Help To Map Light Pollution

jcgam69 writes "October 1 marked the first day of the Great Worldwide Star Count, a half-month citizen science project that will harness thousands of observers across the globe to help map light pollution."

Comments

Here ya go:

[Tablizer]

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/earth_night.jpg

Done.

Re:Here ya go:

[Cassius Corodes]

That is totally a web 1.0 solution. What we are looking for is a web 2.0 solution - we need to harness the dynamics of social groups to create solutions for the 21 century. Either that or just waste time.

Re:Here ya go:

[bakana]

I'm sorry, light pollution sounds like such a made up term. I fail to see how light pollution has any relevance to my life. Is it simply because you can't see stars at night? Tell me there is something more substantial than that. Even after reading the wikipedia article on it, I can't figure out why this phrase would interest people.

Re:Here ya go:

[Puff of Logic]

That is totally a web 1.0 solution. What we are looking for is a web 2.0 solution - we need to harness the dynamics of social groups to create solutions for the 21 century. Either that or just waste time. Is that the part where we leverage a synergy, or is that Web 1.0?

Re:Here ya go:

[The_One_Ring]

Touch my synergy and I'll smack you on the leverage!

Re:Here ya go:

[Tablizer]

I fail to see how light pollution has any relevance to my life. Is it simply because you can't see stars at night? Tell me there is something more substantial than that.

If you cannot see the night sky clearly, then you'll miss that meteor headed strait for your Linux box.

Re:Here ya go:

[jsse]

Well, why parent was modded funny was totally beyond me.

Now I do my part: I live in Hong Kong and the only star I could see all these years is that red dot behind the moon, probably Mars.

Now you can check Hong Kong as the complete star-seeing blind spot in your map. Thanks.

Re:Here ya go:

[omeomi]

Now I do my part: I live in Hong Kong and the only star I could see all these years is that red dot behind the moon, probably Mars.

You can see behind the moon from Hong Kong?

Re:Here ya go:

[alien88]

It messes with human and animals circadian rhythm.

  Your eyes see better in the dark when they've adjusted and when you move from really bright to dark places.. or vice versa, it takes your eyes a while to adjust. At night, you shouldn't have to do this. This is a safety issue.

It's a waste of energy.

It effects animal migrations.

Re:Here ya go:

[LynnwoodRooster]

Duh, everyone KNOWS that China's on the opposite side of the earth! Thus you see the opposite side of the moon, too...

Geez, the level of basic science knowledge here at /. is downright scary...

Re:Here ya go:

[Zymergy]

That's My Favorite Desktop Wallpaper! http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02991 Original Caption Released with Image: Global city lights. The Eastern U.S., Europe, and Japan are brightly lit by their cities, while the interiors of Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America remain (for now) dark and lightly populated. (Image by Craig Mayhew and Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC. Based on data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program). FULL RESOLUTION IMAGE: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA02991.tif

Re:Here ya go:

[Kris_J]

Light pollution can seriously affect ground-based astronomy. If scientific progress is something you don't care about, I can see why you'd think it irrelevant.

Re:Here ya go:

[Zymergy]

Self Correction, Here is the FULL 16384 x 8192 39.6MB TIFF image: http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//1438/land_lights_16384.tif Sourced: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_detail.php?id=1438

Re:Here ya go:

[rucs_hack]

when I was a kid I lived in south Australia. where we were there was no significant light pollution (probably some, there was a city 50 miles away, but you couldn't tell).

As a kid I could watch the stars just by laying on the beach by our house. I remember when we moved to england I wondered why the sky didn't have as many stars, and that was in the seventies. I just wasn't fun to look at. Now I know of only one spot near where I live that I can get even a slightly better view, and to get there is a two hour walk across the countryside, then the view is, well, not great.

I don't even live in a city.

Re:Here ya go:

[Belacgod]

Exactly. Galileo, Kepler, and the like made incredible discoveries with telescopes of surpassing weakness--basically the naked eye. This was discussed on Slashdot not too long ago.

Re:Here ya go:

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh the interior of Australia would be empty because of DESERT and lack of fresh water to support a sizeable population. Basically the only liveable parts of Australia is the east coast, tassy and the south west coast. The rest is unable to support life. Same goes for Africa and Asia, though in South America you could clear the Amazon (!smart move) and live there.

Re:Here ya go:

[UserGoogol]

That, and the amount of light radiated into space is not the same as the degree to which the sky is obscured. There's obviously a fairly tight relationship between the two, but measuring the latter directly is always nice.

Re:Here ya go:

[Anonymous Coward]

This map almost makes me want to move to China :)

Light pollution stinks except in the winter time when its snowing then it can actually be pretty cool.

Re:Here ya go:

[datadigger]

WOW, that's great! They managed to find that exceptional, once in a lifetime, moment when it's midnight all over the world at the same time.

Re:Here ya go:

[digitrev]

It effects animal migrations.

Lies. It affects animal migrations, which is to say it changes them, not causes them.

Re:Here ya go:

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wasn't fun to look at.

No kidding

Re:Here ya go:

[Yeti.SSM]

Not only that! They also managed to capture the exceptional, once in a lifetime moment when the Earth is all flat!

Re:Here ya go:

[Lumpy]

Web2.0? that is so last week, all savvy and fast-track companies are already on web 3.0 the really successful companies are using technology that is incompatible with all users browsers!

Re:Here ya go:

[monkeyboythom]

Can I use the flash on my camera? It's pretty dark out here.

Re:Here ya go:

[UbuntuDupe]

-Any ground astronomy actually discovering cutting-edge stuff, is already located far from cities.

-New observatories will be put on planes. (like NASA's SOFIA project) [1]

So, all it really means is amateur astronomers can't collect the best data. Which is bad, I agree, but

-in terms of scientific progress, is about as bad as not putting the latest scientific journal publications in high schools

-affects my life less than "noise pollution".

Yeah, mod me down, but someone had to say it.

[1] Before anyone else can do it: "Enough is enough! I have *had it* with these m/f'ing observatories having to go on m/f planes!"

Re:Here ya go:

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, the level of basic science knowledge here at /. is downright scary...

The science knowledge here isn't as bad as people's ability to read and write. Did you even read the thread you replied to?

Re:Here ya go:

[SevenHands]

And thus, the phases of the moon are actually caused by the shadow of the earth!

