[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[OL-Forum] Digest Number 436
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/mcTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
OutdoorLighting-Forum "The largest uncensored and most active non-geographic based forum on light pollution."
To unsubscribe from a Yahoo list send a blank email to listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. TAN: Daylight doesn't help, though
From: John McMahon <mcmahon@mail....edu>
2. Lighting Reform and Education
From: rlgent1@aol...
3. Re: FCO vs. drop lens
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
4. Re: LUMEC
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
5. RE: Re: FCO vs. drop lens
From: "Richard Klappal" <klappal@xnet...>
6. Comet Ikeya-Zhang: 3/22
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
7. Welcome to New IDA Sections!
From: rlgent1@aol...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:14:45 -0700
From: John McMahon <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: TAN: Daylight doesn't help, though
Re: lighting stops workplace deaths ...
"At least five shot at Indiana company"
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/22/indiana.shooting/index.html
Maybe they'd better keep the lights on all day, eh? Yeah,
that's the ticket.
John McMahon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:18:19 EST
From: rlgent1@aol...
Subject: Lighting Reform and Education
Greetings from Italy!
I just returned from another exciting IDA annual meeting, and I'd
like to reply about a few postings on this listserver and others concerning
the above subject.
First, we discussed this subject at length in the IDA sections
working group meeting. IDA sections are encouraged to speak out in support
of outdoor lighting reform. We reviewed the IRS rules for nonprofit
organizations, and the main restriction is that we cannot give money or
attempt to defeat or support any particular political candidate. Lucky for
us, quality lighting and support of dark-skies is usually bipartisan.
Many IDA section leaders and officers have spoken out in person as
well as written letters in support of outdoor lighting reform. On the
behalf of IDA, I have spoken before several different state legislation and
administrative committees to describe the problems and solutions of light
pollution. Many of us at IDA have lost count of the number of letters,
visits, phone calls, and other actions we have taken in support of dark skies
and quality lighting.
We recently received word that a lighting company opposed the NY law.
A couple weeks ago during my visit to IDA headquarters, we received a copy
of the letter. This letter has generated much interest at IDA, and please
rest assured that IDA is going to prepare a well versed response. It will
take time.
The idea that quality FCO street lighting always costs more money
with closer pole spacing deserves a reply. Once we factor in the benefits of
glare reduction and improved visibility, many people will understand why IDA
and the IESNA RP-8 promote FCO for roadway lighting. In demos at past IDA
meetings, we found that with glare reduced, total illumination levels could
be reduced. This, in turn, reduces energy consumption, better controls
light trespass, and protects the nighttime environment. As a general rule,
fully shielded lighting is the best way to control glare and light trespass.
Is it any wonder why so many states are going to FCO!
Most of you are aware that the benefits of FCO lighting have been
demonstrated in many communities. One case in point is the Premcor Refinery
in Port Arthur, Texas. With 20,000 unshielded outdoor lights, light
pollution and energy waste was a real problem. Fortunately, they ran a test
and found that by controlling glare with shields, they could lower wattages.
They ended up using FCO shields, and this enabled them to reduce the wattages
(and lumen output) by 50 percent. They are going to be saving nearly $200,000
per year on energy after the conversion is complete. What a wonderful
success story!
Also, hundreds of communities are now demanding FCO lighting in local
ordinances, zoning restrictions, and homeowners covenants. In addition, many
lighting standards are being developed in areas without public laws.
Lighting manufacturers are responding to this demand with better FCO lighting
designs. This is only common sense because those who don't adapt will find
they are competitively left in the dust.
The problems of light pollution appear to be even more severe than
we originally estimated. Several IDA members attended the ECANL conference
at UCLA, and it is quite possible that stronger action will be needed soon on
the behalf of nocturnal wildlife, not to mention the human photobiology
issues. We seem to learn more about this at every IDA meeting.
We would like to reiterate one of IDA's most important philosophies.
We make allies, not enemies. We believe that scientific first principles
strongly support controlling light pollution. Although some individuals or
companies may oppose our recommendations, they do not speak for IDA, even if
they are members of IDA.
Membership in IDA continues to explode. This growth is fast and new
sections are forming almost every week. This shows that the general public
is deeply concerned about our vanishing night skies, harm to wildlife, wasted
energy, and so much more. Thank goodness quality lighting is the win-win
solution.
Wishing you all clear skies and bright stars,
Bob Gent
Member IDA Board of Directors and
European Liaison Officer
International Dark-Sky Association
www.darksky.org
***************************************************************
Protecting the nighttime environment and preserving
our heritage of dark-skies through quality outdoor lighting
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:32:23 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: FCO vs. drop lens
John McMahon wrote:
> The pole spacing/uniformity argument is BS.
It is only one factor out of many -- pulled out of context
and used to start a verbal argument you can't possibly win,
especially when going up against the pros with credentials
and all the alphabet soap after their names.
Don't fall for their tactics.
Turn the tables around and point out how bad the lighting is
under the current system, the inconsistencies, and how the
rules (which include glare consideration, reasonable
illumination levels for the task in its surroundings, and
transition zones) are being violated by the lighting practitioners.
