[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[OL-Forum] Digest Number 854
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/mcTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
OutdoorLighting-Forum - "The largest uncensored and most active forum on light pollution."
Inbox out of reach? Choose "no email" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OutdoorLighting-Forum/join?referer=1
and view posts in the archives, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OutdoorLighting-Forum/messages - only on OLF.
To join: OutdoorLighting-Forum-subscribe@yahoogroups...
Unsubscribe from any Yahoo list: listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
==============================================================================
No endorsement of content posted to OLF by any organization is implied.
==============================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Dark-Sky labels
From: "David M. Keith" <david.keith@mindspring...>
2. Re: Re: Dark-Sky labels
From: kgfleming@att...
3. Re: Re: Dark-Sky labels
From: "Leo Smith" <leo@smith...>
4. Re: Re: Dark-Sky labels
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
5. Re: Re: Dark-Sky labels
From: George Nickas <nickas@hanover...>
6. Boston MASSacre
From: kgfleming@att...
7. Re: An idea whose time has come [yrs ago]
From: kgfleming@att...
8. Model Code vs: Turning Purple
From: patric@ghostriders...
9. Semi-TAN: Boston MASSacre
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 05:40:05 -0600
From: "David M. Keith" <david.keith@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Dark-Sky labels
The problem with labels for EQUIPMENT is that it is lighting SYSTEMS that
are - or are not - dark sky friendly.
David Keith
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:25:48 +0000
From: kgfleming@att...
Subject: Re: Re: Dark-Sky labels
> The problem with labels for EQUIPMENT is that it is lighting SYSTEMS that
> are - or are not - dark sky friendly.
>
> David Keith
I would beg to disagree. A single light cannon is not very dark sky friendly,
nor are the millions of NEMA and NEMA knockoffs, nor, of course, the equally
ubiquitous drop lens cobra heads used with non-continuous roadway lighting.
And lets not forget unshielded wallpacks, diagonal floodlights...
Equipment design, it's end use, and the collective impact if part of a system
can all affect sky glow. That's not a good reason not to "shine some light" on
use of the term "dark sky friendly" as a marketing tool.
Kevin
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:05:53 -0400
From: "Leo Smith" <leo@smith...>
Subject: Re: Re: Dark-Sky labels
> David Keith writes...
> The problem with labels for EQUIPMENT is that it is lighting SYSTEMS that
> are - or are not - dark sky friendly.
The issue is not whether equipment alone can be propoerly designated for
labeling as Dark-Sky Friendly - The issue instead is whether the IDA should
have the right/responsibility to control the application of the Dark-Sky
Friendly label as it would be applied by a manufacturer of a commercial
product.
It's also permissible that the Dark Sky Friendly label be applied to
Equipment - not to certify that the equipment will, AS INSTALLED, be Dark
Sky Friendly, but rather instead to certify that the equipment, as it is
designed, has the characteristics to allow, upon proper installation, a Dark
Sky Friendly SYSTEM. The equipment is a component of the lighting system,
and the label can properly be applied to the component...since only when
BOTH components (equipment and installation) are Dark Sky Friendly is our
objective realized...
Leo Smith
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:10:54 -0400
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Dark-Sky labels
kgfleming@att... wrote:
>
> > The problem with labels for EQUIPMENT is that it is lighting SYSTEMS that
> > are - or are not - dark sky friendly.
> >
> > David Keith
>
> I would beg to disagree. A single light cannon is not very dark sky friendly,
> nor are the millions of NEMA and NEMA knockoffs, nor, of course, the equally
> ubiquitous drop lens cobra heads used with non-continuous roadway lighting.
> And lets not forget unshielded wallpacks, diagonal floodlights...
I agree. It's the equipment itself. In our dark and quite
rural neighborhood there's only one 175w mv barn beacon (now
two years old) within a mile or so radius of my place. It
has completely changed the nocturnal environment from
whereever as far as it can be seen, standing out like some
sort of pupil-piercing blade.
Systems? Give me a break. No thought, no consideration. Just
put the %^^%$ thing up. Tell the farmer in the dell -- and
the local hardware store -- about systems, and see how far
you get.
