Talk:Light pollution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

In the urban landscape that we live in, light pollution can have implications for the visual environment, but most importantly human health. Light pollution is a vastly real problem that is troublesome to humans. The issue is that even frail amounts of light can hinder our pineal gland from producing the favorable melatonin. Increased light exposure acting through the pineal gland reduces melatonin production, thereby declining the indeterminate on unaltered outcome of the pineal gland. In a indirect clash it would disturb people inside, who then turn on lights and bare themselves to more light. Introduction to light pollution at night may expand the risk of breast lymphoma by subduing the normal nighttime creation of melatonin by the pineal gland, that could expand the delivery of estrogen by the ovaries. The main cause of light pollution is the poor planning from engineers on the placement of our street lights, irresponsible usage of lights leaving them on while occupying another room, setting timers for lights, and leaving Christmas lights on all night.Donnabyrd01 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I souldnt ave started readin.

For real, what rural night sky actually looks like that? Has the person who made that picture ever actually SEEN a rural night sky, or is that just their imagined impression of what they are missing because "all of these beastly lights everywhere"? Or maybe it's just that they just WANT people to think that's what they are missing? The Milky Way looks like a pale blur. That's it. Next: "ALL light pollution is caused by unnecessary, inefficient or unattractive lighting" - oh really? So if you had free hand to go through and alter lighting to exactly the way you wanted it - but without removing any lights which people consider NECESSARY, like security lighting, or what have you, suddenly you'd be left with NO light pollution? NO sky glow? How do you figure that one out? We won't even go into lights which YOU think are ugly as hell but another person likes quite well, or which are totally necessary. I intensely dislike the fact that there is now a row of red blinking lights on the ridgeline 10 miles away, but if we don't have them a plane will end up crashing into the new wind turbines (which you probably thought were a great idea). In any case, no, not ALL light pollution is caused by unnecessary, inefficient or unattractive lighting. There would STILL be light pollution if you got rid of ALL tree of those categories, and as usual, even though YOU know what's best (don't you always?), that doesn't mean all the benighted and ignorant will agree with you. The cretins. Next, before I stop...I had to stop reading...what use is it saying "5 million barrels of oil per day in energy"? There is no-one burning OIL to make electricity. You can use that as an EQUIVALENT amount of energy, I suppose, if you didn't want to bother with scientific or actual units of energy, and were hoping to shock the public by using a scary sounding phrase like '5 Million barrels of oil wasted per day!".... but this seemed to be actually stating that the US literally burns 5 Million Barrels of Oil per day to run un-needed lighting. No, it doesn't. It really doesn't, and its disingenuous or outright lying to say that it is. At worst the equivalent amount of coal or natural gas is burned, but in reality a great deal of that energy comes from hyrdo or nuclear or even wind power. Barrels of oil is not a preferred unit of energy consumption. And if one wanted to be at all rigorous, how does that compare to TOTAL energy usage in the US? How much energy is wasted on OTHER things? How many actual, literal, barrels of oil are burned per day, and ow many of those are wasted in traffic jams? Suddenly your "statistics" start to cut the other way, which is probably why you didn't mention any of that. "5 million barrels of oil wasted per day!" sounds a lot scarier than "the US wastes 150,000,000 BTUS of energy per day (out of 266,000,000,000,000 BTUs of energy per day used). Oh, and why the hell tell us "30% total of energy goes to residential or commercial uses"? That tells us nothing about light pollution, or about how much energy is wasted on lighting; is that just put there to confuse people who can't read well into assuming it means that "30% of total national energy use is wasted on lighting"? Or it supposed to go with the next statistic, which says 20% of the energy they DO use is used on lighting? In which case it could be written more clearly: 30% of US energy usage goes to residential areas; 12-40% of THAT 30% is used on lighting. I had to quit while I was ahead though, because I was just getting too irritated at the way the whole thing was written. Maybe someday we could have an article that reflects the fact that NOT everyone agrees on how serious a problem light pollution is, or what benefits might accrue from reducing light emissions (apparently at the moment its primarily a problem of "educating" people into agreeing with you; how uncommon to ear that...), or what the best way to do that is. Right now it reads like a press release from a single organization with an agenda....and one that I won't take too seriously, once they start telling me "this is what you sky could look like a night" with an image taken out of a National Geographic, and how "the US WASTES 5 MILLION BARRELS of oil a DAY" running electric lights. After that, everything they say is suspect at best. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you please write coherently? This isn't a forum for your personal views, please propose specific, sourced edits. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If you would actually look at a microcandelas per square meter map of the rural skies you've seen you see that those location(s) are far from unpolluted and rural doesn't actually say much about the brightness of the sky. Much of Australia is fenced, legally owned ranches which is rural not wilderness yet but their sky is unpolluted or almost so while the 20+ miles of nothing but farms in central New Jersey is even brighter than your sky and brighter than many cities (this is actually a criticism of the level names of a common non-technical sky darkness scale which has poorly chosen names like "rural" (level 3) "rural-suburban transition" (level 4), and "suburban-urban transition" (level 7). The very same scale that says the summer Milky Way looking pale high-up instead of like veined marble is a sign that your sky is level 5 to 7 of 9. If the image you're complaining about is still up simply replacing the almost useless descriptor "rural" with "unpolluted" or "nearly unpolluted" or whatever is most accurate and that would've solved the entire misleadingness problem and hopefully prevented you from thinking everyone's dumb enough to lie about something that's easily verified by driving to the Sahara or Outback or the parts of the Western US who's overhead skies have less than 2.52 microcandelas per square meter of artificial surface brightness. And giving the eye at least 20-30 minutes of dark or dim red light to adapt and waiting for the Sun reach 18+ degrees below the horizon which are both in every damn book about astronomical observation. According to Bortle scale 1 even the glare of Venus or Jupiter can reduce the dimmest star you can see, so yes the eye can see some very dim things if you let it. Also low-light threshold is one of the lowest symptoms of thin air so the ideal altitude is supposed to be 6,000 to 9,000 feet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I just removed "barrels of oil". Feel free to edit the article yourselves. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wl2671 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by XChen0219 (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Science

