Jump to content

Talk:Light pollution/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

FAC?

Just came across this article and it's looking great! Izogi seems to have done a great job making this into a very good piece of work. I'd love to nominate this as a FAC, but I know there's one thing that might hold it back - references. If someone could add this one missing section (perhaps by rearranging the External links section) then I reckon it could become featured. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very flattering and I agree with you about the references. (So far I've been lazy, since a lot of the info that I've added has been coming from recollections of my own experience.) I'll look at improving them over the next few days to help back up the information. I also still feel that it's not quite complete yet, and it trails off a bit towards the end. In particular, there's quite a bit more that might be said about the methods of reducing light pollution. If anyone wants to help fill that in, the door's open. Otherwise I'll see what I can do. Izogi 01:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

More pictures

I don't know if anyone's following the edits I've been making lately. If you are, though, can anyone provide an extra image or two for inclusion in the article? In particular, I've been looking around for a good picture of something like a drop-lens cobra fixture, taken during the day, to demonstrate how it's designed in such a way so that light will escape horizontally and upwards. Any other images that might demonstrate things in the article would be great too, of course.

I'd thought there might be free-to-use pictures available from the IDA, but it seems to want to charge even to obtain them, let alone re-publish.

Izogi 07:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Drop-lens cobra luminaire
Flat-lens cobra luminaire
Well the quality could be better, but these two may help — by the way I assume these are cobra liuminairs based on the examples given elsewhere. If that's not right, please rename them. -- Solipsist 15:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks -- these are just what I had in mind. I'll try them out in the article. Izogi 21:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

readded blip about darkest sky in U.S.

october 2004, page 56 - cover article is entitled "America's Last Wild Places"R Lee E 03:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Neat, thanks. I've adjusted the citation slightly, for consistency as much as anything else. Izogi 05:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I presume the intention is to add the place with the darkest sky in every other country as well? Otherwise it is US-POV and should be removed - MPF 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. It's very biased towards the US, and I'm not comfortable with that either. (I'm not from the US at all, FWIW.) I do think it's relevant, however, that people have to travel for hours or days at great expense just to get somewhere that's unaffected, and one or two representative examples of that would be beneficial, irrespective of where they come from. It might read better if it was worked into the surrounding text as a representative example. Not having access to the cited article, though, I don't want to start editing it blindly. Izogi 00:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sofixit - its not like its a left-wing, right-wing thing. I simply supplied the relevant and useful information that I came across, and I wasn't considering politics. And personally I can't see any reason to consider politics. If you can provide similar info for other countries, that'd be wonderful. But it would be an over-reaction to start a NPOV debate over this. R Lee E 00:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Come to think of it, wouldn't the darkest place in the continental US be somewhere in Alaska? - or should it read "the contiguous states"? - MPF 00:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

regarding your statement about Alaska, my assumption with that is the fact that it stays dark for about 3 or 4 hours in the summer up there. The sun doesn't set until about 11:00pm up there in the summer. When it does set, its more like a perpetual twilight rather than complete darkness. R Lee E 00:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

What do people think about re-formatting of references?

I've been thinking about re-formatting the references list to use footnote-style numbering templates. (My favourite is Wikipedia:Footnote3, because it's auto-numbered.) The main reason I'd like to do this is because a lot of the citations aren't clear author-title-date specified. Instead, it's a mixture including many web pages, government reports, and so on. I've been finding it a bit difficult to briefly but accurately refer to specific references from within the text. A auto-numbered system could remove a lot of ambiguity and make the citations tidier to look at. The References section of the Tasmanian Devil article is an example similar to what I have in mind.

How would others feel about this change, though? Is it a problem to anyone else? Are there better ways of fixing it? I realise that the numbering system is controversial in some ways, both for clarity in some people's view, as well as some technical arguments with respect to Wikipedia. (See here for more detail).

Izogi 03:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Cobra Luminarie (At night)

G'day, I've an excelent opportunity to take a picture of both types of lights at night with the patterns of illumination visible. We are currently feeling the effects of Hurricane Katrina and so I won't be able to take a good picture of the lights until a few days from now, but I'll add 'em here for your perusal. Flehmen Work with me 16:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello (again). Thanks for offering. If you do this, though, could you please make an effort to take notes of all the relevant camera settings? Photography's something that's quite easy to be creative with, maybe unfortunately in this case. One of the things I find a bit disturbing about many light pollution information sources and advocate groups is that they show lots of comparison photos, but don't clearly state any evidence that it's not just creative photography causing the lights to look less glarey, and so on. If someone was trying to use them to convince me, possible creative photography is one of the first things I'd question. If the relevant camera settings are all documented, though, it'll be much easier to present it objectively and from more of a neutral point of view. Maybe I'm pedantic, but it seems like a lazy way for so many organisations to do it, and I think it's something that Wikipedia could quite easily do much better than what tends to be the status quo. Izogi 06:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
No, that sounds like an appropriate idea. MY thought is to take them both in the same picture. Of course, as with anything digital, that doesn't even matter but it is a little more appropriate when comparing...Flehmen Work with me 09:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Question about efficiency of cobra light fixtures

