Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Setting Up Non-Obnoxious Outdoor Lighting?
An anonymous reader writes "My neighbor recently complained about my outdoor floodlight shining in her window. While trying to address this problem, I read an essay about the tragedy of light pollution, and started to think that this is a much broader issue. With all the new lighting technologies out there, this may be the right time to rethink lighting — both indoor and outdoor; public and private. I solved my problem by replacing the floodlight with a spotlight, but I also considered installing a colored light. What are some strategies for illuminating what we need to without casting excess light everywhere and inadvertently blinding our neighbors or keeping them awake?"
What do you need a floodlight for?
IMHO there is way too much lighting - residential areas just plain don't need outdoor lighting at all; what's wrong with just carrying a torch?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Watch out, they may respond with poisonous gas!
http://www.27bslash6.com/halogen.html
paul reinheimer
The http://www.darksky.org/ has several resources. Better yet, become a member.
You're obviously not an astronomer. See this photo for a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Light_pollution_country_versus_city.png (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution)
It's all relative - replace your light with a carbon-arc searchlight, the sort they used to light up bombers during the War. After a couple of weeks of that making her bedroom look like a film set, she'll be thrilled when you put the original one back. Alternatively, put the light on a strobe circuit. Then you can claim with perfect accuracy that you have reduced the light output to half of what it was previously, and as a bonus her room will look really cool.
Surely this is the excuse you've been waiting for to buy night vision goggles?
As a long time stargazer I can sympathize with your neighbor and its pretty much the reason I moved out to the country. Floodlights are the worst, they illuminate every which way. Good lighting uses something to shield the light from going up and sideways and focuses the beam down toward the ground. We installed pot lights outside and use colored lights in them that are softer but are still plenty bright enough to see if you go outside. Also, there is no substitute for simply turning them off when you are in the house, although that is easy for me to say where I live. In the city some see them as a deterrent to people sneaking around their yard. You could always put your lights on a motion sensor as well I guess. You can google for outdoor residential lighting that minimizes light pollution. Check out a few astronomy forums, there are plenty of militant anti-light folks there that could advise you as well.
if (FireFury03 == 'Brit'){
torch = 'flashlight';
};
Nope. Pollution is merely a contaiminant introduced into an environment that causes adverse change. Light pollution can have adverse effects on the environment beyond making astronomers cranky. There are also medical studies showing that excessive light has adverse effects on the health on both humans and other animals.
You're simply misinformed and bashing a strawman.
The real problem with outdoor lighting is that fixtures are installed incorrectly probably 99% of the time. is there ANY reason that >50% of the light escaping the fixture should be going skyward? Aim the things properly and > 90% of the light pollution problem will go away (what remains is incidental reflection from the ground or scattering by water vapor). I have been in well-lighted gated communities where careful design went into outdoor lighting, and despite the ground being well lit, you still get a great view of the sky.
I am finishing a move to Lee, NH and in my backyard I can see the Milky Way very clearly, and for the first time I can actually spot the Andromeda Galaxy clearly without resorted to averted viewing.
Near me I have two NASCAR tracks and one drag track nearby (Lee Speedway, Star Speedway, and one New England Dragway). Lee Speedway is a short jog through the woods and Friday nights, sky viewing is crap; driving by I checked out the lights, and they're aimed at about a 30 angle, throwing 70%+ of the light up to the sky. I don't mind the noise at all from the track, but the light pollution is very annoying, because when those stupid lights are on I can't see much more in the sky than I can see in Boston. The problem can be solved very easily by aiming the lights correctly. It would still create a light dome from reflected and refracted light, but it would be very minimal.
Most of the problem is due to installer incompetence. There is no reason - no need for these lights to not be aimed properly. In fact, IMHO, it should be part of NEC to require outdoor lighting to be aimed as well as wired and sealed properly.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I live in a wood in Scotland three miles from the nearest streetlight, half a mile from the nearest other house. I don't have any exterior lights, because I don't need them. There's no more than two nights a year when it's murky enough - usually because of fog - to need a torch. The human eye is extremely good at adapting to low light, if you give yourself a couple of minutes to adjust. And out of doors, on planet Earth, it is literally never dark.
Starlight is a free natural service offered you by the planet which doesn't run up your energy bill or cause light pollution. Use it.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
screw that noise, build a moonlight tower and show Mother Nature who's BOSS!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Just because the benefit outweighs the cost does not mean it is not pollution. It just means the pollution is potentially justified (arguments nailing down the costs and benefits aside). Putting oil slicks on ponds benefits people in some areas by killing mosquito larvae, but that doesn't mean it isn't pollution, even if the costs out weigh the befits. An emergency generator running a hospital during a power outage produces a crap ton of benefits, but that doesn't mean the exhaust is pollution free. The costs don't have to be direct human health costs either, as they can include quality of life costs and damages to wildlife (the latter may be considered part of the former...).
Also, just about every light pollution campaign I've seen isn't arguing removing lighting. It is about using lighting as needed, and not being wasteful. Light designs that seen 10-50% of the light directly into the air are not increasing security, just wasting electricity. Lighting that is uneven is wasting electricity on the excessively bright areas while not providing enough illumination in other ares. In that case, it is large detriment to security, as someone hiding in shadows when your eyes are accustomed to a brightly lit path is even better hidden than if on consistently lit, dim path.
Certainly not Rock and Roll
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
The horror disgust and hilarity concerning "fanny packs" are very real, but they have nothing to do with the meaning of the word "fanny."