Re:Here ya go:

[Kris_J]

Any ground astronomy actually discovering cutting-edge stuff, is already located far from cities.

Or it was. The observatory here in Western Australia has already moved once and it's becoming affected by the metro area's lights again. It's not going to be able to afford to move again.

Even if the facilities here aren't cutting edge, what if the next Galileo would have been born here but never gets into Astronomy because the facility was made useless just by people pointlessly sending light into the sky?

Re:Here ya go:

[chuck]

You should wear a pirate eye patch, then.

Re:Here ya go:

[Convector]

For Web 2.0 you have to synergize thinking outside the box while shifting some paradigms.

Re:Here ya go:

[sjames]

Who is going to man those planes and observatories in the middle of nowhere if kids today cannot look up at the night sky in wonder?

Noise pollution is bad too, but the light pollution is a double insult since much of it comes from streetlights being powered by MY tax dollars.

It's just sad in general how many people have no real idea what the sky should look like at night and have no idea why our galaxy would be called the Milky Way. The vast night sky isn't JUST a pretty sight, it's sight has a way of imparting a much better sense of perspective. It has in the past inspired everyone from ancient philosophers to Van Gogh to Douglas Adams. I doubt that a uniform dingy pink glow will ever do as much.

Re:Here ya go:

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me about it. I spent a year living in a mountain village in rural Japan, pitch black at night and a sky full of stars. Now I live near to heathrow airport, and it's so light outside (despite being 12:42am) that I could safely drive around without my lights on. The sky is orange, not a single star to be seen.

Re:Here ya go:

[Trogre]

No no, we must innovate more to produce a more, er, innovative solution!

Re:Here ya go:

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, I'm watching that Mythbusters episode right now. Or maybe not so weird.

Um.

[Adambomb]

Wouldn't it be just as easy to record a spin of the earth from the dark side?

Am i missing exactly why the stars light pollution keeps us from seeing would be a more useful measure than simply the brightness of light emitted?

Re:Um.

[RuBLed]

Darth Vader: Wouldn't it be just as easy to record a spin of the earth from the dark side?
Luke SkyGazer: No I won't. Try harder.

Re:Um.

[Xest]

Maybe it's because if we have a star count it's easier to write alarmist headlines like "Light pollution prevents us seeing 10 million stars" or whatever, i.e. the type of headline required nowadays to pull Joe average's attention away from Britney Spears' child custody battle.

That said however I'm sure they could calculate how many stars aren't visible due to light pollution using some math/science type thing but perhaps again it's because by making a big deal out of it it's easier to bring people's attention to the issue.

Re:Um.

[UbuntuDupe]

That said however I'm sure they could calculate how many stars aren't visible due to light pollution using some math/science type thing but perhaps again it's because by making a big deal out of it it's easier to bring people's attention to the issue.

In the 30 seconds that I used the program Starry Night, I remember that it already had a feature where you could show what the night sky looks like with different levels of light pollution, which I'm guessing is a simple mathematical calculation, and you could feed it as input data that we already have from satellites.

So yeah, I don't see the point of the project.

Seems Like a Cool Idea

[rm999]

But can't we just view how much light there is in space from satellite photos and guess what the light pollution would be (like in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/86/20040921144929!Usa_night.gif)?

A few 1000 observers will offer very little resolution, considering the fact that light pollution is very localized. I live in the middle of an urban area, but can drive a few miles to see 10x as many stars.

Re:Seems Like a Cool Idea

[Phroon]

But can't we just view how much light there is in space from satellite photos and guess what the light pollution would be (like in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/86/20040921144929!Usa_night.gif)?

We can. In fact, it's been done. This isn't the real goal of the project, though:

"This Windows to the Universe Citizen Science Event is designed to encourage learning in astronomy!"

They're trying to increase awareness of astronomy and the detrimental effects of light pollution. If it just gets people aware it's worth it. I might just do it myself so I have a measure of how much light pollution there really is in my backyard.

Re:Seems Like a Cool Idea

[JazzyMusicMan]

That looks like the Halo 3 usage map at the matchmaking page at around midnight ;)

Re:Seems Like a Cool Idea

[dwarmstr]

Satellite measurements only catch the uplight. Horizontally emitted light ends up producing much more light pollution per lumen emitted than uplight.

Re:Seems Like a Cool Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

unless you've been to a completely remote area, where the dark is so black you can't see you're hand in front of your face...but if you hold up your hand to the sky, it blocks out thousands upon thousands of stars.

it's so cool. i bet most people never really get to see it.

Re:Seems Like a Cool Idea

[Alsee]

But can't we just view how much light there is in space from satellite photos and guess what the light pollution would be (like in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/86/20040921144929!Usa_night.gif

Pfffft! That's not a map, THIS is a map!

Notable sights to observe:
The first and foremost site to see is the Nile river (solid white line in the dark desert of top-right Africa)
Trans-Siberian railway (connecting Eastern Europe to the Pacific)
The ~4000 year old Silk Road trade route (arch from the Mediterranean to China, below Trans-Siberian railway and above India)
North Korea (black hole above) South Korea (white box left of Japan)
The all-roads-lead-to-rome effect web centered on Moscow (Moscow being the bright central white dot east of Europe)
The (in my opinion amusing) almost perfect square grid tiny dots of apparently pre-planned development in the very center of America

And of course the game counting how many blobs you can pin down as specific named cities.

-

Re:Seems Like a Cool Idea

[Abcd1234]

It's also worth noting that light pollution, represented as the total amount of waste light emitted skyward, doesn't give a realistic picture of the actual effects at ground level. Depending on the locale, things like humidity, atmospheric particulate levels, etc, can have a *dramatic* effect on the number of stars visible, even with moderate levels of light pollution. Consequently, having real, human observations of on-site effects can provide a more realistic picture.

Light pollution?

[mickey_mouse_2006]

Right there. No, not there - THERE. Can't you SEE it ? Oh well. Have some heavy pollution too in stock. Interested?

Re:Light pollution?

[PinkyDead]

That's no moon... it's a space sta....

Oh wait, it is a moon.

Re:Light pollution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with the intense light from the city, one can still steadily observe many objects. Galaxies, star clusters and nebulae are still there, although not as defined as one would get in the dark countryside. Just got to know where and when to look. And if you have a motorized go-to scope...even easier. The planets shine thru the veil and are there for the taking.

