Talk:Light pollution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] To-do list

Here's a list of possible things that the article might benefit from, in no particular order:

To-do list for Light pollution: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • It is inaccurate in "Measurement of light pollution and Global Effects" section to say that work by Cinzano et al. "measures" the sky glow by using DMSP observations - this discussion should be corrected to say that this work provides a crude estimate using a model, and only of the zenith. For example, it uses sea-level atmospheric conditions everywhere, which cannot give accurate results in western US nor in aerosol-laden areas. Further, the photometric accuracy of the DMSP data has not been established and has been questioned in the refereed literature. Since someone else wrote this section, I will let them revise unless I am asked to do so. Cluginbuhl (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a specific organization that suppress any efforts to give Italy a unique national bill against light pollution, which is Ente Nazionale di Unificazione, founded in the early years of 1900 to standardize industrial testing, materials, procedures and so on.

Its members are universities, public administrations, representatives of manifacturing industries and so on. It produced a specific standard UNI 10819 to (very theoretically) protect the sky from light pollution and some lectures to defend it against the hordes of people that recognized how that standard LEGALIZED light pollution rather than reduce it, but if every one agree I can try to translate their thoughts. To point out how scientists can vary their opinions about this topic it could be useful to summarize prof Zichichi article on catholic magazine "Famiglia Cristiana" and the remarks of prof Maffei, an italian astronomer who pionereed infrared photografic surveys to Zichichi's article. Again, I can traslate. As a final suggestion based on my own experience in Italy I have to remark that the "dispute" about light pollution depends on the strong relationship that links light and energy industries, universities, politicians. Light and energy industries are trying to increase profits and do not accept any regulamentation, universities have to defend their own business and do not like that someone else discovers and applies cheaper and environmental safe lighting rules, politicians fear to lose a powerful argument to gain votes, summarized as "daylight intensity lighting for safety against crime". But I have to remark that only 7 1/2 italian regions on 20, 40% of land and 30% of population have to bear "industrial" lighting rules: in 2007 Liguria, Friuli Venezia Giulia and half of Trentino Alto Adige rejected UNI standards to adopt "zero lighting above lamps" rules. How can exist a "dispute" about light pollution when the majority of a nation says that night skies have to be protected ? --195.210.65.30 (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Check that references are formatted properly, both in the references list and in the article. Seems to be done now. Izogi 03:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand the table of luminaires in the Adjusting types of lighting section.
    • This list is based on data in the IDA Information Sheet 52, which still needs to be cited.
      • For the record, that particular IDA information sheet might not be a reliable source... see this discussion. Izogi 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • i tend to agree with izogi and question the validity of this as a source Anlace 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand the Organisations section so that it explains a bit about the formation of various organisations, instead of just listing a couple.
    • It might be useful to include a lighting engineering organisation or two, if there are any prominent ones.
    • Are there any well known organisations that actively counter what anti-LP campaigners say? If so, it's probably worth mentioning them to maintain a neutral point of view.
  • Add a more specific citation for the information in Interruption of the eco-system which refers to Michael Mesure's comments about the deaths of millions of birds. (Although I don't doubt he's said it, I couldn't find a reference, myself -- Izogi) Well tidied up by a helpful anonymous user—Thanks heaps. Izogi 10:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Some of the text in the Types of light pollution section might actually belong in the Consequences of light pollution section, or maybe not.
  • Consider expanding the section about Redesigning lighting plans, or perhaps merge it into other sections. It seems a bit short right now. Done. Izogi 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Should the paragraph about Calgary be moved to this section? Done. Izogi 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe think about adding a section to do with the current state of light pollution around the world. (Don't know how this would work, but the text about Utah having the least LP in the US doesn't seem to fit well in the Consequences of light pollution section.) Thoughts? Izogi 8 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)
  • Note something about pollution of the radio spectrum. (This may actually warrant its own article, but it should at least be cited here.) Izogi Added a disambiguation page and (for now) linked it to a radio spectrum pollution stub. Izogi 05:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Establish better link to Lighting article and to energy conservation in generalAnlace 17:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel welcome to edit the list, of course. Izogi 23:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

helps me on my Sccience projecy THank YOU A-lot whoever u are


[edit] FAC?

