Light Pollution also boosts air pollution

In addition to causing breast cancer, light pollution has now been shown to affect the atmospheric chemistry at night in urban regions, increasing the next day air pollution by up to 5%. Ignoring any deleterious effect on astronomy, why are we being idiots on this? Why can't people aim lights correctly so they don't miss well over 50% of the thing they want to light? Why can't we understand if you want to light something on the ground, you can't do it by sending light up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11990737

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/urban-light-pollution-boosts-air-pollution.php

Comet Lulin from Chicago

The RAS observed Comet Lulin in Chicago yesterday. Unforunately it wasn't 100% clear, with some sort of high cirrus haze up, and with all the light pollution, only two of us saw the blob that was the comet. For proof of where it was, I took a quick snapshot through the eyepiece to confirm the location for others looking.

National Geographic on Light Pollution

The End of Night: Why we need Darkness

National Geographic Magazine brings the issue of light pollution (or expressed for concerns outside astronomy, Light At Night) to the cover of the November issue.

Article in Sun-Times about Light Pollution

Yes, Light pollution does affect the ecology of the region.

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/1199598,CST-NWS-night03.article.

Do I believe "A spokeswoman for the Chicago Bureau of Electricity said the city "has been actively pursing different methods to address the issue of light pollution."? Not in a second.

The University of Chicago just added over $7000 in electrical costs a year in extra, non-effective lights on campus. Is that sustainable?

Wall Street Journal on Light Pollution

The WSJ has an article on light pollution: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121692767218982013.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Light pollution has tripled since 1970, according to Italian astronomer Fabio Falchi.

Not mentioned in the article is the billions of dollars this light represents in wasted energy costs in the U.S. Every business should be aware that some large percentage of their lighting bill goes out without making a cent for them if they aren't using fully shielded lights. Using those clichéd acorns to light your lot? You are losing some 70% of your electric bill for lighting straight into the sky and into the pained, scrunched, unhappy eyes of the customers who can't see beyond your lights, who can't see into otherwise well-lit areas in your lot because of the glare from the acorns.

Chicago Light Pollution article in Chicago Wilderness

An article about light pollution, focusing on the biological effects, is in the Spring issue of Chicago Wilderness. The article was inpsired by Homer Glen's recent passage of a light ordinance with work by Debra Norvil. Even on a clear moonless night, the integrated flux of light pollution exceeds the light of a full moon at Batavia, in the far western suburbs; it's much worse the closer to Chicago you get. In most of the metropolitan area the light pollution is bright enough to prevent your eyes from fully adapting to the existing light with your rods, making ironically everything appear dimmer.

Watch the clouds go by

See the clouds go by at night at http://skycam.uchicago.edu/. It's a field of view 30x50 degrees pointed south at about 50 degrees up.

Match your local light pollution by seeing what you can see in Orion. Ryerson is somewhere in magnitude 3.

Maroon article on campus lights

New lights dim club's stargazing

The new lights have created extensive light pollution in the local sky, a phenomenon that occurs when light scatters off air molecules. As a result, distant stars and galaxies disappear in the uniform glow of the overlit sky. Dean Armstrong, a longtime RAS member and University staff member, recalls a time when the stars were more easily visible from Ryerson.

“We used to show galaxies as part of a standard observation,” he said. “We don’t do it anymore. Either people can’t see them, or they’re just unimpressive.”

Located immediately below the Ryerson telescope, the new lights have brought the hurt home. A new light installed last week shines directly on the dome topping the telescope, and many others shine directly into the sky surrounding it.

Claims that these lights are shielded and only hit the first 25 feet of the facade are false. Here's a few images:


Do these lights only hit the first floor? No. View from the six-story roof.


The inverse view, lighting up the turret.

Blinding glare around the corner of Ryerson

Coverage of "shielded" light extends to nearly the zenith.

This light directly hits the dome and is much brighter in person.

Additional images at http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~dean/lights/

Will the Green House at MSI be green at night?

Via Chicagoist comes news of a green house exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry for springtime. I have to ask a serious question: if after all the work creating this low-energy house, will they light up the outside poorly (by poorly I mean by lighting it to excess and waste to the sky) to advertise it and destroy the night environment? Here at the U of C, we've squandered any savings during the Battle of the Bulbs and such by increasing the nighttime lighting by 1000% (this number is accurate) in the last year.

New Yorker article on light pollution

Here's a reason to go out and buy the August 20th issue of the New Yorker: An article on light pollution!



I sincerely hope you've seen the Milky Way lately. I fear for you if you've never ever seen it.

I can count the few times I've been awed in my life on my fingers -- and several of those were seeing the Milky Way in a dark sky.

Planetary Society Blog article #1

Planetary Society Blog article #2

Astronomy communities

The media has globbed onto the existence of planned astronomical communities where bad lighting design is not allowed by rules and housing covenants. These are new places, places only needed in the recent past, because of the horrendous growth of light pollution. Continued light pollution increases of 5-10% per year mean the end of the visibility of the stars in just a few decades. Already 2/3rds of Americans haven't seen the Milky Way. By 2025 there will simply be no more dark sky in the United States. Simply no place. Current arguments about "why don't you move your scopes to a dark place" are ignorant by this measure and besides, are the people who created the light pollution paying for relocation? Destruction of useful observatories like Mt. Wilson and the current degradation of Palomar by misinformed politicians who'd rather be concerned about aesthetics than efficiency and science:

(Mayor Dick Murphy) said he also supports the change for aesthetic reasons: "People think they're ugly."

Astronomers also are concerned about a plan before the council to replace some hooded streetlights with decorative acorn-shaped lamps in various historic districts. The acorn lamps allow most of their light to shine upward, to the sky.

"They are blantantly inefficient," said Paul B. Etzel, director of the nearby Mount Laguna Observatory. "It's a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem."

Critics also point to higher costs. Getting rid of the low-sodium lights would cost nearly $2.8 million and raise the city's power bill by a half-million dollars a year, according to a city report.

This alley has 4 250W lights plus a 150W streetlight within a thirty foot radius. A resident of this building can't get the city to remove or shield any of the lights.

Which constellation lost will make people realize the sky is gone? Orion? The asterism of the Big Dipper? Already seeing the Pleiades is tough in Chicago, and the faintest star of the Big Dipper is getting difficult to see.

I've seen it first hand in a place that doesn't need anymore light, yet we in Chicago increase the energy use in lighting by leaps and bounds whenever the mayor needs re-election or a University president feels to rule by fiat. I can only hope people will eventually realize spending tens of thousands of dollars for just the light that goes up into the sky (yes, really) is not smart for a campus nor the millions of dollars per year for a city like Chicago. The nation as a whole wastes--not uses, but wastes--$5 billion a year or more in outdoor lighting that doesn't hit its target.


Would you want to live with this light outside your bedroom, giving you breast cancer?

People think that brighter lighting decrease crime--but it doesn't, period, and in fact, I was shocked to discover someone actually checked: Brighter alley lights in Chicago increased crime in the alleys by 21% percent: Each of the three crime categories experienced an increase in the number of
reported incidents between the pre and post- installation period. Violent Index offenses
increased 14 percent (119 to 136), property Index offenses increased 20 percent (30 to
36) and non-Index offenses increased 24 percent (279 to 347). All this, using 160W more per fixture (there's 175,000 of them in the city), adding 28 Megawatts to the "Greenest" city.