Help Map Global Light Pollution, By Starlight 148
Kilrah_il writes "Light pollution is a big problem these days, affecting not only astronomers and wild life, but also everyone else because of wasted energy. GLOBE at Night aims to raise awareness by urging people to go outside and find out how much light pollution there is in their area. 'The campaign is easy and fun to do. First, you match the appearance of the constellation Orion in the first campaign (and Leo or Crux in the second campaign) with simple star maps of progressively fainter stars found. Then you submit your measurements, including the date, time, and location of your comparison. After all the campaign's observations are submitted, the project's organizers release a map of light-pollution levels worldwide.'"
I'll help (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to go out at night with a big flashlight and find those gosh darn light polluters.
Re: (Score:2)
My mum's basement doesn't have a window you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:3)
My mum's basement doesn't have a window you insensitive clod.
So rig up a web cam on the roof.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to go out at night with a big flashlight and find those gosh darn stars.
What are these "stars" of which you speak? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
20 miles further out (Score:2)
Drive another 20 miles away from the city and you will see more stars than 90+% of the first world's population has seen in their life.
20 miles further out and I'm still in Wal-Mart territory (Cave Creek.)
Now, 90 miles further out and Phoenix is just a glow on the horizon. About like sunset, really -- you can actually see Orion on a clear night. To see the Milky Way, though, you have to be farther than that. Like Show Low or Pinetop. Once I'm on the White Mountain Apache reservation the sky starts to be really worthwhile, and it only takes a four-hour drive.
Re: (Score:1)
I can do the same. But it's probably because all my electronic devices have LEDs telling me that they're _almost_ off.
Re: (Score:2)
As a soldier from the future, sent back to protect John Connor's second cousin from attack by an obsolete Terminator 320 model, I must say that's the one thing I miss about the apocalyptic future. You people just can't appreciate the beauty of a sky totally free of light pollution, but unfortunately filled with Hunter-Killers.
Re: (Score:2)
I live on the side of a city-facing mountain in Las Vegas...if I leave my blinds open at night, it's like sleeping in the middle of a fully-lit Walmart. First thing I did when I moved here several years back was sell my telescope.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily I now live 10 minutes outside of a small mountain town. The trees and mountains limit what I can see around the horizon, but overhead I can pick out the milky way, even if a couple of neighbors in my cul-de-sac leave their front lights on.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting. I just moved to the Phoenix area a few months ago (the far western end) - I used to live in northern Virginia (near DC), and it's pretty dark in comparison - in VA, I could read a book in the dark with all the lights off and the blinds closed.
Hey, both of you Phoenicians... hit me up, I don't know
any valley geeks, and it's lonely in this basement, lol.
alienjuggernaut a t gmail d o t c o m
Far west end, Goodyear/Buckeye border. Pitch black
here, except for the Phoenix glow to the east. Doesn't
extend much more than 20 deg above horiz. Consistently
have mag 12 lim in an 8" SC.
-AI
Re: (Score:2)
Pah. That's nothing. In my house, when I turn all the lights off, close the blinds, tape around the edges, close all the doors and sit in the inner hallway, I can read a book with my eyes closed. Beat that.
stars? what stars? (Score:2)
Seriously, the light pollution around DFW is so bad I can't see much more than Orion and the Big Dipper. During last night's super moon, the faintest star of the Big Dipper was hard to see. Couldn't make out the Little Dipper at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was pretty happy with the pictures I got of the moon. It was the 4 second exposure of a landing plane that showed me how bad light pollution was. The sky looked black to me but the image was light streaks on an orange background.
Re: (Score:2)
I was pretty happy with the pictures I got of the moon. It was the 4 second exposure of a landing plane that showed me how bad light pollution was. The sky looked black to me but the image was light streaks on an orange background.
I'm just curious, what set up did you use? The best shots I got were at 1/640 of a second at f/5.6 with the ISO setting at 100. I haven't had a chance to get a better lens, so I used the 28-135 that came with the camera at full zoom.
