Making War On Light Pollution

Hugh Pickens writes "Almost thirty years ago I worked in the Middle East helping install a nationwide communications system and had the opportunity to be part of a team doing microwave link tests across Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter. Something I've never forgotten were the astonishing nights I spent in the desert hundreds of miles from the nearest city where the absence of light made looking at the sky on a moonless night feel like you were floating in the middle of the galaxy. In Galileo's time, nighttime skies all over the world would have merited the darkest Bortle ranking, Class 1. Today, the sky above New York City is Class 9 and American suburban skies are typically Class 5, 6, or 7. The very darkest places in the continental United States today are almost never darker than Class 2, and are increasingly threatened. Read a story from the New Yorker on what we have lost to light pollution and how some cities are adopting outdoor lighting standards to save the darkness."

Bah

Someone's firing too much magic missile.

It's true

I live in Salt Lake City, and the light pollution here is just like any other city. My favorite place is to visit Lake Powell, near the Arizona border where there are no city lights for at least 50-100 miles.

I always thought it would be nice if we had one day a year where people made a conscious effort to turn off all their lights, like "Star's Day" or some other stupid name so people could have one night a year to keep lights off, but that would inevitably just lead to an increase in crime for that night, so... darn.

We'll just have to enjoy it when I'm camping.

Re:It's true

I have a friend who lives in Park City, UT who got fed up enough with the local light pollution that he decided to do something about it. He founded a company that only sells dark sky friendly lights. Its called Starry Night Lights http://www.starrynightlights.com/ [starrynightlights.com]. Check it out if you really want to do your part.

Re:It's true

... but that would inevitably just lead to an increase in crime for that night, so... darn.

Actually, I read an article in Sky & Telescope (I think... might have been Astronomy) a year or so ago that addressed this. They cited studies that suggested that lighting areas has no effect on crime, but rather on the perception of safety. Consequently, (this is purely my conjecture) using fewer lights may just make people be more careful because they feel endangered, thus having a net reduction in crime, as well as making the sky a prettier place.

Re:It's true

Security is the ultimate bad justification, and knee jerk reaction to anything couched as the least threatening. Gated communities, fences around apartment complexes, hostility towards foot and bike trails (because criminals are more likely to be too poor to afford a car), and older cheaper housing, proactive continuously operating computer virus scanning software that makes computers run 10% slower, the invasion of Iraq, airport security measures, locked doors on stairwells so people can't "sneak up" the stairs, the response bank customer service reps too often puke out on why they can't do something or why you must put up with something, DRM, big cars, snooping and spying, and of course lights. It's amazing how all rational discussion of costs and benefits can be short circuited by playing that trump card, "security".

crime

I always thought it would be nice if we had one day a year where people made a conscious effort to turn off all their lights, like "Star's Day" or some other stupid name so people could have one night a year to keep lights off, but that would inevitably just lead to an increase in crime for that night, so... darn.

Not really, criminals need light too. And as TFA says when San Antonio started turning lights off at night at schools vandalism went down not up.

Falcon

Re:If you make lights illegal, only criminals

Especially since as soon as the criminal turns on his flashlight his night vision will go poof.. allowing you to sneak up to him without him seeing you.. with that big pipewrench in your hand.. oooh.. that sounds almost like how a criminal would sneak up in the shadows of the very lights meant to keep you safe.. er.. make you feel safe. Hmm... wait... there is a point in there. Go find it. ;)

morals.

A couple that was married for 20 years always made love with the lights off.

Well, after 20 years, the wife felt this was ridiculous. She figured she would break him out of this crazy habit.

So one night, while they were in the middle of a wild, screaming, romantic session, she turned the lights on.

She looked down... and saw that her husband was holding a battery-operated pleasure device -- a vibrator -- softer and larger than a real penis.

She went completely ballistic. "You impotent bastard," she screamed at him, "how could you be lying to me all of these years? You better explain yourself!"

