Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

  • Announcements

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_nb_dso.jpg.eb6cd158659331fd13e71470af6da381.jpg

Scott

daily mail light pollution

Recommended Posts

JamesF    7,769

I thought I recognised the setup as soon as I saw the garden with two domes in.  There was a thread discussing multi-scope rigs a week or so ago and his was mentioned.

I would however like to damn the author of the article to hell and back for "He only took up stargazing in 2002 when he brought his first telescope."  GAH!

The word is "bought".  B-O-U-G-H-T.  The past tense of "he buys".  Not "he brought", which is the past tense of "be brings".  I cannot believe that a hack and his editor allowed such a glaring error through.

James

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesF    7,769

And he has at least a couple, possibly three Tele Vue refractors in that 4-scope rig, on a Paramount mount.  Is £3,000 what he told his wife it cost? :D

James

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naemeth    1,036

And he has at least a couple, possibly three Tele Vue refractors in that 4-scope rig, on a Paramount mount.  Is £3,000 what he told his wife it cost? :D

James

I thought that, £3k each observatory!? He did pretty well to convince anyone they cost £3k each  :rolleyes:. Perhaps the DM are merely quoting what the domes themselves cost, which is misleading to say the least :evil:.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bambuko    231

It is surprising how many daily wail (closet) readers admit to this affliction here :grin:

It is curable - for example if you are using Firefox there is an excellent Add-on: Kitten Block 1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott    4,656

It is surprising how many daily wail (closet) readers admit to this affliction here :grin:

It is curable - for example if you are using Firefox there is an excellent Add-on: Kitten Block 1.2

sorry, if you could point me towards the non-elitist/intellectual snob forum I'll post there in future. remind me again why people think astronomers are nerds/geeks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesF    7,769

and here's me thinking l.p. was the important part of this story ;)

I'm not really sure what the point of the article is, to be honest.  It doesn't specifically mention light pollution, just that the new LED lights are "stronger" than the existing sodium ones, missing entirely the point that both are a problem in terms of light pollution, but that the sodium one can be filtered whereas the LED one can't.

But the entire premise of the piece that he will be "forced" to move because of this streetlight is ridiculous.  He's no more forced to move by the streetlight than I am forced to move by the persistent rain that prevents me observing.  He may choose to move if the as yet uninstalled LED light does have an impact on his hobby, but that's a different issue entirely.

I just don't get what the article is trying to say.  Is it that LED lighting is bad?  Or that sodium lighting is good?  Or that Hampshire CC is bad because its careless attitude towards its taxpayers forces them to move home?  Or that someone who is "rich" enough to have £6,000 worth of observatories in his back garden for a hobby shouldn't be invconvenienced by the needs of the council?  It just seems to randomly witter on about different things without coming to a specific point.  I'm really not sure it does astronomers any favours, as it certainly has the potential to make us look like whinging "rich kids" who don't like what's being done allegedly to save money and/or to increase road safety.

James

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bambuko    231

Solent News who are the "source" for this feature say on their web page:

...Want to see your story in national magazines?

Do you have a story to tell about heart-break, trauma, betrayal, friendship, crime or weight loss? Then we can help you sell it to a magazine or newspaper...

  :grin:

I guess the chap involved has availed himself to the service of this agency ...

ps auspom - true, I am nerdy geek :laugh: , but it's nothing to do with astronomy :tongue:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott    4,656

I'm not really sure what the point of the article is, to be honest.  It doesn't specifically mention light pollution, just that the new LED lights are "stronger" than the existing sodium ones, missing entirely the point that both are a problem in terms of light pollution, but that the sodium one can be filtered whereas the LED one can't.

But the entire premise of the piece that he will be "forced" to move because of this streetlight is ridiculous.  He's no more forced to move by the streetlight than I am forced to move by the persistent rain that prevents me observing.  He may choose to move if the as yet uninstalled LED light does have an impact on his hobby, but that's a different issue entirely.

