NYT Editorial on Light Pollution
From: Esmail Bonakdarian (esmail_at_myrealbox.com)
Date: 06/14/04
- Next message: Davoud: "Re: Are meteorites hot or cold when they hit the ground?"
- Previous message: Mike Fitterman: "Re: Fire Flies"
- Next in thread: Jax: "Re: NYT Editorial on Light Pollution"
- Reply: Jax: "Re: NYT Editorial on Light Pollution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:44:43 -0400
>From today's New York Times editorial page:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/opinion/14MON3.html
June 14, 2004
Light Pollution
New Yorkers know all too well the effect of light pollution - the
bright orange glow that floats above every city in the state at
night. That glow represents wasted energy, light that should be
focused downward from outdoor lighting but that is actually emitted
skyward. It costs us real money, and it also costs us something more
intangibly valuable, a chance to see the night sky in all its
glory. There is a good opportunity to do something about this. The
State Senate Rules Committee has in its hands a bill that would call
for the use of fully shielded outdoor lamps designed to concentrate
light on the ground and not in the sky. The Assembly has already
passed an identical version of it. The Rules Committee should send the
bill to the Senate for passage and and on to Gov. George Pataki.
There has been a fair amount of misunderstanding about what this bill
might mean. It sets energy and light pollution standards for outdoor
lighting and calls for the gradual replacement, where feasible, of
conventional lighting with new lamps designed to keep light from being
thrown upward or outward where it isn't wanted. The two major concerns
are, of course, cost and security. New York City has objected to this
bill on the mistaken assumption that it would be required to double
the number of streetlights. But actual installations have demonstrated
that the increase is likely to be closer to 5 percent. The city is
conducting a competition for a new streetlight design, and it would
make a real difference in night-sky visibility and long-term energy
savings if those new lights were fully shielded. There is obviously no
inherent reason a lamp that projects most of its light downward should
reduce lighting security.
Talk about light pollution always leads to talk about astronomers, who
are, by trade, keenly interested in the subject. A glowing sky at
night renders the rest of the universe invisible. But the night sky
belongs to all of us, no matter how infrequently or how casually we
look its way. Light pollution is the easiest kind of pollution to
control. It may take a few years, but it will seem as though we turned
up the stars without any loss of light here on earth.
--- nice to see this concern in such a main stream media outlet Esmail -- Esmail Bonakdarian - esmailATmyrealboxDOTcom - http://www.cs.mercer.edu/bonak 32N 83W ---------------------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Next message: Davoud: "Re: Are meteorites hot or cold when they hit the ground?"
- Previous message: Mike Fitterman: "Re: Fire Flies"
- Next in thread: Jax: "Re: NYT Editorial on Light Pollution"
- Reply: Jax: "Re: NYT Editorial on Light Pollution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