Re: (Score:2)
I used a Canon T2i, 75-300mm II @300mm. I don't remember the exposure settings exactly but with a fairly low ISO I was shooting 1/1000 - 1/2000s and f/5.6.
Huh? (Score:1)
Last time I was at our local (ish) observatory, they had a light pollution map. Is this new?
Hope people pay attention to clouds (Score:5, Funny)
"It was raining and the pollution was terrible, couldn't even see Rigel."
You insensitive clod! (Score:2)
I live in Seattle. We can't see the sky through the clouds.
Re: (Score:2)
So you can't even see Sol then. That's pretty bad ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. I've heard about it - it's in some place called the Blue Room.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you get a great view of the Pacific Nebula.
Re: (Score:2)
For my first 4 months at Ft. Lewis I thought Mt. Rainier was some mythical place found only in pictures. Then, one nice clear day, there it was! And then it was gone again.
Kinda makes you wanna drown your sorrows in some locally-produced meth and start the grunge scene.
Re: (Score:2)
Light pollution != Energy waste (Score:2, Insightful)
but also everyone else because of wasted energy.
I use solar-powered security lights which turn on at night . This helps with safety and security, and the benefits far outweight the cost.
The article is misleading, and referring to night-time illumination as "pollution" is derogatory and disingenuous. If you feel light except starlight is unwanted, then get a parcel of sufficient forested property, and don't cut down your trees, so you can take a walk far enough from civilization to see what you want.
Re: (Score:1)
I think they're fine with your security lights as long as they point down. Any ray that points up doesn't help with safety and security, and is light pollution.
Re:Light pollution != Energy waste (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't nighttime illumination.
The problem is poorly designed nighttime illumination. Why are parking lot lights often aimed at a 30* angle, emitting much or most of their light skyward? Why are huge flood lights used to illuminate flags and signs, when a small spotlight would be more environmentally friendly and more efficient? Why are most street lamps still convex rather than concave or flat? Sure, even if nighttime lighting were properly designed as a general rule some light would be scattered by the atmosphere, and some would be reflected but if you ever visit a gated community with proper lighting you can see that traffic areas (walkways, streets, etc) are well lit and very safe, but the sky is still quite dark.
Re: (Score:1)
but if you ever visit a gated community with proper lighting you can see that traffic areas (walkways, streets, etc) are well lit and very safe, but the sky is still quite dark.
Because gated communities pay the high-priced lighting design experts, due to wanting it to be aesthetically perfect, and have the money to pay for that? Lights pointed to the sky tend to cause glare, which is not all that aesthetically pleasant in a nice gated community area.
Why are parking lot lights often aimed at a 30* angle
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is people feel safer if they can see the source of the light rather than just the effects.
Re: (Score:3)
Which ironically makes them less safe, because of the increased shadow area and because their eyes adjust to the light source, making those shadows even darker...
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is people feel safer if they can see the source of the light rather than just the effects.
So piggyback a proper light source they cannot see with an independent, low-intensity "feel good" light source that they can see of one wavelength of a high-energy frequency that will be attenuated by the atmosphere over a short distance?
Re: (Score:2)
but if you ever visit a gated community with proper lighting you can see that traffic areas (walkways, streets, etc) are well lit and very safe, but the sky is still quite dark.
Because gated communities pay the high-priced lighting design experts, due to wanting it to be aesthetically perfect, and have the money to pay for that?
The OP used a poor example by citing a wealthy community (though an available one). He could of cited the entire city of Tucson which has used such lights since 1972. Using non-light-polluting fixtures (which can also be described as "more efficient fixtures") doesn't require high priced "lighting design experts", it only requires that you buy the fixtures.
Lights pointed to the sky tend to cause glare, which is not all that aesthetically pleasant in a nice gated community area.
And everywhere else also. Kinda the point. Why should every one else have a glare blighted sky, at considerable electrical cost?