The husband looks her straight in the eyes and says calmly:

"I'll explain the toy... if you explain the kids."

Moral of the story? everyone is happy when you turn the lights off at night.

Re:

Thank you for that illuminating story. Yet another example that people take serious discussion on pollution far too lightly.

San Jose

In San Jose, all the white streetlamps were replaced with low pressure Sodium lamps so that light pollution would not impact research at nearby Lick Observatory [wikipedia.org] so much. Not only are they not as bright, but (more importantly) they're monochromatic and can easily be filtered. If more cities adopted these, we'd be able to see the stars much better (with the right optical filter, of course).

Unfortunately, a lot of citizens of San Jose want white lights for some reason (especially car dealerships), so I don't know how much longer that'll last.

Simple answer to this

Allow white lights until say 10, and then after that require just the yellow lights. When I was a kid, I grew up in the country and can remember the stars that I saw. It was incredible. Now, whenever I look out there, it is just a fraction. But it is not j

Re:San Jose

Low pressure sodium lights are also much more efficient - they are the most efficient lights we have. Added to that they emit light at the wavelengths that human vision is most sensitive, boosting their effective efficiency since you need fewer watts still for the same apparent brightness. No other lighting comes even close to low pressure sodium (SOX) for efficiency. High pressure sodium (SON) is the nearest, but IIRC only has 2/3rds of the efficiency.

Best skies I've ever seen.

The most impressive sky I have ever seen was right after a typhoon on the island of Guam.
I snuck out of my house when I was 16 and the island was still under a typhoon warning and nobody was outside.

The entire island and the neighboring island of Truk were both without power entirely and there was not a single cloud in the sky.
It truly was a spectacular sight and I do feel sad when I look up into the night here in the states.

You can't imagine what it's like until you've seen it for yourself. Really

Well, there is an upside

While lights at night may make the sky harder to see the effect will be very pretty [nasa.gov] for any visiting aliens.

In fact this story has inspired me to go and set up xplanet [sourceforge.net] again to provide an ever-changing desktop background.

A 20 year old fight.

Tucson AZ has been fighting light pollution for more than 20 years. This isn't exactly a new fight. That said, it's gaining momentum. In part thanks to the IDA [darksky.org]. That having been said, this won't be won until the general population sees light pollution as a bad thing. We aren't there yet but with more general public articles there are chances that light pollution becomes as well known as air and water pollution.

For what it's worth, some estimate that there are about 700,000 amateur astronomers in the US. It's not a huge number. But it's much bigger than the just a few geeks that some would make you think.

It's a good fight and it starts at home, you can do your part by turning off the exterior lights of your house when you don't need them. With 2009 the international year of astronomy [astronomy2009.org], if you help now, maybe we all will get a better view of the night sky to celebrate the 400 years of telescope observing of the night sky.

Only a severe energy crisis would make a dent

The suburban sprawl boom of the last 25 years absolutely destroyed the quality of the night sky, and I don't see it getting any better unless there is a severe energy crisis that hits the avg American's wallet. Even one of the few remaining dark sky sites in the North East is now being threatened by a proposed wind farm.

Ascension Island

The darkest - best sky I have ever seen - in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean its pretty dark !
I remember how easy it was to see all the space junk flying overhead - and some nebula's and galaxy's
could be discerned with the un-aided eye.. Too cool. Light pollution sucks...

Re:Ascension Island

The Orion Nebula and Andromeda Galaxy are easily visible in half-decent skies. Just because people didn't know what they were doesn't mean they couldn't see them.

Windows comes to the rescue

All we need to do is install more power stations with Windows and the viruses will do the rest:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/14/power.outage/ [cnn.com]

No power, no light pollution

"Pollution"?

While I do understand the desire to see the night sky better, I'm not sure that this is "pollution" per se. Pollution (at least as defined by Merriam-Webster) implies contamination - light does not contaminate. Where we to just turn off all the lights and wait a few femtoseconds the night sky would be as dark as pitch. This isn't about pollution (which is something that does actually need fighting), but rather someone saying "Gee, I wish I could see the night sky better." Fair enough, and so do I, but I'm not willing to give up street lights to get it.

