[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DSLF] Digest Number 560
_________________________________________________
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 16 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Definition of Light Pollution
From: "George Lightner" <glightnr@penn...>
2. Re: LP by LRC
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
3. Re: best improvements available?
From: "David Keith" <david.keith@mindspring...>
4. Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
5. Re: US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
6. R: Definition of Light Pollution
From: "Pierantonio Cinzano" <info@inquinamentoluminoso...>
7. Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
From: "David Keith" <keithd@resodance...>
8. Re: Re: US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
From: "Kirke Coney" <kirkec@austin....com>
9. LP Front Page News!
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
10. Letter to Albany Times-Union
From: Gary Citro <callisto@optonline...>
11. Re: Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
From: "David Keith" <keithd@resodance...>
12. Re: Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
From: "David Keith" <keithd@resodance...>
13. LP Definition
From: Scott Griswold <griz@sky...>
14. College Station, TX: Outdoor Lighting Standards
From: Joe Tremblay <joet@optima-systems...>
15. IDA Newsletter Deadline
From: IDA <IDA@DARKSKY...ORG>
16. Light Pollution & Turtles
From: Jetson1959@aol...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:53:52 -0500
From: "George Lightner" <glightnr@penn...>
Subject: Re: Definition of Light Pollution
Right on, Scott.
George Lightner
Huntingdon County, PA
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:46:20 -0000
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: LP by LRC
--- In DarkSky-list@y....., Steve Davis <w2sgd@j.....> wrote:
> Check this out from "our good friends" at the LRC:
>
> http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyKey=75228&category=O
>
> We are stepping on their exclusive turf, and
> they want more research money. -sd
Steve:
Research IS their middle name after all.
If LRC wants to research these fixtures and gather emperical evidence
to see first hand how they do not throw light into the sky or into the
eyes of drivers and how they do not require shorter luminaire intervals
or more fixtures to do a good lighting job, all they need to do is drive
southeast for a couple of hours at around dusk during inclement weather.
Head blinded from the rampant glare across the George Washington Bridge
and continue south on Route 95 through the upper New Jersey Turnpike.
Those FCOs have been in place and working very well for over two decades
and LRC has had over two decades to study them (along with the nighttime
accident rates there compared with the area directly south with NO lighting).
Maybe a significant risk analysis study can be established.
The upper Pike where the FCOs are installed is the ONLY illuminated part
of that entire roadway where one can see very well, too. The offset
turnpike floodlights that have been installed in recent years are the
antithesis of good lighting practice, and that fact will be immediately
evident by comparison. They can see for themselves that glare free
lighting systems provide a substantial benefit that greatly improves
driver safety.
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:37:55 -0700
From: "David Keith" <david.keith@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: best improvements available?
1) Individual responsibility - as in "registered profesional engineer" or
equivalent - for every project - along with professional insurance
requirements so there is money to clean up any mess - and a professional
qualifications board to hunt down the imposters
2) Tough requirements on *lighting system performance* - such as unit power
density limits, property line illuminance *and* intensity limits (in
vertical and/or horizontal directions), time of day and day of week
restrictions (which will improve controls), limits on installed or
"operational" lumens per acre (which will bring money to maintenance
programs), maximum illuminance values for all facilities as say a multiple
of the IESNA recommendations, etc. - in terms and terminology and with tools
which jurisdictions can understand
2a) recognition that different areas in a community deserve different
limits - industrial, commercial, residential, rural, etc.
3) Funding for jurisdictions to inspect/review/implement the requirements in
#2 instead of the unfunded mandates being produced these days (and instead
of spending it on taxpayer support for the equipment manufacturers)
These recommendations apply to all exterior lighting projects - for roadway
specifically, I would recommend limits on installed lumens or unit power
density that all utilities/jurisdictions would have to meet - the "either be
efficient or don't do it" boundary. And if the communtiy wants to limit
*intensity* from luminaires as a means of controlling light tresspass or
glare then fine, write something that limits "intensity crossing the
property line" - that limit *could* even be zero (although I think requiring
"zero light from adjacent properties" is a bit ... unrealistic). (Tech
Note: intensity does not decrease over distance - although it can become
harder to measure accurately - which means such limits can catch the "far
distant" offender and the near-at-hand one too)
It is important to recognize that offending intensity may be coming from:
- interior windows
- reflective surfaces
- luminaires
- ?
but that it is the *intensity* that is "offending" - not necessarily the
luminaire or it's distribution - as can be seen by relamping with much much
lower wattage. This is what I mean by "system performance" - what is the
effective result, not what sort of components or equipment is or is not
permitted. Of course such broad limits can be easily carried to extremes
and become unenforcable - e.g. the exterior lighting designer is made
responsible for bad indirect lighting seen through a window of a corporate
tower - which is part of the reason that technical aspects have to be
understood by people trying to implement restrictions (should we mandate
curtains on a timeclock?)
