Lets Reduce Light Pollution in 2009.

All for it wile we on the subject, Noise pollution as well. 

The other forms of pollution of course to.

You never think about light pollution making a difference do you? Really interesting piece.

True.  Light pollution is denying children the view of the night sky.  They can barely identify the moon any more. 

What  is really sad is that many insects are drawn to the lights and die. One time I was on a trip and stopped at a truckstop. I saw these HUGE beautiful moths I had never seen before. I still don't  know what kind they were. But, they were attracted to the giant sign lit up in the night and their dead bodies littered the ground.

That is when I first thought that lights could negatively affect the insect population.

Be nice if Las Vegas would stop using all those gawdy lights, lol.

It's such a waste of energy to entertain people bent on gambling.

Great article..........If you have never been away from the city and seen the night sky you are missing something really really special..... I remember after a hurricaine knocked the power out in all the major cities nearby and looking up at the sky and realizing the stars that were there all the time -- nowadays I head off on vacation to places like Arizona - Maine - any where away from the cities and the scourge of light polution just to get a glimpse of the milky way.. Check it out -- get involved where you live to discourage the Walmarts and other retailers from blotting out the night sky. Ordinances make a difference and reduce significant greenhouse gases through reduced electricity use. 

Dont wait for astronomers to take action...  Talk to your city leaders about wasteful or glary street lighting, citing the waste of money they represent, as well as making streets harder to  navigate because of the glare.

Those old-timey "Acorn" lights only put 30% of their light on the street--the other 70% of your taxdollar-paid light just goes up into space or in your face...

...And those floodlights your neighbor leaves on all night; by blinding you and the other neighbors does it really make their property safer when you cant see out your own windows at night?

Nice article Carey

Freddy

Please be kind enough to learn more about the "hidden" harm being caused by light at night , LAN, created by unnecessary artificial night lights. You will learn that maybe LAN (sometimes known as light pollution, LP) is killing off our birds? It does this by "sucking insects from habitat areas like a vacuum cleaner" (Professor Gerhard Eisenbeis). Without insects to eat insectivorous birds stave (bats apparently are doing the same - starving that is?). May I recommend this web site URL http://www.lightpollution.org.uk and hope that YOU turn OFF your unnecessary artificial night lighting sooner rather than later and that we are therefore JIT and not JTL?

UGH. This is the biggest joke ever. Seriously. Lets just turn off all our lights for the children, lets go back to the dark ages. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? Can't you see that this is a big scam? God.. believing in global warming is one thing, but this is just too much. 

Also, I LIKE the glow of cities at night. It's magical, it's inspiring. It's progress and it's not bad to see it. As an architectural enthusiast, this totally hits people like me in the groin. I want to design buildings that look cool, that serve a purpose, but look spectacular, in both day and night. If we can design a way to still have the glow with newer technologies, that would be better. I don't want to see a city completely dark at night. It's just not something we need to shoot for. 

There's too much light in the world? Are you serious? 

It's called progress. It's also a good thing to most rational people. I don't know about you guys, but I love the glow of a city at night. It's very appealing to me. I don't want to take the world back to the dark ages to make it so the cities are dark and dim. It just doesn't look right. And this is so full of crap, this is not hurting anyone, it's just lights.

The name of our organization says "dark sky," not "dark ground." It's bad design, and excess that are the problems.  No one has said turn off all the lights. Light shining up is waste, so we taxpayers get to pay to light up the undersides of airplanes.  It's fiscally irresponsible. Street lights should do just that--light the street, not the sky. A well designed lighting application for buildings should highlight detail.  Blasting several thousands of watts of metal halide glory does not do a design justice.  A well thought out shceme will use far less light and the building will look better.  More light does not mean better or more safe.  Well designed applications with well designed luminaires are the solution to light pollution.

For these three people, to say that we need more light is like a drowning man saying he needs lots more water! 

With all of the waste of our natural resources to produce the wasted light these three love so much, along with the 38 to 40 million tons of greenhouse gasses added to our atmosphere annually, it's foolish to make that type of statement without studying the subject and all of the harm it causes.  In the U.S. alone an estimated hundred million birds are killed due to light pollution; and an uncounted number of baby sea turtles die because of bright skies over their nesting beaches.  ALL nocturnal mammals, reptiles, insects, amphibians, etc., are seriously impacted by light pollution.  By the way, SO ARE WE!  

So instead of giving an opinion on something you obviously know nothing about, educate yourself about light pollution.  You'll love to see the Universe in all of its glory; after all it's where WE live!!  

I find it insulting that you think I didn't educate myself about this. I find it more insulting that you can't think for your self. Why do you believe in global warming, why do you buy into this huge delusion. 

We will not solve anything by going back to the dark ages. We do need more light. Turning off all of the lights in the world is not going to solve anything. What we should instead do is, if this is even real, fix it without having to turn off lights. Make lighting clearer, so that it still has the glow but doesn't harm anything. 

You can't honestly tell me you all would love to see a city dark as night. It just isn't right. 

