Dark-sky Advocates to Push for Nationwide Lighting Reforms [light pollution]

spaceref.com ^ | 24 Oct 02 | Sky and Telescope

[RightWhale]

Dark-sky Advocates to Push for Nationwide Lighting Reforms [light pollution]

Energy and lighting specialists from throughout the U.S. and Canada are gathering in Boston, Massachusetts, this weekend for a meeting of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA). They'll be taking aim at the ubiquitous pall of urban skyglow known as "light pollution," its effects on our health and our society, and what can be done to halt and reverse its spread.

Members of the news media are welcome to attend the sessions on Friday, October 25th. These invited talks and panel discussions will take place at the Museum of Science in Boston. Speakers are nationally recognized experts from the lighting industry, government agencies, power-utility companies, and others from the fields of medicine, environmental science, and astronomy. Key areas of discussion will include:

-- the glare and energy waste associated with poor-quality lighting
-- the effects of light at night on humans and wildlife
-- community and commercial efforts to improve lighting practices

A press conference will be held at 12:45 p.m. in Cahners Theater at the Museum of Science.

The second day of the meeting, Saturday, October 26th, will convene at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge. Due to limited seating, we are not encouraging attendance by members of the news media. Instead, we will try to arrange interviews on Friday with the Saturday sessions' invited speakers and other experts in attendance.

Satellite images dramatically reveal that roughly of a third of the light used outdoors escapes upward, totally wasted, into the night sky. The IDA estimates that each year in the United States, more than $1 billion is spent to generate this wasted light -- resulting in the needless burning of some 6,000,000 tons of coal annually.

Founded in 1988, the IDA has about 10,000 members in all 50 states and 70 countries. Its 450 organizational members include lighting engineers and manufacturers, security personnel, government agencies, and municipalities. The IDA is a nonprofit research and education organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the nighttime environment and our heritage of dark skies through quality outdoor lighting.

[RightWhale]

The aurora was out this morning, but was barely visible in the glare of city lights. The glare is unnecessary and can be nearly eliminated while improving security.

[SunStar]

Oh good grief.

[Physicist]

Bump for a dark sky. Most people don't know what their own galaxy looks like.

[linear]

No reason to take issue with this. If we can do it without stupid regulations or compromising security, I'd rather see more stars at night.

[GOPcapitalist]

These people need to find something better to do with themselves.

[My2Cents]

Ad admirable and worthy goal. Provided they can encourage cities to use techniques and lights that reduce light pollution as they phase-out the older lights, and as an astronomy hobbiest, I wish them good luck.

[Atlas Sneezed]

This is a great pro-property rights concept. People do not have the right to emit nuisances onto the property of others.

Shining lights directly onto neighbors' property, or up into the airspace near other properties is a nuisance, and is the legitimate province of government to protect the rights of others against this incursion.

You can't emit unlimited noise from your property if it affects others.

Why would anyone object to being stopped from installing light fixtures that needlessly waste light for no rational purpose?

[Eska]

With ya on this one. I enjoy the green night skies too. Believe it or not, some people think urban America is the way nature planned it. Been living there so long they can't comtemplate anything else. Pavement, wall-to-wall people, and McDonalds becomes reality. I feel sorry for them. I'll take the moonlight over the white mountains, stars, green night skies, and wolves howling any night.

Had a neighbor in sutton once start a petition to have the prison reduce light pollution. I thought he was crazy then, but now I see what he is talking about.

[chimera]

This is actually a pretty good group. I don't think they're Luddites or out to promote a radical eco-agenda, but just want to use artificial lighting more efficiently. When I got my first good-sized scope a few years ago (10" Dob) it came with some info on the IDSA. It may be worth a look for those who have an interest in astronomy and a good view of the heavens.

[gridlock]

What bothers me about this is that the group is a bunch of astronomers who really care about being able to see the stars without interference from human generated light. But instead of saying that they want to be able to see the stars better, they talk about other things:

-- the glare and energy waste associated with poor-quality lighting
-- the effects of light at night on humans and wildlife
-- community and commercial efforts to improve lighting practices

While these may be reasonable issues for public discussion, that is not what this group is interested in. They realize that the public doesn't really care whether or not they can see the sky, so they cloak their crusade in a lot of ersatz environmentalism and energy conservation.

