Light pollution is key 'bringer of insect apocalypse'(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Light pollution is key 'bringer of insect apocalypse'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/22/light-pollution-insect-apocalypse
77 comments
> There are many places where there is no light, especially in the countryside or in the forest.
The nearest place on land where darksitefinder[1] shows grey (not even black) is across the continent from me, >1000 kilometers in any direction. There are some blue (medium) spots in France and northern Germany (320km in opposing directions) but that's it. I've visited the one in mid-France once and had the fortune of having a clear sky. My lifetime falling star count went from zero to "I lost count at some point" in about an hour and a half. The milky way looks absolutely amazing from there. On the horizon, lights were still visible from a nearby town though. I don't think I've ever seen real darkness outside.
Whenever I go on holiday, I'm actively looking for ways to get back to a blue spot, let alone a grey one. Maybe I should rent a seaworthy boat at some point and go overnight (not sure how much preparation that would take, I've only heard of sea dangers from fiction, no clue if an inexperienced person can just do that with a decent rental boat these days).
Anyway, the point of the reply: I'm not sure that the darkness required for insect life is the same as "I can't see a bright, direct light source right now".
[1] http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html#6/48.487/9.646
The nearest place on land where darksitefinder[1] shows grey (not even black) is across the continent from me, >1000 kilometers in any direction. There are some blue (medium) spots in France and northern Germany (320km in opposing directions) but that's it. I've visited the one in mid-France once and had the fortune of having a clear sky. My lifetime falling star count went from zero to "I lost count at some point" in about an hour and a half. The milky way looks absolutely amazing from there. On the horizon, lights were still visible from a nearby town though. I don't think I've ever seen real darkness outside.
Whenever I go on holiday, I'm actively looking for ways to get back to a blue spot, let alone a grey one. Maybe I should rent a seaworthy boat at some point and go overnight (not sure how much preparation that would take, I've only heard of sea dangers from fiction, no clue if an inexperienced person can just do that with a decent rental boat these days).
Anyway, the point of the reply: I'm not sure that the darkness required for insect life is the same as "I can't see a bright, direct light source right now".
[1] http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html#6/48.487/9.646
> Maybe I should rent a seaworthy boat at some point and go overnight (not sure how much preparation that would take, I've only heard of sea dangers from fiction, no clue if an inexperienced person can just do that with a decent rental boat these days).
From my experience living in the Caribbeans, you shouldn't do that alone or inexperienced to begin with, I'd recommend hiring a skipper to take you and a few friends for a couple days, and mention you want to ride by night to see the stars. Prefer a moonless night, or close enough.
I truly realized what the galaxy was, sailing at night. It's a sight that you never forget indeed. Whenever I think of times before the modern era, when everyone could see that at night... so many stars, such wonder just above... kinda makes you glimpse at a very different perspective. Maybe more 'magical', less about us people and animals and more about the cosmos in its entirety... I don't know. It's humbling and inspiring. These glorious first sights of our galaxy stayed with me to this day, some 25 years later.
From my experience living in the Caribbeans, you shouldn't do that alone or inexperienced to begin with, I'd recommend hiring a skipper to take you and a few friends for a couple days, and mention you want to ride by night to see the stars. Prefer a moonless night, or close enough.
I truly realized what the galaxy was, sailing at night. It's a sight that you never forget indeed. Whenever I think of times before the modern era, when everyone could see that at night... so many stars, such wonder just above... kinda makes you glimpse at a very different perspective. Maybe more 'magical', less about us people and animals and more about the cosmos in its entirety... I don't know. It's humbling and inspiring. These glorious first sights of our galaxy stayed with me to this day, some 25 years later.
> There are many places where there is no light, especially in the countryside or in the forest.
> The nearest place on land where darksitefinder shows grey (not even black) is across the continent from me, >1000 kilometers in any direction.
The only places in the universe where there really is no light may be the interiors of planets/asteroids.
> The nearest place on land where darksitefinder shows grey (not even black) is across the continent from me, >1000 kilometers in any direction.
The only places in the universe where there really is no light may be the interiors of planets/asteroids.
Light pollution has been increasing significantly each year. Look at the photographs in this article: https://www.curbed.com/2017/4/26/15442432/photography-dark-s...