Of course, when it comes to someone opening up their cell phone during a movie... roll out the tanks, let the war begin! :)

harken back to the days of

PUT THAT LIGHT OUT! (ww2)

This was done of course to make cities difficult to spot from the air, aiding enemy bombers navigate to (or identify) their target. When you think about how hard it is to get 30,000 people to cooperate on anything, it's a wonder that was even worth the effort of trying.

Build observatories in North Korea

Have you *seen* the lack of light pollution there?

I saw Corpus Christi, TX from 120 miles away

A few years back on TX State Highway 77 heading north I could see an odd skyglow that I noticed just a few miles north of Raymondville TX. I was interested quickly because there is nothing in the ranch land between Raymondville and Corpus Christi that could be making that much light. Is I continued north, I noted the slowness of the angular change of the light and realized it had to be Corpus. A couple of hours of driving confirmed that the skyglow in this city of absurd light was really visible 120 miles south of here.

This city is totally filled with flood-lit carlots, an incredible amount of freeway lighting (way more per mile than any other Texas city that I've seen), billboard's littering the cityscape all lit from below, and a total disregard for our very unique coastal wildlife. Light pollution is just another example of our culture's unnatural incompatibility with our natural environment.

Dark Sky Preservation hostility?

I know this is Slashdot and nothing should surprise me but the hostility towards dark sky preservation is kind of scary. I think it is important to understand that being able to see the Milky Way from Times Square is not the goal. Being able to see the Milky Way after a 2-3 hour drive from Times Square should be possible. Putting a little more thought and effort toward how we light our highly populated areas to reduce energy use and cost, improve visibility, and allow us to preserve our night sky seems obviously beneficial to me.

While I'm sure people in Central Park would enjoy the night sky, I empathize with their concern for safety and well lit areas certainly feel more secure. I am suggesting that they would need to travel for a bit in order to enjoy the night sky. Another words, the people who are trying to preserve the night sky aren't suggesting the cities turn out their lights, just shine their lights toward the ground instead of toward the sky. You can drive an hour or so from a small city to see a somewhat dark sky and still see a mighty glow from the cities direction. While I understand the glow can never be eliminated, it certainly can and should be reduced.

One aside - I am familiar with the wind farm being erected in one of the few remaining dark sky sites in the eastern United States. A few changes (like moving them a short distance or using red "safe" lights) would have made them astronomy friendly. While this may not seem important to many, the area was obviously a haven for astronomers from all over the area especially since the park has been working hard to make it even more friendly - like installing astronomical domes with electricity and renting them for a nominal fee. so it goes. end aside.

One final thought - even if there were no benefits like cost savings, energy savings, and better lighting, the idea of dark sky preservation is akin to other environmental concerns. Just because we don't all enjoy sloshing through wetlands or cutting our way through a rain forest doesn't mean those areas shouldn't be conserved. I say the same goes for the night sky. We may not all be awed by the glow of a full moon, a fiery meteor blazing through the sky, or just watching the twinkling of a million stars but we shouldn't take away the opportunity for all of us and future generations from seeing what many of us feel is the most amazing and spectacular thing imaginable: our universe.

I have a photo of the Luxor from 100 miles away

On an all-night *yawn* trip from Salt Lake City to San Diego, I took this photo [flickr.com] at the rest area in the desert between Baker and Barstow, California, looking in the direction of Las Vegas. Once I found refuge from the glare bombs surrounding the parking lot, I looked up and saw more stars than I've ever seen before... but Vegas and L.A. were huge glowing domes on the horizon. I don't think there's anywhere in the continental U.S. that is totally free from light pollution.

