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 ...
So, in this context, North Korea is “light years” ahead of us in protecting the environment? Who knew?
EPA to tackle ‘light pollution’
Only until Trump is elected.
“Light pollution kills, women, children, Black Lives, LGBQRSTUVWXYZ, refugees, the immigrant baby Jesus, the moon, and the planets Earth and Mars!”
Get those very long bumper sticker printed up NOW!
I wrote a paper on light pollution in 1972. The solutions aren’t necessarily what people think—most involve fixture design that direct light downward where it is needed and limiting the amount going skyward.
With LED lighting making it cheaper and “coming to a town near you, laser lighting”, we’ll basically be able to light up the whole planet 24/7. This seems to be pre-emptive.
BTW, laser lighting is said to be 1,000 times brighter than LED for the same power requirement.
I have never understood why simple hoods can’t be affixed to things like street lamps. Seems like it would be better for everyone, so why isn’t it done? Not that I think we need the state to mandate anything.
Freegards
The government is already whining about devices like Bliss Lights.
Mrs p6 has a set bought from QVC last year and they are terrific! Basically a laser with split beam. Ours move.
Last Fall the government issued warnings about the device in air corriders, near highways and railines.
If you use common sense there is no problem but I can see government regulations similar to the recent FAA quadcopter/drone law.
The government is already whining about devices like Bliss Lights.
Mrs p6 has a set bought from QVC last year and they are terrific! Basically a laser with split beam. Ours move.
Last Fall the government issued warnings about the device in air corriders, near highways and railines.
If you use common sense there is no problem but I can see government regulations similar to the recent FAA quadcopter/drone law.
I like darkness at night. I don’t like my neighbor’s lights glaring into my windows; I don’t like the orange glow in the sky from the shopping center parking lot after all the stores are closed.
My town has streetlights everywhere; the next town only at intersections. The former feels safer for walking, but really there is no difference.
IMNHO, street lights should not scatter upward.
And Christmas lights are beautiful. So is a night-lit city from the air as you land, or Manhattan and its bridges from FDR drive.
Many standard streetlights are models that have been around for decades. They are standardize, cheap to produce, and use cheaper light bulbs. Shields are just an added expense.
Still other cities install “historic lighting” that are just a big glass ball on a metal poll that blast in every direction.
Home flood lights...well they are there to flood light.
The old blue streetlights weren’t as noticeable as the orange sodium vapor lights, which cast a sort of dome of orange glow over towns and cities at night. But, the orange ones apparently are more energy efficient? Some of the suburbs near me have a “night skies” ordinance requiring that exterior lighting be shielded to reflect downward to minimize the excess.
That said, the expense of doing this everywhere will be astounding, count on that.
:: street lights should not scatter upward ::
RTF science negates your plea. Like RTF-Radar emissions, “scatter” in all directions is the price of transmission.
Buffers, caps, shields and mirrors won’t stop light from “bouncing” into the local sky.
Y’all can try, but, you won’t succeed.
I went camping in the Mojave Desert one Christmas. Night temps got down to 15 Fahrenheit. I got up about 2:00am to check out the night sky - absolutely gorgeous! However, to the Northeast, you could still make out the glow of the Nevada casinos.
Tyson is a faux astronomer, more a tool for leftist ‘settled science’ ... But really, don’t these fools know that the Kim family in North Korea has long appreciated the ability to see all the stars - even in an urban environment?
Darkness is our friend; we can do all sorts of things on a moonless night with no street of house lights on anywhere. Just imagine the possibilities!
Poor EPA! They will likely propose a regulation about which no one will get upset and all written public input statements will go in the trash - as per state and federal national policies; this was a novel concept in the 70s - allow the public to have their say, make them feel good then just do whatever the original plan specified.
All part of the movement to make solar power more easily accepted, since there will be no nighttime demand ...
Just point the light downward where it is used rather than upward.
I'm trying to find some porch light that don't point above horizontal and have motion detection. A couple of my neighbors seem to think it is their job to light up yard and search for Russian bombers.
Without HVAC. Or cars.
The downward-directed illumination is really all that is needed to address the issue effectively. I think the IDA has been pushing this for years. There was a “discussion” (really insult string) on this a few years ago on FR. Everyone said things like, you’re trying to ban outdoor lighting. No, just direct it (downward) where it is needed.
Yeah, but if it’s directed downward, I can’t see the *@&!! owls before they attack me!
Ummmm, no.
RTF scatters in all directions.
Near-infinite money buys near-infinite government. What is the organizational dynamic of bureaucrats with near-infinite money? The Iron Law of Bureaucracy says they will expand their power and control until some other power stops them. Back when government spending was limited by what the taxpayers were willing to pay for, the primary constraint upon government was that there simply was not enough money to fund every foolish bureaucratic desire. So, government tended to be forced to pay attention to its legal and Constitutional responsibilities first in proper priority. Now, with near-infinite money, there are far fewer spending constraints, and thus it is far easier for bureaucracies to run amok.
It used to be that the primary limit on government was the fact there was only so much money to spend. But in the last 100 years, government has given itself power to create near-infinite amounts of money, mostly in debt it will force our yet-unaborted future generations to service.
In order to limit government, we must limit its money. That must be the first order of business of an Article V convention. We must try this peaceful option before it becomes too easy to attempt non-peaceful ones.
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.