[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DSLF] Digest Number 1384
There are 8 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Degraded Darkness
From: Jan Hollan <jhollan@amper....muni.cz>
2. Re: Connecticut now requires FCO on all commercial developments!
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
3. To make your blood boil...
From: Darren Baskill <dbl@star....ac.uk>
4. Re: To make your blood boil...
From: Mike and Dianne Best <mrbdb@bellsouth...>
5. Re: To make your blood boil...
From: "patric@ghostriders..." <patric@ghostriders...>
6. Re: To make your blood boil...
From: Bob Bunge <bbunge@ladyandtramp...>
7. Re: To make your blood boil...
From: Mike and Dianne Best <mrbdb@bellsouth...>
8. RE: Degraded Darkness
From: "Bryant Buchanan" <bbuchan@utica...>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:11:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Hollan <jhollan@amper....muni.cz>
Subject: Degraded Darkness
is a title of an excellent article in Conservation In Practice, I came
across recently:
Degraded Darkness (by Ben Harder)
URL: http://conbio.net/InPractice/article52DD.cfm
There are things I read the first time ever: Bryant Buchanan mentions an
adequate illumination for one kind of frog (0.1 mlx i.e. 0.00001 fc and
less) and a limit at which it avoids activity (over one millilux). Says
that some species prefer even darker conditions.
Let's add than one millilux corresponds to an open landscape illuminated
by a cloudless natural, unpolluted deep night sky.
jenik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:23:57 -0000
From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Connecticut now requires FCO on all commercial developments!
--- In DarkSky-list@yahoogroups..., glennlaser@a..... wrote:
> Do you know what the intent for the definition of the
> phrase "Luminaires for historic lighting." is in the
> exceptions? Without defintion this exception is wide
> open to interpretation.
Glen:
I believe what qualifies as being acceptable is left to the
discretion of local building official. One would hope it
would be limited only to locations on the National Historic
Register, or reserved for areas with historic significance.
> Yet another well intended but sloppy ordiance, and this
> time on a state level.
It is not an "ordinance" per se. They only apply to the
specific municipality that establishes them. This is a
state amendment to the International Energy Conservation
Code (IECC), which is referenced by the State Building Code
(based on BOCA), so all towns, cities and nonincorporated
areas in Connecticut must abide to it by state law.
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://www.crlaction.org
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:57:43 +0100 (BST)
From: Darren Baskill <dbl@star....ac.uk>
Subject: To make your blood boil...
Apparently, there is no such thing as light pollution...
http://www.opinionet.com/archives/tomdeweese/07-19-02.shtml
Once you've calmed down, I guess it is always useful to understand what
such knee-jerk "don't take away my lights" type people think.
Sorry, a wildly optimistic use of the word "think" in that last
sentance...
Das
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:17:55 -0400
From: Mike and Dianne Best <mrbdb@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: To make your blood boil...
On 6/18/04 6:57 AM, "Darren Baskill" <dbl@star....ac.uk> wrote:
> Apparently, there is no such thing as light pollution...
Enclosed is the text of my response.
Just read your diatribe on the subject of light pollution, have hardly ever
seen such a mish-mash of misrepresentation, falsehood, misconstruction,
misunderstanding, and outright stupidity. There is no incidence of property
rights violation as you seem to imply. Benjamin Franklin said words to the
effect " your right to swing your fist ends at the beginning of my nose."
Same with respect to light. You have no right to inflict your lights onto my
property.
As to the use of light and the position of the various organizations
attempting to mitigate the overuse thereof, I can state categorically that
the intent of these organizations is not to do away with lights at night.
The fact is that the technologies exist to give us all the illumination we
need without going to the extremes of light pollution that we have now. You
seem to want to deny the existence of light pollution, but how do explain
that orange glow over the skyline of every major population center in the
world? How do you explain the inability to drive through any major city at
night without having to squint and avert your eyes all up and down every
major thoroughfare to avoid the temporary blinding that goes with extremely
contrasty lighting, more often- than- not not only excessively bright, but
misaimed as well? It's about safety, all right. Check up on the visual
difficulties extremely overlit gas station canopies and misaimed halogen
flood lights cause for drivers, especially those of us over 50, a growing
portion of our population.
