skrývat stringergli galligan sse eleições

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]). Keep unnecessary lights off when going camping and staying in cottages because they can interfere with the health and the natural behavior of nocturnal animals like salamanders. Light trespass occurs when unwanted light enters one’s property, for instance, by shining over a neighbor’s fence. A common light trespass problem occurs when a strong light enters the window of one’s home from the outside, causing problems such as sleep deprivation. A number of cities in the U.S. have developed standards for outdoor lighting to protect the rights of their citizens against light trespass. To assist them, the International Dark-Sky Association has developed a set of model lighting ordinances.[12] Light pollution is artificial light introduced into the natural night, especially where it is not needed or wanted. This unwanted light appears Central to Dorst’s frame creation model (2015 Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]) is the great length that designers go to assess the frameworks through which problems are approached. Complex problems—such as the impacts of artificial nighttime lighting—are often caused by underlying value conflicts, and the inability of current frameworks to adequately address said values. By looking into the origins and history of the problem, the key driving issue, and the current context, a more comprehensive picture of the problem and underlying values emerge. And simultaneously the possibility of new approaches, or frames, will also emerge (Dorst, 2015 Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]). However, for our present purposes we will not search for a new or radically different approach, but rather ask how the coalescing frame of light pollution is responding to our problem. We have our core issue present in the novel challenge described above. The next steps are to examine the origins and current context in turn, so see how light pollution can be improved as an effective frame. The starlight problem states that if the universe was only 6,000 years old — as Biblical literalism and Young Earth Creationism (YEC) state — then there would not be sufficient time for distant starlight to reach Earth. We can see light from stars more (way more) than 6,000 light years away, therefore the universe cannot be a mere 6,000 years old. So while the fascination and allure of illuminations persist, darkness is today increasingly perceived as a rare and valuable commodity. This development could be regarded as a double paradigm shift from the dark night as a forbidding everyday occurrence that could only be lit up sporadically to its devaluation as an emblem of backwardness in the face of a new abundance of artificial light in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to its present valorization as a sought-after luxury in our densely populated and highly electrified world. (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], p. 119) The 350 year project of illuminating our nights has produced a challenging situation. The desire for more and better lighting at night has left us with an overabundance of artificial illumination, and has produced a novel problem. The realization of lengthening the day is increasingly perceived as a loss of the night, and a new frame has emerged to give shape to these concerns. The story of light pollution goes back much further than the 1970s, in juxtaposition but nevertheless linked to the technical and social history of modern nighttime illumination. Importantly, the concept of light pollution re-frames certain aspects and uses of nighttime lighting technologies. If we return once more to the driving question (how much artificial light at night is appropriate?), we can appreciate that the concept of light pollution provides a new starting point, and not an end point, for discussions about the future of nighttime lighting.1010. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for this insight.View all notes The Swiss Agency for Energy Efficiency (SAFE) uses a concept that promises to be of great use in the diagnosis and design of road lighting, “consommation électrique spécifique (CES)”, which can be translated into English as “specific electric power consumption (SEC)”.[99] Thus, based on observed lighting levels in a wide range of Swiss towns, SAFE has defined target values for electric power consumption per metre for roads of various categories. Thus, SAFE currently recommends an SEC of 2 to 3 watts per meter for roads of less than 10 metre width (4 to 6 watts per metre for wider roads). Such a measure provides an easily applicable environmental protection constraint on conventional “norms”, which usually are based on the recommendations of lighting manufacturing interests, who may not take into account environmental criteria. In view of ongoing progress in lighting technology, target SEC values will need to be periodically revised downwards. The light travel time problem is one of the greatest challenges that recent creationists face today. Simply defined, if the universe is only thousands of years old as the Bible strongly suggests, then how can we see objects that are at light travel time distances far greater than a few thousand years? A popular unit of distance used in astronomy is the light year, the distance that light travels in a year. Multiplying the speed of light by the number of seconds in a year, we find that the light year is a little more than 9 × 1012 km. Obviously, using “normal” units of distance measurements such as meters or kilometers is woefully inadequate in astronomy, hence the definition of this new unit of distance. With the most straightforward approach to the biblical record and the vast distances in astronomy, we ought not to see any objects more than a few thousand light years away. Most of the objects visible to the naked eye are not this far away, so, as the light travel time problem normally is defined, most objects visible to the naked eye do not present a problem to the recent creation model. TestX Core erogran erogan Testogen xtrasize Maxman eracto Maxman Atlant Gel power up premium

kalwi

Helooo