| Revision as of 00:31, 23 July 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 40 discussion(s) to Talk:Light pollution/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:58, 23 July 2014 edit undoHertz1888 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers57,227 editsm manually cleaning up bot's workNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| Feel welcome to edit the list, of course. ] 23:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) | Feel welcome to edit the list, of course. ] 23:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | == No criticism == | ||
| ==References Links== | |||
| Citation 1 , 2 ,5 ,and 28 are broken links. There may be others, but I have not checked. | |||
| ⚫ | == No |
||
| 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 | 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 | ||
| Line 33: | Line 30: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| == This article needs a small section with contra arguments. == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| In particularly the part of indirect lighting techniques. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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." | |||
| 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--> | |||
| 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--> | |||
| == Effects on circadian rhythm and metabolism of excessive nocturnal light == | == Effects on circadian rhythm and metabolism of excessive nocturnal light == | ||
Revision as of 02:58, 23 July 2014
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
.jpg){kind=small} | Astronomy C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Environment B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
To-do list
Here's a list of possible things that the article might benefit from, in no particular order:
|
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)
|
Feel welcome to edit the list, of course. Izogi 23:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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. 60.230.201.56 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin
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.MilleauRekiir (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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. 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. 87.207.59.12 (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
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. 108.223.82.159 (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This article needs a small section with contra arguments.
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.
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. In particularly the part of indirect lighting techniques.
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)
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."
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:188F:AF00:4443:9A59:DF89:4BD (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
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.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:188F:AF00:4443:9A59:DF89:4BD (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Effects on circadian rhythm and metabolism of excessive nocturnal light
Endocrine reviews doi:10.1210/er.2013-1051 JFW | T@lk 12:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Categories: