Free Republic

I don’t think I need to say anything more to you above and beyond what I have already said.

Sorry, but I don’t think you’d know a Marxist if you fell over one.

“That said, there are some lighting applications that have no useful purpose other than ambience and beauty. Architectural highlights, landscape elements, sculpture, etc. are all legitimate subjects for a good lighting designer.

I know this is probably sending you into a panic, living with the knowledge that people are spending their own hard earned money on nothing more than pretty lights around their own homes, but there you have it. It happens.”

Yes, it happens, but fortunately for most people outdoor lighting goes no further than installing a security light. This is fine if it is motion operated. Just because people are free to install all manner of crass decorative lighting does not make it right. Blatant energy wastage for whatever reason is not acceptable in the current climate of concern about climate change and environmental degradation, so unnecessary outdoor lighting should be discouraged. They should not be installing anything above and beyond what they need. And they don’t need decorative lighting. Furthermore though they might think it looks nice, their neighbours may actually think differently.

“As for your line of work as an academic, let me suggest that you’re laboring under a very skewed sense of reality. Sitting in a classroom is all fine and well for book knowledge, but real education and application takes place after the dismissal bell rings.”

Don’t think that because I’m an academic I don’t have any sense of reality. I’ve lived and worked in the real world so I know exactly what it’s like.

That remark takes the biscuit!

“Your heavy use of the I pronoun is consistent with a high level of vanity. Vanity always occurs with envy. They are related mental processes. Leftism is the politics of resentment and you have the disease.”

Vane about what? I have nothing to boast about. Envious of whom? I’ve nothing about which to feel envious. And what do you know about my political opinions? Just because I am concerned about the environment, does that make me a raving Marxist or tree-hugger? I have seen what the problems are and I just want to convince people of the solution. If you are not to blind, the evidence it out there for all to see.

Over 80 per cent of home burglaries occur in daylight. These crimes are most often committed by young men between 16 and 25 years of age.
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/holooucr/holooucr_001.cfm

Most crimes against the elderly were more likely to occur in or near their homes, and to occur in daylight hours.
http://www.nationalinstituteofcorrections.gov/Library/015708

Most home intrusions occur in daylight hours.
http://www.residentialsecurity.com.au/crimestats.html

These numbers indicate that more juvenile crimes occur by day than by night.
http://www.nyls.edu/pages/2831.asp

Most crime, especially domestic break-ins, occur in daylight, proving that light can aid criminals.

The Association of British Insurers do not recommend outdoor lighting as a crime deterrent. Indeed, insurance companies do not offer a reduction in your premiums if you have “security” floodlights, due to the lack of evidence to suggest that lighting reduces crime.

Measures such as CCTV, increased street lighting and longer custodial sentences were judged in the report to have been expensive failures, with only a few exceptions.”

When lighting was increased in Chicago “...there was a 21 percent increase in reported evening incidents that occurred in alleys”

…. And so on….

Bjornskau, Fosser, and Sagberg (1999) report that when drivers feel safer through improved street lighting they gain a sense of false confidence. They no longer drive according to the conditions. The seem to think that because lighting gives them increased visibility, they can drive faster with reduced concentration. Any perceived advantage of having street lighting is therefore nullified and the incidence of accidents in illuminated areas may well increase. Street lighting, therefore, does not necessarily improve road safety, and may actually make it worse.

For urban lighting to strengthen an insect population by weeding out those attracted to lights would require mutants in the population that were not attracted to them. Such individuals would be at a survival disadvantage in a natural setting and would already be extinct before lighting could have any effect.

“As for your contention that we are the intruders into nature, I totally reject that notion.”

If you are in a natural setting, such as the Everglades, then, yes, we are the intruders, definitely. If you visit an African game reserve, fail to follow the guidelines issued by park officials, and then get eaten by a lion, do you blame the lion? As far as she’s concerned you’re just another morsel for her cubs. The same would apply in the Everglades if you get covered by swarms of insects. It’s not their fault. Moreover, the decision to go there was yours. If you don’t like insects, don’t go to such places and stay at home. As for the insects, in such places, they come with the territory. For my part I’ve lived in places frequented by snakes, scorpions, centipedes, the lot, and didn’t find them a problem.

“As for lighting design, how am I going to provide lighting that won’t attract bugs? They’re literally everywhere. They are going to be drawn to lights, that’s just how they function. And motion sensors are fine for some applications, but not for others. You can’t wire the whole lighting scheme to motion sensors, that’s a ridiculous assumption based on ignorance of people’s needs and wants.”