And despite the incredible glare of the skyline pouring in our telescopes, we share deep sky objects with visitors at the Adler Planetarium on any clear evening. I recall one evening with a street light shining directly in my telescope, still being able to fully observe the Orion nebula.

It's a shame tho, that many never have witnessed the Milkyway flowing overhead.

Chicago Astronomer Joe
Administrator
http://astronomer.proboards23.com/

Telescope/Observatory operator
Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum

Inaccurate...

[WithLove]

The sample size will be way too small. And how are you going to map rural areas where no one lives? And how do you know that everyone is counting every star (and just once!)? A good idea in theory, and if the project's aim is simply to get the general public aware of how bad pollution is... I guess it's a plausible concept. But it's in no way accurate. I mean, what if it's cloudy? This seems like just another thing to do so people can say "harnessing the power of (insert any word for great number of people here) to (insert undoubtedly noble concept/idea here)." I mean, really, there's astronomers who do this, right?

Re:Inaccurate...

[techno-vampire]

I take it that neither you nor the moderator who modded you Insightful bothered to RTFM. If either of you had, you'd know that you're being asked to look at one, specific constellation and find out how much of it you can see. You're not being asked to enter an exact count of stars, but a rating of darkness.

To be a little more clear, if you can only find one or two stars of the constellation, you give it a 1; if you can find the main stars, a 2, and so on, up to the highest rating, which represents "too many stars to count." This might not sound accurate, but it's enough for what they're trying to do, which is get a good idea of how dark the night sky is in various parts of the world.

Re:Inaccurate...

[InadequateCamel]

"Insightful"? Good god.

1. If it's "rural areas where no one lives", then where will the light pollution come from? Last I checked, deer and squirrels weren't lining up to buy Halo 3.

2. You're not asked to count all the stars, you're asked to count a constellation and compare your numbers to a magnitude chart. And if someone misses a star they should have seen, that's what we call "experimental error".

3. If it's cloudy, DO IT TOMORROW.

Oh, and if there's a link, RTFA. It'll save your fingers in the long run.

Re:Inaccurate...

[SleptThroughClass]

You're also being encouraged to fail to find many stars, so you can help the cause of finding light pollution.

Can someone clue me in?

[Tmack]

Whats a map light?

Tm

;)

Re:Can someone clue me in?

[fractoid]

Whats a map light? I dunno but it sure sounds like they're not biodegradable. Damn ecoterrorists destroying our environment with map lights!

Re:Can someone clue me in?

[Gulthek]

Red light. Long wavelength at low levels doesn't trigger your pupils to close. So you can read a map, or a star chart, and not lose your night vision.

Re:Can someone clue me in?

[tehcyder]

Whats a map light?

Something that Dora carries in her backpack?

Re:Can someone clue me in?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised they didn't ask to help map *heavy* pollution...

Support the idea but .....

[pauljuno]

As an amateur astronomer I always support these efforts, not so much because they truly add a lot of value as the potential PR they generate. I live in an extremely urban area and can only see planets and the very brightest stars. And the problem is that we tend to generate a lot of light pollution that is a waste. We don't just illuminate the areas that needs it, but throw off a lot of light pollution because our lights are not focused on the needed area. It's like the standard light in your house, you turn it on and it throws light everywhere even though you just needed it to read a book, it's a waste. I'm not a green fanatic, but it just makes economic sense to try and reduce and eliminate waste where it exists .... plus I really miss seeing the Milky Way.

Re:Support the idea but .....

[Quarters]

You wouldn't save energy by replacing your omni directional bulb based reading lamp with one that just focuses the light on your book. The level of brightness of a given bulb does not increase in one area if you block it from emitting in other areas. If your omni directional bulb was 60w to start with your unidirectional bulb would also have to be 60w for you to receive the same level of illumination on your book (all other things being equal). The only way you'd reduce energy waste and make economic sense would be to replace your standard 60w filament based omni directional bulb with an omni directional CFL bulb of equivalent lumen output at a lower wattage. That would, of course, do nothing to curb the light pollution created by that lamp. For that there is this amazing invention called the "lamp shade". Don't worry, very few lamp shades require energy to work. You won't be making any extra waste by using one.

Re:Support the idea but .....

[Anonymous Coward]

You have obviously not heard of mirrored surfaces, which is what spotlights use.

Re:Support the idea but .....

[mpe]

And the problem is that we tend to generate a lot of light pollution that is a waste. We don't just illuminate the areas that needs it, but throw off a lot of light pollution because our lights are not focused on the needed area.

Assuming the intended area of illumination is actually well illuminated. It can easily be the case that the light in question isn't actually of much use. Even to the point where not having it at all is actually an improvement.

How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[SRA8]

How timely! I am planning to take a trip into Arizona or Colorado this winter *just* to see the unadultered night sky. I'm not entirely sure where to begin -- just drive randomly until i'm in complete darkness? Word of mouth? Any suggestions on how I can finally see the stars for once in my life?!

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[Anonymous Coward]

wrap a cloth around ur eyes and enjoy the darkenss

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[calidoscope]

The Stairsteps National Monument in SE Utah would be a good start - though there is still a bit of light pollution (some of it from Las Vegas).

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[Quarters]

Arches National Park near Moab Utah was a great place to see stars about 10-12 years ago. I don't know about now. The park entrance is 8-10 miles from Moab (which is a very small town) and the first camping area is something like 18 miles further in.

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[Daniel Wood]

Check out Phantom Canyon Pass near Colorado Springs. Beautiful, but scary (No guard rails, very narrow at points, 100' drops). At night in Colorado Springs, if the sky isn't orange, you can see maybe 10-20 stars. When on the pass at night the entire sky is filled with them(You are on the western side of Pike's Peak, so the mountains block all the light from the cities to the east). Unfortunately, I never took any night-time photos of the pass. I'll make a point of it next time I drive the pass, but that won't be until May, when I move back to Colorado Springs.

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[Brobock]

On those long stretches of road where you read signs that say last gas station for a 100 miles. Those are the areas where the stars come at you in 3D and you truly feel that you can grab them with your bare hands. Simply amazing.

