[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[OL-Forum] Digest Number 434
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4.
No Minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/mcTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
OutdoorLighting-Forum "The largest uncensored and most active non-geographic based forum on light pollution."
To unsubscribe from a Yahoo list send a blank email to listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 19 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. RE: Outdoor lighting reform
From: "Richard Klappal" <klappal@xnet...>
2. RE: VERY TAN: Lionel Waxman retracts today
From: "Richard Klappal" <klappal@xnet...>
3. Re: VERY TAN: Lionel Waxman retracts today
From: John McMahon <mcmahon@mail....edu>
4. Fw: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
5. Re: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
6. RE: Outdoor lighting reform
From: John Gilkison <jgilkiso@zianet...>
7. Lighting Technologies' New Lighting Design Software - Simply Roadway 2002 + others
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
8. RE: Outdoor lighting reform
From: kgfleming@att...
9. Re: SL-List Admiral's Hats
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
10. Re: Outdoor lighting reform
From: nickas <nickas@hanover...>
11. Re: Fw: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
From: kgfleming@att...
12. It's about more than just light pollution ...
From: John McMahon <mcmahon@mail....edu>
13. Correcting Lionel Waxman, one another, and lp
From: kgfleming@att...
14. GE dropped and flat lens cobraheads - accessory light shields
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
15. NEMA Model Outdoor Lighting Regulation - for states
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
16. Statement of Principles on Outdoor Lighting Codes of the Luminaire Section of the NEMA
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
17. Re: It's about more than just light pollution ...
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
18. Re: Outdoor lighting reform
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
19. County Zoning calls for responsible lighting.
From: patric@ghostriders...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:43:31 -0600
From: "Richard Klappal" <klappal@xnet...>
Subject: RE: Outdoor lighting reform
John, and all:
The whole argument about pole spacing is to "maintain even levels of
illumination across an area", or stated differently, "maintaining a uniform
number of photons ARRIVING at a sequence of points". The argument we are
trying to make, but that I don't think we have said clearly, is that we are
concerned about "maintaining a uniform number of photons emitted (or
detected) from a sequence of points across a scene." In other words, when
evaluating the lighting, instead of looking down at an object (meter),
straighten up, turn around, and look at the source and its surroundings.
Uniformity across that field is as important as across the target scene. To
maintain a 4:1, or whatever, ratio across a target area, we (they) create a
1000:1, 10,000:1, sometimes 100,000:1 ratio across the scene we have to look
into.
How do we state, clearly and concisely, what I've tried to say above, in two
or three different ways?
There is a group with a vested interest in selling lamps and electricity.
There is the vast majority that doesn't think about the problem, and who
accept an argument that, at first hearing, sounds reasonable (creating the
myth that more light=good). Our argument has to cut through the myth,
against the distortions of a group driven to extract a profit at any cost.
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Gilkison [mailto:jgilkiso@zianet...]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 23:11
> To: OutdoorLighting-Forum@yahoogroups...
> Cc: crehder@zianet...
> Subject: Re: [OL-Forum] Outdoor lighting reform
>
>
> OLFers
>
> We just got back from the IDA Annual. While I only really
> attended the Monday meetings from 10 AM on, and Tuesdays closing
> sessions I did see some disturbing things there. One brochere
> put out by Lumec is saying directly that less light pollution is
> produced with semi cutoff because of predicted wider pole spacings.
> One of the talks I witnessed tred to say the same thing.
>
... trimmed ...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:00:33 -0600
From: "Richard Klappal" <klappal@xnet...>
Subject: RE: VERY TAN: Lionel Waxman retracts today
I always thought the German idea of putting part of the verb at the end was
a scam to sell multi-volume publications. You had to buy the whole set to
get the last volume, which had all the verbs in it!
;-)
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John McMahon [mailto:mcmahon@mail....edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 09:39
> To: OutdoorLighting-Forum@yahoogroups...
> Cc: SELENE
> Subject: VERY TAN: [OL-Forum] Lionel Waxman retracts today
>
>
> Begging the pardon of OLF and SL listers for this tangent
> .. but I make my living teaching this kind of stuff.
... trimmed ...
> Well, I considered that as well, but in reality that "rule"
> is more the result of shoehorning English grammar into the
> Latin model as was done by folks a few centuries back than
> the actual tendency in English itself as a Germanic language.