I just don't get what the article is trying to say.  Is it that LED lighting is bad?  Or that sodium lighting is good?  Or that Hampshire CC is bad because its careless attitude towards its taxpayers forces them to move home?  Or that someone who is "rich" enough to have £6,000 worth of observatories in his back garden for a hobby shouldn't be invconvenienced by the needs of the council?  It just seems to randomly witter on about different things without coming to a specific point.  I'm really not sure it does astronomers any favours, as it certainly has the potential to make us look like whinging "rich kids" who don't like what's being done allegedly to save money and/or to increase road safety.

James

you've read the article previously and found it to be in your opinion rubbish (have I got that right?), so rather than ignore this thread and move on, you thought it would be more entertaining to belittle it by droning on about the journalism... well played JamesF...well played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pig    4,807

Not only that, but the error appears twice!

James

At least his incompetence is consistent   :smiley:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DRT    4,797

I suspect the two white buildings cost £3000 each, when they were empty :wink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesF    7,769

you've read the article previously and found it to be in your opinion rubbish (have I got that right?), so rather than ignore this thread and move on, you thought it would be more entertaining to belittle it by droning on about the journalism... well played JamesF...well played.

No, you have it wrong.  But either way your response appears to be to attack me as opposed to defending the article or arguing that my point of view is flawed.  No matter.  I'm not one to take offence at such things.  And if you feel I have been having a go at you in posting about this article then I do apologise.  That was never my intent.

I have never seen the article before you linked to it.  I do however find it appallingly badly written to the point where I just don't understand where exactly the writer is coming from or what message he is trying to convey.  And I'm afraid I don't believe it's a very positive piece from the point of view of preventing light pollution.  My suspicion is that it is largely a space-filler article written with enough of a hook that some people will either get wound up that the council is somehow destroying the life of someone it has no business interfering with, or that some "rich chap" is whining about the council behaving reasonably.  I equally suspect that he has no interest in the issue of light pollution otherwise he'd have made rather a better job of it.

True enough, I could have ignored it.  But everyone should have the right and freedom to claim that the Emperor has no clothes.  I am so doing.  In my opinion the article is incoherent, meandering and largely free of meaningful content.  You are absolutely free to disagree with me and I will defend your right to do so.  Or to ignore me, which, to be fair, most people probably do.

So, if you think it's a positive article about light pollution let's hear why.  Persuade me I'm wrong.  I am genuinely open to having my mind changed.  It may not be quite the response the writer wished for, but before once can decide whether one agrees or disagrees with his point of view one must first decide what his point of view is, surely?

James

Edited by JamesF
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knobby    2,473

I can see your point James... It's a bit of a rambling poorly researched article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
barkis    3,990

Why get so riled up by the Daily Mail guys. Most newspapers are economic with the truth when they do their reporting. They're in the business of selling their particular comics .

So, Greg Parker got a place in the Mail, and it got glossed up a bit.  Who got hurt here then?  

Parker is a renowned Astro. Imager,  so, No surprise their, It's true.   He has a pair of Domed Observatories in his lovely garden, that's true too. Probably did set him back 3 grand each.

The equipment in there would cost him well in excess of the Domes cost, but the paper forgot that bit. Doesn't matter really, we all know it was more bread than the DM stated.

An oversight, and a bad one I admit, but the end of the world it isn't.  Remote Imaging is commonplace, but they chose Greg Parkers setup to highlight the topic, probably because it is very picturesque.

They showed a picture of a camera, it's focusing mechanism stepper motor controlled, he was imaging widefield targets in the Milky Way, and from a remote position. Makes sense to me, able to adjust the lens remotely,

and I'm sure he would do that after each sub, the guy is a good Imager, so why shouldn't he refocus  subs.? makes sense.

Be nice just to enjoy the results Parker, or anyone else produces of our night skies. We have some superb  Imaging people on SGL, and I would never dream of criticising their work, however they achieved the results, short of plagiarism that is.

