Fix the MLO (fwd) (and filters at last)

[Jan Hollan <jhollan@amper....muni.cz>]

Das has posted the nice answer by Bob (Gent) to the CfDS, so for those who
are not in magnitude6, below is the very letter he responded to. I might
add that the reply of Don Davis does not make me any more comfortable,
on the contrary.

(I hope my final remark to the LPS filtering: Baader planetarium
has a neodymium filter for some thirty euro, to have two of them for
viewing becomes twice more expensive then using ordinary didymium glasses.
The filters have better visual transmission, thanks to the coatings.
Baader sells them with rather deceiving arguments, but against LPS they
sure help a lot.  Even if it can hardly concern more than 0.1 per cent of
population, the very possibility to get a better look of the sky should be
considered as a good argument in favour of further, or even expanding use
of LPS, in fully shielded fixtures of course. Of course, such filters and
glasses should be then bought by a municipality for any local observatory
accessible to the public. Those lucky in LPS areas, ask for it!)

jenik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:37:46 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan Hollan <jhollan@amper....muni.cz>
To: magnitude6@yahoogroups...
Cc: ida@amper....muni.cz
Subject: Fix the MLO

The thing I'm very busy now is the IDA's Model Lighting Ordinance, see
http://www.fixthemlo.org.

The ``MLO'' seems to me ever more to be a real danger for the future of
the night protection, undermining many existing achievements, like Hailey
and Ketchum ordinances, Connecticut law, or, indirectly, even the world's
best legislation in Lombardy, Marche and Emilia Romagna. I think it's no
coincidence.

MLO ignores the scientific knowledge which concerns anthropogenic
contribution to the luminance of the sky. I can't find any friendly
explanation for that, considering it's issued by the
International
 DARK SKY
Association...

I seriously recommend the draft of the Ordinance to your attention.

best regards,

Jenik Hollan