Roadway lighting should not be designed by a utility trying to sell 400W
when 250W is more than adequate (as in a project for a state DOT I did last
year) - there needs to be some individual taking responsibility for the
design being appropriate - and hopefully having some restrictions to back
him/her up, such as unit power density limits (or at least targets, as in
the ASHRAE 90.1 documents past and present, but much expanded). My research
has shown that *the most efficient* roadway lighting systems designed to
meet the AASHTO or IESNA standards for illuminance method design can be
improved by an additional 15-20% by using the luminance method instead - and
most systems are not particularly efficient. There are significant
improvements available through better maintenance (and illuminance limits) -
addressing both energy and light pollution through reduction of
"overlighting" - which seems to be a much more cost and energy effective way
to reduce uplight than the requirement of full-cutoff distributions. All of
these issues are addressed by unit power density and/or installed lumen
density limits.
That's my first set of recommendations - together they could reduce roadway
lighting costs/energy use/installations/uplight by around 20-35%. The same
recommendations would could do even more to improve other exterior lighting
systems, like at gas pumps/convenience stores. And lead to the elimination
of acorns for streetlighting, while still allowing them to be used with low
wattage lamps in areas where they are considered appropriate. And make any
"wall packs" anywhere near residential areas be properly shielded. And
achieve (most of) the objectives this group seems to support, while still
allowing communities and designers to do what they do, as long as they do it
well enough.
I'm still working on other ideas and what numbers are IMO appropriate. Any
suggestions?
David Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Johnson" <johnsonb@ivwnet...>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [DSLF] Illuminance vs Uniformity
> > "And the (uneducated) public thinks these are the best improvements
> > available? "
>
> David,
>
> What would be the best improvements available?
>
> Barry Johnson
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> 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!
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:26:51 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
David Keith wrote:
<I would (of course) agree that more research does need to be done
(hopefully by someone other than LRC) because -
YES! Light does reflect differently in a ***wide*** open dirt and sand
environment that in a forested or built-up environment - one reason why
one "solution" does not fit all cases. Surprise, surprise!>
Asphalt is asphalt! Surprise, surprise! -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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:29:20 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
David Keith wrote:
<I think the information in the Safety section is the most "illuminating"
(referenced from my "paper" copy):
"Most of the countries reported significant safety benefits in terms of
crashes, injuries, and fatalities when roadway lighting was installed.
Some
sample statistics follow:>
This does not account for differences in driving habits or size and
quality of cars. Europeans drive like fools and in ways which would
terrify most Americans. Be careful with your conclusions. -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: 6
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:31:25 +0100
From: "Pierantonio Cinzano" <info@inquinamentoluminoso...>
Subject: R: Definition of Light Pollution
The definition of light pollution that I applied in my papers is:
Light pollution is an alteration of the natural light levels in the night
environment produced by man-made light.
This is in agreement with the definition of "pollution" in dictionaries as
"an alteration of the purity of the environment".
You could be criticized if you define "pollution" something like "artificial
skylight" or "improperly directed light". Pollution must be pollution i.e.
an alteration of an environmental element.
Eventually you can add an explanation: "Frequently light pollution is an
effect of improperly directed light and produces glare, light trespass and
sky glow."
Dark skies,
Pierantonio Cinzano
------------------------------------------------------------------
PIERANTONIO CINZANO
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologia dell'Inquinamento Luminoso - ISTIL
Light Pollution Science and Technology Institute
e-mail: cinzano@inquinamentoluminoso...
cinzano@lightpollution...
web: http://www.pd.astro.it/cinzano/
http://www.inquinamentoluminoso.it
http://www.lightpollution.it/dmsp/
http://www.istil.it
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Scott Griswold [mailto:griz@sky...]
Inviato: domenica 20 gennaio 2002 8.23
A: DarkSky List
Oggetto: [DSLF] Definition of Light Pollution
Recently I looked up the definition of Light Pollution.
Perhaps getting the definition changed would be a good step in the
right direction to raising awareness.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webster.com
Entered: "Light Pollution"
Source: Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
Artificial skylight (as from city lights) that interferes with
astronomical observations.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dictionary.com
Entered: "Light Pollution"
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Illumination of the night sky by electric lights, as in an urban
area, that interferes with astronomical observation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Webster's Dictionary is published by Merriam-Webster and they can be
contacted at:
suggest@m-w...
The American Heritage Dictionary is published by Houghton Mifflin.
They can be contacted through this online form:
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/epub/form.shtml
My suggestion for a definition would be:
"Light Pollution - Improperly directed light resulting in glare,
light trespass and sky glow; light that has a negative impact on the
surrounding environment and its inhabitants."
Perhaps the suggestion should be made that the definition no longer
only applies to astronomical impact but now can be broadened to
include many aspects of animal, human and environmental impact.
Peace, Dark Skies & Safe Nights,
Scott Griswold
_________________________________________________
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!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:33:11 -0700
From: "David Keith" <keithd@resodance...>
Subject: Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
I guess that depends on what you mean by "figures".
The targets "located" on the roadway - real objects in the research, and of
course virtual in the computer models - are geometric in form - flat,
square, vertical, perpendicular to the direction of travel, with specified
reflectance over the entire surface, is what is in the current STV
calculations. Other targets have been investigated in "real" research and
in computer modelling, such as semi-cylindrical (in plan view) with
multifaceted tops approximating a hemisphere, or with different
reflectances.
The calculations for STV include:
target illuminance (and with known reflectance and assumed diffuse surface,
this easily becomes luminance)
roadway luminance in front of and behind each target
veiling luminance from the luminaires
age of the driver (set in the current RP-8 as 60 y.o.)
transition adaptation factor
time of observation (set in the current RP-8 to 0.2 seconds)
target size and distance from driver
and intermediate calculations that include:
sensitivity of visual system as a function of adaptation luminance
negative contrast adjustment
and then finally the visibility level for each target is calculated,
weighted (to give greater significance to the marginally visible targets as
compared to those with higher visibility), then averaged together and
adjusted logarithmically to get the single STV value for the lighting
system.
I hope this answers your question (without too much "more than I wanted to
know").
David Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hoehne, Brad" <hoehneb@chi....edu>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: RE: [DSLF] Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
> I've always been under the impression that the Small Target Visibility
> figures were completely "geometric" in nature and did not take into
account
> factors such as veiling glare. Is this correct?
>
> Brad H.
>
> [ Please trim past messages before sending replies! ]
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Yvan Dutil
> >
> > I working on this problem right now. It seems from the data I got from
> > the ligthing engineer that they are right but not as much as they think
> > The advange between of cutoff vs FCO might be at most 10%. However,
> > this take anoly account of the uniformity. I am not sure that the small
> > target visibility criterion will gave the same result.
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> 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!
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:41:44 -0600
From: "Kirke Coney" <kirkec@austin....com>
Subject: Re: Re: US DOE European Roadway Lighting Study
Where did you buy that big paintbrush for your generalizations? Should we
also consider the percentage of blondes driving? Or Asians?
> Europeans drive like fools and in ways which would
> terrify most Americans. Be careful with your conclusions. -sd
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:40:34 EST
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: LP Front Page News!
Greetings:
This news comes to us complements of Steve Fortune. Thanks Steve!!
> LP on front page of the local paper today. Not any of my doing. They
> mention a Junior Collage observatory that has been basically rendered
> useless by lights.
>
> http://www.insidevc.com
>
> I am at work, so must go. See Ya, Steve
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:58:48 -0500
From: Gary Citro <callisto@optonline...>
Subject: Letter to Albany Times-Union
David Kieth wrote:
>>YES! Light does reflect differently in a ***wide*** open dirt and sand
environment that in a forested or built-up environment - one reason why one
"solution" does not fit all cases. Surprise, surprise!<<
Interesting and thank you.
