startuje melanie booth lavées delírios

In September 2009, the 9th European Dark-Sky Symposium in Armagh, Northern Ireland had a session on the environmental effects of light at night (LAN). It dealt with bats, turtles, the “hidden” harms of LAN, and many other topics.[76] The environmental effects of LAN were mentioned as early as 1897, in a Los Angeles Times article. The following is an excerpt from that article, called “Electricity and English songbirds”: The ‘distant starlight problem’ is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem. You’re driving along in your car or truck and suddenly a yellow light illuminates on your dash telling you to check or service your engine. If you’re like most car owners, you have little idea about what that light is trying to tell you or how you should react. 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]). Some types of light sources are listed in order of energy efficiency in the table below (figures are approximate maintained values), and include relative visual skyglow impacts.[88][89] 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. 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. Even more significantly, the word עָשָׂה (‘āśâ; “to do,” “to make”) is used specifically of the creation of the astronomical bodies in Genesis 1:16. The meaning of this verb is broader, semantically speaking, than בָּרָא, and may refer to acts of creative ingenuity by agents other than God. That being said, it is indisputably evident that עָשָׂה is commonly used to refer to the act of fashioning something out of already-existing material (for example, the creation of man in Genesis 1:26; cf. 2:7). Granted, such is not always the intended meaning, even with respect to the astronomical bodies (for example, compare Genesis 1:1 with 2 Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16; 66:22; Jeremiah 32:17). However, the use of עָשָׂה in the Day Four creation record apart from any contextual clues to suggest that it must bear the sense of creation out of nothing suggests that there is a distinct possibility that the making of the astronomical bodies was instead a matter of fashioning them from material previously created on Day One. Just as the description of the earth in Genesis 1:2 is of something unfinished that God returned over the next several days to shape and prepare, perhaps the matter that would become the astronomical bodies was created on Day One but was shaped on Day Four, whereupon God brought forth their light to the earth. Tonus Fortis VigRX Plus VigRX Plus Testogen VigRX Plus erogan machoman Erozon Max TestX Core VigRX Plus

kalwi

Helooo