[sac-forum] Re: M106
- From: David Hofland <hofland@xxxxxxx>
- To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:35:54 -0500 (CDT)
Just to add to this, although it is a perfect example of preaching to a choir
as I can think of. Its more than just the light pollution, as it that weren't
bad enough. On top of the sad reality that more than half of the 7 billion
plus humans on the planet will live their lives having never even see the Milky
Way, it is just as bad a travesty because of the wasted energy of billions upon
billions of watts of lightbulbs doing nothing to make anyone safer,
illuminating nothing but the underside of aircraft along with the dust and
water vapor and gas molecules. And the solution is totally simple and
achievable right now, it isn't like we need to wait until the invention of cold
fusion or the discover of the Higgs particle . All it takes is for everyone to
just use correctly designed efficient outdoor light fixtures that are available
today and are relatively inexpensive. So inexpensive that the energy saving
over the life of the appliance pretty much pays for it. As R ichard says,
there are so few of us that object that its probably a lost cause anyway.
David Hofland
Centre, Alabama
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Harshaw" <rharshaw2@xxxxxxx>
To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:05:30 PM
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: M106
Well said, Jenn. Like Clarke's "Childhood's End".
Richard Harshaw
Cave Creek, AZ
“Remember: your mind works faster than you think.”
-----Original Message-----
From: sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jennifer Polakis
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:04 PM
To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: M106
The sore lack of a star filled sky to spark the imaginations of the next
generations is a travesty to humanity.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Polakis
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:06 PM
To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: M106
Stan,
The fight against light pollution should have little to do with how much faint
detail can be pulled out of images. It should have everything to do with the
average Joe or Jill looking up, and not being able to see more than
30 stars in the sky. It's everybody's fight, not just ours.
And regarding the great images, they would be three magnitudes greater were it
not for light pollution.
Tom
---- Stan Gorodenski <stanlep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All these fantastic images taken in immensely light polluted Valley of
> the Sun says we need not be concerned about electronic road signs and
> other forms of pollution (bring back the mercury vapor dusk to dawn?).
> I wonder what the business community would think if they saw the
> quality of the images. Maybe this is a time for introspection. Are we
> being overly concerned about light pollution? I am all for dark skies
> and bought my NM lot because of its super dark skies. I am just
> raising this issue for discussion because it seems it is something we
> should be able to respond to if it ever becomes an issue in our fight
> against light pollution.
> Stan
>
> On 3/11/2013 10:32 AM, Albert Barr wrote:
> >
> > Here's another attempt at imaging in light pollution :) This is 4
> > hours of luminance and three of RGB on M106 and lots of other fuzzies.
> > The luminance images actually turned out ok. The color had a lot of
> > gradient which was difficult to remove but the detail is nice.
> >
> > Albert
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/49526053@N04/8548549559/in/photostream/
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
