[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[OL-Forum] Digest Number 447
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4.
No Minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6GDALA/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 18 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Light Pollution - A Community Standards Issue
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
2. Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
3. Re: Light Pollution - A Community Standards Issue
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
4. Re: Light Pollution - A Community Standards Issue
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
5. Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "BRONSTEIN,KEN (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <Ken@cv....com>
6. Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
7. Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
8. Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: nickas <nickas@hanover...>
9. Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
10. Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
11. Fw: [Nelpag] Mass Dark Sky Bill
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
12. Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
13. Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
14. Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: Scott Griswold <griz@lightfromabove...>
15. Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
16. Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: nickas <nickas@hanover...>
17. Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "Leo Smith" <leo@smith...>
18. Green power
From: John McMahon <mcmahon@mail....edu>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:28:15 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Re: Light Pollution - A Community Standards Issue
Paul wrote: >>This coming Friday CBC TV will be coming out to
McDonald Park, >>
Maybe some among the film crew have a personal case against
obtrusive light & want to help. IDA member Kurt Meyer and I were
that lucky some years back. A country/western radio DJ asked if we'd
come in to discuss lights on her show. On our way over we heard her
lambast a 'light from hell' between sets of music. On the air she asked
her neighbor to 'please put a can on that thing or turn it off!' !!
Unshielded lights didn't make a lick of sense to this non-astronomer!
Kurt & I could only applaud the sheet aluminum, spray paint and timer
suggestions she made during our 3-4 minutes air-time. Edgewise, I
reminded listeners that bright lights can interfere with the REAL safety
of neighbors watching out for each other.
I also suggested they block a light with their hand sometime.. 'let your
eyes relax, then notice how eveident things are, even in darker
surroundings when no lights glare at your eyes." Kurt mentioned IDA
efforts for code that could bring releif to her and many, as well as dark,
starry skies for all to enjoy.
Nasty lights travel with TV crews. Might want to ask this crew if they'd
be interested in using one to for a 'show & tell' on visibility issues.
Karolyn Beebe
Madison WI
John Nusbaum wrote:
> It has been my experience that if you present Light Pollution as a
> community standards issue you will find broad and deep agreement
> that there is a real problem.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:55:53 -0500
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
kgfleming@att... wrote:
>
> > Make the night sky the goal and let the other stuff be
> the secondary effects. >
>
> Already been dissed as "noble but misguided."
By whom? Everyone I know agrees that it is a real loss that
they/their kids/grandkids can't see the sky from their own
backyard anymore. In that sense, John N. is right on target
with the community standards argument. My point was/is
simply that bringing back the night sky will entail
addressing those other issues.
When someone brings up the idea of making some dying little
village more attractive with glare bomb acorns on the
premise that it will be just like the old days, I point out
that in the old days folks could sit on their *front*
porches and their kids could lie out on their own grass and
look up and actually see the stars. Wanna' get that warm and
fuzzy feeling of living in some comfortable Edwardian
Nirvana? Fine ... let's go all the way and bring the
nighttime back.
> Every point of discussion has it's detractors. Somebody
> said it might come across as special interest vs.
> special interest, such in the CNN report. I disagree.
> The lighting free-for-all carries a public monetary and
> ecological price tag. And I seriously doubt we'll see
> solar powered street lights anytime soon, given solar's
> x *dollars* per kwh cost and a deeply engrained
> generation/distribution/geopolitical system that
> provides a $.05 kwh.
Agreed. But I do not want to see the bad lighting format
become *so* accepted that once the energy/cost issue becomes
a dead letter or can be otherwise dismissed, that we are
stuck with no other argument.
> In my view the billboard guy on the
> CNN report made it obvious it's public interest vs. self
> interest.
Somehow the success of the latter has been depicted as
benefitting the former in *all* cases, which I do not
believe is possible.
> Clear Channel Communcations, BTW, whom he represented,
> also owns many broadcast facilities. CCC is also
> fighting the new campaign finance law. Perhaps McCain
> and Feingold didn't discuss CCC's *needs*
> before "running to the senate."
Oh you mean like using the public broadcast spectrum for free?
John
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:24:34 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Re: Light Pollution - A Community Standards Issue
More support for lp as an urban community issue just in
with a digest from New Colonists..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara Sweet" <bsweet@idsi...>
To: <editor@newcolonist...>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 8:19 PM
Subject: Hyde Park, NY
> We have a beautiful Gateway that is being threatened
by a "Mobile On The Run" station with a convenience store
and a car wash. They refuse to hide the pumps in the back
of the station so they will be obscured from the road.
