[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DSLF] Digest Number 1073
_________________________________________________
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 is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Reader's Digest article
From: suchida@mvc....ne.jp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:00:55 +0900
From: suchida@mvc....ne.jp
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest article
Hello all,
Thank you all for lots of valuable contributions, some of which come
from professional researcher.
I have to say, however, I still do not understand the science of the
2.5 times or 3 times lighting needs for seniors. If these conclusions
come from the retinal illumination difference between young and
elderly generations, they looked over the dynamic adaptation system
(by the factor of 10000 for photopic vision) of human eyes.
By the way I am referring to the illumination of indoors in general
day and
night.
Beside the retinal sensitivity changes according to the illumination
level,
the pupil size can control the illumination level by the factor of
about 16.
The loss of illumination level by 2.5 or 3 can be easily compensated
for the
normal illumination level of modern households of today.
The recommended light level for reading is about 500 lux (JIS).
Increasing or decreasing the level by the factor of 2.5 or 3 does not
have significant difference for visual acuity and comfort for reading
of reasonable size of 10 or 12 points characters. But this may not be
applicable when the size becomes smaller, or the reader is emmetropic
or the reader is developing severe pre-retinal scatter and etc. In
case of emmetropic, the optical blur is to reduce contrast for fine
details.
This could make big difference if the lighting level is 10 lux when
our parents lived more than 50 years ago when incandescent lamp
replaced the lantern and candles. The difference of 2 or 3 times of
illumination must
have made a significant difference not only for the elderly but also
for the young people.
In this sense the IESNA RP-28-98 is quite right to say "As people get
older,
they *may* require greater illuminance ......" in Figure 1. At least
IESENA did not conclude the more light requirements.
Figure 2 in IESNA RP-28-98 is valuable because this is more
scientifically correct. In case of seniors who are far sighted, one
possible solution is to increase lighting level in order to have
smaller pupil size to minimize spherical and chromatic aberrations of
eye lenses and then to increase contrast for fine details. But he or
she can also wear eye glasses to increase the contrast.
If you remember paper of Dr. Berman "The Reengineering of Lighting
Photometry" pupil size determines the ultimate ability to achieve
visual performance and then he incorporated S/P ratio into design
practices. The lighting level can be reduced by applying the S/P
ratio.
I will stop here and I wish to receive any comments or discussions.
I can probably indicate few papers on this subject by Japanese
researcher in a week or two.
Cheers!
Shigemi
----- Original Message -----
From: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:36 PM
Subject: [DSLF] Digest Number 1071
_________________________________________________
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 23 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Roadway lighting
From: Susan Harder <lookout@hamptons...>
2. Aging eye effects
From: "Naomi Miller" <nmld@nycap....com>
3. RE: Digest Number 1070
From: "Robert K. MacDowell" <macdowell_r@mediasoft...>
4. Re: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
From: Mysids@aol...
5. Re: Reader's Digest article
From: suchida@mvc....ne.jp
6. Re: Re: Reader's Digest article
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
7. Defenders of Property Rights
From: "Kevin Wigell" <kwemail@twcny....com>
8. Re: Dark skies vs. property rights
From: Mysids@aol...
9. Re: Roadway lighting
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
10. Re: Property rights vs. Dark Skies
From: patric@ghostriders...
11. Re: Dark skies vs. property rights
From: "friedel.pas@bvpartners..."
<friedel.pas@bvpartners...>
12. RE: Re: Reader's Digest article
From: "J. Delvin Armstrong, P.E." <del@softlite...>
13. Re: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
From: Robert DiStefano <motorinstructor@yahoo...>
14. Re: Roadway lighting
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
15. National Park Service Efforts
From: Mike Hansen <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
16. RE: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
From: "Michael Stephan" <mstephan@kconline...>
17. Re: Re: Reader's Digest article
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
18. Help! Quick links to brands and photos of residential FCO
post-tops
From: "Daniel B.Caton" <Dan@Caton...>
19. Re: Help! Quick links to brands and photos of residential
FCO post-t...
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
20. RE: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
From: Robert DiStefano <motorinstructor@yahoo...>
21. RE: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
From: "John L. Liebenthal" <jackl@tetontel...>
22. Re: Aging eye effects
From: "John L. Liebenthal" <jackl@tetontel...>
23. Re: Help! Quick links to brands and photos of residential
FCO post-tops
From: "Barry Johnson" <johnsonb52@comcast...>
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:34:49 -0400
From: Susan Harder <lookout@hamptons...>
Subject: Roadway lighting
Question:
We have a two lane, rural road, surrounded by single family homes on
1/2
acre lots. There is a sag lens cobra head, mounted on the public
utility pole (about 20 feet high). I measured the roadbed with a
light
meter. It reads 2.5 fc, and I can see that it lights up the second
story of at least three of the homes. This is not at an intersection,
and this road, which is well traveled during the day, is practically
deserted during the night, and as far as I know, there has been one
accident here, and it was a drunk who was speeding, and who veered off
to the other side of the road. The speed limit is 30. This is also a
lone installation: we have no "systems" of roadway lights here.
