Imagine the light pollution if this thing took off

Can these morons do nothing better with their time?

BBC:

7 May 2013 Last updated at 10:06 ET
Kickstarter crowd gives glowing plant the green light

A glowing plant that could provide a sustainable light source has
caught the imagination of backers on the crowdfunding website
Kickstarter.

With a month still to go, the project has raised $243,000 (£157,000).
Its initial goal was $65,000.

Backers are promised seeds for glowing plants, although delivery will
not be until next May at the earliest.

The "biohacking" team behind the project said that in future trees
could act as street lights.

The researchers are keen that their mix of DIY synthetic biology and
sustainable lighting remains open-source.

"Inspired by fireflies... our team of Stanford-trained PhDs are using
off-the-shelf methods to create real glowing plants in a do-it-
yourself bio lab in California," said project leader Antony Evans.

"All of the output from this project will be released open-source, the
DNA constructs, the plants etc," it said on its website.
Commercially appealing

The research team, led by synthetic biologist Omri Amirav-Drory and
plant scientist Kyle Taylor, aims to transplant a fluorescent gene
into a small plant called Arabidopsis, a member of the mustard family.

The team has chosen this plant as it is easy to experiment with and
carries minimal risk for spreading into the wild.

However, it hopes that the same process will work for a rose, which it
considers to be more commercially appealing.

The team will work with luciferase, an enzyme common in fireflies as
well as some glowing fungi and bacteria.

The researchers have already designed the DNA sequences using software
from a company called Genome Compiler, which allows people to easily
design genetic sequences.

They will then "print the DNA" and the final stage will be to transfer
this to the plants.
'Great inspiration'

Initially the genes are transferred to agrobacteria, increasingly used
in genetic engineering because they can transfer DNA between
themselves and plants.

This method will only be used for prototypes as the bacteria are plant
pests and any use of such organisms is heavily regulated.

For the seeds that will be sent to the public, the team will use a
gene gun that effectively coats nanoparticles with DNA and fires them
into plants. This method is not subject to regulation.

George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School who
is backing the project, said that biology could provide great
inspiration for more sustainable light sources.

"Biology is very energy-efficient and energy packets are more dense
than batteries. Even a weakly glowing flower would be a great icon."

The team is not the first to create glowing plants.

'Pretty enticing'

In 2008 scientists at the University of California created a glowing
tobacco plant, using luciferase.

And in 2010 researchers from the University of Cambridge was able to
make bacteria glow sufficiently to read by.

Theo Sanderson, a member of that Cambridge team, has blogged about the
new attempt.

"Nobody can deny that the idea of walking down a path lit by glowing
trees is pretty enticing... what has disappointed me has been the lack
of discussion as to what the team actually plan to do with the funds
raised, and whether the science stacks up," he said.

"My prediction is that this project will ship plants which have a
dimly visible luminescence in a pitch-black room."

RichA:
A glowing plant that could provide a sustainable light source has
caught the imagination of backers on the crowdfunding website
Kickstarter.

Sounds like they may be smoking a glowing plant.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Question is whether a bio-luminescent plant can produce sufficient light
to replace a street lamp. And if it they can produce that much light,
wouldn't they be in danger of burning up?

I suspect that they won't be able to get any natural plant to produce
this amount of light, so they may just end up using some of this
bio-technology to make better street lamps. That would not be nearly as
satisfying for an enviro-activist.

Yousuf Khan

On May 8, 6:31*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Question is whether a bio-luminescent plant can produce sufficient light
to replace a street lamp.

Well, it might not replace a street lamp, but it might perform other
useful safety functions. It might replace those posts with
retroreflective tape... with the advantage of helping motorists whose
headlights don't work.

John Savard

On 5/9/2013 11:28 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
On May 8, 6:31 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Question is whether a bio-luminescent plant can produce sufficient light
to replace a street lamp.

Well, it might not replace a street lamp, but it might perform other
useful safety functions. It might replace those posts with
retroreflective tape... with the advantage of helping motorists whose
headlights don't work.

