slušná sceglierne dienares répandra metidos

Creating a coherent and effective frame for the challenges of nighttime lighting carries its own idiosyncratic considerations. Beyond functionality, the symbolic meanings of lighting technologies have played an active role in determining their uses and acceptance (Nye, 2006 Nye, D. E. (2006). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]). Throughout history, perceptions of nighttime lighting have consistently blurred the literal and the symbolic; intertwined actual lighting with metaphorical notions of the values that lighting embodies (Schivelbusch, 1988 Schivelbusch, W. (1988). Disenchanted night: The industrialization of light in the nineteenth century. (A. Davis, Trans.) London: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]). This is not entirely surprising, as metaphors are pervasive in our everyday language (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980 Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]) and politics (Stone, 2002 Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. [Google Scholar]). A metaphorical concept allows us to see one thing in terms of another—in this case, to see some outputs of artificial lighting as a ‘pollutant’ of the night sky, our bodies, and ecosystems. Like sound pollution, it is a powerful framing that will shape how we think, speak, and act with regards to nighttime lighting technologies. Conceptual metaphors are useful but also can be troublesome, because If there is a problem with the electricity supply, we will need to inform the electricity supplier and could take more time to fix the light. The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel–time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem. To precisely measure how bright the sky gets, night time satellite imagery of the earth is used as raw input for the number and intensity of light sources. These are put into a physical model[26] of scattering due to air molecules and aerosoles to calculate cumulative sky brightness. Maps that show the enhanced sky brightness have been prepared for the entire world.[27] A side note here: I grew up in the Throgs Neck section of the Bronx, and during the 1960s, I could see quite a bit of the night sky from my backyard. But today, the city has gotten brighter. Much brighter. So bright, in fact, that now I can easily read a newspaper at night near my childhood stomping grounds without a flashlight. And the skies at my old Adirondack campsite have gotten noticeably brighter, too. What was once a sea of stars against a pitch-black background now looks more like a shade of charcoal gray. However, if this were the case, then scientists would still have to treat the universe as though it were ancient and so the actual date of creation is irrelevant. For some creationists, the possibility of God being deliberately deceptive is uncomfortable. (For example, did human-observed supernovae ever actually occur?) This solution also raises the problem of deciding when God created the apparently old universe – was it 6,000 years ago, or last Thursday? Moreover, many young-earth creationists also believe in the imminent destruction of the universe, which raises the question of whether stars farther away than 10,000 or so light-years ever actually existed to begin with. 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 [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. U.S. federal agencies may also enforce standards and process complaints within their areas of jurisdiction. For instance, in the case of light trespass by white strobe lighting from communication towers in excess of FAA minimum lighting requirements[13] the Federal Communications Commission maintains an Antenna Structure Registration database[14] information which citizens may use to identify offending structures and provides a mechanism for processing citizen inquiries and complaints.[15] The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has also incorporated a credit for reducing the amount of light trespass and sky glow into their environmentally friendly building standard known as LEED. In 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint microwave radiation, apparently coming from the most distant observable regions of the universe, and this earned them the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978.1 This Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and has a characteristic temperature.2,3 While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model,4 it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel–time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe. In fact, the increasing levels of artificial light in our world are leading to a problem known as light pollution, and it is literally blocking out the night sky that our ancestors knew intimately and ran their lives by for thousands of years. Today, light pollution is increasingly difficult to avoid in our developing world.   erogran machoman deseo el macho Maca du Pérou TestX Core Eron Plus eracto eracto Zevs