Just came across this article and it's looking great! Izogi seems to have done a great job making this into a very good piece of work. I'd love to nominate this as a FAC, but I know there's one thing that might hold it back - references. If someone could add this one missing section (perhaps by rearranging the External links section) then I reckon it could become featured. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very flattering and I agree with you about the references. (So far I've been lazy, since a lot of the info that I've added has been coming from recollections of my own experience.) I'll look at improving them over the next few days to help back up the information. I also still feel that it's not quite complete yet, and it trails off a bit towards the end. In particular, there's quite a bit more that might be said about the methods of reducing light pollution. If anyone wants to help fill that in, the door's open. Otherwise I'll see what I can do. Izogi 01:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More pictures

I don't know if anyone's following the edits I've been making lately. If you are, though, can anyone provide an extra image or two for inclusion in the article? In particular, I've been looking around for a good picture of something like a drop-lens cobra fixture, taken during the day, to demonstrate how it's designed in such a way so that light will escape horizontally and upwards. Any other images that might demonstrate things in the article would be great too, of course.

I'd thought there might be free-to-use pictures available from the IDA, but it seems to want to charge even to obtain them, let alone re-publish.

Izogi 07:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Drop-lens cobra luminaire
Drop-lens cobra luminaire
Flat-lens cobra luminaire
Flat-lens cobra luminaire
Well the quality could be better, but these two may help — by the way I assume these are cobra liuminairs based on the examples given elsewhere. If that's not right, please rename them. -- Solipsist 15:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks -- these are just what I had in mind. I'll try them out in the article. Izogi 21:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporarily (?) removed a paragraph

"According to a study performed by Backpacker magazine, Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah has the least amount of light pollution, and thererefore the darkest skies in the continental United States."

I've just (temporarily) removed the above paragraph from the Consequences/Loss of night sky section, because it doesn't seem to fit there when I read it. It doesn't seem like a consequence to me. I'm not sure exactly which section it should go into as they are right now. It might be that the article needs a new section for the current state of light pollution in different parts of the world, or something like that, but if so it'd be nice to have a bit more information stated than a line about Utah in the USA. Hopefully it can be cited a bit more specifically soon, too -- I've contacted User:R Lee E to ask about where it came from. Does anyone have any thoughts? Izogi 10:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

(Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah has the least light pollution and the darkest skies in the continental United States, according to a recent study by Backpacker magazine.[1]

Well I've just removed this again because it seemed a bit strange where it was. I'm not really sure what the best thing is to do with it -- it's possibly a valid point, but I don't really know where in the current article it best fits. Izogi 03:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] readded blip about darkest sky in U.S.

october 2004, page 56 - cover article is entitled "America's Last Wild Places"R Lee E 03:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Neat, thanks. I've adjusted the citation slightly, for consistency as much as anything else. Izogi 05:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I presume the intention is to add the place with the darkest sky in every other country as well? Otherwise it is US-POV and should be removed - MPF 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. It's very biased towards the US, and I'm not comfortable with that either. (I'm not from the US at all, FWIW.) I do think it's relevant, however, that people have to travel for hours or days at great expense just to get somewhere that's unaffected, and one or two representative examples of that would be beneficial, irrespective of where they come from. It might read better if it was worked into the surrounding text as a representative example. Not having access to the cited article, though, I don't want to start editing it blindly. Izogi 00:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sofixit - its not like its a left-wing, right-wing thing. I simply supplied the relevant and useful information that I came across, and I wasn't considering politics. And personally I can't see any reason to consider politics. If you can provide similar info for other countries, that'd be wonderful. But it would be an over-reaction to start a NPOV debate over this. R Lee E 00:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Come to think of it, wouldn't the darkest place in the continental US be somewhere in Alaska? - or should it read "the contiguous states"? - MPF 00:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

regarding your statement about Alaska, my assumption with that is the fact that it stays dark for about 3 or 4 hours in the summer up there. The sun doesn't set until about 11:00pm up there in the summer. When it does set, its more like a perpetual twilight rather than complete darkness. R Lee E 00:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What do people think about re-formatting of references?

