Slashdot Mirror
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."
No, the goal of environmentalism is to gain influence over people, corporations, and governments through loads and loads of bullshit and fear mongering, all while selling carbon credits, foisting inferior products, and traipsing over the corpses of those who starved because of the DDT ban, those who couldn't get adequate medicine because of ever-increasing restrictions, and those who died on the streets after losing their job when their industry was shut down for not being "green" enough.
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...
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
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
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.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I'm sorry, it just seems to petty to ask everybody to turn off all their lights so some tiny group of people, all of who are perfectly capable of traveling somewhere else, can get their pet need taken care of. If viewing the sky is important to you, and you live where you can't find darkness anywhere, then I guess you just need to decided whether it's important enough to you to move, eh?
Comment of the year
Ok, then get on an fucking plane. Geez, how about displaying some ability for independent thought and maybe thinking to yourself: "hm, maybe he didn't mean 'drive' in a literal sense, but perhaps he meant 'travel' instead!"
Yes, I know that costs money and takes time. But you need to ask yourself, "is it that important to me?" (Again: independent thought!) If so, then do it. If not, then stop whining. Asking everybody else to bow to your whims by turning off their lights is crazy and stupid.
Comment of the year
stop posting you fucking moron and learn to read first