The article claims these fixtures are more efficient. This claim is unclear. My initial thinking reading this was that its not more energy efficient, since the same amount of power is drawn, but the light merely gets lost inside the fixture. I suppose it could be more efficient if the bulb is shaped to only allow light to point downward, or the inside of the fixture has some sort of mirror coating. Is this the case? If so, we should say so in the article, instead of just making this vague claim about efficiency. Thanks. ThePedanticPrick 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello. The pictures (and their captions) used to be in the opposite order, so some of the context might have been lost by putting the full cutoff one first. What it should indicate is that a flat lens cobra fixture is a full cutoff fixture, whereas the drop-lens cobra fixture isn't. This means that the flat-lens fixture doesn't emit light to useless places (ie. sideways and upwards), so less energy is needed overall and the light can operate on less total power. This is explained in the text, but the caption didn't seem to prioritise the phrase "full cutoff", so it might not have been clear that that's what it was talking about. I've made a quick attempt to make it clearer, but I'm about to go out, so won't be able to look at it properly immediately. If anyone else wants to have a go meanwhile, help yourself. Izogi 06:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Recently added arguments against full cutoff lighting

Hello. Anonymous user 68.166.244.209 recently added a paragraph that cited D. Keith in the "Journal of the IES", who (apparently) claims quite a few things about systems with full cutoff fixtures. Does anyone know which journal this is? The citation details don't seem to be specific enough to indicate which papers or articles are being referenced.

I did a quick google, and there's a Journal of the IES which stands for "Journal of the Institution of Engineers Singapore". Then I looked a bit further, and this page indicates that the same name is also an alternate title for the Journal of Environmental Sciences.

Neither of these journals seem to have online table of contents details to indicate if the articles are there, and I'm not sure if I have access to a library at the moment. Does anyone (is the anon user still around?) have access to check this out? (One of the cites is here: http://www.iesna.org/PDF/abstractsJIESsummer2000.pdf with more info from D. Keith here: http://resodance.com/mdi/UUDcalc.pdf --trl). The claims are likely to be quite contriversial, so it'd be good to have an accurate reference if it's going to be in the article. It'd be good to have some specific article titles and issue numbers rather than just years. Izogi 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This user also claims full-cutoff fixtures are 30-50% more expensive to install and operate than "more efficient" designs, without even hinting what these putative designs are. Perhaps globe luminaires might spray light further than full-cutoff models, allowing fewer streetlights to be installed, but this comes at the expense of increased glare. Guest 03:25, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right. This is quite controversial. On its own this shouldn't be a problem, but and theres really not and specific enough citation to back it up. I'm going to remove the paragraph in question (it's included below for easier future reference) from the article on these grounds. Unfortunately the anonymous user who inserted it doesn't seem to be available to comment on it's authenticity and context. I have no objection to it being put back if the citation can be clarified and made specific enough to track down each specific publication that's being cited, and as long as the article explains it in context. eg. If D. Keith is a radical researcher whom few peers agree with, we should make it quite clear that it's not a commonly held opinion, or exactly what circles the opinion is held in.
Removed text (which is adapted from the original) is as follows: "Some researchers (Keith, D., Journal of the IES, 2000, 2002, 2003) have reported that using "full cutoff" light fixtures increases the costs and energy use necessary to meet the objectives of the lighting. When lighting a roadway continuously in accordance with the American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, IESNA full cutoff distributions increase the initial and operating costs by around 20% and up to 50% compared to more effective light distributions. This does NOT mean all full cutoff distributions are worse than others, but that lighting systems with full cutoff distributions will typically NOT be the most cost and energy efficient lighting choice. Not only are full cutoff distributions usually more expensive to install and operate, but also side-effects such as mercury pollution (from generation of electricity) will increase by the same proportion. Uplight, light above horizontal that contributes to sky glow has also been shown to increase (Keith, D., Journal of the IES, 2000, 2003) when full cutoff distributions are used." Izogi 06:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of loss-of-security section

I noticed that Bletch has just removed the small section about reduction of security due to light pollution on the grounds that it was poorly referenced. The reasoning seems fair enough, even though I'm pretty certain that this consequence is very definitely claimed by a lot of anti-light-pollution activists.

Would anyone happen to have any citations off-hand that relate to this claim? I think it's an important section to have simply because it's such a common claim, irrespective of whether we claim that things like glare actually do reduce security in some circumstances (and cite studies), or simply point out that lots of other people believe it does (and cite them). Izogi 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

hi izogi, im stumped on this one....i havent a reference....the only reason i like the section in is that there are too many lawyers running around suing for slip and fall cases arguing poorly lit parking lots...so its a good balance to that litigious hysteria. in general we alsmost have too mcuh material on the pros and cons of light pollution, whereas i dont really think of this as a controversial subject...im a scientist and the facts seem clear: no one has a right to inflict unwanted light on another person....and the amount of energy wastage going on here with overillumination is staggering, cheers Anlace 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. Personally I think it's important to have something about the issue, just because it's something that's so often claimed, irrespective of whether or not it holds up. Within an hour or so, I might try re-adding the paragraph to see how it looks with some emphasis that they're claims, and support it initially with some simple website citations displaying the claims (but not going as far to state if they hold up or not). It might be extended or improved in the future if anyone's able to locate direct references to actual studies that argue one way or another. Izogi 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Te Papa photo

Hello. I'm removing the Te Papa photo (pending discussion) because I'm having trouble seeing how it accurately demonstrates light pollution. I first tried adjusting the caption and position in the article to comment on glare, but in hindsight I'm not sure it demonstrates anything other than lights seen by a camera of non-specific settings, as well as a Full Moon. In any case, it's not an objective presentation -- cameras can be used very artistically, and a similar scene might be recreated in many quite good lighting setups, simply by adjusting camera settings. (Even if it can't, it's difficult and complicated to argue why.) For a photo like this to be objective, I personally think it's quite critical to be able to provide information about how the photo was taken. Thoughts?

