Posted on 06/11/2016 8:53:26 AM PDT by samtheman
New Map Shows the Dark Side of Artificial Light at Night ... The most fundamental difficulty, however, has been that no one knows exactly how severe the problem is.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Being an astronomy enthusiast, I’m no fan of light pollution. Solution: cars with night vision.
Most of the light pollution is due to the reflection of the light off the ground back up into the sky. Look at a mall parking lot the next time you fly at night.
You bring up some good points, which really amount to engineering solutions, not ban-civilization solutions such as the left is always pushing.
It’s just like climate change, which does happen all the time, over periods of thousands and millions of years, without any help from us.
The way to deal with whatever climate change comes along, such as the case of a huge super-volcanic explosion throwing enough debris into the upper atmosphere to truly affect the climate (an event that is sure to happen at some point in the future), is to engineer solutions to the problem.
The way to deal with any kind of climate change is through climate engineering solutions.
Technological engineering is the Force of human intellect.
Social engineering is the Dark Side of the Force.
Facebook link for the rag: https://m.facebook.com/ScientificAmerican/?tsid=0.020570045986974428&source=typeahead
Facebook link for the full-tard author: https://m.facebook.com/leebillingsauthor/?tsid=0.2339550371092518&source=typeahead
After TSHTF, stargazing will be one of the few pleasures remaining.
Personally, I am opposed to wanton light pollution and think the blast of light to the heavens needs to be managed and moderated.
The rest area 5 miles south of the farm has light poles that loom above the hills and light up the area like an alien spaceship. The lights are almost bare bulbs and there are absolutely no kind of reflectors to discourage either sideward or upward dispersion. It is the same all along the freeways in cities. It is inefficient and unnecessary and it is, in fact pollution. No, I am not a tree hugger. I am a conservationist and don’t like to waste anything. Use what you need but need what you use.
What goes around comes around and we wring our hands until something else disturbs us. Light pollution dates from more than 40 years ago. A feeble stab was made to adopt hoods on night lights on freeways and such but that did not last long. Instead, the towers got taller and the lights got brighter. Car lots were one target for a bit but now they are lit like a factory floor. Once there was some interest in energy conservation and night lights made a slight retreat to moderation but that did not last long. People are afraid of the dark and want to see, be seen and sell junk at night so once again the landscape is lit up like day.
Once upon a time I could lie in the pasture on a cold night and stare across the Milky Way. I can’t see it at all now. It is obliterated by those damn lights at the rest stop and yard lights and the incessant glow from every small town that surrounds me.
You said: “The other side acts like unsheilded lights, that prevent the light from street lamps and floodlights from uselessly going straight up into the sky, are an affront to their constitutional duty to illuminate atmospheric haze at night...because otherwise we will be living in the stone age or they might get raped by bad guys that drop out of the sky....or something.”
Uselessly going straight up into the sky [or blazing to the side] away from the area targeted for illumination meets the definition of pollution... that light is wasted.
Have you tried offering to pay to have the rest area’s polluting lights rebuilt? Maybe they’d go along with it.
Well yes, it is “wasted” in a sense because it isnt illumination anything that needs to be, but the light output wont be conserved, nor any electricity saved, even if it is shielded.
Calling it pollution would be stretching it. The light ultimately has to be on for it to have any use.
Why not have done it right in the first place?
I’ve already paid, a lot, and once again the money was squandered.
You suggestion is flip.
And who is going to pay for it?
No, you want dark, go where it is dark.
Never mind I suppose. If the light were more focused the wattage of the bulbs could be used more efficiently and therefore reduced.
The next issue is just that, LED is very efficient so power consumption is reduced and excessive lumen output is encouraged.
Does that not make any sense?
I agree. I love dark skies. I lived in New Mexico for years and my wife and I would head up to the mountains for star-gazing. It was incredible. We lived in rural Socorro in one of the oldest houses in the US. The nearest neighbor was about 1/2 a mile away and grey had a mercury vapor light that was like a spotlight in our bedroom window. I hated the damned thing.
When we moved to our farm in Minnesota, the first thing I did was to shoot down a mercury vapor light that the previous owner had installed in the front yard. Humans can see in almost complete darkness as long as you let you eyes adjust. There is no reason we need to light up everything. Directed light is more efficient and doesn’t ruin night vision. If that makes me a liberal, then I guess I can’t argue.
But it is you who has the objection. Of course it is you who can offer to pay the cost of correcting what you think to be the error. If they say no then at least you will have tried.
Exactly. They and national geographic and the smithsonian magazine.
“I can predict how severe the liberal environmental wackos will find this problem: extremely severe.
I’ve been saying for year that they want us living in caves, eating turnips and riding donkey carts. I forgot to mention candles. “
The Los Angeles basin, is bounded by hills and mountains, such that in the 50s and 60s the smog looked horrible.
Seldom do we hear that the fires of Native Americans, once looked even worse. The mild climate, fertile alluvial fan soils, sufficient water, fed a large prosperous population of Indians.
Exployers entered the basin, and noted the smoke hanging about.
LA in 1542 according to this website, which has good historic descriptions.
Didn’t the first Spanish explorers call it “The Valley of Smokes”?
“And who is going to pay for it?”
Who said someone needs to “pay for it”?
When it comes time to replace city street lamps, they should be replaced with ones with caps on the top.
People at home can just point their floodlghts towards the ground, not straight out.
“No, you want dark, go where it is dark.”
You want to pray? Then do it in a church.
Same snarky concept. Different side of the political spectrum.
Why the hell does this concept offend some of you is just beyond logic.
You want everyone to adjust to your needs.
I do not remembering asking anyone to adjust to my needs.
Again, not in a snarky way, but as a suggestion, you want dark, go where it is dark. Do not demand others to adjust to you.
And one could live a full and prosperous life without ever know that...unless your a liberal, then you are entitled to be outraged over absolutely nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.