Re:Straw Man Alert

The average supermarket parking lot is much brighter at midnight than necessary. You also don't need the entire parking lot lit all night, when on most nights, the first two rows of lights would suffice for the night-time customers. After parking lot lights, the biggest offenders are billboards and other illuminated advertising signs. These can be turned off without compromising public safety, and with minimal harm to the efficacy of the advertising.

Re:Straw Man Alert

The average supermarket parking lot is much brighter at midnight than necessary. You also don't need the entire parking lot lit all night, when on most nights, the first two rows of lights would suffice for the night-time customers. After parking lot lights, the biggest offenders are billboards and other illuminated advertising signs. These can be turned off without compromising public safety, and with minimal harm to the efficacy of the advertising.

It would totally suck if we cut the lighting in Time Square or Shibuya or the Las Vegas strip. It is one thing to cut light on a exurban freeway billboard, but there are plenty of places that would lose their character without all the bright lights.

Re:Straw Man Alert

Besides turning off lights, just modifying them can make a tremendous difference. Calgary, Alberta used to be one of the brightest cities in the world (despite having a population under a million) and at night you could see about six stars. Most neighborhoods now have lower wattage street lights with flat faceplates. They're much more effective at directing light downwards instead of up into the sky so the overall illumination on the ground is the same. The city saves millions a year in power and you can see constellations again.

Re:Straw Man Alert

Where's your evidence that lights reduce crime at all? If having some lights does reduce crime, where's your evidence that there aren't already more than the optimum number of lights? I know people think that lights reduce crime, but there seems to be little or no proof of it. In fact, what little research I've seen seems to indicate that lights, at least added on top of the lights we already have in cities, do not reduce crime.

In any case, a lot could be done by just aiming the lights at the parking lot itself, rather than at the sky. There aren't that many flying muggers or rapists.

I don't believe that nothing can be done about light pollution while maintaining ground-level lighting, and I honestly doubt that light reduces crime much anyway.

However, even if I'm wrong about that, a better sky view for the majority of the world's population (that's BILLIONS of people) probably is worth a few muggings and even rapes... it takes a stunted soul, or somebody who's never seen a real night sky, not to realize the value. We're not talking about "hobbyists" or "enthusiasts". We're talking about any human being with a functioning spirit.

Re:Straw Man Alert

There is some evidence that improved street lighting has the potential to improve safety - it's been studied a bit in the UK (often in the context of better lighting vs increased CCTV or the like), and there has been a general positive correlation. One meta-analysis of the studies published by the home office a few years ago can be found here [homeoffice.gov.uk], and I'm sure google scholar can provide oodles of links to the underlying studies if you desire.

What's notable though, is that there is a considerable variation in the result based on where the study was done (and, presumably, the exact difference between the test and control situations, as I haven't went through all the underlying studies myself), with many areas producing negligible changes, or even statistically significant increases in certain types of crime with the introduction of additional lighting. The most simple conclusion is that the lighting has to be sensibly managed: floodlights on every street corner are not necessary, and may even be detrimental. Which means that there is certainly the possibility that the goals of improving the visibility of the sky and the improvement of street lighting (improvement not strictly meaning increase, of course) are not necessarily incompatible.

Re:Straw Man Alert

Wow, what can I say but that was a seriously uneducated answer. How come people can't think that there might be a way to better the situation than to turn off the lights? How about.. maybe.. just maybe.. use light fixtures that don't blast kilowatts of light energy into the sky where they're not needed? Huh? Can you answer that one? In fact, with the same amount of light energy, but directed where it's useful actually makes a much brighter area where people are walking, parking, whatever. To achieve the same level of visibility on the ground, and make the sky darker would actually SAVE energy.

Here is a little excerpt from the article (which you obviously are oblivious to else you wouldn't post foolishness) that seems fitting...

"A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the blinding glare of a poorly placed metal halide "wall pack." In the early seventies, the public-school system in San Antonio, Texas, began leaving many of its school buildings, parking lots, and other property dark at night and found that the no-lights policy not only reduced energy costs but also dramatically cut vandalism."

