[AZ-Observing] Re: MAG Meeting Today
- From: Steve D. <fester00@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: AZ Observing <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:14:11 -0700
Stan,
You could add Howard Anderson and Howard Israel of EVAC to the list of
attendees. Yes, it would have been better to have more, but there are those
fortunate enough to have jobs to go to. :-)
I won't go into why we need dark skies here. Most everyone else on the list
knows it's not just because we like them. Please go to the IDA website,
www.darksky.org for all the information you'd need.
The point Gordon Kegg made at the end of the meeting was actually pretty
ridiculous, and I'm not sure why the KPNO representative didn't say anything,
(aside from the fact we were all pretty stifled by the coordinator, Nathan
Pryor). His claim that KPNO and Lowell are not affected is simply untrue. I
understand that you, Jeff and others are able to do some science from brighter
areas, but KPNO and Lowell and others, as Jeff already mentioned the orders of
magnitude lost to Phoenix' light dome. Are you doing spectroscopy on 20th mag
galaxies? How low in the sky do you take spectra? KPNO is able to do these
things, but their area of usable sky is being whittled away, until nothing but
the zenith is available.
As for the burden of cost, if the businesses and more specifically the
developers had followed the codes already in place at the time, they wouldn't
have the problem of bringing them up to code later. One of the panelists
brought this up. He was speaking about the difference of ordinances governing
construction and the actual engineering practices used. I'm with him-we need
to educate the engineers and architects to include the standards to prevent the
raging violations in the first place. As I brought up, using Gordon's own
numbers, the costs wouldn't necessarily be excessive when spread over perhaps
20 years as he suggested. Two-tenths of one percent is not bad over that time
period.
The meeting was a disappointment, for sure, but not for lack of attendance. It
was a railroad job of those with money against the naive scientists that don't,
or can't make clear what the objections are.
P.S. FWIW, trolling is not just bringing up controversial subjects. It's
ignoring any answers or points brought up that's contrary to the preconceived
notion of the troll, and the perpetuation of the thread, just to hear oneself
talk.
Steve Dodder
Chairman, SAC Novice Group
Coordinator, Grand Canyon Star Party, North Rim
Director, Stone Haven Observatory
fester00@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.stonehavenobservatory.com
> 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:
