One Fifth of World's Population Can't See Milky Way At Night 612
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Cosmos Magazine: "Light pollution has caused one-fifth of the world's population — mostly in Europe, Britain and the US — to lose their ability to see the Milky Way in the night sky.
'The arc of the Milky Way seen from a truly dark location is part of our planet's natural heritage,' said Connie Walker, and astronomer from the US National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson, Arizona.
Yet 'more than one fifth of the world population, two thirds of the US population and one half of the European Union population have already lost naked eye visibility of the Milky Way.'"
Well... I could. (Score:5, Insightful)
Poor kids, I wish they could see what they are missing.
Milky Way, hell... (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't even know you're missing it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Los Angeles. One day I went up to Yosemite to hike Half-Dome. It's a long hike, so we started at 3 in the morning. When we broke out of the trees, I looked up and shit my pants.
On a trip to Vegas. (Score:5, Insightful)
I looked up and said to a friend. This town is so corrupt even the stars have left it.
Light pollution is fixable (Score:4, Insightful)
If we could start getting in the habit of focusing our lights down through the use of hoods and lamp covers we could probably make fast, cheap improvements on this problem. Light is wasted going up, with the exception of cool satellite shots showing the Earth at night. I for one would love to be able to see more than magnitude 1 and brighter stars from my rooftop in Brooklyn.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
This is goofy... (Score:5, Insightful)
I take issue with a number of things here...
A) Is this 1/5th immobile? Can they not hop a commuter train to the suburbs or something? I'd really like to know. I know that when I go out to see Dad in Wyoming the difference is absolutely noticeable, but I've always assumed that the same could be gained by finding some road-side location out in 'the sticks'.
B) When is light 'pollution', and are we okay with (what I assume is) a situational definition of that word? Is light 'pollution' when it comes out of your headlights? Or only when Wal-Mart uses it to light their parking lot? Is there some measurable standard of 'enough' light, and the excess is 'pollution'? Or is it only 'pollution' when you want it to be dark? I'd honestly like to know...
C) What does 'the arc of the Milky Way seen from a truly dark location is part of our planet's natural heritage' mean, exactly? Are we really weighing the advantages of light at night against 'natural heritage'? Because, from where I sit, 'living in a cave, eating only what you can kill with a pointy stick' is also our 'natural heritage'. The rest is technology at work, for better or worse.
It just strikes me as weird, and I'd love to hear voices from the other side of it.
Re:It's sad, really. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's sad, really. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes street lamps are a little more important than allowing New Jersey to have un-obstructed view of the stars.
Re:Well... I could. (Score:4, Insightful)
Too much investment to satisfy too small a group - who cares if it's world heritage.
Governments will listen to any small group that pays well.
Quit calling it "light pollution" (Score:1, Insightful)
That's one of the silliest terms I've ever heard. Comparing light at night to smog or dirty water is disingenuous. There are no health hazards to nighttime light. Its simply a marketing term for people that are angry that they have to travel a little bit to get a good view of the stars. Well, too bad. That's the price you pay for civilization. Cities and suburbs are lighted at night for good reasons. Properly used, night lighting deters crime [c2admin.org], improves safety [saferoutesinfo.org], and allows us to use more of the day for productive purposes. Lighting allowed us to do work at night that we formerly couldn't do.
I don't know about you, but I'll take all of those advantages over living in the dark just so I can get an unobstructed view of the stars. And I say that as someone that used to enjoy amateur astronomy quite a bit (getting a new telescope will have to wait until the toddler gets older).
When I was using a telescope, I simply accepted that I was going to have to drive 20 minutes if I wanted a fantastic view of the stars... I even had my favorite spots picked out. Now if you choose to live in a place like New York City, then use your head... you're going to have to accept that you are choosing to live in a heavily lighted environment. It's a tradeoff. Want beautiful, naked-eye views of the night sky? Move to Montana or some remote desert town. Want better economic opportunities and the benefits of a city? Plan your sky-viewing trips out of the city, then.
