simpel ehrbaren sparks

To solve the starlight problem, some creationists have proposed a change in the speed of light; this proposition became known as c-decay. The idea was first systematically advanced by creationist Barry Setterfield in his 1981 book The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe. Setterfield claimed that, at the date of creation, light traveled millions of times faster than it does today and has been decaying precipitously ever since (until it stopped at its present value coincidentally with the ability to detect small changes). This idea is fundamentally absurd and since its inception has been universally derided by scientists. The idea was supported into the late eighties by creationists whose claims became more and more bizarre in attempts to prop up their failing model, until it finally collapsed under the weight of the evidence against it. In 1988, the idea was given up by the major creationist organization Institute for Creation Research, which, in an attempt to distance themselves from the scientific debacle that c-decay had become, became vocal critics of it.[5] Wildlife:John Metcalfe at Citylab.com reported last year that lights are disorienting birds, with deadly results. “Many species migrate by night and are perilously dazzled by artificial illumination, for reasons we don’t yet completely understand,” Metcalfe wrote. “Lights on skyscrapers, airports, and stadiums draw birds into urban areas, where they smack into walls and windows or each other, or flap around and eventually perish from exhaustion-related complications.” According to Mario Motta, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, “… glare from bad lighting is a public-health hazard—especially the older you become. Glare light scattering in the eye causes loss of contrast and leads to unsafe driving conditions, much like the glare on a dirty windshield from low-angle sunlight or the high beams from an oncoming car.”[25] In essence bright and/or badly shielded lights around roads can partially blind drivers or pedestrians and contribute to accidents. 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]) mention the tricky issue of ‘shifting baseline syndrome’. As nights get brighter, people have a new conception of what ‘normal’ levels of light are, and base their evaluations of acceptable levels of brightness on this. A focus on needs could help to overcome shifting baselines. But, such an approach risks omitting the preferences of local stakeholders, and as such may create technocratic and paternalistic policies. This may contribute to downstream value-level conflicts when regulations are enacted. For example, safety is a central facet of nighttime lighting and an important value intertwined with urban nightscapes. While the correlation between increased lighting and increased safety is contentious, research suggests that lighting influences feelings and perceptions of safety (King, 2010 King, C. (2010). Field surveys of the effect of lamp spectrum on the perception of safety and comfort and night. Lighting Research & Technology, 42, 313–329.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]), and that feelings of fear increase at night (Li et al., 2015 Li, Y., Ma, W., Kang, Q., Qiao, L., Tang, D., Qiu, J., … Li, H. (2015). Night or darkness, which intensifies the feeling of fear? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 97, 46–57.10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.04.021[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]). Such findings represent a challenge for needs-based nighttime lighting efforts. Attention to the preferences of local stakeholders becomes critical to the creation of regulations that will be supported and successful. The frame creation model discussed above (Dorst, 2015 Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]) is but one approach that incorporates the values and desires of stakeholders; a variety of other participatory or value-focused design strategies could also be effectively utilized to address conflicts of this nature. Humphreys, D. R. 1994. Starlight and time. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. Use this form to report a problem with a street light or a lit bollard. Concerns have also remained regarding the inverse of proliferating nighttime lighting, namely the rapidly declining access to a natural night sky in the developed world. In recent decades attempts to quantify skyglow and its global presence have emerged, however, data is still somewhat sparse. The first attempt to map this phenomenon on a global scale was published by Cinzano et al. (2001 Cinzano, P., Falchi, F., & Elvidge, C. D. (2001). The first world Atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328, 689–707.10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04882.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]). A more recent study by 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]) built on their findings and concluded that the amount of people living in areas with a ‘polluted night sky’ is extremely high: around 99% in both North America and the European Union.88. 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]) utilize the threshold criteria established by Cinzano et al. (2001 Cinzano, P., Falchi, F., & Elvidge, C. D. (2001). The first world Atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328, 689–707.10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04882.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]) for considering an area ‘polluted’ by light. These criteria ‘consider the night sky polluted when the artificial brightness of the sky is greater than 10% of the natural sky brightness above 45° of elevation’ (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], p. 660).View all notes Furthermore, on both continents approximately 70% of the population lives in areas where brightness at night is at least three times natural levels. From a dark rural area, our unaided eyes can normally see up to 3,000 stars; people with strong eyesight can even see close to 7,000 stars. However, in many urban areas today this number is reduced to around 50, or perhaps even less (Mizon, 2012 Mizon, B. (2012). Light pollution: Responses and remedies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-3822-9[Crossref] [Google Scholar]). Researchers caution that if the current pace of increasing brightness continues, the ‘pristine night sky’ could become ‘extinct’ in the continental United States by 2025 (Fischer, 2011 Fischer, A. (2011). Starry night. Places Journal. Retrieved 22 October, 2014,. from https://placesjournal.org/article/starry-night/[Crossref] [Google Scholar]). 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. Maxman BeMass Anabolic Rx24 Anabolic Rx24 Testo Ultra Maxman eracto Tonus Fortis TestX Core Celuraid Muscle

kalwi

Helooo