There are fewer places than you think with no light. I remember watching many moth's flying around street lights and my porch light. Haven't seen that for years now.
There are fewer places than you think with no light. I remember watching many moth's flying around street lights and my porch light. Haven't seen that for years now.
I'm not surprised. Rural areas are almost worse than you'd infer from the photographs in that article. 10 years ago, few people would have outside lighting on more than a few hours a night. Now, you can't even drive through most places without seeing high intensity lighting mounted to telephone poles near residential zones.
I live about 10-15 miles from the nearest decent-sized town, and I've seen this change. Tons of people moving into these areas, and the first thing they do is install (or pay the electric coop to install) outdoor lighting. As per one of the other posters, it's almost always that obnoxious 6000K+ color lighting that's blue-white enough to hurt your eyes. And I used to whine about the sodium lamps...
My state has light pollution laws under the Dark Skies Act. Good luck getting it enforced since most of the astronomers who lived here have either moved or died.
I live about 10-15 miles from the nearest decent-sized town, and I've seen this change. Tons of people moving into these areas, and the first thing they do is install (or pay the electric coop to install) outdoor lighting. As per one of the other posters, it's almost always that obnoxious 6000K+ color lighting that's blue-white enough to hurt your eyes. And I used to whine about the sodium lamps...
My state has light pollution laws under the Dark Skies Act. Good luck getting it enforced since most of the astronomers who lived here have either moved or died.
This is the downside of LEDs. As great a technology as they are, their low cost and efficiency has enabled a huge expansion of outdoor lighting.
Bright outdoor lights used to be expensive, and installing/running them unnecessarily would have a significant impact on power bills. Not any more.
(That said, the "insect apocalypse" began long before LEDs were a thing...)
Bright outdoor lights used to be expensive, and installing/running them unnecessarily would have a significant impact on power bills. Not any more.
(That said, the "insect apocalypse" began long before LEDs were a thing...)
> their low cost and efficiency has enabled a huge expansion of outdoor lighting.
This is exactly it. Leaving half a dozen LEDs on all night long is far cheaper than doing the same with traditional lighting. Then you have those stupid strings of warm white LEDs that I assume are intended to look like candles and are apparently all the rage right now. To say nothing of the couple of houses across the valley that have motion lights--at the end of their driveway--activated either by a brisk breeze or errant skunk.
What worries me isn't so much whether light pollution is contributing to mass insect deaths (that seems debatable); it's that light pollution is getting so much worse that appreciating the night sky is going to become increasingly harder for more and more of the population.
This is exactly it. Leaving half a dozen LEDs on all night long is far cheaper than doing the same with traditional lighting. Then you have those stupid strings of warm white LEDs that I assume are intended to look like candles and are apparently all the rage right now. To say nothing of the couple of houses across the valley that have motion lights--at the end of their driveway--activated either by a brisk breeze or errant skunk.
What worries me isn't so much whether light pollution is contributing to mass insect deaths (that seems debatable); it's that light pollution is getting so much worse that appreciating the night sky is going to become increasingly harder for more and more of the population.
I'd expect moths to evolve to ignore streetlights. Maybe it happened already.
On the other hand, we may devolve to lose our ability to see in the dark. Maybe it's happening already.
Maybe it is happening, but at much slower pace than the evolution in insects, which have a new generation every couple weeks.
GP has a good point, insect can evolve very quickly. And it is probably much easier evolutionary to adapt to light pollution (it's a software change, after all) than to insecticide (which affects cell chemistry) or complete change in habitat due to its destruction or climate change.
GP has a good point, insect can evolve very quickly. And it is probably much easier evolutionary to adapt to light pollution (it's a software change, after all) than to insecticide (which affects cell chemistry) or complete change in habitat due to its destruction or climate change.
Your biological intuition is poor. I'll leave it at that.
You didn't give an argument. I'll leave it at that.
> There are many places where there is no light
Less light might be more accurate. Even out in the middle of nowhere the horizon can be quite noticeably illuminated by far-off settlements. And the countryside itself can be just as bad for light pollution. It's kind of funny, I was just having a conversation about the local grain elevator's excessive use of lights. It is in the countryside, but appears as bright as a small city.