To the lighting professionals in this group: I would appreciate your
recommendations.
Thank you,
Susan Harder
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:45:33 -0400
From: "Naomi Miller" <nmld@nycap....com>
Subject: Aging eye effects
Shigemi said,
"Quoting your comments below: Can you suggest me reference document to
backup the lighting requirements for the seniors? Going through some
of
my lighting handbooks I find similar statements but without clear
evidences. It would be appreciated if you can direct me to any book to
support 3x requirements. However in my experiences I cannot resist to
doubt
the 3x requirements,
because I do not feel to need more light at 51 than I did in 20s.
AlthoughI do feel I need more glare control. But anyway I want to
check
this with scientific evidences if possible."
There are many reference materials that describe the visual needs of
seniors. There is a good summary in the 9th Edition of the IESNA
Lighting
Handbook (2000), page 3-13 to 3-14, and there is a classic curve from
Weale
showing the reduction in average transmittance of the human eye
relative to
age on page 10-15. That particular curve shows a 60-year-old needing
2.5
times more light on the visual task in order to produce the same
retinal
illuminance as a 20-year old, but it does not extend beyond the
60-year age.
Dr. Alan Lewis, Dean of the School of Optometry at the New England
School of
Medicine, told me the reduction in retinal illuminance continues to
deteriorate after 60, so older people will often need 3 times the
light, or
even more, to see clearly. However, Jim is correct. This work was
all
based on center vision tasks, under daytime conditions. We know very
little
about nighttime requirements. Older people, on average, are more
sensitive
to glare, partly because the retina does not refresh the visual image
as
quickly as it used to, so images persist longer. Any point of glare
persists longer, so it interferes with vision and comfort longer. It
also
needs to be said that the variation in visual abilities among older
individuals is wide. Some older people experience few changes with
age,
others experience drastic changes.
I'm not at all sure we should be recommending higher nighttime
illuminances
in order to compensate for the aging eye. I am sure we should be
minimizing
disabling glare.
Another excellent reference for the aging eye is Dr. Peter Boyce's 2nd
edition of his book, "Human Factors in Lighting", published 2003.
Naomi Miller
Troy NY
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:01:44 -0400
From: "Robert K. MacDowell" <macdowell_r@mediasoft...>
Subject: RE: Digest Number 1070
Seniors and Light Requirements:
Hey there! I'm a Senior, and I have never felt better or more visually
acute. I can see better than many of my young friends, and think we
must
debunk this idea of Senior Frailty unless we have really solid proof
to the
contrary. There is good reason to howl about glare, though, as it does
affect Seniors with cataracts more than those without cataracts. Glare
hurts
absolutely everyone and helps nobody, and I'd say it is even more
troublesome to those who wear glasses - especially glasses with
smudges,
dust, fingerprints, etc..
Shields, please!
Robert K. MacDowell
-----Original Message-----
From: DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...
[mailto:DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 08:38
To: DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...
Subject: [DSLF] Digest Number 1070
_________________________________________________
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 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Reader's Digest article
From: <suchida@mvc....ne.jp>
2. Re: Re: Reader's Digest article
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:02:00 +0900 (JST)
From: <suchida@mvc....ne.jp>
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest article
Jim,
Quoting your comments below: Can you suggest me reference document to
backup the lighting requirements for the seniors? Going through some
of
my lighting handbooks I find similar statements but without clear
evidences. It would be appreciated if you can direct me to any book to
support 3x requirements.
However in my experiences I cannot resist to doubt the 3x
requirements,
because I do not feel to need more light at 51 than I did in 20s.
AlthoughI do feel I need more glare control. But anyway I want to
check
this with scientific evidences if possible.
Thanks,
Shigemi
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:48:31 -0800
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest article
Kevin, for photopic activities, seniors DO need 3x the light of a 20
year
old. However, there is precious little science to describe senior
mesopic
response, which is night driving.
There is some suggestion that the senior visual system is not adequate
to
support night driving. I pray we don't increase outdoor light levels
any
for seniors. I pray instead we will address their deteriorating
ability to
address glare and make glare reduction mandatory!