>
> Does anyone have some pictures of attractive gas stations
where the pumps and lights have been placed behind the
building? >>
______________________________________________
LP makes a mess of a community. I've joined a few lists of
'warriors' fighting for better urban living conditions recently,
that bring in sites that should include LP links. You'll find some
in a search for lp in New Rules (Designing rules as if community
matters): http://www.newrules.org/
(Hmm... doesn't look like they know about Calgary, CT or
the Czech Republic yet. Contacts are in:
http://www.newrules.org/journal/contact.htm) -kb
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:58:39 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Re: Light Pollution - A Community Standards Issue
> Contacts are in:
> http://www.newrules.org/journal/contact.htm)
Will send them this as well:
From: "Phobos" <phobos042@yahoo...>
To: <Nelpag@harvee....ma.us>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:21 PM
Subject: [Nelpag] another CNN article
> More adventures of Don Dybus vs. the IDA. : ) Nothing
> we're not all familiar with, but it's good to see the
> media paying some attention to light pollution.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/03/29/dark.skies/index.html
>
> =====
> Save Our Starry Skies - Reduce Light Pollution
And Scott's http://www.lightfromabove.org
"A Light Pollution Awareness Community"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:53:50 -0800
From: "BRONSTEIN,KEN (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <Ken@cv....com>
Subject: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
I respect John's comments (an excerpt included at the end of my note) as an
attempt to find effective messages for advocacy for outdoor lighting issues.
I think the key to effective messages is to understand the mind set of the
person
or organization you are trying to influence. Also John is likely right that
energy
efficiency and cost saving are a secondary issue. But the primary effective
message
for most people is not the preservation of the night sky.
The primary interest of the predominant use of outdoor lighting is the
promotion
of public safety through increasing visibility through lighting. Our best
efforts should
be to demonstrate that visibilty is best promoted through the installation
of good
outdoor lighting, including the minimization of glare. It is a secondary
effect that
this type of lighting design and installation can also be cost effective.
My experience in advocacy is that I always get labeled an astronomer by
people
trying to discredit the message. I have learned to never mention
preservation
of dark sky. It always comes up, and people will understand. I always
promote
my interest in public safety first and second. I explain how more bad light
can
cause blindness not visibility. Then I add you can save $$ through
minimizing
the waste of light.
If I was talking to Astronomers, then I would talk about the night sky. but
it is hopeless
to promote a message that is important to us, that others do not care about
as
they drive their cars and watch TV at night. To convince others, you must
start from
their perspectives, and show them how to better achieve their own
objectives.
- Ken Bronstein
> With all due respect, that is not the approach that will regain the view
of the night sky.
> Energy issues alone cannot and will not bring about change, ...
> ...
> Make the night sky the goal and let the other stuff be the secondary
effects.
>
> John McMahon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 16:44:15 -0500
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
"BRONSTEIN,KEN (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" wrote:
>
> If I was talking to Astronomers, then I would talk about the night sky. but
> it is hopeless
> to promote a message that is important to us, that others do not care about
> as
> they drive their cars and watch TV at night.
Sad to say, but things look pretty hopeless on a whole range
of issues wrt to the natural world if that is the case. I
guess we need to do a better job of educating folks better
right from the start.
> To convince others, you must
> start from
> their perspectives, and show them how to better achieve their own
> objectives.
Or to recognize larger objectives than just their own. I
don't disagree that one needs to lead people to a greater
undestanding of the issues ... I'd just suggest that we be
up front about what is being lost here -- and show folks
why. I guess that's where astro-clubs come in ... I just
wish that many amateurs would also be more politically
involved when necessary.
John McMahon
Le Moyne College
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 16:46:05 -0500
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
"BRONSTEIN,KEN (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" wrote:
>
> If I was talking to Astronomers, then I would talk about the night sky. but
> it is hopeless
> to promote a message that is important to us, that others do not care about
> as
> they drive their cars and watch TV at night.
Sad to say, but things look pretty hopeless on a whole range
of issues wrt to the natural world if that is the case. I
guess we need to do a better job of educating folks better
right from the start.
> To convince others, you must
> start from
> their perspectives, and show them how to better achieve their own
> objectives.