But would *Connecticut* which has a good LP law have a drastically different
environment than New York?
Or are we to say that CT rushed into an LP law without enough research as is
the LRC stance on the NY bill?.
Also we're talking mostly roadway lighting here, no?
I'm not an engineer, but let me say something about this pole spacing
nonsense as a human being with eyes.
The Long Island Expressway has almost all SCOs.
Then there's a stretch of about one mile that has full cutoffs at what
appears to be the exact pole spacing, though I've been told they are spaced
10% closer.
My eyes will take that no glare stretch over the rest ANY DAY. Even if the
spacing were the same, probably no one would notice, because, you see, that
little dark spot right at the center between the 2 poles is illuminated by
your HEADLIGHTS. And really well illuminated by the Xenon super glare model
headlights, but that's another rant.
Here is my rebuttal letter to the Albany Times-Union. BTW, the LRC piece
was not an op-ed but rather a letter to the editor:
How interesting that the Lighting Research Center has taken the stance that
"More Research is Needed on Reducing Light Pollution" (1/21) and are
encouraging the Governor not to sign the bipartisan light pollution bill now
sitting on his desk.
Could this have anything to do with the fact that they are in the business
doing contract research for electric utilities and manufacturers as well as
governments?
I fully agree with the LRC that more research should be done. In fact, the
latest research shows compelling evidence that night lighting is disruptive
to the body's production of melatonin which can ward diseases such as breast
cancer and prostate cancer, and even links to impotence are being studied.
Municipalities regularly slap up dangerous glaring acorn lighting fixtures
without our consent.
If we agree with the LRC's stated position, an immediate moratorium on
installations of ALL night lighting that could trespass onto anyone's
property should be
instituted until further research of the detrimental health effects is
completed. The light pollution bill is a baby step in that direction.
Gary Citro
http://selene-ny.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:26:13 -0700
From: "David Keith" <keithd@resodance...>
Subject: Re: Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
Steve -
I think you have somewhat missed the point here, probably because I tried to
"shortcut" it.
After light leaves a luminaire, it may hit some surface - asphalt, sidewalk,
trees, buildings, people, cars, etc. - then some of it may be reflected (or
refracted) and may hit some other surface - trees, buildings, sidewalk, etc.
and then some of it may be reflected .... until it is absorbed or out into
the sky/space.
The more the area is wide open, the less likely that light will encounter a
*high* number of surfaces before "escaping" into the sky - and therefore it
is BOTH the openess of the space AND the types of surfaces in that space
that will effect uplight.
While asphalt is *pretty much* asphalt (at around 7% reflectance) all across
the country, certainly the surroundings will vary greatly around the 18%
reflectance (2.5 times the reflectance of asphalt) that Kodak reported for
the outdoor world in general from their work years ago. Certainly over a
range of say 5% to 35%.
My research shows the following values for the ratio of "light out of
luminaires onto roadway" to "light out of luminaires", for the most
efficient systems, averaged for number of lanes:
#L HPS MH
1 0.09 0.06
2 0.16 0.10
3 0.21 0.13
4 0.25 0.15
5 0.29 0.17
6 0.31 0.17
Pretty appalling isn't it? Obviously *most* of the light leaving roadway
lighting luminaires does not land on asphalt, at least not directly.
David Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Davis" <w2sgd@juno...>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:26 AM
Subject: [DSLF] Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
> David Keith wrote:
>
> <I would (of course) agree that more research does need to be done
> (hopefully by someone other than LRC) because -
>
> YES! Light does reflect differently in a ***wide*** open dirt and sand
> environment that in a forested or built-up environment - one reason why
> one "solution" does not fit all cases. Surprise, surprise!>
>
> Asphalt is asphalt! Surprise, surprise! -sd
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:04:54 -0700
From: "David Keith" <keithd@resodance...>
Subject: Re: Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
***Sorry everyone - the numbers in my first message are off by a factor
close to 2 - the correct numbers are in this message (too much "shortcut"
still)***
> Steve -
>
> I think you have somewhat missed the point here, probably because I tried
to
> "shortcut" it.
>
> After light leaves a luminaire, it may hit some surface - asphalt,
sidewalk,
> trees, buildings, people, cars, etc. - then some of it may be reflected
(or
> refracted) and may hit some other surface - trees, buildings, sidewalk,
etc.