Jim Benya
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:18:55 -0800
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
Subject: Re: Re: Reader's Digest article
IESNA RP-28-98
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 -----
From: <suchida@mvc....ne.jp>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 5:02 PM
Subject: [DSLF] Re: Reader's Digest article
> Jim,
>
> Quoting your comments below: Can you suggest me reference document
to
> backup the lighting requirements for the seniors? Going through some
of
> my lighting handbooks I find similar statements but without clear
> evidences. It would be appreciated if you can direct me to any book
to
> support 3x requirements.
>
> However in my experiences I cannot resist to doubt the 3x
requirements,
> because I do not feel to need more light at 51 than I did in 20s.
> AlthoughI do feel I need more glare control. But anyway I want to
check
> this with scientific evidences if possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shigemi
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:48:31 -0800
> From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
> Subject: Re: Reader's Digest article
>
> Kevin, for photopic activities, seniors DO need 3x the light of a 20
year
> old. However, there is precious little science to describe senior
mesopic
> response, which is night driving.
>
> There is some suggestion that the senior visual system is not
adequate to
> support night driving. I pray we don't increase outdoor light
levels any
> for seniors. I pray instead we will address their deteriorating
ability
to
> address glare and make glare reduction mandatory!
>
> Jim Benya
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:21:11 -0400
From: Mysids@aol...
Subject: Re: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
In a message dated 7/10/2003 1:01:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kdconod@optonline... writes:
> should write to this property rights group and give 'em an
> earful!!
The short-sightedness of this property rights group has the true ring
of right-wing extremism. Everyone, let them know about your concerns
as a property owner and how their advocacy falls short of protecting
your property and public rights. Here is their smail mail, phone and
email contact information. Let's see how they respond with a flood of
concerns that contradict their property rights position.
Defenders of Property Rights
1350 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 822-6770
(866) 630-9787 Toll Free
(202) 822 6774 fax
mail@yourpropertyrights...
JNoles
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:46:23 +0900
From: suchida@mvc....ne.jp
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest article
Thank you for the reference.
> IESNA RP-28-98
Figure 1 and Figure 5 give interesting study results but still
inconclusive on the lighting level for the seniors. Eyes adaptation is
greater than the age related transmittance loss (order of 1 - 1/4) or
the pupil size changes. As you know it is roughly between 1 to 10000
lux for the photoptic vision. Although eyes of 50s receive 50% less
light than the eyes of 20s, it is within its easy adaptation.
I need to further look into the "Contrast multiplier vs. age". How the
task contrast is maintained related to aging and lighting level etc.
I am bit concerned about the conclusion of the light level
requirements for seniors and making research on this.
Shigemi
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:00:15 -0800
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
Subject: Re: Re: Reader's Digest article
Read Naomi's response. You are correct - very little science. And I
agree
with other observers - reduce glare!
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
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:11:02 -0400
From: "Kevin Wigell" <kwemail@twcny....com>
Subject: Defenders of Property Rights
Here is a copy of my email to the Defenders of Property Rights. Given
their position on controlling light trespass and other forms of LP,
perhaps they should reconsider renaming themselves "Opposers of
Property Rights"?
Anyway, here's what I sent them:
----------------------------------------------------
To Whom it may Concern:
I recently came across your web page on dark skies. I was completely
appalled by the misinformation and just plain wrong statements you
have put forth on that page. In fact, I would think that Defenders of
Property Rights would be in FAVOR of more and better controls on light
pollution, since light pollution can affect what a property owner can
do on his own property. As a property owner myself, I am offended by
the position the Defenders have taken on this issue.
I'm not going to waste my time listing all the incorrect information
you have posted on your page. But I will say, as a professional in the
electric power industry for 25 years, that your statements regarding
the inability of power plants to alter their output during periods of
low demand is just plain WRONG. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Your web page contains many other outrageous and incorrect statements.
As a property owner, why should I be forced to put up with neighboring
lighting that encroaches on my property, glares in my eyes, lights up
my yard, shines into my bedroom all night long, etc? Following the
logic of your arguments regarding light pollution, I should have the
right to put up speakers in my backyard that blast out rap music at my
neighbors at 120 decibels all night long. After all, it's my property,
and I can do whatever I please on it, right?
I have checked the International Dark Sky Association's web site, and
your statements regarding their positions are, once again, WRONG. They
do not seek to force anyone to turn off their lights, or for merchants
to turn off their signs as you claim. Rather, they advocate shielded
lighting that shines only where the light is wanted and needed. It
seems to me that this is common sense, in that it reduces unnecessary
waste, and minimizes involuntary intrusion on other peoples'
properties. These seem to me to be principles that any American
property owner could get behind. The positions taken by the
International Dark Sky Association seem to me to make a lot more sense
than the gross distortions regarding this issue that you have posted.
