[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DSLF] Digest Number 963
_________________________________________________
To subscribe to the DarkSky List Forum send email
to: DarkSky-list-subscribe@yahoogroups... or visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DarkSky-list/join
Help save your town from obtrusive lighting --
Invite your Planning and Zoning department and
local officials to join us! Please visit the IDA
website at http://www.darksky.org frequently, too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Church lighting
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
2. Grand Central Station
From: Susan Harder <lookout@hamptons...>
3. Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
4. Re: HPS vs MH
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
5. Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
6. Re: Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
From: saros61@aol...
7. news release on Arizona state LP bill
From: Brad_Bergstrom <bergstrm@valdosta...>
8. Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
From: Bernard Kosicki <kosicki@ll....edu>
9. Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
10. Re: Re: HPS vs MH
From: Yvan Dutil <yvan.dutil@sympatico...>
11. Buenos Aires at Night
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
12. Re: Re: HPS vs MH
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:40:48 -0000
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Church lighting
--- In DarkSky-list@yahoogroups..., John Kruse <bigjohn@b.....> wrote:
> Here in the Brenham, Texas area I have seen a couple of crosses
> on churches done with blue neon tubing. The blue color is some
> what unusual among other night lighting, so it would not have
> to be all that bright. I of course find any lighting on a church
> to be sacrilegious!
Thanks for this interesting contribution! As a kid I recall it was
preferred to apply a blue light at the top of the Christmas tree to
represent the Virgin Mary. The blue light was of the highest order
according to tradition (at least in my family for what it is worth)
and only one was used on the tree.
I'm not qualified to judge, nor am I criticizing, but doesn't it seem
disingenuous to send glaring unnatural light into the Eye of God when
trying to sanctify His House? To light a white cross atop a steeple
begs attention from passers-by on a nearby highway. Isn't that goal
in itself a deviation from basic teachings of Christianity (i.e., the
concept of vanity being one of the seven deadly sins?).
What is the true need to illuminate the cross? Is the objective to
encourage more people to join the Parish? A good intention, but will
people traveling by the highway through all hours of the night on the
way to their homes hundreds of miles away REALLY be compelled to join
this Parish because they advertise existance? As ridiculous that
question might seem, it does not appear to be a responsible use of
energy during times of diminishing fossil fuels and ever-increasing
light pollution.
Maybe probing philosophical questions like this should be asked when
ideas like this get proposed. How could it be done more respectfully?
The narrow beam vertical PAR Glen suggested provides the best ground
based solution thus far, but a lot of light is still likely to miss
the target due to the geometry of the cross considering the distance
involved. The application of fiber optics may not be within the
realm of this lighting contractor's experience, however, it might
bode well for the scope of his research before applying 5,000 watts
to ANYTHING, especially when focusing on a target that will receive
at the very best less than 1% of the illumination distributed skyward.
The fiber optics solution allows easy maintenance, economical
operation and much less environmental impact. The cost would be more
than 5,000 watt Blast-O-Matic Deity Blinders, but savings achieved
over time may justify initial expense for the congregation. See...
http://www.fiberstars.com/
Using thin electroceremescent panels to define the cross outline may
be the most equitable low-impact solution that would use 1/1000 of
the energy of what was originally proposed. It would put this church
on the cutting edge where its decorative lighting is concerned. It
might get honorable mention at the US Department of Energy too! Can't
get better free advertising than that for your church in these trying
times. Learn more about this new form of lighting at:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/newsevents/cfm/fempfocusarticle.cfm?
newsID=154
and...
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/31745.pdf
Mike, THANKS for posting this perplexing question in hopes of finding
a solution your Parish would find equitable. The application
proposed by the contractor does not seem equitable (i.e. 5000-watt
floods on 20' poles) and it is inappropriate for the needs at hand,
especially when contributions of the paritioners pay the light bill
over time. At $0.08 /kWh that suggestion will cost $1,900 annually
*per fixture* to keep lit! Is it worth it? Probably not.
Consider the *contrast luminance* of the target first and foremost.
How bright is the background area (the sky?) in comparison to what is
being illuminated? Much less light is needed to see items against a
dark background. This allows an opportunity to save energy and
reduce negative impacts to the sky while still meeting the goals.
If illumuinating the cross does not achieve that goal with 5,000 watt
retina blasters, what is the time period when the Congrigation
declares sanity takes over and lets God's light (i.e., the stars and
Moon) illuminate those components constructed at the hand of man to
pay homage to His ideals? Just a few thoughts to bounce around from
a different perspective. I hope a reasonable solution can be applied
to meet the goals while not causing environmental damage to the night
in the process.
Think outside of the box! Apply light ONLY where it is desired, not
wasting it elsewhere. It does no good nor serves a useful purpose.
The intent may be good but the methods need some careful adjustment.