It seems to me like you are just another radical enviromental nut that needs to educate yourself on what the real world is and how it runs. Nobody with any sense will buy into this. That's why it hasn't happened and won't happen. If we ever switch our lights to be safer, they will still glow. Light pollution in it's most honest form is nothing major. If we are to so much be for the planet's safety as well as our own, we need to think more about things that are really a problem. I didn't die yesterday from staying downtown all night. I didn't see any dead birds pilling up on the streets. 

Francis, did you even read my post? Think a little more before you form an opinion. Oh, woah is me, birds and humans are being harmed by light. Please. Seriously, if you could see how stupid that sounds. Most of the research behind this so called problem isn't worth the paper it's written on. If this is real, like the other guy said, turning off the lights downtown isn't a fix. It's not even a quick fix. If this is real, making lights clearer, while maintaining the glow that so many people enjoy, besides you people, then yes, I'm for that. But I'm not turning my lights off tonight or worrying about it. I have other more important things to worry about like feeding my family or managing the real problems we face. 

I'd rather be eating meat and driving my pickup to piss you idiots off. 

Oh yes, I'm so uneducated and out of the loop. Please, get a grip. Instead of worrying about stupid crap like this we should be fixing problems that need fixing. 

While your worrying about dead birds and death by streetlights, I'll be feeding my family and fixing REAL enviromental problems. Not the ones invented by Al Gore or this nonsense. 

It seems to me like this is just being pushed by astronomers who can't get a good view of space anymore. Well, go to a place where city lights aren't, which there are still places of, and look there. You are being irresponsible if you think you can get a good view of the stars from your condo downtown or a home only a few miles away from a major city.

Plus, most cities I've seen don't produce a major glow at night that is so bad it hurts your ability to see the stars. I live a stones throw from LA and I can see the stars just fine. Even with my naked eye.

This just seems like a load of rubbish.

       For those who think that the copper orange glow is magical, and inspiring, I just don't understand.  I live 20 miles SE of Philly and a have a 10" Dobsonian Scope.  While it can take in alot of celestial lights, the ugly glow still is in the lense when I look thru it.  For me, the color of the sky, is ugly, and it looks like everything is washed out, which it is.  Nobody is saying turn off the lights, but parking lot lights should be tilted down, not sideways where none of the light reaches the ground.  Excesive light for some reason is never realized by the National Government, even though it wastes so much energy.  Living in the Northeast, we got lots of humidity, so the the light just goes up.  I'm kinda young, so I really can't go nowhere dark.  I have to say that on very clear Summer nights, the traces of Milky way makes it almost unreal.  Cygnus overhead if full of stars sometimes, but the Winter sky seams very bad and ugly, and I don't no why, maybe it's humid or something.  I heard that Iceland does a 30 minute of darkness thing on a New Moon night, and it'd be nice if we had that here, maybe people could realize that there is actually more then the Moon and the Big Dipper up there.  As for the problem getting better, I really have no confidence, as simply put it-nobody cares, like a few people in the comments who I bet have 3 lights on outside their house.  I really don't want to start arguements with nobody cause it's a waste of time.  But I couldn't help but laugh when I heard that light glow was magical.  Why wouldn't a sky full of stars be magical huh?  I like colorful buildings, but the ngith sky is dissapearing, and do these pretty lights have to be on at 3AM?  No.  And if people feel more secure with outside lights on, just leave a light on inside your house and some fool will think you're home or awake.  We don't have lights on at my house, and I feel safe.  Alexis, this isn't rubbish, it's a fact that many people don't notice, but don't care about it.  This problem is just as important as Air, Water, and Soil pollution.  Now, even though I'm concerned about the environment, I would still have a classic car with a massive V8 than a Hybrid anyday unless gas is $4 a gallon again, and then maybe I'll have both.  I just don't get why we want to light the sky up!

Hello all,

There is done already a lot of research about when lighting is harming and when not. Just like everything were we have to much about that is bad, the same is the case with lighting.

First the security isue. Lighting not prevent crime. Social control does. Lighting can help social control, but in the first place there must be enough poeple available for such a social control to have a positive effect. When this is not the case lighting can have the oposite effect. The criminal can act faster becuase he see better and can easaly hide him when observing the victim. When acting he can do fast and without been seen because the lack off social control. Lighting systems that is blinding the environement help also not the social control because this reduce seriously the visibility. Using Full Cut Off lighting avoid this blinding and is so preferable to use also from security reasons.

Several research showed that traffic safety can be have as well a positive as negative effect from lighting. In urban area's and cities where a lot of crosspoints are located, lighting can have a positive effect especialy for bycicles and pedestrians. Everywhere else it has the oposite effect. Several independent researches done by governement resulted in that drivers got the intention to drive faster and less concentrated. It was in a research to the most effective investments done in a period for reducing traffic accidents the most expensive investment and the only that had on highways the effect that the accidents increased during the night with 57%. So when lighting used for traffic safety it have to be evaluated were it is usefull and when it is usefull, with wich lighting level it is usefull. It is a very expensive investment with not everywhere a positive effect.

