Making War On Light Pollution 437
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 (Score:5, Funny)
This is outrageous (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is make install. How many times do I have to tell you that you get things done by make install?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What interesting timing for this article, though. This evening, my partner and I drove 35 minutes away to get to somewhere with a Bortle limit of 4, perhaps a bit closer to 3 than to 5, so we could stargaze and use our telescope. We'd have to drive an hour and a half, maybe more to
It's true (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 had something similar here recently, but it wasn't for the benefit of the stars. There was a "turn off all your lights to save power and reduce global warming" night. I participated mostly be
Re:It's true (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If street lights make people feel safer, then there will be street lights. It doesn't matter that much if it actually works or not. Arguing for a public policy that makes people "feel endangered" is grounded in fantasy. Further, the premise that people feeling more in danger will have a net r
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
crime (Score:5, Informative)
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.
FalconRe:If you make lights illegal, only criminals (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On a serious note, if it is dark outside you can actually see better with no lights causing your pupils to contract than with the constant glare of them.
night sky (Score:3, Interesting)
I have some fond memories from the week I spent houseboating with my cousins on Lake Powell. I slept on the top of the boat, and it was absolutely the clearest sky I've ever seen. Definitely much better than anything I've seen in the midwest, where I live. The only problem was the high walls blocked the sides of the sky.
I remember going out at night growing up in Florida and just lying on the ground gazing at the stars. It would be so clear and the stars would be bright. Then the county put in street l
morals. (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
San Jose (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
My father was a pilot on b-49's and other miltary aircrafts, and later on the commercial aircrafts. He was telling me about the stars that he used to see in the 40's (from the ground),50's (from the planes),and somewhat into the 60s,
No, it is light pollution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Speaking as someone who
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My truck is a light jade green (Ford Puke Green). Long Beach CA has yellow sodium lights. My truck is completely invisible under those lights -- to the point that I once lost it in an otherwise-empty parking lot, and only rediscovered it by nearly walking into it. This despite that I have VERY good night vision. And as I drove down the street, I was amused by the illusion that my front hood was missing.... and was glad to be the only
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Driver: I was turning right officer when I spotted this guy was hovering 4' above the ground, he was travelling along the road with a lunchbox and newspaper like he was driving an invisible truck or something...next thing I knew I hit the tree.
Officer: We better get you checked out for concussion.
Re:San Jose (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Best skies I've ever seen. (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can still see that, or at least something close, in a planetarium. The next best thing, if you have a computer, you can download some software for free at:
www.stellarium.org
Besides viewing the computer screen, this software will also allow you you to set up a planetarium if you have a projector and can rig up a dome shaped screen. It will also control certain telescope mounts.
It's not likely that the skies over any large city w
Well, there is an upside (Score:3, Interesting)
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. (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You HAVE to be kidding. So now we can't have cheap, clean, renewable energy sources... since if we do so some people won't be able to see a few stars?
This BANANA at it's finest.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and build them in suburbia. The few remaining pristine forests in this country should be spared from the juggernaut of sprawl.
I live in Belgium (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ascension Island (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Windows comes to the rescue (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/14/power.outage/ [cnn.com]
No power, no light pollution
Not just light causing a problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you go out into the countryside, you have to wait for your eyes to ad
"Pollution"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, when it comes to someone opening up their cell phone during a movie... roll out the tanks, let the war begin!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
harken back to the days of (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It's also about saving money on electricity. (Score:2)
Some of the first light pollution legislation in Tuscon, AZ, mandated that the light could not be seen from an angle of 30 degrees above the horizontal.
Build observatories in North Korea (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw Corpus Christi, TX from 120 miles away (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone didn't read the article.
Here are some reading comprehension questions. Please answer using complete sentences.
1. What do newly hatched sea turtles instinctively do immediately following hatching?
2. How does artificial lighting affect migrating birds?
3. How does artificial lighting affect insect populations, and eventually, population of other wildlife?
Dark Sky Preservation hostility? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
same problem in Brazil (Score:3, Interesting)
Once, 10+ years ago, I was returning from Paraguay by bus and we were stuck in the middle of nowhere in a freak-long line (customs control). The line was completely stuck, I was feeling bored and went from the bus to take some fresh air. I remember that when I looked at the night sky I could see clearly the Via-Lactea, the sky was filled with stars and the whole thing seemed sort of colorful.. You could even see some meteorites/satellites/whatever passing by.