Or to recognize larger objectives than just their own. I
don't disagree that one needs to lead people to a greater
undestanding of the issues ... I'd just suggest that we be
up front about what is being lost here -- and show folks
why. I guess that's where astro-clubs come in ... I just
wish that many amateurs would also be more politically
involved when necessary.
John McMahon
Le Moyne College
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:12:22 -0500
From: nickas <nickas@hanover...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
I have been following this discussion. Lots of good points. Our experiences are that politicians argue that
lights stop crime, and we can counter it but never disprove it rigorously--the Justice Dept study
notwithstanding. Our experiences are that the utilities and lighting companies argue that fco costs more and
concoct any old scenario they like to 'prove' it. Our experiences are that the lighting companies argue that
their profits will fall under certain kinds of lighting reform and they well may, and so they too have an ax to
grind. But the thing about the night sky and the wonders in it, is that nobody has a vested interest in it.
It's very commercial worthlessness puts it beyond special interest and completely within the 'ownership' of
everyone. As long as the night sky has no material value, anybody with two eyes is qualified to defend it and as
credible as anyone else!
We are all naturally very self-conscious about crying "save the stars" but should we be? Greenpeace is not
hesitant about shouting "save the whales" and they don't go around trying to save the whales by arguing that they
are against whaling ships. In fact they put themselves between the harpoons and the whales. The issue is the
whales, not the ships that harvest them. For us too the issue must remain, at least deep down, but maybe not as
deep as we think, "save the night sky" lest we get lost in a sea of technical issues and economic factors. And
of course, lately with the negative medical implications for our health of bad lighting, the cry may also become
"save each other"
George
"John M. McMahon" wrote:
> "BRONSTEIN,KEN (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" wrote:
> >
> > If I was talking to Astronomers, then I would talk about the night sky. but
> > it is hopeless
> > to promote a message that is important to us, that others do not care about
> > as
> > they drive their cars and watch TV at night.
>
> Sad to say, but things look pretty hopeless on a whole range
> of issues wrt to the natural world if that is the case. I
> guess we need to do a better job of educating folks better
> right from the start.
>
> > To convince others, you must
> > start from
> > their perspectives, and show them how to better achieve their own
> > objectives.
>
> Or to recognize larger objectives than just their own. I
> don't disagree that one needs to lead people to a greater
> undestanding of the issues ... I'd just suggest that we be
> up front about what is being lost here -- and show folks
> why. I guess that's where astro-clubs come in ... I just
> wish that many amateurs would also be more politically
> involved when necessary.
>
> John McMahon
> Le Moyne College
>
>
> 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: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:02:00 -0500
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
nickas wrote:
> But the thing about the night sky and the wonders in it, is that nobody has a vested interest in it.
> It's very commercial worthlessness puts it beyond special interest and completely within the 'ownership' of
> everyone. As long as the night sky has no material value, anybody with two eyes is qualified to defend it and as
> credible as anyone else!
> We are all naturally very self-conscious about crying "save the stars" but should we be? Greenpeace is not
> hesitant about shouting "save the whales" and they don't go around trying to save the whales by arguing that they
> are against whaling ships. In fact they put themselves between the harpoons and the whales. The issue is the
> whales, not the ships that harvest them. For us too the issue must remain, at least deep down, but maybe not as
> deep as we think, "save the night sky" lest we get lost in a sea of technical issues and economic factors. And
> of course, lately with the negative medical implications for our health of bad lighting, the cry may also become
> "save each other"
I'd also add that there are those who are committed to
saving whales, or old-growth forests, or coral reefs, or
Central American ecosystems that support the very songbirds
that decorate our summers, or archaeological sites, or
native cultures, or dying languages -- all of which may
be/are threatened by a variety of human activities, some
more intentional than others -- who have *never* experienced
the very things they are advocating for. ANWR comes to mind
for many of even the most city-bound Americans.
Yet who has not at least *some* idea of the existence of the
planets, moon, ands stars? It would not be too much, I'd
suggest, to present these ideas to folks when discussing --
and showing them -- the night sky as we make our case. In
fact, as gn points out, since the majestic dome of the night
is essentially worthless in measurable economic terms, our
destruction of it is all the more foolish and unwitting,
unlike our effect on some of the examples cited above.
"In order to build a dignified or an enduring culture, some
concept of the relation between man and the cosmos is
indispensable." -- Scott Nearing
"All other animals look downward; Man
Alone, erect, can raise his face toward Heaven." -- Ovid, *Metamorphoses*
John McMahon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 18:11:17 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy
Patric wrote:
> When I talk to my city fathers I remind them that there
> are other places to make spending cuts besides the fire
> department ...