Speaking of grain elevators, agricultural cropping is often blamed for insect decline. I see several comments stating that even within this discussion. Yet only 10% of the earth is arable. 90% of the earth is untouched in that way. I'm not entirely sure that "the insects can thrive somewhere else" is a tenable argument.
Less light might be more accurate. Even out in the middle of nowhere the horizon can be quite noticeably illuminated by far-off settlements. And the countryside itself can be just as bad for light pollution. It's kind of funny, I was just having a conversation about the local grain elevator's excessive use of lights. It is in the countryside, but appears as bright as a small city.
Speaking of grain elevators, agricultural cropping is often blamed for insect decline. I see several comments stating that even within this discussion. Yet only 10% of the earth is arable. 90% of the earth is untouched in that way. I'm not entirely sure that "the insects can thrive somewhere else" is a tenable argument.
> Yet only 10% of the earth is arable. 90% of the earth is untouched in that way.
I don’t know the numbers but my guess that 90% is mostly unsuitable to insects in the first place. Also the problem is that in a lot of western countries the countryside that could host insects is mostly agricultural land. Try looking at the number of wild flowers you see in the country (spoiler: it’s depressing, because wild prairies are becoming very rare).
I don’t know the numbers but my guess that 90% is mostly unsuitable to insects in the first place. Also the problem is that in a lot of western countries the countryside that could host insects is mostly agricultural land. Try looking at the number of wild flowers you see in the country (spoiler: it’s depressing, because wild prairies are becoming very rare).
To add to that, as cities benefit from close proximity to food and often came to be a city because they acted as ports for food distribution, cities tend to spring up on what was arable land, further destroying insect habitats and bringing that light pollution to the areas (possibly) best suited for insects.
Although I'm not sure I entirely agree with your premise. As a Canadian, the lands on the Canadian Shield (a rock formation that spans across most of Canada's north) are famous for their dense insect population. The rock does not make agriculture viable there at all, but it is a great place to be an insect.
Although I'm not sure I entirely agree with your premise. As a Canadian, the lands on the Canadian Shield (a rock formation that spans across most of Canada's north) are famous for their dense insect population. The rock does not make agriculture viable there at all, but it is a great place to be an insect.
Lights have been with us 60-100 years, but in the last 40 there have been some remarkable changes from day and night to day and simulated day. Only going back to 1980-1990:
+ Street lights used to be low power sodium, and 2 in 3 were turned off around midnight (in a major city). Villages might get 4 or 5 street lights only, near junctions, again often only on partial duty. There might be one or two running 24/7 by the village green, junction and bus stop. Being deep amber, and pretty dim, they kept your vision in night mode pretty effectively than the current crop of daylight lamps -- no idea if insects would get the same effect from lamp colour.
+ After 3 or 4 rounds of lighting upgrades my semi-rural residential street now has street lighting more suited to a major highway. I'm not joking. In 1980 on a taller pole, they'd have suited the M1. No lights are turned off any more, ever. The major highways used to only illuminate the congested bits and around complex junctions. Unlit sections have become more and more uncommon - they used to be the vast majority of motorway miles.
+ Many retailers, business parks, car parks, warehouse and whatnot have floodlighting permanently in the hours of darkness, whether in working hours or not. Most businesses have illuminated signs and gimmicks running 24/7. In 1980 a flat painted or printed sign, with a light or three for when the street lights turned on was most common. Turned off when the business closes for the day, maybe leave a dim bulb in the window or in premises for visual and security.
+ None of the 500w halogen PIR floodlights (and LED equivalents) common in many drives and garages try to limit spread, or upward light pollution. In 1980 you used the headlights to put the car in the garage, then turned on a 40 or 60w lamp if need be to open the house door. No one had two dozen gimmicky super-bright solar LEDs scattered around the lawn and drive.
+ Buildings wouldn't include lighting as part of the design, or use floodlighting unless a major national monument or of great historical significance. Now every ratty lawyer office, takeaway and hotel wants to light up their building through the night. New buildings come with LED colours as a bloody feature.
If you want actual darkness (that few actually experience any more), or need of taking a torch walking the dog, or see stars properly, you need to get miles away from the nearest road and human.