Also, would anyone happen to have a good glare-demonstrating photo lying around for which the relevant camera, photo and post-processing specifications are readily available?

Izogi 22:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Mexico City Pictures

Hi. I strongly believe that, a good example of light pollution would be some pictures of Mexico City at night. i am quite new to the wikipedia, so i am not sure what procedure must be taken to uploads pictures, but here is a link to an image that proves my point.

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PhotoAlbum20.html

i presume you are speaking of the fifth image? it seems to me it would be a good addition. just click "upload file" in the left margin tool bar. if you took the image you need to release rights of use under the directions. if it's not your image you need to get permission from the author. by the way be sure you sign your posts on talk pages with four tilda (~) marks. regards Anlace 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is a little heavy on the wikilinks; anybody care to pare it down a bit? Wikilinks to completely unrelated articles, especially to very generic articles, are not necessary and just add to page clutter. For example, the sentence "It comes from sources such as building exterior and interior lighting, advertising, commercial properties, offices, factories, streetlights, and lit sporting venues." only lighting and streetlights need wikilinks, and even the necessity of those is arguable. See WP:CONTEXT. --Jonathan Kovaciny 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm responsible some time ago for that sentence you quoted, and if anyone wishes to fix it I won't object at all.
Personally I think the external links are also quite over-done. Some of the external links (esp the Research ones) might work better as direct citations from within the article, and a few others don't seem any more distinguished from thousands of other websites and pages out there about light pollution. If the existing links set any precedent, I could see the list just getting longer and longer as visitors come across the article and decide to add their pet favourites, or their own websites (and justify it with the existing precedents) which has happened in the past and is usually bad. It's getting similar with the campaign groups, too, with some very region-specific links now being included. I'm not sure what the best thing would be to do about it, except either chop them (and lose the information), or move some of the links to an alternative List of... type of article. What do people think about this? Izogi 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Adjustment of referencing system

I've spent the last 30 minutes or so transforming the article to use a more automated citation system. It went reasonably well, but simply by refactoring things, it's become clear that unfortunately some of the citations have degenerated into a bit of a mess.

In particular, there are two citations that were in the list at the end (I've left them there) which no longer seem to actually be cited from the article, either because the text was removed at some point, or some other reason. I suspect one of them has been mis-referenced in the article sa Cambridge 2001 instead of Cambridge 1997, but even if so, it's not clear which is correct. There are also some occasions where contributors have cited a source, but not actually provided any source information at the end. (At least for me, an author's last name and a year aren't quite enough information to go on for tracking something down.)

There are also a scattering of things like external links to PDF's being used as references. The Effects on human health and psychology section in particular needs a lot of tidying up towards the end, just having a bulleted list of points and links to things without really putting them in much context or giving a clear explanation of why they might be relevant.

Personally I think it'd be beneficial if we can focus on fixing up and clarifying a lot of the references if it's at all possible, and removing them if it's not, because they're not much use otherwise. I also think it'd be clearer to take any inline external links (especially the ones that are pointing directly to scientific papers), that are being referred to in the article, and move them to a reference format.

Thoughts? Izogi 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

ive fixed the cambridge ref and added a summary sentence with some better refs for health effects. we still need to see what of the deleted text below needs to come back in. regards Anlace 04:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Neat, thanks. Izogi 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Text removed from Effects on human health and psychology

I've removed the following text from the Effects on human health and psychology because although it's great to have a list of references, they don't seem to be presented in a very readable or contextual way. Someone really needs to go through each of them, find out what it actually says, then explain a bit about what it says. Izogi 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Numerous studies have been conducted to show the adverse effects of overillumination and improper frequency spectrum of artificial light. These effects include loss of visual acuity, fatigue, stress, decreased worker performance and adverse social behavior (Cambridge, 2001).
  • [LP causes cancer] "Le Scienze", Italian translation of "Scientifican American" online 22 December 2005 confirms these evidences by laboratory studies on rats.

Temporarily (?) removed a paragraph

"According to a study performed by Backpacker magazine, Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah has the least amount of light pollution, and thererefore the darkest skies in the continental United States."