I just don't like liars, I guess.

[Publius]

Most people don't know what their own galaxy looks like.

So true. I grew up in suburban South Jersey and didn't see the night sky until I was 23 and on night maneuvers at Fort Gordon, GA. A guy from rural North Carolina started ribbing me that night, and I didn't hear the end of it until I graduated the Signal Officers' Basic Course a few weeks later.

[antidisestablishment]

When I lived in NM, my nearest neighbor was 1/4 mile away. They had one of those stupid mecury vapor "street lights" in their yard and I swear it lit up my bedroom like daylight! I couldn't believe how bright it was.

When I bought our new house in the MN woods, one of the first things I did was shoot out the damn M/V light some idiot had hardwired on a post. Now I have my stars back.

[RightWhale]

They state that astronomy sucks these days due to lighting glare and most people can't get away from it. These other issues have come along, and they are valid issues in themselves. The primary goal is to return our night sky, no lie.

[gridlock]

The primary goal is to return our night sky, no lie.

I have no doubt of that. But if that is the goal, make the case directly. Don't talk about energy conservation or the sleeping patterns of chipmunks or whatever else, because that is not what the group is after. It is manipulating people by bringing up all of these extraneous issues.

This kind of manipulation is wrong. Not least because the person who wants one things but argues about something else is much more willing to lie about the "something else", because he has a greater goal in mind. Thus a Dark Sky advocate will merrily lie about security and energy conservation and the hunting patterns of nocturnal critters, because he does not care about these things anyway. That is how our political discourse gets polluted with liars and scientific charlatans.

To put it in a more familiar context, environmentalists who have the goal of limiting the production and consumption of fossil fuels will wax rhapsodic about the Alaskan tundra and the plight of the poor caribou, but they don't really know or care whether or not what they are saying is true. They have a greater agenda, and will manipulate any other issue they can to advance that agenda.

It's just offensive. If Dark Sky advocates want dark skies, let them be up-front about it.

PS: I agree with them. Dark skies are a desirable thing. Just don't pee on my feet and tell me it's raining.

[Consort]

Nobody knows what the galaxy looks like; the light's too old.

[RightWhale]

Anyway, this meeting concerns lighting engineers, those who design lighting fixtures and systems. Their main concern might well be safety, efficiency, and security. Indeed, the first objection to changing lighting systems specs is usually safety and security, and in this a little education changes a lot of minds.

Don't talk about energy conservation

Why not? Modern light fixtures with low light spillage are more efficient and do save power. The idea is to rip out the old bad fixtures when it comes replacement time and replace them with good new ones and not cost anything, or to require modern light fixtures with low light spillage on new construction.

[Physicist]

This kind of manipulation is wrong.

Oh, please. It isn't possible to do politics of any kind if you don't stress different issues to different constituencies. Does that make George Bush a liar?

[gridlock]

Do you, personally, really care about the energy efficiency of light fixtures?

If so, why?

[chimera]

The idea is to rip out the old bad fixtures when it comes replacement time and replace them with good new ones and not cost anything, or to require modern light fixtures with low light spillage on new construction.

This is the way to do it. Don't throw away a serviceable system until its ready for replacement anyway, then go with the new stuff.

I've been doing that with CF lamps around the house and outside, but for some reason my wife hates them (they need a little warm-up time and she thinks they're dingy during that time).

The freeway interchange near my house was just rebuilt and the highway dept. used those downward-reflected fixtures on the tall poles. Man, it makes a difference! Plenty of light on the ground and almost no sky glare. Its a really good way to go for new constrcution and renovation.

[RightWhale]

If I were the city manager responsible for paying the electric bill for street lights, yes, efficiency would be important. Reduce the bill by 30%? Go for it! Works for home lights, too, but home lights aren't the biggies, usually.