staletí smetteranno vraagjes satisfait rap

A more recent discussion (2009), written by Professor Steven Lockley, Harvard Medical School, can be found in the CfDS handbook “Blinded by the Light?”.[50] Chapter 4, “Human health implications of light pollution” states that “… light intrusion, even if dim, is likely to have measurable effects on sleep disruption and melatonin suppression. Even if these effects are relatively small from night to night, continuous chronic circadian, sleep and hormonal disruption may have longer-term health risks”. The New York Academy of Sciences hosted a meeting in 2009 on Circadian Disruption and Cancer.[51] Red light suppresses melatonin the least.[52] The street lighting service provides and maintains the majority of the 26,000 streetlights and 4,000 lit signs and bollards throughout Warrington. In 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint microwave radiation, apparently coming from the most distant observable regions of the universe, and this earned them the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978.1 This Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and has a characteristic temperature.2,3 While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model,4 it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel–time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe. Nighttime illumination, once scarce, is now possessed in abundance and unavoidably ubiquitous. As a result, though, an interrelated shift in perception and valuation emerged—a shift that is critical to present discourse. With this abundance and ubiquity, a renewed attention was given to what is hindered by light. Darkness became, as Hasenöhrl notes, a valorized and ‘sought-after luxury’ of our electrified nights (2014 Hasenöhrl, U. (2014). Lighting conflicts from a historical perspective. In J. Meier, U. Hasenöhrl, K. Krause, & M. Pottharst (Eds.), Urban lighting, light pollution, and society (pp. 105–124). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar], p. 119). As a result, our taken-for-granted infrastructure of artificial nighttime lighting has been re-noticed, but in a new light. Concerns are increasingly articulated through a sense of loss—a loss of connection to starlight, or an aspect of nature, or the sublime, or a piece of our humanity—brought about by the loss of dark or ‘natural’ nights (e.g. Bogard, 2013 Bogard, P. (2013). The end of night: Searching for natural darkness in an age of artificial light. New York, NY: Back Bay Books. [Google Scholar]). This comes with a rather unique set of challenges, because what is polluting for one person can be acceptable or even desirable lighting for another. There are uses of light that are necessary at night, especially in cities; no ‘dark sky advocate’ would deny that. And there are obvious instances of excessive brightness and poorly designed lighting, which most reasonable people would agree is unnecessary and wasteful. But, there will also be instances that fall somewhere in an intermediary, gray area. These could be instances where the lighting does not obviously fall into one of the sub-categories of light pollution, or does not relate directly to one of the identified effects of light pollution, or is contested as a good by some stakeholders and a nuisance or excess by others. Or, it could be a new technological innovation that reduces energy consumption but will potentially increase skyglow—an emerging issue connected to LEDs (Morgan-Taylor, 2014 Morgan-Taylor, M. (2014). Regulating light pollution in Europe: Legal challenges and ways forward. In J. Meier, U. Hasenöhrl, K. Krause, & M. Pottharst (Eds.), Urban lighting, light pollution and society (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]). In these instances, we will see the weighing of benefits versus negative effects by regulatory decision-makers. It is unclear how the current conception of light pollution can be used to resolve such conflicts, without drawing upon a larger moral framework—for example, a formulation of the precautionary principle, a definition of sustainable development, or perhaps an explicit focus on minimizing energy usage—that helps to elucidate exactly what an acceptable level of pollution is. And, different approaches may rely on rights-based or consequentialist moral frameworks. These may, in turn, offer different boundary conditions for what qualifies as acceptable levels of light pollution. For example, in 2007, a group of astronomers published the Starlight Declaration, asserting that access to the night sky should be an ‘inalienable right of humankind’ (Starlight Initiative, 2007 Starlight Initiative. (2007). Declaration in defence of the night sky and the right to starlight. La Palma: La Palma Biosphere Reserve. Retrieved 14 January, 2015, from https://www.starlight2007.net/ [Google Scholar], p. 3). Adopting such a rights-based approach would likely yield different conclusions than, say, a cost-benefit analysis. We would then need to ask if light pollution is, or should be, beholden to one broader moral framework, or how different manifestations can be reconciled. If we recall the discussion of defining problems within policy as a means to guide action (Stone, 2002 Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. [Google Scholar]), the concept of light pollution therefore requires further parameters beyond the causes and effects listed above. Over-illumination is the excessive use of light. Specifically within the United States, over-illumination is responsible for approximately two million barrels of oil per day in energy wasted.