I've just (temporarily) removed the above paragraph from the Consequences/Loss of night sky section, because it doesn't seem to fit there when I read it. It doesn't seem like a consequence to me. I'm not sure exactly which section it should go into as they are right now. It might be that the article needs a new section for the current state of light pollution in different parts of the world, or something like that, but if so it'd be nice to have a bit more information stated than a line about Utah in the USA. Hopefully it can be cited a bit more specifically soon, too -- I've contacted User:R Lee E to ask about where it came from. Does anyone have any thoughts? Izogi 10:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

(Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah has the least light pollution and the darkest skies in the continental United States, according to a recent study by Backpacker magazine.[2]

Well I've just removed this again because it seemed a bit strange where it was. I'm not really sure what the best thing is to do with it -- it's possibly a valid point, but I don't really know where in the current article it best fits. Izogi 03:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversing intro photos

Hello - just to note that I've reversed the order of the first two photos in the article because I think the NY photo is actually demonstrating Light Pollution, whereas the satellite composition is really just demonstrating what causes it (upward directed light). Given that Light Pollution is the main point of the article, it seems appropriate that it's actually shown first. Izogi 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. That photo is ABSOLUTELY NOT an accruate representation of what NYC looks like at night. The photo appears to have been taken with an extremely long exposure on a foggy night as to maximize the effect of the light pollution. If you expose any photo long enough at night, the sky's going to begin to glow. I agree that light pollution is a problem, but the photo in the article right now is a complete misrepresentation.

--Orang55 02:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that it's not an accurate representation, but I don't think that this alone warrants removing it, because it's nearly impossible in a night photograph to represent everything that the human brain makes up for, anyway. What should be important is clearly stating that the photographer was creative in camera settings, and (if possible) indicate what the settings were. I'll have a play with the caption, but if anyone has a comparable (or better) photo for which they can state the settings, it might be worth replacing. Izogi 09:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that the External links section is basically a collection of links already, does anyone feel especially attached to the subsection titled Collections of links related to light pollution? I'm wondering if there are actually quite a lot of external links (even outside that section) that could be purged, in favour of just keeping those that are most representative of the issue. Izogi 04:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Earth at night

Is there a page on wikipedia dedicated to how the earth looks at night, focusing specifically on how this can be used to compare how advanced countries are (eg. South Korea and North Korea, a well-known example, and also the dimming of lights in the republics formerly making up the USSR)? I've been looking for one but I haven't been able to find it, so I'm asking the question here because the two topics are related.

So... does an article about it exist? Esn 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing... I think an "Earth at night" image would help this light pollution article as well. Here's the best image that I found by doing a google image search: [1]. I'm not sure where it came from, though. Are any of these Earth-at-night pictures free of copyright in the US? Esn 05:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Esn. There already is an identical image under the Energy Waste section. Do you think it should be somewhere else? Izogi 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! That's a great image. Maybe I didn't notice it because it looks so dark when it's minimized that it's hard to make out what it is. I think it's fine where it is, but perhaps it should be enlarged a bit (and given its own paragraph) so that it's possible to see what it is without having to click on it. Esn 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've done this now.Esn 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Light Clutter

I added a brief statement discussing the problem of light clutter in the aviation environment. Trilobitealive 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Lighting Industry POV sites

I added a couple of lighting industry POV site links which may be helpful for those who are researching industry standards and industry marketing efforts. I hope it improves the NPOV of this article but they are so far opposite my own POV it is hard for me to tell. I need some more experianced editors to tell me if this is going in the right direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC). (Sorry, I forgot to sign again...such a noob.)Trilobitealive 13:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Advantages

Light pollution has a few advantages, too. Maybe we should list them here, too. --Artman40 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics and residual damage

Hello. Can anyone suggest a decent citation or two where someone claims that Light pollution isn't really a problem because the lights can be switched off? I've been trying to find online news articles, but it's apparently very difficult because there's so much material out there using similar words and terms that's actually arguing against light pollution. An anonymous user recently removed the following text from the Light pollution as a problem section:

"Some skeptics claim that light pollution has little residual effect, because it does not leave remnant damage to the environment..."

I quite like the statement, and I think it's important to have as part of a description about how the concept of light pollution gets interpreted. That said, it reads like the sort of statement that really needs a citation to back it up. Izogi 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem because the lights can be switched off? Say what? That makes no sense. Also, light pollution affects plants and animals, in some cases drawing turtle hatchlings to Florida highways to be run over. There is also a tentative link to breast cancer.

What? That's the most retarded thing I ever heard.
And when that actually does happen, these are the exact same people that are whining the most.. 2003 blackout
Yes LP causes damage. Migrating birds attracted to light fly into towers at night (which is why they sometimes turn off the Empire State Building's crown lights). There's another example for people who can't see something's bad enough on it's own right without literal death or illness to back it up. Sagittarian Milky Way 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