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[alien88]

go to Kitt Peak

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[Krischi]

If you are around in Texas, the Big Bend National Park is another good place to watch the stars.

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[Xest]

The most silent place on Earth I've ever been was monument valley just over the border from Arizona in Utah, however it is a native American reservation so I'm not sure whether you need some kind of permission from the locals to go there by yourself or not.

Of course there's also no guarantee that the most silent place on Earth I've been is going to be the least lit but I'd say there's a fair chance.

In all honesty the clearest skies I've seen have always been in Canada and not even necessarily terribly far from Ottawa which isn't the biggest of cities but small enough not to particularly pollute the night sky badly it would seem, or perhaps my perception of what a perfect night sky is like is blurred by the fact I've never or rarely seen it but either way it was a million times better than anywhere here in England!

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[bkr1_2k]

Arches is still an excellent choice.

I might also suggest hopping on a boat and going out a few miles from the coast. A few years ago, I kayaked out about 2 miles to a small island off the coast of Maine with a couple friends. We were the only people on the island that night (occupancy limited to 6 I think due to size) and we could see an unbelievable number of stars, satellites, planets, you name it.

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[ender-]

How timely! I am planning to take a trip into Arizona or Colorado this winter *just* to see the unadultered night sky. I'm not entirely sure where to begin -- just drive randomly until i'm in complete darkness? Word of mouth? Any suggestions on how I can finally see the stars for once in my life?! Someone else mentioned Big Bend National Park here in Texas. I'd also highly recommend going to one of the Star Parties at the McDonald Observatory near Fort Davis, TX. It's just a few hours outside Big Bend [or several hours from El Paso]. It's in the middle of nowhere, and it's incredibly dark. The star visibility is wonderful.

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[stefanlasiewski]

however it is a native American reservation so I'm not sure whether you need some kind of permission from the locals to go there by yourself or not.,/i>

The Navajo Nation has it's own Parks and Recreation department, with some special rules. Check in with the Visitors Center. The local tour companies in Kayenta may also provide information also:

http://www.navajonationparks.org/htm/monumentvalley.htm
http://www.kayentatownship.com/ktctourist2003.html

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[dasimms]

For Arizona - you could start your search here: http://starizona.com/acb/ clear skies!

Re:How Timely -- Some Advice Please

[stefanlasiewski]

Is Stairsteps the same as Grand Staircase National Monument?

You're ahead of your time.

Hey, don't ask me

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I live real close to Chicago. On a clear night I can see Venus (if it's not too cloudy here in the midwest). I do most of my skywatching here.

Re:Hey, don't ask me

[clarkkent09]

I live in Las Vegas. On a clear night I can see the Moon

Re:Hey, don't ask me

[StarfishOne]

That's no moon!

(sorry, just could not resist)

Re:Hey, don't ask me

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in San Francisco. On a clear night I can see U.... ...ah, forget it!

Re:Hey, don't ask me

[demonlapin]

Could be worse; it could be LA, where on a clear day you can see the sun. (Just kidding, folks! I know that La-la Land has a much better atmosphere than it did 30 years ago. Taipei, maybe?)

Re:Hey, don't ask me

[Anonymous Coward]

I live real close to you. On a bad night, I can see Uranus.

here in Flagstaff . . .

[cashman73]

there ain't much light pollution at all! It helps when you have a major observatory in town and the city passes "dark sky" ordinances! ;-) So if this is a competition, it's really not fair for the rest of you,. . .

Definitely lots of stars here! And still NINE planets! :-)

Re:here in Flagstaff . . .

[I'm New Around Here]

"Definitely lots of stars here! And still NINE planets! :-)"

Wait a sec. How do you see all nine planets in the night sky? ;^)

Re:here in Flagstaff . . .

[alien88]

Yeah, flagstaff is a great example of what you can do to cut down on light pollution. The International Dark Sky Association is a good resource for people who are interested.

Re:here in Flagstaff . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

On the downside, you have to live in Flagstaff to enjoy this.

I kid, I kid.

Re:here in Flagstaff . . .

[Valdrax]

Definitely lots of stars here! And still NINE planets! :-)

You mean eight planets, and a binary dwarf planet, right?

Editors...

[Zouden]

The original title (from Firehose) is "Thousands Help To Map Light Pollution". Somehow the editors have managed to make the headline worse by dropping the first word. Good job!

Science is too tough

[whitehatlurker]

I sleep at night. All night. Can I do this during the day sometime?

Re:Science is too tough

[laejoh]

You're a lumberjack?

Light offset credits

[infonography]

Now that would make sense. Trade Credits from Blind people and religious fanatics for use by stadiums during night games and hefty fines for Las Vegas (baby!)

Hmm Vegas alone could pay for NASA's budget every year. I'm liking it.

Re:Light offset credits

[mjwx]

Hmm Vegas alone could pay for NASA's budget every year And what did you plan to do with the other 90% of the money.

Anthropogenic light pollution a media creation

[andy314159pi]

The whole idea that man made lights are causing light pollution is just a hoax foisted onto you by the libural media.
Laugh. It was funny.

In My Area...

[HexaByte]

In my area it's either light pollution or crime. Having been the victim of a couple of car break-ins because we didn't have the outside lights on, I choose light pollution.

It's either that or armed guards, and electric is cheaper.

Re:In My Area...

[alien88]

There are many studies and none of them over the years have shown any correlation between lights and crime. There are many ways you can use lights and still cut down on light pollution. You can use motion sensors, you can use full cutoff shields so the light doesn't go into the sky. These are just a few.

The idea that more light = safer is false. In some ways, it actually allows criminals to plan how they're going to break into something. Not to mention, if a light is always on, most people just ignore it whereas if a light is triggered by motion it will attract a lot more attention.

Re:In My Area...

[forkazoo]

In my area it's either light pollution or crime. Having been the victim of a couple of car break-ins because we didn't have the outside lights on, I choose light pollution.

It's either that or armed guards, and electric is cheaper.

Considering a lot of light pollution is mostly a matter of inefficiency... Since you think it's a choice between light pollution and crime, I have to assume that you think that shooting vast amount of light into the sky somehow feeds the moon god, who in turn stops crime out of gratitude.

Seriously, a big part of the problem is with street lights that don't point all of there light toward the ground. Sure, a really well lit ground will bounce some light back up, but some lights literally just shine right up into the sky.

