On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 00:15:28 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>They told a nice story about a town in the Netherlands that shut down lights to provide stars for people to see. Nice. Too bad it's unworkable in much of the U.S. Unlike in Los Angeles, where people can drive 30-45 minutes to dark skies (away from the feral elements in L.A. where lighting at night is needed to keep the vermin at bay), the N.E. has too much water vapour in the sky to allow it. A dark sky means driving 2 hours or more from places like Chicago and New York, so "turning off the lights" in those cities would mean violent chaos as the lower denizens of the population exploited it to their own gain. So, pleasant ideas of turning off the lights may work in truly civilized cities, but not in some others.

As we convert to LED lighting (which also involves better designed
fixtures) the opportunities for darker skies over cities grows.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 17:25:28 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, 1 August 2022 at 09:05:28 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 00:15:28 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >They told a nice story about a town in the Netherlands that shut down lights to provide stars for people to see. Nice. Too bad it's unworkable in much of the U.S. Unlike in Los Angeles, where people can drive 30-45 minutes to dark skies (away from the feral elements in L.A. where lighting at night is needed to keep the vermin at bay), the N.E. has too much water vapour in the sky to allow it. A dark sky means driving 2 hours or more from places like Chicago and New York, so "turning off the lights" in those cities would mean violent chaos as the lower denizens of the population exploited it to their own gain. So, pleasant ideas of turning off the lights may work in truly civilized cities, but not in some others.
>> As we convert to LED lighting (which also involves better designed
>> fixtures) the opportunities for darker skies over cities grows.
>
>I suggested it to Toronto's politicians and their response to the idea of energy savings was "we have plenty of power." So we still have the stupid old 1950's streetlighting.

It doesn't last forever, and when it's replaced, it will likely be
with LEDs and well designed fixtures. And with carbon taxes starting
to go into place, energy savings will take on new importance.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 12:25:51 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> It doesn't last forever, and when it's replaced, it will likely be
> with LEDs and well designed fixtures. And with carbon taxes starting
> to go into place, energy savings will take on new importance.

For every "good" light fixture which will (probably not) be installed, one can count on at least as many more of those cheap, ugly fixtures, that blast cheap LED light horizontally across the landscape, being installed.

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 06:22:24 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 12:25:51 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> It doesn't last forever, and when it's replaced, it will likely be
>> with LEDs and well designed fixtures. And with carbon taxes starting
>> to go into place, energy savings will take on new importance.
>
>For every "good" light fixture which will (probably not) be installed, one can count on at least as many more of those cheap, ugly fixtures, that blast cheap LED light horizontally across the landscape, being installed.

I haven't seen a badly designed new streetlight in 10 years. I don't
think they make them anymore.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 9:50:36 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> I haven't seen a badly designed new streetlight in 10 years. I don't
> think they make them anymore.

For some weird reason, you seem to think that streetlights are the only source of light pollution.

And if there are no "badly designed streetlights" left, then can we assume that light pollution is no longer a problem??

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 9:50:36 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen a badly designed new streetlight in 10 years. I don't
>> think they make them anymore.
>
>For some weird reason, you seem to think that streetlights are the only source of light pollution.
>
>And if there are no "badly designed streetlights" left, then can we assume that light pollution is no longer a problem??

I don't think that. But they're a major component of light pollution,
and the one most amenable to reduction.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:21:34 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 9:50:36 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >
> >> I haven't seen a badly designed new streetlight in 10 years. I don't
> >> think they make them anymore.
> >
> >For some weird reason, you seem to think that streetlights are the only source of light pollution.
> >
> >And if there are no "badly designed streetlights" left, then can we assume that light pollution is no longer a problem??
> I don't think that.

You DO think that, based on your words. That is all that anyone can go on.

>But they're a major component of light pollution,
> and the one most amenable to reduction.

Streetlights are being outnumbered by bad lighting in ever more places, due to the cheapness of running and maintaining LEDs.

Is there some part of that which confuses you?

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 08:27:47 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:21:34 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 07:01:05 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 9:50:36 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >
>> >> I haven't seen a badly designed new streetlight in 10 years. I don't
>> >> think they make them anymore.
>> >
>> >For some weird reason, you seem to think that streetlights are the only source of light pollution.
>> >
>> >And if there are no "badly designed streetlights" left, then can we assume that light pollution is no longer a problem??
>> I don't think that.
>
>
>You DO think that, based on your words. That is all that anyone can go on.
>
>>But they're a major component of light pollution,
>> and the one most amenable to reduction.
>
>Streetlights are being outnumbered by bad lighting in ever more places, due to the cheapness of running and maintaining LEDs.
>
>Is there some part of that which confuses you?

