skimmel scobie erdzeit

With the limitations known, we can next consider how to strengthen practical applications. Operating effectively in such a capacity necessarily means establishing the boundaries or thresholds for lighting considered to be ‘polluting’. If we focus solely on mitigating the negative or adverse effects of artificial nighttime illumination, we must then define what qualifies as negative or adverse, as well as what the acceptable levels of these effects are. And these levels—which will effectively delineate between good and bad lighting—should not be arbitrary or ambiguous. Zoom in to click on street light icon on the map below then select the problem from the drop down list. Lighting is responsible for one-fourth of all electricity consumption worldwide,[citation needed] and case studies have shown that several forms of over-illumination constitute energy wastage, including non-beneficial upward direction of night-time lighting. In 2007, Terna, the company responsible for managing electricity flow in Italy, reported a saving of 645.2 million kWh in electricity consumption during the daylight savings period from April to October. It attributes this saving to the delayed need for artificial lighting during the evenings. Please fill out the form below if you know of a street light that needs to be repaired. The City of Winnipeg has adopted the latest Transportation Association of Canada’s Street Lighting Design Guide that stipulates the light levels for the City’s streets. This is the criteria that defines the number of lights and the wattage used to illuminate City streets. The main purpose of street lighting is to “provide an adequate visual environment for road users to safely use the road system during hours of darkness.” Medical research on the effects of excessive light on the human body suggests that a variety of adverse health effects may be caused by light pollution or excessive light exposure, and some lighting design textbooks[34] use human health as an explicit criterion for proper interior lighting. Health effects of over-illumination or improper spectral composition of light may include: increased headache incidence, worker fatigue, medically defined stress, decrease in sexual function and increase in anxiety.[35][36][37][38] Likewise, animal models have been studied demonstrating unavoidable light to produce adverse effect on mood and anxiety.[39] For those who need to be awake at night, light at night also has an acute effect on alertness and mood.[40] 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. There is a person underneath each of these lights. In the two pictures on the left the person can see you but can you see the person? Are you really safer with more light or is it merely an illusion? Fully shielded light fixtures give you and the other person the same advantage, and minimize trespass and sky glow. Current calls for mitigation are often rested on an appeal to needs. For example, the International Dark-Sky Association cites needs-based principles of lighting as a way to minimize the negative effects of light pollution (IDA, 2014 IDA. (2014). International Dark-Sky Association. International Dark-Sky Association. Retrieved 15 January, 2015, from https://darksky.org/ [Google Scholar]). It seems to follow that ‘unneeded’ nighttime illumination equates to light pollution, and therefore, contributes to the pre-defined negative effects. For, at the least, lighting deemed unnecessary wastes energy. This requires a clear justification for what is ‘needed’ nighttime illumination, which is both a quantitative and qualitative question. However, the moral terrain of such claims has been left largely unexplored. A needs-based approach requires that we can confidently point to criteria for needed lighting. Yet, as historic surveys on nighttime lighting makes clear, the blurring of symbolic and actual needs of nighttime lighting are complex at best, and needs are co-constituted by societal perceptions and values (Nye, 1990 Nye, D. E. (1990). Electrifying America: Social meanings of a new technology, 1880–1940. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]; Schivelbusch, 1988 Schivelbusch, W. (1988). Disenchanted night: The industrialization of light in the nineteenth century. (A. Davis, Trans.) London: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]). If policies aimed at light pollution mitigation adopt a needs-based approach, adequate reasoning should be given for why a different approach—say one geared toward preferences and desires—is insufficient. However, using the definition of “light pollution” from some Italian regional bills (i.e., “every irradiance of artificial light outside competence areas and particularly upward the sky”) only full cutoff design prevents light pollution. The Italian Lombardy region, where only full cutoff design is allowed (Lombardy act no. 17/2000, promoted by Cielobuio-coordination for the protection of the night sky), in 2007 had the lowest per capita energy consumption for public lighting in Italy. The same legislation also imposes a minimum distance between street lamps of about four times their height, so full cut off street lamps are the best solution to reduce both light pollution and electrical power usage. Humphreys, D. R. 1994. Starlight and time. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. Sea turtle hatchlings emerging from nests on beaches are another casualty of light pollution. It is a common misconception that hatchling sea turtles are attracted to the moon. Rather, they find the ocean by moving away from the dark silhouette of dunes and their vegetation, a behavior with which artificial lights interfere.[67] The breeding activity and reproductive phenology of toads, however, are cued by moonlight.[68] Juvenile seabirds may also be disoriented by lights as they leave their nests and fly out to sea.[69][70][71] Amphibians and reptiles are also affected by light pollution. Introduced light sources during normally dark periods can disrupt levels of melatonin production. Melatonin is a hormone that regulates photoperiodic physiology and behaviour. Some species of frogs and salamanders utilize a light-dependent “compass” to orient their migratory behaviour to breeding sites. Introduced light can also cause developmental irregularities, such as retinal damage, reduced sperm production, and genetic mutation.[53][72][73][58][74][75] The Dark-Sky Association was started to reduce the light going up into the sky which reduces visibility of stars (see Skyglow below). This is any light which is emitted more than 90° above nadir. By limiting light at this 90° mark they have also reduced the light output in the 80–90° range which creates most of the light trespass issues. An English journal has become alarmed at the relation of electricity to songbirds, which it maintains is closer than that of cats and fodder crops. How many of us, it asks, foresee that electricity may extirpate the songbird?…With the exception of the finches, all the English songbirds may be said to be insectivorous, and their diet consists chiefly of vast numbers of very small insects which they collect from the grass and herbs before the dew is dry. As the electric light is finding its way for street illumination into the country parts of England, these poor winged atoms are slain by thousands at each light every warm summer evening….The fear is expressed, that when England is lighted from one end to the other with electricity the song birds will die out from the failure of their food supply.[77] 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]). Zevs Zevs eracto Atlant Gel BeMass Tonus Fortis eracto power up premium Tonus Fortis machoman

kalwi

Helooo