spolknout pannoloni broum mordus vandalismo

A first step is to consider the limitations for application, for which a consideration of language will be helpful. As the above discussion in Section 3 makes clear, light pollution is not simply a description of certain environmental impacts, but also an evaluation of the effects of nighttime lighting technologies and infrastructure. Light pollution is both a descriptive statement and a value judgment with normative implications—it categorizes certain uses and types of lighting as bad or wrong. Historically lighting often functioned as a form of safety and protection at night, but there has been a reversal. Now humans, animals, and the night sky require protection from artificial light. Importantly, articulating this shift in perspective via the notion of light as a pollutant adds a moral level to an otherwise technical discussion of illumination. But, in considering the creation of a moral space for deliberation, we should reflect on the implications of this label. Garrard (2004 Garrard, G. (2004). Ecocriticism. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]), in assessing Rachel Carson’s iconic Silent Spring, notes that one of the book’s lasting achievements was expanding what was previously seen as a scientific issue (the usage of pesticides) into a social problem. By this, Garrard is referring to the categorization of pesticides as pollution. This is because ‘pollution’ does not name an actual thing, but rather provides an implicit normative claim that ‘too much of something is present in the environment, usually in the wrong place’ (2004 Garrard, G. (2004). Ecocriticism. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar], p. 6). Carson helped to reframe perspectives, allowing the usage of pesticides to be contested morally and politically. The same can be said of the concept of light pollution, generally considered: it breaks with the historical meanings and values associated with nighttime lighting, reframing discussions as a debate over how we ought to preserve and protect the night sky, as well as protect ourselves and ecosystems, from excess artificial light. 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. Zoom in to click on street light icon on the map below then select the problem from the drop down list. In some cases, evaluation of existing plans has determined that more efficient lighting plans are possible. For instance, light pollution can be reduced by turning off unneeded outdoor lights, and only lighting stadiums when there are people inside. Timers are especially valuable for this purpose. One of the world’s first coordinated legislative efforts to reduce the adverse effect of this pollution on the environment began in Flagstaff, Arizona, in the U.S. There, over three decades of ordinance development has taken place, with the full support of the population,[93] often with government support,[94] with community advocates,[95] and with the help of major local observatories,[96] including the United States Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station. Each component helps to educate, protect and enforce the imperatives to intelligently reduce detrimental light pollution. Light trespass can be reduced by selecting light fixtures which limit the amount of light emitted more than 80° above the nadir. The IESNA definitions include full cutoff (0%), cutoff (10%), and semi-cutoff (20%). (These definitions also include limits on light emitted above 90° to reduce sky glow.) By an accident I turned off the camera when the picture wasn’t fully out and I pulled it out but now it flashes red loading lights and doesn’t even take pictures We aim to fix streetlights within 28 working days. If it can’t be fixed on the first visit, we may need to order extra parts and the repair will be planned as soon as possible. However, there are two important points that we ought to consider. First, astronomers think that a few faint objects visible to the naked eye are much farther away than a few thousand light years. For instance, M31, the Andromeda Galaxy, the most distant object normally visible to the naked eye, is about two million light years away. Furthermore, since the invention of the telescope four centuries ago, astronomers have discovered many more other galaxies and objects much farther away than a few thousand light years. Most notable are quasars, which according to most estimates, are billions of light years away. If the world is only thousands of light years old, none of these very distant objects ought to be visible. Light pollution is a topic gaining importance and acceptance in environmental discourse. This concept provides a framework for categorizing the adverse effects of nighttime lighting, which advocacy groups and regulatory efforts are increasingly utilizing. However, the ethical significance of the concept has, thus far, received little critical reflection. In this paper, I analyze the moral implications of framing issues in nighttime lighting via the concept of light pollution. First, the moral and political importance of problem framing is discussed. Next, the origins and contemporary understandings of light pollution are presented. Finally, the normative limitations and practical ambiguities of light pollution are discussed, with the aim of strengthening the framework through which decisions about urban nighttime lighting strategies are increasingly approached. Until the advent of artificial lighting, the sun was the major source of lighting, and people spent their evenings in (relative) darkness. Now, in much of the world, evenings are illuminated, and we take our easy access to all those lumens pretty much for granted. In certain cases an over-illumination lighting technique may be needed. For example, indirect lighting is often used to obtain a “softer” look, since hard direct lighting is generally found less desirable for certain surfaces, such as skin. The indirect lighting method is perceived as more cozy and suits bars, restaurants and living quarters. It is also possible to block the direct lighting effect by adding softening filters or other solutions, though intensity will be reduced. In the night, the polarization of the moonlit sky is very strongly reduced in the presence of urban light pollution, because scattered urban light is not strongly polarized.[84] Polarized moonlight can’t be seen by humans, but is believed to be used by many animals for navigation. 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. Eron Plus machoman eracto eracto TestX Core power up premium TestX Core BioBelt mochoman Zevs

kalwi

Helooo