Always question the logic when things seem out of sync with Nature
and do not seem to make sense while hoping not to offend anyone else
in the process... A hard row to furrow indeed. Cogito ergo sum!
(Aristotle - "I think, therefore, I am.") ;-)
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
http://www.crlaction.org
PS:
Thanks for the Biblical references on this issue folks!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:48:04 -0500
From: Susan Harder <lookout@hamptons...>
Subject: Grand Central Station
Dear Glenn,
Thanks for your "field trip" update to the Grand Central area in NYC. That situation
is outrageous, and you described it well. I know that I am just a little more
hypersensitive to what I call "bad" lights, and was confused that you were able to
justify (what you thought were) those lights. Now that you've seen them, and we
concur, I still want to make the point, that MH glare is harder on the eyes than HPS
glare. The light distribution, if these were HPS would be just as egregious, but MH
glare and color are an added insult.
By the way, the Governor's city office is right among these glare bombs. Now if he
would just look out the window. . . but by now, his eyeballs are probably blown out by
the Spring City junk in Albany.
We can stop this "bloodletting" by getting the NY bill passed. Please, help us; and
PLEASE, no one hinder
Thank you,
Susan Harder
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:15:40 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
James Benya wrote:
> I really wish you folks would try to use the language and concepts
developed
> in the Model Lighting Ordinance work by IDA. No one from Mass has
requested
> any information at all from me about MLO progress.
>
> I am very concerned that you will pass laws that are technically not
correct
> and will in the long run create problems as much as solving them.
Now that the NY bill is out, what is your opinion? -sd
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:24:50 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: HPS vs MH
glennlaser@aol... wrote:
> ...fixtures near Grand Central in Manhattan...pendant teardrop...
> ...truly TERRIBLE. It blows light in all directions and is
> very glary and inhibits vision.
What would it take other than a simple phone call to the city
engineer to get the specs and ask some questions (preferable by
someone in the city who doesn't have to pay for long distance)?
Could be Spring City which has NYC as one of its major customers.
See them in Tucson. -sd
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:43:59 -0000
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
--- In DarkSky-list@yahoogroups..., Steve Davis <w2sgd@j.....> wrote:
> Now that the NY bill is out, what is your opinion? -sd
Congratulations on the two parallel Bills in the NY
Legislature! Like Clara used to shout when sliding
back and forth in the seat of that cream colored 48
Ford in Wendy's commercials, "Where's the beef?"
Neither NY Bill exists on the state web site. Any idea
where I can get a copy of it?
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:18:13 -0500
From: saros61@aol...
Subject: Re: Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
CLiff--
The NY bill is up on our SELENE site: http://www.selene-ny.org
CF
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:32:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Brad_Bergstrom <bergstrm@valdosta...>
Subject: news release on Arizona state LP bill
Another sign that anti-LP efforts have warranted the attention of
"mainstream" environmental news services. This, from the State
Environmental Resource Center's "Wildlines:"
"Anti-Light Pollution Bill Gets Arizona Senate Push (Arizona Daily Star
3/14/3) SB 1218, which would limit light pollution in the six major
cities, was approved in the Arizona senate this week. Sen. Griffords
remarked, "There's a great concern that there's not a priority by the
state or an emphasis . . . at the state level that we're going to try to
do what we can to make sure that we limit the proliferation of light
pollution." Current regulations mandate that all new lighting in all
buildings must be fully or partially shielded. Under the approved bill all
new lighting would need to be fully shaded because of the dramatic
difference between partially and fully shielded lights. Partially shielded
lights only reduce, rather than eliminate, stray light. The bill applies
to communities with populations of 50,000 or more, along with state
buildings of more than 6,000 sq. ft, but does not require that lighting on
existing buildings be updated. Similar laws already exist in a dozen
states, including Colorado which passed its law in 2001.
See: http://www.serconline.org/wildlinesarchive.html
Brad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Bergstrom, Ph.D., Professor TEL 229-333-5770 /-5759
Department of Biology FAX 229-245-6585
Valdosta State University e-mail: bergstrm@valdosta...
Valdosta, GA 31698-0015 Home: 229-333-0743
Home Page-- http://www.valdosta.edu/~bergstrm/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:08:50 -0500
From: Bernard Kosicki <kosicki@ll....edu>
Subject: Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
Jim,
If you want others to use the MLO language, make the language widely and
freely available. I'm from Mass and have sent you a number of requests for
a draft of the MLO since last summer. I haven't gotten an "official" draft
from you yet, but have seen some "blackmail" ones I got from others.
Bernie Kosicki
Acton, MA
At 02:58 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>I really wish you folks would try to use the language and concepts developed
>in the Model Lighting Ordinance work by IDA. No one from Mass has requested
>any information at all from me about MLO progress.