Also, in many cases excessively bright lights are used, which results in pools of blinding brilliance with pools of pitch black between them. In that case, the solution to make people feel safer is not to make the light brighter, but more even (and possibly dimmer) so that you can't hide in the harsh shadows.

Re:In My Area...

[An dochasac]

I agree with alien88 and so does the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ, FBI and other U.S. and British government agencies. This page has a nice summary of the studies including:

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising -- A Report to the U.S. Congress http://www.ncjrs.org/works/index.htm This lengthy report has several references to lighting and crime which indicate that lighting's effect on crime is inconclusive. See chapter seven. These statements are contained in its conclusions: "We can have very little confidence that improved lighting prevents crime, particularly since we do not know if offenders use lighting to their advantage. In the absence of better theories about when and where lighting can be effective, and rigorous evaluations of plausible lighting interventions, we cannot make any scientific assertions regarding the effectiveness of lighting. In short, the effectiveness of lighting is unknown."

Having been the victim of a couple of car break-ins because we didn't have the outside lights on While I'm on the topic of Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, could it be also that less light pollution would lead to more people out at night enjoying the milky way (and other wonders) and therefore less crime? I force criminals in my back garden to either use a flashlight or risk tripping over all the junk I have back there. Why give them a convenience light?

Re:In My Area...

[mpe]

In my area it's either light pollution or crime. Having been the victim of a couple of car break-ins because we didn't have the outside lights on, I choose light pollution.

Poorly though out lighting can actually encourage crime. Since it enables the criminals to see what they are doing, be their intention theft or vandalism.

It's either that or armed guards, and electric is cheaper.

Another alternative would be a car alarm. One which flashes the internal and external lights on the vehicle will draw people's attention to it without very well illuminating anything valuable which might be inside.

Re:In My Area...

[Acecoolco]

Hey, do you have a garage? Cars fit in there pretty nicely :-)

Re:In My Area...

[Darth_brooks]

My neighborhood has no streetlights. We don't have a problem with break-ins because;

-It's too dark to find our neighborhood. Unless you know it's here, the blazingly bright apartment complexes a mile down the road look like way better targets.

-It's too dark to see what you're doing. Are you breaking in to a pinto, or a lexus? If there's no moon, it's tough to tell.

Seriously though, just *having* a light on doesn't do anything more than give a thief a well lit work environment. I took this picture http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1400894628&size=l on the way home from a trip to New Jersey. You're looking at SE Michigan, in the metro Detroit area. There are hundreds of thousands of lights in that picture that are shining straight up, wasting energy and brightening the night sky.

motion sensors?

[Animaether]

have you considered motion sensors? or IR sensors.. or radiowave sensors.. You'll have the best of all worlds...
- light when you need it (i.e. somebody is in the vicinity. Heck, the light suddenly popping on has more effect than the light being on continuously)
- no light when you don't need it (makes the light-pollution people happy)
- lower electricity bill

down sides..
- initial cost (couple bucks)
- initial installation (screwdriver and some healty common sense when it comes to dealing with electrical wiring)

I'll start.

[Lord Ender]

OK. I live in Columbus, Ohio--a metropolis. I can't see shit except the moon and about five stars.

Do I win something? What's my motivation for pointing this out?

Also, does anybody want to buy a Celestron Nextar SLT 130 telescope? I've seen as much of the moon as I care to view.

Re:I'll start.

[alien88]

How much do you want for the Celestron Nextar SLT 130? What's it come with?

Re:I'll start.

[satoshi1]

Blah. Chicago, I win. About thirty blocks straight south from the heart of downtown, sooo.... no stars for me :(

Re:I'll start.

[Abcd1234]

Before selling that scope, you should try doing a bit of planetary observation with it. With a 5", you should have no trouble seeing the rings of Saturn, and some detail in Jupiter's atmosphere (not to mention the Gallilean moons). And all of this should be visible in even heavily light polluted locales.

Count from Beijing, China

[Goonie]

I did this exercise repeatedly in Beijing, China, a couple of weeks ago. When the atmospheric pollution was bad, I could only see two stars - though I suppose they may have been planets. This increased radically to three on a windy day where some of the smoke blew away.

The solution: burn coal

[timeOday]

Sooty air will block that nasty light pollution. Any light pollution more than just a couple miles from the observatory will be rendered harmless!

This demands immediate action!

[Loopy]

This kind of pollution cannot be tolerated. Think of the health of our grandchildren. Damned SUV-drivin' polluters!

/removes tongue from cheek

Worse... or Better?

[Valdrax]

The original title (from Firehose) is "Thousands Help To Map Light Pollution". Somehow the editors have managed to make the headline worse by dropping the first word. Good job!

The original title makes it sound like the task is pretty much done by the time you've read it; much like "Thousands Rally in DC."

The new title seems more like a plea for us to chip in on the project. I think it's an improvement.

Pffftt....

[djupedal]

Pollution...?

Personally, I stopped using map-lights years ago - is there a way I can claim retro-carbon credits for that...?

There's a whole lotta stars around here

[yaphadam097]

But they all blink...

Maybe it has something to do with the Navy base to the South, or the other Navy base to the East, or the Air National Guard base to the East, or the regional airport to the North...

North of Monument Valley

[stefanlasiewski]

Start at Kayenta Arizona, which is the largest town in the Navajo Nation, and functions as a regional capitol, of sort.

Bring a good car, several maps, one map which shows BLM Land. camping supplies, plenty of gas, food and water. You'll be in the middle of nowhere, so always make sure you have enough gas.

Head North on Highway 261, go through Monument Valley, head towards Natural Bridges National Monument. Monument Valley is one of the most famous places in the world, yet you can stand on the side of the road without seeing anyone for 30 minutes.

Drive 4000-feet up the side of a cliff on a crazy curvy old Uranium Road. This area is called the 'Gooseneck State Park. When you get to the top, stop and look back south over the valley--- you can see quite far.

Head north until you leave Gooseneck. This is BLM land. You can drive on any road, find a nice spot and camp. Wait until the nighttime, and check out the stars.

This is one of the most remote places in the US-- millions of stars. I remember it being so dark, and the stars were so bright that I could see faint shadows from the starlight.

