šířka capatina proefverlof carrousel dobson

Disadvantages of low pressure sodium lighting are that fixtures must usually be larger than competing fixtures, and that color cannot be distinguished, due to its emitting principally a single wavelength of light (see security lighting). Due to the substantial size of the lamp, particularly in higher wattages such as 135 W and 180 W, control of light emissions from low pressure sodium luminaires is more difficult. For applications requiring more precise direction of light (such as narrow roadways) the native lamp efficacy advantage of this lamp type is decreased and may be entirely lost compared to high pressure sodium lamps. Allegations that this also leads to higher amounts of light pollution from luminaires running these lamps arise principally because of older luminaires with poor shielding, still widely in use in the UK and in some other locations. Modern low-pressure sodium fixtures with better optics and full shielding, and the decreased skyglow impacts of yellow light preserve the luminous efficacy advantage of low-pressure sodium and result in most cases is less energy consumption and less visible light pollution. Unfortunately, due to continued lack of accurate information,[92] many lighting professionals continue to disparage low-pressure sodium, contributing to its decreased acceptance and specification in lighting standards and therefore its use. Another disadvantage of low-pressure sodium lamps is that some people find the characteristic yellow light very displeasing aesthetically.[citation needed] U.S. federal agencies may also enforce standards and process complaints within their areas of jurisdiction. For instance, in the case of light trespass by white strobe lighting from communication towers in excess of FAA minimum lighting requirements[13] the Federal Communications Commission maintains an Antenna Structure Registration database[14] information which citizens may use to identify offending structures and provides a mechanism for processing citizen inquiries and complaints.[15] The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has also incorporated a credit for reducing the amount of light trespass and sky glow into their environmentally friendly building standard known as LEED. 5. Criticisms can be found as early as 1662, when a London pastor stated ‘We ought not to turn day into night, nor night into day … without some very special and urgent occasion’ (Ekirch, 2005 Ekirch, R. A. (2005). At day’s close: Night in times past. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. [Google Scholar], p. 74). This was due to the disruption of the perceived natural (Christian) order that such lighting may cause. However, most criticisms are found in the nineteenth century onward, and specifically around times of transition between technologies. Early objections were often esthetic, however moral objections can also be found (Hasenöhrl, 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]). There are documented criticisms of artificial nighttime lighting in astronomy-related literature as early as 1866 (Sperling, 1991 Sperling, N. (1991). The disappearance of darkness. In D. L. Crawford (Ed.), Light pollution, radio interference, and space debris (Vol. 17, pp. 101–108). San Francisco, CA: Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series. [Google Scholar]). Already in the 1880s, Alexander Pelham Tottler—generally regarded as the originator of the scientific study of lighting—identified issues with street lighting that predict modern debates. For example, he argued that too much light is wasted, and that glare causes safety concerns (Bowers, 1998 Bowers, B. (1998). Lengthening the day: A history of lighting technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). Naturalists and artists expressed ambiguity (at best) towards artificial light as early as the 1920s (Nye, 1990 Nye, D. E. (1990). Electrifying America: Social meanings of a new technology, 1880–1940. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]), and by this time there were already some calls for lighting engineers to reduce urban brightness (Isenstadt, 2014 Isenstadt, S. (2014). Good night. Places Journal. Retrieved 22 October, 2014, from https://placesjournal.org/article/good-night/[Crossref] [Google Scholar]). 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] Experts say that many drivers confuse the “service required” light on the gauge cluster for the Check Engine light. These warning lights are unrelated. The service required light just means the car is due for an oil change or other routine maintenance. It is not the indicator of trouble that the Check Engine light is. The anthropic principle is based on the observation that any small change in any of the basic constants of physics, which include the speed of light, would make human life impossible. A 2009 study[64] also suggests deleterious impacts on animals and ecosystems because of perturbation of polarized light or artificial polarization of light (even during the day, because direction of natural polarization of sun light and its reflexion is a source of information for a lot of animals). This form of pollution is named polarized light pollution (PLP). Unnatural polarized light sources can trigger maladaptive behaviors in polarization-sensitive taxa and alter ecological interactions.[64] To report emergency problems with a street light, contact us Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm on 0845 601 0939, or outside these hours phone 0845 795 9639 According to Mario Motta, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, “… glare from bad lighting is a public-health hazard—especially the older you become. Glare light scattering in the eye causes loss of contrast and leads to unsafe driving conditions, much like the glare on a dirty windshield from low-angle sunlight or the high beams from an oncoming car.”[25] In essence bright and/or badly shielded lights around roads can partially blind drivers or pedestrians and contribute to accidents. Solution number seven invokes common time conventions in astronomy (Newton 2001; Lisle 2010). In 1987, astronomers observed a supernova in a small, nearby galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), so we say that the supernova happened in 1987 (the name, “SN 1987A,” says as much). However, this was when we first saw the light from the supernova, but since the Large Magellanic Cloud is roughly 170,000 lt-yr away, we can say that the supernova actually happened 170,000 years ago. Thus, astronomers have two time conventions as to when something happened, when it actually happened, and when it is observable on earth. In the time convention solution, God made objects in the universe on Day Four, but the one-way infinite speed of light caused their light to reach earth instantly. It is amazing to me that this very interesting solution has not received more attention, particularly of the negative type. 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. VigRX Plus Stéroïdes Eron Plus Testo Ultra sterydy Tonus Fortis erozon max BeMass TestX Core BioBelt