> Prepositions were originally adverbs, indicating merely a
> more specific relationship between words already generally
> indicated by case forms ... in Latin mostly Ablative and Accusative.
>
> The Ablative indicates position in time or space; the
> accusative, motion oriented time or place. The adverbial
> *sub*, for example, would then refine the basic sense,
> either resting under or showing motion under. Later, the
> adverbial aspect became more particularized and was placed
> (ordinarily) in front of the noun/pronoun it was meant to
> refine that relationship for:
>
> sub mensa: (resting) under the table
> sub mensam: (moving to a place) under the table
>
> BTW, German has so-called "separable verbs" where the prefix
> (actually a preposition) appears at the end of the sentence
> separated from the basic verb under certain circumstances.
> E.g., *abfahren*: "to set out" lit. "to away travel"
>
> Wir fahren ab. = We are setting out
>
> Anyway, Churchill said that ending a sentence with a
> preposition is something "up with which we should not put." :-)
>
> John
>
>
> OutdoorLighting-Forum "The largest uncensored and most active
> non-geographic based forum on light pollution."
> To unsubscribe from a Yahoo list send a blank email to
> listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:16:58 -0700
From: John McMahon <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: VERY TAN: Lionel Waxman retracts today
There is lp content here ... read on.
Richard Klappal wrote:
>
> I always thought the German idea of putting part of the verb at the end was
> a scam to sell multi-volume publications. You had to buy the whole set to
> get the last volume, which had all the verbs in it!
I'll have to remember that one ... but the idea must have
started with a Roman scam since German was also shoehorned
into the Latin model, Latin verbs being ordinarily at the
end of sentence. Great for keeping an audience's attention, however.
Obligatory lp content:
Also, I like your analysis of the uniformity situation. You
are right; we need to have another way to look at this whole
thing, both physically and conceptually. In a way, the scam
above sounds like the uniformity and/or ratcheting scam
foisted upon the public by utilities, no?
Gotta have *all* this stuff for it to work "right" ....
John
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:54:32 -0700
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
Subject: Fw: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 6:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
>
>
> > In a message dated 5/6/01 10:27:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > michaeljcook@home... writes:
> >
> > > In the files section at yahoogroups there is an image of a
> Semi-cutoff GE 400
> > > roadway luminaire fitted with an Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt.
> >
> > Hi Mike:
> >
> > These shields are sold by General Electric and are from photos that
> Jim Terry took and was graceous enough to allow me to upload to the
> Forum. The GE part numbers are ELS-M2A/R and ELS-M4A for the M250 and
> M400 semi-cutoffs. I have no idea what their prices are because GE
> never releases a manufacturer's suggested retail price, so you would
> have to check with a GE distributor in your area. The GE Roadway
> Lighting website might list dealers in your area.
> >
> > http://www.ge-lightingsystems.com
> >
> > I was informed by the design engineering department that an error
> appears
> > in the '98 catalog regarding the graphic image which shows a house
> side shield
> > instead of the Admiral's Hat/Hula Skirt shield (cat# GEA-12000J
1/98).
> The next catalog released will show the proper shield for this part
> number. These
> > shields do remove much of the uplighting from the semi-cutoff,
> however, the
> > photometric performance of a true full cutoff luminaire is superior
to
> the
> > semi-cutoff with an added shield. Hope this helps.
> >
> > Clear skies,
> > Cliff
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:55:04 -0700
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
Subject: Re: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
> To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 10:17 AM
> Subject: [DSLF] Re: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
>
>
> > On Mon, 7 May 2001 08:15:50 EDT ctstarwchr@aol... wrote:
> >
> > <<These shields are sold by General Electric and are from photos
that
> Jim
> > Terry took and was graceous enough to allow me to upload to the
Forum.
> > The GE part numbers are ELS-M2A/R and ELS-M4A for the M250 and M400
> > semi-cutoffs. I have no idea what their prices are because GE never
> > releases a manufacturer's suggested retail price, so you would have
to
> > check with a GE distributor in your area.>>
> >
> > About $35. Better to replace the whole unit when you consider the
> > photometrics, shields falling off, wind resistance, and volume
pricing
> > of new FCO luminaires.