Re:North of Monument Valley

[rengav]

I wonder if someone would calculate the exact Lat/Lon of "the Most Remote Spot in the USA" for us? How about "the Most Remote Spot on Earth"? I would think that the criteria would be along the lines of lowest population density or farthest from any city/town.

And let's not bring up the pun of remotes (like for TV, VCR, DVR, etc.), because the most "remote" spot on Earth would surely be the entertainment room of a slashdotter.

Check this out...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_owen?printable=true/

Re:Check this out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent post tried to link to the printable version, but the "/" character fscked it up. Try this instead:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_owen?printable=true

No ads and no "click here for page 2" crap. It's a damn fine article though and well worth a read.

Interestingly it appears that there are no truly dark sky locations - class 1 in the Bortle ranking - left in the continental USA. (Although they didn't mention Alaska in the article.)

Anyway, thanks to the parent AC for the excellent link.

Not informative. Mod to -1, Offtopic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent obviously did not bother to read the article.

It's always the little fishes

[Buchenskjoll]

Go after heavy pollution instead.

Check out IDA

[KlaymenDK]

From http://www.darksky.org/about/ :

Goals
      1. Stop the adverse effects of light pollution on dark skies, including
                    * Energy waste and the air and water pollution caused by energy waste
                    * Harm to human health
                    * Harm to nocturnal wildlife and ecosystems
                    * Reduced safety and security
                    * Reduced visibility at night
                    * Poor nighttime ambience
      2. Raise awareness about light pollution, its adverse effects, and its solutions
      3. Educate everyone, everywhere, about the values of quality outdoor lighting
      4. Help stop other threats to our view of the universe, such as radio frequency interference (RFI) and space debris.

There are a bunch of very interesting articles on how less exterior lighting gives better visibility, roughly speaking because floodlights don't really light up everything and end up blinding you more than general darkness with point illumination.

International Dark-Sky Association

[merphant]

I'm surprised not to see any mention of the International Dark-Sky Association; this is what they are all about.

Gets out extremely heavy duty cluestick....

[rts008]

Lights used to read maps by? Like these http//www.alibaba.com/showroom/Map_Light.html, or maybe these, http//www.tirerack.com/accessories/hella/map_light.jsp perhaps?

Do you feel more enlightened now?

Um. Not to put too fine a point on it

[Colin Smith]

But isn't this just a really hard way of mapping street lights?

Re:Um. Not to put too fine a point on it

[pease1]

Good street lights don't contribute that much to light pollution. Bad street lights do. And just not street lights, but all forms of outdoor lighting, from outlandish gas stations that are brighter then operating rooms to car lots.

Serious question...

[AstrumPreliator]

... and I'm not trying to troll or anything, but is there anything humans do that isn't considered some form of pollution? It seems that all of our advancements have come at the price of some form of pollution. With the number of people on Earth is it even possible for us not to pollute or pollute very little to the point where it has no significant impact on the environment?

Now I'm fairly ignorant on the subject I'll admit and please, please feel free to correct me, but if everything we do somehow injures the environment then wouldn't that insinuate that we're some form of blight on this planet? It just seems sort of unfair that no matter what we do we'll always be the "bad neighbor" in the ecosystem. I suppose it all comes down to how much of the environment we're willing to sacrifice to advance our species technologically.

I'd appreciate opinions on the matter or any corrections to my statements you may have.

Re:Serious question...

[FinestLittleSpace]

Well, the argument from the more rational people and scientists (I'd hope I'm in the category) is that we are always going to pollute - in fact, all animals 'pollute', even if it's a bird crapping over a tree.

However, the view is that as we seem to have become intelligent and aware enough to know what impact we are having on what is - at least as far as we know - an incredibly unique ecosystem, we should act on this in any way we can. If environment was put before profits, bonuses, high paid city bosses, politics and greed, we would probably be a rather clean, low-polluting organism. It just so happens that all those factors slow down our adoption of said technologies.

Having said that, it could be said that without profits, bonuses, high paid city bosses, politics and greed, we would have waited a lot longer for the scientists and technology to have a proper platform to investigate climate change.

Say you had a blank planet, simcity style, and could start again; wouldn't you just put an absolutely giant solar array and/or wind array covering a huge 'reserved' area of land to cater for a lot of people for a long time? Surely that solves an immediate problem of once it's been built, they never pollute again... at least not as much as a coal plant.

Re:Serious question...

[CmdrGravy]

It's more or less inevitable that our actions are going to cause some level of pollution the issue is managing the pollution so that it doesn't have a negative impact on our activities. For example the River Thames was at one point horribly polluted to the point it supported very little in the way of wildlife but now by managing the pollution in the river it has been dramatically cleaned up and improved so we still get the benefit from continuing the actions which caused the pollution whilst at the same time we don't lose the benefits of having a nice healthy river.

Light pollution is a similar case, it's perfectly possible to dramatically reduce it's effects whilst retaining the benefits light bring to us with the bonus that our night time view of the sky is not ruined.

Re:Serious question...

[Overzeetop]

See, here's your problem: Pollution is taken care of by the natural processes for most all of the earth. Humans have caused two problems: (1) there are too many of us by a factor of about 100 (maybe 1000, depending on your ideals) and (2) the ways we have found ways to support that overpopulation generally require stirring up old pollution which has been "processed" already (i.e.: digging stuff up and re-dispersing it).

In a way it's sort of a vicious cycle - the more people to support, the more intensive we are to provide that support, which increases both the direct and indirect pollution we cause.

In a balanced world, we would get up with the sun and go to bed with the sun; you wouldn't need intense lighting after dark. Those who live in the extreme north and south should move to a more temperate area. That's great, except that there are too many of us to do that (that overpopulation thing again).

By the way - if someone from US congress or administration is reading...your new DST is an utterly useless waste of time. Thanks to the new DST, I spend an extra hour in the morning with the lights on, and an hour less an night. Good call on saving energy. Not. More like a good waste of time and effort to change the date.

Re:Serious question...

[Blakey Rat]

I think the word "pollution" should be reserved for environmental impacts that actually harm, or could potentially harm, people's health. It would be a long stretch to claim that you're less healthy because you can't see as many stars as some other people can.

