soggy zähen alonzo

The challenge faced by 21st century policymakers is to provide outdoor light where and when it is needed while reducing costs, improving visibility, and minimizing any adverse effects on plants, animals, and humans caused through exposure to unnatural levels of light at night. (Kyba et al., 2014 Kyba, C., Hänel, A., & Hölker, F. (2014). Redefining efficiency for outdoor lighting. Energy & Environmental Science, 7, 1806–1809.10.1039/C4EE00566J[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar], p. 1807) In establishing an acceptable level of polluting, some clarification of qualitative values will strengthen future decisions. Consider the research by Gallaway (2014 Gallaway, T. (2014). The value of the night sky. In J. Meier, U. Hasenöhrl, K. Krause, & M. Pottharst (Eds.), Urban lighting, light pollution and society (pp. 267–283). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]), who explores the instrumental value of the night sky for promoting the broadly held values of happiness and sustainability. He concludes by stating, ‘We suggest that estimating the night’s value is not nearly as important as simply recognizing that it does have enormous value and then trying to preserve this value and put it to good use’ (p. 280). Gallaway’s discussion of key night sky traits includes its ability to connect us to the natural world, its ability to engender a sense of wonder, and its beauty. Such an articulation of the value of reducing light pollution falls outside traditional economic calculations, as discussed elsewhere by Gallaway (2010 Gallaway, T. (2010). On light pollution, passive pleasures, and the instrumental value of beauty. Journal of Economic Issues, 44, 71–88.10.2753/JEI0021-3624440104[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]). It also further calls into question a needs-based approach. As a frame, light pollution will set the boundaries on what sort of answers are possible, which requires a careful consideration of how ‘needs’ are defined, and what needs ought to be encapsulated by future policies. Light pollution competes with starlight in the night sky for urban residents, interferes with astronomical observatories,[5] and, like any other form of pollution, disrupts ecosystems and has adverse health effects[6][7] Disputes are still common when deciding appropriate action; and differences in opinion over what light is considered reasonable, and who should be responsible, mean that negotiation must sometimes take place between parties. Where objective measurement is desired, light levels can be quantified by field measurement or mathematical modeling, with results typically displayed as an isophote map or light contour map. Authorities have also taken a variety of measures for dealing with light pollution, depending on the interests, beliefs and understandings of the society involved.[citation needed] Measures range from doing nothing at all, to implementing strict laws and regulations about how lights may be installed and used. The two main reasons street lights stop working are: Please use this form to report a lighting issue. Urgent problems with street lights, illuminated signs or bollards are: 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 [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]). Since not everyone is irritated by the same lighting sources, it is common for one person’s light “pollution” to be light that is desirable for another. One example of this is found in advertising, when an advertiser wishes for particular lights to be bright and visible, even though others find them annoying. Other types of light pollution are more certain. For instance, light that accidentally crosses a property boundary and annoys a neighbor is generally wasted and pollutive light. In addition to skyglow, light trespass can impact observations when artificial light directly enters the tube of the telescope and is reflected from non-optical surfaces until it eventually reaches the eyepiece. This direct form of light pollution causes a glow across the field of view which reduces contrast. Light trespass also makes it hard for a visual observer to become sufficiently dark adapted. The usual measures to reduce this glare, if reducing the light directly is not an option, include flocking the telescope tube and accessories to reduce reflection, and putting a light shield (also usable as a dew shield) on the telescope to reduce light entering from angles other than those near the target. Under these conditions, some astronomers prefer to observe under a black cloth to ensure maximum dark adaptation. In one Italian regional lighting code this effect of stray light is defined as “optical pollution”[citation needed], due to the fact that there is a direct path from the light source to the “optic” – the observer’s eye or telescope. If you’ve noticed an outdoor light within our service area that’s in need of maintenance, please complete and submit the form below. Talk to your family, friends, neighbors, and local and national governments about the impacts of light pollution on humans and the environment, and encourage practical changes and policies to help reduce light pollution in as many places as possible. Column Number: Asset Id: Street: Included in part-time night lighting scheme: Known fault: Light pollution has emerged as the widely accepted term for the negative or adverse effects of artificial nighttime illumination (Hölker et al., 2010 Hölker, F., Moss, T., Griefahn, B., Kloas, W., Voigt, C., Henckel, D., … Tockner, K. (2010). The dark side of light: A transdisciplinary research agenda for light pollution policy. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 13.10.5751/ES-03685-150413[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]). A central assumption of this paper is that the concept of light pollution—due to its increasing usage within professional, academic, and popular discourse—will substantially shape decisions about how to illuminate cities in the twenty-first century. In this role, it will actively inform the conditions for morally acceptable and desirable artificial nighttime illumination. Thus, to a large extent the concept of light pollution helps to provide a framing that addresses our new problem. This, however, necessitates an evaluation of the concept’s usefulness—its strengths and limitations. Its increasing usage must be coupled with critical reflection, if it is to offer an effective framing for ongoing policy efforts. In Policy Paradox, Stone (2002 Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. [Google Scholar]) discusses the complex issue of defining problems within political discourse. It is never an objective statement, but rather a strategic representation from one point of view that will promote a certain course of action. While problem definitions can act as a ‘… vehicle for expressing moral values … there is no universal technical language of problem definition that yields morally correct answers’ (p. 134). Nonetheless, focusing on how a problem is defined can help us see the situation from multiple perspectives and identify assumptions about facts and values embedded therein (Stone, 2002 Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. [Google Scholar]). This can, in turn, help to strengthen the problem definition. Zevs eracto Testo Ultra Tonus Fortis Celuraid Muscle power up premium erogan VigRX Plus Penigen 500 erogran