Lets Reduce Light Pollution in 2009.

In the same way you can call air pollution also just progress. But also there we try to minimize the effects of air pollution. Important progress done for cars and production processes is just hapening in reducing the air pollution. So that is progress too...

The same thing for Light Pollution. OK, light is a result of progress, but mean that that we have to spill light in a quit uncontroled way? Mean this that we can not look how we can do it in a more efficient way and in a way that cuase less nuissance, have less effects on human health and have less effect on the environement. A way were we can reduce more then 50% energy consumption in a lot of occasions. I believe that exactly that means progress in comparison with the old lighting techniques. Light in order of the principle only there where needed and so also not to the sky or bedrooms, when needed, and the amount of light needed.

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!!  

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?

       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!

My article just touches on the basics of the problems.  It was just to raise the awareness of the issue without boring people with the long drawn out details.  However if you want to learn more about the problem, you can clik on the links inside the article, like the story in National Geographic or the website for the International Dark Sky Association. 

The point you make about astronomers just driving to a Dark location is precisely the problem.  We are running out of dark locations.  Even in the places you would think would be the the darkest locations in the U.S. such as the deserts of the western United States you can still see the sky glow of major cities such as Los Angeles and Los Vegas hundreds of miles away.  This problem is sure to get worse over time.  Eventually the majority of the people will grow up not knowing how wonderful the night sky really looks.  If astronomers have to drive hours to see it, how do you think others will see it when they don't even have a clue about what is out there.  The sky will definately be lost as anything inspirational.

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.

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?

Please read my post before yours. I hope that you then understand the clue. There is no question about a city like New York without lighting, it is an isue about proper lighting.

Ligthing is not avoiding crime, social control did. Lighting can help social control when there is enough poeple for doing this social control, otherwhile it have an adverse effect. That is also he conclusion of all independent research on this topic and even some research of lighting industry.

An increased change on breast cancer with 73% as result of light pollution on places with most luminosity I call a mayor thing. On other places this can be betweeen 40% to 73% increased risk.

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. 

Nice article Carey

Freddy

Also, the comment about poisoning the air is stupid. It is NOT the same. You aren't going to die from not being able to see the stars perfectly.

No one is suggesting that you would "die" from not seeing the stars.  Producing artificial light requires energy; producing megawatts of artificial light requires megawatts of energy; so you are, quite literally, "poisoning the air", producing a huge carbon footprint by lighting the sky with megawatts of wasted light, lighting up the nighttime environment.

Have a read of this story where the obnoxious lights of Las Vegas are destroying the pristine beauty of the nighttime sky in Death Valley: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28390772

On a different note, the states of New Mexico and Arizona have passed very restrictive and comprehensive light pollution control and abatement laws.  In New Mexico and, more importantly,  Arizona, the nation's center for astronomy, the local and regional economies are dependant upon the world-class observatories located at Kitt Peak and the University of Arizona.  If allowed to grow unchecked, light pollution would be severley impacted those economies.

Cheers,

Tom Madigan

International Dark Sky Association (http://www.darksky.org)

Alexis321, RESPONSIBLE lighting is exactly what we've been describing!  Next time you're ourside at night, look at a pole mounted streetlight.  The light that hits you, and also enters your eyes, has to be directed below horizontal.  Light that's shining sideways, or above horizontal, doesn't do any of us any good.  Light always travels in the direction it leaves a fixture.  So by using a fully-shielded fixture the stray (wasted) light is re-directed and sent to the ground where we are as drivers and pedestrians.  And many times using fully-shielded fixtures means that the wattage can be lowered and still get the same amount of light on the street or parking lots, thereby saving quite a bit of money for taxpayers and business owners - and that isn't bad!  And one more thing, the fully-shielded fixtures that we've been referring to ARE the latest in modern design.  So to keep using the old technology with all of the problems it causes just doesn't make any sense.

A very intelligent man had a quote that sums up what we are trying to achieve.  The quote is, "Todays problems cannot be solved if we still think the way we thought when we created them."  Albert Einstein

He also said, "Everything that isn't me, is the environment."  And I agree!!!

