[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DSLF] Digest Number 573



_________________________________________________
To subscribe to the DarkSky List Forum send email
to:  DarkSky-list-subscribe@yahoogroups...

Help save your town from obtrusive lighting --
invite your planning and zoning department to
join us!  Ask them to visit the IDA website at
http://www.darksky.org today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 11 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

      1. Re: NY veto
           From: "Fabio Falchi" <fabio.falchi@libero...>
      2. Alaska lights
           From: Steve Pauley <spauley@cox-internet...>
      3. RE: Light Pollution isn't just about the Night Sky any mo re!
           From: "Wyeth, Susan" <swyeth@centerbrook...>
      4. Re: Astronomers in favour of light pollution !!!
           From: "Fabio Falchi" <fabio.falchi@libero...>
      5. Lighting cost calculator
           From: Tim Poulsen <poulsen@netacc...>
      6. Re: Help with Response to Goveneors Office and Legislators
           From: Anthony Arrigo <Anthony.Arrigo@CampusPipeline...>
      7. IDA Donations from Astrophotography Sales
           From: "astropho1" <astropho1@yahoo...>
      8. Re: Lighting cost calculator
           From: "Kirke Coney" <kirkec@austin....com>
      9. RE:R: Astronomers in favour of light pollution !!!   R: message
           From: "Pierantonio Cinzano" <info@inquinamentoluminoso...>
     10. A few things we should know about light pollution!
           From: Yvan Dutil <yvan.dutil@sympatico...>
     11. "Analyse-It" Free Trial
           From: saros61@aol...


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:58:43 +0100
   From: "Fabio Falchi" <fabio.falchi@libero...>
Subject: Re: NY veto

> New York State's share in this mess amounts to approximately $210
> million annually.
> The bill's intent was to establish better outdoor lighting
> practices using current technology which is no different than any
> building code.
> George, you really blew it and our tax dollars for the
> foreseeable future.  You won't be getting my vote in November.
>
> Stephen Davis, Engineer

Isn't it possible to sue the Governor for the added cost that NYS will pay
doing BAU in outdoor practices vs. the economy of the FCO fixtures?
Perhaps it is a fool idea, but...who knows

Fabio Falchi
------------------------------------------------------------------
FABIO FALCHI
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologia dell'Inquinamento Luminoso - ISTIL
Light Pollution Science and Technology Institute
e-mail:  falchi@lightpollution...
web:     http://www.lightpollution.it/dmsp/
            http://www.istil.it
------------------------------------------------------------------







________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 05:29:35 -0700
   From: Steve Pauley <spauley@cox-internet...>
Subject: Alaska lights

Tim Crawford wrote

<<....the City of Anchorage bills itself as the CITY OF LIGHTS and darn
proud of it! Folks are encouraged to drape their homes, trees and bushes
with strings of lights so that the city can live up to it's billing.
jeesh...>>

<< One reason for installing the lighting is to reduce collisions
with moose. Full cut-off lights would not provide enough light
on the flats to reveal moose approaching the road. >>

Tim

Some thoughts for your Alaska state legislators:

How about changing the Alaska state flag?  It shows the Big Dipper
pointing to Polaris.  Will the state replace that with a picture of an
unshielded street light since no one in Anchorage will be able to
see the Dipper anymore, and Anchorage seems to want to worship
night lighting?

Re moose:  they have eyes too, and most likely are able to see in the dark
far better than we humans. Glare lighting affects a moose just like
we Homo sapiens. I'm assuming a moose doesn't want to be
hit by a pickup anymore than the driver of the pickup wants to
hit the moose.  Both will be blinded by glare lighting.  Now if
the real reason for unshielded hwy lighting is to shoot a moose from
the window of a pickup for winter food, well ... that sounds more
like the real Alaska.

Steve P


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 08:37:46 -0500
   From: "Wyeth, Susan" <swyeth@centerbrook...>
Subject: RE: Light Pollution isn't just about the Night Sky any mo re!

If letters like this are sent to anyone of importance, they should be
proofread first.  

susan wyeth

[ Please trim past messages before sending replies. ]


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Greenhalgh [mailto:fvas@shaw...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:34 AM
Subject: [DSLF] Light Pollution isn't just about the Night Sky any more!

In the beginning, the problems of light pollution were about losing the
Night Sky. (Quite honestly and for all intense and purposes this was for my
own selfish reasons, in the beginning! But that has since changed and
subsided to quite a degree.)



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:38:25 +0100
   From: "Fabio Falchi" <fabio.falchi@libero...>
Subject: Re: Astronomers in favour of light pollution !!!

Paolo,
this is not the first time that in Italy a professional astronomer seems to
be in favour of light pollution.
This is another example:
last week the Major of island of Capri (in fornt of Naples) announced that
the world famous 'faraglioni of Capri' (I've not found the translation of
faraglioni, but they are rocks emerging from the sea) will be lighted with
floodlights! Consequently some enviromental groups, including WWF,
challenged major's decision because of the enviromental risks for local sea
flora and fauna and for the added light pollution. In an article on the best
selling Italian newspaper, il Corriere della Sera, the only voice not in
contrast with the Major was the one of Prof. Massimo Capaccioli, Director of
Capodimonte
Naples Astronomical Observatory. He said (translation mine): 'Capri's sky is
already very polluted by Naples lights. If one wants to admire the heaven,
he
goes on mountains, not on an isle. Enough of this fundamentalism. If a
beautiful woman wants to wear lipstick, let's she do it. At the condition
that she's not vulgar'
It's a pity that one should have the right to see the stars wherever he
stay, expecially on a naturally beautiful isle like Capri! It's a pity too
that in Italy even on mountains the sky is polluted!
Campania regional Parliament is working on a light pollution bill. What will
happen if they
ask for advice to the Director of the Naples Capodimonte Astronomical
Observatory?

Fabio Falchi
------------------------------------------------------------------
FABIO FALCHI
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologia dell'Inquinamento Luminoso - ISTIL
Light Pollution Science and Technology Institute
e-mail:  falchi@lightpollution...
web:     http://www.lightpollution.it/dmsp/
            http://www.istil.it
------------------------------------------------------------------








________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:09:36 -0500
   From: Tim Poulsen <poulsen@netacc...>
Subject: Lighting cost calculator

Hi all,

I've updated my lighting cost calculator to include emissions produced.

You can find this page at:
http://www.netacc.net/~poulsen/lightcost.html

You choose a few simple parameters, click a button, and a report 
showing how much the light or lights cost you, electricity used, and 
emissions released.

I believe the facts and figures upon which the calculations are based 
to be correct, but I welcome feedback and corrections.

Thanks,
Tim


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 09:39:39 -0700
   From: Anthony Arrigo <Anthony.Arrigo@CampusPipeline...>
Subject: Re: Help with Response to Goveneors Office and Legislators

How about:
Anchorage... The City of The Northern Lights!


APA



> the City of Anchorage bills itself as the CITY  OF LIGHTS and darn
> proud of it!  Folks are encouraged to drape their homes, trees and bushes
> with strings of lights so that the city can live up to it's billing.
> jeesh...
>



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:44:21 -0000
   From: "astropho1" <astropho1@yahoo...>
Subject: IDA Donations from Astrophotography Sales

To whom it may concern:

I am an amateur astrophotographer who is currently trying to gain 
exposure by making my astroimages available to the astronomy 
community and at the same time help support the International Dark 
Sky Association by donating a portion of my sales in support of their 
light pollution cause.  I am also an IDA member and feel that what 
the IDA has accomplished and is continuing to accomplish is 
wonderful.  I currently have a Sponsorship Ad on www.Astromart.com 
under the CCD/Astrophotography category and titled Ron Zincone's 
Astro Images.  I also have a link to my astrophoto website in my Ad:  
www.geocities.com/astropho1/photo.htm
My hope is to get the message out to individuals who may like to 
obtain some nice astroimages and at the same time be able to 
contribute to the Dark Sky Association from my donations to them.  I 
am hoping this Dark-Sky-list may be a way to get more individuals 
involved.  I have been in touch with Dave Crawford and other 
individuals at IDA and they are aware of my idea.  Thank you.

Ron Zincone
AAAA, ASSNE, IDA, AL member






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:12:42 -0600
   From: "Kirke Coney" <kirkec@austin....com>
Subject: Re: Lighting cost calculator


> I believe the facts and figures upon which the calculations are based
> to be correct, but I welcome feedback and corrections.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim

Fluorescent is misspelled.  The lumen outputs are not familiar to me (e.g.
400HPS is listed at 45,000 lumens, not 50,000), but that may not be
significant. Pulse start metal halides would be a good addition.  I like the
format a lot.





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
   Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:57:47 +0100
   From: "Pierantonio Cinzano" <info@inquinamentoluminoso...>
Subject: RE:R: Astronomers in favour of light pollution !!!   R: message

Dear Dr. Cazzaniga,

honestly your letter "Astronomers in favor of light pollution!" touched a
sore point.

The position of a number of colleagues is quite embarrassing for a person
like me who has a PhD in astronomy, is an IAU member and is working the 100%
of his time on light pollution.

However we must understand the point of view of many astronomers: they work
outside Italy with telescopes in astronomical sites of international level
with a very dark sky so they believe (wrongly) that light pollution is not a
problem for them. Egoistically they do not take any care of the population.

I heard one of them saying: "What's matter if children do not see the stars
anymore?".  Probably they do not think that those children will be the
ruling class of tomorrow and they will not approve founding for astronomy...
as Sullivan argued in the preface of "Measuring and Modeling light
pollution", Mem. Soc. Astron. It, 71,1 (2000).

I also heard some Italian astronomers say "The interest of the general
public toward astronomy is not due to the night sky but to the exceptional
photographs which ours telescopes provide them". If these are the premises,
you understand that for some of them the interest to obtain founding for new
instruments in dark sites or to convert unusable observatories in museums,
didactical centers, etc. is greater than the interest to save the night sky
for Italian citizens.
Some of them could hope that Regional or National Governments give them
money for new instruments or to convert their observatories, if they do not
support our battle against light pollution.

This situation is not new in Italy at all. Italian astronomers organizations
in the past supported unofficially the worse regulations in Italy against
light pollution (e.g. the bad Italian standard rule UNI10819), but we have
been always able to obtain very good laws, like the Law of Lumbardy, even
without any official support by them. The organizations against light
pollution in Italy like IDA and Cielobuio have a lot of amateurs, teachers,
learned mans, environmentalists, engineers, physicians, etc. and do not need
astronomers.

The only problem is that these positions usually create confusion in
politicians who - like the majority of people - consider astronomers the
injured party, so we need take care to clarify the situation to them.

Moreover we must take into account that these positions in favor of light
pollution are taken only by few astronomers and likely for political
reasons. In a silent way many astronomers in their inner heart support our
battle and few others stand openly by us. The International Astronomical
Union, e.g., published our maps of artificial night sky brightness in the
cover page of their last IAU Bulletin !

In any case I answered to the speech of Bruno Marano addressing to the
regional commission this request: Given that the director of the Department
considers the protection provided by the Bill excessive for the need of the
Loiano Astronomical Observatory and given that the prescriptions of the Bill
are necessary to protect efficiently the sky of the Region (I proofed it), I
suggest to delete Loiano Astronomical Observatory from the list of protected
sites and to insert in its place a Natural Park (environmentalists claimed
that there are too few parks inside the list).

About the Italian Astronomical society, in quality of an old member (1977)
who worked a lot on light pollution for them, I sent a long open letter
asking the resign of the President Salvatore Serio and the vice-president
Fabrizio Bonoli. They obviously didn't resigned. But their reputation inside
our organizations lowered near zero. You could find the letter on-line in a
number of web sites (e.g. www.venetostellato.it/news.html ).

In conclusion do not preoccupy. In Italy since 1989 there is a hard war on
light pollution and we are every day growing up and reaching countinuously
great successes. These events can be disappointing but help us to became
stronger.

Dark skies,

Pierantonio Cinzano

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIERANTONIO CINZANO
International Dark-Sky Association - Italia
Direttore Scientifico
e-mail: cinzano@inquinamentoluminoso...
web: http://www.inquinamentoluminoso.it
------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Fabio Falchi [mailto:fabio.falchi@libero...]
Inviato: martedi 5 febbraio 2002 15.38
A: DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...
Oggetto: [DSLF] Re: Astronomers in favour of light pollution !!!


Paolo,
this is not the first time that in Italy a professional astronomer seems to
be in favour of light pollution.
This is another example:
last week the Major of island of Capri (in fornt of Naples) announced that
the world famous 'faraglioni of Capri' (I've not found the translation of
faraglioni, but they are rocks emerging from the sea) will be lighted with
floodlights! Consequently some enviromental groups, including WWF,
challenged major's decision because of the enviromental risks for local sea
flora and fauna and for the added light pollution. In an article on the best
selling Italian newspaper, il Corriere della Sera, the only voice not in
contrast with the Major was the one of Prof. Massimo Capaccioli, Director of
Capodimonte
Naples Astronomical Observatory. He said (translation mine): 'Capri's sky is
already very polluted by Naples lights. If one wants to admire the heaven,
he
goes on mountains, not on an isle. Enough of this fundamentalism. If a
beautiful woman wants to wear lipstick, let's she do it. At the condition
that she's not vulgar'
It's a pity that one should have the right to see the stars wherever he
stay, expecially on a naturally beautiful isle like Capri! It's a pity too
that in Italy even on mountains the sky is polluted!
Campania regional Parliament is working on a light pollution bill. What will
happen if they
ask for advice to the Director of the Naples Capodimonte Astronomical
Observatory?

Fabio Falchi


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Paolo Cazzaniga [mailto:stache@libero...]
Inviato: lunedi 4 febbraio 2002 21.08
A: DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...
Oggetto: [DSLF] message


Hello Guys
I'm a physicist dealing with astronomy and its related problems and have
been subscribing IDA association for years, here's a comment on what's
actually going on.


Astronomers in favour of light pollution !!!

Dear friends,

last friday 11 january I attended a public examination of a bill against
light pollution by the government of an Italian Region. It contains very
good prescriptions in agreement with the Law of the Lumbardy Region. IDA,
Cielobuio and local amateurs astronomers had a speech to support it. There
was a quite general agreement on this draft.

Surpringsly an astronomer, the Director of the Department of Astronomy of
the University of Bononia, Prof. Bruno Marano, had speech AGAINST IT,
claiming that in his view if there is some light pollution is not a problem,
denigrating the Law of Lumbardy and suggesting a minor protection. All
people, including politicians, were surprised for his speech because Prof.
Cinzano, the Science Director of the IDA-Italian, had explained few minutes
earlier, clearly and in detail, the technical reasons to reduce near zero
upward light emissions.

Bruno Marano was involved with some persons who some years ago prepared a
standard rule on light pollution which is known to be poorly effective and
he didn't accepted that we support another much better rule. However this do
not diminish the seriousness of the event.

The speech of Marano created a lot of complaints by amateurs to Italian
astronomer's organizations. It is incredible that an astronomer be in favour
of more pollution.

Moreover, his Vice-Director Fabrizio Bonoli, who is also vice-president of
the Italian Astronomical Society, wrote a letter on behalf of the Society
supporting that bad technical rule. So in conclusion, italian professional
astronomers appear officially favouring more light pollution. Unbelivable
!!!

I want to advise you all to be careful when there are astronomers in
commissions discussing Bills. In some cases  particular interests of
astronomers could differ from the general interest of the population for a
protection of the night sky and they could not help you in the battle
against light pollution or damage it.
Sincerely
                                                                    Dott.
Paolo Cazzaniga





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
   Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 20:06:11 -0500
   From: Yvan Dutil <yvan.dutil@sympatico...>
Subject: A few things we should know about light pollution!

This a text I have prepare for the next dark-sky newsletter. Unfortunately,
due to a lack of place,
we will have to wait up to next edition to have it publish. Meanwhile, I will
have probably publish
my research paper in PASP. By the way, I am open to any comment.

Yvan Dutil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, two major legislations against light pollution have been rejected.
One in the New York state, the other in the Czech Republic, One of the
reasons invoked was lack of scientific justification for full cut-off lamp.
Arguments invoked by astronomers (light above the horizon=pollution)
backfired in face of analysis done by lighting engineers demonstrating that
with less stringent optical cutoff, the poles can be more spaced for a same
uniformity and the overall fraction of light that goes up, including the
ground reflection, can be reduce by up to 20% (Remande 2000). Unfortunately,
these two conflicting conclusions are based on simplistic model of the light
pollution. Our understanding of the light pollution must improve otherwise
the same scenario will repeat again.

Common sense is that up-going light equals light pollution. The classical
example is an old fashion lamp that emits directly 35% of the light up, 65%
down of which 10% is reflected up. Overall, 45% of the light ends up
illuminating the sky. Then with full cut-off optics, the direct emitted light
goes down to 0%, and only the light reflected on the ground goes up, 10%. In
consequence, we would expect a spectacular 88% in reduction of the overall
pollution. Lighting engineer got even further, by following the engineering
norms and applying their model for road illumination, they came down to the
conclusion that light pollution can be minimized of you use semi-cutoff
optics, which allows a few percents of light to spill above the horizon.

Unfortunately, this model does not take account of a very simple fact: light
emitted at low angle is more polluting that light emitted at the vertical.
Simply, there is more air in the direction of the horizon than at the zenith,
which provide more chance for a photon to get diffused. Donít forget, that in
essence light pollution is not a problem of light going up but a problem of
light that was going up but got diffused on the ground. In consequence, it
has been shown up by Pierantiono Cinzano & Francisco Javier Diaz Castro, that
most of the light pollution is produce by light emitted at angle below 10
degrees above the horizon. Unfortunately, the results of this key paper are
presented in a form that renders them impractical for engineering practice.

In order, to address this issue I have develop a simple model of atmospheric
diffusion (Dutil 2002). It is essentially the same model as the one develop
by Garstang and use recently by Cinzano et al. to produce their world atlas
of light pollution. With some simplifications that ease the calculation but
have little impact on the final result.

For typical atmospheric condition, the light pollution efficiency peaks at 4
degrees above the horizon at a value 5.85 times higher than at zenith.
However order to evaluate the real impact of the light pollution, we have to
sum the contribution of every angles. I have examined three typical emission
functions: uniform over 10 first degrees above horizon (spilled light from a
good lamp), lambertian (like a reflection on pavement) and uniform (like the
emission of a globe). The pollution coefficients for each distribution are
respectively 0.7950,  0.2902 and 0.4206. From these numbers we can deduce
that a lumen of light spilled near the horizon pollution 2.74 more than the
same lumen diffused on the asphalt, and 1.89 times more that if it was
emitted by an infamous globe!  Readers have to be advised that this result
have not been peer reviewed yet and in consequence should be use with great
care.

What does this means in practice? If we used a standard albedo of 15% for the
pavement, it can be shown that the reflected light will dominate the
pollution budget if the light emitted directly above the horizon does not
exceed 5.5%! Taken at face value this would means that lighting engineers are
right and that simple cut-off optics would produce less light pollution since
the only emit 2% of their light above horizon. If we recalculate the previous
example with those number, we get: 35%+10%/2.74=38.65% vs 10%/2.74=3.65%. As
we can see, the real reduction of light pollution is 90.6% instead of 88% as
we have previously calculated.

Is this the end of the full cut-off lamp? Nothing is less sure. First, we
need to take account of the real amount of light spilled by lamp. Lamps are
rarely exactly level and this inevitably increasing the light loss. This
factor alone is enough to favor full cut-off optics.  Second, the claims of
engineers are based on a requirement of illumination uniformity. Real night
vision is more complex and rigorous modeling with probably end up with a
different result, especially if glare is taken into account.

Do not forget that better lighting practice is our ultimate goal. Once the
physics is well understood, optimization is easy.

Reference:

Cinzano, P., Diaz Castro, F. J., 2000, Mem. Soc. Astro. It., 71, 251
Cinzano, P., Falchi, F., & Elvidge, C. D. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 328, 689
Dutil, Y., to be submitted to Publication of the Astronomical Society of the
Pacific
Garstang, R. H. 1986, Publication of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific,
98, 364
Garstang, R. H. 1989, Publication of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific,
101, 306
Garstang, R.H. 1991, Publication of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific,
103, 1109
Remande, C., 2001, in Preserving the Astronomical Sky, IAU Symposium, Vol.
196, R. J. Cohen and W. T. Sullivan, III, eds.






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
   Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:35:29 EST
   From: saros61@aol...
Subject: "Analyse-It" Free Trial

Hi Folks:

Don't know if this is something which will help anyone, but I'm going to try 
it for a class I'm taking now which deals w/ regression analysis, 
correlations, and such...

http://www.analyse-it.com/

Charles Fulco
Member, Intl. Dark-Sky Association
Port Chester (N.Y.) Park Commission
914-939-1797


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/