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.

Recommended Posts

I was told by a friend who has close ties with the council that Basildon District are abandoning their part-night lighting in a few weeks. Apparently the street lights which currently go off at 1am are going to be left on at cost of circa £275,000 per year. They are supposedly going to fund this from reserves.
Anyway, did a bit of googling and found this  https://www.basildon.gov.uk/article/7711/In-the-news-Councillors-united-behind-plan-to-switch-street-lights-back-on-through-night

I wonder how many people will notice!

Edited by Scooot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously they don't care about the environment, burning more fossil fuels to keep the lights on.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it seems that Councillors use a different form of logic to the rest of us and don’t care about saving money. 🙄

BTW renewable energy has now overtaken fossil fuels as a source of energy in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Sometimes it seems that Councillors use a different form of logic to the rest of us and don’t care about saving money. 🙄

BTW renewable energy has now overtaken fossil fuels as a source of energy in the UK.

Really?.. surely not solar?? Wind farms perhaps....

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Nottinghmashire, a few years ago there was a scheme to turn off lights in villages and small towns. Leaving on mains roads, city centres, etc.

The scheme was rolled out, with some trepidation from those left in the dark.

However, a couple of years later the county hall front door was repainted following an election.
Despite a complete absence of data to demonstrate a rise in crime, or trips over things, and the like during the dark ages, the lights were turned back on.

Now most fossil fuel (solid and liquid) I have seen is black. That is coal and oil. When burnt it produces carbon dioxide, and more.
The 'biomass' otherwise known as North American forests, being burnt in the UK in lieu of coal, again produces carbon dioxide.
The stuff you can't see, natural gas, methane, still produces carbon dioxide.
This has nothing to do with the county hall door being red, blue, or black, or yellow, or orange.
Maybe green might have an influence?

I long ago gave up on my county council having any sense. Having seen a plethora of incorrect road signs, even some incorrect route signs!
Then there are the stupidly placed lights, incorrect street light types with the luminaire in a tree canopy.....

David.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I’ve just sent off my complaint to the council. Not that it’ll make any difference.

”I understand the council intend to abandon the Part-Night Lighting project and leave the lights on at night in the district instead of turning them off at 1am.
Have you no concern for the planet, our environment or our health? Not to mention the waste of money or resources. 

It is well known that light at night affects our circadian rhythms and body clocks. It is also proven to contribute to health problems. Studies show that nightshift workers are at increased risk of a range of health problems, from stress, constipation and stomach ulcers to depression, heart disease and cancer. For example, a 2001 study in Seattle, based on interviews with 800 women, found that females who worked the graveyard shift could face a 60% increase in the risk of breast cancer.


Leaving the lights on also seriously affects the nocturnal habits of animals. Nocturnal animals sleep during the day and are active at night. Light pollution radically alters their nighttime environment by turning night into day.

According to research scientist Christopher Kyba, for nocturnal animals, “the introduction of artificial light probably represents the most drastic change human beings have made to their environment.”

“Predators use light to hunt, and prey species use darkness as cover,” Kyba explains “Near cities, cloudy skies are now hundreds, or even thousands of times brighter than they were 200 years ago. We are only beginning to learn what a drastic effect this has had on nocturnal ecology.”

Glare from artificial lights can also impact wetland habitats that are home to amphibians such as frogs and toads, whose nighttime croaking is part of the breeding ritual. Artificial lights disrupt this nocturnal activity, interfering with reproduction and reducing populations.

Birds that migrate or hunt at night navigate by moonlight and starlight. Artificial light can cause them to wander off course and toward the dangerous nighttime landscapes of cities. Every year millions of birds die colliding with needlessly illuminated buildings and towers. Migratory birds depend on cues from properly timed seasonal schedules. Artificial lights can cause them to migrate too early or too late and miss ideal climate conditions for nesting, foraging and other behaviors.

Many insects are drawn to light, but artificial lights can create a fatal attraction. Declining insect populations negatively impact all species that rely on insects for food or pollination. Some predators exploit this attraction to their advantage, affecting food webs in unanticipated ways.

Leaving the lights on means much more than wasting a few hundred thousand pounds, which could be spent more usefully on something else. Therefore you should seriously review this misguided decision.”

 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an excellent and informative letter, unfortunately no councillors will be able to understand it or even care 🙁

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarsG76 said:

Really?.. surely not solar?? Wind farms perhaps....

The combination of offshore wind farms and solar and biomass plants and the closing down of coal fired plants as well as a drop in demand have all contributed to to the UK getting more power from renewables than fossil fuels for the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fatal error in your letter is it is intended for those with intelligence and common sense not councillors. Pitch your letter at the average rwo year olds level of comprehension and it might have a chance. 🙄

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, johninderby said:

drop in demand

Thats what happens when power is priced out of affordability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MarsG76 said:

Thats what happens when power is priced out of affordability.

 

Actually no. 

“Since the turn of the millennium the UK’s energy consumption has been dropping steadily, despite a growing population and economy.It has fallen by almost 10 per cent in the past decade. Since 2010 alone, it has seen a drop in electricity use equivalent to two-and-a-half times the output of the Hinkley Point nuclear plant.

A move away from manufacturing and the high proportion of homes that use gas for heating and cooking are thought to be primary drivers of the decline, but individual actions such as increasing house insulation, more efficient appliances and LED lights etc.are playing a part. British households today, however, have similar or lower total energy costs than they had 10 years ago on average.“

Edited by johninderby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got an annual usage report from my electricity supplier and I've used 2% less electricity than the previous year so I'm doing my bit, and they're doing their bit by putting up my bill 3% to maintain their profit margin 😂

Dave

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power consumption may be dropping. Unfortunately for the astro community, our ability to make more light for less energy (money) has encouraged a prolifertion.
In round figures, a 10 watt LED can produce the same light as a 100 watt filament lamp.

The smaller (ccompared to filament) LED emitter, coupled with advances in metal forming and plastic moulding, and lower extraneous heat generation means it easy to produce a light fitting at low cost, encouraging more use.
Not good news at all.

I remember when I first started driving, only town centres had the bright sodium lights. Other places had mercury lights, ornothing.
A lot of people drove around the sodium areas on sidelights. Headlights were not required and there was a perceived reduction in dynamo wear.
That was when most of us had the standard Lucas round headlamp with replaceable bulb and awful light spread.
A popular comment among motorcyclists described a small pool of yellow light that got nearer to to the rider and seemed dimmer as speed increased.

Now we have car headlamps with complex reflectors and lenses to produce very efficient beam spread. Add to this more efficient halogen (small filament) bulbs, or other lighting methods, so we have extremely bright headlamps.
To counteract these, we obviously require bright street lighting everywhere.

Is my logic flawed?

David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, the wording in the article.  It seems clear that the residents "feel" safer and happier if the lights are on and that the councillors (at least want to give the impression that they) believe having the lights on does make people safer.  But at no point does anyone appear to address the issue of whether it does actually make anyone safer or not.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Interesting, the wording in the article.  It seems clear that the residents "feel" safer and happier if the lights are on and that the councillors (at least want to give the impression that they) believe having the lights on does make people safer.  But at no point does anyone appear to address the issue of whether it does actually make anyone safer or not.

James

I had a look at the Essex crime stats this morning on the police website. 
I used the months of Jan, April, August and December and did some quick calculations on the number of burglaries between 2010/2011 to 2014 and 2015 to 2018/19. The average number fell from 4634 to 4217. I realise this isn’t very scientific, (and I might have made some errors) and of course there is other crime, but it certainly lead me to believe that turning the lights off didn’t make things worse and on the face or it, improved things. 
 

https://www.ukcrimestats.com/Police_Force/Essex_Police

Edited by Scooot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it’s common knowledge that reducing lighting reduces crime and increasing lighting increases crime. There have been plenty of studies that prove it. Unfortunately many automatically assume the opposite and politicians pander to this public misconception rather than putting them straight although probably many if not most politicians also have this misconception. 

Hmmm, perhaps someone who has been burgled needs to sue a council that has increased lighting for damages. Think that’s the only way councils will take notice. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johninderby said:

it’s common knowledge that reducing lighting reduces crime and increasing lighting increases crime. There have been plenty of studies that prove it. Unfortunately many automatically assume the opposite and politicians pander to this public misconception rather than putting them straight although probably many if not most politicians also have this misconception. 

Hmmm, perhaps someone who has been burgled needs to sue a council that has increased lighting for damages. Think that’s the only way councils will take notice. 

Do you know any links to any of the studies? I’d like to read one or two and maybe send one. I think perhaps it’s common knowledge amongst SGL members but not so common knowledge amongst the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad seeing you deal with this issue and know over here in the states it is no different.

The lights here on buildings closed during the night hours, plus street lights over side walls where no one walks at night could reduce so much fuel usage if they just turned them off 4 or 5 hours after midnight.

I recently posted photos of a large bridge they are illuminating. The local TV station has decided to use color lighting on their radar structure to show what the weather will be. White, blue and red for clear rainy and severe.

One of the casinos near Miami has been built in the shape of a guitar. With no neck. They're beaming LED's up into the sky to make the strings

There is no thought to the cost, or pollution.

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Scooot said:

I had a look at the Essex crime stats this morning on the police website. 
I used the months of Jan, April, August and December and did some quick calculations on the number of burglaries between 2010/2011 to 2014 and 2015 to 2018/19. The average number fell from 4634 to 4217. I realise this isn’t very scientific, (and I might have made some errors) and of course there is other crime, but it certainly lead me to believe that turning the lights off didn’t make things worse and on the face or it, improved things. 
 

https://www.ukcrimestats.com/Police_Force/Essex_Police

Were any times on those crimes? ie ratio of daytime to nightime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ibbo! said:

Were any times on those crimes? ie ratio of daytime to nightime

No, couldn’t tell. However I thought that If overall burglaries fell when the lights went off it would be difficult to deduce that turning them off made Burglary more likely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason i asked was that I seem to remember a report saying the peak was around mid afternoon when school run was on

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ibbo! said:

The reason i asked was that I seem to remember a report saying the peak was around mid afternoon when school run was on

That’s interesting. Part-night lighting wouldn’t change that then. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Asghar
      Hey guys,
       
      I'm new here and thus question has been on my head all day. Tell me your thoughts! The light pollution is p******* me off!
    • By Phillips6549
      Just found this.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/amp/49836623
      Let's hope it is a success and the good folk of Switzerland enjoy some clear dark skies. 
    • By Captain Magenta
      Last year I was given a Unihedron SQM-L, the narrow field of view version of their gadget for measuring night-sky brightness. Since then, I’ve nipped outside to take zenith readings whenever I’ve been able, often a few times per night. As a result I now have 85 data-points, all from my back garden in Sunbury on Thames which rates a 19.04 on www.lightpollutionmap.info . As it turns out, this agrees well with the data I’ve collected.
      The darkest I’ve measured at this location has been 19.13, with 4 records better than 19.05 and 10 better than 19.00.
      Plotted against Moon altitude, it looks like:

      One thing I noticed very early on was that the reading generally gets darker and darker as the night goes on. The chart below suggests the data agrees, but how strongly I’m not adept enough yet with my statistics to work out. If anyone fancies doing this for me, I’d be grateful, I’ve attached the data .csv file I think to the end of this post.

      The data itself: each record contains date, time[GMT], SQM value, Moon phase, Moon altitude . For the purposes of my analysis, I’ve converted the time value into hoursafter6pm, which allows the intercept of the regression solution to be loosely considered as the “6pm starting point” for the darkness estimation, which is OK for this dataset as my data is all from this latest Autumn/Winter.
      I’ve done an “ordinary least-squares” regression with multiple input variables. At first glance it seems to me that the SQ vs altitude chart above should not behave well with that: there’s a clear kink, intuitively obvious I guess, at the point the Moon altitude goes negative.
      To cope with that, I divided my data into two and did three separate regressions: “Moon up” data, “Moon down”, and “All data” but treating phase and altitude as zero if the Moon is below -5 degrees (I chose -5 degrees arbitrarily).
      With Moon up, I decided the SQM value will depend on Time of Night, Moon Altitude and Phase. With Moon down, it only needs to depend on time of night.
      Thus my regression model is:
      SkyQual = a + b.timeafter6pm + c.phase + d.altitude + residual
      or rearranged
      residual = a + b.timeafter6pm + c.phase + d.altitude – SkyQual
      The analysis involves minimizing the sum of (the squares of the) residuals, by hunting around for the appropriate values of a, b, c & d which yields this minimum. I used MS Excel’s built-in Solver to do the “hunting around”.
      The following table summarizes the results:

      In words, using “Moon Up” as my subject, my Sky Quality, in magnitudes per arc-second, can be estimated as
      19.28 mags/arc-sec
      plus 0.0314 /hour
      minus 0.864 /full-phase (or 0.216 /quarter)
      minus 0.0186 /degree above horizon (or 0.186 /10 degrees).
      This is a pretty simple analysis. I’m sure there’s theory and formulae available relating Moon-altitude and -phase to extra sky brightness, but I haven’t used any of that here. And the “error model” I’ve used implicitly assumes that the relationships between SQM-reading and the variables are linear.
      If anyone is curious and wishes to do their own analysis, my raw-ish data is available as a .csv file attachment at the end of this post.
      Cheers,
      Magnus
       
      A note about the data collection: each reading is an average of a few readings at a given time, with outliers rejected. For instance, often the first press yields an outlier, and over the following few seconds subsequent ones tend to settle down. So the series of readings 19.05 (me getting excited), 18.85, 18.86, 18.86 , which is a quite typical pattern, would cause me to record 18.86. My highest recorded reading, 19.13, was indeed where it settled down.
      Other “one-on-one” charts:
         
      SQMLdata201903.csv
    • By Gfamily
      I gave a demonstration/workshop at my local Astro Group* about a simple way of removing light pollution from an Astro Photo. 
      The description I gave was deliberately for beginners, using a wide angle tripod shot photo and using one of the easiest packages to get to grips with (Paint.net). 
      The attached pdf covers the basic technique. 
      I'd appreciate any feedback on it. 
       
       
       
      * The Mid Cheshire Astronomical Group - all welcome, we meet on the last Friday of the Month.
      LP MCAG.pdf
    • By laser_jock99
      Congratulations to Welsh photographer Alyn Wallace for getting National Geographic Photo Of The Day for these pictures of the Elan Valley night sky.
      https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/photography/amazing-images-wales-starlight?fbclid=IwAR0hz92NXMnCh-ZaMw_MyFNkjKhRHYXIZLcygZGkTV_lHpNjjtvHWtNDXZg
       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.