As to the subject of lighting and crime, apparently you have not studied
what your own Department of Justice has to say on the subject. In a
nutshell, they conclude that the effect of nighttime lighting does not
necessarily diminish the incidence of crime. Their statement: inconclusive.
Do you even know about the lighting curfew at certain school districts in
California and it's effect on campus vandalism? Would it surprise you that
the vandalism went down by 25%? Vandals and criminals need light to operate,
too.
In conclusion, I invite you to respond and I will help you with the research
to counter your knee-jerk to-hell-with-the-facts reaction to the common
sense approach to giving all of us what we need. The business who has a
legitimate need for outdoor lighting can be satisfied, as can the homeowner
with HIS legitimate need for satisfactory security lighting. These very
legitimate needs are not inconsistent with the advocates of outdoor lighting
controls. I think you don't like the word "control", but in this world of
conflicting rights and priorities, the unfettered business and personal use
of outdoor lighting already overwhelms, and some control is needed. In the
absence of enlightened self-control, legislative guidance is needed.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your need for education in this
matter.
Michael Best
2403 W. Mt. Zion Rd.
Crestwood, KY 40014
Email mrbdb@bellsouth...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:58:17 -0500
From: "patric@ghostriders..." <patric@ghostriders...>
Subject: Re: To make your blood boil...
Darren Baskill wrote:
> http://www.opinionet.com/archives/tomdeweese/07-19-02.shtml
>
> Once you've calmed down, I guess it is always useful to understand what
> such knee-jerk "don't take away my lights" type people think.
Looking over more of their material, you can read about the same
environmental cooks harping about emissions from utilities and all that
global warming nonsense... Some peoples property rights apparently
matter more than others :-) And yes, this is where astronomy-centric
LP arguments are twisted to mock the other messages (abating trespass
and disabling glare, responsible energy use, promoting ecotourism, etc.)
Patric.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:55:15 -0400
From: Bob Bunge <bbunge@ladyandtramp...>
Subject: Re: To make your blood boil...
I exchanged some email and phone calls with this guy when this was going
on. Lets just say that Louden county has moved past this guy. Don't
waste your time with him.
Bob Bunge
Darren Baskill wrote:
> Apparently, there is no such thing as light pollution...
>
> http://www.opinionet.com/archives/tomdeweese/07-19-02.shtml
>
>
>
> Once you've calmed down, I guess it is always useful to understand what
> such knee-jerk "don't take away my lights" type people think.
>
> Sorry, a wildly optimistic use of the word "think" in that last
> sentance...
>
>
> Das
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:30:33 -0400
From: Mike and Dianne Best <mrbdb@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: To make your blood boil...
On 6/18/04 10:17 AM, "Mike and Dianne Best" <mrbdb@bellsouth...> wrote:
> Enclosed is the text of my response.
Two attempts to email my comments to the email address listed on that site
were returned. I wonder why.....
Mike Best
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:41:47 -0400
From: "Bryant Buchanan" <bbuchan@utica...>
Subject: RE: Degraded Darkness
I hadn't seen this article yet, thanks. Sharon and I have collected a
great deal of data on natural illuminations, just let me know if you are
ever in need of such information.
Bryant
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Hollan [mailto:jhollan@amper....muni.cz]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:11 AM
To: DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...
Subject: [DSLF] Degraded Darkness
is a title of an excellent article in Conservation In Practice, I came
across recently:
Degraded Darkness (by Ben Harder)
URL: http://conbio.net/InPractice/article52DD.cfm
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
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 & CRL
websites at http://www.darksky.org and
http://www.crlaction.org frequently, too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DarkSky-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DarkSky-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------