Solely in honor of the position that the Defenders have taken on "dark
skies", I am making a $50 contribution to the International Dark Sky
Association. I would recommend that you review the actual positions
taken by the International Dark Sky Association and rethink your own
position before you generate any more backlash against your
organization.
Yours truly,
Kevin Wigell
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:22:11 -0400
From: Mysids@aol...
Subject: Re: Dark skies vs. property rights
I just emailed this response to Defenders of Property RIghts:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Defenders of Property Rights:
I am very disappointed to see that a property rights advocacy group
campaign unprofessionally and hypocritically against property rights
with this article involving outdoor lighting reforms. You have failed
to do your homework on this issue. As a result, you have invalidated
your status and credibility as a property rights defender in the eyes
of the nation's concerned property owners. Nuisance advocacy does not
equate to property rights advocacy.
Is it really a property right of an adjacent resident or business
establishment to shine bright lights onto the property and inside the
home of an adjacent property owner who does not want that lighting
arrangement on his property? Where do property rights stand when that
same offended property owner who doesn't want that offending property
owner compromising his next door property owner's right to control
property lighting required for privacy, safety and security reasons?
Is it a property right for a property owner to beam bright lights
beyond his property onto a public right-of-way and create a public
safety and security nuisance?
Think about this situation and how such conflicts must be resolved.
The adversely affected property owner who doesn't want his neighbor
dictating uncontrollable nuisance lighting arrangements across the
property line has to either recourse to a outdoor lighting ordinance
or a civil nuisance lawsuit to correct the property rights
encroachment. The outdoor lighting route is far more effective in
addressing this conflict than a nuisance abatement action requiring
escalation of conflict and costs to restore property rights. Think
about the abuse of the legal and court system if the nuisance lighting
offender has plenty of money at his disposal to defend his nuisance
activities not considered a property right and to invalidate his next
door neighbor's property rights. An outdoor lighting ordinance is a
fair protector of property rights for both parties without the
necessity of conflict escalation and costs.
Your article is biased toward the nuisances of property owners who
have a blatant disregard for the adjacent property owners' and public
rights. The article should have focused on the property rights of
all owners who want to exercise the right to control property
illumination for privacy, safety, security, aesthetic and property
value reasons within legal property boundaries.
It is advisable that you access the damage to your institution's
advocacy for property rights and retract your unprofessional journal
article. Property owners nationwide certainly have a right to expect
that any rights advocacy group to exercise sound judgement and
maturity in the public forum for property rights. Until then,
Defenders of Property Owners cannot truthfully and professionally
claim to represent property owners in this country.
Concerned Property Owners in Virginia
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:44:28 -0800
From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
Subject: Re: Roadway lighting
Susan asked:
> To the lighting professionals in this group: I would appreciate
your
> recommendations.
A single measurement means very little. You need to take measurements
along
the centerline and edges of the road from one luminaire to the next.
The
average and max:min ratio will tell a lot more. However,.....
There is a legitimate question as to why you even have a light at all.
Anybody else feel the same?
Jim Benya
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:05:16 -0500
From: patric@ghostriders...
Subject: Re: Property rights vs. Dark Skies
Mysids@aol... wrote:
> The short-sightedness of this property rights group has the true
ring
of right-wing extremism.
http://www.defendersproprights.org/darksky/index.asp
What if rabid patriotic fundamentalism is simply the chosen technique
to
polarize gullible farmers and ranchers into standing up for the
god-given right of every red-blooded American to be able to lease his
property to the hard working billboard industry, without the
interference of a bunch of liberal tree-hugging telescope people or
zoning carpet-baggers? (beware of sarcasm)
If this were the case, a letter to the organization's grand wizard
might
not be as effective as, say, countering the misinformation in a public
fashion (perhaps starting with the website, or an information sheet
geared towards property owner associations). It doesnt have to be
adversarial, but we should at least counter their "concerns" with
verifiable facts.
Patric.
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:48:59 -0400
From: "friedel.pas@bvpartners..." <friedel.pas@bvpartners...>
Subject: Re: Dark skies vs. property rights
Why not trying in an other way.
Ask them for help. Help because you have the feeling that your
property
right is offended from a neightbour who is ligthing your property and
what
you can do against it. When a lot of poeple ask such a help, it is not
a
direct attack to them, but they have to change possible there policy.