John McMahon
LMC
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:44:49 -0500
From: George Nickas <nickas@hanover...>
Subject: Re: Re: Dark-Sky labels
Please define "SYSTEMS" gn
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 06:40 AM, David M. Keith wrote:
> The problem with labels for EQUIPMENT is that it is lighting SYSTEMS
> that
> are - or are not - dark sky friendly.
>
> David Keith
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:13:49 +0000
From: kgfleming@att...
Subject: Boston MASSacre
The dark sky bill which had been inserted into the pending MA state budget bill
was deleted from the bill. Another bill dealing with lp along a specific
turnpike passed both houses but has just been vetoed by the Governor. Finger
prints are being checked. Anyone still wonder how the dark sky bill could've
passed last year and gotten stripped from the host bill on the way to the prior
Governor for her signature?
Kevin
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:21:16 +0000
From: kgfleming@att...
Subject: Re: An idea whose time has come [yrs ago]
George Nickas wrote:
... Unless I am mistaken, the IDA accepts advertising in the
> newsletter from manufacturers who advertise fco lighting but also
> continue to sell non-dark-sky friendly lighting obviously to keep
> revenues up as long as lots of people still do not care about light
> pollution. While I can understand the profit motive of lighting
> manufacturers, I am not clear about why IDA accepts advertising from
> those who are making money polluting the sky.
> A few years back, I suggested that companies or organizations that
> make or use dark-sky UNfriendly lighting be identified as such by the
> IDA in its publications just the way Consumer's Union publicizes
> hazardous or sub-standard consumer products. That organization, which
> as we know, accepts no advertising from anyone, freely identifies the
> bad with the good. If the primary aim of good lighting activism is to
> notify and educate the public about good lighting products AND practice,
> then surely it is appropriate and overdue to single out, for example,
> businesses which unambiguously are lit to be noticed. Fast food and gas
> stations are the most obvious. Why has the IDA not yet taken on this
> task?
I have to offer another perspective on this. I think the obvious reason for IDA
accepting money is to fund promoting dark sky perservation. I say "obvious"
because IDA doesn't really have any other way to marshall resources. Consumer's
Union on the other hand offers a very useful service that is universally
appreciated - objective info about services and products for which people part
with their hard earned cash. You have to pay CS for this service. I'd be
surprise if Enviromental Defense or the Sierra Club turns down donations from
those whose policies and actions they oppose. But even if they do, I see no
reason why IDA should do likewise , AS LONG AS IT STANDS BY ITS PRINCIPLE
CAUSE - by doing such things as calling a spade a dark sky friendly fixture [or
not.]
IDA does speak out about specific lighting practices, it just doesn't name
names. And there is an unquestionably solid track record of great success, so
it seems to me it's hard to take issue with what has worked pretty well. I
know, sky glow continues to grow, but look how far responsible representatives
of the lighting industry have come in a fairly short time span.
Kevin
> This is a positive development, but we will need to wait and see what
> kinds of lighting the IDA considers 'dark-sky friendly' since the phrase
> by itself provides no explicit standard on what is or is not 'dark-sky
> friendly' Some of us would have a stricter standard on that than
> others. Unless I am mistaken, the IDA accepts advertising in the
> newsletter from manufacturers who advertise fco lighting but also
> continue to sell non-dark-sky friendly lighting obviously to keep
> revenues up as long as lots of people still do not care about light
> pollution. While I can understand the profit motive of lighting
> manufacturers, I am not clear about why IDA accepts advertising from
> those who are making money polluting the sky.
> A few years back, I suggested that companies or organizations that
> make or use dark-sky UNfriendly lighting be identified as such by the
> IDA in its publications just the way Consumer's Union publicizes
> hazardous or sub-standard consumer products. That organization, which
> as we know, accepts no advertising from anyone, freely identifies the
> bad with the good. If the primary aim of good lighting activism is to
> notify and educate the public about good lighting products AND practice,
> then surely it is appropriate and overdue to single out, for example,
> businesses which unambiguously are lit to be noticed. Fast food and gas
> stations are the most obvious. Why has the IDA not yet taken on this
> task?
>
> Finally, in regard to lighting to advertise, this website is of
> interest--last three sentences.
