What is Digg?248 Comments
- RadiantBeing, on 01/31/2008, -4/+244To be fair/skeptical:
1. The angle of the photo is such that the photographer is only at an acute angle above parallel from most of those light sources. If there photographer were directly above that town, we would have a better idea of how much light is leaking directly into the sky.
2. A long exposure can make anything look brighter than it really is. - zhepp, on 01/31/2008, -5/+181but it looks so pretty...
- WonderBoy55, on 01/31/2008, -4/+133How horrible! A light tanker must have wrecked and spilled light everywhere! The poor wildlife...
- theNazz, on 01/31/2008, -14/+133Good luck getting populated areas to turn off their lights at night ...
- dvsbastard, on 01/31/2008, -6/+92Light Pollution = Nice Wallpaper
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -11/+80Light Pollution > Air Pollution
- designboston, on 01/31/2008, -5/+66I was at the International Contemporary Furniture Fair last May, and a trio of designers modified the normal street light to dim according to how much moon light there was. The goal is to have the darkest, most cloudy night be lit to match a clear night with a full moon, thereby negating the pollution that's evidenced in this photo. Too bad it will take years for such a simple change to take place.
- FadieZ, on 01/31/2008, -23/+80Why the hell do people keep complaining about light pollution? Do they even have a solution? Do they want all cities to turn off their lights at 9pm?
Sometimes I think people are just looking for issues to bitch about. I, for one, am setting this pretty pic as my background. - Scruffydan, on 01/31/2008, -2/+49But you may have some luck getting populated areas to switch to more efficient lighting fixtures that don't throw vast amounts of light upwards where it does no one any good.
- torontoliam, on 01/31/2008, -2/+38I have no idea what you could be trying to indicate with the greater than sign. It's worse? It's better? It's more severe?
- kurby, on 01/31/2008, -14/+48Light pollution isn't really that harmful, especially when compared with real problems in the world. The biggest downside to light pollution is that city dwellers can't see nifty stars. Unfortunately people actually spend time and money trying to combat light pollution instead of spending those resources on curing cancer or feeding hungry people.
- altgeeky1, on 01/31/2008, -2/+36>Good luck getting populated areas to turn off their lights at night ...
Your point is off the mark, because combating light polution is NOT about turning off lights. It's about limiting waste lighting, usually with things like baffles and reflectors. That's how street lights can be made less polluting.
Yeah, some lights need to go off. In my city, almost every car dealership has monster spotlights. You can't see the stars at all, but you can see these light saber wars.
There's some waste that will always exist, but a lot CAN be done... - Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -2/+32Also, I suspect this photo could be a high-dynamic-range edit, where brightness and contrast levels have been quite tweaked. Otherwise the lights would be distinct and the sky would be too dark, or the sky would be clear and the lights would be a smear of white...
Not in itself a bad thing--HDR photos can be closer to how your eye percieves a scene--but I'd hesitate to use them to judge things objectively, like light pollution levels. - Error601, on 01/31/2008, -1/+31That looks like the shot in a SciFi movie just before the planet explodes.
- bumbledragon, on 01/31/2008, -0/+29Until you travel to a place where there is no "civilization" (i.e. no artifical light at night), you don't realize how light pollution becomes a normal part of life. It is an extraordinary sight to see the night sky without any artificial light in the background.
On the flip side, I really, really like the other benefits of civilization. Running water, Internet, Porn..... - inactive, on 01/31/2008, -1/+25go outside
- dvsbastard, on 01/31/2008, -4/+27*Turns on three...*
- DeskFlyer, on 01/31/2008, -0/+21The best way to measure light pollution in any given area is to take an exposure of the night sky above, not of the actual light source on the ground.
- carpespasm, on 01/31/2008, -2/+22actually since most people use CFLs in their houses, and everyone runs on AC you can thank Tesla.
- gnslngr1919, on 01/31/2008, -0/+20Here is the EXIF data on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=2222529405
It's a 20 second exposure. - inactive, on 01/31/2008, -2/+20yeah, it also probably tipped over onto an H2, ruptured it's 1000 gallon tank, killed the driver who happened to be the creator of Firefox, ignited, burned down the "who is ron paul" banner on the side of the road, which fell down and smashed an apple store.
the army did nothing about it until about 5 days afterwards...they were too busy fighting in iraq solely for jesus and oil, the only two things that matter to the sheeple - joerod, on 01/31/2008, -2/+16thank you Thomas Edison
- sgtbutterscotch, on 01/31/2008, -3/+16Wait a second, street lights count as a furniture now?
- Vaelroth, on 01/31/2008, -8/+21For those that don't understand why light pollution is bad:
1. Its disruptive to nocturnal animals.
2. A good majority of lights left on overnight are simply that: left on. Therefore they're just burning up useful energy. Sure, there are some lights that a great to have on all night, as they provide safety for people walking and driving in some areas.
3. Any light fixture that emits UV radiation and is on at night will alter the circadian rhythms of those exposed to it (yes, they have to be exposed to it for a long time, and no, some people aren't interested in getting a good night's sleep).
4. Astronomers get pissed off.
5. Amateur astronomers have to increase their carbon footprint by driving somewhere else where they can actually see the night sky.