Read article, open mouth.

If you would RTFA instead of rushing for first post you'd see that it mentions that, when properly done, reducing the excessive and inappropriately strong lighting that covers most cities would actually aid nighttime vision by eliminating the glare.

Re:

Amen to that. Driving in a city with nighttime lights reflecting off of every surface makes it much harder to see than driving down an unlit country rode where there is little glare.

Re:Use brain, open mouth.

What about people WALKING at night?

What about them?

they don't experience glair [sic] (no windshield)

Maybe if you'd RTFA you would know what glare is. Since you won't, let me help you:

"glare bombs": fixtures that cast much of their light sideways, into the eyes of passersby, or upward, into the sky

Nothing at all to do with windshields though I suppose windshields can magnify the effects of glare.

how do you propose they walk without streetlights?

You're the one who proposed that. The post you responded to mentioned reducing their illumination.

Streetlights were intended to reduce crime, and I'd say they do a pretty good job of that.

From the article:

Crawford pointed out a cluster of mailboxes across the street from his garage. The lighting near the mailboxes was of a type that Crawford calls "criminal-friendly": it was almost painful to look at, and it turned the walkway behind the boxes into an impenetrable void. "The eye adapts to the brightest thing in sight," he said. "When you have glare, the eye adapts to the glare, but then you can't see anything darker."

[...]

Much so-called security lighting is designed with little thought for how eyes--or criminals--operate. Marcus Felson, a professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, has concluded that lighting is effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice criminal activity as it's taking place, and if it doesn't help criminals to see what they're doing. Bright, unshielded floodlights--one of the most common types of outdoor security lighting in the country--often fail on both counts, as do all-night lights installed on isolated structures or on parts of buildings that can't be observed by passersby (such as back doors). A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the blinding glare of a poorly placed metal halide "wall pack." In the early seventies, the public-school system in San Antonio, Texas, began leaving many of its school buildings, parking lots, and other property dark at night and found that the no-lights policy not only reduced energy costs but also dramatically cut vandalism.

So there you go. Street lights are good, but if they shine light directly in the eyes of people walking at night, then those people will be unable to see into the shadows, which would be a great place for a mugger to lurk. However, if those street lights are subdued to decent levels and designed to be free of glare then not only can you see your path but your eyes will also still be adjusted for the darkness and you're better able to see what's outside of a brilliantly lit area. There are other benefits too:

Calgary, Alberta, recently cut its electricity expenditures by more than two million dollars a year, by switching to full-cutoff, reduced-wattage street lights.

Reduce the power output of your street lights and save millions. Additionally:

Diminishing the level of nighttime lighting can actually increase visibility. In recent years, the California Department of Transportation has greatly reduced its use of continuous lighting on its highways, and has increased its use of reflectors and other passive guides, which concentrate luminance where drivers need it rather than dispersing it over broad areas. (Passive guides also save money, since they don't require electricity.) F.A.A.-regulated airport runways, though they don't use reflectors, are lit in a somewhat similar fashion, with rows of guidance lights rather than with high-powered floodlights covering broad expanses of macadam. This makes the runways easier for pilots to pick out at night, because the key to visibility, on runways as well as on roads, is contrast.

Re:Use brain, open mouth.

-1, Wrong and Uninformed

People walking at night *do* experience glare. First off, lots of folks wear glasses. Secondly, the presence of streetlights, even assuming no stray reflections, *does* affect human vision by preventing the eye from becoming fully dark-adapted. Many lighting schemes actually make things worse by creating very uneven lighting patterns. The eye will wind up adjusting its levels based on those bright areas, and then be completely unable to see in the dark areas.

Naturally, anyone up to no good will be in those shadows where nobody can see, because their eyes are metering for the bright areas.

