široký prematuramente vrachtruim paraître submergir

But what if you DIDN’T drop the camera, and the red light is still there? We can see the emergence of the concept of light pollution as—at least in part—a reactionary shift in perception to the widespread proliferation of electric illumination at night. A recent New York Times article quoted a behavioral ecologist as stating that we need to ‘start thinking of a photon as a potential pollutant’ (St. Fleur, 2016 St. Fleur, N. (2016, April 7). Illuminating the effects of light pollution. New York Times. Retrieved 7 April, 2016, from https://www.nytimes.com/ [Google Scholar]). To accept this re-framing is to begin seeing artificial nighttime lighting as spreading polluting photons into the atmosphere, the environment, and ourselves. Answers will likely take the form of either preservation or mitigation strategies—certainly not a bad approach, but it does draw attention to the importance of light pollution as a framework through which solutions can emerge. Regulations and strategies based on light pollution will necessarily focus on reducing the negative or adverse effects of nighttime lighting; on protecting those things or resources affected, and/or cutting out that 30% of lighting considered to be ‘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]). As a regulatory tool, this can be quite useful, and follows a similar strategy as attempts to regulate other pollutants. The effectiveness of using full cutoff roadway lights to combat light pollution has also been called into question. According to design investigations, luminaires with full cutoff distributions (as opposed to cutoff or semi cutoff, compared here[87]) have to be closer together to meet the same light level, uniformity and glare requirements specified by the IESNA. These simulations optimized the height and spacing of the lights while constraining the overall design to meet the IESNA requirements, and then compared total uplight and energy consumption of different luminaire designs and powers. Cutoff designs performed better than full cutoff designs, and semi-cutoff performed better than either cutoff or full cutoff. This indicates that, in roadway installations, over-illumination or poor uniformity produced by full cutoff fixtures may be more detrimental than direct uplight created by fewer cutoff or semi-cutoff fixtures. Therefore, the overall performance of existing systems could be improved more by reducing the number of luminaires than by switching to full cutoff designs. 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]). 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. Report a street lighting issue My camera does nothing, none of the lights are working. I cant take photos. I tried changing the batteries but it doesn’t help. Anyone who know what to do? 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 eracto TestX Core Masculin Active deseo deseo Erozon Max Masculin Active Maca du Pérou TestX Core

kalwi

Helooo