Man, that was an unique experience for a city guy. I guess it was only then I realised the point of appreciating the night sky people so often wrote about.
I have a photo of the Luxor from 100 miles away (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Straw Man Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Straw Man Alert (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Straw Man Alert (Score:5, Interesting)
yes, lights for security have been studied (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Straw Man Alert (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You keep the lights on to make the thieves at ease, infrared motion detectors to trigger the machine guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the muddy lighting conditions that streetlights produce. There's not enough light to clearly see what's going on, but there's too much light for things lit by your car's headlights to stand out.
Re:Women want light (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Women want light (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Lights for security at night simple cause terrible glare and make it easier for criminals to work. The article mentions a school system that stopped lighting its facilities at night and saw a decrease in vandalism.
Likewise with roads. Lights everywhere simply wash things out. If you instead focus on reflectors, you can highlight the areas that need to be seen and make it easier to drive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For those walking at night along an unlit road at night, they have these devices called "flashlights" that can help with the other concerns you voiced, and reflective clothing goes a long way towards preventing an unpleasant encounter between pe
Re: (Score:2)
Also, streetlights != road safety.
Some education here please.. just a tiny bit would help. It's not painful, I promise.
Re: (Score:2)
My car has headlights, and I manage to drive on unlit streets just fine.
Besides, this isn't about ELIMINATING exterior lighting, it is about designing lighting solutions to minimize wasted light that pollutes the sky.
Wasted light is wasted energy. There is no drawback to this idea.
Re:Women want light (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
In the area I live, there are some stretches of freeway where there are no street lights and virtually no human presence (busines
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Women want light (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read article, open mouth. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Use brain, open mouth. (Score:4, Informative)
"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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Use brain, open mouth. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Take a 0.00001% fraction of the defense budget.
3) Nothing.
4) Yes.
5) None, and yes.
Any more?
Re:Ah fuck that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We can build observation facilities in our orbit. Problem solved.
Right, like poverty is a problem solved since decades.
sit in a field and feel like they're floating around the galaxy while viewing stars in a dark night sky"...? Who cares
Actually, that would be: saving money, improving visibility at night and, as a side effect, 'sit in a field and feel like they're floating around the galaxy while viewing stars in a dark night sky'.
Your proverbial cloud-watching is insignificant compared to the technological and industrial progress of civilization.
Progress is improving the quality of human life. Modern comfort + clear sky is actually progress over just modern comfort.
Fuck Wit (intentional pun, not an insult today) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah fuck that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The lighting we have around her is horrible, it is bright where there is light, but many of the street lights are out so the dark shadows are almost impenetrable, as the horrid yellowish orange lights pretty much destroy any night vision. In many places there are huge bushes that impede the light.
Fixing that could ver
Re:Ah fuck that. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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.
lit areas are generally seen as safer (Score:3, Interesting)
It's an illusion. There [wikipedia.org] are no good scientific studies that convincingly show the relationship between lighting and crime. In some cases, lighting seems to deter crime and it makes people feel more secure, but in reality they may be just as secure without the lighting.
FalconOMG! Unsourced claim at Wikipedia is wrong! (Score:3, Informative)
Here are a couple papers which each include several references:
THE EFFECT OF BETTER STREET LIGHTING ON CRIME AND FEAR: A REVIEW [homeoffice.gov.uk]
EVIDENCE-BASED CRIME PREVENTION: SCIENTIFIC BASIS, TRENDS, RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA [ps-sp.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A quick Google search shows that there seem to be studies about lighting and crime. Sure the topic probably merits additional study, but discounting the work that has been done based on an unsourced sentence leading a wikipedia article probably isn't helping further the discussion.
Before replying I did use Google. I found the Wiki article by Googling lights night security studies [google.com], it's number 4 in the results. The first result is a blog entry about how the streetlight outside the window disturbs sl
Re:Ah fuck that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The quote you gave said "... revealed a strong association between working the night shift and an increased risk of breast cancer"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not an issue or a cause to be taken seriously. So it seems that the logic here is: "let us all use "dark sky friendly" lights so we cannot see the real pollution and this will all go away and seem like a bad dream. I believe that we can find better issues to deal with than "light pollution". It is similar to going to an emergency room with a gunshot wound to the chest and complaining about a hangnail. Priorities people... Priorities.
A couple of comments:
I don't quite see why trying to reduce light