🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10MAR94.23091460@rhea.arc.ab.ca>, thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca writes:
|> In a previous article, bcarpent@sun.cis.smu.edu (Bryan Carpenter) wrote:
|> >Hello
|> > 
|> >I'd like to pose a question.  Some scientists have identified a problem
|> >regarding the way in which humans use light.  They contend that energy is
|> >wasted by improper shielding.  They claim that because of improper
|> >shielding light is used to light the sky as opposed to the ground.  
|> 
|> This is clearly true.  Scads of articles in Sky and Telescope, Astronomy,
|> etc, document this.  Many public observatories can provide information 
|> on light pollution and how to reduce it.
|> 
|> >Additionally, astronomists have found Earth bound celestial viewing
|> >increasingly difficult as more of the planet is urbanized.  That means
|> >that astronomists are forced to make only "guesstimations" when dealing
|> >with astronomical matters.  
|> 
|> This is false.  Some large observatories have been severely impacted,
|> but new ones have been built in remote areas that are free of light 
|> pollution, so it's not a matter of guesstimates having to be made, 
|> but it does mean that things are more expensive and that some large 
|> observatories are limited as to what they can see.
|> 
|> >Some psychologists have also asserted that humanity as a whole is being
|> >impacted by the lack of stars readily viewable in the night sky.  They say
|> >that urban societies are unable to contemplate thier origins.  This lack
|> >of thought has caused society to become restless and irritable.
|> 
|> I suspect this is unprovable one way or the other.  It does seem a real
|> shame though that few people now get to enjoy the beauty of a really
|> dark, star-filled sky on any sort of regular basis, and a significant number
|> of people may NEVER have taken in such a view.
|> 
|> >Can anyone reasonbly verify or deny all or one of these ideas?
|> 

This thread should be transferred to sci.astro I think...

As regards observatory location it is getting increasingle difficult to find truly dark sites on the
earth's surface. The one's that do exist are very remote and expensive to develop and
operate (eg Chilean mountain sites above the Atacama desert).

The growth in light pollution is such that many major observatories (eg Palomar mountain in California)
are becoming increasingly restricted as to the quality and type of observations that can be made. 
Our observatory in La Palma has been increasingly affected over the last 10 years - this is on
a fairly remote island in the Canaries.

On the positive side some areas are improving. In Tucson,Arizona near Kitt Peak observatory
the light pollution growth has actually been reversed in recent years. This is due to a long
campaign of advice and eventually legislation to get the right type of outdoor lighting 
installed. It can be done - it saves electricty as well!

In this country the impact of light pollution is more an aesthetic problem as there are no 
major professional optical observatories in the UK nowadays. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Taylor,                                      
Software Engineering Group,         INTERNET : pbt@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk
Royal Greenwich Observatory,
Madingley Road,
CAMBRIDGE.
CB3 0EZ.
UK
---------------------------------------------------------------------