They
are asked help on the stuff they claim to be expert, and got the
concern
that the neightbour their property rights are also importerd.
Regards,
Friedel
Oorspronkelijk Bericht:
-----------------
Van: Mysids@aol...
Datum: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:22:11 -0400
Aan: DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...
Onderwerp: Re: [DSLF] Dark skies vs. property rights
I just emailed this response to Defenders of Property RIghts:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Defenders of Property Rights:
I am very disappointed to see that a property rights advocacy group
campaign unprofessionally and hypocritically against property rights
with
this article involving outdoor lighting reforms. You have failed to
do
your homework on this issue. As a result, you have invalidated your
status
and credibility as a property rights defender in the eyes of the
nation's
concerned property owners. Nuisance advocacy does not equate to
property
rights advocacy.
[- SNIP -]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:02:56 -0700
From: "J. Delvin Armstrong, P.E." <del@softlite...>
Subject: RE: Re: Reader's Digest article
The current ANSI Standard Practice for Roadway Illumination, RP-8-00,
has a requirement for veiling luminance ratio for both Table 2 and
Table 3.
Persons designing roadway illumination systems should make sure their
design
complies with this criteria. It will help improve visibility for
everyone.
J. Delvin Armstrong, P.E. Phone:
425.885.2195
Armstrong Engineers, Inc. Phax:
425.556.9351
1840 - 130th Avenue N.E. Cell:
206.601.7312
Suite #15 Email:
del@softlite...
Bellevue, WA 98005-2245 Web:
www.softlite.com
-----Original Message-----
From: James Benya [mailto:jbenya@benyalighting...]
Read Naomi's response. You are correct - very little science. And I
agree with other observers - reduce glare!
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert DiStefano <motorinstructor@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
Please refrain from your name calling. I'm pretty much a conservative
in
my political viewpoint but I am totally against light pollution. The
cause to bring dark skies back to our nation is not about right wing
or
left wing. There are many individuals opposed to light pollution on
both
sides of the political spectrum.
Mysids@aol... wrote:
In a message dated 7/10/2003 1:01:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kdconod@optonline... writes:
> should write to this property rights group and give 'em an
> earful!!
The short-sightedness of this property rights group has the true ring
of right-wing extremism. Everyone, let them know about your concerns
as a property owner and how their advocacy falls short of protecting
your property and public rights. [-snip-]
Robert DiStefano
Subwaywebnews.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:08:34 EDT
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: Roadway lighting
In a message dated 7/14/2003 10:16:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lookout@hamptons... writes:
< full cutoff snip >
> To the lighting professionals in this group: I would appreciate
your
> recommendations.
Susan:
You might try contacting the director of public works to request a
shield be
installed on this fixture, or better yet, have it replaced with a full
cutoff
unit. Roadway lighting design principles extolled by the IESNA
RP-8-00
recommended practice or AASHTO standards do not address the lighting
of anything
except for the road surface and the abutting pedestrian
walkway/conflict areas.
The negative impact upon the homes along the roadway is out of the mix
and
this aspect is left to the discretion (and the awareness) of the
lighting
specifier. Traditionally awareness has been lacking.
I concur with Jim on this one. It is unlikely any *designer* had
anything to
do with this installation. Possibly a current or former resident in
the area
called the town to complain because they wanted a light in front of
their
home to appease their fear of the dark. Once a light gets installed
along a
public way it becomes very difficult to get removed because of
potential
liabilities, but getting it shielded properly will improve safety
conditions by getting
rid of the glare.
I also agree with Del about the veiling luminance ratio helping reduce
the
negative impact, but on small residential land parcels only 1/2 acre
in size the
geometry of light distribution even with full cutoffs may not provide
much
help for first floor level windows.
The typical semi-cutoff cobrahead mounted only 20-25 feet high cannot
pass
the 0.3 veiling luminance criteria required by both AASHTO and IESNA
RP-8-83 or
00 for the luminance design method at any spacing interval. It just
causes
too much glare.
Clear skies and good seeing,
Keep looking up!
Cliff Haas
Author Light Pollution Awareness Website (LiPAW)
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
http://www.crlaction.org
Member: IESNA, CRL, IDA, NELPAG, CTIDA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:13:30 -0400
From: Mike Hansen <mhansen@einhornresearch...>
Subject: National Park Service Efforts
Just got my copy of the USDI, National Park Service's "Natural
Resource
Year in Review--2002." This is supposed to be available online at:
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/pubs/yir/, however, I can't get the server
to respond.
