I'm in a Department of Physics and Astronomy, so several of my colleagues are astronomers. We also have a rather nice on-campus observatory, used for student research projects.
Unfortunately, the combination means that we have a running argument with the rest of the campus regarding lights. The rather nice observatory is basically useless if there are big bright lights on all around it all the time, but various other groups want to have bright lights on all the time: Athletics wants the lights on the football field on so they can run night practices and intramurals; Campus Safety wants more lights everywhere, because they think it makes people safer; the architects working on plans for a potential upgrade of the science facilities are forever coming up with drawings of buildings with gigantic glass atriums (atria?) and spotlights and so on, because lots of glass and light make architects feel all warm and fuzzy. It's a constant battle to get the astronomers' concerns taken seriously.
Astronomers all around the globe are nodding as they read this, because it's a problem everywhere. Tommaso Dorigo has a very nice post explaining the problems of light pollution, and the things astronomers do to try to detect and compensate for it.
And, interestingly, there's a post at the Security Mentor arguing that more lighting does not necessarily mean more safety (spinning off a New Yorker article about light pollution and campaigns by astronomers to get darker night skies. It probably won't make a difference-- one of my colleagues says that this is already well-known among the astronomy and professional security communities-- but every little bit helps.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It's a shame. It's harder to do astronomy, and everybody misses out on the awe-inspiring beauty of the night sky.
I have a streetlamp in my yard; I wish I could install a switch on it.
It seems like an almost hopeless battle. The security issue is highly emotional. Then you have outdoor architectural and landscape lighting. And the apparent right to advertise by the use of searchlights.
Astronomy has largely been relegated to remote locations. There is even an amateur rent-a-remote-controlled-internet-scope project. But for those whi can't travel to remote locations the stars are largely just something we see on films.
The university I went to also had an on-campus observatory. Not caring much about astronomy, I don't know how good it was, but students did use it to do research. Halfway through my schooling, the building immediately to the north of the physics building was torn down and rebuilt. And, of course, the architects had to put lights pointed at all the trees. (Maybe they don't get enough light during the day?) They were lights placed in the ground that pointed straight up, and, as the astronomy students were quick to point out, the lights remained on year round, even for the 5 months of the year when there are no leaves to illuminate, just sticks.
They complained about it a lot, and I was again grateful that I wasn't studying astronomy.
When I was an undergrad, my college got the bright idea to show off the observatory dome by illuminating it with a floodlight over commencement weekend, rendering it lovely but totally useless.
Smarter lighting should be an easy sell--it saves energy (and, therefore, money) and it can provide the same useful illumination as conventional lighting. The International Dark Sky Association has been pleading this case for years: I'm not sure why no one is listening.
I did graduate work at a university where the campus police once suggested that we install dusk-to-dawn security lights at the observatory.
At my current institution, we are currently fighting over the new lighting "upgrades" being installed on campus. People want super bright lights because it makes them feel safer. I have seen several reports, though, that suggest otherwise, particularly since the really bright lights make people night blind. Then, they can't see into the shadows.