*Contrast*, not the absolute amount of light, is the real limiting factor here. Two examples:

I was out in the forest today and saw a bird land on a tree branch west of me, backlit by the setting sun. I couldn't tell what it was; it appeared completely black to me because my eyes were adjusted to the huge amount of light coming from the western sky. I can, however, override my camera's automatic exposure setting, and was able to get a picture (at ISO 100, fyi). There was plenty of light to see by, there was just too much light coming from what I didn't want to see. Your eyes don't have an exposure override.

You can also see quite well in a whole hell of a lot less light than you think. I've been in situations where moonlight is actually bright enough to be dazzling (compared to the previous starlight when the moon was obscured); starlight is even enough to see where you're going by.

Starlight is 512 times dimmer than a streetlit street; moonlight is 64 times dimmer. (Reference: http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/tips/ 054b_exposure_light_and_exposure_values.htm#Light [photokaboom.com]) You can see with a lot less light than you think you can, if you'd just turn out the damn lights.

Also, studies have been done that show that, when streetlights are removed from neighborhoods, crime actually goes down. Why? Because there are no shadows to hide in, and, if it's really that dark, the boogeyman (who's much less common than you think) won't be able to see you either without a flashlight. My neighborhood is unlit and is in a city with a pretty high crime rate (Tucson, Arizona); I've never felt unsafe because of the lack of streetlights.

Benefits of turning off the lights, since you asked:

1) It saves power. Gobs of power.
2) People can enjoy the natural world, and possibly learn something in the process.
3) Less damn glare, helps drivers and walkers (who can see just fine by moonlight/starlight
4) Astronomy.
5) It has been hinted at that excessive artificial lighting at night screws up people's circadian rhythms and might be responsible for certain sleep disorders, fatigue, depression, etc. This hasn't been shown conclusively yet, of course, and in any case looking at a 14" LCD like I am now is far worse.

Re:Use brain, open mouth.

The object of security lighting is to bathe otherwise dark places in light so that criminals will not feel secure in their ability to commit crime unseen.

"Nobody's suggesting we get rid of streetlights, by the way: just make them illuminate straight downwards."

Streetlights already employ reflectors to direct their light downward, they just let it arc over many degrees so that fewer lights will need to be installed, and so that some lights can be turned off to cool while not leaving the street dark. I think they're talking about installing a larger number of smaller lights. I don't know that that would be a worthwhile investment (and it wouldn't reduce the wattage installed in lit parking-lots).

Re:Use brain, open mouth.

One answer is to only run 1/3 of the lights at any given time and randomly change which 1/3 is on. Tests have shown that this tends to REDUCE crime. When the lights are always on, criminals can see where the dark places are and hide there. With random lights, their nice dark hiding place can light up like a parking lot without warning. To a criminal, a light that could come on at any moment is as bad or worse than an always on light.

It's a fairly easy way to save a lot of electricity and help with light pollution. Bonus points if a "scream sensor" immediatly lights the area fully. Double bonus if the surrounding lights light up in an arrow pattern so a police helicopter can spot a problem area visually.

Re:Use brain, open mouth.

What about if the entire city's lights light up in a marquee display that can be seen from the moon reading "Mugging victim needs assistance here!" ? Brownie points there? No? Dang!

Re:Ah fuck that.

Actually, we can improve lighting on earth, save energy, AND improve our view of the cosmos. Our existing nighttime lighting is enormously wasteful. Good lighting design lets you "see where you're going", without blinding you with glare, or destroying your night vision with excessive light. Please visit the International Dark Sky Association [darksky.org] which has been working to solve this problem for decades. First, realize that lights that shine up into the sky are helping no one. Any electricity used to illuminate the sky is wasteful and causes light pollution. Properly shielded lights direct light at the ground where it is helpful, instead of at the sky.

Fuck Wit (intentional pun, not an insult today)

Look, dude, it's like this. Chicks dig stars. Countless generations of guys got laid by showing chicks stars. What are you gonna do, now that you can't even see the stars? This is all about trying to help guys like you score. Get with the program. Shield your bloody lights.

Re:Ah fuck that.