Personally, I think this whole light pollution thing that crops up from time to time is crap. If you want to see stars, get in your car and drive away from cities-- no big deal! Why be an ass and try to force everyone to turn off their lights, that they pay for, because you want to have things your way? This may come as a shock to most of the people who complain about this "issue", but there are large, large swathes of the United States and Canada that are entirely uninhabited! (The vast majority of Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico for instance.) Hell, I live in a pretty populus west-coast state at the cutting edge of industry and technological development, home to Boeing, Microsoft and Amazon, and it's mostly empty. Drive an hour and a half from Seattle in virtually any direction and you're in the clear.

Re:Serious question...

[dasimms]

Here is a recycled post from the last "light pollution is a stupid term and no one should care" discussion:

I know this is Slashdot and nothing should surprise me but the hostility towards dark sky preservation is kind of scary. I think it is important to understand that being able to see the Milky Way from Times Square is not the goal. Being able to see the Milky Way after a 2-3 hour drive from Times Square should be possible. Putting a little more thought and effort toward how we light our highly populated areas to reduce energy use and cost, improve visibility, and allow us to preserve our night sky seems obviously beneficial to me.

While I'm sure people in Central Park would enjoy the night sky, I empathize with their concern for safety and well lit areas certainly feel more secure. I am suggesting that they would need to travel for a bit in order to enjoy the night sky. Another words, the people who are trying to preserve the night sky aren't suggesting the cities turn out their lights, just shine their lights toward the ground instead of toward the sky. You can drive an hour or so from a small city to see a somewhat dark sky and still see a mighty glow from the cities direction. While I understand the glow can never be eliminated, it certainly can and should be reduced.

One final thought - even if there were no benefits like cost savings, energy savings, and better lighting, the idea of dark sky preservation is akin to other environmental concerns. Just because we don't all enjoy sloshing through wetlands or cutting our way through a rain forest doesn't mean those areas shouldn't be conserved. I say the same goes for the night sky. We may not all be awed by the glow of a full moon, a fiery meteor blazing through the sky, or just watching the twinkling of a million stars but we shouldn't take away the opportunity for all of us and future generations from seeing what many of us feel is the most amazing and spectacular thing imaginable: our universe.

Re:Serious question...

[Bat Country]

I used to live in Seattle, and I can say with some certainty that driving an hour and a half away from Seattle will probably only get you 20 miles.

Re:Serious question...

[Blakey Rat]

We may not all be awed by the glow of a full moon, a fiery meteor blazing through the sky, or just watching the twinkling of a million stars but we shouldn't take away the opportunity for all of us and future generations from seeing what many of us feel is the most amazing and spectacular thing imaginable: our universe.

Yes, but the entire point of my post is:

YOU CAN!

Look, I'm sorry that you live in New York and have to drive a long way to see the Milky Way. That's just one of those things you have to cope with when you choose where to live, I guess. But even if you do live in New York, you still have the option to go somewhere and see the Milky Way. Hell, if anything, making it a rare event makes it more meaningful.

I guess I just don't get the big deal. On my list of "problems that we should fix", this one is way towards the bottom.

No need for this really

[OneOver137]

I've been using Clear Sky Clocks for years. Find a clock near you and then click on "Light pollution map." From there, click on link road map and you can find where good and bad skies are. Have fun.

Re:No need for this really

[pease1]

Those maps were put together a number of years ago now and haven't been updated. Not to mention the value of actually correlating on-the-ground observed data with the remote sensing/satellite data that was used to create the maps.

No light pollution problem here!

[Wowsers]

See, North Korea has no problem with light pollution during the night... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg

Re:No light pollution problem here!

[trongey]

I especially like the fact that the ocean appears lighter than North Korea in that picture. I think I'll move there.

Re:No light pollution problem here!

[pease1]

Nice advantage of having a communist thug dictator government! Assuming you don't mind the starving masses.

chicago

[resignator]

downtown chicago...1,2....done. Proud owner of a Orion 8' reflector on a Atlas goto mount that has been used all of three times. /cry

Re:Serious question... Serious answer!

[Raineer]

... and I'm not trying to troll or anything, but is there anything humans do that isn't considered some form of pollution?

While that's a true statement, there is no reason to avoid making an attempt to reduce our impact on the planet while we're here.

I believe we're already screwed, as unless at least 75% of us (some would say this should be much higher) just disappear tomorrow we're basically going to burn up all the resources before we figure out how to co-exist with them. We have a chance, ozone will stop depleting in the next ~20 years and start making a comeback; it all depends on whether or not we've triggered the next ice age by the time it can recover. I think it's a decent shot but will only hold up until the next limitation we run up against.

The fact remains that we are so far beyond the Earth's capacity that without a large catastrophe or huge reversals in birth rates our long-term chances of surviving are nil. Something we'll end up taking from the planet will snowball with an effect that makes it uninhabitable. I see cleaning light pollution as one of the things which can make our time here more enjoyable (you know, like breathing clean air as well.)

While it's all well and good to try and practice conservation, even if all 6 billion of us recycled to our heart's content there wouldn't be a long-term difference seen. To survive this population requires a global paradigm shift which is about as likely as Angelina Jolie showing up at my desk to compliment my creative programming skills.

Hawaii Big Island solution

[TooTechy]

I love the Big Island. Use orange street lamps to minimize the damage done from light pollution. Very forward thinking. But then, if a large part of their economy comes from the observatories, why not!

Buy the way, ask Thor. He probably had to count them already. He counted the pebbles in Wales.

Re:Hawaii Big Island solution

[MikeyTheK]

I live in the country on the mainland. When I lived in the city the ambient light made stargazing impossible. When my family comes to visit my house in the sticks, one of the things they all comment on is all the stars they can see now.

The stargazing on Hawaii is even more spectacular. However, the best stargazing I've ever done was from a little island on a tiny atoll several hundred miles west of Hawaii. Since there isn't anything resembling civilization nearby, it was about as black as one could imagine, as it was before moonrise. The night sky is completely chock full of dim lights that we have no hope of seeing when there is any ambient light at all. It really is amazing.

This can mean only one thing:

[thegnu]

Geez, the level of basic science knowledge here at /. is downright scary...

We've been infiltrated by Muslim jihadists!

Troll?

[thegnu]

I don't know why your genuine question got modded Troll, but whatever. That'll teach you to ask questions.