monetary waste

not clear we need a separate section on monetary waste, but dollar cost is worth elaborating under energy wastage. also costs are probably even higher than stated,, anyone have a good ref for this? in any case text needs editing for NPOV Anlace 00:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, the more I think about it, I'm not certain that "monetary waste" is a very significant consequence of light pollution. Arguably the only person losing money is the person who pays the power bill. The money isn't lost, though, it's simply given to someone else. Energy companies then make money from people who waste energy, so it's not exactly "waste" for them as much as increased demand. To get more abstract, when energy use is inefficient, energy companies employ (and pay salaries of) more people to produce the extra energy, ultimately circulating more money through the economy and resulting in better living conditions. It's strange how an economy can be boosted through inefficiency, but that's also exactly what happens in some wartime situations, for instance. (The production boom for WW2 did a lot to relieve people who'd suffered in the 1930's depression, despite extensive borrowing from governments to fund it, and that was primarily building things to blow stuff up.)
I don't particularly care for that argument myself, because I think that both immediate and long term side effects (eg. impact on the sky, power generation from non-renewable sources, etc) outweigh any possible benefits of inefficiency in power generation. On the other hand, me taking this point of view would still mean that it's not an argument about money at all -- it's an argument about side-effects of wasted light and wasted energy.
All that said, I don't think the monetary waste section is written with a very neutral point of view, and it doesn't cite any sources for its claims. At the risk of someone reverting the change, I'm going to see if I can merge the relevant bit with another section. This is just what I think, and I'm happy to discuss things further.
Izogi 02:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No. The c.5 billion dollars a year that we get now anyway will still be here (the world will have slightly more to spend from lower electric bills) AND the human productivity that would've been used to make pointless waste energy will be now used for something else, causing more added value then there would have be otherwise. NOTHING IS FREE. Human effort used to make avoidable inefficiency is ALWAYS better used somewhere else. Inefficiency, when avoidable, is NEVER good. It IS a money issue.
This is called the fallacy of the broken window, often used to make bad things look good. (Remember Zorg from The Fifth Element?)
This is also the issue that politicians care most about (the other is energy) and is very important in getting anything done about this. Governments and (non-electric) corporations own a large percentage of the outside lights (streetlights, parking lot lights etc.). Just like anyone else they want to save money. Convincing them to save money by switching to full-cutoff lighting or pass laws to that effect will be much more effective for change than just talking about stars. It's one of the best arguments we have. Politicians = money. So money should stay in the article. (even if we don't care and just want a darker sky) Sagittarian Milky Way 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Error -I'm sorry

While editing the section "Redisigning lighting plans, for somme unknown reason I appear have to deleted every section and the references which follow. This was on June 17th 2007. Can someone put them back again. I tried but I don't know how. Sorry again about this (Deltapi)

The page is back to normal. Your last addition of a misformatted citation apparently altered and cached the rest of the page. These things happen. The material is never lost. Restoring an archived, earlier version brought back the missing sections, references, etc., as you will see in the page history. Hertz1888 13:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A true threat?

With much more dangerous problems like smog, global warming and ect. shouldn't light pollution take a back seat in our priorites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.93.98 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I doubt the anonymous person above has checked back on this question, but if anyone else is wondering the same thing, the article this discussion is for will answer this question: Consequences of light pollution. Gh5046 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Over-illumination

The over-illumination section includes a discussion on MBD of oil equivalents, then claims that 2 MBD of oil could be saved by reducing over-illumination. Is this original research? Seems like it. It's not cited, and it's really a load of horse shit, to boot - if you're going to claim reductions in oil, you really shouldn't be including oil equivalents in your calculations. I would suggest excising this passage. I'll do it shortly unless someone can justify its presence. Graft | talk 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation 1 , 2 ,5 ,and 28 are broken links. There may be others, but I have not checked.

Corrections to discussion about sky glow in LP page and in Sky Glow page.

1. Light is scattered by molecules (Rayleigh scattering) and aerosols (Mie scattering) - not "refracted."

2. Aerosol scattering dominates in most places - in "clear air" (see Garstang, 1986, PASP, vol 98 pg 364), the total scattering from aerosols is ~10x that from molecules.

3. Aerosol scattering has almost no wavelength dependence, reducing the dominance of blue light influence below that expected from pure Rayleigh scattering and the RSI of Keith.

4. But, the Purkinje effect makes the eye more sensitive to white/blue rich light when dark adapted (most relevant when looking at/adapted to sky glow; only marginally relevant when looking at/adapted to outdoor night lighting levels), increasing again the dominance of white/blue-rich sources.

5. The Bortle scale has made very little or no penetration into professional astronomy - astronomers, when they characterize skyglow at all, still use mag/arcsec2. Bortle scale is being used by amateurs and is being investigated in some detail by US National Park Service as a useful scale to characterize night sky quality. Finally, the Bortle scale uses much more than just sky glow to characterize skies.

I took the liberty of doing some revisions, particularly to the Sky Glow section, to reflect these comments. More should be done: yet I am new to editing Wiki articles and belatedly realize I may be barging in where others have been working for some time. I will watch here to see the response of the group. Cluginbuhl (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

meaning of pollution

pollution is one sense, is the introduction of contaminants into an environment, of whatever predetermined or agreed upon proportions or frame of reference, that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the physical systems or living organisms therein.[1] Pollution can be in the form of chemical substances, or energy such as noise, heat, or light. Pollutants can be naturally occurring substances or energies, but are considered contaminants when in excess of natural levels. Pollution is often categorized into point source and nonpoint source pollution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.45.58 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

astronomy

here's a ref for someone to improve the article... Time Magazine Blinding the Big Eyes Monday, Apr. 12, 1971

70.55.84.200 (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ecological light pollution

I threw in a few references on the ecological effects of light pollution and did a quick fix on the wording. It is a list at this point - plan to come in and edit this section and have included these so I can expand upon the subject. Ecological light pollution is a serious matter that is being addressed and researched more extensively. I'm a conservation biologist researching amphibian declines and have been collaborating with and in discussion with a global network of research scientists working on this subject matter. It is more serious than what was previously considered and it is an important topic for conservation biologists. Here is a recent article that explores this issue further: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/080129 Thompsma (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed a sentence posted by 76.19.29.100 on 18 January stating - "Light pollution is also nonexistant." It shows this user made other revisions - but this seems to be the main point of damage.Thompsma (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Light Tresspass Issues

