[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Light Pollution
In a message dated 4/7/99 7:07:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Skywayinc@aol.com
writes:
<< I should have also pointed out that those of us who yearn for a dark sky
are,
in many circles, being lumped-in with the so-called "Environmental Wackos"
that media pundits like Rush Limbaugh enjoy battering from time-to-time.
Indeed, we see a lot of movements concerning "Save our Forests" and "Stop
Air
Pollution,"
etc . . . but the Light Pollution situation often gets short shrift because
(I think) it is not a life-threatening situation. Indeed, a few weeks ago,
in the wake of an article on light pollution a letter published in USA Today
said something to the effect that:
". . . who cares if you can't see the stars? We should be expending our
energies and funds on more pending issues such as environmental pollution
and
just trying to create a few more jobs!"
It is this kind of mentality that we, as sky gazers must butt-heads with in
our ongoing fight to enjoy a dark, starry sky. >>
Joe and all,
I think a majority of the problem is US! There are many astronomers spouting
the wrong type of information heard. These people always seem to get the
press too. There is a "Light Pollution" bulletin board here in AOL, and I
don't know how many times I've read - "Turn 'em off or we'll shoot 'em out."
This day and age the second you say turn them off - you've lost.
I think the best way to go this the way Wayne H promotes - Have the lights
but direct them to the ground where they belong. We need to educate on the $$
lost for unnecessary energy for all the unnecessary lighting.
As far as the letter mentioned I hope a followup is written saying light
pollution IS environmental pollution.
Kevin K
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html