http://www.tooeletranscript.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=22445&Itemid=54 :) pw
I win! The typo is that the link isn't complete in original email - do I win the Porsche? : ) : ) Jim Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: http://www.tooeletranscript.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=22445&Itemid=54 :) pw _______________________________________________ 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
Nope. Try again. Actually your browser appears to have broken the link in two. The whole link begins with the usual "http" and ends with "=54". http://www.tooeletranscript.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=22445&Itemid=54 And, FWIW, I spent most of the interview talking about the economic and health issues related to light pollution. Funny how that got left out so it looks like we only care about dark skies. Sigh... pw On 05 Jul 2007, at 22:29, Jim Stitley wrote:
I win! The typo is that the link isn't complete in original email - do I win the Porsche? : ) : ) Jim
Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: http://www.tooeletranscript.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=22445&Itemid=54
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.
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.
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
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
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
What rag did you read that in???
You are free to own a gun as you wish...
You got that wrong Erik, I am free because I own a gun.
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
As I recall it was US News and World Report. It was New Jersey that sued the gun manufactures. Guns and Guts made America Free and China Communist. Erik
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
What rag did you read that in???
You are free to own a gun as you wish...
You got that wrong Erik, I am free because I own a gun.
_______________________________________________ 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
Where would we be if our ancestors hadn't been able to grab a gun and chase the British back to Boston? -- Joe B., who is writing a book about some Revolutionary War vets.
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
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
What rag did you read that in???
You are free to own a gun as you wish...
You got that wrong Erik, I am free because I own a gun.
_______________________________________________ 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
The reason there are more "accidents" with gun owners vs non gun owners is the survey was only taken among gang members Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:31 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Spot the typo... Where would we be if our ancestors hadn't been able to grab a gun and chase the British back to Boston? -- Joe B., who is writing a book about some Revolutionary War vets.
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
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
What rag did you read that in???
You are free to own a gun as you wish...
You got that wrong Erik, I am free because I own a gun.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Yes, all the typical rebutals. As I recall the corrections officer was shot by his own gun which in turn was used to hijack a car and thearten many others. Anyone know any quadraplegics that where shot during carjackings, I do and he was armed. I also am reminded of two motorists in LA that flashed thier guns during a road rage incident and exchanged fire, it turned out one was an undercover officer and the other an off duty cop. I do not suggest taking guns away from responsible owners. Just stiff penalties for crimes committed with guns and reasonable regulations. I am confused by opposition to New Jerseys law to restrict a person to one purchase a month. Bob,The data was gathered is emergency rooms, it is not uncommon to be shot by your own gun. Erik The reason there are more "accidents" with gun owners vs non gun owners
is the survey was only taken among gang members
Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com
-----Original Message-----
From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:31 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Spot the typo...
Where would we be if our ancestors hadn't been able to grab a gun and chase the British back to Boston? -- Joe B., who is writing a book about some Revolutionary War vets.
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
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
What rag did you read that in???
You are free to own a gun as you wish...
You got that wrong Erik, I am free because I own a gun.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
To preface my smart alec comment, I advocate those who feel they can carry a weapon competently should have that right and no local laws should override that right. Now on a lighter side, Erik's comment reminds me of the comic George Washington. He said, "I don't own a gun. If a burglar want to shoot me, he can go out and buy his own damn gun!"... B) I just couldn't help it. 73 de n7zi Gary "Why buy something for ten bucks when you can make it for a hundred." JR ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Yes, all the typical rebutals. As I recall the corrections officer was shot by his own gun which in turn was used to hijack a car and thearten many others. Anyone know any quadraplegics that where shot during carjackings, I do and he was armed. I also am reminded of two motorists in LA that flashed thier guns during a road rage incident and exchanged fire, it turned out one was an undercover officer and the other an off duty cop. I do not suggest taking guns away from responsible owners. Just stiff penalties for crimes committed with guns and reasonable regulations. I am confused by opposition to New Jerseys law to restrict a person to one purchase a month. Bob,The data was gathered is emergency rooms, it is not uncommon to be shot by your own gun. Erik The reason there are more "accidents" with gun owners vs non gun owners
is the survey was only taken among gang members Bob Moore
The personal firearm as a weapon of warfare is much more limited in application today, than it once was; this is the reason for the proliferation of bombings by revolutionary groups worldwide in recent decades. Guns work only if you know who your enemy is. Against the enemies of freedom these days, Madison Avenue (bread and circuses) is more powerful than gunpowder and steel casings. Obviously this country will never be attacked by enemy infantry. It would be either nuclear weapons, terrorism (bombings, infrastructure attacks, food supply contamination), or ecconomic in nature. It still has some use for personal protection, IF you are faster, stronger, and luckier than your attacker. But the old argument that personal gun ownership is what keeps us free just isn't true anymore. Yes they might keep you alive a few more days in an appocalyptic scenario, if you can call that living. That said, I do own firearms, but not for any high-minded constitutionalist reasons. My 3 cents. Your mileage undoubtedly will vary. Now, I'm going to go look for the new comet in my big binos. Thanks to Kurt for the head's-up.
