skinhead wiederaufnahme anstrengungen

Light pollution is a side-effect of industrial civilization. Its sources include building exterior and interior lighting, advertising, outdoor area lighting (e.g. car parks/parking lots), offices, factories, streetlights, and illuminated sporting venues. It is most severe in highly industrialized, densely populated areas of North America, Europe, and Japan and in major cities in the Middle East and North Africa like Tehran and Cairo, but even relatively small amounts of light can be noticed and create problems. Awareness of the deleterious effects of light pollution began early in the 20th Century (see e.g. Beston[8]), but efforts to address effects did not begin until the 1950s.[9] In the 1980s a global dark-sky movement emerged with the founding of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA). There are now such educational and advocacy organizations in many countries worldwide. Zoom in to click on street light icon on the map below then select the problem from the drop down list. Sometimes it is not possible to completely get rid of the problem, as this may prevent the street light from being effective so we may need to find a compromise. The blinding effect is caused in large part by reduced contrast due to light scattering in the eye by excessive brightness, or to reflection of light from dark areas in the field of vision, with luminance similar to the background luminance. This kind of glare is a particular instance of disability glare, called veiling glare. (This is not the same as loss of accommodation of night vision which is caused by the direct effect of the light itself on the eye.) 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. We are faced with a new problem: simply put, we have too much light at night. For centuries, more and better urban nighttime lighting was largely seen as desirable and necessary. However, following the rapid proliferation of electric lighting throughout the twentieth century, the impacts of artificial nighttime illumination have become a research interest—or rather concern—in a variety of disciplines. Nighttime lighting uses enormous amounts of energy, in addition to costing billions of dollars, damaging ecosystems, and negatively affecting human health.11. These effects are described in more detail in Section 3.3.View all notes With this emerging knowledge, continuing with the same use patterns and regulatory strategies can no longer be justified. We must rethink our urban nights. But, some amount of artificial light is, of course, still desirable and necessary at night. Therefore, our new problem comes with a novel question: how much artificial light at night is appropriate? The Omphalos hypothesis or argument provides an unscientific and unfalsifiable explanation for the starlight problem. The argument relies on the logically weak argument goddidit by claiming that the starlight we see is not natural but was in fact created in transit by God. 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) According to the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), “Outdoor lighting with high blue light content is more likely to contribute to light pollution because it has a significantly larger geographic reach than lighting with less blue light. Blue-rich white light sources are also known to increase glare and compromise human vision. And in natural settings, blue light at night has been shown to adversely affect wildlife behavior and reproduction.” 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]). Celuraid Muscle VigRX Plus erogran power up premium eracto Penigen 500 power up premium Anabolic Rx24 BioBelt Zevs

kalwi

Helooo