But really. I grew up at the tip of the Baja peninsula, and I now live in St Petersburg, FL. Darkness is good for your brain, man. It's difficult to describe the pain of not being able to be outside in the dark and see the stars. It's very abstract, and unless you've been out away from cities for a significant period of time--I think a month, at least--it's difficult to appreciate.

Same goes for noise pollution. And pollution pollution. When I came to the US, I spent a couple weeks in Riverside, CA. I went into Vernon, an industrial district of LA, with my friend Jon for one day. As we entered the city, I could feel the air entering my lungs, it was so thick. After 8 hours in Vernon, we left, went to dinner, and got to the place we were crashing. Some of the people in the group went out, but I didn't feel well, so I laid down. That night, I slipped into a hallucinatory high fever. Way way way better than TV. Anyway, the fever lasted a week in a half, and the rattling cough lasted 3 months.

Now, light pollution is less serious than that, but I'm sure it accounts for at least part of my depression living in St Pete. Which is why I'm moving.

Solution to pollution!

[weirdcrashingnoises]

Blow up the sun, that should cut light pollution by at least 50%

That'd help

[jgoemat]

It's not just that simple, but I think light pollution could be better calculated using that and some algorithms. One thing to take into account is elevation, at higher elevations the same amount of light visible from space wouldn't equal the light pollution. With less atmosphere to go through, more light will pass into space so the satellite will record a higher value than the same lights at a lower elevation, while less will actually be reflected back to the ground by the atmosphere so there will be less light pollution. Also let's say you are looking at a normal street lamp. Without a special hood, a lot of the light goes up into the atmosphere at various angles, but not straight up. If the satellite was directly overhead, it would not count all the light pollution produced by these lights.

Re:That'd help

[Adambomb]

I just figured the raw data from that kind of imagery would be sufficient for any kind of analysis rather than having to actually merge together the different sets of data from thousands of individuals concerning whats visible. I'm sure the number of sats you'd need for a full measure of the escaping light would be a lot easier to work with than this initiative.

Word though.

insensitive clods

[dannannan]

Those of us in places like Seattle might not see any stars at all from Oct 1 - 15, and it's not because of light pollution.

Re:insensitive clods

[treeves]

Uh, you meant Oct 1st to June 15th, right?

Re:insensitive clods

[treeves]

BTW, Sunriver, Oregon is a good dark place thanks to the efforts of local amateur astronomers. They have an observatory there and the homeowners association has rules about outside lighting which make it a nice dark place for stargazing.

the importance of the OBSERVER

[justo]

this is a big problem... human observation -live- and real time makes a huge difference. the human mind is able to use its intuition in scanning the skies, and in effect becomes part of the sky (measuring a system changes the system).

this is why humans can pick out standard candles with relative ease.

Terrible light pollution here...

[dzurn]

I'm in a moderately populated urban area. There's a lot of dark patches, but I can make out some areas where I can see localized lights. Not enough to be stars, they seem to be... hmmm... they look something like slightly organized dots. However I also do see some sort of borders between what I assume are the stars. It's like a sort of grid of white lines, about 2 feet square, with the stars in between.

Wait, maybe I'll get better results outside the office, and at night.

Never mind.

This has got to be ...

[carlcmc]

This has got to be one of the most +1 Informative posts I've read that is at the same time Offtopic. It is one of the most informative posts even if it was on topic. Wow. great Job.

'Glare bombs' make it easier for criminals

[geekotourist]

As this article on light pollution from Slashdot's last article on light pollution points out, badly done lighting could be worse than none at all.

"...the key to visibility, on runways as well as on roads, is contrast...The lighting near the mailboxes was of a type that Crawford calls "criminal-friendly": it was almost painful to look at, and it turned the walkway behind the boxes into an impenetrable void. "The eye adapts to the brightest thing in sight," he said. "When you have glare, the eye adapts to the glare, but then you can't see anything darker."

Much so-called security lighting is designed with little thought for how eyes--or criminals--operate. Marcus Felson, a professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, has concluded that lighting is effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice criminal activity as it's taking place, and if it doesn't help criminals to see what they're doing. Bright, unshielded floodlights--one of the most common types of outdoor security lighting in the country--often fail on both counts, as do all-night lights installed on isolated structures or on parts of buildings that can't be observed by passersby (such as back doors). A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the blinding glare of a poorly placed metal halide "wall pack."

i.e. if a passerby's pupils have shrunk to the size of pinholes because of a glaring light, their ability to see their feet, let alone a criminal, will have disappeared for several minutes. The same if they're driving by: they're less likely to see criminals by a house or moving creatures (deer, dogs, running children) by the road. [And then there's how the deer will also be blinded (more than humans for a given glare bomb).]

Light Guards

[Jarik C-Bol]

I live 2 towns away from McDonald Observatory in Texas, and in this town and most of the neighboring towns, the city lights have guards on them to reduce the amount of light going upwards into the atmosphere and reflecting down and interfering with the telescope. it is amazing the difference it makes. in a city about 100 miles from here, you can't see a single star at night, here, you walk out and look up at night, you are sure to see stars. a lot of simple things can be done to reduce light pollution.

VNV Nation's "Carbon"

[AP31R0N]

Carbon by VNV Nation (c) Totally stolen from some website a million points of light ascending to the sky monuments in darkness standing watch until the sun will rise screaming to an emptiness of how we deified ourselves with our hands over our eyes claiming all of creation what inspires in us this madness that out existence should be defined by a light that can't be seen by anyone what inspires in us this madness that out existence should be defined by a light that we can't see by a light that can't be seen a million points of light ascending to the sky monuments in darkness standing watch until the sun will rise I can't, I can't see this all as progress how did we come this far? when we see ourselves as deities claim nature for ourselves by our actions we betray the instincts in our race by our blindness and stupidity we kill everything we kill everything can someone see our self destruction? are we reminding ourselves that our existence is so delicate that without this light we are no more that without this light we've made we are no more a million points of light ascending to the sky monuments in darkness standing watch until the sun will rise we torch the earth until it bleeds rain ashes from the sky just to make a light that no one can see we cut the earth until it bleeds rain ashes from the sky just to make a light that no one can see just to make a light just to make a light we kill everything by our blindness and stupidity we kill everything and in a thousand years what will be our legacy a million lights that no one can see? a million points of light