Quite a few towns throughtout New England have cut the lights
instead of police, fire, and other *essential* services. -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: 11
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:47:22 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Fw: [Nelpag] Mass Dark Sky Bill
Good News via the New England Light Pollution
Advisory Group -kb
From: "Mario E. Motta"
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:29 PM
Subject: [Nelpag] Mass Dark Sky Bill
> Finally some possible movement in the Dark Sky Bill;
>
> I had a talk with Rep Jim Marzilli (Arlington) the sponsor of
> the Mass Dark Sky Bill. He states that for the first time ever, Rep
> Finneran (Speaker of the House) has commented favorably on this Bill.
> This is a significant development, as the bill currently is in
> Ways&Means, and nothing at the State House moves to the floor without
> finneran being in favor of the bill. The bill may become part of a
> general energy legislation that is being developed, SO..... just maybe
> this is our year. As Legislative affairs person for the Mass Med
> Society I have offered to go to any meeting to help push this, and will
> continue to keep all informed.
>
> Mario Motta
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nelpag maillist - Nelpag@harvee....ma.us
> http://harvee.billerica.ma.us/mailman/listinfo/nelpag
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 18:26:38 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
Appropriate to this disucssion I think. - kb
Pierantonio Cinzano
Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:03 PM -kb
-------------------------------
Dear Sandro,
>Of all the processes that are
>causing ecological (and ultimately, social) changes, light pollution is
>hardly the most critical.
I beg your pardon, but I cannot agree with this last opinion. Light
pollution - in my view- is one of the MORE critical, if not the most
critical for the society and the mankind. The problem is not the loss of the
visibility of few stars. "Who matter of stars?" people could ask. The
serious problem is the loss by mankind of the perception of the universe who
surround our planet, i.e. the loss of the visibility of the environment
where we live. It is like if someone prevent us to see the mountains, the
sea, the horizon, the blue sky or the Sun. It is one of the most serious
problem of the environment of our time and it cannot be accepted. In fact,
the general public is always very sensitive to the argument (much more than
the astronomers, sadly), like the great interest by the press demonstrates.
Moreover, differently from other kind of pollution, the deleterious effects
of light pollution does not affect only a percentual of peoples, resulting
in a very small impact on our society, but affect the entire society. How
many kinds of pollution have the potential to affect everyone in a so
immediatly recognizable way?
How many are growed so rapidly in few decades?
I do not mean that we must neglect the other kinds of pollutions or the
cancer deseases. Absolutely not!! Even only one life saved is a sufficient
reason to eliminate the kind of pollution which can produce it, at any cost.
However we must be careful when judging what has really a great impact on
the society. The Society is not only a number of people eating and sleeping.
Life is more, and it requires culture and a positive interaction and tuning
with the environment.
I beg your pardon, I made classical studies here in Italy, so probably I am
more sensitive to these arguments. I think that the progress can and must
develop together with the nature and the environment, not against. It is
more than a problem of "quality" of life. The problem is "what life do we
want for mankind?"
I hope that my poor English be sufficient to express what I think.
<eliminating light pollution will not "save the planet"
So in conclusion, I think that limiting light pollution perhaps will not
save the planet but it will save mankind from a very dark life.
Pierantonio
------------------------------------------------------------------
PIERANTONIO CINZANO
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologia dell'Inquinamento Luminoso - ISTIL
Light Pollution Science and Technology Institute
e-mail: cinzano@inquinamentoluminoso...
cinzano@lightpollution...
web: http://www.istil.it
http://www.inquinamentoluminoso.it
http://www.lightpollution.it/dmsp/
http://www.pd.astro.it/cinzano/
-----------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:42:36 -0500
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
Karolyn Beebe wrote:
>
> Appropriate to this disucssion I think. - kb
>
> Pierantonio Cinzano
> Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:03 PM -kb
>
> I beg your pardon, I made classical studies here in Italy, so probably I am
> more sensitive to these arguments.
Oh, those pesky classicists ... always looking beyond the
practical. :-)
In his work "On the nature of the gods" Cicero paraphrases
from Aristotle's lost *On philosophy*. The translation is
that of Rackham in the Loeb edition. (Some of you have seen
this, I think, so pardon the encore.