So try not to get yourselves at loggerheads over this, no sense in spoiling friendships, or common purposes over an article in a suspect Newspaper.

Ron.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cath    1,106

The articles content level may indeed be zero, but it's got the comic what it wanted though - publicity. The general public know nothing about the subject, but that is the advantage the dm has over them, they get to print anything they like.

Such is todays level of life on poor old planet Earth :(

As Mum always used to tell us .. "It'll all come out in the wash"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesF    7,769

I do agree with Ron regarding Greg's skill as an imager.  That is not being called into question here in any way whatsoever.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pig    4,807

Its good to see a little passion in our forums from time to time though, both ajmes and csott are great guys :grin:  :evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tich    1,348

I'm not going to get into it the newspaper journalism but moving house because of an LED street light seems a bit severe, surely he can get the council to shield it or am I missing something?  I watched BBC's inside out last January & they reckon that the light from them is directional & pointed downwards rather than having wasted light bleeding into the atmosphere so I guess we won't know what the skies will be like until they get changed. Mind you saying that you've still got offices, retail parks & business parks to contend with as they aren't regulated for light pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
barkis    3,990

Its good to see a little passion in our forums from time to time though, both ajmes and csott are great guys :grin:  :evil:

Nothing wrong with friendly banter, and the occasional tit for tat little jibe at one another, as long as it doesn't

get nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bambuko    231

...as long as it doesn't get nasty.

Trouble is that people's definition of what's nasty varies...

Most of the people seem to have such thin skin and take everything very personal :embarassed:

What I considered to be friendly banter ended up with OP getting emotional :grin:

Water off the duck's back, even if "elitist/intellectual snob" and "nerds/geeks" were suggested :tongue:

and... there is little incentive for the mods to permit anything other than totally "safe" , so I doubt this temporary allowing of passions will last long :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svenito    34

I'm not going to get into it the newspaper journalism but moving house because of an LED street light seems a bit severe, surely he can get the council to shield it or am I missing something?  I watched BBC's inside out last January & they reckon that the light from them is directional & pointed downwards rather than having wasted light bleeding into the atmosphere so I guess we won't know what the skies will be like until they get changed. Mind you saying that you've still got offices, retail parks & business parks to contend with as they aren't regulated for light pollution.

LA has had a large portion of their streetlights swapped for LEDs and they seem to have made a vast difference. Although it's hard to tell if these photos have been "enhanced" or not, but still, people are sounding positive about them

http://cleantechla.international.ucla.edu/projects/article.asp?parentid=1308

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/20/los-angeles-has-swapped-out-140-000-street-lights-for-highly-efficient-leds.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
barkis    3,990

I apologise for raising this in this thread, but I would like to make it clear about Banter, which are nothing but give and take friendly jibes. 

We have over 30,000 members on SGL, UK, plus many International participants.  A great number of the membership are family based, and the Code of Conduct is clear about the behaviour we expect

from the people who partake in the discussions on all the boards available to them. Everyone  who joins here, is deemed to have read the CoC. as a condition of acceptance into the forums.

The mods are not selective when applying the rules, we are members the same as everyone else here, merely given the job of trying to keep the forum a fit place for everyone to feel comfortable and safe.

When a moderator intervenes it is only because it is warranted, based on one or two infractions of the rules laid down. Most  people in those instances, accept it, and invariably apologise, and move on, which is great for everyone.

There are others who will take exception to being questioned about their conduct, and feel it's a slur against their character, which is nonsense. Once they accept they have erred, that's the end of the matter, and we all move on.

There have been some in the past who want let go. Their egos won't let them, and so there is a parting of the ways, their choice, not ours in every case.

So there it is, a little banter is harmless, but if it gets vicious, then that's another scenario all together. We do have a superb place in which to Teach, Learn and thoroughly enjoy our chosen way of life  (I just can't call it a hobby).

An errant few will never be allowed to spoil it fore the many.

Ron.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×