What light pollution causes

pollution causes 103.203.230.25 (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Urban Pollution and Remediation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 30 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessicasabatini, Djfocus24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MARMISAHM, Omenlaptop15.

— Assignment last updated by Tshaible (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Light pollution definition

Acording to Darksky international "What is light pollution?" "Light pollution is the human-made alteration of outdoor light levels from those occurring naturally." -> https://darksky.org/

I was on the boad of Dark Sky when this was changes. The reason is that old definition was biased by the industry and was incoherent of other definitions of pollution. Like the pollutants on the "1979 convention on long -range transboundary air pollution", where clearly, is included the light pollution. As is explained by the Legal comision of the UN: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2015/english/chp5.pdf.

‘Air pollution’ means the introduction by human activities, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the atmosphere resulting in deleterious effects on human life and health and the Earth’s natural environment.

This was even explicitly said on other documents: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2018/english/a_73_10_advance.pdf

All this is expresed on more detail on : Bará, Salvador, Carmen Bao-Varela, and Fabio Falchi. "Light pollution and the concentration of anthropogenic photons in the terrestrial atmosphere." Atmospheric Pollution Research 13.9 (2022): 101541.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14131 Pmisson (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your change to the lead was:

−

'''Light pollution''' is the presence of any unwanted, inappropriate, or excessive artificial [[Visible spectrum|lighting]]. [...] In a descriptive sense, the term ''light pollution'' refers to the effects of any poorly implemented lighting sources, during the day or night.

+

'''Light pollution''' is the presence of any artificial [[Visible spectrum|lighting]]. [...] In a descriptive sense, the term ''light pollution'' refers to lighting sources, during the day or night.

The sources you're referring to here don't seem to support your suggested definition of all artificial light being light pollution. --Belbury (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

On this review paper you can see how light levels https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6400 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.767177/full at all scales are been impacted. You are right that should not be "any artificial light", should be "any artificial light at night" and some reflected light during day (light reflected by some solar panels for example). Pmisson (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

To-do list

Here's a list of possible things that the article might benefit from, in no particular order:

1. Remove the liberal bias from the article. Oh wait, you wouldn't have an article without that...

Reality has a liberal bias. Not necessarily for things that only affect relations between humans (whether kookoo anarchists should let legal heroin stores open in front of schools or not, is Hamas evil..) but definitely for environmental things. The conservative track record is very bad on that. And don't say liberal is tree hugging people that want no wood to be used ever and think the tree's spirit speaks to them, the average liberal's nothing like that.

Feel welcome to edit the list, of course. Izogi 23:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: BioEE1610 WIM

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 March 2022 and 31 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pdt35 (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA24 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qiuyi Y (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Qiuyi Yang (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Old Fashioned and Industry based definition.