In any event, Chad Moore (chad_moore@nps...) and Dan Duriscoe
(dan_duriscoe@nps...) have a nice one-page article abote the NPS
Night
Sky Team and their accomplishments. They seem to be moving right along
in all the right directions.
In trying to see if the PDF of the document might lurk somewhere else,
I ran into all sorts of cool stuff that is going on in the Parks. Type
"light pollution" in the NPS search engine at:
http://www.nps.gov/search.htm.
Nice to see tax dollars at work.
Mike Hansen
2561 Massachusetts Ave. #1
Cambridge, MA 02140-1020
(617)661-6520
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:26:38 -0500
From: "Michael Stephan" <mstephan@kconline...>
Subject: RE: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
DITTO here. Pro-Dark Right Winger here as well. My State Senator, a
Republican, was the one who sponsored a resolution recognizing PWP as
Indiana's First DSP in the Indiana Senate. He also was on a summer
committee that suggested our Democrat Governor form a task force to
look
into the effects of lP....something he refuses to do.
It obviously isn't along party lines.
Michael D. Stephan
Executive Director
Potawatomi Wildlife Park
Indiana's First Dark-Sky Preserve
www.getintonature.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert DiStefano [mailto:motorinstructor@yahoo...]
Please refrain from your name calling. I'm pretty much a conservative
in
my political viewpoint but I am totally against light pollution. The
cause to bring dark skies back to our nation is not about right wing
or
left wing. There are many individuals opposed to light pollution on
both sides of the political spectrum.
- SNIP -
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:51:47 EDT
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: Re: Reader's Digest article
In a message dated 7/13/2003 9:02:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
suchida@mvc....ne.jp writes:
> Quoting your comments below: Can you suggest me reference document
to
> backup the lighting requirements for the seniors? Going through some
of my
> lighting handbooks I find similar statements but without clear
evidences. It
> would be appreciated if you can direct me to any book to support 3x
> requirements.
< semi-cutoff snip for the courtesy of the members >
Dear Shigemi:
In addition to RP-28, the IESNA Lighting Handbook covers this issue
beginning
on page 15 in Chapter 10 "Quality of the Visual Environment". Note
the 3:1
(60 yr old vs. 20 yr. old) is a mostly consideration for *task*
illuminance
that helps to improve visual acuity for indoor activities like
reading,
assembling small parts, etc., and it should probably not be assumed
for all general
illumination outdoors at night.
Contrast luminance of any scene under conditions where the illuminated
objects or areas are brighter than the illuminating elements
(luminaires) always
improves visual performance regardless of age. This vital factor of
effective
shielding and proper fixture aiming becomes more profound for people
over 60
years old due to debilitating effects of glare in the field of view.
When glare
is not controlled effectively this can truly become a public safety
issue
along roads throughout the public right of way. The Veiling Luminance
Ratio was
not just a meaningless exercise to add time to the design process.
What might
be considered attractive dazzle to a 20 year old can be debilitating
glare to
a 60 year old person also.
As we age the lens in our eyes both thickens and yellows. This causes
more
light scattering and higher degree of spectral sensitivity to occur in
the eyes
of those over 60, which can contribute to visible confusion.
Additionally,
the pupil size of the eye is generally smaller (all luminance being
equal) with
a 60 year old opposed to a 20 year old, and dark adaptation recovery
time is
also slower to respond in older people. These factors working
together
reduces the amount of beneficial illuminance that falls on the retina,
thus the need
to increase illuminance to help improve productivity of older people.
At the age of 50, I have noticed this visual performance reduction
when
reading smaller print (less than 10 pt) without glasses. To see the
print clearly
I now need at least 1.5 footcandles of illuminance on the page opposed
to 0.5
footcandles only a few years ago. When wearing my reading glasses I
can still
read fine print at the lower illuminance in most cases, but contrast
with
various colors usually requires more light than black text on a white
background.
This is based on my own personal experience and may have nothing to
do with
the research mentioned by others. Some people in lighting claim I
have weird
eyes, but what those eyes see (or can't see) is all that I can report
with any
confidence.
Clear skies and good seeing,
Keep looking up!
Cliff Haas
Author Light Pollution Awareness Website (LiPAW)
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
http://www.crlaction.org
Member: IESNA, CRL, IDA, NELPAG, CTIDA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:22:28 -0400
From: "Daniel B.Caton" <Dan@Caton...>
Subject: Help! Quick links to brands and photos of residential FCO
post-tops
I need some quick help. I am preparing an article to run
in the Charlotte (NC) Observer on good residential outdoor
lighting, partly in response to a really bad piece written
by a syndicated wreiter who is primarily an interior
designer (you may have see this piece--photo featuring
ridiculous globes place ON the lawn...).
