[Vision2020] light pollution

[Jeff Harkins]

Thank you for your post Mr. Basoa,

Some neighbors can be difficult to work with, but you don't solve the 
problem by imposing costs on everyone to solve such a local proximity 
problem.  Perhaps there are other ways to deal with it.  For 
instance, if a house is in a certain proximity to another house (say 
100 feet), then a light control standard might be useful.  Of course, 
there is always civil court to deal with conflict between neighbors - 
it is a very localized problem, use a very local control.

The fact is, from a science point of view, the use of a light shield 
will concentrate the downward effect of light and on bright surfaces, 
like snow, will "reflect" more concentrated light vertically.  When 
there is particulate in the air (e.g. water vapor, snow, dust), this 
concentrated reflection will create an intensified "refractive" 
effect, which will actually increase the amount of "light pollution" 
in a given area.  Sort of like the effect we experience when the moon 
is bright and there is snow on the ground.

Then, as a consequence of the reduced area lighting from the shielded 
light, the resident may very well add additional lights to cover the 
ground area desired - thus adding to the concentrated reflective and 
refractive impacts.

Speaking of costs, Clearwater Power suggested that the cost of 
upgrading the lights to "shielded" type  lighting would run about 
$200 per fixture.  Perhaps asking the folks that are impacted by the 
current lighting scheme of a neighbor to cover that cost would be 
appropriate.  This is especially relevant in those circumstances when 
someone has just bought rural property (the newcomer!) and placed 
their home in the light circle of a neighbor, then sets about to 
complain about it.  Common sense would suggest that a different 
location might have been the best solution.

Some local veterinarians have testified that the more dangerous 
predators will cruise just outside the reflective light circle - thus 
converting a "flood type" light to a "spot light" will compromise the 
integrity of a specific light for its purpose.  This will necessitate 
increasing the number and/or or intensity of the lighting devices to 
maintain the surface area lighting.

Another problem to be considered is the impact of the major source of 
light pollution in Latah County.  The greatest concentration of light 
reflection and refraction comes from Moscow.  Pullman, Lewiston and 
Clarkstown are also problematic.  Just take a drive out in the rural 
area and look west or south. You will see that for yourself.

The second major source of light energy in the county is nighttime 
vehicle traffic.  Calculate the lumens and you will see how much 
light  energy is generated by the headlights.  And this light source 
is mobile and intense.  And because it is all relatively horizontal - 
it refracts very quickly.  Most of the roads in the County are gravel 
and travel on them stirs up a great amount of particulate - add a car 
and your now have a corridor of "refracted" light.  Just stand near a 
county road and watch. The impact can be seen for great 
distances.  What should be done about that?

The proposed ordinance is, at best, an ineffective effort to address 
a trivial problem.  Just consider the requirement that all outdoor 
lighting should be controlled by a photo-sensitive device.  Most of 
us in the county have enough sense to turn off a light in the daytime 
- how we accomplish that is really not a matter that the government 
needs to address.  As to "nighttime" control of lighting, motion 
detection, sound detection and heat sensing are far more important to 
me.  But should the government decide that, and as a resident of 
Latah County, do you think you should be able to dictate, the actual 
devices needed to turn on and turn off lighting on private property?

Seriously, Mr Basoa - do you really think this is an appropriate 
solution to the "light shining in a bedroom window" problem?   - an 
average light per two square miles problem?

At 10:45 AM 1/22/2006, you wrote:
>Mr. Harkins,
>
>Please do your homework about neighbors before you post.
>
>It's wonderful that you, as a rural property owner, "respect the 
>concept of light pollution and manage my light use to be as 
>unobtrusive as possible."  It is to be applauded that you and your 
>neighbors are able to work out problems such as light pollution.  I, 
>too, am a rural property owner and have enjoyed good working 
>relations with my neighbors.
>
>However, some neighbors simply don't give a crap.  They do what they 
>do and don't consider anything but their own amusements.  If their 
>night lights are pointed directly into your living room, it's your 
>problem, not theirs ('put up heavier curtains' they might 
>say).  Some neighbors will be understanding and listen to 
>reason.  Others will go out and increase the wattage.  It's a 
>crapshoot.  You and I, we're lucky to have good neighbors.  Many 
>others are not so fortunate.  And with the current trend of building 
>a house on top of every hill in the county,  light pollution is 
>bound to get worse.
>
>I support the draft ordinance requiring shielded lights.  This shows 
>consideration for neighbors and still allows excellent visibility 
>for property owners.  I fail to  see how this requirement will cause 
>more "damage and injury to property and persons" or cause more 
>"damages to animals and crops harmed by predators and foragers".  My 
>unshielded lights (granted, they are not high wattage mercury vapor 
>lights) do not keep the deer and moose away nor do they stop the 
>coyotes from their nightly prowls.  As to "damages resulting from 
>burglary, trespass and general mischief", well, shielded or not, 
>lights alone will not deter a determined burglar or general mischief-maker.
>
>I take great pleasure in viewing the night sky, unobstructed from 
>most neighbors lights.  I am very fortunate in that regard and wish 
>to remain so.  This proposed ordinance is a positive step towards 
>preserving one aspect of this wonderful quality of life we currently 
>enjoy here in Latah County while causing few, if any, real problems.
>
>-Steven
>
>On Jan 21, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>
>Mr. Evans,
>
>Please do your homework about the physics of light before you post.
>
>For the rest of you interested in this topic, consider that with a 
>bit over 1000 square miles of land in Latah County, there are 500 
>rural farm lights (yard lights).  That is 1 light per 2 square 
>miles.  Since many of the lights are clustered in areas around the 
>urban centers, the average number of light units per square mile 
>drops considerably.  It is dark in the rural parts of this county.
>
>As a rural property owner, let me assure you that I do respect the 
>concept of light pollution and manage my light use to be as 
>unobtrusive as possible.  All of us in our "neighborhood" work 
>together to not impose on each other on most issues, including 
>lighting.  If there was a problem, we would find a way to work it 
>out.  I don't recognize your name and I am rather confident that you 
>don't live near me.  So why, exactly, are you attempting to dictate 
>lighting issues to me and my neighbors.
>
>If you, Mr. Evans, would be willing to demand that the County accept 
>all liability for damage and injury to property and persons that 
>result from reduced lighting on rural property, would support a fair 
>compensation to me (or my neighbors) for damages to animals and 
>crops harmed by predators and foragers, would support public funds 
>be raised to reimburse me (or rural residents) for damages resulting 
>from burglary, trespass and general mischief, we can pursue a 
>dialogue.  Frankly, I would rather invest such scarce public dollars 
>in county infrastructure and schools ....
>
>Until then, I will not compromise my responsibility for the health 
>and safety of my family, my neighbors or my friends for your dark sky agenda.
>
>Until you support full financial responsibility by Latah County for 
>the consequences for what you are asking me and my neighbors to do 
>in our neighborhood, why don't you work with your neighbors to deal 
>with the light pollution in your neighborhood?  I assume that you 
>live in Moscow.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060122/4e1c5809/attachment.htm