>
> www.china.com.cn/english/investment/28047.htm
>
> gn
>
> On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 01:46 PM, kgfleming@att... wrote:
>
> > For the old timers -
> >
> > About three or four years ago someone suggested on the original
> > darksky-list
> > the idea of a designation of lighting equipment as being "dark sky
> > friendly"
> > or "dark sky compliant." I don't remember who it was, but I don't think
> > it was
> > me. Of course there are no archives for that list so there's no looking
> > back.
> > In any case, I thought it was a great idea as we were starting to see
> > lighting
> > manufacturers and resellers co-opt the term. It seemed to me the
> > indiscriminate use of such terminology as a marketing tool would merely
> > confuse consumers not only about product choices and product
> > performance, but
> > just exactly how and why some fixtures create the greatest amounts of
> > glare,
> > light trespass and sky glow.
> >
> > It also seemed to me that no organization had more of a right to claim
> > expertise as to what lighting products were or were not "dark sky
> > friendly"
> > than the IDA. So I wrote the IDA board/officers and suggested IDA
> > create a
> > definition of "dark sky friendly" and bestow it upon deserving
> > products. A
> > mini-discussion ensued. One board member opposed the idea, saying it
> > undercut
> > the IESNA. My response was IDA was the true authority on sky glow so
> > long as
> > IESNA champions bridge and building fascade lighting and the like. The
> > response was "IESNA practices are as good as it will ever get." Another
> > noted
> > lighting designer flatly rejected the idea, citing lack of proper use
> > of the
> > equipment as rendering the designation meaningless. I reiterated that
> > if IDA
> > didn't use the term others would, so at a minimum an IDA definition of
> > dark
> > sky friendly/dark sky compliant should be created. Other than private
> > expressions of support by a couple of board members, that's the last I
> > heard
> > on the matter.
> >
> > Now I'm informed one of the board members has recently stated that IDA
> > is
> > going to start a dark sky friendly labelling process in conjunction with
> > lighting manufacturers, copyright it, register it, trademark it,
> > service mark
> > it, or whatever is appropriate for such a designation, for use in
> > association
> > with appropriate lighting products.
> >
> > Though long overdue this is a gratifying development. Makes me want to
> > scan
> > old emails to dust off other ideas. You might want to do the same.
> >
> > Kevin Fleming
> >
> >
> > OutdoorLighting-Forum - "The largest uncensored and most active forum
> > on light pollution."
> >
> > Inbox out of reach? Choose "no email" at
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OutdoorLighting-Forum/join?referer=1
> > and view posts in the archives,
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OutdoorLighting-Forum/messages - only on
> > OLF.
> > To join: OutdoorLighting-Forum-subscribe@yahoogroups...
> > Unsubscribe from any Yahoo list: listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
> > =========================================================================
> > =====
> > No endorsement of content posted to OLF by any organization is implied.
> > =========================================================================
> > =====
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> OutdoorLighting-Forum - "The largest uncensored and most active forum on light
> pollution."
>
> Inbox out of reach? Choose "no email" at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OutdoorLighting-Forum/join?referer=1
> and view posts in the archives,
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OutdoorLighting-Forum/messages - only on OLF.
> To join: OutdoorLighting-Forum-subscribe@yahoogroups...
> Unsubscribe from any Yahoo list: listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
> ==============================================================================
> No endorsement of content posted to OLF by any organization is implied.
> ==============================================================================
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:39:38 -0700
From: patric@ghostriders...
Subject: Model Code vs: Turning Purple
James Benya wrote:
> Mike, the process of developing a national caliber document takes a
while.
> Considering that we had to boil down the good stuff from over 50
commenters
> and literally hundreds of ordinances, the fact that a final draft is now
> being circulated is relatively fast.
>
> In the meantime we are advising IDA sections that we are close to issuing
> the initial document. This will save members and cities countless
hours and
> cash in developing each community's individual ordinance.
Until fairly recently, the proposed Code has been in the hands of
mostly industry folks, with the intention of a closed review by a task
force independent of the draft committee.
I realize that it's the hope that the current draft will get a quick
reading and a stamp of approval, but that's not always the case with
independent review. Having the work looked at from other perspectives
provides a more complete picture, so it's reasonable that a review
carried out by individuals not a party to the original committee may
(and should) illuminate areas overlooked by the drafting body.
Once completed, the proposed Code could be before countless Public
Works authorities and civil engineers, as well as elected officials
whose only exposure to IDA or lighting reform is in the text
sitting on their desk. A "trial run" to gauge how they may receive such
a document may determine not only the feasibility of implementing
policy that could result in improved lighting, but also establish
whether this "darker skies" stuff is even worth their time.