Re:God help us! (Score:3, Insightful)
So you'd be okay with me shining 50kW movie floods through all your windows, 24 hours a day? How about if I use my jackhammer right outside your house 24 hours a day too? That okay?
Re:Light pollution is fixable (Score:5, Insightful)
They like their lights - it gives a sense of security, although in practice, a well-lit area probably just helps burglars and assorted baddies to see how to break into your house - rather than having to draw attention to themselves by carrying torches, tripping over things they couldn't see - or even being able to tell if there's a large dog waiting for them, in silence.
I don't know if it's due to a generally depressed demeanour, but most people prefer to look down, at their feet, rather than up at the sky. I've even had arguments with people who were so uncaring about their surroundings that they didn't know the moon was visible during the day.
Re:This is goofy... (Score:5, Insightful)
B) When is light 'pollution', and are we okay with (what I assume is) a situational definition of that word? Is light 'pollution' when it comes out of your headlights? Or only when Wal-Mart uses it to light their parking lot? Is there some measurable standard of 'enough' light, and the excess is 'pollution'? Or is it only 'pollution' when you want it to be dark? I'd honestly like to know...
Well, I'd probably call it "light polution" when it started to have measurable negative impact on the ecosystems that it's being poured into.
For example, do you know about the interactions between exposure to light and melatonin (not melanin) production? And how some animals (arguably including humans) use that to regulate their circadian rhytms? And how other animals use differences in that to measure the change of seasons, and undergo metabolic changes based on that measurement? About how that can impact fertility in some species?
Also, do you know about how light interacts with migration instincts? Do you know why Japanese fishermen light up the sea at night?
The "milky way at night" is an aesthetic thing, and I can see folks using it for PR purposes, and also to make what's going on into something people can directly relate to. But don't conclude from that that it's the only argument available, the only reason to think about "light polution". That might be natural to conclude at first, but it's like concluding that the only problem with littering is that styrofoam containers by the roadside are ugly to the eye, just because that's an argument you hear someone making.
Re:This is goofy... (Score:4, Insightful)
B) Light pollution is, in my understanding, any photon that goes up rather than down. It's most noticable when the city is overcast and it's bright enough to read by because of all of the light reflected back down by the clouds. Thus, it's both your headlights and Wal-Mart, but I'd argue that you would get better returns for limiting it at the Wal-Mart than your car.
C) The advancement of technology and the departure of us humans from our natural state is not a consistent good. It is often good, yes, but not always. One should always be mindful of what should and should not be left behind. Turning off all the lights is not a good solution to this particular problem, but there are ways to mitigate the side-effects.
Re:This is goofy... (Score:5, Insightful)
B) Pollution is pollution, regardless of the source. Lower levels are more tolerable than higher levels, but it all detracts from the view of the sky (along with other negative effects). All sources of light pollution should be minimized.
C) Seeing the wonder of the universe is a good thing. Living in a cave is not. Is that distinction so difficult to comprehend? "The rest is technology at work, for better or worse." Oh, so maybe you do grasp the point! Except that we don't have to just accept technology "for better or worse"; we can choose to use technology in ways that makes our lives better and not to use technology in ways that makes it worse.
Re:Light pollution is fixable (Score:2, Insightful)
And what happens to that carefully focused light when it hits the white concrete sidewalk and other reflective things?
Re:Well... I could. (Score:5, Insightful)
See the milky way or don't live in the dark. I think 99% of the population would choose one over the other.
The whole point of reducing light pollution doesn't mean living in the dark. Lighting manufactures can create good lights that allow the light to shine down and not up into the sky. Its just getting the 99% of the population to choose these instead.
Example of fixable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is goofy... (Score:5, Insightful)
I take issue with a number of things here...
A) Is this 1/5th immobile? Can they not hop a commuter train to the suburbs or something?
I'd really like to know.
