Slashdot Mirror
Help Map Global Light Pollution, By Starlight
Kilrah_il writes "Light pollution is a big problem these days, affecting not only astronomers and wild life, but also everyone else because of wasted energy. GLOBE at Night aims to raise awareness by urging people to go outside and find out how much light pollution there is in their area. 'The campaign is easy and fun to do. First, you match the appearance of the constellation Orion in the first campaign (and Leo or Crux in the second campaign) with simple star maps of progressively fainter stars found. Then you submit your measurements, including the date, time, and location of your comparison. After all the campaign's observations are submitted, the project's organizers release a map of light-pollution levels worldwide.'"
I'm going to go out at night with a big flashlight and find those gosh darn light polluters.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I live in Phoenix, thank you, and 20 miles from the middle of town on the opposite side of a mountain range I can see my way around the house at night without lights -- and with the blinds closed.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Seriously, the light pollution around DFW is so bad I can't see much more than Orion and the Big Dipper. During last night's super moon, the faintest star of the Big Dipper was hard to see. Couldn't make out the Little Dipper at all.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Last time I was at our local (ish) observatory, they had a light pollution map. Is this new?
All astronomy is done with ONE optical telescope? There are more than a few astronomers.
"It was raining and the pollution was terrible, couldn't even see Rigel."
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I live in Seattle. We can't see the sky through the clouds.
Have gnu, will travel.
but also everyone else because of wasted energy.
I use solar-powered security lights which turn on at night . This helps with safety and security, and the benefits far outweight the cost.
The article is misleading, and referring to night-time illumination as "pollution" is derogatory and disingenuous. If you feel light except starlight is unwanted, then get a parcel of sufficient forested property, and don't cut down your trees, so you can take a walk far enough from civilization to see what you want.
You chose to live in a population concentrated, civilized, area, so you have to deal with the fact that humans are active at night, or concerned about other humans active at night who might be up to no good, and need light to see, protect, and safely move about.
So dark sometimes, you can't see the wall you just walked into!
Need more LED's on my PC's...
>"find out how much light pollution there is in their area."
Tons! But I live in a city and there isn't much I can do about it. Mostly poorly designed street lights. Then there are those neighbors that think their property is so much better with a megawatt of flood lights all over. Ug.
But I would GLADLY put up with even more light pollution if it meant less NOISE pollution from damn modified motorcycles, leaf blowers, barking dogs, horns, sirens, and ESPECIALLY those "boom box cars" projecting their damn bass for 1/2 mile in all directions.
I grew up in a wooded suburb with no streetlights... it was so quiet and dark and peaceful. The sky was so pretty and the air so quiet.... Oh the good 'ol days. Didn't know how important those things were until I lost them.
what a concept? pollution? once the infactdead holycost ends, there won't be any left? we knew star gazing & hand waving fit in this maelstrom somewhere? see you at the play-dates etc...
Whether you like the fact that we have lots of artificial light at night or not, it's silly to refer to it as "pollution." For some people -- astronomers and those who have a serious desire to look up and see the stars -- it's a problem. For others, it's no more a problem than the smell of honeysuckle is pollution. Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
You want honesty?
When's the last time the smell of honeysuckle contributed to the demise of a species of animal?
When's the last time the smell of honeysuckle prevented kids from knowing about the sky they live under? There are kids (and adults) who not only don't know the constellations, but their jaws drop open when they see a non-light-polluted sky for the first time.
Why don't you just admit that you like the light, and don't like being told how to light the places you live and work?
There's honesty for you.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
the 'polluting'/remaining light? can't we just get rid of the offending light? vaporize it? make there be less people trying to see stuff in the night? something? less is always better, unless you're a king/minion. then you just have to put out the lights for other people?
babys rule. please fail to discount/trivialize the ongrowing photon showers. thanks.
It's equally silly to suggest that just because you don't personally care about it, something with documented adverse effects not only on people, but on nature in general, isn't a problem.
By that standard, mercury pollution isn't a problem, either. I happen to like the way it makes my brain taste all crackly. It's therefore dishonest of you to refer to mercury as pollution, since personal opinion outweighs scientific studies.