+ Street lights used to be low power sodium, and 2 in 3 were turned off around midnight (in a major city). Villages might get 4 or 5 street lights only, near junctions, again often only on partial duty. There might be one or two running 24/7 by the village green, junction and bus stop. Being deep amber, and pretty dim, they kept your vision in night mode pretty effectively than the current crop of daylight lamps -- no idea if insects would get the same effect from lamp colour.
+ After 3 or 4 rounds of lighting upgrades my semi-rural residential street now has street lighting more suited to a major highway. I'm not joking. In 1980 on a taller pole, they'd have suited the M1. No lights are turned off any more, ever. The major highways used to only illuminate the congested bits and around complex junctions. Unlit sections have become more and more uncommon - they used to be the vast majority of motorway miles.
+ Many retailers, business parks, car parks, warehouse and whatnot have floodlighting permanently in the hours of darkness, whether in working hours or not. Most businesses have illuminated signs and gimmicks running 24/7. In 1980 a flat painted or printed sign, with a light or three for when the street lights turned on was most common. Turned off when the business closes for the day, maybe leave a dim bulb in the window or in premises for visual and security.
+ None of the 500w halogen PIR floodlights (and LED equivalents) common in many drives and garages try to limit spread, or upward light pollution. In 1980 you used the headlights to put the car in the garage, then turned on a 40 or 60w lamp if need be to open the house door. No one had two dozen gimmicky super-bright solar LEDs scattered around the lawn and drive.
+ Buildings wouldn't include lighting as part of the design, or use floodlighting unless a major national monument or of great historical significance. Now every ratty lawyer office, takeaway and hotel wants to light up their building through the night. New buildings come with LED colours as a bloody feature.
If you want actual darkness (that few actually experience any more), or need of taking a torch walking the dog, or see stars properly, you need to get miles away from the nearest road and human.
> “We strongly believe artificial light at night – in combination with habitat loss, chemical pollution, invasive species, and climate change – is driving insect declines,”
Well it would be a "key factor" among 5 of them at least, according to the authors.
Well it would be a "key factor" among 5 of them at least, according to the authors.
LEDs have increased light pollution by a significant factor.
Also changed the spectrum and luminance of general illumination. It used to be that gas discharge lamps had the highest luminous efficacy (lm/W) and they had relatively narrow composite Spectra. These days LEDs with broad spectrum phosphors are everywhere.
I’d be careful of mansueto and other companies promoting alternative causes of insect decline, even if these causes are insignificant, to make a few more bucks
Chronic semi-permanent light at night (street lights, signage, lights from businesses like hotels, porch lights, and notably NOT car lights or other transitory light) is generally unpleasant right? I feel like at best it's an annoyance, and at worst, it's something messing with biologicial cycles.
Are there any interesting innovations out there addressing this? Like motion strengthened* street lights? I would be tickled pink to have a Navi-esque drone lighting up my way when I need it rather than having everything lit all the time.
*edited from "activated"
Are there any interesting innovations out there addressing this? Like motion strengthened* street lights? I would be tickled pink to have a Navi-esque drone lighting up my way when I need it rather than having everything lit all the time.
*edited from "activated"
A hotel nearby replaced all their exterior lighting (several hundred CFLs) with omni-directional LED clusters ~ 6000K. They make the place look like a prison courtyard, and they are painful to walk near after dark (too bright, too harsh).
I would think, that as a species we'd all recognize the color temperature of a nice campfire to be comforting and likeable, but I'm honestly surprised some people like these 6000K+ LEDs.
I would think, that as a species we'd all recognize the color temperature of a nice campfire to be comforting and likeable, but I'm honestly surprised some people like these 6000K+ LEDs.
I think a lot of it is down to people being clueless about what colour temperatures mean and what should be used in what location. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people assume "higher is better".
You also need to consider outdoor lighting such as sodium vapor lamps have much lower colour temperatures of around 1700K, where as off-the-shelf LED bulbs only go as low as 2500K.
You also need to consider outdoor lighting such as sodium vapor lamps have much lower colour temperatures of around 1700K, where as off-the-shelf LED bulbs only go as low as 2500K.