You’re right, you can’t. But you can design lights that minimise the problem by aiming light downwards so that it doesn’t leak out to where it is not wanted. Most lighting now available does nothing of the sort. That’s why we have light pollution.
Motion sensors are for domestic security lights, which is what most householders want. If all security lights were motion operated we would have less of a problem and I wouldn’t be complaining. Granted there will be the need for non-motion operated lighting in work-stations, etc where people are going to be working all night. Motion operated lighting in these situations would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, the lighting can be designed in such a way that it only goes where it is needed, and no-where else. That should be part of your job-description as a lighting designer.

“As for being responsible, do you think people are generally stupid? I’m not trying to be rude, but really- do you feel it’s your duty to inform everyone else of what they may or may not do with their own money on their own property?”

There was a time when I respected elected officials in local government, and that they commanded a certain degree of authority. Unfortunately, due to my encounters with such people I found the level of ignorance and arrogance absolutely appalling. We get situations where a street lighting department can hang a street light outside your home without some much as a by-your-leave, and all under the pretext of safety and security. I resent that. They adopt the attitude that we all need street lights. Sorry. We don’t. Street lighting however can be construed as useful in urban, and some suburban situations, but what are worse are the crass public art projects that deliberately inject light into the night sky. I’ve been personally involved in killing off a number of these civic vanity projects, with considerable public support, and all of these were sanctioned by ignorant, arrogant morons in local government intent on an ego trip. In each case the savings to the public exchequer amounted to hundreds of thousands.
I think I credit householders with a certain amount of intelligence, and if all lighting intended for exterior use was motion operated then you reduce the risks of neighbour disputes, which from personal experience, can be quite ugly. If you really have any concern for your fellow man, you wouldn’t want to peddle merchandise that can precipitate these problems. For most domestic purposes, motion operated lighting is all that is needed, and where it isn’t, sky-friendly screened lighting is available. You should be promoting that, and phasing out lighting that is inappropriate. Once all lighting is sky-friendly, the customer is still free to choose what suits his needs. And he/she will do so knowing its environmental impact will be minimal.

I’m honoured by your invitation to compete against you, but no thanks. I’m an academic, without any business acumen, and the business world is not for me. So long as I make enough money to support my family I’m happy.

“As for your contention that we are the intruders into nature, I totally reject that notion.”

If you are in a natural setting, such as the Everglades, then, yes, we are the intruders, definitely. If you visit an African game reserve, fail to follow the guidelines issued by park officials, and then get eaten by a lion, do you blame the lion? As far as she’s concerned you’re just another morsel for her cubs. The same would apply in the Everglades if you get covered by swarms of insects. It’s not their fault. Moreover, the decision to go there was yours. If you don’t like insects, don’t go to such places and stay at home. As for the insects, in such places, they come with the territory. For my part I’ve lived in places frequented by snakes, scorpions, centipedes, the lot, and didn’t find them a problem.

“As for lighting design, how am I going to provide lighting that won’t attract bugs? They’re literally everywhere. They are going to be drawn to lights, that’s just how they function. And motion sensors are fine for some applications, but not for others. You can’t wire the whole lighting scheme to motion sensors, that’s a ridiculous assumption based on ignorance of people’s needs and wants.”

You’re right, you can’t. But you can design lights that minimise the problem by aiming light downwards so that it doesn’t leak out to where it is not wanted. Most lighting now available does nothing of the sort. That’s why we have light pollution.

Motion sensors are for domestic security lights, which is what most householders want. If all security lights were motion operated we would have less of a problem and I wouldn’t be complaining. Granted there will be the need for non-motion operated lighting in work-stations, etc where people are going to be working all night. Motion operated lighting in these situations would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, the lighting can be designed in such a way that it only goes where it is needed, and no-where else. That should be part of your job-description as a lighting designer.

“As for being responsible, do you think people are generally stupid? I’m not trying to be rude, but really- do you feel it’s your duty to inform everyone else of what they may or may not do with their own money on their own property?”

There was a time when I respected elected officials in local government, and that they commanded a certain degree of authority. Unfortunately, due to my encounters with such people I found the level of ignorance and arrogance absolutely appalling. We get situations where a street lighting department can hang a street light outside your home without some much as a by-your-leave, and all under the pretext of safety and security. I resent that. They adopt the attitude that we all need street lights. Sorry. We don’t. Street lighting however can be construed as useful in urban, and some suburban situations, but what are worse are the crass public art projects that deliberately inject light into the night sky. I’ve been personally involved in killing off a number of these civic vanity projects, with considerable public support, and all of these were sanctioned by ignorant, arrogant morons in local government intent on an ego trip. In each case the savings to the public exchequer amounted to hundreds of thousands.

