I hate light polution!!!

"Jon" wrote in
:

Yes, but people do. Don't mean to harp on this but it will continue
to get worse unless *we*, the people, get involved with
administrators and the community about wasted light.

Trouble is the general public is afraid of darkness because of crime.
Trick lighting will not overcome the 6 o'clock news.


Once you explain the difference between "wasted skyward light" and "useful
downward light" most people see the sense in controlling light pollution -
no tricks involved.

Martin Lewicki

Fred Williams wrote in
:

Jon wrote:

Yes, but people do. Don't mean to harp on this but it will continue
to get worse unless *we*, the people, get involved with
administrators and the community about wasted light.

Trouble is the general public is afraid of darkness because of crime.
Trick lighting will not overcome the 6 o'clock news.

Yes. I don't think it's feasable to expect darkness, but we
could
design light fixtures to direct light downwards. There would be a
problem with reflected light, but it's be an improvement. There is
some wastage at parking lots and so on, all lit up when no one is
around.

Such fixtures are already available and are have been installed in 34 of
your country's cities and 15 counties. In my city (Adelaide Australia) the
local governments are slated to install down lights (0% uplight) on our
arterial roads and semi-cutoffs in residential (4% uplight only).

As you say it is unrealistic to expect a truly dark sky in the city due
reflections, but reflections (7%) are minor compared to the directly
emitted uplight from a majority of light fixtures (25%-30%).

As for lighting and crime visit this website for some surprising answers.
http://crimeprevention.rutgers.edu/b...2/lighting.htm

Martin Lewicki

In message , Jon
writes
Yes, but people do. Don't mean to harp on this but it will continue to get
worse unless *we*, the people, get involved with administrators and the
community about wasted light.

Trouble is the general public is afraid of darkness because of crime. Trick
lighting will not overcome the 6 o'clock news.

Actually, they are afraid of darkness because they are told (wrongly)
that most crime occurs when it is dark.
Burglars like a bit of light, because they can see what they are doing
and don't have to attract attention by using their own lights.
Muggers love those globe lamps that cast a nice bit of shadow right
under them where they can watch potential victims.
The police, at least in parts of the USA, are told not to approach
houses with bright security lights because while they are being dazzled
the bad guys have a perfect line of fire.
And the media refer to crimes occurring "in broad daylight" as though
this is unusual.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"

Once you explain the difference between "wasted skyward light" and "useful
downward light" most people see the sense in controlling light pollution

I wish it was that easy. 'Most' is kind of a stretch. Most could care
less. If you do manage to breach the logic center, how to you battle the
cost factor? With lighting, consumers buy what's easy and cheap, and only
when necessary. The best target for results are the lighting manufacturers,
and they will need some incentive ($) to change their product lines.

"Jon" wrote in
:

Once you explain the difference between "wasted skyward light" and
"useful downward light" most people see the sense in controlling
light pollution

I wish it was that easy. 'Most' is kind of a stretch. Most could
care less. If you do manage to breach the logic center, how to you
battle the cost factor? With lighting, consumers buy what's easy and
cheap, and only when necessary. The best target for results are the
lighting manufacturers, and they will need some incentive ($) to
change their product lines.



Actually I find convincing the public easier and administrators harder. The
public are generally well disposed to arguments that protect safety while
saving energy, while administrators are concerned with law suits if
someone is injured due to inadequate lighting. They are unlikely to get
sued if someone is injured due to over lighting! As for manfacturers, they
stock what sells. If people wanted better lighting then they would stock
and sell these. So it's up to yous. Most light pollution ordinances and
laws were passed due to *public pressure* usually spearheaded by the local
astronomical community.

I've already convinced many of my acquaintances to switch to CFLs. Outdoor
BBQ lights can be easily fitted with neat-looking homemade shields for
almost no cost.

I show businesses like car yards examples of competitors with quality
lighting. You'll have more success if you can show practical examples.

Martin Lewicki

Jon wrote:

I wish it was that easy. 'Most' is kind of a stretch. Most could care
less. If you do manage to breach the logic center, how to you battle the
cost factor? With lighting, consumers buy what's easy and cheap, and only
when necessary. The best target for results are the lighting manufacturers,
and they will need some incentive ($) to change their product lines.

In fact some cities' administrators have been persuaded to reduce
light pollution by economic arguments. If street-lights are designed
to direct most of their output downward instead of lighting up the
sky, they require less wattage to illuminate the areas they're
expected to. This translates to lower power costs: efficient lighting
can therefore 'pay for itself' in just a few years.

--
Odysseus

Jon wrote:

I wish it was that easy. 'Most' is kind of a stretch. Most could care
less. If you do manage to breach the logic center, how to you battle the
cost factor? With lighting, consumers buy what's easy and cheap, and only
when necessary. The best target for results are the lighting manufacturers,
and they will need some incentive ($) to change their product lines.

In fact some cities' administrators have been persuaded to reduce
light pollution by economic arguments. If street-lights are designed
to direct most of their output downward instead of lighting up the
sky, they require less wattage to illuminate the areas they're
expected to. This translates to lower power costs: efficient lighting
can therefore 'pay for itself' in just a few years.

--
Odysseus

I use to use the telescope at the Griffin observatory with all the
lights,and smog of LA. (no big problem) Griffin park is a 500 ft
hill,and LA has hills all around(like Boston) I would think moon light
is much worse than city lights,when its full. Someday mankind will have
free and very safe trips to the moon,and it will be only 10 hours
away,to look though a telescope 2 billion time more powerful than todays
Hubble. We could have been 37 years closer to this dream "If NASA stayed
with trips to the moon. Bert

I use to use the telescope at the Griffin observatory with all the
lights,and smog of LA. (no big problem) Griffin park is a 500 ft
hill,and LA has hills all around(like Boston) I would think moon light
is much worse than city lights,when its full. Someday mankind will have
free and very safe trips to the moon,and it will be only 10 hours
away,to look though a telescope 2 billion time more powerful than todays
Hubble. We could have been 37 years closer to this dream "If NASA stayed
with trips to the moon. Bert

I use to use the telescope at the Griffin observatory with all the
lights,and smog of LA. (no big problem) Griffin park is a 500 ft
hill,and LA has hills all around(like Boston) I would think moon light
is much worse than city lights,when its full. Someday mankind will have
free and very safe trips to the moon,and it will be only 10 hours
away,to look though a telescope 2 billion time more powerful than todays
Hubble. We could have been 37 years closer to this dream "If NASA stayed
with trips to the moon. Bert