Talk:Light pollution/to do

Its members are universities, public administrations, representatives of manifacturing industries and so on. It produced a specific standard UNI 10819 to (very theoretically) protect the sky from light pollution and some lectures to defend it against the hordes of people that recognized how that standard LEGALIZED light pollution rather than reduce it, but if every one agree I can try to translate their thoughts. To point out how scientists can vary their opinions about this topic it could be useful to summarize prof Zichichi article on catholic magazine "Famiglia Cristiana" and the remarks of prof Maffei, an italian astronomer who pionereed infrared photografic surveys to Zichichi's article. Again, I can traslate. As a final suggestion based on my own experience in Italy I have to remark that the "dispute" about light pollution depends on the strong relationship that links light and energy industries, universities, politicians. Light and energy industries are trying to increase profits and do not accept any regulamentation, universities have to defend their own business and do not like that someone else discovers and applies cheaper and environmental safe lighting rules, politicians fear to lose a powerful argument to gain votes, summarized as "daylight intensity lighting for safety against crime". But I have to remark that only 7 1/2 italian regions on 20, 40% of land and 30% of population have to bear "industrial" lighting rules: in 2007 Liguria, Friuli Venezia Giulia and half of Trentino Alto Adige rejected UNI standards to adopt "zero lighting above lamps" rules. How can exist a "dispute" about light pollution when the majority of a nation says that night skies have to be protected ? --195.210.65.30 (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is inaccurate in "Measurement of light pollution and Global Effects" section to say that work by Cinzano et al. "measures" the sky glow by using DMSP observations - this discussion should be corrected to say that this work provides a crude estimate using a model, and only of the zenith. For example, it uses sea-level atmospheric conditions everywhere, which cannot give accurate results in western US nor in aerosol-laden areas. Further, the photometric accuracy of the DMSP data has not been established and has been questioned in the refereed literature. Since someone else wrote this section, I will let them revise unless I am asked to do so. Cluginbuhl (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a specific organization that suppress any efforts to give Italy a unique national bill against light pollution, which is Ente Nazionale di Unificazione, founded in the early years of 1900 to standardize industrial testing, materials, procedures and so on.


 * Check that references are formatted properly, both in the references list and in the article. Seems to be done now. Izogi 03:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand the table of luminaires in the Adjusting types of lighting section.
 * This list is based on data in the IDA Information Sheet 52, which still needs to be cited.
 * For the record, that particular IDA information sheet might not be a reliable source... see this discussion. Izogi 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * i tend to agree with izogi and question the validity of this as a source Anlace 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand the Organisations section so that it explains a bit about the formation of various organisations, instead of just listing a couple.
 * It might be useful to include a lighting engineering organisation or two, if there are any prominent ones.
 * Are there any well known organisations that actively counter what anti-LP campaigners say? If so, it's probably worth mentioning them to maintain a neutral point of view.
 * Add a more specific citation for the information in Interruption of the eco-system which refers to Michael Mesure's comments about the deaths of millions of birds. (Although I don't doubt he's said it, I couldn't find a reference, myself -- Izogi) ''Well tidied up by a helpful anonymous user&mdash;Thanks heaps. Izogi 10:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the text in the Types of light pollution section might actually belong in the Consequences of light pollution section, or maybe not.
 * Consider expanding the section about Redesigning lighting plans, or perhaps merge it into other sections. It seems a bit short right now. Done. Izogi 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Should the paragraph about Calgary be moved to this section? Done. Izogi 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe think about adding a section to do with the current state of light pollution around the world. (Don't know how this would work, but the text about Utah having the least LP in the US doesn't seem to fit well in the Consequences of light pollution section.) Thoughts? Izogi 8 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)
 * Note something about pollution of the radio spectrum. (This may actually warrant its own article, but it should at least be cited here.) Izogi Added a disambiguation page and (for now) linked it to a radio spectrum pollution stub. Izogi 05:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Establish better link to Lighting article and to energy conservation in generalAnlace 17:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)