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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:29, 1 August 2018 editSSTbot (talk | contribs)Bots14,492 edits Added {{vital article}}← Previous edit Revision as of 00:48, 4 May 2019 edit undoDonnabyrd01 (talk | contribs)6 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:

{{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|topic=Science|subpage=Astronomy|level=5|class=B}} {{Vital article|topic=Science|subpage=Astronomy|level=5|class=B}}
{{todo}}In the urban landscape that we live in, light pollution can have implications for the visual environment, but most importantly human health. Light pollution is a vastly real problem that is troublesome to humans. The issue is that even frail amounts of light can hinder our pineal gland from producing the favorable melatonin. Increased light exposure acting through the pineal gland reduces melatonin production, thereby declining the indeterminate on unaltered outcome of the pineal gland. In a indirect clash it would disturb people inside, who then turn on lights and bare themselves to more light. Introduction to light pollution at night may expand the risk of breast lymphoma by subduing the normal nighttime creation of melatonin by the pineal gland, that could expand the delivery of estrogen by the ovaries. The main cause of light pollution is the poor planning from engineers on the placement of our street lights, irresponsible usage of lights leaving them on while occupying another room, setting timers for lights, and leaving Christmas lights on all night.] (]) 00:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
{{todo}}


{{WPAstronomy|class=C|importance=high<!-- while important regarding telescope use, it has little relevance to astronomy as a science. -->}}<!-- See talk page --> {{WPAstronomy|class=C|importance=high<!-- while important regarding telescope use, it has little relevance to astronomy as a science. -->}}<!-- See talk page -->

Revision as of 00:48, 4 May 2019

Template:Vital article

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)

In the urban landscape that we live in, light pollution can have implications for the visual environment, but most importantly human health. Light pollution is a vastly real problem that is troublesome to humans. The issue is that even frail amounts of light can hinder our pineal gland from producing the favorable melatonin. Increased light exposure acting through the pineal gland reduces melatonin production, thereby declining the indeterminate on unaltered outcome of the pineal gland. In a indirect clash it would disturb people inside, who then turn on lights and bare themselves to more light. Introduction to light pollution at night may expand the risk of breast lymphoma by subduing the normal nighttime creation of melatonin by the pineal gland, that could expand the delivery of estrogen by the ovaries. The main cause of light pollution is the poor planning from engineers on the placement of our street lights, irresponsible usage of lights leaving them on while occupying another room, setting timers for lights, and leaving Christmas lights on all night.Donnabyrd01 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject iconAstronomy C‑class 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnvironment B‑class
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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

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:


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 murder should be illegal or not, whether kookoo libertarians should let legal heroin stores open in front of schools or not, guns, abortion, gay marriage..) 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Light pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I souldnt ave started readin.

For real, what rural night sky actually looks like that? Has the person who made that picture ever actually SEEN a rural night sky, or is that just their imagined impression of what they are missing because "all of these beastly lights everywhere"? Or maybe it's just that they just WANT people to think that's what they are missing? The Milky Way looks like a pale blur. That's it. Next: "ALL light pollution is caused by unnecessary, inefficient or unattractive lighting" - oh really? So if you had free hand to go through and alter lighting to exactly the way you wanted it - but without removing any lights which people consider NECESSARY, like security lighting, or what have you, suddenly you'd be left with NO light pollution? NO sky glow? How do you figure that one out? We won't even go into lights which YOU think are ugly as hell but another person likes quite well, or which are totally necessary. I intensely dislike the fact that there is now a row of red blinking lights on the ridgeline 10 miles away, but if we don't have them a plane will end up crashing into the new wind turbines (which you probably thought were a great idea). In any case, no, not ALL light pollution is caused by unnecessary, inefficient or unattractive lighting. There would STILL be light pollution if you got rid of ALL tree of those categories, and as usual, even though YOU know what's best (don't you always?), that doesn't mean all the benighted and ignorant will agree with you. The cretins. Next, before I stop...I had to stop reading...what use is it saying "5 million barrels of oil per day in energy"? There is no-one burning OIL to make electricity. You can use that as an EQUIVALENT amount of energy, I suppose, if you didn't want to bother with scientific or actual units of energy, and were hoping to shock the public by using a scary sounding phrase like '5 Million barrels of oil wasted per day!".... but this seemed to be actually stating that the US literally burns 5 Million Barrels of Oil per day to run un-needed lighting. No, it doesn't. It really doesn't, and its disingenuous or outright lying to say that it is. At worst the equivalent amount of coal or natural gas is burned, but in reality a great deal of that energy comes from hyrdo or nuclear or even wind power. Barrels of oil is not a preferred unit of energy consumption. And if one wanted to be at all rigorous, how does that compare to TOTAL energy usage in the US? How much energy is wasted on OTHER things? How many actual, literal, barrels of oil are burned per day, and ow many of those are wasted in traffic jams? Suddenly your "statistics" start to cut the other way, which is probably why you didn't mention any of that. "5 million barrels of oil wasted per day!" sounds a lot scarier than "the US wastes 150,000,000 BTUS of energy per day (out of 266,000,000,000,000 BTUs of energy per day used). Oh, and why the hell tell us "30% total of energy goes to residential or commercial uses"? That tells us nothing about light pollution, or about how much energy is wasted on lighting; is that just put there to confuse people who can't read well into assuming it means that "30% of total national energy use is wasted on lighting"? Or it supposed to go with the next statistic, which says 20% of the energy they DO use is used on lighting? In which case it could be written more clearly: 30% of US energy usage goes to residential areas; 12-40% of THAT 30% is used on lighting. I had to quit while I was ahead though, because I was just getting too irritated at the way the whole thing was written. Maybe someday we could have an article that reflects the fact that NOT everyone agrees on how serious a problem light pollution is, or what benefits might accrue from reducing light emissions (apparently at the moment its primarily a problem of "educating" people into agreeing with you; how uncommon to ear that...), or what the best way to do that is. Right now it reads like a press release from a single organization with an agenda....and one that I won't take too seriously, once they start telling me "this is what you sky could look like a night" with an image taken out of a National Geographic, and how "the US WASTES 5 MILLION BARRELS of oil a DAY" running electric lights. After that, everything they say is suspect at best. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you please write coherently? This isn't a forum for your personal views, please propose specific, sourced edits. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Categories: