This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peterl (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 1 March 2016 (→Are the light pollution maps backwards?: Not backwards, but problematic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:29, 1 March 2016 by Peterl (talk | contribs) (→Are the light pollution maps backwards?: Not backwards, but problematic)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 |
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:
To-do list for Light pollution: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2008-09-05
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)
|
1. Remove the liberal bias from the article. Oh wait, you wouldn't have an article without that...
Feel welcome to edit the list, of course. Izogi 23:55, 10 Jun 2005 (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)
request edit
It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at D. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
Hi,
The web page listed in the resources links http://www.need-less.org.uk/ is no longer live.
http://www.hillarys.co.uk/skyglow/ is a good substitute for an interactive lightmap of the UK.
Luke
- Not done: Link is not dead. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Are the light pollution maps backwards?
The article says "A similar image from 2012 illustrating the growth in light pollution." However, according to the images as they are show, it makes it appear as though light pollution has been reduced in the last decade. If this is just a result of the images having different filters applied coming from different sources, this needs to be pointed out. Tar-Elessar (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have my doubts about the second image. I don't think they're backwards - I think the second image is just wrong (that is, it's not indicative of light pollution). Australia's population is heavy dominated in along the eastern seaboard. The light sources in the middle of Western Australia are quite erroneous (there is just no population to speak of at all where those light sources are. According to the NASA website, they are likely wildfires (bushfires)). If there's no further information, I'm going to remove the second image, as it doesn't show us anything about light pollution.
- peterl (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)