How often do you look at the sky and how often do you look in front of you. Would you rather have a nice view of the stars or would you like to see where you're going?

I used to live in Flagstaff, AZ. home of Lowell Observatory; in Flagstaff we had an ordinance against excessive light pollution, and at night the city was almost completely dark, it was really great to ride my bike through downtown with the minimal light. I don't know how practical this is in some situation as well lit areas are generally seen as safer, but i really miss it sometimes.

Re:

It's a bit more complicated than that. From a safety perspective, what you want is even lighting with fewer shadows. A brighter light can be counter productive in many areas to adding security.

The lighting we have around her is horrible, it is bright where

Re:Ah fuck that.

Slightly off topic, but... Some of those horrid yellow lights have another little problem which could probably be dealt with but isn't in some places. That problem is that they are so close to the color and intensity of a yellow traffic light that they "camouflage" yellow traffic lights.

On one major street that I drive on at nights sometimes, you have to learn to remember where you saw a green light and, when you glance back (from scanning the sides of the road and your mirrors like one should), remember where it was - because if it's turned yellow, you can't quickly pick it out from all the yellow street lights - it just looks like suddenly a signal that you recall having seen is no longer there ... that is until it "suddenly" turns red and results in people jamming on their brakes.

Once you learn to remember where the signals are because you drive the street regularly, it's not so bad - but it's quite disconcerting the first few times and certainly detracts attention from other elements of your driving even once you learn to compensate for it.

Re:Ah fuck that.

Would you rather have a nice view of the stars or would you like to see where you're going?

Ultimately I should hope that the stars are where we're going.

Re:Women want light

it is sad truth that most people prefer feeling safe to actually being safe.

Re:Women want light

It's called "security theater," and that's all most airports provide. All those metal detectors at government buildings, courts and so on only prevent two things: stupid criminals and honest people from going about their business without let or hindrance.

There was an incident at the VA hospital on Wilshire Blvd in LA once, over twenty years ago. From then on, until about a year ago, you had to go through metal detectors to get into the waiting room for the main clinic, even though there was no evidence that there was any threat. However, you didn't have to go through them to get into any other part of the hospital; just the waiting room for the clinic. It took years of time, and numerous people complaining, but they were eventually deactivated. Not removed; just deactivated. They're still there, wasting space, doing nothing, having no more effect now than they did when they were in use. A perfect example of security theater in action.

Re:Women want light

Those of us from "out in the country" have a different perspective.

Most nights, it's easier to see in the absence of artificial light, because our eyes adapt to the more complete light coverage provided by the moon and stars. City and suburb folks have problems with darkness because of the incomplete coverage of the artificial lights causes ordinary darkness to appear pitch black, and creates shadows causing even more darkness.

Driving at night, I generally prefer to be out in the middle of nowhere, because I can see better with my headlights being the only light source.

Re:Women want light

many women demand more lighting during the night, for reasons of safety.

They may be saying "more" light but they probably mean "more even" lighting. You could see better down a street or across a parking lot if it had half the brightness but it was evenly spread, vs intermittent very bright spots. So having it bright as the noon day sun in front of the bar actually makes it worse to walk across the parking lot, unless that is just as bright. If you have every been out in the country at night and you could see moderately well with a full moon (enough to play soccer, I've done it) that was what even lighting at about 0.035 foot-candles gives you as far as visibility. Most streetlights give you about .7 foot-candles, around 20X the brightness when you are right under the streetlight, but how far outside of the immediate scope of the streetlight can you see? The brighter the bright spots get, the higher the contrast and the less overall visibility you have. My point is that if you keep the brightness low, but take care to light up the dark shadowy spots as well, you can actually see better. Well lit shouldn't be confused with "brighter".

Re:

Oh man, I am so with you friend. I moved a few miles out of town, and the sky is a bit better out here, but the skyglow creeps ever nearer. I really can't help but wonder if anyone that has posted a negative remark about this article has ever beheld a trul