[AZ-Observing] MAG Meeting Today
- From: stanlep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:12:13 -0700 (MST)
I attended the MAG meeting today and was very disappointed at the turnout
by members of local astronomy groups. I counted myself, Jeff Hopkins,
Jennifer, and Steve. Just three individuals that I know from the local
clubs. If anyone should have been absent it should have been me since I
primarily reside in Dewey, about 90 miles north of Phoenix. There were
representatives of Kitt Peak, IDA, I believe Lowell, and a good number of
astronomy related individuals. I think it was Chris Lugenbuhl who was on
the phone.
At the end, one of the business representatives made a good point. He said
he has not been presented with evidence showing astronomy in Arizona has
been adversely impacted by light pollution and he was referring to
professional astronomy at Kitt Peak and Flastaff, and a recent grant award
one of the observatories received. It may very well be that astronomy has
not been adversely impacted because of the dark sky ordinances already in
place and so the person who made this statement may be mixing up cause and
effect. Kitt Peak may be a good example. They can do astronomy because
they were active in getting light pollution measures enacted in Tucson.
The professionals can respond from their end to his statement, but from
the amateur end it got me thinking.
So let me play the Devil's advocate. A lot of the amateurs live in
Maricopa county. Even if stringent light pollution controls had been
implemented in the Valley, I would bet that amateurs would still drive
tens and tens of miles to get to a more darker spot. Haven't acceptable
images been taken in light polluted areas using some of the dark sky
filters that exist, and if not, they certainly have been a help in visual
observing. I am into spectroscopy and I can do spectroscopy during a full
moon. One spectroscopist is doing it in light polluted Paris. Although
darker skies would be better for Jeff's photometry, nonetheless he still
is able to do photometry inside Phoenix. One can always make the argument
that light pollution lowers the signal to noise ratio, but, still,
research is being done in these light polluted areas. It seems to me our
only argument is that we like dark skies which does not seem to be a
sufficient reason to impose expensive light pollution measures on
businesses. What do you think?
The business community feels they would be unjustly burdened with the cost
of implementing the dark sky measures under consideration. What would be
the best argument to support imposing this cost on them?
Again, playing the Devil?s advocate.
Stan
p.s., at least one and possibly more unfortunate individuals think I am
trolling when I bring up controversial issues like this, but this is not
so.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
