The Illuminati Project Pushes For Dark Skies In 2009

An anonymous reader writes "2009 is the 400th anniversary of Galileo's observations of Venus, Saturn and Jupiter published in Sidereus Nuncius ('Starry Messenger'). To improve scientific literacy, the NOAO and NASA are promoting dark-sky initiatives in 2009 to draw attention to the problem of light pollution which obscures nearly all night sky colors and objects except for the moon and a few bright stars and planets. Project Illuminati is a Flickr project by James Cann to showcase the beauty of light pollution to raise awareness and educate fellow Earthmates to lower energy consumption and become more curious about our place in the universe."

Comments

Re:Protecting the sky is possible

[Arthur Grumbine]

Here in Quebec, one of our parks is actually also protecting the sky...

I wasn't even aware the sky was in danger! I thought is was just our (and astronomers') view of it that was at risk...
Quick, rally the troops! We only have one sky and if its in danger, we better channel all available resources to make sure it goes on the endangered species list!! Also, we should find a preserve where it can stay until it recovers from the ghastly wounds we've been tearing in it every night.

All joking aside, though, my dad is an avid amateur astronomer living in the middle of one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country, but you don't see him complaining. The main reason? The far greatest concern for amateur astronomers isn't light pollution (there are tons of fantastic filters/optics you can get to easily decrease its effect), but rather atmospheric turbulence. This is why the Mt. Wilson observatory (just outside Pasadena) is still one of the best viewing areas on the West Coast. Oh - did I interrupt the championing of a new quasi-environmental cause that helps people feel they have purpose in life? My bad, please continue...

Jesus, I hate the term "light pollution"

[Torodung]

The term "light pollution" just reeks of Luddite bias. Why on earth is it pollution? Is everything man-made now considered pollution? Are we going to start calling cities "countryside pollution" and printing presses "litter makers?"

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to be in the dark. Scientists, of all people, should know that. There is nothing literally harmful about the light in cities, only benefit. Pollution is not a matter of opinion; a pollutant is something that can cause a vital substance (such as water) to be unhealthful to life.

The only "light pollution" I see, the stuff that is truly harmful, comes from the power plants that run the lights. Everyone I know calls that industrial pollution, and that's the only applicable extent to which the term applies. No one is talking about the carbon footprint when they casually mention "light pollution." They're talking about their distaste for urban centers.

So call it "spectral range compression" if you want to draw a bad analogy. Call it "urban sky syndrome," even. But for the love of God don't go diluting the critical cause of preventing the pollution of vital resources, because city lights don't correspond to your stargazing schedule, and you wanted to score some political points.

(*gets down from preachy soapbox and ceases "Slashdot pollution"*)

--
Toro

Re:Simple Example

[conureman]

Efficiency is good, here. Skyglow is an evil thing, and stupid, in my estimation. If all those lights could be replaced with LEDs of limited frequency spread, perhaps filtering the interference could be enabled. Legislation, anyone? I am not an astronomer, but this is one more area where I feel violated, and fuck all of y'all if you think ruining MY night sky is alright.