Bad News-Lights Back On

[Scooot]

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 November 3, 2019 by Scooot

[MarsG76]

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

 

[johninderby]

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.

[MarsG76]

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....

[Carbon Brush]

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.

 

 

 

[Scooot]

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.”
 

[banjaxed]

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

[johninderby]

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.

[johninderby]

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. 🙄

[MarsG76]

8 minutes ago, johninderby said:

drop in demand

Thats what happens when power is priced out of affordability.

 

[johninderby]

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 November 3, 2019 by johninderby

[Davey-T]

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

[johninderby]

Yes we’re paying more per unit for the energy used but using less of it. 

[Carbon Brush]

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.

[JamesF]

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

[Scooot]

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 November 3, 2019 by Scooot

[johninderby]

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. 

[Scooot]

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.

[maw lod qan]

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.

[Ibbo!]

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

[Scooot]

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

[Ibbo!]

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

[Scooot]

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.  

[Scooot]

I’ve found this review by Lincolnshire council.

https://lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s22194/Appendix A.pdf

I doubt the Essex councillors haven’t seen it so I imagine they’re pandering to people’s perceptions rather than the facts. 

[johninderby]

https://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/cfds_issues.php?topic=crime

A good source of info is police crime statistics. 

There is this old very in depth (67 pages) study that showed no real difference.

https://www.celfosc.org/biblio/seguridad/atkins.pdf

Edited November 3, 2019 by johninderby