It is apparent that you never had to take an oath to defend this country, which is okay, so I doubt you or Erik would understand the part of the oath that say's: "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". That portion is very powerful and remains as valid today as it did when it was written. Contrarty to popular belief, it isn't a foreign enemy that anyone is concerned about. It is the "domestic enemy" that the personal ownership of firearms is meant to address. The rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment is more about "homeland" defense as it is anything else. So you see, the validity of the "old argument" that personal gun ownership is what keeps us free, is still valid. FWIW, the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to keeps arms for hunting. The majority of politicians think it is, but can we expect them to know any better? ;) Quoting Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com>:
The personal firearm as a weapon of warfare is much more limited in application today, than it once was; this is the reason for the proliferation of bombings by revolutionary groups worldwide in recent decades. Guns work only if you know who your enemy is. Against the enemies of freedom these days, Madison Avenue (bread and circuses) is more powerful than gunpowder and steel casings. Obviously this country will never be attacked by enemy infantry. It would be either nuclear weapons, terrorism (bombings, infrastructure attacks, food supply contamination), or ecconomic in nature.
It still has some use for personal protection, IF you are faster, stronger, and luckier than your attacker. But the old argument that personal gun ownership is what keeps us free just isn't true anymore. Yes they might keep you alive a few more days in an appocalyptic scenario, if you can call that living.
That said, I do own firearms, but not for any high-minded constitutionalist reasons.
My 3 cents. Your mileage undoubtedly will vary.
Now, I'm going to go look for the new comet in my big binos. Thanks to Kurt for the head's-up. _______________________________________________ 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
I had a reply written but decided against posting it. If interested let me know and we'll take it off-list. If not then good luck to you sir. On 7/9/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
It is apparent that you never had to take an oath to defend this country, which is okay, so I doubt you or Erik would understand the part of the oath that say's: "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". That portion is very powerful and remains as valid today as it did when it was written.
Contrarty to popular belief, it isn't a foreign enemy that anyone is concerned about. It is the "domestic enemy" that the personal ownership of firearms is meant to address. The rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment is more about "homeland" defense as it is anything else. So you see, the validity of the "old argument" that personal gun ownership is what keeps us free, is still valid.
FWIW, the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to keeps arms for hunting. The majority of politicians think it is, but can we expect them to know any better? ;)
Yes, Guy we thank you for your service, it is not up to the individual to decide who are domestic enemies, please leave that up to the Congress and the President. In a civil society we need to be governed by laws that protect individuals. Thier is more to the constitution than the 2nd amendment, the 9th comes into mind. Our military is under civilian control and when it is not you have choas and military dictatorships. Iraq is an example of the choas.
I support your rigth to bear arms Erik It is apparent that you never had to take an oath to defend this
country, which is okay, so I doubt you or Erik would understand the part of the oath that say's: "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". That portion is very powerful and remains as valid today as it did when it was written.
Contrarty to popular belief, it isn't a foreign enemy that anyone is concerned about. It is the "domestic enemy" that the personal ownership of firearms is meant to address. The rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment is more about "homeland" defense as it is anything else. So you see, the validity of the "old argument" that personal gun ownership is what keeps us free, is still valid.