I think I credit householders with a certain amount of intelligence, and if all lighting intended for exterior use was motion operated then you reduce the risks of neighbour disputes, which from personal experience, can be quite ugly. If you really have any concern for your fellow man, you wouldn’t want to peddle merchandise that can precipitate these problems. For most domestic purposes, motion operated lighting is all that is needed, and where it isn’t, sky-friendly screened lighting is available. You should be promoting that, and phasing out lighting that is inappropriate. Once all lighting is sky-friendly, the customer is still free to choose what suits his needs. And he/she will do so knowing its environmental impact will be minimal.

I’m honoured by your invitation to compete against you, but no thanks. I’m an academic, without any business acumen, and the business world is not for me. So long as I make enough money to support my family I’m happy.

I’ve never been to Florida, but I’ve been to another glorified swamp called Bangladesh. A multitude of insects around a swamp is quite normal, and desirable. One should realise that in such a natural setting, we are the intruder, not they.
I commend you on abiding by dark sky mandates, but providing people with inappropriate lighting just because they can pay for it and then abuse it is totally wrong. The prevailing culture needs to change. I have realised that, and so should everyone else. I would never advocate depriving people of freedom, for which my nation as well as yours has paid, and is still paying dearly. Those concerned about inappropriate lighting are certainly not control freaks. If the customer is ignorant of the consequences of his actions, then the service provider should advise him accordingly. That is ethical conduct and sound business practice, and it should apply to the lighting industry as much as any other. As a lighting designer you should be providing lighting that is not damaging to the environment (i.e. motion operated) and does not trespass onto neighbouring properties. Such lighting will still provide for the needs of your customers, and as a result everyone wins – yourself, your customers, insects, and the environment.

Google Earth does not show you the extent of light pollution, and as such is totally inappropriate for assessing its environmental impact. To evaluate its true impact I suggest you look at satellites images of the Earth at night. Then you will see that most of eastern North America, Europe, the Middle East, India, and the Far East are lit up. The effect of an illuminated city extends well beyond its borders. For example, the glow of Dublin can be detected from North Wales.

I’m not denying some lighting in cities is necessary, but the technology is available to mitigate its adverse effects. This technology has been around for at least twenty years, so there is no excuse not to have implemented it.

“When I install a light outdoors, I can come back the next day and indeed, there are lots of dead moths on the lens and on the ground near the fixture. I can clean them up and come back the next day, and there they are again. It never stops.”

Well, you’ve just proved my point, haven’t you? So your light is sucking up the insects in your neighbourhood, along with those of everyone else who has a light and leaves it on all night. This and along with all the other lighting in a city will have a significant effect over decades of time. And this is exactly what has been seen. Many species have shown significant declines with concomitant effects on higher order consumers that can’t be denied. And you cannot blame it all on habit destruction or pesticides.

If you are leaving your light on all night, then you’re part of the problem. Get it motion operated. Then your light comes on only when needed, and it won’t do any harm, and you won’t be wasting energy either. The energy wastage I have seen caused by people leaving outside lights on all night (and during the day for that matter), is appalling, especially as motion operated lighting is, and has been readily available for years. Failure to apply it just demonstrates ignorance on the part of some householders and the retailers who provide lighting. For my part I don’t have any outside lights, nor do I see the need.

Why the need for pyrethrins? You won’t just be killing mosquitoes. A simple mosquito repellent would be better. If they are a problem inside the house, sleep under a net. I do.

“Your debate tactic is a losing one here. If you want to criticise lighting, do it from an energy use standpoint, or from a bad design standpoint. The insect angle is absurd.”

No it’s not. And I have been criticising badly designed and unnecessary lighting. I will give no quarter there. Outdoor lighting should only be used sparingly, on a needs must basis, when needed, where needed, and in the correct amounts.

The tone of your post is hostile and out of order. I am certainly not brainwashed as my conclusions have been reached as a result of years of observation and research. The evidence is out there in the public domain. As for global warming, that is an undeniable fact. If you refuse to accept it then that’s your problem. There’s none so blind as those who cannot see.

