[AZ-Observing] Re: [Fwd: Re: Re: Astronomy an unhealthy activity? NO! Light Pollution is Unhealthy!!]
- From: Roger Ceragioli <rogerc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:43:34 -0700
Hi, Howard.
I believe that the best place from which to begin serious research
regarding lighting and its negative effects at night would be the
website of the IDA (http://www.darksky.org/), since they are by no means
an extremist organisation. Of course, we do need lights at night. No
one argues for a return to total darkness. But there is so much massive
waste of energy that the public would be astonished how much tax money
is poured down the drain literally lighting up the clouds and air. It's
in the billions for sure.
There is growing research into issues of biology (animal and plant) and
exposure to light at night. I think the IDA has a link to that issue.
Your Cereus cactus presents an interesting example.
Of course, if we actually succeeded in toning down the lights all at
once (as during the 70s oil crisis) there would be an economic impact
from the reduction of energy consumption. But really, no one expects
any dramatic change. The IDA and others are working for incremental
changes in the right direction. And we must increasingly weigh
short-term economics against the health of the bio-sphere for the long
run. There's no sense trying to save for retirement, start or grow a
business, etc., if the planet will be unable to sustain us in the future
because of our current profligate waste and destructiveness (global
warming, deforestation, and pollution), in my opinion.
Thanks for your comments and sharing your thoughts!
Cheers,
Roger
Howard C. Anderson wrote:
>Hi,
>
>A few months ago, I tried to do time-lapse photography of a Cereus
>cactus that was about to flower in my yard. Put a 100 Watt bulb about
>6 feet from the plant so my webcam would have enough light. I was shocked!
>the flowers wilted before opening. Normally, the plant blooms at night then
>by about 10 AM the flowers wilt. I knew that SUNLIGHT was strong enough
>to cause them to wilt but I sure didn't think a 100 watt light would
>have any effect!
>
>I then wrote software to control an X10 light so that the light would only
>come on when the camera needed to take a frame (about 2 seconds
>every 10 minutes.) That worked. (Although I had to wait
>6 months for another flower cycle...) The flowers bloomed OK.
>
>Anyway, the cactus was profoundly influenced by a 100 watt light bulb.
>I wonder
>how many other things might require more darkness than we are now providing?
>
>I understand the President wants us all to save energy. I wonder how
>much energy
>is used in lighting our streets so bright that I cannot tell whether my
>headlights are on?
>
>How much does it cost? Does anyone know where they keep the light bill
>for Phoenix,
>Tempe, Scottsdale, Mesa, etc.?
>
>There is, however, a potential down-side of getting the lighting reduced.
>During the "energy crisis" in the 70's, I was in the Washington D.C.
>area and they told everyone to save electricity. Town is full of
>duty-bound, patriotic,
>and conscientious (really - contrary to what most people think) civil
>servants and
>other government workers many of whom actually complied. They complied
>so well that the electricity companies suddenly developed a cash-flow
>problem.
>They then used that as evidence that they needed a rate increase!
>They got their rate increase! :-)
>
>
>
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