> and then some of it may be reflected .... until it is absorbed or out into
> the sky/space.
>
> The more the area is wide open, the less likely that light will encounter
a
> *high* number of surfaces before "escaping" into the sky - and therefore
it
> is BOTH the openess of the space AND the types of surfaces in that space
> that will effect uplight.
>
> While asphalt is *pretty much* asphalt (at around 7% reflectance) all
across
> the country, certainly the surroundings will vary greatly around the 18%
> reflectance (2.5 times the reflectance of asphalt) that Kodak reported for
> the outdoor world in general from their work years ago. Certainly over a
> range of say 5% to 35%.
>
> My research shows the following values for the ratio of "light out of
> luminaires onto roadway" to "light out of luminaires", for the most
> efficient systems, averaged for number of lanes:
#Lanes HPS MHP
1 0.19 0.24
2 0.32 0.40
3 0.43 0.51
4 0.51 0.59
5 0.60 0.67
6 0.63 0.70
Still pretty appalling isn't it? Obviously much (if not most) of the light
leaving roadway
lighting luminaires does not land on asphalt, at least not directly.
David Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Davis" <w2sgd@juno...>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:26 AM
Subject: [DSLF] Re: Albany Newspaper op-ed opposing LP Bill
> David Keith wrote:
>
> <I would (of course) agree that more research does need to be done
> (hopefully by someone other than LRC) because -
>
> YES! Light does reflect differently in a ***wide*** open dirt and sand
> environment that in a forested or built-up environment - one reason why
> one "solution" does not fit all cases. Surprise, surprise!>
>
> Asphalt is asphalt! Surprise, surprise! -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/.
>
> _________________________________________________
> 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!
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:32:50 -0500
From: Scott Griswold <griz@sky...>
Subject: LP Definition
Below are the 2 responses I received from Merriam-Webster regarding
the update of the definition of Light Pollution. I thought everyone
might be interested in the process by which this could happen.
Peace & Dark Skies,
-Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael D. Roundy" <mroundy@Merriam-Webster...>
Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 04:06:35 PM US/Eastern
To: Scott Griswold <griz@sky...>
Cc: replytosuggest@m-w...
Subject: Re: Process for updating a definition?
Reply-To: mroundy@Merriam-Webster...
Dear Mr. Griswold:
Thank you for writing to us with your concerns about this entry.
When this entry was written, all of the citational evidence for its use
that we had collected indicated its use in reference to astromonical
problems. The process for revising an entry is as simple as
continuing to collect evidence for the term's use, and then examining
that evidence when the next edition of the dictionary is prepared. All
of our definitions are written to convey the manner in which they are
actually used, by this method.
Naturally, many words have nuances and meanings beyond what we
cover as the "most common" meanings. We could not possibly
enter them all and still keep the printed book to a reasonable size
and cost. But where some ambiguity exists, we will often hedge a
definition with "usually" or "especially" in order to allow for
additional
meanings and usage as well. I suspect any evolution in the meaning
of "light pollution" would be covered in this way, but I can't say for
sure until we examine the citations when the next edition is prepared.
In any case, your concerns will go into the citation file, for
consideration with all the other evidence when the time comes.
Thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
--Michael D. Roundy
--Associate Editor; Physical Science Editor
--Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
**************************************************
mroundy@Merriam-Webster...
(413)-734-3134 ext. 163
fax: (413)-827-7262
**************************************************
Visit our Web site at www.Merriam-Webster.com
**************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael D. Roundy" <mroundy@Merriam-Webster...>
Organization: Merriam-Webster
Reply-To: mroundy@Merriam-Webster...
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:51:03 -0500
To: Scott Griswold <griz@sky...>
Subject: Re: Process for updating a definition?
Dear Mr. Griswold,
Sure, you can post my response in a forum. Thanks for asking.
In re-reading my response, I realize I didn't really explain the source
of our citations very well. The vast majority of them come from
published materials. Each day, every editor spends about an hour
reading magazines, books, newspapers, Web sites, restaurant
menus, and really anything else we can get our hands on. When
we see a new term or a term used in a new way, we mark it, along
with some surrounding context and source information. Our typing
staff puts each marked citation onto a 3x5 slip of paper (and enters
it into our computerized database too). When a book is in revision,
the accumulated citations for each word are carefully examined to
determine which words and senses need definitions and how they
should be defined. Our citation file currently numbers over 15
million word citations of this sort. And the database allows us to
track instances of words included in context but not originally
marked for the file.
