Misplaced Pages

Talk:Light pollution: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:01, 30 September 2014 editHertz1888 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers57,227 editsm →top: settings fix← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:19, 16 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Light pollution/Archive 2) (bot 
(76 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
⚫ {{WPAstronomy|class=C|importance=high<!-- while important regarding telescope use, it has little relevance to astronomy as a science. -->}}<!-- See talk page -->
⚫ {{Environment|class=B}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K |maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 1 |counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 11: Line 9:
|archive = Talk:Light pollution/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Light pollution/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I|age=120}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=high<!-- while important regarding telescope use, it has little relevance to astronomy as a science. -->}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Environment}}
{{WikiProject Health and fitness|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Ecology|importance=mid}}
}}
<!-- See talk page -->
{{Annual readership}}
⚫ {{todo}}


==To-do list== ==To-do list==
Here's a list of possible things that the article might benefit from, in no particular order: Here's a list of possible things that the article might benefit from, in no particular order:
⚫ {{todo}}


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


1. Remove the liberal bias from the article. Oh wait, you wouldn't have an article without that...
== No criticism ==
Theres no criticism of the almost moronic, and certainly ignorant, people who insist that having lights on during dark hours of the night in major areas and in mass quantity should be removed and/or given serious thought to its reduction? I find that hard to believe when these "pointless lights" are businesses, safety and basic street lighting concerns, homes and sports centres. Hell, even these "pointless, wasteful illuminated signs and lights" on high buildings, SPECIFICALLY there so planes will not crash into them and kill hundreds. The amount of ridiculous, ignorant, technology bashing POV on this article is astounding. Most likely because no-one even gives such a absurd "anti-light" article any actual justification for their use of inteligence. ] (]) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin


:Reality has a liberal bias. Not necessarily for things that only affect relations between humans (whether kookoo anarchists should let legal heroin stores open in front of schools or not, is Hamas evil..) but definitely for environmental things. The conservative track record is very bad on that. And don't say liberal is tree hugging people that want no wood to be used ever and think the tree's spirit speaks to them, the average liberal's nothing like that.
Of course there are legitimate reasons for having lights out there, but the article is talking about using the right tools for the right job. Aircraft warning lights don't add significantly to the total skyglow, otherwise it wouldn't normally be a sodium yellow, what adds to this is poorly designed street lights that send light upwards rather than pointing it down to where it's meant to be. The illuminated street level billboard has nothing to offer in terms of aircraft safety (if the aircraft is at that level, it is probably past the point of needing warning lights) and little to offer in terms of pedestrian or road safety. There's nothing anti-technology in suggesting more economically and environmentally viable as well as properly planned lighting (there are many cases of councils having to rip up one in every so many street lights either to save money or because they aren't actually required). You mention "I find that hard to believe when these "pointless lights" are businesses, safety and basic street lighting concerns, homes and sports centres." but give no reason as to why the lights are actually required in these cases - we're all told to switch off lights when not needed and that goes for the business, the home and even the sports centre (my local woolworths kept the lights on for a fortnight after the business shutting down - what is the justification for that given that now they've shut off the light?). Increasingly this is being recognised in legislation across the developed world as well as efforts such as Earth Hour. But finally please remember that this is not a discussion forum and if you feel there should be a criticism section then either add it or make a suggestion of its form. Simply coming here and dropping an insult or two to contributers doesn't quite cut it.] (]) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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


==Wiki Education assignment: BioEE1610 WIM==
I would like to point out that neon lights and flashy billboards are not pointless. The main role of advertisement is to inform potential customers, which in turn allows for better organized economy - via market mechanisms. This allows for companies to compete in innovation and prices and perhaps even saves energy expenditure since customers do not need to search for products.
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Cornell_University/BioEE1610_WIM_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-03-02 | end_date = 2022-03-31 }}
Furthermore there are lights meant to promote certain places like libraries, centers of culture or trade, or set up by city to attract tourism. Whoever sets up the lights has to pay for them (with exception of street lights you mentioned, since council does not own the town) so there has to be a purpose for having them.
I think there are many benefits to nighttime illumination other than safety and transportation that need to be noted.
] (]) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


== Light pollution definition ==
This article fails NPOV by any test. The very name "Light pollution" is propaganda. There are myriad well-cited studies easily available regarding public lighting and its positive correlation with pedestrian safety, crime, fear of crime, and general urban habitation. This article has been groomed to exclude all of them by contributors with openly biased viewpoints. ] (]) 04:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Acording to Darksky international
== This article needs a small section with contra arguments. ==
"What is light pollution?"
"Light pollution is the human-made alteration of outdoor light levels from those occurring naturally." -> https://darksky.org/


I was on the boad of Dark Sky when this was changes. The reason is that old definition was biased by the industry and was incoherent of other definitions of pollution. Like the pollutants on the "1979 convention on long -range transboundary air pollution", where clearly, is included the light pollution. As is explained by the Legal comision of the UN: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2015/english/chp5.pdf.
This article is too extreme, since it does not even mention the advantage of lighting where the problem of light pollution is less important than the problem lighting solves.
As well as other advantages of lighting : safer traffic, less crime, esthetic purposes, able to wander around as you please, even at night..
Though all debatable, there should at least be mention of this.


