[AZ-Observing] Re: [Fwd: Re: Re: Astronomy an unhealthy activity? NO! Light Pollution is Unhealthy!!]
- From: Stan Gorodenski <stan_gorodenski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:28:53 -0800
I completely agree with Roger's post below. I have been a member of IDA almost,
if not at, its creation. I have always felt that although I do not get much
with my membership in terms of journals and other things like that, it is
important to be a member because IDA needs money, in the form of membership
dues, to fight light pollution. You could consider it a contribution.
Unfortunately, unless things have changed recently, there is a great sparsity
of amateur and professional astronomer membership compared to the pool of those
who could be members. Although I will not give out names, at the time I joined
many years ago one very prominent amateur said he wasn't joining because he
didn't want to go on a crusade! I have always found it interesting that
astronomy clubs are members as an organization, but few member themselves join.
The bottom line - Join IDA!
Stan
Roger Ceragioli wrote:
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
>
>
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