It will feature the GlareBuster and other IDA-listed
fixtures made for walls, but I could find now residential
post-top fixtures (all the IDA pix are obviously of parking
lot category FCOs). I know there are still few examples of
these but I thought I had seen news one one or two.
I need manufacturer/vendor/contact info as well as,
hopefully, large format digital images for the article.
I have the article roughed out and it could run 7/26 if I
can put together some of these missing pieces. Any help
will be greatly appreciated!
Dan Caton
Pres., NC Section, IDA
(828) 262-2446 (Appalachian State Univ., Boone, NC)
This message came from my personal Url Dan.Caton.Name (email
Dan@Caton...Name). I use this from home or on the road where the local
ISP does not allow me to relay through catondb@appstate.... All
replies to this address get automatically forwarded to my appstate.edu
account, where I read them.
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:39:20 EDT
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: Help! Quick links to brands and photos of residential
FCO post-t...
In a message dated 7/14/2003 11:27:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Dan@Caton... writes:
> It will feature the GlareBuster and other IDA-listed
> fixtures made for walls, but I could find now residential
> post-top fixtures (all the IDA pix are obviously of parking
> lot category FCOs). I know there are still few examples of
> these but I thought I had seen news one one or two.
Dan:
Check out the Utah Skies web site's product section. They have put
together
a number of excellent fixtures for residential use, but no fully
shielded post
tops are available in the residential line.
http://www.utahskies.org/lightpollution/products/index.html
Also, Lowes now offers some fully shielded outdoor lighting that has
been
noticed in several states recently. Closest to you is South Carolina,
so they
may be in your area also. Nothing from Home Depot yet.
For high end homes why not send them to Pennsylvania Globe Gaslight?
They
offer a growing number of full cutoff post top fixtures and will in
some cases
do custom work. Maybe that can help. Good luck with your article.
Clear skies and good seeing,
Keep looking up!
Cliff Haas
Author Light Pollution Awareness Website (LiPAW)
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
http://www.crlaction.org
Member: IESNA, CRL, IDA, NELPAG, CTIDA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 20
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert DiStefano <motorinstructor@yahoo...>
Subject: RE: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
Thanks Mike!
I'm glad that I am not alone!
Michael Stephan <mstephan@kconline...> wrote:
DITTO here. Pro-Dark Right Winger here as well. My State Senator, a
Republican, was the one who sponsored a resolution recognizing PWP as
Indiana's First DSP in the Indiana Senate. He also was on a summer
committee that suggested our Democrat Governor form a task force to
look
into the effects of lP....something he refuses to do.
[- PLEASE TRIM PAST MESSAGES BEFORE REPLYING TO THE GROUP -]
Robert DiStefano
Subwaywebnews.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:26:51 -0600
From: "John L. Liebenthal" <jackl@tetontel...>
Subject: RE: Re: [DSLF] Re:Property rights vs. Dark Skies
>right-wing extremism.
> rabid patriotic fundamentalism is simply the chosen technique to
polarize gullible farmers and ranchers
>grand wizard
>DITTO here. Pro-Dark Right Winger \
The
>cause to bring dark skies back to our nation is not about right wing
or
>left wing.
Property rights is a big issue in this part of the country. True, it
is not
right wing or left wing, and is pretty much about being able to farm
your farm
or sell out to whoever. The movement exists because farmers and
others [and
some bad guys, like developers] have problems. Please refrain from
the KKK
comparisons. And I haven't seen any of thsese people foaming at the
mouth, so
I doubt that they have rabies. It is a general movement, so Dark
Skies folks
shouldn't take it personally. It's people who, like us, are very [or
too]
interested in one particular issue. They go way to far, and this is
an
example.
One key issue is 5th amendment "taking" of property without
compensation.
This
is getting more rigid -- the last big Supreme Court case was Pallazolo
v.
Rhode
Island, so it's not just a western/midwestern/southern redneck thing.
It's
also an eastern whiteneck thing.
The more general issue is intrusive government. I'm against
too-intrusive
government, especially when I hear about things like Rep. Maloney from
NYC
introducing legislation about the place I live in 2000 miles away just
to
score
points with the upper/lower east/west side or whatever she represents
[I see
she has offices in Astoria and on 1651 3rd St. I also note that she
was born
and educated in N. Carolina, so maybe she's an agent/provocateur].
Nevertheless, I am trying to get the government to intrude into
people's own
property to get their lights out of neighbors eyes.