> You also need to consider outdoor lighting such as sodium vapor lamps have much lower colour temperatures of around 1700K, where as off-the-shelf LED bulbs only go as low as 2500K.
I adore sodium vapor lamps. I realize they aren't as "bright" at night, and some people prefer that (largely for safety), but the old lights aren't just romantic - they're less offensive to our senses. They aren't nearly as distracting or, quite frankly, ugly. I feel like modern LED lights are ruining entire cities with their blue glow.
I adore sodium vapor lamps. I realize they aren't as "bright" at night, and some people prefer that (largely for safety), but the old lights aren't just romantic - they're less offensive to our senses. They aren't nearly as distracting or, quite frankly, ugly. I feel like modern LED lights are ruining entire cities with their blue glow.
I really don't like LED lights. Even compared to fluorescents, which are pretty horrible. They replaced all the fluorescent lights at my work a while back with LED's and for the first month all my coworker's were complaining about sore eyes and headaches, they hurt my eyes, they're hard to look at, they even mess with calibrating the lasers on our machines. It's been more difficult since the bulbs were changed. Sometimes the laser doesn't read the calibration lens properly. This didn't happen before.
Probably shitty LED bulbs with poor drive circuitry. Eye strain is usually caused by flicker, which often comes from bulbs that use PWM (cheap dimmable bulbs) or don’t have large enough capacitors (or any at all and just rely on a diode and resistor to manage voltage, so you end up suffering from 50/60hz flicker, frequently half wave rectified making it even worse).
I love sodium vapor lights. I find it to be a very pleasing monochromatic glow that makes me excited be walking around town after dark. I think I especially came to be aware of them as in college my campus had them, and it made for some fantastic night photography around the school.
My dream would be to have some type of consumer version of them, I would love to put them in my exterior lights, but that doesn't really seem to be a thing....
My dream would be to have some type of consumer version of them, I would love to put them in my exterior lights, but that doesn't really seem to be a thing....
You can totally get sodium vapor lamps on amazon. They are popular as grow lamps. A quick search bough up listings for both high and low pressure sodium lamps, and ballasts
Those 6K LEDs are super cheap, which is really unfortunate, because they are terrible for both animals and humans.
I've noticed similar unpleasant changes. I would guess cost is the driver as opposed to aesthetic or physiological preference, but I bet/hope new innovations will make the healthier and prettier solutions financially viable.
City streets look nicer under higher temperature light. This can be easily experienced by walking from a sodium lamp street to a 4000K LED one to a 6000K one, since even today very few cities are completely converted to LEDs.
There are reasons to use low temperature lamps, but aesthetics is not one of them.
There are reasons to use low temperature lamps, but aesthetics is not one of them.
Low-pressure sodium lights are almost single-wavelength amber. They have a negative color rendering index, while incandescents and sunlight are 100, and most white LEDs are around 70. LEDs can be had in the high 90s at a cost to efficiency.
LED and CFL screw-in bulbs for household lighting come in a variety of color temperatures, but people usually go for 2700K-3000K. It does seem to me that people prefer warmer light for many applications.
My preference for always-on outdoor lighting is none, followed by dim, warm, and shrouded.
LED and CFL screw-in bulbs for household lighting come in a variety of color temperatures, but people usually go for 2700K-3000K. It does seem to me that people prefer warmer light for many applications.
My preference for always-on outdoor lighting is none, followed by dim, warm, and shrouded.
Have you tried f.lux (or equivalent built in blue light filter on your devices)?
I remember one evening where friends didn't get the point of f.lux, until we switched it off as a demonstration, and they went "aargh, put it back! Put it back!"
Not having it on my phone actually led me to buying $1 orange goggles, and eventually a newer phone with a real blue light filter.
Also, do you find sunsets aesthetic? Twilight is the natural blue light filter.
I remember one evening where friends didn't get the point of f.lux, until we switched it off as a demonstration, and they went "aargh, put it back! Put it back!"
Not having it on my phone actually led me to buying $1 orange goggles, and eventually a newer phone with a real blue light filter.
Also, do you find sunsets aesthetic? Twilight is the natural blue light filter.