I added some information with external links discussing lighting ordinance standards and the role of U.S. federal agencies in the development and supervision of lighting standards within their areas of jurisdiction. I also made a stab at starting to generalize the info in this section. While astronomers may be especially ticked off at light tresspass they are a minority of the people who are interested in reducing it. This is a collective problem and not just one of a small special interest group. (I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so please don't burn my ears off, just tell me what I'm doing wrong.) Trilobitealive 04:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting this section I see that the discussion about ordinances has been tagged. My recommendation is that the offending material be cut.Trilobitealive (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The last half of the section is completely unreferenced and full of what I would consider opinion and argumentation. I suggest moving it to the talk page and distill any useful information, and referencing it. --Thorseth (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This section has been tagged since January, and is an essay suggesting change rather than impartial coverage of the topic, so I removed it. The content is here in the event someone wishes to rewrite it. ~ Eidako (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree See my June 23, 2009 comment Talk:light pollution#Light Tresspass Issues. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Bottom importance rating ... really?

If there was a phenomenon that obscured almost all trees from normal view, would it be of bottom importance to forestry. I can not imagine anyone becoming an astronomer without having first marveled at the immenseness of the cosmos. Is this subject important for radio- or x-ray astronomy? Not in the least! Is the starry sky important for astronomy as a subject of human interest, and fuel dreams of space travel and discovery? Well I think it is very important. Example: (High: Important or famous. Something an undergraduate astronomy major could have heard of or studied. from Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings) --Thorseth (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The rating is discarding the spirit of the guideline to pounce on a lack of foresight choice in the letter. This just shows the limit of the guideline, not that light pollution is so unimportant in astronomy, low is too good for it; it is bottom. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You agree with what exactly? I fail to see your argument. What do you see as the spirit of the guideline? --Thorseth (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"What do you see as the spirit of the guideline?" WP:ASTRO Articles should be ranked on their importance in subject astronomy.
(there is a saying (in America anyway) about following the letter of the law but ignoring the spirit (i.e. putting the grammatical meaning of the words above why the rule-setter wrote the rule in the first place). The agree-ing was with what you said.
I've added to the guideline for Low and Bottom so something like this won't happen again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The changes you have made to the guideline make good sense, but I would think that light pollution would be a rather important subject for armature astronomers for instance (not much point in trying to use a small telescope near a big city these days). Setting the importance to bottom indicates to me that the subject is extremely niche and is of interest to very few. I would argue that it has broad impact on astronomy - affecting recruitment, public perception and perhaps even funding. I know of a math professor who was in his 40ies before he saw the milky way with his own eyes.--Thorseth (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No man, I agree with you, the end of the second comment was irony. Let's set it to high. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh... irony, how embarrassing. Ok, high it is.--Thorseth (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


lighting uses 25% of all energy??

I've just been looking at the reference for this "fact", it's circular back to wikipedia '06. A quick look at other available data shows this to be either grosly overstated or missing some big caveats (eg all domestic electricity use). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.230 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why cite sources?

In the "Astronomy" section, there's a thing that says you must cite any and all sources in that section. I'll remove it, since it's general knowledge among the astronomical community and therefore should not need citations. TheGreenMartian (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your edit. Many things are "common knowledge" by one or another person or group but Wikipedia isn't a compendium of common knowledge. It is an encyclopedia of notable information. See WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:OR, WP:CITE. Please understand I realize you're being WP:BOLD, and my reply is not meant to be WP:BITE but normally its a good idea to discuss possibly controversial edits for a significant period of time and reach WP:Consensus before doing them.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


IDA as an authority

Is it reasonable for Wikipedia to state in the opening paragraph that the IDA is the "Light Pollution Authority" and then quote the IDA's definition as authoritative, without giving any reasoning as to why it's "the authority" or where the consensus comes from? (Inserted by an anonymous IP in late January.) The IDA is a campaign group, and stating this is similar to stating that Greenpeace is "The Environmental Authority" or that PETA is "The Animal Treatment Authority". The first citation simply links to the IDA website, which to me is meaningless as it doesn't have any clear info about why it's the authority on light pollution.

I know that the IDA represents many people and does a lot of work on this, and I have respect for what it does. Regardless of my personal view, I'm positive not everyone agrees with the IDA about what constitutes light pollution, or that it's as important as the IDA says it is. Personally I think Wikipedia should just state a general consensus as it used to and then (if appropriate) refer to the IDA if there are clear points of difference, which there probably aren't. At the very least there should be some kind of reasoning as to why the IDA definition is a good one. Izogi (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For starters the reference for "Light Pollution Authority" is to the IDA slogan, that needs to go. However googeling "Any adverse effect of artificial light including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night, and energy waste" gives about 500 hits so I guess the definition can be considered widely in use. Although it does not seem to be in any peer reviewed journals.--Thorseth (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless someone gets there ahead of me I'm going to delete the phrase about them being the light pollution authority. See WP:POV and WP:PEA. Regards to all.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I also deleted the general reference to the IDA website. I can see both sides of the disagreement about the definition itself but wikipedia discourages peacock terms and to me that seemed the most pressing correction needed today.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


6X total world energy usage for commercial lighting?