You're too stupid and nasty to waste my time on.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 08:27:47 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Streetlights are being outnumbered by bad lighting in ever more places, due to the cheapness of running and maintaining LEDs.
> >
> >Is there some part of that which confuses you?
> You're too stupid and nasty to waste my time on.

Rather than try to insult, you COULD try to provide some evidence for your erroneous beliefs and comments.

W <wsnell01@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1d4c31ed-e5e9-412f-a6ef-5418292fb32an@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 08:27:47 -0700 (PDT), W
>> <wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Streetlights are being outnumbered by bad lighting in ever
>> >more places, due to the cheapness of running and maintaining
>> >LEDs.
>> >
>> >Is there some part of that which confuses you?
>> You're too stupid and nasty to waste my time on.
>
> Rather than try to insult, you COULD try to provide some
> evidence for your erroneous beliefs and comments.
>
That would involve him *having* some. But we both know better.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 4:36:39 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 August 2022 at 00:25:51 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> > It doesn't last forever, and when it's replaced, it will likely be
> > with LEDs and well designed fixtures. And with carbon taxes starting
> > to go into place, energy savings will take on new importance.
> Just what the U.S. needs (take it from a sarcastic Canadian) carbon taxes in an >inflationary era and with a possible recession looming.

If you would identify the actual S&T article, then perhaps this thread can get back on-topic, rather than be pulled off-topic by peterson.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:36:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 2 August 2022 at 00:25:51 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 17:25:28 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, 1 August 2022 at 09:05:28 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 00:15:28 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >They told a nice story about a town in the Netherlands that shut down lights to provide stars for people to see. Nice. Too bad it's unworkable in much of the U.S. Unlike in Los Angeles, where people can drive 30-45 minutes to dark skies (away from the feral elements in L.A. where lighting at night is needed to keep the vermin at bay), the N.E. has too much water vapour in the sky to allow it. A dark sky means driving 2 hours or more from places like Chicago and New York, so "turning off the lights" in those cities would mean violent chaos as the lower denizens of the population exploited it to their own gain. So, pleasant ideas of turning off the lights may work in truly civilized cities, but not in some others.
>> >> As we convert to LED lighting (which also involves better designed
>> >> fixtures) the opportunities for darker skies over cities grows.
>> >
>> >I suggested it to Toronto's politicians and their response to the idea of energy savings was "we have plenty of power." So we still have the stupid old 1950's streetlighting.
>> It doesn't last forever, and when it's replaced, it will likely be
>> with LEDs and well designed fixtures. And with carbon taxes starting
>> to go into place, energy savings will take on new importance.
>
>Just what the U.S. needs (take it from a sarcastic Canadian) carbon taxes in an inflationary era and with a possible recession looming.

It's what the world needs. Nothing is more costly than continuing to
use fossil fuels, which are massively more costly than the
alternatives.

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:31:12 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> It's what the world needs. Nothing is more costly than continuing to
> use fossil fuels, which are massively more costly than the
> alternatives.

If we truly believe that, then we need to stop using fossil fuels NOW, as in, never again, do we not?

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 04:53:02 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:31:12 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> It's what the world needs. Nothing is more costly than continuing to
>> use fossil fuels, which are massively more costly than the
>> alternatives.
>
>If we truly believe that, then we need to stop using fossil fuels NOW, as in, never again, do we not?

We have less than a decade to largely eliminate our use of fossil
fuels. After that, it's probably beyond our capacity to recover.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:51:09 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 04:53:02 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:31:12 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >
> >> It's what the world needs. Nothing is more costly than continuing to
> >> use fossil fuels, which are massively more costly than the
> >> alternatives.
> >
> >If we truly believe that, then we need to stop using fossil fuels NOW, as in, never again, do we not?
> We have less than a decade to largely eliminate our use of fossil
> fuels. After that, it's probably beyond our capacity to recover.

You have talking about this stuff for a long time. Why have you not eliminated your fossil fuel use?

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:51:09 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 04:53:02 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:31:12 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >
> >> It's what the world needs. Nothing is more costly than continuing to
> >> use fossil fuels, which are massively more costly than the
> >> alternatives.
> >
> >If we truly believe that, then we need to stop using fossil fuels NOW, as in, never again, do we not?
> We have less than a decade to largely eliminate our use of fossil
> fuels. After that, it's probably beyond our capacity to recover.

You have been talking about this stuff for a long time. Why have you not eliminated your fossil fuel use?