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,
"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
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.
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
You know who doesn't have a light pollution problem?
North Korea!
(Did I misunderstand the whole Godwin thing?)
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".
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.
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.
You can see a real-time light polution map here http://www.die.net/earth/?zoom=1
Nope. I've heard about it - it's in some place called the Blue Room.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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
This subject is clearly driven by astronomers with a desire to view the night sky. The issue of wasted energy seems only to be mentioned to gather support. This is clear in the first article which suggests using a 'shade' to make street lamps more efficient. A reflector is necessary if you want to get more useful energy out, as an opaque shade will just make your lamp housing hotter. I believe that modern designs do include reflectors now.
It doesn't really matter why astronomers say what they say. What matters is if it's true. And there is no doubt that illuminating the sky directly is a waste of electricity and therefore money. If they advocate less than stellar solutions then the answer is to get better solutions, not to ignore the whole light pollution issue.
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/
I don't think anyone is overlooking that. If you look, I doubt you can find many who say "We should eliminate ALL light pollution from urban areas". That's not happening, and everyone knows it. Astronomers accept the lesser bad of reflected light, and strive towards that rather than some improbable utopia.
There's another thing too: light pollution is rarely created above light fixtures (which is where the picture is taken from), but to the side. Streetlights mostly light pollute in the near horizontal, meaning they tend to light pollute some distance away from themselves. If the camera actually was in the line of sight of the light sources (like people on the ground, or the sky when floodlights point at it) then the picture would be so full of camera flare that it wouldn't look even half as pretty.
To sum up: reflected light is a problem, but it's nothing at all like what we have now, so people who care would be happy to deal with it instead.