In the "Overillumination", the second paragraph contains the sentence: "An alternative calculation starts with the fact that commercial building lighting consumes in excess of 81.68 terawatts (1999 data) of electricity,[10] according to the U.S. DOE." Terawatts is power, a measurement of Joules per second, not a quantity of energy. The total world human energy consumption ( electricity, motor fuel, everything ) is approximately 14 terawatts. Something is whacky here. I would guess somebody means 81 Terawatt hours per year, that is, the actual power in terawatts multiplied by 8766 hours per year. Four significant figures indicates somebody doesn't understand numerical uncertainty, either.

The website cited has hundreds of small PDF tables for various estimates (based on sampling and extrapolation) of total US usage. Which one contains this particular factoid? I would not be surprised if some government bureaucrat doesn't understand power versus energy, either, but quoting stupidity is still stupidity.

Lastly, the paragraph should emphasize that this is US power usage, not global usage. While the latter factoid would be more "illuminating" about this global issue, it is probably not available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.247.116 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Light pollution definition

During Dec 2006, I've realised that due to varying explanations of what is meant by light pollution, the very phenomenon or any measures how to diminish it are neglected by legislative or standards-setting bodies. It's regarded to be too vague to be included in any rules more than by some ineffective remark (a stakeholder meeting on [ http://www.eup4light.net streetlighting study ] was the example). If it should be included seriously, there has to be a way how it could be measured. But how could you measure if and how much is any light excessive or obtrusive, so that nobody would dispute it?

Fortunately, there is a simple definition which follows strictly from what the words pollution and light mean: any light added artificially to the outdoor environment is pollution (it's doubtfull if light pollution can concern indoor environment: we don't speak about natural conditions indoors, rather about desirable conditions; of course light toxicity indoors at night is a major issue).

I finished a page on it today, adding that page as a last link to the article. I'd rather let it to the current authors of the article to include this approach somehow to its very text. The link, reproduced here again for convenience, is What is light pollution?. I'm sure such approach is necessary to bring light pollution on standard environmental agenda anywhere in the world. I'm sorry I did not realised it sooner...

wishing you happy 2007, Jenik Hollan

The definition became clearer meanwhile, for outdoor and indoor environments. Having discussed it with all existing European experts on LP, I dared to add it to the beginning of the article, with a reference to a comprehensive paper on it. Jenikhollan (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Earth at night pictures

Are those "Earth at night" satellite picture actual pictures of Earth at night? I was told that those pictures are just ordinary satellite pictures with lights edited onto them using known cities at townships, in which case we should clarify that. --Pavithran (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad summary for Over-illumination

The summary and main article appear to have drifted apart and should be realigned. In particular, content appearing in the summary but not in the main article should be migrated and either expanded up there or contracted here. In particular, the economics section of the main article lacks practically all of the detail related in the summary here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a small section with contra arguments.

This article is too extreme, since it does not even mention the advantage of lighting where the problem of light pollution is less important than the problem lighting solves. As well as other advantages of lighting : safer traffic, less crime, esthetic purposes, able to wander around as you please, even at night.. Though all debatable, there should at least be mention of this.

As someone who works professionally with lighting I do feel the need to point out the reason for a certain way of lighting, which might look wasteful at first sight. In particularly the part of indirect lighting techniques.

Especially since the following is mentioned " Again energy audit data demonstrates that about 30–60% of energy consumed in lighting is unneeded or gratuitous.", and then certain examples are given. One of the examples where I added a counter argument for indirect lighting. (already deleted apparently)

I added "*Though this is (and others are) debatable, since certain lighting techniques have other advantages. For instance, indirect lighting is often used to give a more softer look to objects and people and is in general received as a more cozy lighting technique, instead of direct harsh lighting."

To conclude, if you want to give clear information, you need to be more objective. Now it's quite clear that this article is only written by environmentalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:188F:AF00:4443:9A59:DF89:4BD (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

edit: I added the same point, but changed it a little so it suits the article better, hopefully it won't get deleted again..what's the purpose of an open encyclopedia otherwise.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:188F:AF00:4443:9A59:DF89:4BD (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No criticism

IS THE SUN OUR BIGGEST 'LIGHT POLLUTER'? Sound silly when it's put that way doesn't it?