Why are parking lot lights often aimed at a 30* angle, emitting much or most of their light skyward?
Probably something about using as few lights as possible. If they pointed them straight down, a lot more lights would be required to achieve the same illumination. If they put them closer to the ground, the lighting would be easily blocked, or people would have to contend with the lights being distracting.
Probably not. The energy
Re: (Score:2)
I am guilty of engineering a retrofit of lighting at a oil terminal to replace the long, yellow, low-pressure sodium lighting bulbs (400 watts) with 1500 watt HID lights.
The old light system was dim, with poor color rendition. The oil terminal could not do any work in the yard at night and it was difficult to detect a problem. (it was dark).
I went about in replacing all of the low pressure sodium lights with new 1500 watt, HID heads on the poles. Not being the one who was actually doing the wiring and never
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget the grue issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget the grue issue.
Yes... light is important for warding off Grue infestations.
For this purpose a backup generator is recommended, as Grue can get indoors easily.
Another technique is to get a Wumpus, because Wumpus' eat grue.
The problem with that strategy though, is Wumpus eat neighbors too... so you better have them in fenced-in yards, and be sure to pack plenty of spare arrows.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the "safety" lighting is actually harmful to safety. It creates a bright area to keep people's eyes from dark adapting and dark shaded areas you can't see into at all. That's where the mugger sits and waits for a lone pedestrian. Meanwhile, the local delinquents like to hang out under lights as well. Turn them off and they'll go elsewhere.
BTW, I did *NOT* choose to live in a population concentrated civilized area. When I moved here, the skies were pitch black at night. You slobs who moved in and we
Re: (Score:2)
So, I can want what you want or I can go fuck myself, got it!
YOU are the one who suggested not living in a populous area. I took that advice ages ago, but it didn't really work, now did it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, simple. It's a good thing I crap money, isn't it?
It might be simpler to recognize that just as you have a right to illumination, I have a right to non-illumination. Thus if you illuminate, you need to take steps to minimize it's impact ion others. When YOUR light blots out my view of the stars, you're just like the guy that blasts his stereo all night long so that everyone on the block has to hear it.
So, keep your light out of my sky, and I'll try to avoid rattling you out of bed with Wagner (possibly
Rural NZ... (Score:1)
So dark sometimes, you can't see the wall you just walked into!
Need more LED's on my PC's...
City time (Score:2, Insightful)
>"find out how much light pollution there is in their area."
Tons! But I live in a city and there isn't much I can do about it. Mostly poorly designed street lights. Then there are those neighbors that think their property is so much better with a megawatt of flood lights all over. Ug.
But I would GLADLY put up with even more light pollution if it meant less NOISE pollution from damn modified motorcycles, leaf blowers, barking dogs, horns, sirens, and ESPECIALLY those "boom box cars" projecting their d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic here is a freaking nightmare. So I would be trading one problem for another :(
Study results: (Score:2)
You know who doesn't have a light pollution problem?
North Korea!
(Did I misunderstand the whole Godwin thing?)
Whatever (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people do not own light meters, and most that do have meters that only measure down to .1 or .01 lux. Besides, ground-level light is not a good measurement of what the sky looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We did. [nasa.gov]
Here's [nasa.gov] what it found.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Beautiful evening; (Score:2)
you can almost see the stars...
I see Houston light just east of San Antonio (Score:3)
at night.
Driving East towards Houston in the middle of the night is like driving into the sunrise even if the sun sat behind you not but a couple of hours ago. Considering I grew up on desert side of the state I know what the sky is supposed to look like at night, and I know what it doesn't look like here, it's just a glow. Yeah, this whole region could use some light shading.
Re: (Score:3)
Ob (Score:2)
Tried that, but it was so dark I couldn't see a damn thing.