I think the only way though to counter the tightly-nit group who wants to call it "light pollution" is to start a group that wants to do the polar opposite.
Ensure the safety of citizens and reduce crime rates by generating at much night-time light as possible.
Perhaps some tax credits for property owners releasing at least 1000 lumens in the aggregate over at least 50 outdoor lights. 180 degree coverage angle required by the collection of lights with concentrated light beams projected no lower than 90 degrees above nadir.
Light pollution is unnecessary and misdirected lights that do nothing except,
1. illuminate the sky, and
2. it create pollution - power is not free and most of it still comes from polluting sources (nuclear is still only a small fraction and renewable, except for hydroelectric, is less than 1% in more places)
so light pollution is polluting the sky in both meanings. It's silly not to call it pollution.
If you go to http://www.globeatnight.org/ you will find explanations of how to compare the stars you see in the sky with a set scale of images. There is an interactive test so you assure the project your rating of star detail matches their own rating scale. Easy way for people to contribute.
You know who doesn't have a light pollution problem?
North Korea!
(Did I misunderstand the whole Godwin thing?)
I don't have a position on the issue one way or the other. I just don't like linguistic dishonesty.
I'd like to see a more quantitative study. Why not try to measure the ambient light in these environments? Then we can compare it to the light received in a telescope from various stars in the same local. Most people intuitively know that light pollution makes it so you cannot see the stars easily in brighter cities, why waste the time of multiple people to explain something obvious. Its better to actually get real and scientific data you can use for something worthwhile, like illumination correction, optimal location of observatories, etc.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Whether you like the fact that we have lots of artificial light at night or not, it's silly to refer to it as "pollution." For some people -- astronomers and those who have a serious desire to look up and see the stars -- it's a problem. For others, it's no more a problem than the smell of honeysuckle is pollution. Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
It IS "pollution", in the sense that each photon that goes upwards is a WASTED photon, since the primary function of our lights is to illuminate the ground (and its surroundings), and not the sky. So no, the term "light pollution" is not a linguistic dishonesty.
It's not just astronomers. All this unnecessary lighting is also bad for wildlife. It's known to mess up the navigational ability of migratory birds for instance. There's also a whole list of negative effects associated with over lighting.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
There are kids (and adults) who not only don't know the constellations, but their jaws drop open when they see a non-light-polluted sky for the first time.
Hehe I was the opposite. Coming from Australia, the first time I went to the US as a 17 year old, my jaw dropped when I saw how ~few~ stars can be seen at night over there. I hadn't imagined it would be so bad, because even in the large cities in Australia you can usually still see a fair few stars. I realise now this is because in the US, you have towns and cities quite close to each other. In most of the eastern half of the country, there's not more than a few miles between one town and the next, so there's light coming from a vast area of land. Whereas in Australia, even in a large city throwing off a huge amount of light, the next significant settlement once you leave that city is generally hundreds or even thousands of km away. So it's not so much the intensity of the light in the US that causes the difference, it's the 'widespreadness' of it.
Isn't most important astronomy these days done by space-based telescopes?
I'm not exactly an astronomer, more of an enthusiast, but I'd love to be able to buy a good telescope and use it to see brilliant galaxy and nebula images. I can't see shit in the sky around here in Northeast Ohio--and I about shat myself when I saw this image, taken with just a plain camera, with no fucking telescope:
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/2376/the_milky_way_galaxy.html
It really pisses me off that I can't see this kind of clarity, far past Earth's atmosphere and into outer space. I'm lucky that I can see the very "brightest" stars in the sky and maybe a few of the bigger and brighter planets, like Jupiter and Saturn. It fucking sucks. I always thought it was "just that way" until I learned more about light pollution, and some of the from-ground images I've seen on the Internet (including the above) really made me aware of what I've been missing since... well, since I first time I ever looked at the sky.
you can almost see the stars...
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
It wouldn't be a problem if it was limited to the center of town where there may be activity at night. I for one quite like being in cities that never go dark. It's the combination of suburban and exurban sprawl with lighting that's making it a problem. We're turning the whole world into a single big city slowly but surely.
at night.
Driving East towards Houston in the middle of the night is like driving into the sunrise even if the sun sat behind you not but a couple of hours ago. Considering I grew up on desert side of the state I know what the sky is supposed to look like at night, and I know what it doesn't look like here, it's just a glow. Yeah, this whole region could use some light shading.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
it's completely up to US. babys rule. perfect math.
Tried that, but it was so dark I couldn't see a damn thing.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I fully expected there to be an iPhone/Android app to download which would use the built in camera to measure the ambient light/light pollution/relative brightness of the stars. Google's sky map app is great for pointing at the sky, twirling around and identifying the constellations and individual stars/objects so targeting Leo/Crux would be easier, and the whole process could be more idiot-proof and less error-prone, especially if the conditions were only as good as their "Magnitude 0.5" chart. (Which are surely the conditions they want to map the most.) It wouldn't be as accurate as a Sky Quality Meter, but it might allow far more people to share the conditions at their location.
The biggest issue being overlooked here seems to be what happens to the light that shines down as intended. This light reflects off things sending light upwards regardless of the lamp design. If you look at the aerial motor race photograph linked below you will notice that most of the light seems to be coming from the track itself, not the lights.
http://www.craigfergusonimages.com/2009/11/aerial-f1-singapore-at-night-by-wong-kin-leong/
Expect astronomers to soon start requesting:
-extra black grades of asphalt
-turning all the lights off whenever possible
-laws against parking white cars under streetlamps
A similar study was done in the late nineties by a UK TV program called tomorrows world where they asked viewers to look through an empty toilet roll at a specific star and count the visible stars around it. The big win was probably the increased interest in astronomy from all the children looking through their 'mini telescopes' rather than the actual data.
--
This is the last time I try to comment on slashdot from an iPhone. Apologies for the crappy formatting
When light is directed downward at the ground some of that light is reflected upward again. Otherwise we could not see what is on the ground. How do you stop light being reflected by the ground? People want to be able to see when walking the streets after dark, play sports at night, etc.
There are some lights that need improvement but great strides have been made. The bad lights can not be found by people describing ambient light.
Another issue is that when people look at the sky they have generally just left a building with white light and probably have a street light in their field of vision. They are effectively night blind and seeing any stars will be difficult.
Your crusade on this is pretty annoying. Studies have been done that show streetlights don't reduce crime at all. And frankly, even if they did, I'd still take stars over the slightly increased risk of getting mugged.
You can see a real-time light polution map here http://www.die.net/earth/?zoom=1
I don't have a position on the issue one way or the other. I just don't like linguistic dishonesty.
There's nothing dishonest about calling it pollution. It is just that.
Personally I'd like to see people light their environments sensibly with lights reflecting down not up. I hate that it seems it'll require legislation to fix this (or more likely it just won't be fixed) because people just don't care or are ignorant.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Personally, I find the smell of most flowers highly offensive to the point that strong flower odors make me want to exit an area quickly.
Doesn't stop people from putting flowers every-fn-where. Before I left my last job, they had started putting a fresh bouquet of flowers in the lobby every day. I dreaded having to go in and out of the building and have to be near that damn bouquet.
The smell of honeysuckle is sure as hell pollution to me.*
The point being is that one person's "no problem" might another person's pollution. Some people consider excess light to be harmful, and therefore it is pollution to them. It doesn't make the characterization dishonest, it's merely opinion.
*Note that I am not on a rampage to screw all the people out there who like flowers. I recognize that my view is not shared by many.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
These rants are at their most entertaining if you imagine it being read by a beatnik with a black turtleneck and beret performing it as spoken word at a night club in the early 60s
also, in the south hemisphere you can see many more stars, since we point to center of the galaxy.
I think there's at least 2.
For a night map of the Earth using Google Maps API: http://www.nightearth.com
Sorry for advertising, but I think it is a somewhat relevant link.