Theres no criticism of the almost moronic, and certainly ignorant, people who insist that having lights on during dark hours of the night in major areas and in mass quantity should be removed and/or given serious thought to its reduction? I find that hard to believe when these "pointless lights" are businesses, safety and basic street lighting concerns, homes and sports centres. Hell, even these "pointless, wasteful illuminated signs and lights" on high buildings, SPECIFICALLY there so planes will not crash into them and kill hundreds. The amount of ridiculous, ignorant, technology bashing POV on this article is astounding. Most likely because no-one even gives such a absurd "anti-light" article any actual justification for their use of inteligence. 60.230.201.56 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Of course there are legitimate reasons for having lights out there, but the article is talking about using the right tools for the right job. Aircraft warning lights don't add significantly to the total skyglow, otherwise it wouldn't normally be a sodium yellow, what adds to this is poorly designed street lights that send light upwards rather than pointing it down to where it's meant to be. The illuminated street level billboard has nothing to offer in terms of aircraft safety (if the aircraft is at that level, it is probably past the point of needing warning lights) and little to offer in terms of pedestrian or road safety. There's nothing anti-technology in suggesting more economically and environmentally viable as well as properly planned lighting (there are many cases of councils having to rip up one in every so many street lights either to save money or because they aren't actually required). You mention "I find that hard to believe when these "pointless lights" are businesses, safety and basic street lighting concerns, homes and sports centres." but give no reason as to why the lights are actually required in these cases - we're all told to switch off lights when not needed and that goes for the business, the home and even the sports centre (my local woolworths kept the lights on for a fortnight after the business shutting down - what is the justification for that given that now they've shut off the light?). Increasingly this is being recognised in legislation across the developed world as well as efforts such as Earth Hour. But finally please remember that this is not a discussion forum and if you feel there should be a criticism section then either add it or make a suggestion of its form. Simply coming here and dropping an insult or two to contributers doesn't quite cut it.MilleauRekiir (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that neon lights and flashy billboards are not pointless. The main role of advertisement is to inform potential customers, which in turn allows for better organized economy - via market mechanisms. This allows for companies to compete in innovation and prices and perhaps even saves energy expenditure since customers do not need to search for products. Furthermore there are lights meant to promote certain places like libraries, centers of culture or trade, or set up by city to attract tourism. Whoever sets up the lights has to pay for them (with exception of street lights you mentioned, since council does not own the town) so there has to be a purpose for having them. I think there are many benefits to nighttime illumination other than safety and transportation that need to be noted. 87.207.59.12 (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This article fails NPOV by any test. The very name "Light pollution" is propaganda. There are myriad well-cited studies easily available regarding public lighting and its positive correlation with pedestrian safety, crime, fear of crime, and general urban habitation. This article has been groomed to exclude all of them by contributors with openly biased viewpoints. 108.223.82.159 (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Effects on circadian rhythm and metabolism of excessive nocturnal light

Endocrine reviews doi:10.1210/er.2013-1051 JFW | T@lk 12:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

request edit

Hi,

The web page listed in the resources links http://www.need-less.org.uk/ is no longer live.

http://www.hillarys.co.uk/skyglow/ is a good substitute for an interactive lightmap of the UK.

Luke

Not done: Link is not dead. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Are the light pollution maps backwards?

The article says "A similar image from 2012 illustrating the growth in light pollution." However, according to the images as they are show, it makes it appear as though light pollution has been reduced in the last decade. If this is just a result of the images having different filters applied coming from different sources, this needs to be pointed out. Tar-Elessar (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the second image. I don't think they're backwards - I think the second image is just wrong (that is, it's not indicative of light pollution). Australia's population is heavy dominated in along the eastern seaboard. The light sources in the middle of Western Australia are quite erroneous (there is just no population to speak of at all where those light sources are. According to the NASA website, they are likely wildfires (bushfires)). If there's no further information, I'm going to remove the second image, as it doesn't show us anything about light pollution.
peterl (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Please correct as needed, the depiction of N.America shows as if light pollution has gone down, which (i think?) is not the case. Also, in case any one wonders the original source for the pictures; Pic1 : http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=55167 & Pic2 : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=79765, according to the first source, "This image of Earth’s city lights was created with data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Operational Linescan System (OLS). Originally designed to view clouds by moonlight, the OLS is also used to map the locations of permanent lights on the Earth’s surface."; and according to the second source, "The nighttime view of Earth was made possible by the “day-night band” of the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite. VIIRS detects light in a range of wavelengths from green to near-infrared and uses filtering techniques to observe dim signals such as gas flares, auroras, wildfires, city lights, and reflected moonlight." I dont think both of them are comparable. Akash (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no question that these images are not comparable, as noted above. I am familiar with both satellites, have published research using data from both DMSP and VIIRS. Cluginbuhl (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Light pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Fluorescent lamp as a type of street light to compare light pollution levels

Hi there,

Fluorescent street lights have existed which seem to have caused the lowest amount of light pollution compared with any other type of light source. I would like to see some sourced elaborations on fluorescent lamps regarding their levels of light pollution particularly compared with sodium, metal halide and LED.

Thanks,

2A02:C7F:204:8300:A097:9259:90E1:A767 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Light pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Short description

@LaundryPizza03: added a short description to the article and asked "is this ok?" The value added was "excess artificial light in the environment". Not sure if "excess" is apropos - under some circumstances any artificial light is a problem. Maybe an alternative value ... "artificial light level that interferes with activities, human or otherwise, requiring ambient natural light". Not the best, I know. Other thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bain, A., “The Hindenburg Disaster: A Compelling Theory of Probable Cause and Effect,” Procs. NatL Hydr. Assn. 8th Ann. Hydrogen Meeting, Alexandria, Va., March 11-13, pp 125-128 (1997)
  2. ^ "America's Last Wild Places", Backpacker Magazine, page 56, (October 2004).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Light_pollution/Archive_1&oldid=1164847547"