Talk:Light pollution/Archive 2

Untitled
In the urban landscape that we live in, light pollution can have implications for the visual environment, but most importantly human health. Light pollution is a vastly real problem that is troublesome to humans. The issue is that even frail amounts of light can hinder our pineal gland from producing the favorable melatonin. Increased light exposure acting through the pineal gland reduces melatonin production, thereby declining the indeterminate on unaltered outcome of the pineal gland. In a indirect clash it would disturb people inside, who then turn on lights and bare themselves to more light. Introduction to light pollution at night may expand the risk of breast lymphoma by subduing the normal nighttime creation of melatonin by the pineal gland, that could expand the delivery of estrogen by the ovaries. The main cause of light pollution is the poor planning from engineers on the placement of our street lights, irresponsible usage of lights leaving them on while occupying another room, setting timers for lights, and leaving Christmas lights on all night.Donnabyrd01 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I souldnt ave started readin.
For real, what rural night sky actually looks like that? Has the person who made that picture ever actually SEEN a rural night sky, or is that just their imagined impression of what they are missing because "all of these beastly lights everywhere"? Or maybe it's just that they just WANT people to think that's what they are missing? The Milky Way looks like a pale blur. That's it. Next: "ALL light pollution is caused by unnecessary, inefficient or unattractive lighting" - oh really? So if you had free hand to go through and alter lighting to exactly the way you wanted it - but without removing any lights which people consider NECESSARY, like security lighting, or what have you, suddenly you'd be left with NO light pollution? NO sky glow? How do you figure that one out? We won't even go into lights which YOU think are ugly as hell but another person likes quite well, or which are totally necessary. I intensely dislike the fact that there is now a row of red blinking lights on the ridgeline 10 miles away, but if we don't have them a plane will end up crashing into the new wind turbines (which you probably thought were a great idea). In any case, no, not ALL light pollution is caused by unnecessary, inefficient or unattractive lighting. There would STILL be light pollution if you got rid of ALL tree of those categories, and as usual, even though YOU know what's best (don't you always?), that doesn't mean all the benighted and ignorant will agree with you. The cretins. Next, before I stop...I had to stop reading...what use is it saying "5 million barrels of oil per day in energy"? There is no-one burning OIL to make electricity. You can use that as an EQUIVALENT amount of energy, I suppose, if you didn't want to bother with scientific or actual units of energy, and were hoping to shock the public by using a scary sounding phrase like '5 Million barrels of oil wasted per day!".... but this seemed to be actually stating that the US literally burns 5 Million Barrels of Oil per day to run un-needed lighting. No, it doesn't. It really doesn't, and its disingenuous or outright lying to say that it is. At worst the equivalent amount of coal or natural gas is burned, but in reality a great deal of that energy comes from hyrdo or nuclear or even wind power. Barrels of oil is not a preferred unit of energy consumption. And if one wanted to be at all rigorous, how does that compare to TOTAL energy usage in the US? How much energy is wasted on OTHER things? How many actual, literal, barrels of oil are burned per day, and ow many of those are wasted in traffic jams? Suddenly your "statistics" start to cut the other way, which is probably why you didn't mention any of that. "5 million barrels of oil wasted per day!" sounds a lot scarier than "the US wastes 150,000,000 BTUS of energy per day (out of 266,000,000,000,000 BTUs of energy per day used). Oh, and why the hell tell us "30% total of energy goes to residential or commercial uses"? That tells us nothing about light pollution, or about how much energy is wasted on lighting; is that just put there to confuse people who can't read well into assuming it means that "30% of total national energy use is wasted on lighting"? Or it supposed to go with the next statistic, which says 20% of the energy they DO use is used on lighting? In which case it could be written more clearly: 30% of US energy usage goes to residential areas; 12-40% of THAT 30% is used on lighting. I had to quit while I was ahead though, because I was just getting too irritated at the way the whole thing was written. Maybe someday we could have an article that reflects the fact that NOT everyone agrees on how serious a problem light pollution is, or what benefits might accrue from reducing light emissions (apparently at the moment its primarily a problem of "educating" people into agreeing with you; how uncommon to ear that...), or what the best way to do that is. Right now it reads like a press release from a single organization with an agenda....and one that I won't take too seriously, once they start telling me "this is what you sky could look like a night" with an image taken out of a National Geographic, and how "the US WASTES 5 MILLION BARRELS of oil a DAY" running electric lights. After that, everything they say is suspect at best. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please write coherently? This isn't a forum for your personal views, please propose specific, sourced edits.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you would actually look at a microcandelas per square meter map of the rural skies you've seen you see that those location(s) are far from unpolluted and rural doesn't actually say much about the brightness of the sky. Much of Australia is fenced, legally owned ranches which is rural not wilderness yet but their sky is unpolluted or almost so while the 20+ miles of nothing but farms in central New Jersey is even brighter than your sky and brighter than many cities (this is actually a criticism of the level names of a common non-technical sky darkness scale which has poorly chosen names like "rural" (level 3) "rural-suburban transition" (level 4), and "suburban-urban transition" (level 7). The very same scale that says the summer Milky Way looking pale high-up instead of like veined marble is a sign that your sky is level 5 to 7 of 9. If the image you're complaining about is still up simply replacing the almost useless descriptor "rural" with "unpolluted" or "nearly unpolluted" or whatever is most accurate and that would've solved the entire misleadingness problem and hopefully prevented you from thinking everyone's dumb enough to lie about something that's easily verified by driving to the Sahara or Outback or the parts of the Western US who's overhead skies have less than 2.52 microcandelas per square meter of artificial surface brightness. And giving the eye at least 20-30 minutes of dark or dim red light to adapt and waiting for the Sun reach 18+ degrees below the horizon which are both in every damn book about astronomical observation. According to Bortle scale 1 even the glare of Venus or Jupiter can reduce the dimmest star you can see, so yes the eye can see some very dim things if you let it. Also low-light threshold is one of the lowest symptoms of thin air so the ideal altitude is supposed to be 6,000 to 9,000 feet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I just removed "barrels of oil". Feel free to edit the article yourselves. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by XChen0219 (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)