Current definition is not supported by UN or research. CORRECT definition by UN: Light pollution is the presence of any artificial lighting. In a descriptive sense, the term light pollution refers to lighting sources, during the day or night. Light pollution can be understood not only as a phenomenon resulting from a specific source or kind of pollution, but also as a contributor to the wider, collective impact of various sources of pollution. Pmisson (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Is Light pollution is the presence of any artificial lighting the full UN definition, and if not, can you quote their definition in full? I can't see where the UN is mentioned on the three websites that you link to. --Belbury (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Here you have 13 UN references: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1200909065641234433.html Pmisson (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Which of those define it as the presence of any artificial lighting? Belbury (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

To make it more clear the literal definition is: "Light pollution refers to artificial light that alters the natural patterns of light and dark in ecosystems." What, in plain terms mean any artificial light at night, as artificial light at night that do not alter natural patterns are invisible to humans, there for not used. Pmisson (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Reserach shows dim light as low as 0.00001 lux have efects as wild species are prepared to no light at all on caves on forests. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.767177/full Pmisson (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable definition. I don't see the reason to drop alters the natural patterns of light and dark in ecosystems from it. Belbury (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

It is missleading, as any artificial light at night will alters the natural patterns of light and dark in ecosystems. in any case, is not need to that is an excess. Pmisson (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Continuin with the discusion. Next statment is false "In a descriptive sense, the term light pollution refers to the effects of any poorly implemented lighting sources, during the day or night. Light pollution can be understood not only as a phenomenon resulting from a specific source or kind of pollution, but also as a contributor to the wider, collective impact of various sources of pollution." Even prefectly exacuted lighting produce light pollution. Pmisson (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You’re going to need to produce a consensus of reliable sources that assert that any artificial lighting is light pollution, not your interpretation of the UN “in plain terms.” The source needs to draw that conclusion, and you’ll need to show that it represents a consensus in scholarship, and that it’s applied broadly in common usage. Your definition might be worth a mention as the strictest application of the term, but it needs to be in due proportion to prevalence. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Skyglow is recognized to have a significant environmental impact, even though its intensity is much lower than that of any artificial light at a local scale. Even light that leaks into bedrooms at very low levels has been shown to produce measurable biological and physiological effects. There is no evidence of a threshold below which light pollution has no impact. It is widely considered that an increase of only about 10% above the natural brightness level is already excessive for astronomical observations, or for the impact of artificial satellite light, which would otherwise be environmentally undetectable.Pmisson (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

References

In the field of professional astronomy, any detectable artificial signal is considered a source of light pollution, even if it can be managed through technical means. Therefore, from both ecological and astronomical perspectives, any artificial light constitutes light pollution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmisson (talk • contribs) 07:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

References

The MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE of an article should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. While Light pollution is the presence of any artificial lighting may be technically correct, it's not a useful overview of the concept. The more technical views can be summarised later in the lead. --Belbury (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that "Light pollution is the presence of any artificial lighting" is clear, concise and go to the point. But I am not going to continue arguing. The first paragraphs are full of misleading expressions like “inefficient or unnecessary” or “any poorly implemented,” which are clearly incorrect and misleading. The references clearly show that even the best-designed installations will produce light pollution. I request your permission to correct those to avoid starting an edit war. Or even better, if anyone else wants to fix thouse, I would be very happy. That the "inefficient or unnecessary, poorly implemented ..." are the stupid forms of light pollution can be explained later, as well as fixing those are the very first stage of reducing the Light pollution. But starting the article like that is misleading and minimises the problem. Pmisson (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What you believe is not necessarily what the common usage of the term may be, and "the presence of any artificial lighting" would quite literally mean that home and workplace interiors are polluted. Heck, even the screen you're typing on is light pollution under that definition, unless you're prepared to argue that light pollution goes back to the first use of fire by humans at nighttime. "Undesired" is the most minimal necessary qualification, and is situational - what an astronomer may consider light pollution isn't the same as what others might term the phenomenon - it certainly is used quite differently in planning and zoning discussions, including in places that are designated as dark-sky zones. Wikipedia states what reliable sources say. I have no objection to including your definition in due proportion to its specific astronomically-based definition, if you can show that it is a widespread term among astronomers. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

In the context of circadian rhythms and chronobiology, the examples you just gave are cases of light pollution, as light exposure produces changes in hormone secretion. Obviously, artificial light is extremely useful, but it also comes with many health risks. In fact, shift work, which is nothing more than an extreme form of light pollution, is already classified as a Group 2A carcinogen (probably carcinogenic to humans).

The definition of light pollution as undesired light is used only within the lighting industry. In other technical fields—such as ecology, health, astronomy, and remote sensing—the term has a broader and more scientific meaning, and in none of these disciplines is there a minimum amount of light that can be considered harmless.

Unfortunately, much of the lighting industry even neglects to acknowledge that light can be a pollutant. To achieve more coherent terminology, we should probably use light pollution to refer to all artificial light—whether at night or during the day—that causes harm (for instance, indoor lighting is often insufficient during the day, meaning we receive too little light when indoors). The term obtrusive light could then be reserved for unwanted light that clearly results from poor design. Pmisson (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)