Posted on 11/08/2007 8:03:56 AM PST by goldstategop
Sorry no. - and using finite resources to make the world less interesting is kind of stupid
That is opinion and not a fact. The only two words in the whole sentence that are even remotely provable are the words finite resources. Those would be the ones that I PAY FOR and will do with as I damn well please, thank you.
Now there is a fact.
>resources to make the world less interesting is kind of stupid. The night sky without light pollution is one of the most beautiful things for a person to look at,
Again, no! Your opinion about what is or is not less or more interesting is not a fact. It is YOUR OPINION.
- and your statement about what is stupid is apropos to yourself.
>it is the grandest display of God’s creation, why make it ugly to no benefit.
Zero facts there, and again, simply your opinion.
In Fact, I’m going to leave my outside lights on now for the rest of the year just so as to cancel out any benefit that you you might believe that you are making by not doing so. :)
Great way to debate!
Meanwhile, Kitt Peak National Observatory, a multi billion dollar national investment paid for with my tax dollars, is being rendered useless by urban sprawl and it’s associated illumination. If the good citizens of Tuscon and environs want to put up street lights they should have to pay the cost of relocating the observatory and it’s associated funding elsewhere.
There are plenty of dark sites in Chile. I’m sure you would love to see their leftist government reap the economic benefits of yet another major observatory in their country and besides, who needs astronomy anyway, hey isn’t “Idol” on?
Heh. I hadn't read your post before I made my comments. Seems GMTA ;o)
Wow you completely ignored the rest of the paragraph. Here it is again: Most of our electricity is generated by finite resources, this is a fact. Light aimed up at the sky obscures stars, this is a fact. Light aimed at the sky doesn’t actually illuminate anything useful, this is a fact.
Those are all PROVABLE FACTS.
Talk about great way to debate. You completely fled from the facts I presented. You want to debate or just establish your cussedness? I’ve presented the FACTS to you, twice now. Deal with them.
Can't get much happiness when every aspect of your personal life and property ownership is controlled by everyone who thinks they have an ax to grind.
I am an amatuer star gazer, with my little six inch reflector I enjoy looking at stars and planets, and if it means I have to drive a few miles to find a dark spot, so be it. It isn't up to me, or anyone, to tell buisnesses, or private homes for that matter, that they can't light up whatever the hell they want.
As I said, lots of people who frequent FR who think they are for freedom and call themselves conservative fall back on their own private interests in a crunch and show that they really don't believe in freedom unless it is freedom for them.
Example: I want to look at the stars so you have to limit your light output, so there!./End example.
They are like little children crabbing about how big a piece of candy their siblings have compared to theirs.
When the lights go out, and make no mistake the liberals are trying for zero energy usage for the masses, and crime soars and they are freezing in the dark, I wonder how many will be gazing at the stars thinking how wonderful they really are while they are starving. I bet the N. Koreans would trade a little light and food for the hungry darkness they live in now.
This report is from a very uninformed perspective, and a real discredit to Debbie Schlussel. Most of the replies are similarly uninformed. The IDA (International Dark-Skies Association, darksky.org) is not extremist at all, and proposes simple efficient solutions like reflectors that direct light downward, or narrow band lighting that can be filtered by observatories. But it’s easier to demagogue than be informed and make an intelligent argument.
Of course a person can support the dark skies initiative and know it doesn’t have to involve massive regulations. Most of the things dark skies talks about are just plain smart things for individuals and companies to do. If you’re going to spend the money to illuminate part of your property it makes good send to do so efficiently, by using reflectors and hoods you’re keep light you’re paying for from being wasted in ways outside of your goals. If you want to light your parking lot for your customers then it makes sense to make sure your lights light your parking lot rather than the sky.
The only real regulations that are needed for dark skies are normal zoning type stuff, and things to control the government, a lot of the problem lighting is street lights and other things entirely under the control of the government. There’s nothing wrong with telling the government to do what they do more efficiently and with less waste.
If you understand the concept this is not nutty at all.
I recently paid my electric company $45.00 to install a reflector on a sodium vapor lamp on a pole outside my home that blinded me everytime I walked into my kitchen.
Security lights and other types of outdoor lighting are great if the light is properly directed.
Well said.
Too many FR types jump on the anti-environmentalist wagon before fully understanding the issue or initiative.
Here in Northern California, east of the High Sierra, we have some of the darkest skies in the lower 48. The "river of light that was the night sky of the Arabian peninsula" mentioned by Little Pig can be seen quite clearly here.
Nobody is asking businesses to turn off their signage. In fact our businesses stand out, because we don't have street lights. Parking lot lights and security lights have to be aimed down, where they actually illuminate what you are doing.
Do lights blazing out of every home improve security? Nope - our taking the Second Amendment seriously does.
Right! We should be looking at old Hubble images on the Internet as God intended. Seen Comet Holmes? What's that bright star in the east in the morning? NASA is going to Mars? Where is Mars, can you see it? Who is the Man in the Moon, if you can find the moon?
Professional astronomy is an 'industry' in this state, which is why entire cities like Tucson have dark sky ordinances. If you live in one of those cities where you can only see three or so stars in your sky, go ahead and festoon it with light. We just opened the Large Binocular Telescope, which is attracting researchers from all over the world.
Gross misstatement. First of all Dark Skies advocates intelligent use of lighting not dark streets. Second, blinding the victim so the rapist can step out of the glare unseen is no safer than just plain dark. Real criminals don't like the dark anyway because they are afraid the real Owner of the Night is watching them.
I’m in Tucson, which is why I have friend in the astronomy biz. Which is also why I know that dark skies do not make for dark cities and the original article is full of it.
I do.
I don't think Henry David Thoreau wanted to live like the unibomber, either.
Plus, I'm willing to bet that the parts of the U.S.A. with the most light pollution, happen to be where most liberals live.
In Tucson we have ordinances to encourage the use of reflectors to aim light downward from streetlights. We also use streetlights that radiate in the weaker yellow/red end of the spectrum, to help keep the light pollution down. Our city streets are a bit darker than, say, Los Angeles at night, but are certainly well-enough lit for navigation and safety.
Sending light upwards is a waste of power, pure and simple. We did some Dark Skies events when I was at Kitt Peak - one demo involved a standard incandescent streetlight fixture - when the reflector was added the light on the street level showed almost double the lumens it had when using an unshielded light - at the same time, glare from the light was reduced to just 15% of the glare from an unshielded light.
The article is crap, and poorly-researched crap. Sadly, too many here read it and took it at face value as another enviro-nazi attack, when there are sound scientific, economic and conservation principles involved, and no attempt to plunge America into darkness.
I should have made it clearer that I was reacting to what the article implied. If, as BlazingArizona says, the article is full of it — then I agree with you.
We have low-intensity street lights in my neighbourhood & I like them. I fully support directing the light to the ground, and shielding it as well.
However, I’ve also encountered people who want to make everything dark and gloomy — on the mistaken notion that it saves energy (or “reduces CO2”). When people over-react to misinformation, unintended consequences are usually worse than the original “problem”.
I agree that poorly designed or improperly positioned lighting doesn’t reduce crime, and might even make it worse. However, street lighting does reduce crime — if for no other reason than it encourages decent people to occupy the streets at night.
Here’s a study: http://www.keysso.net/community_news/May_2003/improved_lighting_study.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.