>
>I am very concerned that you will pass laws that are technically not correct
>and will in the long run create problems as much as solving them.
>
>James R. Benya, PE, FIES, IALD, LC
>Benya Lighting Design
>1880 Willamette Falls Drive
>Suite 220
>West Linn, OR 97068
>(503) 657-9157 cell (503) 519-9631
>Fax (503) 657-9153
>www.benyalighting.com
>
>
>Original message
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>After coming soooo close last year, the process has begun again. The
>Dark Sky bill is set to go through the committees. We have a hearing date
>for
>the dark sky bill. The Energy Committee will hear the bill on Tuesday, March
>25 at 10 A.M. in room 222 of the State House. This year, the dark sky bill
>number is H. 1274. Rep Marzilli is on the Energy committee this year, and it
>is expected to sail through this committee. I will be testifying for the
>bill, as will Dan Green from the CFA at Harvard. ? Kelly Beatty will be
>there. I will also get the Mass Med Society to send again a letter of
>support as before. At this time, i will ask for no other testimony as at
>this stage there should be no opposition, But I will ask for everyone to let
>there state legislatures begin to ask for passage. i wish to build on last
>years momentum and move this earlier in the calendar for the legislature.
>(SNIP)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________
>To subscribe to the DarkSky List Forum send email
>to: DarkSky-list-subscribe@yahoogroups... or visit:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DarkSky-list/join
>
>Help save your town from obtrusive lighting --
>Invite your Planning and Zoning department and
>local officials to join us! Please visit the IDA
>website at http://www.darksky.org frequently, too!
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:18:35 EST
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: From the SELENE site: Mass H.1274 bill
In a message dated 03/18/03 12:22:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
saros61@aol... writes:
> The NY bill is up on our SELENE site: http://www.selene-ny.org
>
Thanks Charles, but the information I was seeking is not in any public links
at SELENE. I found the very same links listed at the SELENE 2003 Bills page
while at the NYS web site doing research last week for an unrelated project
I've been working on near Saratoga Springs.
I placed them in an honored spot on the LiteLynx List accordingly, along with
the seven present light pollution Bills pending in the CT State Legislature.
I have both personally testified and presented written testimony in favor
urging support of four Bills before Committees in the CT State Legislature so
far this year with more active participation to follow on the other three.
Again I must ask Clara's question, "Where's the beef?"
Translation of *beef* = the *written content* of the new Bills' code that is
presently registered in the New York State Legislature for consideration.
:-) Send them to me as attachments under private cover if you wish.
I proactively support ALL dark sky legislation and urge others to do so, as
the long-standing public record clearly shows! Whenever possible, I try in
earnest to prevent the progression of technical errors, but sadly others
(like the legislators themselves) do not often cooperate nor listen to
advice unless it is specifically requested beforehand. Thanks in advance for
your help on this issue!
Who is headed to Tucson for the IDA meeting this week? I love flying when
war is looming on the horizon, but what warrior wouldn't? >:-)) I hope to
get the honor to meet some of you true warriors who are striving hard to
achieve obtrusive outdoor lighting reform while I'm there. Without your
many collective efforts we would be getting nowhere. My eyes are pretty bad
at reading print from a distance, so please tag me on the shoulder if you
happen to spot my name-tag at the meeting. See ya there!
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:53:17 -0500
From: Yvan Dutil <yvan.dutil@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Re: HPS vs MH
glennlaser@aol... a écrit :
> Susan Harder and group,
>
> These fixtures do happen to be metal halide sources BUT the problem of glare
> and light pollution caused by the fixture have NOTHING to do with the source.
> Put HPS lamps in them and they will be just as bad.
>
It is not exactely the case. Bleu light diffuse more and hence produce more light
pollution. Also, the sky is about 30% darker in blue than in visible. This add up to
a factor 2.6 for the light reflected on the ground. For the light directely emited
there is
only a factor 30% of loss since the diffusion is already saturated at low angle. But,
this does not take account of the conversion factor between bleu lumen and photon.
This can introduce a factor between 1.5 and 20 depending of you use phototopic or
scotopic eye response in your definition.
In resume, bleu light is only good during the day,
Yvan Dutil
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:15:02 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Buenos Aires at Night
I wonder if NASA would take requests for photos of say Long Island at night or New York city.. before shots. - keedo
Here's Buenos Aires, caught in the early am "of Saturday, February 8, 2003, from the International Space Station with the handheld eclectronic still camera.."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=11278
and London, taken a bit past 7p.m. on February 4, 2003
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images_topic.php3?img_id=10929&topic=life
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:22:21 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Re: Re: HPS vs MH
Yvan wrote: > bleu light is only good during the day, >
That works for me. I also like any moonlight-like light in the night to be from the moon. -Karolyn
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/