Motion activated lights would be far more distracting. It's easy to become accustomed to a constant lighting, but if lights were going on and off every 1-2 hours through the night, it would be unnerving for anyone triggering them or positioned to see the light.
The innovation is living in the countryside on your own land or vacationing in those areas. Being away from people and their lights is a privilege, especially when lights improve safety.
The innovation is living in the countryside on your own land or vacationing in those areas. Being away from people and their lights is a privilege, especially when lights improve safety.
I don't think the bright lighting which is rampant in cities improves safety in general, (most) people are perfectly able to see in the dark, and city lights merely make it (because of interfering with the adaptation of the eyes) impossible to see in the spots left without lighting.
True to your first point, but a compromise like having lights be dim and having them increase to full brightness for approaching traffic may help.
Selective darkness is certainly a luxury, but there's no reason we can't innovate away our currently clumsy solutions.
Selective darkness is certainly a luxury, but there's no reason we can't innovate away our currently clumsy solutions.
Reading through this sub-thread I was struck by the image of an artificial, permanent "full moon": the closest thing we could get to natural light at night.
But I reckon having it be full moon all the time would cause problems of its own. I have difficulty sleeping when the moon is full, I'm full of energy.
I read this is because of an energy boost (moon and mania share the same root) for hunting, that humans used to hunt in the moonlight.
But I reckon having it be full moon all the time would cause problems of its own. I have difficulty sleeping when the moon is full, I'm full of energy.
I read this is because of an energy boost (moon and mania share the same root) for hunting, that humans used to hunt in the moonlight.
I think you mean "lunar" and "lunacy."
> Chronic semi-permanent light at night (street lights, signage, lights from businesses like hotels, porch lights, and notably NOT car lights or other transitory light) is generally unpleasant right?
Maybe it's cultural but I generally like those sort of lights at night. If it bothers me at home, I just close the curtains.
Maybe it's cultural but I generally like those sort of lights at night. If it bothers me at home, I just close the curtains.
I'm not sure if the preference is cultural or more variable from person to person. I don't like always-on outdoor lighting; if I want light, I'll bring some.
I have to assume I'm in the minority though, as nowhere I've lived has moved to reduce street lighting. I know a couple places that have; the town my mother lives in has banned most always-on outdoor lighting, and another relative's town has removed street lights from some neighborhoods. I think both towns have considerably above-average rates of environmental activism.
I have to assume I'm in the minority though, as nowhere I've lived has moved to reduce street lighting. I know a couple places that have; the town my mother lives in has banned most always-on outdoor lighting, and another relative's town has removed street lights from some neighborhoods. I think both towns have considerably above-average rates of environmental activism.
Maybe a difference here is that I live on the 28th floor of a building in one of most densely populated city on earth (Shenzhen). There's always people walking outside so "smart" lights would always be on anyways. I do enjoy darkness when I am in more remote areas.
I'm not necessarily advocating automatically-triggered lighting, though that may be the solution for some places. Always-on lighting may make sense for a space with constant foot traffic all night, depending on how heavy the traffic is. I do think people should view illuminating spaces nobody is using as a problem to be solved.
If, however it's just a few people an hour, perhaps they should bring flashlights.
If, however it's just a few people an hour, perhaps they should bring flashlights.
Nobody ever got fired for adding another street light. (Or adding another traffic light, for that matter)
Spent a bit of time in Fiji. A thing that struck me instantly was how well fed the frogs were and how little effort they had to put in to get food. At dusk they just go near little ground lights and eat every bug that would come near them. It's a perverse ecological system.
Paris' emblematic Place de la Nation was just rethought, with several car lanes removed, larger green and pedestrian areas, and relevant to this article, no lights.
As far as I know, it's now one of the darkest places of Paris, I hope it's on purpose.
As far as I know, it's now one of the darkest places of Paris, I hope it's on purpose.
But Paris is within the highest levels of light pollution you can find in Europe (the only other places in Europe being the inner parts of London, Saint Petersburg, and a couple of cities in Spain - no other European country even has places that bright). I don't think that can be called even remotely dark, though it'll be interesting to see if I visit again.
Source: http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html#6/48.093/6.416 (Paris/London/etc. has the white level; other cities like Brussels, The Hague or Milan only get to grey).