> >
> > IDA side set shows them. Some are used in this area by NIMO but
> > they won't admit to the LP problem. $3.50 for a can of black spray
> > paint will "fix?" a number of them. - sd
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: (unknown)
From: John Gilkison <jgilkiso@zianet...>
Subject: RE: Outdoor lighting reform
Richard
The arguement as I understand it you need more poles and
more lights per mile if you want to maintain these uniformity
standards with Full Cut Off lighting. You can maintain these
standards with Semi Cut Off lighting with less poles and lights
per mile and they will put less light into the sky in total even
though they have a 2.5 % light output above the horizontal plane.
That is when you consider the total contribution of light
to the the sky from ground reflectance and when you consider the
cost to install and the energy used such a hypothetical installation
of more poles of FCO lighting puts slightly more light into the sky
and cost more then a Semi Cut Off Installation.
It is a sophisticated arguement and I would have to say,
the most sophisticated I have seen by light polluters to date.
Almost no one is going to question the need to meet these standards
which were not written with mitigating light pollution in mind.
I say the standards are not only arbitrary in their goal of uniformity
but they do not take into account the improved performance of the
eye when glare is greatly reduced by FCO lighting. When glare is
reduced we can not only get by with less lighting but less uniformity.
As much was said at the IDA this I will tell you, but we are
caught waiting in the mean time for a revision of said standards. I
tend towards the simpler arguements, thoughts, and observations of the
scene by a trained mind who can think outside the box as you know.
Here locally there just was no one in city government sophisticated
enought to be swayed by a standards arguement and that was my saving
grace in our work here to get FCO excepted.
Origionally we fought a long fight just to get FCO accepted.
I think it is obvious now that we need to begin the long fight to
get the whole concept of lower light levels being acceptable as long
as you mitigate glare. The human eye really is designed to see in the
dark and we need to visually assist it in the night time environment
and stop overwhelming it with obtrusive and excessive lighting. Lower
lighting levels is issue at hand. With ratcheting and the growth in
lighting generally even if all lighting were converted to full cut
off we would still have the same amount sky glow and little progress
in the years to come.
"Humanity is in the dark about outdoor lighting." I say.
*
*
John Gilkison
President, National
Public Observatory
jgilkiso@zianet...
www.astronomy-national-
public-observatory.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:55:50 -0700
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
Subject: Lighting Technologies' New Lighting Design Software - Simply Roadway 2002 + others
seen in Lighting.com newsletter:
Lighting Technologies' New Lighting Design Software
Simply Lighting 2002! The newest versions of LTI's easy-to-use lighting
design software are available now. Simple, "wizard" approach to
producing optimized indoor, outdoor, and roadway lighting designs.
Includes an industry-wide database of products from 75+ manufacturers -
over 35,000 products. Conforms to IESNA and CIE standards.
http://www.lighting-technologies.com/index_lc.htm
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:15:03 +0000
From: kgfleming@att...
Subject: RE: Outdoor lighting reform
What I'd like to hear about concerning the IDA mtg is
what, if anything, was brought up, discussed, proposed,
and/or resolved with respect to support for the pursuit
of local lighting legislation. I know it's been on many
other people's minds as well. There's a difference
between a light pollution advocacy group and an
educational organization. The later might provided a
forum for debate over which standard, piece of
equipment, or installation method produces more or less
light pollution, but the former finds a position to
take and speaks out for it. It seems to me that roles
in this regard are not set.
Kevin
> Richard
>
> The arguement as I understand it you need more poles and
> more lights per mile if you want to maintain these uniformity
> standards with Full Cut Off lighting. You can maintain these
> standards with Semi Cut Off lighting with less poles and lights
> per mile and they will put less light into the sky in total even
> though they have a 2.5 % light output above the horizontal plane.
>
> That is when you consider the total contribution of light
> to the the sky from ground reflectance and when you consider the
> cost to install and the energy used such a hypothetical installation
> of more poles of FCO lighting puts slightly more light into the sky
> and cost more then a Semi Cut Off Installation.
>
> It is a sophisticated arguement and I would have to say,
> the most sophisticated I have seen by light polluters to date.
> Almost no one is going to question the need to meet these standards
> which were not written with mitigating light pollution in mind.
> I say the standards are not only arbitrary in their goal of uniformity
> but they do not take into account the improved performance of the
> eye when glare is greatly reduced by FCO lighting. When glare is
> reduced we can not only get by with less lighting but less uniformity.
>
> As much was said at the IDA this I will tell you, but we are
> caught waiting in the mean time for a revision of said standards. I
> tend towards the simpler arguements, thoughts, and observations of the
> scene by a trained mind who can think outside the box as you know.
> Here locally there just was no one in city government sophisticated
> enought to be swayed by a standards arguement and that was my saving
> grace in our work here to get FCO excepted.
>
> Origionally we fought a long fight just to get FCO accepted.
> I think it is obvious now that we need to begin the long fight to
> get the whole concept of lower light levels being acceptable as long
> as you mitigate glare. The human eye really is designed to see in the
> dark and we need to visually assist it in the night time environment
> and stop overwhelming it with obtrusive and excessive lighting. Lower
> lighting levels is issue at hand. With ratcheting and the growth in
> lighting generally even if all lighting were converted to full cut
> off we would still have the same amount sky glow and little progress
> in the years to come.
>
> "Humanity is in the dark about outdoor lighting." I say.
>
> *
>
> *
> John Gilkison
> President, National
> Public Observatory
> jgilkiso@zianet...
> www.astronomy-national-
> public-observatory.org
>
>
>
> OutdoorLighting-Forum "The largest uncensored and most active non-geographic
> based forum on light pollution."
> To unsubscribe from a Yahoo list send a blank email to
> listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:26:19 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Re: SL-List Admiral's Hats
Tim Poulsen wrote:
> http://members.aol.com/towncrie/stltgar.htm
>
> The last fixture on the right is listed as an "admiral
hat" but based on the other descriptions I've heard,
the first two on the left would also be considered
the same.>
Cool photos. The first 2 look like the "Pemco
8908X-217-CO Admrial Hat" at the bottom in:
http://www.darksky.org/ida/fixtures/roadutil.html
I first saw that years ago in the Good Neighbor
Lighting handout. (Thanks NELPAG!) Thought the
'brims' were adjustable (and rounder than the photo
shows) - perfect for getting a dark bedroom, so I
arranged to meet with the traffic engineer.
Now that was during my lp-abatement 'salad days'
when I assumed he or anyone would be happy to
stop annoying light, but the meeting began the end of
those lovely days. He met my request with a jumble
of complicated city/utility policy - the glare it all
seemed to force on people rang of public cruelty,
and I said so. He of course, just does what "the city"
wants. Left a copy of the handbook and set my
sights elsewhere. -Karolyn
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:43:14 -0500
From: nickas <nickas@hanover...>
Subject: Re: Outdoor lighting reform
These remarks are right on the button. It sounds like the bill in NY went down because the commercial and other
interests set up the straw dogs which they could knock down. We need to get ownership of how lighting standards
are set away from the commercial and other interests, reset them, and get them to play our game, not theirs. As
Richard points out, lighting without glare, spill, and economically involves more complex issues than horizontal
and vertical footcandles. We can't fall into the standards traps set by others, although frankly I still have
seen no general proof (in the sense of a scientific proof) that fco lighting demands closer spacing even to
satisfy THEIR limited and outdated lighting specs.
These folks trot out their special luminaires, and like Cheryl English of Lithonia set up special situations to
represent ALL lighting situations and blow that straw dog down with nary a puff.
Now resetting standards requires coordination, agreement, and most of all publicity. This is where the IDA
has to go beyond information sheets and being a silent partner to the Lithonias of the world. The resources of
the IDA could be used to publish a manifesto, a constitution of lighting standards for all conceivable outdoor
lighting situations that is independent of IESNA and every other entrenched 'authority' under the sun. It is
time to overthrow the standards and start over--from scratch--at the beginning--from first principles!!
Richard's comments invite three outstanding principles from which all else proceeds:
1. All outdoor lighting photons upon leaving their source luminaires must travel along a line that is less than
90 degrees from the nadir, and
2. Contrast must be minimized between the LUMINANCE of the luminaire (that is the amount of light directly
entering the eye from the luminaire whether one is looking directly at it or not) and the LUMINANCE of the
darkest illuminated adjacent areas, (this changes standards from illumination-based to luminance-based), and
3. No luminaire shall be permitted unless its luminance increases with increasing angle from the nadir in such a
way that standards of illumination contrast be maintained without decreasing pole spacing.
Finally, did the IDA do anything whatsover during the pre-veto days re Pataki's office to let him know about how
important the bill was?
George
Richard Klappal wrote:
> John, and all:
> The whole argument about pole spacing is to "maintain even levels of
> illumination across an area", or stated differently, "maintaining a uniform
> number of photons ARRIVING at a sequence of points". The argument we are
> trying to make, but that I don't think we have said clearly, is that we are
> concerned about "maintaining a uniform number of photons emitted (or
> detected) from a sequence of points across a scene." In other words, when
> evaluating the lighting, instead of looking down at an object (meter),
> straighten up, turn around, and look at the source and its surroundings.
> Uniformity across that field is as important as across the target scene. To
> maintain a 4:1, or whatever, ratio across a target area, we (they) create a
> 1000:1, 10,000:1, sometimes 100,000:1 ratio across the scene we have to look
> into.
>
> How do we state, clearly and concisely, what I've tried to say above, in two
> or three different ways?
>
> There is a group with a vested interest in selling lamps and electricity.
> There is the vast majority that doesn't think about the problem, and who
> accept an argument that, at first hearing, sounds reasonable (creating the
> myth that more light=good). Our argument has to cut through the myth,
> against the distortions of a group driven to extract a profit at any cost.
>
> Richard
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Gilkison [mailto:jgilkiso@zianet...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 23:11
> > To: OutdoorLighting-Forum@yahoogroups...
> > Cc: crehder@zianet...
> > Subject: Re: [OL-Forum] Outdoor lighting reform
> >
> >
> > OLFers
> >
> > We just got back from the IDA Annual. While I only really
> > attended the Monday meetings from 10 AM on, and Tuesdays closing
> > sessions I did see some disturbing things there. One brochere
> > put out by Lumec is saying directly that less light pollution is
> > produced with semi cutoff because of predicted wider pole spacings.
> > One of the talks I witnessed tred to say the same thing.
> >
> ... trimmed ...
>
>
> OutdoorLighting-Forum "The largest uncensored and most active non-geographic based forum on light pollution."
> To unsubscribe from a Yahoo list send a blank email to listname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:31:51 +0000
From: kgfleming@att...
Subject: Re: Fw: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
> > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 6:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: Admiral's Hat or Hula Skirt
These shields are sold by General Electric and are from
photos that
> > Jim Terry took and was graceous enough to allow me
to upload to the
> > Forum.
References to files at the darksky-list should not be
made in postings here since they are not available to
OL-Forum mbrs.
The GE part numbers are ELS-M2A/R and ELS-M4A for the
M250 and
> > M400 semi-cutoffs.
I can't swear to it but I thought GE stopped making the
admiral's hat shields.
> > >These shields do remove much of the uplighting
from the semi-cutoff,
> > however, the photometric performance of a true full
cutoff luminaire is superior to the
> > > semi-cutoff with an added shield. Hope this
helps.
> > >
> > > Clear skies,
> > > Cliff
How so I wonder. Certainly this seems unlikely in terms
of lumens on the pavement to a distance accommodating
more than adequate pole spacing. Since manufacturer-
provided "photometrics" are usually thus incomplete --
not adjusting for veiling luminance -- it seems
unlikely that any fco would achieve "superior
photometric performance" compared to any sco whether or
not it bore an admiral's hat.
Kevin
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:00:05 -0700
From: John McMahon <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: It's about more than just light pollution ...
Mexican Power Plants Avoid U.S. Regulations
By Cat Lazaroff
SAN DIEGO, California, March 20, 2002 (ENS) -
"Two planned power plants are stirring controversy along
the U.S.-Mexico border in southern California. Conservation
groups have filed suit against the U.S. government
challenging permits granted to utilities for electrical
transmission lines that would carry power from the
electrical generation plants being built three miles inside
of Mexico to homes and businesses in the United States."
Full story at:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/mar2002/2002L-03-20-06.html
John McMahon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 20:02:22 +0000
From: kgfleming@att...
Subject: Correcting Lionel Waxman, one another, and lp
>> Well, Missy also pointed that out privately. I
append below my remarks, er, thereof.* :-) >>
> *Which really means "of / about that" ... note as
well: thereupon, thereto, therein, etc., all of which
reflect the same yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada..>>
I knew I have to pay for my little indulgence...
BTW, for those possibly wondering my favorite is ham on
wry. :\
Now to get on topic, a couple of items of interest
follow.
Kevin
The Czech Republic light pollution law gets picked up
by space.com
"Czech Republic Enacts World's First National Light
Pollution Law"
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/skies_czech_020318.html
Check it out. A regular miracle drug called light. From
lighitng.com:
Impact of Light on Behavior Makes News
Light's powerful purpose in our lives-and affect on us-
is underscored in three recently released studies.
Workplace Safety
Researchers studying workplace homicides in North
Carolina discovered that bright exterior lighting
contributes to "strong and consistent reductions in the
risk of a worker being killed on the job," according to
an article in the Journal of the American Medical
Association's February 27 issue.
The study evaluated 105 workplaces in the state where a
worker had been killed between January 1, 1994 and
March 31, 1998. It also studied 210 "high-risk"
workplaces.
Besides examining lighting, the study examined whether
workers were alone, if doors were locked, whether
security guards or video surveillance cameras were used
and if signs had been posted to discourage theft.
Eating Too Much When the Lights are Too Low
People who are prone to overeat are likely to consume
more in the dark than when the lights are on, according
to a study reported in HealthScout's "Chowing Down
Under the Cover of Darkness."
The article draws from a published study in the
journal, Personality and Individual Differences,
Controlled Access to Light Helps Overcome Jet Lag
Ever wonder how you could stay alert when you need to,
after crossing numerous time zones by jet?
A study by Argentine scientists shows that a
combination of light, exercise and melatonin can do the
trick-even for soccer players crossing 12 time zones to
compete in the World Cup.
When the soccer players boarded their plane, the
lighting conditions in the jet were coordinated to
match the time zone in which they would arrive. This,
along with a regulated exercise schedule, light
exposure, and melatonin tablets, allowed the players to
accomplish in 24 to 48 hours what would normally take
10 days.
To learn more about this study, read "Melatonin,
Exercise Conquer Jet Lag in Athletes" from Reuters-
Health.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:35:59 -0700
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
Subject: GE dropped and flat lens cobraheads - accessory light shields
http://www.ge-lightingsystems.com/
See accessory brochure under roadway lighting products:
https://secure.ge-lightingsystems.com/gels01/catalog/roadway_index.html#
It shows both internal house or street side shields, and external 360
shields for dropped lens cobraheads. Also, it shows external house or
street side shields for flat lens cobraheads.
I'm not sure of the status of the admiral hat shields for dropped lens
cobraheads, as it is not shown in this product catalog. Awhile back,
however, I received drawings from GE that give the outline dimensions of
the admiral hat.
The drawings are:
35-112814
35-130039
David
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:15:25 -0700
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
Subject: NEMA Model Outdoor Lighting Regulation - for states
http://www.nema.org/index_nema.cfm/1427/5210233A-EA9E-4DA2-90626ACCFD304
27E/
Per NEMA, "This regulation promotes good lighting practice consistent
with energy conservation, safety needs, and preservation of the natural
night environment."
Within the document, it is clear that they intended this document to be
for states, not cities, as it talks about "Standards for State-Funded
Outdoor Lighting."
David
David A. Penasa, PE email: dpenasa@bplw...
Director of Electrical Engineering
****DESIGNING TO SHAPE THE FUTURE****
BPLW Architects & Engineers, Inc.
6200 Uptown Blvd. NE Suite 400
Albuquerque NM 87110 USA
Phone: (505) 881-2759 Fax: (505) 881-1230
website: http://www.bplw.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:00:59 -0700
From: "David Penasa" <dpenasa@bplw...>
Subject: Statement of Principles on Outdoor Lighting Codes of the Luminaire Section of the NEMA
http://www.nema.org/DocUploads/CBF03B31-BD6F-4CC3-9C36BAEC3F2B7967/Outdo
or_Ltg_Codes_SOP.pdf
(be sure to paste all parts of the URL into your browser if the above
URL is split into pieces)
Per NEMA, "Outdoor lighting has tremendous positive impacts on society
when properly designed and implemented. Outdoor lighting codes and
ordinances can encourage quality lighting by addressing several key
issues."
David
David A. Penasa, PE email: dpenasa@bplw...
Director of Electrical Engineering
****DESIGNING TO SHAPE THE FUTURE****
BPLW Architects & Engineers, Inc.
6200 Uptown Blvd. NE Suite 400
Albuquerque NM 87110 USA
Phone: (505) 881-2759 Fax: (505) 881-1230
website: http://www.bplw.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:47:54 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Re: It's about more than just light pollution ...
Just opened this. The Clean Water Network reports some
rule-making in the works to redefine coal & other mining
wastes so they can be dumped into waters like once upon a
time. They ask that we call:
* Christine Whitman, Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 202-546-4700 and
* James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House's
Council on Environmental Quality, 202-456-5147
TALKING POINTS: Leave messages that ask them:
1. Not to revise the definition of "fill material" under the Clean
Water Act in order to authorize the dumping of waste into
our nation's streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands.
2. Do not attempt to legalize the illegal practice of mountaintop
removal coal mining, which has already destroyed hundreds of
miles of streams and kills all stream life.
3. The Administration MUST reopen this policy change to
public comment and conduct an Environmental Impact
Statement before deciding to complete this rulemaking.
Background and more is in:
http://www.cwn.org/docs/whatnew/whatnew.htm
This part of the note covers some...
WHY: The Bush administration is very close to finalizing a
change to Clean Water Act rules that would modify the Army
Corps of Engineers' definition of "fill" material to allow the
Corps to permit wastes from mountaintop removal coal mining
to bury streams. In mountaintop removal coal mining, coal
companies literally blast off the tops of mountains to reach the
seams of coal, then dump the millions of tons of waste
generated into nearby streams and wetlands. In October 1999
a federal court found that this practice violated the Clean Water
Act and the stream protection provisions of the federal surface
mining law. Now, the Army Corps of Engineers and US EPA
are trying to change the rules in order to legalize this dumping.
To make matters worse, the proposed rule change would also
allow hardrock mineral mining companies and all other kinds of
industries to dump their wastes into waters too.
Karolyn
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:18:07 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: Outdoor lighting reform
John Gilkison wrote:
> this whole disingenious argument that we have
> to have closer pole spacings with FCO is going
> unchallanged in the IDA for the moment it seems.
I thought both the IES and IDA were going to start
addressing this issue. What is the story here?
Business 1970 style? It seems the only advance
the science of lighting is making is bigger and
brighter.
All you have to do is look out at airplane window
at night when landing or taking off to see pools of
streetlighting. Then drive around with your visor down.
Just how much streetlighting is designed with proper
pole spacing? Most poles are for supporting overhead
power transmission lines with streetlights added as an
afterthought to fatten the pockets of the utilities as
a no brainer. -sd
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:18:20 -0800
From: patric@ghostriders...
Subject: County Zoning calls for responsible lighting.
Door County, Wisconsin, recently joined hundreds of other communities
that have passed laws to curb runaway outdoor lighting practices that
blind motorists, pit neighbor against neighbor, and replace star-filled
skies with the ugly gray pallor once thought to represent progress.
Aside from the obvious aesthetic benefits, reducing wasted light also
reduces glare that contributes to accidents, a problem that only grows
worse as our eyes age.
Here are some of the the new zoning requirements, taken from the website
at
http://doorbell.net/p&z
4.08 Outdoor lighting.
(k) All outdoor lighting shall utilize
lighting fixtures whose hood, lens, or combination thereof
allow no direct beams of light from the fixture to be seen
from off the property or to be cast skyward.
7.02 PARKING, LOADING.
(f) Lighting. Lighting established for the purpose of
illuminating off-street parking areas shall utilize lighting
fixtures whose hood, lens, or combination thereof allow no
direct beams of light from the fixture to be seen from off
the property or to be cast skyward.
3.10 Landscape buffers.
(1) Purpose. These requirements are intended to reduce
potential adverse impacts that a particular land use might
have on occupiers of adjacent properties, such as glare of
lights, dust, litter, and visual appearance. With vegetative
screening, such adverse impacts will be lessened.
8.02 Signs.
(5) Signs shall not obstruct or interfere with the
effectiveness of traffic signs, signals or devices, nor be
lighted in such a way so as to cause glare or impair driver
visibility upon public roads.
(7) Any spotlights used to illuminate signs shall be shielded
such that their light source cannot be seen from adjoining
roads or properties.
The new requirements will call for more careful placement and aiming of
floodlighting, possibly requiring modifications to "shield" their
spillover from crossing property lines. Additionally, the venerable
Mercury Vapor "Barn Light" will eventually become a thing of the past,
replaced with more economical and neighbor-friendly fixtures that don't
waste light where it's not wanted.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/