Extra-black asphalt please (Score:1)
The biggest issue being overlooked here seems to be what happens
Re:Extra-black asphalt please (Score:4, Interesting)
This subject is clearly driven by astronomers with a desire to view the night sky. The issue of wasted energy seems only to be mentioned to gather support. This is clear in the first article which suggests using a 'shade' to make street lamps more efficient. A reflector is necessary if you want to get more useful energy out, as an opaque shade will just make your lamp housing hotter. I believe that modern designs do include reflectors now.
It doesn't really matter why astronomers say what they say. What matters is if it's true. And there is no doubt that illuminating the sky directly is a waste of electricity and therefore money. If they advocate less than stellar solutions then the answer is to get better solutions, not to ignore the whole light pollution issue.
The biggest issue being overlooked here seems to be what happens to the light that shines down as intended. This light reflects off things sending light upwards regardless of the lamp design. If you look at the aerial motor race photograph linked below you will notice that most of the light seems to be coming from the track itself, not the lights.
http://www.craigfergusonimages.com/2009/11/aerial-f1-singapore-at-night-by-wong-kin-leong/ [craigfergusonimages.com]
I don't think anyone is overlooking that. If you look, I doubt you can find many who say "We should eliminate ALL light pollution from urban areas". That's not happening, and everyone knows it. Astronomers accept the lesser bad of reflected light, and strive towards that rather than some improbable utopia.
There's another thing too: light pollution is rarely created above light fixtures (which is where the picture is taken from), but to the side. Streetlights mostly light pollute in the near horizontal, meaning they tend to light pollute some distance away from themselves. If the camera actually was in the line of sight of the light sources (like people on the ground, or the sky when floodlights point at it) then the picture would be so full of camera flare that it wouldn't look even half as pretty.
To sum up: reflected light is a problem, but it's nothing at all like what we have now, so people who care would be happy to deal with it instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just astronomers, although for optical astronomers it's an issue. (we radioastronomers wory more about microwaves, mobile phones, electric fences and such).
It's mainly biologists, ecologists and such, who see the large effect on the plants and wildlife.
Re: (Score:1)
Reflected Light (Score:2)
When light is directed downward at the ground some of that light is reflected upward again. Otherwise we could not see what is on the ground. How do you stop light being reflected by the ground? People want to be able to see when walking the streets after dark, play sports at night, etc.
There are some lights that need improvement but great strides have been made. The bad lights can not be found by people describing ambient light.
Another issue is that when people look at the sky they have generally just left
Re: (Score:2)
When light is directed downward at the ground some of that light is reflected upward again. Otherwise we could not see what is on the ground. How do you stop light being reflected by the ground?
You don't, and that's okay. The reflectivity of stuff on the ground is on average fairly low (like 10% or less), whereas for directly emitted photons it is 100%. One doesn't need to entirely eliminate every part of a problem to deal with the major part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at this data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg [wikipedia.org]. Notice that the albedo of dry earth ranges from 22 to 35. Snow is up to 85. The number 10% is very low.
The main issue with this article is that it does not articulate what is causing the problem. It just tries to measure it an inaccurately at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at this data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg [wikipedia.org]. Notice that the albedo of dry earth ranges from 22 to 35. Snow is up to 85. The number 10% is very low.
The main issue with this article is that it does not articulate what is causing the problem. It just tries to measure it an inaccurately at that.
10% is perhaps a bit low on average, but not very low. It is in the normal range for asphalt, damp soil, water surfaces, grass, forest, and even entire urban areas [wolfram.com].
Re: (Score:2)
This reference book on urban design gives the average albedo of urban areas as 15% [google.com]. The point is - it is a small fraction of the light energy directed at the ground, so it has little effect compared to the light emitted into the sky.
Realtime Light polution map of the earth (Score:2)
You can see a real-time light polution map here http://www.die.net/earth/?zoom=1 [die.net]
It gets ronry at night... (Score:2)
North Korea FTW [globalsecurity.org].