I've been thinking about re-formatting the references list to use footnote-style numbering templates. (My favourite is Wikipedia:Footnote3, because it's auto-numbered.) The main reason I'd like to do this is because a lot of the citations aren't clear author-title-date specified. Instead, it's a mixture including many web pages, government reports, and so on. I've been finding it a bit difficult to briefly but accurately refer to specific references from within the text. A auto-numbered system could remove a lot of ambiguity and make the citations tidier to look at. The References section of the Tasmanian Devil article is an example similar to what I have in mind.

How would others feel about this change, though? Is it a problem to anyone else? Are there better ways of fixing it? I realise that the numbering system is controversial in some ways, both for clarity in some people's view, as well as some technical arguments with respect to Wikipedia. (See here for more detail).

Izogi 03:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cobra Luminarie (At night)

G'day, I've an excelent opportunity to take a picture of both types of lights at night with the patterns of illumination visible. We are currently feeling the effects of Hurricane Katrina and so I won't be able to take a good picture of the lights until a few days from now, but I'll add 'em here for your perusal. Flehmen Work with me 16:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello (again). Thanks for offering. If you do this, though, could you please make an effort to take notes of all the relevant camera settings? Photography's something that's quite easy to be creative with, maybe unfortunately in this case. One of the things I find a bit disturbing about many light pollution information sources and advocate groups is that they show lots of comparison photos, but don't clearly state any evidence that it's not just creative photography causing the lights to look less glarey, and so on. If someone was trying to use them to convince me, possible creative photography is one of the first things I'd question. If the relevant camera settings are all documented, though, it'll be much easier to present it objectively and from more of a neutral point of view. Maybe I'm pedantic, but it seems like a lazy way for so many organisations to do it, and I think it's something that Wikipedia could quite easily do much better than what tends to be the status quo. Izogi 06:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
No, that sounds like an appropriate idea. MY thought is to take them both in the same picture. Of course, as with anything digital, that doesn't even matter but it is a little more appropriate when comparing...Flehmen Work with me 09:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question about efficiency of cobra light fixtures

The article claims these fixtures are more efficient. This claim is unclear. My initial thinking reading this was that its not more energy efficient, since the same amount of power is drawn, but the light merely gets lost inside the fixture. I suppose it could be more efficient if the bulb is shaped to only allow light to point downward, or the inside of the fixture has some sort of mirror coating. Is this the case? If so, we should say so in the article, instead of just making this vague claim about efficiency. Thanks. ThePedanticPrick 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello. The pictures (and their captions) used to be in the opposite order, so some of the context might have been lost by putting the full cutoff one first. What it should indicate is that a flat lens cobra fixture is a full cutoff fixture, whereas the drop-lens cobra fixture isn't. This means that the flat-lens fixture doesn't emit light to useless places (ie. sideways and upwards), so less energy is needed overall and the light can operate on less total power. This is explained in the text, but the caption didn't seem to prioritise the phrase "full cutoff", so it might not have been clear that that's what it was talking about. I've made a quick attempt to make it clearer, but I'm about to go out, so won't be able to look at it properly immediately. If anyone else wants to have a go meanwhile, help yourself. Izogi 06:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recently added arguments against full cutoff lighting

Hello. Anonymous user 68.166.244.209 recently added a paragraph that cited D. Keith in the "Journal of the IES", who (apparently) claims quite a few things about systems with full cutoff fixtures. Does anyone know which journal this is? The citation details don't seem to be specific enough to indicate which papers or articles are being referenced.