John Savard


With ample self illuminating center line and edge line markers, there
would be little need for overhead lighting of roadways for operators of
motor vehicles, eliminating both the energy cost and deleterious effects
that has on night time skies in exurbs and rural areas (at least). If
the plants illuminate well enough that a sidewalk user could see their
path (the pavement/ground) clearly, then even urban areas could dispense
with much of their street lighting. All a pedestrian need do is carry a
flashlight, cell phone (w/camera), and a 9mm for personal safety reasons
(in that order).

"Steve" wrote in message
...
On 5/9/2013 11:28 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
On May 8, 6:31 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Question is whether a bio-luminescent plant can produce sufficient light
to replace a street lamp.

Well, it might not replace a street lamp, but it might perform other
useful safety functions. It might replace those posts with
retroreflective tape... with the advantage of helping motorists whose
headlights don't work.

John Savard


With ample self illuminating center line and edge line markers, there
would be little need for overhead lighting of roadways for operators of
motor vehicles, eliminating both the energy cost and deleterious effects
that has on night time skies in exurbs and rural areas (at least). If
the plants illuminate well enough that a sidewalk user could see their
path (the pavement/ground) clearly, then even urban areas could dispense
with much of their street lighting. All a pedestrian need do is carry a
flashlight, cell phone (w/camera), and a 9mm for personal safety reasons
(in that order).


==============================
In Britain, in winter, it is dark between the hours of 4 pm
to 8 am, and you want children going to or coming home
from school to carry pistols for personal safety so that you
can take pictures of the sky for your fellow stargazers to
proclaim“Well done, how pretty�. You are all more interested
in eyepieces and mounts than you are in the stars anyway.
I’ve got news for you.
The street lights are staying, your bitching and moaning won’t
change it, so get used to it.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:24:41 PM UTC, Steve wrote:

All a pedestrian need do is carry a flashlight, cell phone (w/camera), and a 9mm for personal safety reasons

Would a 25mm suffice if that was the only eyepiece one had?

On 5/10/13 7:18 PM, Linus Das wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:24:41 PM UTC, Steve wrote:

All a pedestrian need do is carry a flashlight, cell phone (w/camera), and a 9mm for personal safety reasons

Would a 25mm suffice if that was the only eyepiece one had?



If I could have only one I would prefer 20 mm.

On 5/10/2013 8:18 PM, Linus Das wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:24:41 PM UTC, Steve wrote:

All a pedestrian need do is carry a flashlight, cell phone (w/camera), and a 9mm for personal safety reasons

Would a 25mm suffice if that was the only eyepiece one had?



I up you by a 30mm UWA (because I have one)

Well ???

On May 10, 5:03*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

...
On 5/9/2013 11:28 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

On May 8, 6:31 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Question is whether a bio-luminescent plant can produce sufficient light
to replace a street lamp.

Well, it might not replace a street lamp, but it might perform other
useful safety functions. It might replace those posts with
retroreflective tape... with the advantage of helping motorists whose
headlights don't work.

John Savard

With ample self illuminating center line and edge line markers, there
would be little need for overhead lighting of roadways for operators of
motor vehicles, eliminating both the energy cost and deleterious effects
that has on night time skies in exurbs and rural areas (at least). If
the plants illuminate well enough that a sidewalk user could see their
path (the pavement/ground) clearly, then even urban areas could dispense
with much of their street lighting. All a pedestrian need do is carry a
flashlight, cell phone (w/camera), and a 9mm for personal safety reasons
(in that order).

==============================
In Britain, in winter, it is dark between the hours of 4 pm
to 8 am, and you want children going to or coming home
from school to carry pistols for personal safety so that you
can take pictures of the sky for your fellow stargazers to
proclaim“Well done, how pretty”. You are all more interested
in eyepieces and mounts than you are in the stars anyway.
I’ve got news for you.
The street lights are staying, your bitching and moaning won’t
change it, so get used to it.

Let them stay, just make sure half of the "protection light" isn't
shining up into the F------ SKY or into the faces of drivers.
You know what a MASSIVE difference well-directed streetlighting makes
in the rain at night?