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 ...
she must hate animals or something because animals are now better at seeing in the dark with the extra ‘light pollution’ because they can gather more light that wasn’t available to them previously- I guess she wants animals to starve more
[[Weâre going backwards in time and the new âdark agesâ are almost upon us.]]
The funny thing is that we could ALL REFUSE to comply and refuse to pay any fines and defeat this freakin nonsense, but sadly enough people would comply that there would be too few to mount a serious protest, and these protestors would simply be quietly rounded up and punished
[[limiting the amount going skyward.]]
Why limit what goes skyward? What purpose could there be in limiting skyward light?
[[BTW, laser lighting is said to be 1,000 times brighter than LED for the same power requirement.]]
Laser lighting? Never heard of it- Any links? I looked it up on search but only get laser pointers-
A couple of things: A)It reduces the overall airglow that ruins stargazing conditions, B) It reduces the confusion animals have when they attempt to navigate, C) Any light going up is not illuminating anything—reflecting that light downward where it does some good saves energy and reduces cost.
Search laser headlights. It will get you to.how the tech works. Quite fascinating.
Perhaps, with luck and a great deal of government effort, we can turn the United States into a half-arsed version of North Korea.
Despite the fact that obama isn’t half as amusing as kim and doesn’t have a tenth of the personal panache or style.
Really? And here I thought that heavy pollution was the issue of our time.
EPA = Amateur Astronomers' Protection Agency?
OK.
It kind of sucks that my front yard view is limited to Orion and about a dozen assorted stars, it's true that the Griffith Observatory looks a bit odd sitting right above Hollywood, and I have to drive over an hour to get a good sky view anywhere but W & SW from Point Fermin.
But unconstrained street lights (which could and should be better designed) bother me a lot less than the constantly blinking examples that account for about 10% of local inventory.
When I found that dusk to dawn 'security lights' only made it easier for someone to hit the far corner of my property I switched to downward slanting motion sensors - not because any owls were confused by the light (because they were having a field day before and still would be if my neighbor the rat farmer hadn't missed too many mortgage payments).
"Light pollution" may be a pain in the eyepiece but it does not endanger my health or any damn trash fish or forest dweller. Like sewer treatment plants and traffic signs, like property taxes and pot holes, it's part of an urban environment in a century when very, very, few of us are subsistence farmers and all the "proud savages" of yore are running casinos.
It's embarrassing to see someone on FR justify further government expansion for the questionable benefit of a small group or merely for nostalgia sake.
Did you ever see the Perseid Meteor Shower, the Pleiades, the "Double Cluster" in Perseus, the Andromeda Galaxy?
So do I, and yes.
[[A)It reduces the overall airglow that ruins stargazing conditions,]]
Stargazin should be outlawed- it causes too many neck cramps- not one more next cramp is my motto
[[B) It reduces the confusion animals have when they attempt to navigate,]]
I thought they did a study awhile back that showed it was integral to navigation?
[[ C) Any light going up is not illuminating anythingâreflecting that light downward where it does some good saves energy and reduces cost]]
I say too much light is bad- blinds a person- Causes cataracts- and makes ants angry-
oh are those the super bright ones I’m seeing now on some cars? I’ll look it up- thanks
LED are inherently directional and require optics to disperse into a flood pattern. The color spectrum is an option. The energy savings plus operational lifetime will encourage replacement.
A Jerry Pournelle fan?
Pellet rifle. Snipe from direction away from your residence to avoid back-track of ballistics.
It’s OK to allow criminals the added darkness they ply their trade in as long as Neil DeGrasse Tyson can read your horoscope.
I tried that.... : )
The pellet just bounced off the plastic shield. I even tried shooting directly under and at the light bulb. Bounced off again. My brother-in-law once shot out a street light with a .22
Sorry, I thought you were actually interested. I didn’t realize you just wanted to be a smart ass.
lighten up I was interested- cripes
and just for the record- I was asking a serious question about the navigation- as for the rest- I don’t see how it’s a problem, but sorry you can’t take a joke
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.