Less == more (Score:2)
The way we currently use outside nighttime illumination is very wasteful. Large powerful unshielded lamps end up throwing light where is ISN'T needed or wanted wasting power and putting more CO2 into the air. What's even worse is that by having this extra light spilling out we create glare that blinds us by killing off our sensitive night time vision. The human eye is well night adapted. Our iris can open to over 7mm (in younger people) and we have sensitive cells scattered about our retina that activat
It's already been done (Score:2)
Las Vegas (Score:2)
I'm from Las Vegas. Stars? I'm not familiar with this Orion. Is he one of the Elvis Impersonators?
Hmmm. App for Google or iphone? (Score:2)
Dark Sky Association (Score:1)
They have guidelines for selecting lights etc. here [darksky.org].
How correct submission lat/long errors? (Score:1)
But no, this is a magnitude 3 submission... the same as if you were a few miles from a city. Can't be valid... then when I take a look at the "more information" of this submission, it say
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares about light pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't most important astronomy these days done by space-based telescopes?
I'm not exactly an astronomer, more of an enthusiast, but I'd love to be able to buy a good telescope and use it to see brilliant galaxy and nebula images. I can't see shit in the sky around here in Northeast Ohio--and I about shat myself when I saw this image, taken with just a plain camera, with no fucking telescope:
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/2376/the_milky_way_galaxy.html [interfacelift.com]
It really pisses me off that I can't see this kind of clarity, far past Earth's atmosphere and into outer space. I'm lucky that I can see the very "brightest" stars in the sky and maybe a few of the bigger and brighter planets, like Jupiter and Saturn. It fucking sucks. I always thought it was "just that way" until I learned more about light pollution, and some of the from-ground images I've seen on the Internet (including the above) really made me aware of what I've been missing since... well, since I first time I ever looked at the sky.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. I still remember one night on a long walk in the countryside, with zero moonlight, and miles to even the nearest little streetlit village, the number of stars you can actually see with the naked eye is truly incredible (to a town/city dweller).
Re: (Score:2)
Bear in mind that that's a 30 second exposure, the guy even says "I wish we could see the Milky Way that way with our bare eyes". Viewing the sky without light pollution is indeed a beautiful thing, but I don't think a 30 second exposure at F2.8 is exactly analogous to normal eyesight! I'd love if someone who lives in an area with absolutely zero light pollution could tell us different though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go camping. You can probably drive about two hours away and see the glory of the sky with no light pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't most important astronomy these days done by space-based telescopes?
Actually, the tide is turning a bit the opposite way. I seem to recall reading a while back (perhaps it was here on slashdot) that people were working on ground based systems that could out-resolve hubble, using software that could detect and compensate for the atmospheric distortion.
A quick search turned up this: http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?aid=324 [optcorp.com]
But a new camera system has been developed to bring this power to the visible spectrum as well. The "Lucky Camera" works by recording partially corrected images taken using the adaptive optics system at very high speed, capturing more than 20 frames a second. Most of these images are still smeared by the atmosphere, but the occasional one is crisp and clear and unblurred. The software can recognize these clear ones, and keeps them to later assemble into a single, sharp image.
Using this software on the 5.1 metre Hale Telescope on Palomar Mountain, astronomers were able to achieve images with twice the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. Previously, it was 10 times worse.
Re:It's silly call it "light pollution" (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you like the fact that we have lots of artificial light at night or not, it's silly to refer to it as "pollution." For some people -- astronomers and those who have a serious desire to look up and see the stars -- it's a problem. For others, it's no more a problem than the smell of honeysuckle is pollution. Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
You want honesty?
When's the last time the smell of honeysuckle contributed to the demise of a species of animal?
When's the last time the smell of honeysuckle prevented kids from knowing about the sky they live under? There are kids (and adults) who not only don't know the constellations, but their jaws drop open when they see a non-light-polluted sky for the first time.
Why don't you just admit that you like the light, and don't like being told how to light the places you live and work?
There's honesty for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a position on the issue one way or the other. I just don't like linguistic dishonesty.
There's nothing dishonest about calling it pollution. It is just that.
