Petition to regulate light pollution

[Physopto]

Petition voting count now at 5,017

Astro Buy and Sell visits to add at 755. So hoping a good proportion of those is added into the petition votes counted, I know two came from Opticstar.

Well off to do some more turf laying.

[Jonk]

Slight diversion but still on topic. Just saw this in the evening standard.

No doubt this will happen everywhere it can.

W

 

[Jonk]

Sorry, that was the paper's comment, here is the article.

[RWB]

I am starting to think that all this global warming stuff is a lot of hot air;-all this lighting 'landmarks' et al

and the fact that in my 'neck of the woods' the council is changing roundabouts to cross roads with traffic lights,

even low power lights have a much bigger carbon footprint than a roundabout!! So go figure !!!

or am I missing something ???

rant over! clear and pollution free skies for all  ( I hope)

        Regards

                             Robin 

[Physopto]

What a waste of money and an attack on common sense! If it goes ahead I am willing to bet it is all done with nice new FULL SPECTRUM L.E.D.s

There is a thread here on SGL where someone is asking about imaging from within  London. The spread of these L.E.D.s will very soon stop all views of the sky due to either directly aimed skyward lighting and/or  reflected light  Heavily populated and congested areas such as London, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow, the list will increase, will lose out probably within the next ten years.. The area does not even have to be heavily populated if, as in London, they just want more lights to shine on a building or structure.

It can make you wonder why bother with this petition. My view on this is that we will have at least tried. The votes if they reach 10,000 and I think they will, will then be on record and cannot be denied. The Government can then never  deny any knowledge of the perceived threat.

There are apparently some health concerns to do with cancer being caused by either long term exposure to fluorescent and some L.E.D. lighting.

So this petition is important regardless of the outcome not only to us as astronomers  but possibly to the wider public.

5,040 votes now.

[Stub Mandrel]

<FACEPALM>

Dear Sadiq Khan,

I am aghast at the proposal to light up all of London's bridges on a permanent basis.

I and many of my fellow astronomers and environmentalists are campaigning against light pollution which affects human health, contributes to global warming, disrupts biodiversity and natural cycles, interferes with the clearing of smog by nitrogen radicals at night and robs us all of the glories of the night sky.

Please reconsider this folly, or at least amend the competition to require entrants to come up with solutions that must use lights that do not spill more than 80-degress from straight down.

You might wish to take a look at the petition we are promoting here:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/119428

 

You may wish to send a similar comment:

http://www.sadiqkhan.org.uk/contact

 

[caracol_uk]

I've just sent a reply along the same lines also.

Simon

[Skipper Billy]

I have written to Nicola Sturgeon asking for her support.  She is usually up for a poke at the government!

[Physopto]

Just sent an email off to sadiq@sadiqkhan.org.uk.

"

Dear Sadiq Khan,

The Evening Standard recently published an article outlining your intention for your plans costing £20 million to illuminate all the major bridges across the Thames.

I am bewildered by this asinine suggestion of illuminating many, if not all of London's bridges on a permanent basis. We should be reducing this waste of resources not exacerbating them.

As an British amateur astronomer, at present I am campaigning against light pollution which not only affects human and animal health, contributes the disruption of biodiversity and circadian cycles. As a species we seem to completely disregard the welfare of any other animal on the planet, either for our own gain or just because we can.  The present levels of lighting across the country adds to global warming in a way that could very easily be reduced without any harm to us as a civilisation.

There appears is no valid reason for this new initiative short of vanity or greed.

The power wastage due to lighting up these structures is a complete waste of this planets scant resources. It does not matter how efficient a light may be. If it is not necessary then it is not needed. Why should we feel need to compete with a foreign power just to be bigger or better. The waste of energy is pointless, the monetary cost may be in some ways recuperated but not the ongoing damage to the environment. In short it seems to be a vanity driven and money making exercise, possibly to coin in a profit for those with power and influence.

Vanity is not a good reason to allow this waste of our resources.

Any unnecessary lighting will either directly or reflectively illuminate the night sky causing further loss of our view of the stars. I can see no valid reason to allow this new threat to our skies or planet.

New types of L.E.D. lighting are being made using utilising full spectrum emission. Once this type of lighting is widespread it will decimate the ability to see any of the night sky from within towns and cities. This new type of lighting has not been researched properly and is certainly not being even close to being implemented correctly.

It would be simple to replace the present Sodium and Mercury street lights with lower power requirement  L.E.D. versions of the same. These could better shielded and directed, utilising the same narrow Sodium and Mercury wavelengths presently in use.

If you really feel the need to illuminate a structure at night, then at least switch off after 11:00 PM. Use less invasive lower powered properly constructed and directed lighting!

You might wish to take a look at the petition we are promoting here:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/119428

"

Todays Vote count is 5110 and view number on Astro Buy and Sell is 785.

We are just short at 93 votes for the day, but good enough at present. Can we do better?

Derek

[mapstar]

Quite a letter Derek, I'll try the same when i get chance 

[Physopto]

just received a weekly news  email from Telescope House with their Prize Draw info in it. It also has this  reference.

Well done Telescope House.

[caracol_uk]

? I had an email exchange with someone at Telescope House earlier in the week at which point they agreed to do this. Let's hope we see a boost in signatures over the weekend as today hasn't seen as many as recently.

Regards

Simon

[Galactic Wanderer]

Just this letter off to letter to Sadiq Khan as well as sending it to Evening Standard letters.

Dear Evening Standard,

I have recently seen your article, announcing that all the bridges on the Thames are to be illuminated.

Me and my fellow astronomers are strongly against this for three reasons.

terrible. Nowadays, you can barely see Jupiter! Where I live in Hackney, I can see only about 20-30 stars with my naked eye. alreadyFirstly, this will add to light pollution in London which is

Secondly, is it the best use of public money during times of austerity? Aren’t our bridges perfectly safe for motorists and pedestrians already? When I go through to Battersea park via Battersea bridge at night, I see lots of streetlights everywhere! It’s the same with all the other bridges on the Thames.

  Illuminating bridges will apparently cost £200 million. Wouldn’t this be better spent or on our London NHS hospitals instead of this project during these times of austerity?

Last but not least, light pollution is an increasingly national problem that is mobilising thousands of people. More than 5,000 people have recently signed a petition across Britain to regulate Light pollution.

London should be leading the way on this issue, not setting a bad example.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/119428

Seb

[Galactic Wanderer]

Also good to send out lots of individual letters instead of big group letters

[scarp15]

It will also be worth while passing this information onto walking and outdoor pursuits forums. I had been a member of 

www.outdoorsmagic.com

so have re-registered and placed this proposal into a thread (at least as best I can, as currently  have only my phone). Targeting walkers, cyclists, mountaineers etc may be an incentive for a whole bunch of new people to became involved in this petition.

Edit: managed to put the link onto outdoorsmagic correctly.

[mapstar]

A bit of tweeting today with a nice scope pic to catch the eye of passers by 

[Physopto]

Todays figure are 5,197 votes and 817 visits to AB&S.

Only 87 votes since yesterday same time.

[Physopto]

Newry and Amagh Population around 78,000, is now showing 1 vote on the petition map.

[Pathfoot]

A propos of all this light pollution concern and its impact on astronomers, I note that plans for the opening of the 2020 Olympics include setting off an artificially created meteor shower from a satellite. 

 

[Physopto]

If true, why not just kick a few of the older obsolete ones out of orbit instead! The mind boggles.....

New ways to annoy people and waste money I suppose.

[Pathfoot]

I don't have TV, but I saw a clip about it while visiting my daughter, and I think it worked out about $8,000 per meteor. Whether it will upset local meteor observers' plans I don't know, but it does seem that spectacle is become more important than the spirit of the games. panem et circenses.

[Physopto]

Unfortunately been a very slow day. Only just got to 100 vote since yesterdays total at 12:45. 5,210.

[caracol_uk]

Over the past few days the number of signatures has been steadily dropping, and at this rate we'll fall short of our 10k goal by some way. After contacting my local bat group I received a positive response. The person I contacted signed the petition and posted a link on their facebook page which resulted in further signatures. So, I have just sent emails to the vast majority of the other bat groups across the UK. I couldn't find email addresses for all of them, but the list of addresses totalled 78 so hopefully that should generate some interest, particularly if some of them pass on the information to their members as I suggested.

Ironically it's the first time the poor weather has actually been a benefit to astronomy as far as I'm concerned. At least it means we have more time to push this campaign! After trying to increase awareness of light pollution over the past few weeks it's quite clear that many people have no real interest in the night sky or wildlife, despite the fact they watched Stargazing Live when it was on TV. If the link between "Light at Night" and some types of cancer were better known it would probably make quite a difference to this campaign.

Simon

[Physopto]

Well just as an update I sent an email to a Bat group which I know was read but there has been no proper reply. (lworledge@bats.org.uk) I also sent two others to ayoungman@bats.org.uk  and slucas@bats.org.uk

Both of which I am still awaiting a reply.

The emails to newspapers totalled about 20 plus without a single reply so far.

Derek

[Stub Mandrel]

42 minutes ago, caracol_uk said:

After trying to increase awareness of light pollution over the past few weeks it's quite clear that many people have no real interest in the night sky or wildlife, despite the fact they watched Stargazing Live when it was on TV. If the link between "Light at Night" and some types of cancer were better known it would probably make quite a difference to this campaign.

I don't think that's fair, this petition is just one of a hundred  or a thousand things every day vying for their attention. Most people will be more familiar with Mohammed Ali and be feeling like posting their feelings than signing a petition they don't really understand.

For most people light pollution simply isn't an issue they have ever thought about, they are highly unlikely to react to a single exposure asking them to act. On a 1 to 1 basis you could probably persuade most people to sign, buy making a case that was directly relevant to their interests and level of understanding.

To (stealing from marketing, but it really is the same situation) convince people, from 'cold' of a case for action you need to make them aware of the issue (typically takes three exposures to the issue), then  develop interest - just because you know about something, you may not actually be interested, then you need to develop a desire for change - get people to actually think reducing LP is a good idea, the finally they will be open to the call for action.

We can't expect many people to be at the 'ready for action' stage where a single email is enough to make them sign.

 

I don't mean to sound negative; the efforts you and others are putting in to contacting groups that have some existing awareness/interest like bat groups, astronomy groups etc. is really the best strategy we have, unless we can get some form of national publicity happening. The message is keep pestering, and pester those already likely to sign. I will send out some reminders to people I have already nudged once next week, in the form of an 'update'; so it doesn't offend anyone who has signed and asking them to get other people to sign.

 

Final thought, the theory of reasoned action suggests people are more likely to sign if they think their peers are signing, because that shows it is 'socially acceptable behaviour', so if emailing bat groups again in a week or two, put in a quote from a bat group that has taken some action etc.

I hope that comes across as positive... or at least not too negative.