They have only one bullet in the six-shooter. Hit them with
the other five, and they won't come back. -sd
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:33:36 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: LUMEC
Karolyn Beebe wrote:
<Some poles around the corner & up the street were replaced
last month because their lead paint was chipping. The new
poles came with FCOs. Each one uses 50 MORE watts!>
This is not surprising. They are trying to make up for the
reduced area of coverage. It doesn't work that way. Only
pole spacing or mounting height will do that. Stupid FCO
mistake #1 - more watts!
<Their glare is visible--MORE eye-numbing from residential
roofs, windows and other places that are NOT ON the street,
or sidewalks, or storefronts.>
CO and not FCO plus more highly polished reflector produces
glare which is even more pronounced with the extra watts.
The lens of a SCO spreads the light out over a larger surface
area making the glare less harsh. Overkill with CO produces
really nasty glare. The same happens with designer auto
headlights that have clear lens.
Also, that fixture must be absolutely level. Few are. -sd
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:01:47 -0600
From: "Richard Klappal" <klappal@xnet...>
Subject: RE: Re: FCO vs. drop lens
You can also remind them that most of the regulations and many of the
standards were written to satisfy their lobbyists. Ask them for VALIDATED
statistics to support the claims. Refuse all marketing studies; only
VALIDATED statistics.
If the statistics they try to give you that do not have a "control-group"
and compare daytime to nighttime events, then they are giving you marketing
propaganda, not statistics. Crime difference studies will also have to
address changes in patrol techniques/frequencies and call-in instructions
given to people in the "test" areas.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Davis [mailto:w2sgd@juno...]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 17:32
> To: OutdoorLighting-Forum@yahoogroups...
> Subject: [OL-Forum] Re: FCO vs. drop lens
>
>
> John McMahon wrote:
>
> > The pole spacing/uniformity argument is BS.
>
> It is only one factor out of many -- pulled out of context
> and used to start a verbal argument you can't possibly win,
> especially when going up against the pros with credentials
> and all the alphabet soap after their names.
>
> Don't fall for their tactics.
>
> Turn the tables around and point out how bad the lighting is
> under the current system, the inconsistencies, and how the
> rules (which include glare consideration, reasonable
> illumination levels for the task in its surroundings, and
> transition zones) are being violated by the lighting practitioners.
> They have only one bullet in the six-shooter. Hit them with
> the other five, and they won't come back. -sd
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
>
>
> OutdoorLighting-Forum "The largest uncensored and most active
> non-geographic based forum on light pollution."
> To unsubscribe from a Yahoo list send a blank email to
> listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:39:31 -0500
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Comet Ikeya-Zhang: 3/22
Pardon the self indulgence, but after the meteorological
beating we've been taking here in CNY for the last 24 hrs.,
I was thrilled to actually see some clear sky. The counties
up north of SYR and east of the lake are not so lucky yet ...
Anyway, slightly edited from my notes:
Mar. 22: 7:05 - 7:25; 7:40-7:55 EST; cold (13°); dusk; very
clear at first, later some haze; moon 8.3 do; very brisk,
blustery wsw wind
Comet Ikeya Zhang: easily located and visible in 7x50s; c.
8°+ nw of beta Arietis and c. 9°+ sse of beta Andromedae,
just se of upsilon Piscium; tail visible: c. 1.5° in dusk,
extending ultimately to c. 3° in later horizon haze but not
as prominetly spreading as on 3/16; nucleus itself very
starlike, est mag. still c. 3.5, barely visible with naked
eye in dusk; more noticeable against darker background. The
object has moved c. 9+° due north since last observed on
3/16. (Est. RA: 1h 24m; DEC: 26.13+)
John McMahon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:30:31 EST
From: rlgent1@aol...
Subject: Welcome to New IDA Sections!
Memorandum for all IDA sections, Affiliates, Listservers, and Board,
The Board of Directors has approved two new sections, one in Utah
and one in Arkansas. Please join us in sending a warm welcome.
Membership in IDA continues to grow at a fast pace, and momentum is
building. This is possible only by your outstanding support of IDA and your
memberships. Thank you all very much. Here are our AR and UT section
contacts:
IDA Arkansas Section:
Patrick C. Carr
Coordinator, Arkansas Dark Sky Preservation Society
1005 Hunter Ridge
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
(479) 524-0322
thecarrs@tcac...
IDA Utah Section (Two contacts):
Don Brown
7582 Susan's Circle
Park City, UT 84098
donb@utahskies...
http://www.utahskies.org/ida
(435) 513-1632
Anthony Arrigo
7510 Susan's Circle
Park City, UT 84098
AnthonyA@UtahSkies...
http://www.utahskies.org/ida
(801)-232-6469 >>
Warm regards,
Bob Gent
Chair, IDA Sections Working Group and
European Liaison Officer
International Dark-Sky Association
www.darksky.org
***************************************************************
Protecting the nighttime environment and preserving
our heritage of dark-skies through quality outdoor lighting
cc: IDA Staff
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/