Personally I'd like to see people light their environments sensibly with lights reflecting down not up. I hate that it seems it'll require legislation to fix this (or more likely it just won't be fixed) because people just don't care or are ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
There are kids (and adults) who not only don't know the constellations, but their jaws drop open when they see a non-light-polluted sky for the first time.
Hehe I was the opposite. Coming from Australia, the first time I went to the US as a 17 year old, my jaw dropped when I saw how ~few~ stars can be seen at night over there. I hadn't imagined it would be so bad, because even in the large cities in Australia you can usually still see a fair few stars. I realise now this is because in the US, you have towns and cities quite close to each other. In most of the eastern half of the country, there's not more than a few miles between one town and the next, so there
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about this darkness pollution. I hear they cause muggings and car accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting perspective. Thanks!
Re: (Score:1)
It's equally silly to suggest that just because you don't personally care about it, something with documented adverse effects not only on people, but on nature in general, isn't a problem.
By that standard, mercury pollution isn't a problem, either. I happen to like the way it makes my brain taste all crackly. It's therefore dishonest of you to refer to mercury as pollution, since personal opinion outweighs scientific studies.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the first couple of hits on Google:
http://www.suite101.com/content/more-evidence-of-light-pollution-harm-to-animals-a89082 [suite101.com]
http://www.urbanwildlands.org/abstracts.html [urbanwildlands.org]
http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/wildlife.html [britastro.org]
http://calgary.rasc.ca/lp/animals.html [calgary.rasc.ca]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I think the only way though to counter the tightly-nit group who wants to call it "light pollution" is to start a group that wants to do the polar opposite.
Ensure the safety of citizens and reduce crime rates by generating at much night-time light as possible.
Perhaps some tax credits for property owners releasing at least 1000 lumens in the aggregate over at least 50 outdoor lights. 180 degree coverage angle required by the collection of lights with concentrated light beams projected no lower than 90
Re: (Score:1)
Whether you like the fact that we have lots of artificial light at night or not, it's silly to refer to it as "pollution." For some people -- astronomers and those who have a serious desire to look up and see the stars -- it's a problem. For others, it's no more a problem than the smell of honeysuckle is pollution. Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
It IS "pollution", in the sense that each photon that goes upwards is a WASTED photon, since the primary function of our lights is to illuminate the ground (and its surroundings), and not the sky. So no, the term "light pollution" is not a linguistic dishonesty.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just astronomers. All this unnecessary lighting is also bad for wildlife. It's known to mess up the navigational ability of migratory birds for instance. There's also a whole list of negative effects associated with over lighting.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I find the smell of most flowers highly offensive to the point that strong flower odors make me want to exit an area quickly.
Doesn't stop people from putting flowers every-fn-where. Before I left my last job, they had started putting a fresh bouquet of flowers in the lobby every day. I dreaded having to go in and out of the building and have to be near that damn bouquet.
The smell of honeysuckle is sure as hell pollution to me.*
The point being is that one person's "no problem" might another per
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this begs the question how to define pollution.
My proposal would be something like: human produced effects and items that are not being used by anyone.
Now what used means and produced, etc. is open to debate, but for me this pretty much covers it.
Your flowers would fail the test, as they are apparently being used to decorate the area. I do think they are a produced item, unlike when you'd encounter flowers in the wild, so it does meet some of the criteria. Now discarded flowers at a market or somethin
Re: (Score:2)
There is developing evidence that light pollution actually exacerbates air pollution - it appears to inhibit dark reactions (that's what they are called) that break down air pollution at night, thus increasing it in the day also. See Nighttime photochemistry: nitrate radical destruction by anthropogenic light sources [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, pollution is exactly the right word for it. More specifically litter. It is a useful man-made thing that has become a nuisance because it is now where it isn't supposed to be. Cups and napkins are quite useful at your lunch table. Not so much when they're blowing down the street.
Re: (Score:1)
Posted as AC by mistake.