Town Turns Off the Lights To See the Stars

Hugh Pickens writes "Stargazing skies all over the world are disappearing, as the sky above New York City is Class 9 on the Bortle ranking and American suburban skies are typically Class 5, 6, or 7. But some places are making an effort to preserve their skywatching heritage as Exmoor National Park was granted International Dark-Sky Reserve status in November and people in the Exmoor town of Dulverton were challenged to switch off their lights as part of the BBC's Stargazing Live, demonstrating that you don't need special equipment to see the stars more clearly, if you have a decent pair of binoculars. 'The whole idea is to show that even a small town, which is still quite dark, can give off quite a lot of light,' says astronomer Mark Thompson. The event in Dulverton gained a lot of support from local residents and businesses. 'It needed a bit of organization to get everyone to say yes,' says town mayor Chris Nelder. 'We want people to just enjoy the night sky, to treasure the fact we have them and to look after them,' adds Claire O'Connor from Exmoor National Park Authority."

Amen to that

[clickclickdrone]

I've always lived in semi-rural or town areas in a fairly packed part of the UK. You can see a few stars on a good clear night but there's still a lot of light polution.
I recently went on holiday to a farm in the middle of nowhere in the Yorkshire Dales. I was utterly astounded to find out you can actually see the Milky Way at night - it blew me away. I spent hours just lying on my back in the grass with my mouth open. Wine probably helped. I feel so bad I've missed such a wonder for all these years.

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily... For instance, nearby my hometown they've installed several street lights... at a pass, at 1800 meters high, with nothing within at least 1km around. Would be eager to learn about the safety improvement of such an investment. At least since then I am now completely unable to observe anything from that location that used to have a pretty clear sky

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is a lot street lamps waste a lot light into the sky instead projecting in down to where's its needed.

Re:Nice, but...

[HopefulIntern]

That was my comment on the BBC article (which was subsequently voted into oblivion). The street near my friend's house has had its street lighting turned off at night recently (though for energy-saving purposes, not stargazing) and within a month there were two rapes and an assault right there on the street. It is not something I would have thought of right away, but speak to any woman who has ever had to walk home at night, alone, and they will tell you they feel much safer under street lights.

Re:Nice, but...

[SJHillman]

National Geographic mentioned this in an article on this a few years ago on light pollution (I'm too lazy to go find it). A lot of cities are slowing making the transition to lights that only shine downward and waste little into the sky. It's serves the dual purpose of 1) saving energy and 2) cutting down on light pollution.

Re:Nice, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reasons for street lighting is to make obstacles and pedestrians more visible to motorists, to allow pedestrians to move around without carrying a torch, and to make them feel safer.

In this case, they'd closed the roads around the town for this stunt, so no need for worrying about cars, and a good fraction of the population of the town was out on the street, so there were fewer empty dark back alleys down which to get stabbed (plus it's a small rural town; if it's anything like mine crime is generally livestock related...), and everyone there knew about it months in advance, so I'd expect they were stocked up on torches and batteries. It was just a shame it was so cloudy!

If you have never seen the stars without light pollution, go to somewhere in the middle of nowhere and have a look. It's quite hard to do in the UK, as our population density (and thus light pollution) is many times that of the US, so there aren't many really empty places left. It's a real tragedy that for a little convenience and marginal extra safety we've given up our window seat at the edge of the rest of the universe.

worse than security theater?

[Strange Ranger]

"Always consider the possibility that installing a light may aid criminal activity."

http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html#noreduction [britastro.org]

Bad guys who wave flashlights are easier to spot than bad guys who don't need extra lighting.

International Dark Sky Association

[AJ Mexico]

More info over at www.darksky.org [darksky.org] . It costs a lot of money/oil to keep all those lights on. Is it worth it? Have your children seen the milky way?

Re:Sounds awesome!

[somersault]

Most people are usually more worried about chopping off their fingers, falling down the stairs, and being able to watch TV.

Re:Nice, but...

[ks*nut]

Bullshit. The myth of lighting for security reasons is just that - a myth. Most outdoor lighting is still horribly inefficient in that it scatters light where it is not needed and wastes energy. And why are people so damned enamored of lighting tall buildings, billboards and street signs from below? There is also a lot of street lighting that doesn't light the street effectively and causes glare in drivers' eyes. Yes, I am an amateur astronomer and outdoor lighting (in general) sucks.

Re:Nice, but...

[bloodmusic]

In British English—or, as the British say, "English"—"learned" is used in phrases such as "a learned professor", in which case it is pronounced with two syllables.
Either "learnt" or "learned" are used interchangably in phrases like "I learnt a valuable lesson today".

Re:Sounds awesome!

[sjames]

Actually, 'security' lights are great for muggers and rapists. There's nearly always somewhere to hide in the shadows and the bright lights make sure pedestrians don't get dark adapted enough to see them there.