I did a quick google, and there's a Journal of the IES which stands for "Journal of the Institution of Engineers Singapore". Then I looked a bit further, and this page indicates that the same name is also an alternate title for the Journal of Environmental Sciences.

Neither of these journals seem to have online table of contents details to indicate if the articles are there, and I'm not sure if I have access to a library at the moment. Does anyone (is the anon user still around?) have access to check this out? (One of the cites is here: http://www.iesna.org/PDF/abstractsJIESsummer2000.pdf with more info from D. Keith here: http://resodance.com/mdi/UUDcalc.pdf --trl). The claims are likely to be quite contriversial, so it'd be good to have an accurate reference if it's going to be in the article. It'd be good to have some specific article titles and issue numbers rather than just years.

Izogi 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This user also claims full-cutoff fixtures are 30-50% more expensive to install and operate than "more efficient" designs, without even hinting what these putative designs are. Perhaps globe luminaires might spray light further than full-cutoff models, allowing fewer streetlights to be installed, but this comes at the expense of increased glare.
Guest 03:25, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right. This is quite controversial. On its own this shouldn't be a problem, but and theres really not and specific enough citation to back it up. I'm going to remove the paragraph in question (it's included below for easier future reference) from the article on these grounds. Unfortunately the anonymous user who inserted it doesn't seem to be available to comment on it's authenticity and context. I have no objection to it being put back if the citation can be clarified and made specific enough to track down each specific publication that's being cited, and as long as the article explains it in context. eg. If D. Keith is a radical researcher whom few peers agree with, we should make it quite clear that it's not a commonly held opinion, or exactly what circles the opinion is held in. Izogi 06:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed text (which is adapted from the original) is as follows: "Some researchers (Keith, D., Journal of the IES, 2000, 2002, 2003) have reported that using "full cutoff" light fixtures increases the costs and energy use necessary to meet the objectives of the lighting. When lighting a roadway continuously in accordance with the American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, IESNA full cutoff distributions increase the initial and operating costs by around 20% and up to 50% compared to more effective light distributions. This does NOT mean all full cutoff distributions are worse than others, but that lighting systems with full cutoff distributions will typically NOT be the most cost and energy efficient lighting choice. Not only are full cutoff distributions usually more expensive to install and operate, but also side-effects such as mercury pollution (from generation of electricity) will increase by the same proportion. Uplight, light above horizontal that contributes to sky glow has also been shown to increase (Keith, D., Journal of the IES, 2000, 2003) when full cutoff distributions are used."

[edit] Removal of loss-of-security section

I noticed that Bletch has just removed the small section about reduction of security due to light pollution on the grounds that it was poorly referenced. The reasoning seems fair enough, even though I'm pretty certain that this consequence is very definitely claimed by a lot of anti-light-pollution activists.

Would anyone happen to have any citations off-hand that relate to this claim? I think it's an important section to have simply because it's such a common claim, irrespective of whether we claim that things like glare actually do reduce security in some circumstances (and cite studies), or simply point out that lots of other people believe it does (and cite them). Izogi 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

hi izogi, im stumped on this one....i havent a reference....the only reason i like the section in is that there are too many lawyers running around suing for slip and fall cases arguing poorly lit parking lots...so its a good balance to that litigious hysteria. in general we alsmost have too mcuh material on the pros and cons of light pollution, whereas i dont really think of this as a controversial subject...im a scientist and the facts seem clear: no one has a right to inflict unwanted light on another person....and the amount of energy wastage going on here with overillumination is staggering, cheers Anlace 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. Personally I think it's important to have something about the issue, just because it's something that's so often claimed, irrespective of whether or not it holds up. Within an hour or so, I might try re-adding the paragraph to see how it looks with some emphasis that they're claims, and support it initially with some simple website citations displaying the claims (but not going as far to state if they hold up or not). It might be extended or improved in the future if anyone's able to locate direct references to actual studies that argue one way or another. Izogi 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversing intro photos

Hello - just to note that I've reversed the order of the first two photos in the article because I think the NY photo is actually demonstrating Light Pollution, whereas the satellite composition is really just demonstrating what causes it (upward directed light). Given that Light Pollution is the main point of the article, it seems appropriate that it's actually shown first. Izogi 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. That photo is ABSOLUTELY NOT an accruate representation of what NYC looks like at night. The photo appears to have been taken with an extremely long exposure on a foggy night as to maximize the effect of the light pollution. If you expose any photo long enough at night, the sky's going to begin to glow. I agree that light pollution is a problem, but the photo in the article right now is a complete misrepresentation.