Source: http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html#6/48.093/6.416 (Paris/London/etc. has the white level; other cities like Brussels, The Hague or Milan only get to grey).
Is it safe at night for humans?
Yes. Lack of light is perfectly safe for humans although we tend to get a little depressed with pro longed periods of darkness.
He may have meant, criminality wise. Public lightening is, and has been, a major factor against criminality. Public sodium-based lightening is too week anyway for depression.
One way to ensure security for pedestrians with lowest consumption, is the “light carpet”. Only the feet are enlighted, with low spotlights. Consumes little, lets you see where you walk, but in case of theft, doesn’t allow you to see the criminal’s face. I don’t know whether this is what they chose for Place de la Nation.
One way to ensure security for pedestrians with lowest consumption, is the “light carpet”. Only the feet are enlighted, with low spotlights. Consumes little, lets you see where you walk, but in case of theft, doesn’t allow you to see the criminal’s face. I don’t know whether this is what they chose for Place de la Nation.
> Public lightening is, and has been, a major factor against criminality
That's highly debatable (sure, it may feel safer): https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/lighting-crime-and-s...
In any case, I don't there is much point in keeping the lights on throughout the entire night, but it might be beneficial to (especially during winter months at higher latitudes) light busy areas in cities for part of the evening.
That's highly debatable (sure, it may feel safer): https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/lighting-crime-and-s...
In any case, I don't there is much point in keeping the lights on throughout the entire night, but it might be beneficial to (especially during winter months at higher latitudes) light busy areas in cities for part of the evening.
There was an article I stumbled across a while back written by someone who was fed up with the amount of crime that occurred just outside his window in an urban neighborhood.
His window just happened to be at the darkest part on the street where shady business could be done in the shadows. Drug deals, prostitution, etc. He'd overhear all of it because of the lack of light on the street by his window.
I don't remember exactly what the solution was but it involved getting the area lighted somehow.
Surely it didn't prevent the crimes from happening, just relocating it elsewhere.
But that's the point. As long as the paths people stick to at night are well-lit, they can avoid the dark shadows where crime is more likely occurring. If you leave entire blocks darkened, you make those blocks less safe. Stumbling upon a crime in-progress is a good way to get killed just for being a witness.
His window just happened to be at the darkest part on the street where shady business could be done in the shadows. Drug deals, prostitution, etc. He'd overhear all of it because of the lack of light on the street by his window.
I don't remember exactly what the solution was but it involved getting the area lighted somehow.
Surely it didn't prevent the crimes from happening, just relocating it elsewhere.
But that's the point. As long as the paths people stick to at night are well-lit, they can avoid the dark shadows where crime is more likely occurring. If you leave entire blocks darkened, you make those blocks less safe. Stumbling upon a crime in-progress is a good way to get killed just for being a witness.
Would be interesting to read that article.
Crime is a problem indeed, but I still feel like adding more lighting in hopes of solving this is not really the solution, and like you say, just moving the problem around.
I think lighting very busy areas (think railway stations, main streets in cities) is a good idea in general, but how many areas are really busy at night? And most people aren't outside in the middle of the night or early morning, so most lights could probably be shutdown after the evening is over?
Crime is a problem indeed, but I still feel like adding more lighting in hopes of solving this is not really the solution, and like you say, just moving the problem around.
I think lighting very busy areas (think railway stations, main streets in cities) is a good idea in general, but how many areas are really busy at night? And most people aren't outside in the middle of the night or early morning, so most lights could probably be shutdown after the evening is over?
Wish I could find it, I tried briefly but failed miserably. Was kind of hoping someone would recognize it from my comment and be able to provide a link as I wouldn't mind re-reading it myself.
Well there are still cars, that's probably the worst risk for pedestrians and cyclists.
That isn't the insect apocalyse. The insect apocalyse is in a decade or so when insects overcome what it is we are producing to beat them down.
Context: Sweden.
I spend october-april in a city. I very rarely see any animals at all here, including insects. (Sometimes we get confused rabbits here.)
I spend april-october in a house in the countryside. There's so little light-pollution that I've considered buying one of those fancy motorized telescopes.
I get lots of insects there, including lots of beautiful butterflies.