The general phrase that I use to describe this is: "I don't like
intrusive
governement, and I don't like intrusive individualism either." A
person has a
right to do many things on his own property, but I have a right to see
what
I'm
doing on mine, and I have a right to see what I ought to be able to
see from
mine.
>
Jack Liebenthal
Cedron, Teton Valley, Idaho
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:44:19 -0600
From: "John L. Liebenthal" <jackl@tetontel...>
Subject: Re: Aging eye effects
Another anecdotal view: When I was young, when I was reading, I often
heard,
"Turn on a light! You'll ruin your eyes!" At 71, I can't read
without a
bright light, and I don't feel discriminated against.
I also often put down the auto's sun shade when I am driving into, not
the
sun,
but a blue sky, and it improves my view of the road, simply by
changing my
eye's f-stop, I think.
My wife had cataracts and could not tolerate any direct light shining
on her
eyes from any angle. After cataract removal, that problem is gone.
It is harder to see at night, but I don't believe that the difference
from
youth is as great as the difference for reading. Many older people
don't
drive
at night, so obviously it's hard for them. I think it is true that
glare is
the biggest problem. I almost seem to get a physical sensation from
the blue
headlights.
you et al wrote:
However in my experiences I cannot resist to doubt
>the 3x requirements,
>because I do not feel to need more light at 51 than I did in 20s.
>AlthoughI do feel I need more glare control. But anyway I want to
check
>this with scientific evidences if possible."
>
>
9th Edition of the IESNA Lighting
>Handbook (2000), page 3-13 to 3-14, and there is a classic curve from
Weale
>showing the reduction in average transmittance of the human eye
relative to
>age on page 10-15. That particular curve shows a 60-year-old needing
2.5
>times more light on the visual task in order to produce the same
retinal
>Another excellent reference for the aging eye is Dr. Peter Boyce's
2nd
>edition of his book, "Human Factors in Lighting", published 2003.
>
>Naomi Miller
>Troy NY
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________
>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/
>
Jack Liebenthal
Cedron, Teton Valley, Idaho
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Message: 23
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:07:05 -0400
From: "Barry Johnson" <johnsonb52@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Help! Quick links to brands and photos of residential
FCO post-tops
Dan,
I'd like to see you emphasise minimizing glare and energy consumption
while
using the right amount of light, plus having the main outdoor lighting
for
the home being motion sensor controlled, with a lower level of
dusk-to-dawn
lights, if any.
You might also mention the Hubbell Sky Cap for taming barnyard lights.
There is also the Red Dot SiteLite
Wall Spot Light Kit, a small, bronze finish fixture with wall mounting
cover, manufacturer's item #K861BR. These are not fancy, but are
well
designed. Sold by Home Depot.
These are permanent metal landscape/house lighting fixtures that
virtually
eliminate glare and uplight -when aimed properly-. A knuckle dragger
could
aim these improperly, since they're adjustable. They use R20
incandescent
flood lamps up to 100 watts. From the L. E. Mason Company, 98
Business
Street, Boston, MA 02136-2198. 800-356-2500.
The GE Salem with -clear, flat glass- can be used in some residential
settings, and Magnaray has a few things that can fit in to home
outdoor
lighting, as does RAB Lighting.
Barry Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel B.Caton" <Dan@Caton...>
To: "DarkSkyList" <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:22 PM
Subject: [DSLF] Help! Quick links to brands and photos of residential
FCO
post-tops
> I need some quick help. I am preparing an article to run
> in the Charlotte (NC) Observer on good residential outdoor
> lighting, partly in response to a really bad piece written
> by a syndicated wreiter who is primarily an interior
> designer (you may have see this piece--photo featuring
> ridiculous globes place ON the lawn...).
>
> It will feature the GlareBuster and other IDA-listed
> fixtures made for walls, but I could find now residential
> post-top fixtures (all the IDA pix are obviously of parking
> lot category FCOs). I know there are still few examples of
> these but I thought I had seen news one one or two.
>
> I need manufacturer/vendor/contact info as well as,
> hopefully, large format digital images for the article.
>
> I have the article roughed out and it could run 7/26 if I
> can put together some of these missing pieces. Any help
> will be greatly appreciated!
>
> Dan Caton
> Pres., NC Section, IDA
> (828) 262-2446 (Appalachian State Univ., Boone, NC)
>
> This message came from my personal Url Dan.Caton.Name (email
Dan@Caton...Name). I use this from home or on the road where the local
ISP
does not allow me to relay through catondb@appstate.... All replies
to this
address get automatically forwarded to my appstate.edu account, where
I read
them.
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
______________________________________________________________________
__
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/