So if we are considered to be eco-nuts because we're concerned about the nighttime environment, I guess you can throw Einstein in with us; He's great company!       

Currently a lot of cities in the USA are firing policeman because of the financial crise. At the other side they are spilling a lot of money on bad way of lighting. Doing it in a more proper way can reduce cost seriously year after year. Policeman need not to be fired.

Proper lighting witch increase visibility seriously will increase security and safety. More policeman on street doing it much more. So they had better in the past worked on this isue then having currently two things that can increase crime in the cities, bad blinding lighting that reduce visibility and the absend of control forces like policemans.

Mike...it's unfortunate that you still feel this way, but obviously, you still haven't educated yourself.  If you did, you would realize that this movement that you are insulting is taking the positive steps that you are speaking of.  The dark sky movement promotes the use of quality outdoor lighting. 

What does this mean?  Light where you need it and when you need it. 

I will repeat what previous comments said, it is the dark sky movement, not dark ground movement, i.e. we are NOT about turning off the lights, just using them correctly.  In general, the folks involved believe that we should all continue with our nighttime activities, playing baseball, shopping, strolls down main street after dinner.  What we do not support is the over illumination of these events and activities because with good design they can be done smarter, use light more effectively, and use them more efficiently.

It's common sense and it's easy to solve.  Please before you post again, check into the research that has been done on this phenomenon.  The National Geographic article was spectacular and there are a number of medical journals that have discussed the light at night issue. 

Yep, there is too much light in the world. Have some nice pictures but uploading photos doen't work.

http://www.stichtingmilieunet.nl/andersbekekenblog/?p=263

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.

I agree, let's work on the light and noise pollution. No wonder people can get so irritable. Also we would see less stress-related illnesses too.

Link light pollution to global warming and ordinary air pollution and the enviromentalists will have to get on board.  The light pollution dome over all cities except in North Korea coincides with the carbon emission dome and particulate and smog emissions and is due to the same cause, fossil fuel usage.  The linkage is undeniable. 

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

To those few detractors, myself and other Astronomers are as serious as a heart attack when it comes to light pollution – light pollution, a term that describes, in a general sense, wasted light above the horizontal, is responsible for tons and tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere with the concurrent waste of millions of dollars of municipal capital.

No one is suggesting that we go back to the dark ages and no one is suggesting that we put the brakes on progress.  Au contraire!  Do you define progress by how brightly lit your cities are or their quality?  No one is suggesting that you turn off all your precious lights; the main thrust of our crusade to limit light pollution by directing the light onto the ground where it belongs.  Personally, I find the orange and blue-gray pallor caused by the indiscriminant installation of poorly designed lighting rather sickening.  What is most pleasing, appealing to the senses, efficient and safe is an intelligently designed lighting installation designed with full-cutoff lighting fixtures; that would include roadway lighting, shopping malls and decorative lighting.

It isn’t progress to squander precious, non-renewable natural recourses, producing megawatts of wasted light, lighting up the night sky and the nighttime environment; what is progress is for some thoughtfulness and planning when designing a lighting system, a system that works in harmony with nature and compliments the nighttime environment, not destroy it.

Further, the ethereal beauty of a dark, pristine sky, with the Milky Way overhead is, quite literally, breathtaking and is truly, the greatest light show on earth.  If you want a real light show, go out into the desert (as far away as you can from any lights) and look up.  You will witness a sight that beats anything that can be produced by man.

I’ll close with a passage written by the famous American poet, philosopher and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson, in describing the night sky:

If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Cheers,

Thomas Madigan, M.Sc, FRAS, AAS

NASA/ JPL Solar System Ambassador

Adjunct Professor of Astronomy and Physics, QCC and LIU

When I was a kid I used to lay on the hood of my parents car and watch satellites go by.  I remember watching Skylab when it was falling in its orbit.  Now at the house where I grew up, you can't see a single star.  I never could have imagined this happening.  I grew up in the country, 15 miles from a city of only 14,000.  This is how much this has changed in just my lifetime, and I'm 42.  I used to think that the smoke stacks in the Houston area with all the smoke and the flames burning off excess gas from the refining process looked cool too, but now we know better.

I live in Honolulu now, in Waikiki on the 27th floor and at night I can turn off all my lights and still see my way around my apartment.  Yesterday we had a rare electrical storm that knocked out power to the entire island of Oahu.  Even with only the emergency back up lights at certain intersections and in the stairwells of the buildings,  I was amazed that there was still enough light coming in my window on the 27th floor that I was able to walk around and find my glasses, my cell phone, and camera.  I don't even own a flashlight.

I wonder if the people who object to reducing light pollution have really seen the night sky in all its splender.  Have you seen the Milky Way like I saw it when I took the picture at the top of this article?  Have you seen the Andromeda Galaxy with your naked eye?  Have you ever gone to an event hosted by a local astronomy club where they give views to the public through their telescopes and heard the oohs and aahs of little kids and adults alike, or experienced an 85 year old lady see Saturn through a telescope for the first time in her life?  If not then you don't know what you're missing and you will never know the other wonders of the night sky that are getting harder and harder to see as the problem of light pollution gets worse.  Sure you can see these objects in books and online, but it's not the same as seeing it for yourself in the sky wether it's through a telescope or with your naked eye.  Saying that kids in the future will be able to see these things in books is like saying it's ok to kill all the animals in the wild because you can go see them in the zoo.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into this. I'm sure if it's a real problem it will be fixed, but I just don't see it being taken majorly serious. It seems to me like it's just the visual that is the problem. Obviously, light pollution in itself as far as pollution isn't going to end the world. If it's fixed and can be economical and practical, then I hope it does. But otherwise, I just don't see the big problem. I've seen the night sky in places where it can be visible without the orange hue, and yes, it is very magnificiant. But, so too is the intricate designs and views of city lights from both in the air, and on the ground. I love architecture, I love the lighting used in it, and I love lighting in general.

Alexis321, there is nothing to buy into.  It's not about someone's opinion or another.  Light pollution is a reality.  No matter where you go on this planet, whether it's the remotest part of Siberia or the Antarctic Ice Shelf, the effects of light pollution can be measured.  The sodium and mercury emission lines of the millions and millions of useless and unwarranted lights (streetlights, floodlights, decorative lights) can be detected.  Further to that point and contrary to your mistaken notion that "its all about the visual", light pollution has significantly reduced or precluded certain specific studies from being undertaken.  The field of astronomy known as spectroscopy determines the chemical makeup and evolution of stars and is a very important branch of the science.  The high pressure sodium and mercury vapor lamps that are almost universally installed corrupt the measurements taken by astronomers worldwide.  As I mentioned before, the problem is so acute, the effects of light pollution can be measured anywhere on the planet.

It's a shame that you equate the garish and insipid lights of a city with the ethereal majesty of the night sky; I pity you.

Right... and lets go back to the good 'ol days of pumping sludge into the rivers. It made manufacturing so much more efficient. Who cares if the fish die? Or the animals that rely on them? This will leave us with less species to compete against, right?

Pollution is pollution. Some are more devastating than others, but all are degrading life on our tiny little planet.

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.

O'Reilly, you mentioned that you "don't like pollution either, but pollution from A isn't necessarily the same as B.  A smokestack and a streetlight are two different things really."

But THEY ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED!!  The streetlights get their power from the utility, which has coal-fired power plants emitting greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere.  So by using lower wattage, fully-shielded streetlights and parking lot lights - which will put the same amount of light on the ground -  we can light more efficiently, cheaper, and reduce our carbon footprint.  Not to mention that without the glare, our eyes will operate the way they were designed.  And this is a U. S. Government figure, utilities emit 1/3 of the greenhouse gasses in the U. S. 

And speaking of seeing our lights from space, NASA even recognizes light pollution as a big problem and recommends doing the right thing and lighting responsibly.  See even NASA is on our side!  When you see a lights from above, it's a big indication of energy waste, because you're not lighting anything - just throwing away lots of energy, money and natural resources.     

O'Reilly, there's a very informative and extremely educational 3-page article on light pollution in the November issue of National Geographic magazine.  Just go to the website of the International Dark Sky Association at www.darksky.org/ and scroll down to the photo of the magazine and click on the words "Our Vanishing Night" and you can read about all of the problems light pollution causes and how easy it is to fix it.

And while you're at the IDA website check out the different types of fully-shielded fixtures that are now available for all type of lighting tasks.  You'll notice that the fully-shielded fixtures have an enclosed bulb and a flat lens to direct light to where it's needed and not sideways into our eyes or upwards into the night sky. 

Well it is documented.

Look on the site of the World Health Association and you will see that the lack of darkness at night is a risk for breast cancer.

Several presentations of research are also mentioned at:

http://darksky2008.kuffner-sternwarte.at/

several ecological consequences are mentioned in the book here:

http://www.urbanwildlands.org/ecanlbook.html

just to mention only a small number of the research done on this theme.

And good lighting systems exists. Also for architectural lighting. I have participated at several projects on this where energy reduction between 65% and 85% was realized and all participants was happy with the result and the coverage was good. Why not using this practices?

The reason that is not hapening to much is in the first place the money of the lighting industry that have a lot of money in lobying and financing false research. There is a clear difference in the way research is done financed by lighting industry and independent research done by governments. The first are not respecting base isues to have relevant statistic research. Most of the studies are evaluated by a UK prof in statistics and they were with the exeption of some all done in a scientific useless way when paid by lighting industry. Sometimes they present the result in such a different way then really was reported in the research it self. Money make here the difference.

That is also the case with a lot of other forms off pollution. Most of them were already documented in the 60's and 70's but started to be handled by governments much later. Why? Money of the industry. Just like smoking cigarettes that is unhealthy.

Every year more and more research is coming available that is defining that too much light and bad light during the night is an important environmental and health isue. This can be not been neglect all the time in the future. Several governments have already taken action. There are strong regulations on light pollution in most regions in Italy and there is a national law in Slovenia.

I have not already seen that someone died when smoking a cigarette or breathing polluted air. Science has proven that on a longer time the change increased seriously on deadly illness by these causes. Science is currenly proven more and more that this is also the case for Light Pollution.

It is just the oposite way. Good lighting make it saver. Bad lighting cause a lot of glare and have a small blinding effect. Especialy to older poeple. That reduce visibility as result of the lighting. That can be solved by increasing the general lighting level. So when using FCO lighting that sending all the light to the area intended to be lit will have much more light on that target area then with bad lighting system. So for having the same luminance you can reduce the power of the lighting and still have the same amount of light on the road. Light is not going to other directions anymore. Full Cutt-off lighting systems are doing so. Because they directed the light only to the target area, the lighting system is less blinding and glaring. For having the same visibility as before, you can reduce the the lighting level as result of avoiding that. Also eldery poeple will have a better visibility. For some eye deceises that is the only thing that work for increasing visibility. Increasing the lighting level is not working for them. Avoiding blinding and glaring is doing that.

The lighting industry is defining this effect by the Tresshold Index or TI that define the % of increase of the lighting level necesary with a luminaire to have the same visibility as when there was no blinding effect.

O'Reilly, Want to have some fun?  Try your hand at designing night sky friendly lighting with the NEED-LESS lighting simulator.  If this link works, you can design a parking lot with fully-shielded lighting fixtures that won't throw light on the two story home or into the natural area.  You can start with the unshielded fixtures that splashes light everywhere and then go try the semi-cutoff and then design the lot with fully-shielded lightding and really see the difference.  You can place the fixtures anywhere on the lot and even raise or lower them as you wish, but you'll learn a lot about good lighting.  This is a very good educational tool to visualize what we're talking about.

http://www.need-less.org.uk/simulator.html

Francis Parnell