It'd be poetic justice if someone were to assault (or mug) him during the day. Then he'd see what's what.
What u say is so true, and I think as light pollution increases, it may have profound consequences re: how well future generations of folks understand the universe. For example, my wife who has lived in cities all her life, had no idea there were so many stars in the night sky until we camped at Everest Base Camp a few years back. For many people, reading about the universe in science text books back in high school is no substitute for actually seeing the reality of the matter, as expressed by my star of a wife. Cheers!
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
English is your second language, isn't it?
Studies have been done that show streetlights don't reduce crime at all.
I knew a very larcenous person that once told me,
he appreciated when someone parked under a street
light, cause he didn't have to use his flashlight and
attract attention.
Now, you can believe a cop, or a thief... but he made
more than the cops.
-@|
Yeah all that light pollution is surely a bad thing. My jaw totally doesn't drop in awe when a see a city from afar. There's no way it'd be better than looking at stars.
The crooks are really concerned. The victims of their deeds may see them coming and take protective measures if the light levels remain high.
North Korea FTW.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
Has very little effect on stars. Because they're points, they are very bright. the moon is an extended object and, at full, is probably as *intense* as a star of 10th magnitude.
Where it will cause more problems is that your eye won't open as wide, but that only knocks a couple of magnitudes off.
Now, if there is crap in the air, finding the bit that is a star and not the skyglow, that's more difficult.
TBH, it's more the crap in the air (that you always get) that makes light pollution so bad.
Most people intuitively know that light pollution makes it so you cannot see the stars easily in brighter cities, why waste the time of multiple people to explain something obvious.
There are a lot of obvious things that people don't pay attention to. Just ask Fox News.
I care, i'd like to see some stars when i look up
Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
Well that's it. Turn in your political correctness award. If you're going to tell the truth, we can't allow you to call yourself PC
It's equally silly to suggest that just because you don't personally care about it, something with documented adverse effects not only on people, but on nature in general, isn't a problem.
Post links to that documentation please.
There is developing evidence that light pollution actually exacerbates air pollution - it appears to inhibit dark reactions (that's what they are called) that break down air pollution at night, thus increasing it in the day also. See Nighttime photochemistry: nitrate radical destruction by anthropogenic light sources
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Bear in mind that that's a 30 second exposure, the guy even says "I wish we could see the Milky Way that way with our bare eyes". Viewing the sky without light pollution is indeed a beautiful thing, but I don't think a 30 second exposure at F2.8 is exactly analogous to normal eyesight! I'd love if someone who lives in an area with absolutely zero light pollution could tell us different though.
which is totally what she said
Completely agree. I still remember one night on a long walk in the countryside, with zero moonlight, and miles to even the nearest little streetlit village, the number of stars you can actually see with the naked eye is truly incredible (to a town/city dweller).
which is totally what she said
Yes please turn out all the lights, it makes it easier for me to rape the ladies when there is no safety net out there
NE OH? Here in Toledo if we didn't have the light pollution the smoke from the refineries would probably cause the same effect anyway unfortunately. I agree though, I wish there was a sky to show my daughter in her young, impressionable days.
Isn't most important astronomy these days done by space-based telescopes?
Actually, the tide is turning a bit the opposite way. I seem to recall reading a while back (perhaps it was here on slashdot) that people were working on ground based systems that could out-resolve hubble, using software that could detect and compensate for the atmospheric distortion.
A quick search turned up this: http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?aid=324
But a new camera system has been developed to bring this power to the visible spectrum as well. The "Lucky Camera" works by recording partially corrected images taken using the adaptive optics system at very high speed, capturing more than 20 frames a second. Most of these images are still smeared by the atmosphere, but the occasional one is crisp and clear and unblurred. The software can recognize these clear ones, and keeps them to later assemble into a single, sharp image.
Using this software on the 5.1 metre Hale Telescope on Palomar Mountain, astronomers were able to achieve images with twice the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. Previously, it was 10 times worse.