There are done already a lot of research on effect of environement. Migrating birds, insects, mamals, night animals and some plants have the most effects off this. But the research resulted in a lot of cases also that a lot can be avoided by better lighting techniques, looking where you use the lighting and were not.

Human health is an other isue. Men need light during the day, but also darkness during the night. Having to less darkness result in reduce melatonin levels, disturbed cardician rithm and a lot of other problems. Reduced resistant against cancer is a result of the reduced melatonin levels. There are every year several science conferences especialy on this isue and also the World Health Organisation put the lack of darkness on the same level as pesticides as a potential cause for breast and prostate cancer.

It is not just an isue where astronomers are worying about. In Belgium campaining activities are a collaboration of the federation of environmental associations, astronomy associations and even some cultural associations. They all worying about. Most of the research done on the effects of light pollution are not done by scientist related to astronomy but by medical scientist and biology scientist. It is true that the astronomers are affected by losing the sky and see so more directly the status of light pollution then others do. But when only astronomers have pushing this, they would be started with that from the moment this becomes crutial for them. Back in the 60's - 70's. Safety was also important for them and so they not campaigning. They started campaigning when they discovered there were more effects then just there science coming into danger, and more important, there existst sollutions that results in better visibility and more safety with a minimum of Light Pollution. That was the moment that astronomers started to be a canary in the mine and isuing the society about the problem.

The nice thing about doing something about light pollution is that at the end, there are only winners. You reduce the impact on the environemtn, better for human health, seriously reduce the energy consumption and so also the taxes to pay by the taxpayers to finance all the wasted energy, it increase safety and security and seriously increase visibility. Only energy companies are loosing, all the rest can be a winner.

Again, lighting can have positive effects but just like everyting, when there is too much lighting in an uncontroled way on places and times that it is not necesary, lighting have also seriously harming effects. Light Pollution movement are far from radical just because they provide sollutions by better lighting techniques and evaluations that at the end have a better effect for all parties.

Well, a lot of people like the night time glow of cities. I remember taking a vacation to New York and I saw the city lights to be very nice to look at. I could still see the sky, but the thing is, as development increases around the globe, urban centers will continue to dominate the skyline.

Lighting up the night sky is not a bad thing, it's just what it is. The issue in itself though, is not so bad that it warrants major action. Millions of billions of people have kept their lights on and nothing has happened in this long time that we've had electricity.

I suspect I'm one of the many people who love the night glow of a city. It's always been something that a lot of people have liked, and I don't see why we should ditch it, there's no major effects happening that would make it worth while.

The only way I would ever be for this is if we kept the glow of the city at night. It's seriously something I enjoy, and to see a city like say New York, completely dark at night, would not be something I would want, and a lot of people wouldn't want.

Not only is it not safe, it's not practical. Without lights on at night, crimes can take place in higher percentages. While it is social reform that we need, it's just not something that is happening and something we could take a risk on. Imagine a crime filled city at night without lights, without the ability to see people using cameras due to the lack of light, without the ability to see properly to deal with said crime.

No, the only way this issue would be fixed in a practical way is to make it so lights are more clear, not turned off. And people may think that lights are annoying on people's houses when they are shinning through people's windows at night, but I would imagine the increase in crime due to lack of visibility would be worse than just being annoyed be lighting. I would rather have my neighbor's home visible at night so if anyone is trying to break in I can see.

The issue itself just doesn't seem important enough to actually pursue. This is certainly not comparable to other forms of pollution that need even more attention than they are currently getting. We need to stop looking at issues that aren't major and look at ones that are. I can pretty accurately guarantee that if we keep up our lights at night and such, the world will still be here and not be in bad shape in 100 or even 1000 years.

On the matter of wasting energy, yes, if it's wasting our own tax dollars,then fix it. But don't make our cities dark. Make them clearer, that being the lights. Make it so our cities can still have lights, without the so called problem.

Those street lights that have light that goes up and around can be easily fixed, but as for other things, I don't see it being practical enough for anyone to pursue. We still have tons of places to go star gaze without the lights of the city blocking it here. And I've been to other cities in other countries with similar places.

One last thing, I don't have 3 lights on my house. But I do use the ones I have for protection. I was robbed several years ago because I didn't have any lights on my house to let me see better who's outside. It does give people a sense of security that we all need. And until we can conquer the crime issues of our countries, which doesn't ever seem likely, we will need more lights. Again, if it can be done in a reasonable, practical way, to reduce the wasted light, then that's fine. But say I was flying over the planet, I wouldn't want to see countries completely dark. That's like something out of the 13th century and nobody wants that. 

I think we need to maintain a healthy balance if we do anything regarding this issue.

Most kids or anyone else can see the majesty of the stars online or in books. I'm not saying that's right, but it's not like they will never be able to see them any other way. And if the issue can be handled in a proper way, to increase visibility, than that's great. But again, keep the lights on, just fix them to work better.

This is a good issue to talk about, but it still doesn't seem like something I will lose sleep over.