So, the best way you can work towards revision of our "light
pollution" definition is simply to use, and encourage others to use,
the term in published sources. The more widely read a source is,
the more weight a citation from it will generally have when defining.
You may, of course, post this message too, if you wish.
Regards,
--Mike Roundy
--Associate Editor; Physical Science Editor
--Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
**************************************************
mroundy@Merriam-Webster...
(413)-734-3134 ext. 163
fax: (413)-827-7262
**************************************************
Visit our Web site at www.Merriam-Webster.com
**************************************************
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:17:08 -0600
From: Joe Tremblay <joet@optima-systems...>
Subject: College Station, TX: Outdoor Lighting Standards
The following is a section on outdoor lighting from the city of City College
Station TX's "Unified Development Ordinance" draft (publicly available). I
am interested in any comments, and I will soon be writing to the people
working on this ordinance.
Thanks,
Joe Tremblay
----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------
7.10 Outdoor Lighting Standards
A. Site Lighting Design Requirements
All lighting fixtures designed or placed so as to illuminate any portion of
a site shall meet the following requirements:
1. Fixture (luminaire). The light source shall be completely concealed
within an opaque housing and shall not be visible from any street
right-of-way.
2. Light Source (lamp). Only incandescent, florescent, metal halide, or
color corrected high-pressure sodium may be used. The same type must be used
for the same or similar types of lighting on any one site throughout any
master-planned development.
3. Mounting. Fixtures shall be mounted in such a manner that the cone
of light does not cross any property line of the site.
4. Illumination Levels. All site lighting shall be designed so that the
level of illumination as measured in foot candles (fc) at any one point
meets the standards in the table below. Minimum and maximum levels are as
measured at any one point. Average level is a not to exceed value calculated
using only the area of the site intended to receive illumination.
Type of Lighting Minimum Level Average Level Maximum
Level
Canopy Area Lighting 2.0 fc 12.00 fc 20.0
fc
Commercial Parking Lots 0.2 fc 1.50 fc 10.0
fc
Residential Parking Lots 0.2 fc 1.00 fc 8.0
fc
Walkways and Streets 0.2 fc .75 fc 8.0
fc
Landscape and Decorative 0.0 fc .50 fc 5.0
fc
B. Lighting Required for Specific Uses
1. Roads, Driveways, Sidewalks and Parking Lots
All roads, driveways, sidewalks and parking lots shall be sufficiently
illuminated to ensure the security of property and safety of persons using
such areas and facilities. Where such roads, driveways, sidewalks or
parking lots fall on private property, the responsibility for lighting such
areas shall fall upon the developer.
2. Entrances and Exits in Nonresidential and Multifamily Projects
All entrances and exits in buildings used for nonresidential persons and
open to the general public, along with all entrances and exits in
multifamily residential buildings containing more than four units, shall be
adequately lighted to ensure the safety of persons and the security of the
building.
3. Residential Protection Standards
All lights used by development that is subject to Residential Protection
Standards must be arranged and controlled so as to deflect light away from
any residential district. Any light or combination of lights that cast
light on a Residential district may not exceed 0.4 foot-candles (meter
reading), as measured one foot inside the lot line of any residential
district lot.
4. Commercial Parking Lot Lighting
All commercial parking lots shall be required to provide lighting meeting
the standards of paragraph B above during night-time hours of operation.
5. Canopy Area Lighting
All development that incorporates a canopy area over fuel sales, automated
bank machines, or similar installations shall be required to provide
lighting for the canopy area meeting the standards of paragraph B above. For
the purposes of this Section, the canopy area shall be defined as that area
immediately below the canopy. Remaining areas shall be lighted according to
the applicable standard in paragraph B above.
C. Roof Lighting
1. Application
a. An application for a permit authorizing a project including
the use of roof lighting shall include a roof lighting plan containing
sufficient information to determine whether the roof lighting, if installed
as proposed, will meet the standards and intent of this Section.
b. Whenever a roof lighting plan is submitted pursuant to this
Section, it shall be referred to the Design Review Board to obtain the
Board's approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the roof
lighting plan.