--Orang55 02:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that it's not an accurate representation, but I don't think that this alone warrants removing it, because it's nearly impossible in a night photograph to represent everything that the human brain makes up for, anyway. What should be important is clearly stating that the photographer was creative in camera settings, and (if possible) indicate what the settings were. I'll have a play with the caption, but if anyone has a comparable (or better) photo for which they can state the settings, it might be worth replacing. Izogi 09:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] monetary waste

not clear we need a separate section on monetary waste, but dollar cost is worth elaborating under energy wastage. also costs are probably even higher than stated,, anyone have a good ref for this? in any case text needs editing for NPOV Anlace 00:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, the more I think about it, I'm not certain that "monetary waste" is a very significant consequence of light pollution. Arguably the only person losing money is the person who pays the power bill. The money isn't lost, though, it's simply given to someone else. Energy companies then make money from people who waste energy, so it's not exactly "waste" for them as much as increased demand. To get more abstract, when energy use is inefficient, energy companies employ (and pay salaries of) more people to produce the extra energy, ultimately circulating more money through the economy and resulting in better living conditions. It's strange how an economy can be boosted through inefficiency, but that's also exactly what happens in some wartime situations, for instance. (The production boom for WW2 did a lot to relieve people who'd suffered in the 1930's depression, despite extensive borrowing from governments to fund it, and that was primarily building things to blow stuff up.)
I don't particularly care for that argument myself, because I think that both immediate and long term side effects (eg. impact on the sky, power generation from non-renewable sources, etc) outweigh any possible benefits of inefficiency in power generation. On the other hand, me taking this point of view would still mean that it's not an argument about money at all -- it's an argument about side-effects of wasted light and wasted energy.
All that said, I don't think the monetary waste section is written with a very neutral point of view, and it doesn't cite any sources for its claims. At the risk of someone reverting the change, I'm going to see if I can merge the relevant bit with another section. This is just what I think, and I'm happy to discuss things further.
Izogi 02:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No. The c.5 billion dollars a year that we get now anyway will still be here (the world will have slightly more to spend from lower electric bills) AND the human productivity that would've been used to make pointless waste energy will be now used for something else, causing more added value then there would have be otherwise. NOTHING IS FREE. Human effort used to make avoidable inefficiency is ALWAYS better used somewhere else. Inefficiency, when avoidable, is NEVER good. It IS a money issue.
This is called the fallacy of the broken window, often used to make bad things look good. (Remember Zorg from The Fifth Element?)
This is also the issue that politicians care most about (the other is energy) and is very important in getting anything done about this. Governments and (non-electric) corporations own a large percentage of the outside lights (streetlights, parking lot lights etc.). Just like anyone else they want to save money. Convincing them to save money by switching to full-cutoff lighting or pass laws to that effect will be much more effective for change than just talking about stars. It's one of the best arguments we have. Politicians = money. So money should stay in the article. (even if we don't care and just want a darker sky) Sagittarian Milky Way 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Te Papa photo

Hello. I'm removing the Te Papa photo (pending discussion) because I'm having trouble seeing how it accurately demonstrates light pollution. I first tried adjusting the caption and position in the article to comment on glare, but in hindsight I'm not sure it demonstrates anything other than lights seen by a camera of non-specific settings, as well as a Full Moon. In any case, it's not an objective presentation -- cameras can be used very artistically, and a similar scene might be recreated in many quite good lighting setups, simply by adjusting camera settings. (Even if it can't, it's difficult and complicated to argue why.) For a photo like this to be objective, I personally think it's quite critical to be able to provide information about how the photo was taken. Thoughts?

Also, would anyone happen to have a good glare-demonstrating photo lying around for which the relevant camera, photo and post-processing specifications are readily available?

Izogi 22:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mexico City Pictures

Hi. I strongly believe that, a good example of light pollution would be some pictures of Mexico City at night. i am quite new to the wikipedia, so i am not sure what procedure must be taken to uploads pictures, but here is a link to an image that proves my point.

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PhotoAlbum20.html

i presume you are speaking of the fifth image? it seems to me it would be a good addition. just click "upload file" in the left margin tool bar. if you took the image you need to release rights of use under the directions. if it's not your image you need to get permission from the author. by the way be sure you sign your posts on talk pages with four tilda (~) marks. regards Anlace 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] too many wikilinks

This article is a little heavy on the wikilinks; anybody care to pare it down a bit? Wikilinks to completely unrelated articles, especially to very generic articles, are not necessary and just add to page clutter. For example, the sentence "It comes from sources such as building exterior and interior lighting, advertising, commercial properties, offices, factories, streetlights, and lit sporting venues." only lighting and streetlights need wikilinks, and even the necessity of those is arguable. See WP:CONTEXT. --Jonathan Kovaciny 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm responsible some time ago for that sentence you quoted, and if anyone wishes to fix it I won't object at all.
Personally I think the external links are also quite over-done. Some of the external links (esp the Research ones) might work better as direct citations from within the article, and a few others don't seem any more distinguished from thousands of other websites and pages out there about light pollution. If the existing links set any precedent, I could see the list just getting longer and longer as visitors come across the article and decide to add their pet favourites, or their own websites (and justify it with the existing precedents) which has happened in the past and is usually bad. It's getting similar with the campaign groups, too, with some very region-specific links now being included. I'm not sure what the best thing would be to do about it, except either chop them (and lose the information), or move some of the links to an alternative List of... type of article. What do people think about this? Izogi 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adjustment of referencing system

I've spent the last 30 minutes or so transforming the article to use a more automated citation system. It went reasonably well, but simply by refactoring things, it's become clear that unfortunately some of the citations have degenerated into a bit of a mess.

In particular, there are two citations that were in the list at the end (I've left them there) which no longer seem to actually be cited from the article, either because the text was removed at some point, or some other reason. I suspect one of them has been mis-referenced in the article sa Cambridge 2001 instead of Cambridge 1997, but even if so, it's not clear which is correct. There are also some occasions where contributors have cited a source, but not actually provided any source information at the end. (At least for me, an author's last name and a year aren't quite enough information to go on for tracking something down.)

There are also a scattering of things like external links to PDF's being used as references. The Effects on human health and psychology section in particular needs a lot of tidying up towards the end, just having a bulleted list of points and links to things without really putting them in much context or giving a clear explanation of why they might be relevant.

Personally I think it'd be beneficial if we can focus on fixing up and clarifying a lot of the references if it's at all possible, and removing them if it's not, because they're not much use otherwise. I also think it'd be clearer to take any inline external links (especially the ones that are pointing directly to scientific papers), that are being referred to in the article, and move them to a reference format.

Thoughts? Izogi 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

ive fixed the cambridge ref and added a summary sentence with some better refs for health effects. we still need to see what of the deleted text below needs to come back in. regards Anlace 04:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Neat, thanks. Izogi 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed from Effects on human health and psychology

I've removed the following text from the Effects on human health and psychology because although it's great to have a list of references, they don't seem to be presented in a very readable or contextual way. Someone really needs to go through each of them, find out what it actually says, then explain a bit about what it says. Izogi 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Numerous studies have been conducted to show the adverse effects of overillumination and improper frequency spectrum of artificial light. These effects include loss of visual acuity, fatigue, stress, decreased worker performance and adverse social behavior (Cambridge, 2001).
  • [LP causes cancer] "Le Scienze", Italian translation of "Scientifican American" online 22 December 2005 confirms these evidences by laboratory studies on rats.

[edit] Collections of links related to light pollution

Given that the External links section is basically a collection of links already, does anyone feel especially attached to the subsection titled Collections of links related to light pollution? I'm wondering if there are actually quite a lot of external links (even outside that section) that could be purged, in favour of just keeping those that are most representative of the issue. Izogi 04:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptics and residual damage

Hello. Can anyone suggest a decent citation or two where someone claims that Light pollution isn't really a problem because the lights can be switched off? I've been trying to find online news articles, but it's apparently very difficult because there's so much material out there using similar words and terms that's actually arguing against light pollution. An anonymous user recently removed the following text from the Light pollution as a problem section:

"Some skeptics claim that light pollution has little residual effect, because it does not leave remnant damage to the environment..."

I quite like the statement, and I think it's important to have as part of a description about how the concept of light pollution gets interpreted. That said, it reads like the sort of statement that really needs a citation to back it up. Izogi 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem because the lights can be switched off? Say what? That makes no sense. Also, light pollution affects plants and animals, in some cases drawing turtle hatchlings to Florida highways to be run over. There is also a tentative link to breast cancer.

What? That's the most retarded thing I ever heard.
And when that actually does happen, these are the exact same people that are whining the most.. 2003 blackout
Yes LP causes damage. Migrating birds attracted to light fly into towers at night (which is why they sometimes turn off the Empire State Building's crown lights). There's another example for people who can't see something's bad enough on it's own right without literal death or illness to back it up. Sagittarian Milky Way 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth at night

Is there a page on wikipedia dedicated to how the earth looks at night, focusing specifically on how this can be used to compare how advanced countries are (eg. South Korea and North Korea, a well-known example, and also the dimming of lights in the republics formerly making up the USSR)? I've been looking for one but I haven't been able to find it, so I'm asking the question here because the two topics are related.

So... does an article about it exist? Esn 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing... I think an "Earth at night" image would help this light pollution article as well. Here's the best image that I found by doing a google image search: [1]. I'm not sure where it came from, though. Are any of these Earth-at-night pictures free of copyright in the US? Esn 05:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Esn. There already is an identical image under the Energy Waste section. Do you think it should be somewhere else? Izogi 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! That's a great image. Maybe I didn't notice it because it looks so dark when it's minimized that it's hard to make out what it is. I think it's fine where it is, but perhaps it should be enlarged a bit (and given its own paragraph) so that it's possible to see what it is without having to click on it. Esn 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've done this now.Esn 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light Tresspass Issues

I added some information with external links discussing lighting ordinance standards and the role of U.S. federal agencies in the development and supervision of lighting standards within their areas of jurisdiction. I also made a stab at starting to generalize the info in this section. While astronomers may be especially ticked off at light tresspass they are a minority of the people who are interested in reducing it. This is a collective problem and not just one of a small special interest group. (I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so please don't burn my ears off, just tell me what I'm doing wrong.) Trilobitealive 04:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light Clutter

I added a brief statement discussing the problem of light clutter in the aviation environment. Trilobitealive 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] References Links

Citation 1 , 2 ,5 ,and 28 are broken links. There may be others, but I have not checked.

[edit] Lighting Industry POV sites

I added a couple of lighting industry POV site links which may be helpful for those who are researching industry standards and industry marketing efforts. I hope it improves the NPOV of this article but they are so far opposite my own POV it is hard for me to tell. I need some more experianced editors to tell me if this is going in the right direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC). (Sorry, I forgot to sign again...such a noob.)Trilobitealive 13:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light pollution definition

During Dec 2006, I've realised that due to varying explanations of what is meant by light pollution, the very phenomenon or any measures how to diminish it are neglected by legislative or standards-setting bodies. It's regarded to be too vague to be included in any rules more than by some ineffective remark (a stakeholder meeting on [ http://www.eup4light.net streetlighting study ] was the example). If it should be included seriously, there has to be a way how it could be measured. But how could you measure if and how much is any light excessive or obtrusive, so that nobody would dispute it?

