PDA

View Full Version : Light Pollution in Chicago Compared with Indiana Dunes State Park



Centaur
2015-Dec-02, 06:21 PM
On 2015 NOV 14 the Chicago Astronomer IHSCA Astronomy Club led by Joe Guzman visited the Indiana Dunes State Park to measure the light pollution compared to Chicago. Below are links to threads at the Chicago Astronomer message board describing the development and completion of that project.

Thread #1 (http://astronomer.proboards.com/thread/5115/astronomy-club-light-pollution-committee)
Thread #2 (http://astronomer.proboards.com/thread/5125/chicago-astronomy-club-indiana-dunes)
Thread #3 (http://astronomer.proboards.com/thread/5133/indiana-dunes-14-nov-2015)

BigDon
2015-Dec-17, 06:46 PM
This might be a good place to post this.

Does anybody have a good answer for when science and personal security for the weaker members of our society come into conflict? (They don't put streetlights up for me.)

'Cause your "light pollution" gives a readily discernable protection to women, children and the elderly from the all too common scum of the Earth. Which, if I may be so bold, would compromise a large portion of astronomers themselves. (I'm referring to the former, not the latter. :))

So astronomers themselves are happy to have all this light except when they are out in the field. Hmmmm, I see a conflict of interests here. Possible willful ignorance of the alternatives as well.

Sometimes to an outsider like myself the complaints of light pollution cross over completely into uncomplimentary, selfish whining, just like when oceanographers whine about "all the money" NASA gets.

profloater
2015-Dec-17, 07:15 PM
There are street lights deliberately designed to minimise light pollution by not shining upwards, there are even some with movement detectors. Of course light still bounces off the street even with polarising filters, but improvements can be made. It should be win win if more light goes only to the parts we want to see, not up.

efanton
2015-Dec-18, 12:30 AM
There are street lights deliberately designed to minimise light pollution by not shining upwards, there are even some with movement detectors. Of course light still bounces off the street even with polarising filters, but improvements can be made. It should be win win if more light goes only to the parts we want to see, not up.


THIS ^^^^

Most traditional street lighting is not focused which results in most of the light not ending up where it is of any benefit. Shrouds have be developed to fit on existing lighting that not only reduce light pollution but actually increase the lighting for pedestrians. Why arent these shrouds used and retrospectively fitted? Councils and local authorities always use the 'budget' argument.

There is new led street lighting available too. these use less power but spread their light more evenly where it is needed, resulting in no more dark spots between lamp post. Installed correctly there is far less leakage from this type of light.


'Cause your "light pollution" gives a readily discernible protection to women, children and the elderly from the all too common scum of the Earth. Which, if I may be so bold, would compromise a large portion of astronomers themselves. (I'm referring to the former, not the latter. )
This is an excuse often used and cited by local authorities not to address light pollution. Its a red herring as the new led lighting system properly installed give far better light, that is evenly spread preventing those dark spots that many vulnerable people avoid to the point where they wont even walk down some lit streets and pathways.

The lighting systems are there, they are affordable, and certainly no more expensive than current street lighting when running costs are considered.
I see no reason for traditional lighting to be newly installed on new roads and housing estates.

Here's a funny story. I contacted the local authority about getting shrouds put on two lampposts that shine into my back garden. They said these shroud are available, and they had no objection to installing them, but it would cost me personally €1500 for them to be installed. I told them I could source the shrouds for less than a quarter of that price to which they replied that it was not the cost of the shrouds, it was their charge of approx €1000 for the labour and call-out.
I offered to do it myself to which they cited health and safety and local byelaws regarding the interference of public property. One of the lamps stopped working 5 months ago and still has not been fixed. I have not intention of contacting them.

BigDon
2015-Dec-19, 03:15 AM
Sorry, Efanton.

I seemed to be scarred from having living in an area where we had no less than five *serial* rapists blow through in six years. With a pair operating independently at the same time.

Goddam animals.

redshifter
2016-Jan-05, 12:35 AM
[QUOTE=BigDon;2331143]

So astronomers themselves are happy to have all this light except when they are out in the field.



It's not so much 'astronomers are happy to have all this light except when they're out in the field' as it is 'astronomers would like to see better, more efficient use of lighting so we can have it both ways'. Win-win.