FWIW, the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to keeps arms for hunting. The majority of politicians think it is, but can we expect them to know any better? ;)
Quoting Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com>:
The personal firearm as a weapon of warfare is much more limited in application today, than it once was; this is the reason for the proliferation of bombings by revolutionary groups worldwide in recent decades. Guns work only if you know who your enemy is. Against the enemies of freedom these days, Madison Avenue (bread and circuses) is more powerful than gunpowder and steel casings. Obviously this country will never be attacked by enemy infantry. It would be either nuclear weapons, terrorism (bombings, infrastructure attacks, food supply contamination), or ecconomic in nature.
It still has some use for personal protection, IF you are faster, stronger, and luckier than your attacker. But the old argument that personal gun ownership is what keeps us free just isn't true anymore. Yes they might keep you alive a few more days in an appocalyptic scenario, if you can call that living.
That said, I do own firearms, but not for any high-minded constitutionalist reasons.
My 3 cents. Your mileage undoubtedly will vary.
Now, I'm going to go look for the new comet in my big binos. Thanks to Kurt for the head's-up. _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Ok folks, this thread has gotten waaay off topic and has now caused Michael Carnes (one of our major contributors) to leave the list. Before anyone else bails could I please ask that those wishing to continue this thread do so off list? Thank you, Patrick
Here's one for your book Joe, "Those who beat their weapons into plowshares end up plowing for those who didn't." ;) Quoting Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com>:
Where would we be if our ancestors hadn't been able to grab a gun and chase the British back to Boston? -- Joe B., who is writing a book about some Revolutionary War vets.
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
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
What rag did you read that in???
You are free to own a gun as you wish...
You got that wrong Erik, I am free because I own a gun.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Here's another one: "Those who think gun ownership will guarantee their freedom didn't notice that a Chinese investment company just bought out their retirement fund." ;o) On 7/9/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
Here's one for your book Joe, "Those who beat their weapons into plowshares end up plowing for those who didn't." ;)
Yes and the Chinese are finacing our current budget short falls.
I guess the Iraqis are trying to oust thier Red Coats, as an Army Ranger, just back from Afganistan told me, I don't think I'd like soldiers breaking down my door either. For various reasons we are very priviledged, all my uncles served in WWII and none feel a need to own a gun. Erik Here's another one:
"Those who think gun ownership will guarantee their freedom didn't notice that a Chinese investment company just bought out their retirement fund." ;o)
On 7/9/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
Here's one for your book Joe, "Those who beat their weapons into plowshares end up plowing for those who didn't." ;)
_______________________________________________ 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
Was thier some kind of point you wish to express, Guy ?
Erik Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
For various reasons we are very priviledged, all my uncles served in WWII and none feel a need to own a gun.
_______________________________________________ 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
It would no doubt be pointless. Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
Was thier some kind of point you wish to express, Guy ?
Erik
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
For various reasons we are very priviledged, all my uncles served in WWII and none feel a need to own a gun.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Your own private Idaho?
It would no doubt be pointless.
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
Was thier some kind of point you wish to express, Guy ?
Erik
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
For various reasons we are very priviledged, all my uncles served in WWII and none feel a need to own a gun.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
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.
My comment was based on Ms. Cline's comment in the newspaper story. You have to admit that it didn't paint her in a flattering light. It's a pity that she wouldn't take a stand for the reporter (or if she did, that the reporter or editor chose to spin it otherwise). Had her comments in print matched her apparent history on the subject, I would not have been so critical. Based solely on the story, however (which you posted the link to, Patrick), she came across as a typical non-caring, uninformed beaurocrat. So it appears that the story was intentionally slanted by the writer or editor and I therefore apologize to Ms. Cline, but would encourage her to try and present a more truly representative stance in the media, in the future. Dark-sky club site? After over 30 years its still funny. That one never gets old! ;o) On 7/9/07, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote:
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 21:21, Chuck Hards wrote:
My comment was based on Ms. Cline's comment in the newspaper story. You have to admit that it didn't paint her in a flattering light.
Sad but true. But then reading the piece you'd never know that I spend virtually the entire interview talking about the economic and health costs of light pollution. I intentionally spent very little time on the effects of light pollution on astronomy and yet that's what most of the story was about. :( pw
participants (8)
-
Bob Moore -
Chuck Hards -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Gary Liptrot -
Jim Stitley -
Joe Bauman -
Patrick Wiggins