Slashdot Mirror
An Enlightened Look at an Over-Lighted World
Saige writes "Every night, as darkness descends, countless street lamps and lights turn on to keep the darkness at bay, bathing countless square feet of the planet in light that sometimes rivals daytime. But has anyone stopped to consider what effect all this light may have on people and animals that have evolved to fit an environment where a significant part of the 24 hour day is spent in lightless conditions? Some scientists have, and they are claiming that all this light is causing numerous problems."
Building houses right on the animals homes is probably a lot worse for them than shining lights during the twilight hours. At midnight in my town we don't have coyotes and mountain lions roaming our streets; they stay out in what wilderness is left. And somehow I think my little wooden box has more to do with it than the light it emits.
It is not quite as simplistic as you make out.
:)
For a start, light at night makes it difficult to sleep at night. Try having a streetlight outside your bedroom window and you will quickly (as I found out!) find your sleep patterns are disturbed as you wake up easier and therefore find it difficult to sleep.
Consider that for many of us in major cities, we cannot view the natural beauty of space. Our views are blocked by artifical lights that stop us from seeing the sights our ancestors looked upon and first asked the great philosophical questions.
You imply that light is a good thing. It isn't. Well, not always. Of course we need light, but it needs to be used appropriately.
Artificial light isn't a replacement for natural light. Aside from the voluminous amounts of electricity a lot of it wastes it does cause problems for people.
Daylight is a good thing for animals, plants and humans on the planet. For people who live in northern Europe and the US/Canda there are higher incidencies of suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse than there are in places which recieve more natural light, and this has been attributed to a lack of natural light. Artifical light just isn't the same. You could have 12 hours of artifical light in a polar region and it wouldn't make any difference.
On a small, and possibly more irrelevant scale to you, consider the number of insects that congregate around lamp posts thinking the worlds most beautiful fly/wasp/bee/moth/whatever is in front of them. In time, it will affect their and predators natural actions!
It is very easy to mock and joke about this, but it is a very, very important issue for a lot of people, plants and animals!
Ah, a perfect opportunity to post a link to my favorite NASA photo! It is a composite image called the Earth at Night. It shows the intensity of man-made light on earth. The brighness level is a facinating combination of population density and economic development.
An interesting feature is the the Nile river on the top right corner of Africa. Each bank of the river is densly populated, beyond that is uninhabitable desert. That makes it an insanely narrow bright white line in the middle of the pitch black desert.
Another interesting feature is North/South Korea. They are just to the left of super-bright Japan. South Korea is a bright square just below North Korea. North Korea is a pitch-black area. The dividing line of bright to dark is like a knife-edge. North Korea is so dark it looks like empty ocean, making South Korea look almost like an island.
North Korea and South Korea have roughly equal population density. The entire difference is due to development. South Korea is quite prosperous while North Korea is suffering famines while they allocate a crushing 30% of their gross national product to supporting the third largest army in the world (China has the largest, USA is second). North Korea says they want to "Liberate".
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Maybe you should RTFA?
There's nothing 'insightful' about this post, it's simply an ideological diatribe maligning the work of real scientists without offering any kind of factual rebuttal. Several scientists and physicians (including a neuroendocrinologist) made many very specific claims about the effects of light pollution on humans, insects, and plankton. Your rebuttal is 'Yeah... Riiiiight.' I didn't read a single valid counterpoint to any of the claims presented in this article.
You probably don't care about the plankton, insects, and other environmental effects presented, so let's get straight to the human outcomes listed: increased cancer rates among humans; dangerous breathing disorders during sleep; decreased attention during critical events such as driving, etc. Real scientists and clinicians made factual statements about problems they're seeing due to light pollution, and you simply toss it off as 'sensationalism'. Not a factual word about why they're wrong other than the implied 'it can't be'. That is the argument of a ideologue.
You'll notice that the scientists interviewed didn't make policy recommendations, only the city planners interviewed did. You might also notice that none of the city planners recommended shutting off the lights, only a move toward a different kind of city lighting. And, to top it off, they're recommendations save money due to increased energy efficiency. Gee, that's 'sensationalism' for ya.
From a factual standpoint, your argument simply doesn't stand muster. It's pseudoscientific babble based not on scientific study and open debate, but on derision of the scientists for their conclusions; regardless of the data they collected. Your skepticism is poorly placed given the argument you presented. JMO.
--Maynard