Posted on 01/03/2016 8:06:48 AM PST by rktman
For thousands of years, man has sought to ward off the dark by using light to illuminate the night. Now, EPA chief Gina McCarthy and celebrity astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson want to take us back a few thousand years by giving the agency the ability to deal with "light pollution."
The only way to deal with light pollution is to, well, turn off the lights. This will be a boon to astronomers like Tyson who will be able to see the stars and planets a lot better. But for the rest of us, not so good. Crime will rise, accidents will increase, and more people will die just so that Tyson can study the heavens.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
America already has one Black a-hole ruining our way of life. That’s enough.
The only lights that need to be turned off are in the EPA offices.They are just a political playground.
Texas astronomers have dark parties all the time. They pick places way out of town before a new moon and spend a couple of nights gazing.
This is just a power play.
Most new telescopes are orbital these days.
By turning out the lights at EPA?
The Sun better hide
Yeah, but I think LA is emitting too many lumens and is preventing the Hubble scope from doing it’s job. :>)
North Korea has done a fine job of controlling light pollution. They simply don’t produce enough electricity.
North Korea is way ahead of us in this respect.
We actually need more light and more Francis.
Well, if he wants dark nights for his star gazing he could always do it from North Korea.
From WWII
“The blackout was enforced by civilian ARP wardens who would ensure that no buildings allowed the slightest chink or glow of light.[5] Offenders were liable to stringent legal penalties.[2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(wartime)
We’re going backwards in time and the new “dark ages” are almost upon us.
The various astronomer societies across America have been whining about “light pollution” for over 10 years.
With all the need for security lights that abound these days, and for good reasons, there are not enough urban places for amateur astronomers to have good views skyward, so they say.
My question is this:
“Since when does a security light endanger the environment?”
Answer: When one of them get shot out by the neighborhood kids, and all that hazmat stuff in the bulb gets all over the neighbor’s lawn.
Don’t forget that the EPA banned over-the-counter asthma inhalers, not for climate change, but solely because they like screwing people over.
Well, to do my part, starting tonight, I will only drive with my parking lights on at night.
And a goodly part of China as well from the looks of it.
I’d be happy with a few less lights myself or at least lower intensity than the garish daylight white common in so many areas.
Next up - dogs that bark in the night - instead of calling the cops to get the folks to control their animals, the EPA will come and impose fines for noise pollution...
I’ve been an Amateur astronomer for 30 years, and while ambient light is a pain in the rear, the way these people couch it as “light pollution” irritates me to no end. It makes it seem light the simple act of having lights is “bad”. Total nonsense!
If these guys want to help darken the sky so that the sky isn’t washed out, which is a perfectly fine thing, then just advocate that lamp makers make their lamps so that the light is more efficiently directed where it is needed and not blown out into the sky. Make a good-faith case and show them that it would be economically beneficial to them, and better for their customers.
EPA edicts are a BS way of doing this.
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.