Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

One Fifth of World's Population Can't See Milky Way At Night

Posted by timothy on from the 80-20-rule dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Cosmos Magazine: "Light pollution has caused one-fifth of the world's population — mostly in Europe, Britain and the US — to lose their ability to see the Milky Way in the night sky. 'The arc of the Milky Way seen from a truly dark location is part of our planet's natural heritage,' said Connie Walker, and astronomer from the US National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson, Arizona. Yet 'more than one fifth of the world population, two thirds of the US population and one half of the European Union population have already lost naked eye visibility of the Milky Way.'"

7 of 612 comments (clear)

  1. Well... I could. by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And then they built that super Wal-Mart 1/4 mile from my house. Now I am lucky if I can see Sirus or anything of a less than amazing magnitude.

    Poor kids, I wish they could see what they are missing.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
    1. Re:Well... I could. by Q-Hack! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      See the milky way or don't live in the dark. I think 99% of the population would choose one over the other.

      The whole point of reducing light pollution doesn't mean living in the dark. Lighting manufactures can create good lights that allow the light to shine down and not up into the sky. Its just getting the 99% of the population to choose these instead.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    2. Re:Well... I could. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IHBT, but what the hell:

      If you're too "manly" to appreciate beauty, then your life sucks more than your narrow brain can appreciate.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  2. You don't even know you're missing it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in Los Angeles. One day I went up to Yosemite to hike Half-Dome. It's a long hike, so we started at 3 in the morning. When we broke out of the trees, I looked up and shit my pants.

  3. On a trip to Vegas. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I looked up and said to a friend. This town is so corrupt even the stars have left it.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. This is goofy... by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I take issue with a number of things here...

    A) Is this 1/5th immobile? Can they not hop a commuter train to the suburbs or something? I'd really like to know. I know that when I go out to see Dad in Wyoming the difference is absolutely noticeable, but I've always assumed that the same could be gained by finding some road-side location out in 'the sticks'.

    B) When is light 'pollution', and are we okay with (what I assume is) a situational definition of that word? Is light 'pollution' when it comes out of your headlights? Or only when Wal-Mart uses it to light their parking lot? Is there some measurable standard of 'enough' light, and the excess is 'pollution'? Or is it only 'pollution' when you want it to be dark? I'd honestly like to know...

    C) What does 'the arc of the Milky Way seen from a truly dark location is part of our planet's natural heritage' mean, exactly? Are we really weighing the advantages of light at night against 'natural heritage'? Because, from where I sit, 'living in a cave, eating only what you can kill with a pointy stick' is also our 'natural heritage'. The rest is technology at work, for better or worse.

    It just strikes me as weird, and I'd love to hear voices from the other side of it.

    1. Re:This is goofy... by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A) If you look at a photo of Earth at night, you'll see why a clear view of the night sky is not just a train-ride to the suburbs away. Huge swaths of land are blanketed in artificial light. By the logic you're presenting here, it wouldn't matter if we cut down all the trees as long as we had tree museums for people to go visit.

      B) Pollution is pollution, regardless of the source. Lower levels are more tolerable than higher levels, but it all detracts from the view of the sky (along with other negative effects). All sources of light pollution should be minimized.

      C) Seeing the wonder of the universe is a good thing. Living in a cave is not. Is that distinction so difficult to comprehend? "The rest is technology at work, for better or worse." Oh, so maybe you do grasp the point! Except that we don't have to just accept technology "for better or worse"; we can choose to use technology in ways that makes our lives better and not to use technology in ways that makes it worse.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/