We've all been chomping at the bit to have an accomplishment such as a
model code see the light of day, but the closer we approach that edge it
seems we have also come alarmingly close to an unexpected do-or-die
threshold.
A unified code for all communities would go a long way for our cause,
but the wrong code could unravel all we have accomplished.
As for the IDA, it's about to lend it's credibility to a work that might
either insure the realization of it's goals, or effectively remove it as
a credible thorn in the side of the status quo.
By my reckoning, I now believe we are closer to the halfway point than
the finish line. I say that not to discourage the pursuit of it's
completion, or judge the efforts of all those who have worked so hard
for so long. A National Outdoor Lighting Code will someday be a reality
-- whether it will be something we are proud to have our name on will
depend on not only the flexibility of it's language but the openness of
the process by which it is drafted (The secrecy of the project, while
apparently necessary to avoid distractions, hasnt really seemed to have
been working to our advantage).
While we should expect to hear more news about the Code in following
weeks, we should also expect that independent review of the draft be
just the next step in its process, rather than just an inconsequential
formality delaying it's christening.
I've been hoping for it's completion probably as long as anyone else,
but now I believe we should take a deep breath and give this the careful
attention it is due before we start celebrating.
Rushing the process at this point could have disastrous consequences,
and the loss of our credibility might preclude our ever having another
chance like this one.
Let's not trivialize the necessity of a critical analysis. The
completed code will have to be interpreted consistently, everywhere, and
by more than just engineers and salesmen. Fortunately that's something
the IDA realized early on, hence the review process. I believe we can
be our strongest critics, given the list of objections (both legitimate
and not) to lighting reform we have encountered throughout the years. I
would rather see the acid test in the hands of those who will work to
fulfill our goals than in the hands of a civil bureaucrat looking to
exploit an embarrassing oversight.
Patric.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:39:10 -0400
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Semi-TAN: Boston MASSacre
kgfleming@att... wrote:
>
> The dark sky bill which had been inserted into the pending MA state budget bill
> was deleted from the bill. Another bill dealing with lp along a specific
> turnpike passed both houses but has just been vetoed by the Governor. Finger
> prints are being checked. Anyone still wonder how the dark sky bill could've
> passed last year and gotten stripped from the host bill on the way to the prior
> Governor for her signature?
Here's a start. (Beware: enviro-political analysis ... but
lp applicable, nonetheless.)
>From David Orr, "Walking North on a Southbound Train, Part
1" on the Environmental Research Foundation Home website
("Rachel's Environment & Health News" #766)
Excerpts:
"An old farmer once told me a story of a wily fox that he
came to know well, and its interactions with his unfortunate
dog. One day, as he tells it, the fox began to run in
circles just outside the radius of the dog's tether,
followed by the frantically barking dog. After a few laps
the tether was wrapped around the post, at which point the
fox strutted in to devour the dog's food while the helpless
mutt looked on. Something like that has happened to all of
us who believe that nature and ecosystems are worth
preserving and that this is a matter of obligation, spirit,
true economy, and common sense. Someone or something has run
us in circles, tied us up, and is eating our lunch. It is
time to ask who and why and how we might respond."
[snip]
"We are failing, first, because for 20 years or longer we
have tried to be reasonable on the terms of the opposition,
in the belief that we could persuade the powerful if we only
offered enough reason, data, evidence, and logic. We have
quantified the decline of species, ecosystems, and now
planetary systems in exhaustive detail. We bent over
backward to accommodate the style and intellectual
predilections of self-described 'conservatives' and those
for whom the economy is far more important than the
environment, in the belief that politeness and good evidence
stated in their terms would win the day. Accordingly, we put
the case for the earth and coming generations in the
language of economics, science, and law. With remarkably few
exceptions we have been reasonable, erudite, clever,
cautiously informative, and -- relative to the magnitude of
the challenges before us -- ineffective. In short, we do
science, write books, publish articles, develop professional
societies, attend conferences, and converse learnedly. But
they do politics, take over the courts, control the media,
and manipulate the fears and resentments endemic to a
rapidly changing society."
Full text at:
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2345
John McMahon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/