Whoa Chuck! Were it not for Nicole Cline Tooele county would not have a light pollution ordinance. She was the one that wrote it, got it passed and sees that it is enforced. True, the law is not perfect but all one has to do is drive (or better yet, fly) around Tooele County at night and see the difference. Virtually all of the new commercial lighting is shielded (see the new elementary school in Stansbury, the DI and new car dealerships in Tooele, the Deseret Peak Complex west of Tooele city and even the new Wal Mart distribution center near Grantsville. That last one, BTW, is actually in Grantsville and therefore not covered by the ordinance, however, when construction first started I voiced my concerns to Ms. Cline and she assured me the situation had been taken care of and, as I indicated, it was. Plus I know of at least three bad lighting situations that the new ordinance fixed (in two of those cases the offending lights have been shut off and in the other the objectionable bulbs were replaced with better ones). And then there's the new homes across the pond, south of SPOC. I learned during this last SPOC star party from the owner of one of those new homes that it's written into their covenants that exterior lights much not shine at the observatory. So, like I said, the situation is not perfect and it's certainly not Bryce-like but it could be a whole lot worse. And for those thinking into the future, maybe this is the time for those who have always wanted a true dark sky site to come together and actually accomplish something. But that could be the subject of another thread... Clear (and dark) skies! Patrick On 09 Jul 2007, at 07:42, Chuck Hards wrote:
This story illustrates that Nicole Cline is not a lighting engineer and out of her element on this topic. It's the same old "more is better" flawed logic. Yes, people do need night lighting, but there is such a thing as good night lighting and bad night lighting. The whole thrust of IDA's effort is to educate the lighting decision makers on the difference. I don't think Ms. Cline has any clue what she's talking about when she throws out the term "reflective glare". A properly illuminated area will not direct any light upwards- "full cut-off" fixtures is the term most used. The source of the illumination (the bulb or tube) should not be visible to persons not in the immediate area being illuminated. Any light reflected back upwards from a proper, full cut-off fixture contributes very little to light pollution. It's the poorly-designed fixtures that are the worst offenders. And ironically, most "security lighting" has the opposite effect of increased visibility. By blinding people facing the fixture and creating shadows for criminals to lurk in, security is reduced. This has been demonstrated by IDA. Just as important, properly designed, full cut-off lighting is more ecconomical. Light directed at the sky is money wasted and an eccological mis-step.
Boo, boo on Ms. Cline. If she had any desire to the right thing for the people she works for, she would open her mind to good lighting instead of just tossing out that "it comes with the territory" crap.
On 09 Jul 2007, at 07:52, Chuck Hards wrote:
I meant to add that this attitude by public officials is what will eventually kill SPOC unnecessarily ahead of it's time. If Tooele and Stansbury really want an observatory in their community, they should realize that effective lighting comes with the territory.
People move to a rural setting to get away from the city, and end up bringing the worst of the city environment with them.