"If there were beings who had always lived beneath the
earth, in comfortable, well-lit dwellings, decorated with
statues and pictures and furnished with all the luxuries
enjoyed by persons thought to be supremely happy, and who
though they had never come forth above the ground had learnt
by report and by hearsay of the existence of certain deities
and divine powers; and then if at some time the jaws of the
earth were opened and they were able to escape from their
hidden abode and to come forth into the regions which we
inhabit; when they suddenly had sight of the earth and the
seas and the sky, and came to know of the vast clouds and
mighty winds, and beheld the sun, and realized not only its
size and beauty but also its potency in causing the day by
shedding light all over the sky, and, after night had
darkened the earth, they then saw the whole sky spangled
with stars, and the changing phases of the moon's light, now
waxing and now waning, and the risings and settings of all
these heavenly bodies and their coursesficed and changeless
throughout all eternity, -- when they saw these things,
surely they would think that the gods exist and that these
mighty marvels are their handiwork."
John McMahon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:14:55 -0500
From: Scott Griswold <griz@lightfromabove...>
Subject: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 01:55 PM, John M. McMahon wrote:
> Agreed. But I do not want to see the bad lighting format
> become *so* accepted that once the energy/cost issue becomes
> a dead letter or can be otherwise dismissed, that we are
> stuck with no other argument.
I have to agree with you here John. While the energy savings issue is
a great one, it will not last forever. While the stars continue to
disappear, energy saving efforts are already underway in many areas.
We will be foolhearted to believe that the person who decides to
replace his front porch light with a Compact Florescent will also see
it necessary to shield it. He is already saving 75% of his energy
costs via this method and all he had to do was screw a new bulb into
the socket. Hypothetically speaking, lets ask ourselves what happens
when an endless power source is obtained such as the elusive "cold
fusion" or something similar. Energy is no longer an issue. As John
says, what do we do then? We are stuck with no argument.
Unless people have a genuine heartfelt desire to change, they will
spend little effort trying to do so. Until the day when people have
no choice but to buy FCO lighting because it is the only choice, they
will continue to buy what is cheapest and most appealing. Until
people see a real reason to change, they will not. They will continue
to live as they always have not thinking about the consequences of
their daily lives. LP is an Environmental issue, and it should be
treated as such. It effects our environment, Plain and simple.
However, it effects our environment in many ways. Glare, energy waste
and diminishing the view of the stars. All of these are inclusive
under an umbrella of Environmental responsibility that should not be
ignored. I for one firmly believe that the view of the night sky is
vital to the development of a sense of wonder and even spirituality
in cultures around the world. For centuries the stars have been
mentioned in works of literature for many reasons. When standing in a
city with the tall buildings around and nothing but a blue glowing
night sky, our existence no longer has "place" other than the
intersection of two streets. I challenge anyone here to find me a
child who would not have to pick their jaw up off the ground after
seeing a pristine view of the milky way. But do they ever ask
themselves why they can't see it from the city? Perhaps, but do they
think there is anything they can do about it? Probably not. It is
likely they just hear the reason explained as we all do. "Why can't I
see the stars from the city?", The Response: "Because of all the
lights."
The existence of lights in a city or in any public place at night is
accepted and expected in society today. People do not know the
difference between good lighting and bad lighting because they have
never been shown. By getting the public at large aware of the issue,
the momentum will be unstoppable. We live in a society willing to
change if the issue is pointed out. But the majority will not seek
the change, they will accept the status quo. But they are always
eager to jump on a band wagon once it is rolling fast enough because
they don't want to be left behind. 30 years ago, we burnt leaded gas
in cars that got 15 Mpg. Today we burn unleaded fuel in Hybrid cars
getting 70Mpg (some burn natural gas or hydrogen). Compact florescent
bulbs use 1/4 the electricity of standard bulbs and fit in the same
socket. Energy star ratings are standard. Litter is inacceptable.
Change is possible, but awareness is paramount. However, creating
solutions that remain familiar to the consumer that does not require
them to change too much will produce the most success.
I recently read the story of Edison's electric light and it's
success. When the electric light was introduced it was inefficient,
expensive and unreliable due to frequent power failures. Not to
mention unsafe due to fires from shorts in wiring. However, it still
managed to overtake gas lighting in popularity rather quickly due to
marketing. People want the latest thing, they will always bite. But
just like with a fish, the bate has to look familiar. When it comes
to lighting we need to understand the mindset of the consumer. What
is it they want in a light? Deliver them what they want, but with the
added benefit of shielding.
