That reminds me of a story. I have a city maintence building behind my house surounded by a 6ft fence. The city installed two bright unsheilded lights, so I called them. They stated they needed them to prevent 'kids" from jumping fence to steal gasoline. I asked if the thefts had stoped since, they said no. I suggested a video camera would be more effective. I imagine city employes where filling their trucks (large quantities where unaccounted for). Long story short I did manage to get the lights sheilded although the whole premise for the lights was bogus. I do not want my tax dollars to pay for uneeded lighting or city workers filling up their gas wasting pick-ups.
Oh, and on the gun note. Those owning guns are at least 10 times more likely to be victims of gun violence than those who do not. Gun manufactures where taken to court to stop advertising guns as a safety device for that reason. You are free to own a gun as you wish, but they do not increase your safety. However, Guy, I do think the possibility that a homeowner may have a gun is deterent. Erik 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.
On 7/9/07, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> 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.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com