Fortunately, there is a simple definition which follows strictly from what the words pollution and light mean: any light added artificially to the outdoor environment is pollution (it's doubtfull if light pollution can concern indoor environment: we don't speak about natural conditions indoors, rather about desirable conditions; of course light toxicity indoors at night is a major issue).

I finished a page on it today, adding that page as a last link to the article. I'd rather let it to the current authors of the article to include this approach somehow to its very text. The link, reproduced here again for convenience, is What is light pollution?. I'm sure such approach is necessary to bring light pollution on standard environmental agenda anywhere in the world. I'm sorry I did not realised it sooner...

wishing you happy 2007, Jenik Hollan

[edit] Advantages

Light pollution has a few advantages, too. Maybe we should list them here, too. --Artman40 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A true threat?

With much more dangerous problems like smog, global warming and ect. shouldn't light pollution take a back seat in our priorites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.93.98 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I doubt the anonymous person above has checked back on this question, but if anyone else is wondering the same thing, the article this discussion is for will answer this question: Consequences of light pollution. Gh5046 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error -I'm sorry

While editing the section "Redisigning lighting plans, for somme unknown reason I appear have to deleted every section and the references which follow. This was on June 17th 2007. Can someone put them back again. I tried but I don't know how. Sorry again about this (Deltapi)

The page is back to normal. Your last addition of a misformatted citation apparently altered and cached the rest of the page. These things happen. The material is never lost. Restoring an archived, earlier version brought back the missing sections, references, etc., as you will see in the page history. Hertz1888 13:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over-illumination

The over-illumination section includes a discussion on MBD of oil equivalents, then claims that 2 MBD of oil could be saved by reducing over-illumination. Is this original research? Seems like it. It's not cited, and it's really a load of horse shit, to boot - if you're going to claim reductions in oil, you really shouldn't be including oil equivalents in your calculations. I would suggest excising this passage. I'll do it shortly unless someone can justify its presence. Graft | talk 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections to discussion about sky glow in LP page and in Sky Glow page.

1. Light is scattered by molecules (Rayleigh scattering) and aerosols (Mie scattering) - not "refracted."

2. Aerosol scattering dominates in most places - in "clear air" (see Garstang, 1986, PASP, vol 98 pg 364), the total scattering from aerosols is ~10x that from molecules.

3. Aerosol scattering has almost no wavelength dependence, reducing the dominance of blue light influence below that expected from pure Rayleigh scattering and the RSI of Keith.

4. But, the Purkinje effect makes the eye more sensitive to white/blue rich light when dark adapted (most relevant when looking at/adapted to sky glow; only marginally relevant when looking at/adapted to outdoor night lighting levels), increasing again the dominance of white/blue-rich sources.

5. The Bortle scale has made very little or no penetration into professional astronomy - astronomers, when they characterize skyglow at all, still use mag/arcsec2. Bortle scale is being used by amateurs and is being investigated in some detail by US National Park Service as a useful scale to characterize night sky quality. Finally, the Bortle scale uses much more than just sky glow to characterize skies.

I took the liberty of doing some revisions, particularly to the Sky Glow section, to reflect these comments. More should be done: yet I am new to editing Wiki articles and belatedly realize I may be barging in where others have been working for some time. I will watch here to see the response of the group. Cluginbuhl (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] meaning of pollution

pollution is one sense, is the introduction of contaminants into an environment, of whatever predetermined or agreed upon proportions or frame of reference, that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the physical systems or living organisms therein.[1] Pollution can be in the form of chemical substances, or energy such as noise, heat, or light. Pollutants can be naturally occurring substances or energies, but are considered contaminants when in excess of natural levels. Pollution is often categorized into point source and nonpoint source pollution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.45.58 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)