[citation needed] This is based upon U.S. consumption of equivalent of 18.8 million barrels per day (2,990,000 m3/d) of petroleum.[16] It is further noted in the same U.S. Department of Energy source that over 30% of all primary energy is consumed by commercial, industrial and residential sectors. Energy audits of existing buildings demonstrate that the lighting component of residential, commercial and industrial uses consumes about 20–40% of those land uses, variable with region and land use. (Residential use lighting consumes only 10–30% of the energy bill while commercial buildings’ major use is lighting.[17]) Thus lighting energy accounts for about four or five million barrels of oil (equivalent) per day. Again energy audit data demonstrates that about 30–60% of energy consumed in lighting is unneeded or gratuitous.[18] I identify a little-noticed issue in the normal formulation of the light travel time problem. In addition, I lay groundwork for the beginning of a new solution to the problem. This solution invokes similarity between creative acts of Day Four and other days of the Creation Week, but especially Day Three. The Day Three account suggests unusually fast growth for plants. In similar fashion, this possible new solution suggests unusually fast propagation of light on Day Four, probably by rapid expansion of space. This is an appeal to a miraculous event rather than a physical process to get distant starlight to the earth. It is not yet clear whether this suggestion could have testable predictions. If this is the correct way to look at the problem, it may be that we are seeing much of the universe in something close to real time. I briefly compare this possible solution to the light travel time to other previously published proposals. With this definition and sub-categorization, the use of light pollution as a framework for evaluating artificial nighttime lighting begins to come into focus. The undesired outputs of artificial nighttime lighting—be it any of the four broad types listed above—can then be considered in terms of effects. The consequences of light pollution are far reaching, and supporting research is often still at an early stage. However, the effects can likewise be subdivided into five broad categories: energy usage, ecology, health, safety, and the night sky. The past few decades have seen the first large-scale investigations of energy usage by artificial nighttime lighting, as well as its connection to economic costs and greenhouse gas emissions. The International Dark-Sky Association estimates that 22% of all energy in the USA is used for lighting, and of that around 8% is used for outdoor nighttime lighting (IDA, 2014 IDA. (2014). International Dark-Sky Association. International Dark-Sky Association. Retrieved 15 January, 2015, from https://darksky.org/ [Google Scholar]). Another recent study concluded that this number is closer to 6% (Gallaway, Olsen, & Mitchell, 2010 Gallaway, T., Olsen, R., & Mitchell, D. (2010). The economics of global light pollution. Ecological Economics, 69, 658–665.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.10.003[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]). Such studies often focus not just on the amount of energy used for lighting, but specifically the amount of wasted light. A consistent estimate is that approximately 30% of outdoor lighting in the United States is wasted (Gallaway et al., 2010 Gallaway, T., Olsen, R., & Mitchell, D. (2010). The economics of global light pollution. Ecological Economics, 69, 658–665.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.10.003[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]; Henderson, 2010 Henderson, D. (2010). Valuing the stars: On the economics of light pollution. Environmental Philosophy, 7, 17–26.10.5840/envirophil2010712[Crossref] [Google Scholar]).77. By wasted, we can assume this percentage of lighting is deemed to fall within one (or more) of the categories listed above (skyglow, glare, light trespass, or clutter).View all notes This translates into roughly 73 million megawatt hours of ‘needlessly generated’ electricty, with an estimated annual cost of US$6.9 billion. Elimating this wasted light, in terms of CO2 reduction, is equivalent to removing 9.5 million cars from the road (Gallaway et al., 2010 Gallaway, T., Olsen, R., & Mitchell, D. (2010). The economics of global light pollution. Ecological Economics, 69, 658–665.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.10.003[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]). Similar estimates of wasted light in the European Union have predicted that the direct costs amount to €5.2 billion, or 23.5 billion kg of CO2 annually (Morgan-Taylor, 2014 Morgan-Taylor, M. (2014). Regulating light pollution in Europe: Legal challenges and ways forward. In J. Meier, U. Hasenöhrl, K. Krause, & M. Pottharst (Eds.), Urban lighting, light pollution and society (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]). Masculin Active VigRX Penigen 500 Zevs Anabolic Rx24 Masculin Active sterydy eracto Tonus Fortis Testogen

kalwi

Helooo