
|
[az-observing]
||
[Date Prev]
[02-2007 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[02-2007 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[AZ-Observing] Re: I Wonder How This Will Impact Dark Skies?...
- From: George Barber <gbarber@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:14:55 -0700
I think the dark-sky advocates, including myself, use some of the other
negative impacts of light pollution:
Glare and reduced visibility
Loss of night vision when leaving over-lit areas, like gas stations. I
have seen people leave the filling stations without turning on their
headlights!
Disruption of normal day-night cycles for animals, birds, and humans.
This is detrimental to species like sea turtles. It is not too good for
us, either.
Loss of a cultural resource. Stories of the night sky abound in all
cultures. Do we really want to destroy this for our children? National
Parks, like the Grand Canyon, are beginning to place significant effort
in retaining their night sky and encouraging their visitors to
experience it.
It is still a tremendous waste of finite energy resources. Perhaps a
few cities in America will use the new LED lights, but the rest of the
growing world will not.
Here's my favorite:
It lessens the probability that we will be visited by extra-terrestrials.
Think about it. It is very energy wasteful to beam light up into space.
The ETs would see the night side of our planet and conclude that we are a
wasteful species. Waste is not a sign of an advanced intelligence, so they
will most likely head on to their next destination.
OK, that's your laugh.
The IDA, International Dark Sky Association, has good information on light
pollution. Check out their website.
Tom Polakis
<tpolakis@xxxxxxx
> To
Sent by: AZ-Observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
az-observing-boun cc
ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject
[AZ-Observing] Re: I Wonder How
02/15/2007 02:01 This Will Impact Dark Skies?...
PM
Please respond to
az-observing@free
lists.org
>> As a result, a 40% reduction in power has been recorded as well
>> as substantial increases in light output according to Progress Energy.
>less energy is a good thing - substantial increases in output could
>turn into a bad thing!
And the more efficient lighting further weakens the argument of dark-sky
advocates that turning lights off significantly reduces power consumption.
Frankly, the power-savings argument is already pretty weak.
Tom
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
|

|