[AZ-Observing] Re: MAG Meeting Today
- From: Howard Anderson <handy13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: AZOBS <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:11:27 -0700
Hi Stan,
I was there too and am a member of EVAC and SAC.
Since I wore a coat and tie, you probably assumed I was
not part of the astronomy community. :-)
I see you also did not mention Howard Israel who was sitting
beside me and is a member of EVAC (and SAC perhaps?) and
who has been at EVERY meeting since the beginning two years
ago...
Jennifer was sitting next to me on the other side of me.
I agree that it is extremely difficult to support our point of view.
Would be nice if we could simply hold the line on the increase
of light pollution but even that seems to be doubtful. As more
people move to the valley, more light will be generated.
My wife and I, this weekend, are driving to New Mexico to see
about setting up a remote-controlled observatory there. With any
luck, that site will continue to be dark for the rest of my life...
(It appears that the cost to set up a site there will be less than
two high-end SBIG cameras... :-) )
Yes, I have taken some reasonable images from my light polluted
back yard: http://www.astroshow.com/ccdst4k/ccdst4k.htm
but the images are significantly better from dark sites like Griffen Ranch.
The camera I use is pretty expensive. The Bayer mask it employs
filters out the sodium lines since the band-pass of the red and
green filters have sodium in the "notch". See graphs at:
http://www.astroshow.com/astrotip/ST4000XME.html
The current issue of the International Dark-Sky Association's
(I am a life-time member) magazine, Nightscape, contains
an article entitled "A shot in the dark? - How to capture deep
sky images in spite of light pollution". It shows how Astrodon
H-alpha, OIII, and SII filters can overcome light pollution to
some extent. Shows a color shot of IC1396 taken from Boston
that has a lot of detail... Better perhaps than anything Polomar
could do in the 60's? :-)
At one time, I had hoped the local cities could be shamed into reducing
street lighting by showing how much it was costing them. However, if
I understand correctly, the power companies give the cities "free power"
for street lighting so it doesn't show up in anybody's budget! That
"free power" is presumably passed on to all of us via the electricity rates
charged by the power companies.
It is sort of the same as the logging gambit. In Oregon, the federal
government
gives logging companies the go-ahead to log off the timber on national
forest land. The government collects money from the logging companies
for exercising this privilege. That money is then given to the state of
Oregon
and finances their schools. So if you save a tree, you destroy a school.
It is a logger's dream...
Similar here with light pollution. Most people are afraid of the dark so,
since street lighting is free, there is no way to fight it. People demand
more, not less - especially since it is "free!"
That's why its so bright at night I can't tell if my headlights are on...
Our best hope of reducing light pollution from malls is amazon.com. :-)
Thanks,
Howard Anderson
stanlep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I attended the MAG meeting today and was very disappointed at the turnout
by members of local astronomy groups.
--
Thanks,
Howard, in Tempe AZ
Http://www.astroshow.com
http://www.AZcendant.com
http://www.ShastaDaylight.com
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