As many of you can attest to, there are few jaws still attached when
someone finally sees the difference between a well shielded light and
a glare bomb.
"Wow, I never knew the view could be so beautiful".
Peace & Dark Skies,
Scott Griswold
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lightfromabove.org
A Light Pollution Awareness Community
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:36:18 -0500
From: "John M. McMahon" <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
Scott Griswold wrote:
> When standing in a
> city with the tall buildings around and nothing but a blue glowing
> night sky, our existence no longer has "place" other than the
> intersection of two streets .... "Why can't I
> see the stars from the city?", The Response: "Because of all the
> lights."
Ah, yes ... but consider what the night must have looked
like in Athens or Rome 20 centuries ago. One could stand on
the Palatine Hill or the Acropolis amidst some of the most
beautiful and famous architecture and art the world has ever
known and watched the evening creep slowly in and the stars
come out until only their light illuminated the white marble
and painted decorations. It must really have been something
... and those buildings did *not* need "light artistry" to
enhance their elegance -- although I don't doubt for a
minute that at least some of the Romans would have bought
into that kind of spectacle. At the risk of
over-generalization, I've always believed one can learn a
lot about America by studying the Romans.
John McMahon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 08:59:19 -0500
From: nickas <nickas@hanover...>
Subject: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
It looks like we are getting to an interesting point here--finally when all is said and done, maybe everything we
do outside (and inside)--everything can be reduced to esthetics! It is finally all a matter of good taste. I
think that was a Greek idea obsessing as they did a lot more about the external appearance of their public
buildings than the insides which we seem to have perversely reversed! Lets face it --not wanting to breathe air
choked with poisons may finally reduce to an esthetic as much as not wanting to obliterate the night sky is
ultimately an esthetic. We don't seem much interested in esthetics any more what with bottom lines and the bleak
drudgery of economic and commercial accountancy having taken over all our judgements. Don't forget Nader's
admonition--the corporations have us all by the short hairs to introduce an indelicate expression, and heaven
knows esthetics do not enter boardrooms. George
"John M. McMahon" wrote:
> Scott Griswold wrote:
>
> > When standing in a
> > city with the tall buildings around and nothing but a blue glowing
> > night sky, our existence no longer has "place" other than the
> > intersection of two streets .... "Why can't I
> > see the stars from the city?", The Response: "Because of all the
> > lights."
>
> Ah, yes ... but consider what the night must have looked
> like in Athens or Rome 20 centuries ago. One could stand on
> the Palatine Hill or the Acropolis amidst some of the most
> beautiful and famous architecture and art the world has ever
> known and watched the evening creep slowly in and the stars
> come out until only their light illuminated the white marble
> and painted decorations. It must really have been something
> ... and those buildings did *not* need "light artistry" to
> enhance their elegance -- although I don't doubt for a
> minute that at least some of the Romans would have bought
> into that kind of spectacle. At the risk of
> over-generalization, I've always believed one can learn a
> lot about America by studying the Romans.
>
> John McMahon
>
>
> 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: 17
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:39:08 -0800
From: "Leo Smith" <leo@smith...>
Subject: Re: Re: Light Pollution Versus Astronomy.
From: "nickas" <nickas@hanover...>
> It looks like we are getting to an interesting point here--finally when
all is said and done, maybe everything we
> do outside (and inside)--everything can be reduced to esthetics!
>From Day 1, my involvement in the Dark Sky movement has been motivated by
aesthics, where light trespass is the problem.
It doesn't diminish the validity of "save the stars" or energy conservation
in the least...
Light at night directly touches most people by what they see (glare). The
light trespass and glare issues will probably have the broadest constituency
among possible supporters of our efforts...
Leo Smith
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:49:48 -0700
From: John McMahon <mcmahon@mail....edu>
Subject: Green power
>From ENS:
Green Power Purchases Growing by Leaps and Bounds
By Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts
WASHINGTON, DC, April 2, 2002 (ENS) - In June 2001, the city
of Chicago and 48 city government agencies signed a contract
with local utility ComEd to purchase 10 percent of their
electricity from renewable sources, a figure due to increase
to 20 percent in five years.
Full story:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr2002/2002L-04-02-01.html
Obligatory outdoor lighting content (oolc):
"A solar/wind/hydro/fusion-powered glare bomb is still a
glare bomb."
John McMahon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/