Ok, first take a look here [blue-marble.de]. Now look carefully on the western edge of Europe, in the country of the Netherlands. See that extremely bright spot stretching along the cost? I live right in the middle of that. Now look around that: everything is equally bright. The nearest darkish spots are to the south, in France, about 350km away.
Let's say I go to France, then. The train to Paris will take me there in about four hours, but I don't want to go to Paris, I want to head out into the dark spots. Have you ever noticed a train stopping in total darkness, in the absolute middle of nowhere-without-a-light? Right, neither have I. They stop in places with high enough population density to make a train stop useful. Those places typically have lots of light as well. So even if I were to make the additional train ride to get to an area that is at least semi-dark, I would still need to get out of the city I'm in and into the countryside to have any benefit.
I hope this explains to you why I have seen the milky way precisely _once_ in my entire life... And it was an unforgettable sight.
I know that when I go out to see Dad in Wyoming the difference is absolutely noticeable, but I've always assumed that the same could be gained by finding some road-side location out in 'the sticks'.
I'll skip the obvious joke about your dad, but for some of us "the sticks" is two countries to the south...
B) When is light 'pollution', and are we okay with (what I assume is) a situational definition of that word? Is light 'pollution' when it comes out of your headlights? Or only when Wal-Mart uses it to light their parking lot? Is there some measurable standard of 'enough' light, and the excess is 'pollution'? Or is it only 'pollution' when you want it to be dark? I'd honestly like to know...
I don't know about the precise word "pollution", but it is certainly undesirable when it deprives us of something of awesome natural beauty - even if it serves some purpose in our industrial society.
C) What does 'the arc of the Milky Way seen from a truly dark location is part of our planet's natural heritage' mean, exactly? Are we really weighing the advantages of light at night against 'natural heritage'? Because, from where I sit, 'living in a cave, eating only what you can kill with a pointy stick' is also our 'natural heritage'. The rest is technology at work, for better or worse.
It just strikes me as weird, and I'd love to hear voices from the other side of it.
What purpose does the grand canyon serve? Why not just make it the largest landfill in the world? What purpose does yellowstone serve? Why not build a city there so people can use the geisers for natural heating? What purpose does the arctic wildlife reserve serve? Why not dig the whole thing up and draw out every last drop of oil?
The sky is no different from that - even if you've never seen it with your own eyes.
Re:Well... I could. (Score:3, Insightful)
... 'high beams', and most people in the city have no idea how to use them as they dont appear to do anything....
I presume that no one has worked out that all the on-coming-traffic crashes they see have been caused because the drivers have been temporarily blinded !
Re:On a trip to Vegas. (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked up and said to a friend. This town is so corrupt even the stars have left it.
They all went to North Korea. [globalsecurity.org]
Seriously, I see this as more of a factoid than a problem. Greedy capitalist pig that I am, I kinda like not getting mugged in parking lots and being able to see the road at night. YMMV.
Re:Oh, the Milky Way (Score:3, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154153&cid=12931330 [slashdot.org]
Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_shave [wikipedia.org]
Re:Milky Way, hell... (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked, deer didn't shine direct light at the sky. But then again, it's been a while since I've seen one.
Another misleading statistic (Score:4, Insightful)
The statistic should be that 1/5th of the world's population lives in population dense cities that produce too much light pollution to observe the milky way at night.
MOST places in the US and Europe offer spectacular views of the night sky, including the Milky Way. Fortunately the population is not very dense except in the big cities.
When 1/5 of the world has too much light pollution to observe the Milky Way, then I will worry. 1/5 of the worlds population, no big deal. Hell, I'd guess that most of the other 4/5's of the population wish they had that problem, cause then it might mean that they have the power to run their wells, clean their water, refrigerate their food, compete for the next big call center, and maybe stop burying 1/4, or 1/3, or even 1/2 of their children before they see 18.
While I agree that it would be nice if we industrialized nations could dim it a little in our big cities so our spoiled kids can see a few stars, I don't consider it a cause for concern.
