A pretty dazed group when one
of our friendly observers invited them over to look through his scope.
Actually, one turned out to be interested in what we were doing - but they
didn't stay long.

My one encounter with drunks was actually in my front yard at my parent's
house. They apparently noticed the telecope, and one of the crew wanted to
look. Aside from having trouble standing up, he appreciaed the chance to
look through a scope. As I think about this, I realize that we are far, far
more likely to have unexpected company in our front yard than out at one of
our remote observing sites.

Clear skies, Alan

(Tony Flanders) wrote in message ...
Those from one location
Should not be quick in condemning the
Protective measures taken by others in other locations.
The people of sci-astro-amateur live in widely varying locations.

True enough. But in my experience, most of the variation is in
people's subjective reactions...
In my experience, most Americans live in fear much more than they
should, and their lives suffer accordingly. People were much bolder
when I was a child...

Provincial naivete. "Most Americans" live completely outside your
experince (and are much bolder than you).

Of course, this does not detract from the appreciation that saa has
for your agonized efforts at analyzing the aspects of amateur
astronomy which interest you.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 00:51:46 GMT, "Moontan13"
wrote:

I think the main danger is being alone in a remote location.

Being alone in a remote location, all other things being equal,
doesn't place a person in danger. Being alone in an area where crimes
against lone individuals is high is a different situation. Likewise,
being alone in a harsh (life threatening) environment can place a
person in danger.

In general there are ways of coping with the minor dangers that some
of us may face while observing alone. (If there are major dangers one
ought to seek out a different observing site.) A knowledge of the
specific dangers along with some preventive measures should suffice.
Cell phones (where reception is possible), first aid kits and letting
others know where you're going (along with your latest estimated time
of return) should be adequate for most observing alone situations.

A few isolated thoughts on group observing:
Group observing can put a greater number of people at risk when real
dangers are present. Group observing can bring about a false feeling
of security. Nevertheless, in general observing with a group is
likely to be safer than observing alone.

Don't go alone.

The safety/danger circumstances surrounding remote locations can vary
dramatically from location to location. Not all remote locations are
equally dangerous. Some (perhaps even most) are safer than the
interiors of our homes. Most dangers in remote locations are more
imagined than real, the result of being in an alien environment or
unfamiliar territory. Fear of the unknown and unseen are common
fears.

I'm not saying there are no dangers. We all live under dangerous
circumstances. Meteorites fall from the sky at lethal velocities
every day. Airborne pathogens are common. The West Nile virus has
spread over vast areas. Sleep deprivation makes one more susceptible
to many diseases -- as well as to more accidents. But we're
astronomers! We accept (some) risks whenever we go outside with our
telescopes.

Instead of allowing our fears to control our lives we need to take
reasonable and appropriate precautions and continue with our nocturnal
practice of placing our eyes behind our eyepieces -- with companions
if desirable and possible, otherwise alone with measures and
precautions sufficient to deal with our imagined fears and/or actual
dangers.

Lastly, observing alone from a remote location has some genuine
advantages. One becomes more attuned to the natural world -- the
sights and sounds of nature. One feels a greater, more personal
connection between oneself and the universe.

Bill Greer

In article ,
Bill Greer wrote:

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 00:51:46 GMT, "Moontan13"
wrote:

I think the main danger is being alone in a remote location.

Being alone in a remote location, all other things being equal,
doesn't place a person in danger. Being alone in an area where crimes
against lone individuals is high is a different situation.

It's no different: really being alone isn't dangerous there
either.... The threat is NOT being alone, since if some criminal
approaches you and poses some threat to you, then you're not alone
anymore.....

Likewise, being alone in a harsh (life threatening) environment
can place a person in danger.

OTOH having company won't help much there either -- you need to
get out of that environment! Probably, that's why no-one has ever
attempted to do astronomical observing from the top of Mount Everest,
despite the excellent atmospheric conditions which should be present
at such a high altitude.

In general there are ways of coping with the minor dangers that some
of us may face while observing alone. (If there are major dangers one
ought to seek out a different observing site.) A knowledge of the
specific dangers along with some preventive measures should suffice.
Cell phones (where reception is possible),

....and if cell phone reception isn't possible, a satellite telephone
or a portable ham radio rig could be used as a replacement.

first aid kits and letting others know where you're going (along with
your latest estimated time of return) should be adequate for most
observing alone situations.

A few isolated thoughts on group observing:
Group observing can put a greater number of people at risk when real
dangers are present. Group observing can bring about a false feeling
of security. Nevertheless, in general observing with a group is
likely to be safer than observing alone.

Don't go alone.

The safety/danger circumstances surrounding remote locations can vary
dramatically from location to location. Not all remote locations are
equally dangerous. Some (perhaps even most) are safer than the
interiors of our homes. Most dangers in remote locations are more
imagined than real, the result of being in an alien environment or
unfamiliar territory. Fear of the unknown and unseen are common
fears.

I'm not saying there are no dangers. We all live under dangerous
circumstances. Meteorites fall from the sky at lethal velocities
every day.

In principle true, but you're extremely unlikely to ever be hit by a
meteor during your entire lifetime. So if meteors are "dangerous",
going on an airplane is "extremely dangerous" --- and going by car is
"very super extremely dangerous" ..... well, I'm out of superlatives
for the "extreme" dangers we then, by this measure, subject ourselves
to in our daily lives.... people must indeed be very brave to endure
these extremely super high risks continuously... :-)

BTW life itself is the greatest danger since the death rate is 100% g

Airborne pathogens are common. The West Nile virus has
spread over vast areas. Sleep deprivation makes one more susceptible
to many diseases -- as well as to more accidents. But we're
astronomers! We accept (some) risks whenever we go outside with our
telescopes.

Instead of allowing our fears to control our lives we need to take
reasonable and appropriate precautions and continue with our nocturnal
practice of placing our eyes behind our eyepieces -- with companions
if desirable and possible, otherwise alone with measures and
precautions sufficient to deal with our imagined fears and/or actual
dangers.

Lastly, observing alone from a remote location has some genuine
advantages. One becomes more attuned to the natural world -- the
sights and sounds of nature. One feels a greater, more personal
connection between oneself and the universe.

Bill Greer
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/

On 10/06/03 15:48 +0900, Paul Schlyter wrote:

OTOH having company won't help much there either -- you need to
get out of that environment! Probably, that's why no-one has ever
attempted to do astronomical observing from the top of Mount Everest,
despite the excellent atmospheric conditions which should be present
at such a high altitude.

Unfortunately, the peak is very often blasted by strong winds.
Even base camp is hampered by bad weather, not to mention that
it's high enough that eyesight (and health in general) suffers.
Good for remote work, sure, but non-Sherpa suffer at those
altitudes. Folks trekking into Everest base camp often suffer
from altitude sickness.

specific dangers along with some preventive measures should suffice.
Cell phones (where reception is possible),

...and if cell phone reception isn't possible, a satellite telephone
or a portable ham radio rig could be used as a replacement.

A CB walkie-talkie can be very useful in areas where cell phones
don't work.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
// http://mp3.com/trane_francks/