I spend october-april in a city. I very rarely see any animals at all here, including insects. (Sometimes we get confused rabbits here.)
I spend april-october in a house in the countryside. There's so little light-pollution that I've considered buying one of those fancy motorized telescopes.
I get lots of insects there, including lots of beautiful butterflies.
I think concrete versus natural landscape is a bigger factor in your case.
I've considered buying one of those fancy motorized telescopes.
To completely change the subject: With very dark skies, a non-motorize dobsonian would be a better choice. For the price, you'll get a larger aperture scope which will provide better views. And the dark skies make it easy to star hop to find what you want to see.
From my house near Louisville, KY, it's too difficult to see a lot of stars, making a "goto" scope much more useful. I simply can't find the stars to hop to visually even though I have a really good idea where they are.
To completely change the subject: With very dark skies, a non-motorize dobsonian would be a better choice. For the price, you'll get a larger aperture scope which will provide better views. And the dark skies make it easy to star hop to find what you want to see.
From my house near Louisville, KY, it's too difficult to see a lot of stars, making a "goto" scope much more useful. I simply can't find the stars to hop to visually even though I have a really good idea where they are.
Thanks for the insight!
Hmmmm I'm very skeptical. Insects evolve quickly. We been having artificial light for like a long time. I can't imagine the insects would not have evolved to it by now.
Yes, evolution is happening:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moths-in-cities-d...
But really the switchover to brighter LEDs over sodium lamps is somewhat recent.
As a factor it seems believable, as THE factor it seems more likely that there's a big funder looking for a strawman...
Which industry does have an immense and known responsibility for insect deaths? Maybe the industry producing insecticides that are hugely profitable but at risk of global bans?
I'd not at all be surprised if this is an elaborate way to sow legal doubt on the anti-insecticide / organic agriculture efforts.
Which industry does have an immense and known responsibility for insect deaths? Maybe the industry producing insecticides that are hugely profitable but at risk of global bans?
I'd not at all be surprised if this is an elaborate way to sow legal doubt on the anti-insecticide / organic agriculture efforts.
Nowhere in the article do they claim that it's THE factor, just a key factor in combination with "habitat loss, chemical pollution, invasive species, and climate change" (3rd paragraph).
I think that's exactly how contemporary disinformation campaigns work. Say its almost totally pesticides, the win for them is muddling it into 'numerous causes.' There's so much money involved in some of these issues that stakeholders can spend millions (billions if you own fossil fuel reserves) just to move the needle slightly.
>“We strongly believe artificial light at night – in combination with habitat loss, chemical pollution, invasive species, and climate change – is driving insect declines,” the scientists concluded after assessing more than 150 studies. “We posit here that artificial light at night is another important – but often overlooked – bringer of the insect apocalypse.”
That’s how most of this nonsense works. You just have to sow doubt.
Exactly, remember the mystery of the disappearance of bees? And they finally found out (or rather. admitted) that it was pesticides that were responsible. Same thing here.
Excellent point.
A thought experiment (since we lack hard data) Step A) eliminate all neonicotinoid and systemic plant pesticides
Step B) eliminate all light pollution
What happens to insect populations with either step?
I'd bet that A would do much more to restore the populations.
Any other bets, or better yet, some hard data?
A thought experiment (since we lack hard data) Step A) eliminate all neonicotinoid and systemic plant pesticides
Step B) eliminate all light pollution
What happens to insect populations with either step?
I'd bet that A would do much more to restore the populations.
Any other bets, or better yet, some hard data?
>LED lights also offer hope as they can be easily tuned to avoid harmful colours ...
Can they? Most white LEDs emit blue light into a phosphor. You are always going to end up with a definite blue spike in the spectrum.
Can they? Most white LEDs emit blue light into a phosphor. You are always going to end up with a definite blue spike in the spectrum.
There exist white LEDs that instead use a deep violet emitter which they're able to much more effectively filter out, eliminating the high frequency spike.
Good luck finding them in products though.
Good luck finding them in products though.
Why I am skeptical: There are many places where there is no light, especially in the countryside or in the forest. Lights have been with us 60+ years, and the insect apocalypse has only been observed in past 20. There is also apocalypse of other species, such as earthworms, also caused by lights?