Old News, but Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, to me this is sort of old news. Let me tell you a story;
When I was young, I grew up in a small town about 50 miles from London in the UK. We rarely left the area because we really couldn't travel much. When I was in a little older, we lived in Belfast, Northern Ireland... and finally when I was 18 I lived in London for a few years. This is significant because the first time I truly traveled outside of major metropolitan areas in my life, I was 21 and I went to Oklahoma. I was staying with friends in Chickasha, OK... and one night, I think it was my fourth night in the area we drove out to Lake Louis Burtschi [google.com], as poor college students do when they can't afford to go out and do stuff. Anyway, I recall distinctly stepping out of the car and literally had my breath taken away. My friends said I stood dead still for almost a minute, and I remember the feeling of vertigo, the feeling of depth as I stared into that starry night sky, the Milky Way clear above my head as I had seen it in books.
All my life, I had grown up seeing these pictures in books of mountains with the Milky Way shown clearly there... and all my life I had believed truly that those pictures were in some way faked to make a dramatic point. Sure, I had vaguely seen the "fuzz" of the glow of the galaxy across the sky on the clearest nights I can remember in Belfast, but never in my life before had I seen anything like it. I had never even suspected that I was able to see the sky that clearly from any vantage point on Earth except perhaps the tops of the tallest mountains... even then I doubted it looked like that. I just had no idea until I saw it first hand.
That night I stood there for the better part of 5 or 6 hours, taking in the majesty of a night sky I had never suspected I would ever see in my life, thinking that the only place I could see that would be out the window of a space shuttle (something I knew I would never do).
I'm 36 now, but that night is still vivid in my memory. It's still incredible, and still so unbelievable to me that I had the chance to see that. I have been back there since, and though it's not as clear now as it was 15 years ago, it's still an awe-inspiring sight for someone like me who has lived most of my life in suburbs. Today I live in St. Louis... we're lucky to see Betelgeuse most nights because of the light pollution of our metropolis. I know I can drive a few hours out of town and get a better view, but Missouri is too humid for a view like I got in Oklahoma.
I know how the younger people feel today... and they really don't know what they're missing. It's a sad state of affairs, and yes... one that can be rectified by getting away from the large cities if possible. But remember my example; I didn't even consider that getting away from the cities would afford me that much better a view... because I had never seen it and never encountered it. Cities are so densely packed in Britain that you'd be really hard-pressed to find a single location where you're far enough from light pollution to see that clearly. Sure, maybe the highlands of Scotland... but having been up in the highlands a few times I can say that you'd be damned lucky to get a night that wasn't overcast in most of those mountains.
I'm somewhat reminded of the people of Krikkit [wikipedia.org] in Life, The Universe and Everything: They lived their entire lives surrounded by a dust cloud that obscured the night sky to the extent that it never even occurred to them that there was anything beyond that dust cloud... or even that there was a sky, as such. I think in some ways I felt when I saw the Milky Way clearly for the first time that I had spent my entire life obscured from the real night sky and as such had never even considered it's existence in the way I have since.
what milky way? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... I could. (Score:3, Insightful)
The other trick is to lie on your back and look "upward". If you do it right, you can even get a sense of vertigo. Best way to watch sunsets too. Lie with your head towards the sun and watch it by looking up. Its probably because you can't see the horizon so well anymore, so the sky takes more of your field of view.
Actually, I just came here to gloat, because where I live its trivial to get to a place where light pollution has minimal effect :). Heck during some powercuts its like being deep in the bush with almost no light pollution..
Re:Well... I could. (Score:5, Insightful)
I drove out west a few years ago. Took 140 out through southern Oregon. It was just BLACK. No moon, no lights, nothing but starlight.
I have never seen anything quite as beautiful as being on a Navy ship about 2 degrees off the equator and under a new moon, with no light from horizon to horizon but the sky and the phosphorescent bacteria we were churning up. It was one of those things that was so lovely that it almost hurt, as if you couldn't look at it and breath at the same time.