No, I'm not qualified to say any of these things, but with even a high school education these things should be pretty evident. Light pollution isn't going to bring about the Armageddon, but it is a little bit more than just a side effect of industrialization. Thomas Edison was right when he said, "We'll make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles." (paraphrased, I don't remember the exact quote, sue me, etc.) but he didn't realize that it would be so cheap that electricity would be used even when there wasn't any need!
Lastly, its a really cool picture regardless of whether it was a long exposure or Photoshoped or whatever. There is a great contrast of nature and industry and the colors are beautiful. - DanaG, on 01/31/2008, -0/+13There are outdoor lights, home and commercial, that are designed to minimize light pollution. Outdoor lighting that sends light to the sides or up reduces the amount of light that hits the ground where it's needed needs to be brighter to compensate. Lighting that directs its light down where it's needed can save energy and reduce light pollution.
For example, near where I live there's a parking lot where the lights are glass globes on poles about 20' in the air. They look nice but at night all the light goes up and out. Moreover, there's a plate that attaches the glass globe to the pole which actually blocks light from going down so even though all the lights are on at night, the parking lot is mostly dark. Moreover, the light from the further poles gets in your eyes and reduces your vision. Like I said, it looks really nice during the day, but it's the worst lighting design I've even seen from a practical point of view. - specialbuddy1, on 01/31/2008, -0/+13Do what Ann Arbor Michigan did and get your city to change every light bulb to LED. Then they can have efficient light pollution :)
- pencilneck, on 01/31/2008, -2/+14City lights as such in the photo won't light up a mountain in the back ground. Every photographer knows that when you double the distance of light, the mount is cut in half. In a nut shell, take a light bulb and 2 cards, put 1 card 5 feet away and the other card 10 feet away. The card that is 10 feet away receives half as much light as the card 5 feet away.
Put a mountain peek 20 miles away (I'm aiming way low... mountain peek may be 50 miles for all I know) and just how much light do you think those street lights will put on it.
It is a very good photo, and I give a good thumbs up to the photographer who did it... but to say it shows light pollution is misleading. - seldon452, on 01/31/2008, -2/+14Anyone know where I can get a high res version of that?
- pdrap, on 01/31/2008, -1/+12I'm not sure what you're objecting to, but the GP is saying that if you point your lights at the ground, it's more efficient. Go to darksky.org and read about full cutoff lights. Using them can allow you to use half the wattage and get the same illumination at street level because wasted light isn't lighting up the bottoms of airplanes.
- cosmicr, on 01/31/2008, -1/+12its not so much a simple change. it has to be cost effective. the local government has to agree to use them. and then you'd only start seeing them in new estates.
- Takran, on 01/31/2008, -1/+12Sources? Citations? Oh wait, you're talking out of your ass. My bad.
- piesforyou, on 01/31/2008, -0/+11It's just a long exposure shot taken at dusk.
- rollerboy, on 01/31/2008, -1/+12i hate light pollution.
i wish we could go back to walking around with torches. - metalgod79, on 01/31/2008, -7/+17You call it light pollution, I call it ***** awesome looking!
- riah, on 01/31/2008, -1/+11i.e. > e.g.
- Chainheart, on 01/31/2008, -0/+10Cynic! Haven't you seen Hey Arnold! before?
- thedinomeister, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10more like "An example of someone ***** with exposure times"
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -9/+18you might also not base your policy off of photoshopped pictures. "color correcting", especially to the extent of this pic, is photoshopping the pic, and this picture does not represent reality.
i'm not saying that a lot of lighting is silly (switch to LEDs already for god sakes), but this pic should not be any basis for anything. - Bael, on 01/31/2008, -0/+9My wife... Morgan Fairchild... whom I've seen naked...
- KevinWhite, on 01/31/2008, -0/+9exactly!
THIS is light pollution (but i like it):
http://flickr.com/photos/kevinwhite/431054075/ - gldfshnpcklejar, on 01/31/2008, -0/+9This is a long exposure and with the fog over the city it creates a much brighter image than it really is.
- iiBeLiEvE, on 01/31/2008, -0/+8Shush and enjoy the horror.
- Chainheart, on 01/31/2008, -0/+8Who says we can't turn off our lights when they're not needed, save some energy, and find a cure for cancer at the same time?
- Amplix, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9just in case anyone was wondering such as I - this is Tenerife Island (Canary Islands)
- torontoliam, on 01/31/2008, -4/+12For one thing, light pollution represents waste. It is the light that escapes without being used. Reducing light pollution isn't just about turning lights off, it's also about using the light more effectively and focusing it better on the subject of interest.
On a related note, the tall skyscrapers that leave lights on at night in Toronto, and I'm sure elsewhere, are guilty of causing a lot of birds to mistakingly fly into them. This kills a LOT of birds. - davestar, on 01/31/2008, -4/+11concentrating light pollution in small areas (cities) is much better than spreading it out over larger areas (suburban sprawl)
...plus you get sweet pictures like this - BKred, on 01/31/2008, -0/+7I stand corrected. I don't know anything about photography anyway, so I really shouldn't talk.
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -2/+8On a related note, March 29th is the day for Earth Hour, where people all around the world turn their lights off for one hour.
http://www.earthhour.org - drizzlelicious, on 01/31/2008, -4/+10In any case, it looks flippin sweet
- jmpeagle, on 01/31/2008, -3/+9OMG NUKE THE SUN
-
Show 51 - 100 of 244 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is