2. Roof Lighting Standards
a. All bulbs or tubing shall be encased so that the bulb is not
naked and that direct glare is prevented.
b. Complete outlining of the roof is not permitted.
c. Lights shall not run along the highest peak of a roof line,
except that perimeter lighting around the top of a flat roof is allowed.
d. Roof lighting that qualifies as a sign under this UDO is
prohibited.
D. Excessive Illumination
1. Lighting within any lot that unnecessarily illuminates and
substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of any other lot is
prohibited. Lighting unnecessarily illuminates another lot if it clearly
exceeds the requirements of this Section, or if the standard could
reasonably be achieved in a manner that would not substantially interfere
with the use or enjoyment of neighboring properties.
2. Lighting shall not be oriented so as to direct glare or excessive
illumination onto streets in a manner that may distract or interfere with
the vision of drivers on such streets.
3. Illumination using bare illuminated tubing or strings of lights that
completely outline or define property lines, sales areas, roofs, doors,
windows or similar areas in a manner that is not primarily for safety
purposes is prohibited.
4. All lighting fixtures used to illuminate an off-street parking area
shall be arranged so as to direct or shield the light away from any
adjoining residential premises.
5. Lighting used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged, located
or screened to direct light away from any adjoining or abutting residential
district or use or any street right-of-way.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:26:45 -0700
From: IDA <IDA@DARKSKY...ORG>
Subject: IDA Newsletter Deadline
Reminder:
The deadline for the March issue of the Newsletter of the
International Dark-Sky Association is February 5th, just two weeks away.
If you have news, articles, or photos for this issue, please get them to
the editor soon.
Thanks,
Tim
--
************************************************
Tim Poulsen, Newsletter Editor
International Dark-Sky Association
http://www.darksky.org
poulsen@netacc...
208-275-6632 (fax)
************************************************
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:14:58 EST
From: Jetson1959@aol...
Subject: Light Pollution & Turtles
Posted on Wed, Jan. 23, 2002
Road markers may save turtles
CARL MARIO NUDI
Herald Staff Writer
BRADENTON BEACH - In an effort to prevent sea turtle hatchlings from heading
toward street lights, several area groups plan to meet later this month for a
demonstration of alternative lighting. Scenic Highway Corridor Management
Entity members decided Tuesday to schedule a public demonstration of
illuminated pavement markers at 7 p.m. Jan. 31 by the concession stand on
Coquina Beach. In tests conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission on a stretch of road in Boca Raton, all overhead
lighting was turned off and illuminated pavement markers were installed along
lane edges to direct traffic.In the four-year period prior to the test, 22
percent of turtle hatchling deaths were attributed to overhead or pole
lighting, according to Meghan Conti, a environmental specialist with the Fish
and Wildlife Commission. There were 23 nests where turtles were disoriented
before the test and only one nest after the markers were installed, according
to test results Conti presented Tuesday to the scenic highway group.Suzi Fox,
director of the Anna Maria Island Turtle Watch group, explained how normal
street lighting attracts newly hatched turtles. Thinking the light source is
the moon, the hatchlings become disoriented and wander toward the artificial
light, away from the sea.Florida Power & Light, which provides the street
lights, does not have a model that will protect the turtles completely, Fox
said.FPL has developed a flat panel fixture, which when used with an
amber-colored lens, cuts down on the brightness. FPL officials have also
suggested painting the globe-type fixtures half black to direct the light
away from the beach.Fox said neither type was completely effective in
shielding hatchlings from the light. Tests of both options have failed, she
said."I've been reluctant to have the cities put money into lighting that is
not 100 percent," she said, "but now we have some options."Carl Mario Nudi,
government reporter for Palmetto and the islands, can be reached at 745-7027
or at <A HREF="mailto:cnudi@bradentonherald...">cnudi@bradentonherald...</A>.
Clear DARK Skies,
George W. Fleenor
Planetarium Director
Past President: Southeastern Planetarium Association (SEPA)
Chair: International Dark-Sky Association's ISCP Work Group
(Informal Education in Science Centers and Planetariums)
7803 25th Ave. W.
Bradenton, FL 34209
Phone: (941) 794-5327
E-Mail: Jetson1959@aol...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/