Re:Well... I could. (Score:5, Insightful)
IHBT, but what the hell:
If you're too "manly" to appreciate beauty, then your life sucks more than your narrow brain can appreciate.
Re:Well... I could. (Score:2, Insightful)
I have never seen anything quite as beautiful as being on a Navy ship about 2 degrees off the equator and under a new moon... as if you couldn't look at it and breath at the same time.
Here here.
In Saudi Arabia, I went with the Boy Scouts once to catch the Leonid meteor shower out in the desert, about two hundred miles away from anyone but the bedouins. Out there, it's just the sky, the sand, and you... and dozens of falling stars like tears from the cosmos. Truly awe inspiring. I think we said maybe four words to each other the entire time.
Re:Milky Way, hell... (Score:3, Insightful)
So... Let me see if I got this straight, bikes shouldn't be allowed on roads. Bikes shouldn't have trails unless bike people pay for them (since no one with a car would EVER buy a bike, and no one would ever use them for any other purpose, I suppose), but people with bikes should have to hemorrhage money for them like people with cars do.
You'd hate a lot of smaller college towns. In Flagstaff, at times, bikes can outnumber cars on the roads. Bikes have turning lanes just for them, and you can get nasty tickets for ignoring general traffic laws while riding them. Actually, I've known people getting tickets or warnings for riding them on sidewalks when there was a perfectly good road lane for them. Would have been hell for you, I suppose. Flagstaff also had an AWESOME system of urban trails and bike paths, and easy access to a bike trail that bisects the state vertically (if your really hardcore).
Cars require licensing, and registration because idiots can kill people when they use them. Cars are heavy fast moving complex machines, bikes are small slowish moving simple machines. If I hit you on my Schwin, I might hurt you slightly, even at full speed. If I hit you going at a moderate speed with a car, your dead. If you don't see the difference, then I really don't think you deserve the privilege of driving on my streets.
I have nothing against you gas dollars subsidizing my riding a bike. I'm doing you a favor. Bikes combat against urban sprawl, pollution, middle eastern oil dependency, obesity, etc... If more people rode them, the world would be a better place. I agree with a lot of European cities, cars should be banned from the city center (or have to pay a huge fee).
When the parent say "anti-cyclist" I scoffed, since I never thought such a strange animal could exist. And now I know, sadly. Also, the parent said:
Cyclists should indeed be using reflectors and lights (as should the cars).
, which I take to mean that cars should have their damn lights on. Don't nitpick things to fit your idea of what people should be saying to justify your bias.
As a person living in one of the least bike friendly cities in the US (Phoenix) now, I say gas should be taxed 2c a gallon more, to build bike lanes, and trails. Less sprawl, less brown cloud... its worth it.
What a bunch of pessimists... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is typical environmental Dogma. Lets break it down...
1) "Light pollution" -- So you've already been conditioned that pollution is bad, therefore, what you are about to read is bad.
2) "has caused one-fifth of the world's population" -- OMG! 1/5... Yes, that means that four-fifths has NO problem seeing the milky way. That is in POPULATION numbers. Lets do math :) 6,706,993,152 (July 2008 est.) and 4/5 = 5,365,594,521.6 (That .6 must be me.) Ok, that works out to 80% of the worlds population CAN see the milkyway. So, Whats the problem again?
3)"mostly in Europe, Britain and the US" -- Oh... I see, boo-hoo.. I don't know about who "US" are because I can see it just fine from my house, so it must really be You. THEN MOVE.
4)"'The arc of the Milky Way seen from a truly dark location is part of our planet's natural heritage,' said Connie Walker" REALLY? I thought our planet's natural heritage was to vilently erupt spewing lava over insignificant surface dwellers. Maybe to freeze and build up encroaching ice over the surface? I think that if you look at the geological timeline, we have admired the milkyway for but a briefest of moments to the planet. So, where is the heritage? Oh yes, in our feeble minds.
5) The rest just reitterates the negative because "a lie told enough times will become the truth."
I'm sick of this cult. When will they go away?