Regarding the New York Blackout and looting, then yes I concede looting was a problem, but it appears to be the exception rather than the rule. In most areas where power failures have occurred, criminality dropped to zero, so we should look to other reasons than the lack of lighting to explain it. I have lived in Dhaka in Bangladesh, that has regular power cuts - at least two a night - yet the level of criminality is low. The New York case may reflect the level of criminality already present in the community concerned, which in the case of New York, is high. Many American cities have homicide levels comparable to whole nations elsewhere. Furthermore, the disorder you mention probably reflected the level of frustration felt by the local residents in deprived communities of being denied basic amenities for an extended period.

So you think I’m being silly? A single bright light left on all night every night can kill thousands of insects. I have seen it happen so I know what I am talking about. Large cities have thousands, if not millions of lights of all kinds, consequently they will inevitably have an effect on surrounding areas. Large cities will have a greater effect than smaller ones, and the effect is greater if they are bunched together into conurbations. Lighting mainly affects those insects that are active at night. Those that are active in daytime are less likely to be affected, so obviously you will still see them, but if the lighting is really intense, they can be affected as well. Again I have seen this happen. We must never forget insects, as they play an invaluable role in the ecosystem. Not only do they function as pollinators for our crops, but they serve as decomposers and food for higher order consumers such as birds and small mammals. Regretfully, many of these are now in decline because they can’t obtain enough food, either for themselves or their offspring.

The police are not experts on the subject of lighting, and only advise on the back of the general fear of crime which is understandable. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that blanket illumination does not deter crime and may actually encourage it. The most intensively illuminated neighbourhoods are often the most dangerous. Crime has been seen to increase in neighbourhoods that did not have lighting after lighting was introduced. People will therefore be safer under a blanket of darkness. Furthermore, most crime occurs in daylight, ergo criminals need light. If you don’t give it to them, they are forced to bring their own, making them easier to detect. Motion operated security lighting may be a deterrent if applied judiciously. As a lighting designer you should incorporate these environmental concerns into your products, and not produce or apply lighting that is counter productive.

Most of the opinions expressed on this web-site re the curfew on lighting are pitiful, to put it mildly. They show a blatant disregard for the environment, and those responsible for such opinions are part of the problem.

Let’s get one thing straight. Lighting does not reduce crime. This has been well established over the past few years, yet people persist in installing more and brighter lighting in the mistaken belief that it will help. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most crime occurs in daylight, ergo criminals need light. If you expand lighting, then you will encourage people to behave at night more as they would do during the day. If lighting stops crime, explain why it is that during power cuts, criminality drops to zero?
I’m not against lighting, but it must only be used sparingly, on a needs must basis; when needed, where needed, and in the correct amounts. Street lighting where deemed necessary should be full cut-off or better, and all security lighting should be motion operated. On minor suburban roads street lighting should be subject to an 11p.m. till dawn curfew, and not switched on again until the following night. Decorative lighting that does not serve any useful purpose should not be tolerated.
So how do we guarantee safety on our streets? There are methods of making roads safer without naive recourse to street lighting - cat’s eyes, reflective paints, and baffles on motorway reservations rank high on the list.
Two thirds of all street lighting could (and probably should) be eliminated without any serious effect.
So what are the benefits of reduced lighting? First and foremost we regain our night. Living things need darkness in order to function normally, and the orange fog that currently pervades our cities prevents them from getting it. Lights attract insects, so our cities have been sucking them up for decades, like a vacuum cleaner. Consequently the country has become increasingly sterile. So what you might ask? Well, any decline in insects will have a concomitant effect on higher order consumers, and because of this we are now seeing serious declines in spiders, amphibians, reptiles, common birds and small mammals. If that does not concern you then go on as before, but the environment will pay you back anyway, with compounded interest.
Insects also pollinate plants, so the decline of insects is important because it will ultimately affect crop production. Reduced plant diversity will exacerbate the already declining insect population, making the situation worse.
Increased lighting levels also affect humans. It suppresses melatonin secretion by the pineal gland. Melatonin is also an anti-oxidant that suppresses cancer, and this has lead to increased levels of breast and prostate cancer in illuminated areas. This is backed up by the fact that blind women rarely get breast cancer.
Satellite imagery of the Earth at night that became available during the mid 1990’s revealed the lights of thousands of cities world-wide, cooking the atmosphere all night, three hundred and sixty nights a year, year in, year out. It is no longer possible to deny that this is having an effect on global warming, and this is not taking into consideration the carbon dioxide emissions produced from the fuel used to keep them going.
So to conclude, all this excessive lighting is detrimental not only to the environment, but to ourselves. Darkness is normal at night, and the sooner we realise that fact, the better. These curfews are coming because they are an absolute necessity, so the nay-sayers should put up and shut up.