‘Air pollution’ means the introduction by human activities,
As someone who works professionally with lighting I do feel the need to point out the reason for a certain way of lighting, which might look wasteful at first sight.
directly or indirectly, of substances or '''<u>energy</u>''' into the atmosphere
In particularly the part of indirect lighting techniques.
resulting in deleterious effects on human life and health and the Earth’s
natural environment.


This was even explicitly said on other documents: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2018/english/a_73_10_advance.pdf
Especially since the following is mentioned " Again energy audit data demonstrates that about 30–60% of energy consumed in lighting is unneeded or gratuitous.", and then certain examples are given.
One of the examples where I added a counter argument for indirect lighting. (already deleted apparently)


All this is expresed on more detail on : Bará, Salvador, Carmen Bao-Varela, and Fabio Falchi. "Light pollution and the concentration of anthropogenic photons in the terrestrial atmosphere." Atmospheric Pollution Research 13.9 (2022): 101541.
I added "*Though this is (and others are) debatable, since certain lighting techniques have other advantages. For instance, indirect lighting is often used to give a more softer look to objects and people and is in general received as a more cozy lighting technique, instead of direct harsh lighting."


https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14131 ] (]) 16:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
To conclude, if you want to give clear information, you need to be more objective.
Now it's quite clear that this article is only written by environmentalists. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Your was:
edit: I added the same point, but changed it a little so it suits the article better, hopefully it won't get deleted again..what's the purpose of an open encyclopedia otherwise.. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{difftext|'''Light pollution''' is the presence of any unwanted, inappropriate, or excessive artificial ]. In a descriptive sense, the term ''light pollution'' refers to the effects of any poorly implemented lighting sources, during the day or night.|'''Light pollution''' is the presence of any artificial ]. In a descriptive sense, the term ''light pollution'' refers to lighting sources, during the day or night.}}
:The sources you're referring to here don't seem to support your suggested definition of all artificial light being light pollution. --] (]) 17:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::On this review paper you can see how light levels https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6400 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.767177/full at all scales are been impacted. You are right that should not be "any artificial light", should be "any artificial light at night" and some reflected light during day (light reflected by some solar panels for example). ] (]) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA24 - Sect 200 - Thu==
== Effects on circadian rhythm and metabolism of excessive nocturnal light ==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_FA24_-_Sect_200_-_Thu_(Fall) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-09-05 | end_date = 2024-12-13 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 03:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
''Endocrine reviews'' ] ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 12:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:19, 16 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Light pollution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAstronomy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnvironment
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages'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.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHealth and fitness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUrban studies and planning Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEcology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Light pollution: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2008-09-05

  • 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)

To-do list

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


1. Remove the liberal bias from the article. Oh wait, you wouldn't have an article without that...

Reality has a liberal bias. Not necessarily for things that only affect relations between humans (whether kookoo anarchists should let legal heroin stores open in front of schools or not, is Hamas evil..) but definitely for environmental things. The conservative track record is very bad on that. And don't say liberal is tree hugging people that want no wood to be used ever and think the tree's spirit speaks to them, the average liberal's nothing like that.

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

Wiki Education assignment: BioEE1610 WIM

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 March 2022 and 31 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pdt35 (article contribs).

Light pollution definition

Acording to Darksky international "What is light pollution?" "Light pollution is the human-made alteration of outdoor light levels from those occurring naturally." -> https://darksky.org/

I was on the boad of Dark Sky when this was changes. The reason is that old definition was biased by the industry and was incoherent of other definitions of pollution. Like the pollutants on the "1979 convention on long -range transboundary air pollution", where clearly, is included the light pollution. As is explained by the Legal comision of the UN: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2015/english/chp5.pdf.

‘Air pollution’ means the introduction by human activities, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the atmosphere resulting in deleterious effects on human life and health and the Earth’s natural environment.

This was even explicitly said on other documents: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2018/english/a_73_10_advance.pdf

All this is expresed on more detail on : Bará, Salvador, Carmen Bao-Varela, and Fabio Falchi. "Light pollution and the concentration of anthropogenic photons in the terrestrial atmosphere." Atmospheric Pollution Research 13.9 (2022): 101541.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14131 Pmisson (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your change to the lead was:
−'''Light pollution''' is the presence of any unwanted, inappropriate, or excessive artificial ]. In a descriptive sense, the term ''light pollution'' refers to the effects of any poorly implemented lighting sources, during the day or night.+'''Light pollution''' is the presence of any artificial ]. In a descriptive sense, the term ''light pollution'' refers to lighting sources, during the day or night.
The sources you're referring to here don't seem to support your suggested definition of all artificial light being light pollution. --Belbury (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
On this review paper you can see how light levels https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6400 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.767177/full at all scales are been impacted. You are right that should not be "any artificial light", should be "any artificial light at night" and some reflected light during day (light reflected by some solar panels for example). Pmisson (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA24 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qiuyi Y (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Qiuyi Yang (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: