In The dark In Loudoun - Another Wacko Cause: Light Pollution

etherzone.com ^ | July 26, 2002 | Tom DeWeese

[Tailgunner Joe]

Be careful what you wish for. You are opening the door to socialism.

[mercy]

Oh Horse Shit!

[RonF]

So, is this really about keeping my light off of your property, or is it about keeping my light out of your sky?

For private landowners, this is about keeping your light on your property. For public light fixtures, where both the capital and expense are paid by our tax money, it's about saving money by minimizing the ongoing operational costs of light fixtures, minimizing hazardous glare on roads, and it's also about keeping everyone's sky dark.

[Tailgunner Joe]

It is impossible for private landowner to keep their light on their property. Do you suggest we all build domes over our houses?

I happen to like the stars myself. I just don't claim the right to place costly restrictions on businesses and property owners in order to impose my will on others, as opposed to your collectivist train of thought.

[Ides of March]

Do you suggest we all build domes over our houses?

Of course not. Just don't point your lights upward, where you are not, but the stars are.

...place costly restrictions on businesses and property owners....

Pouring photons into deep space isn't exactly free.

Beware.

[RonF]

"It is impossible for private landowner to keep their light on their property."

While that is literally true, it is quite possible to keep all direct light on your property, and most of the reflected light.

"Do you suggest we all build domes over our houses?"

No. I suggest that you take the steps outlined in the various resources previously quoted in this thread. They are quite practical, and allow use of lower wattage lights to get the same amount of illumination. Existing fixtures can often be retro-fitted.

[Tailgunner Joe]

It's fine to suggest that. Just don't try to force everyone to do it, and we'll have no problem.