Just the first couple of hits on Google:
http://www.suite101.com/content/more-evidence-of-light-pollution-harm-to-animals-a89082
http://www.urbanwildlands.org/abstracts.html
http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/wildlife.html
http://calgary.rasc.ca/lp/animals.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Well, this begs the question how to define pollution.
My proposal would be something like: human produced effects and items that are not being used by anyone.
Now what used means and produced, etc. is open to debate, but for me this pretty much covers it.
Your flowers would fail the test, as they are apparently being used to decorate the area. I do think they are a produced item, unlike when you'd encounter flowers in the wild, so it does meet some of the criteria. Now discarded flowers at a market or something like that would be within my definition of pollution.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
The way we currently use outside nighttime illumination is very wasteful. Large powerful unshielded lamps end up throwing light where is ISN'T needed or wanted wasting power and putting more CO2 into the air. What's even worse is that by having this extra light spilling out we create glare that blinds us by killing off our sensitive night time vision. The human eye is well night adapted. Our iris can open to over 7mm (in younger people) and we have sensitive cells scattered about our retina that activate in low light. As a result we DON'T need excessive levels of light at night to have good vision, the goal should be to emulate the full moon (NOT the noon time SUN!). By creating pockets of glare you actually give the criminal element places to hide from view giving you LESS security at night not more. True there ARE places where strong outdoor night time lighting IS needed (sports stadiums and fields in parks) but here the light should only be on when needed. I often see the lights on at local sports fields all night long with NOBODY playing ball. We need a federal law that will ban wasteful outdoor lighting and set a short time table to have existing lighting that does not meet the standards removed or shut off. Doing this will save a lot of energy (need less oil), reduce power plant CO2 outputs, increase night time security, create some jobs (to replace existing lighting), and reduce light pollution.
By NASA.
Sig this!
I'm from Las Vegas. Stars? I'm not familiar with this Orion. Is he one of the Elvis Impersonators?
Go camping. You can probably drive about two hours away and see the glory of the sky with no light pollution.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'm more concerned about this darkness pollution. I hear they cause muggings and car accidents.
Seriously, this strikes me as an ideal app for a starter project. Build an app that is designed to record a pix, the time, and the location of pix and send it to a server. That server can then make decent approximations of what night lights are. THink in terms of wunderground and their personal weather stations.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They have guidelines for selecting lights etc. here.
But no, this is a magnitude 3 submission... the same as if you were a few miles from a city. Can't be valid... then when I take a look at the "more information" of this submission, it says that it is associated with South Carolina (USA). Someone entered their longitude wrong!
I also found a magnitude 4 submission in northern Canada that's somehow associated with Texas!
Given that there are no other similarly located observations (middle of the north Atlantic), you couldn't even get an accurate reading based on an "average" of local observations... Maybe you can throw out lat/long pairs that are nowhere near their stated "location"?
I would be very annoyed at my data set.
One more reason to keep an eye on your money.
It's often bothered me that we can't set up a few days a year -- when meteor showers are expected, perhaps for a lunar eclipse or when there's a comet in the sky -- when everyone who can shuts off their outside lights so people can enjoy the sky. Flying at night show how much light is just wasted energy -- vast empty parking lots with lights pointed upwards, empty streets brightly lit for nonexistent drivers, buildings lit up with nobody at home.
Maybe not: http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html
Interesting perspective. Thanks!
Actually, pollution is exactly the right word for it. More specifically litter. It is a useful man-made thing that has become a nuisance because it is now where it isn't supposed to be. Cups and napkins are quite useful at your lunch table. Not so much when they're blowing down the street.
Drive another 20 miles away from the city and you will see more stars than 90+% of the first world's population has seen in their life.
20 miles further out and I'm still in Wal-Mart territory (Cave Creek.)
Now, 90 miles further out and Phoenix is just a glow on the horizon. About like sunset, really -- you can actually see Orion on a clear night. To see the Milky Way, though, you have to be farther than that. Like Show Low or Pinetop. Once I'm on the White Mountain Apache reservation the sky starts to be really worthwhile, and it only takes a four-hour drive.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I live in Vegas...Easily the worst place in the world for light pollution.