Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is it
really 'pollution'?

Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with pollution?
Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone. Doesn't sound right.

On 12/10/2023 12:11, occam wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is it
> really 'pollution'?
>
> Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with pollution?
> Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone. Doesn't sound right.
>

P.S. TinyURL https://tinyurl.com/4wf83mt4

occam wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is it
> really 'pollution'?
>
> Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with pollution?
> Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.

No, it's not. It travels endlessly through the universe.

Switch all motors and machines off, and the air pollution is gone.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> it really 'pollution'?
>
> Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> Doesn't sound right.

As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
astronomers.

I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
more visible stars than can be seen from the city.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan wrote:

> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> astronomers.

I once read an article by an astronomer. He was excited because he had
discovered a new star (or soemthing else). He decided to celebrate it by
going to the cinema and watch a movie - knowing that it would make work
impossible for a week.

But it's not just astronomers as you also point out. If you live in a
world of constant background noise (like most people do), you don't know
what silence is. And if you live in the sea of light that city people
do, you don't know what darkness is.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:52:59 PM UTC+1, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> > it really 'pollution'?
> >
> > Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> > pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> > Doesn't sound right.
> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> astronomers.

Nocturnal creatures, moths, owls, can be disorientated by light pollution.

> I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
>
> --
> Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
> Newcastle, NSW

On 2023-10-12 11:52:48 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
>> it really 'pollution'?
>>
>> Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
>> pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
>> Doesn't sound right.
>
> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> astronomers.
>
> I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> more visible stars than can be seen from the city.

When Halley's comet appeared in 1986 I was living for eight months in
Chile. The southern hemisphere was said to be the best place to be to
see it, so Newcastle should be OK. In Santiago, not known for its clean
air, however, it was almost hopeless. Each time we went to look for in
the place it was supposed to be one needed a lot of wishful thinking to
think one had found it. One could just about convince oneself that
there was something a bit like the full moon, but about one-tenth the
diameter and one-tenth the brightness. Perhaps the most underwhelming
experience of my life.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:52:59 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:

> > Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> > it really 'pollution'?
> > Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> > pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> > Doesn't sound right.
>
> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> astronomers.
>
> I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> more visible stars than can be seen from the city.

IIRC it's something like 6000 stars down to 6th magnitude --
probably for the whole sky, so each of us gets about 3000
at once.

Planetariums wow us every time.

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 8:32:50 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-10-12 11:52:48 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
> > On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
> >
> >> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> >> it really 'pollution'?
> >>
> >> Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> >> pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> >> Doesn't sound right.
> >
> > As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> > astronomers.
> >
> > I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> > suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> > more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
> When Halley's comet appeared in 1986 I was living for eight months in
> Chile. The southern hemisphere was said to be the best place to be to
> see it, so Newcastle should be OK. In Santiago, not known for its clean
> air, however, it was almost hopeless. Each time we went to look for in
> the place it was supposed to be one needed a lot of wishful thinking to
> think one had found it. One could just about convince oneself that
> there was something a bit like the full moon, but about one-tenth the
> diameter and one-tenth the brightness. Perhaps the most underwhelming
> experience of my life.

By then it was so eroded it was very faint -- but Chicago was overcast
for the whoe three days or so we were supposed to be able to maybe
see it.

When I was little, an old man who lived in my grandmother's building
told me he'd seen the 1910 appearance from the roof of the building
where we were taking down the washing or some such.

Though that particular apartment house hadn't been built yet in 1910 ...

Anyway there wasn't enough light pollution in NYC in 1910 to interfere.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:19:10 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
>> astronomers.
>
>I once read an article by an astronomer. He was excited because he had
>discovered a new star (or soemthing else). He decided to celebrate it by
>going to the cinema and watch a movie - knowing that it would make work
>impossible for a week.

? I don't understand, 'make work impossible for a week.'
Is this like camp guards who are not supposed to look at the
campfire because their eyes will lose their dark-adaption?

Surely the sun, every day, is far brighter than the cinema.

>
>But it's not just astronomers as you also point out. If you live in a
>world of constant background noise (like most people do), you don't know
>what silence is.

I got reminded of how noisy the city is when I first tried to use a
cell phone outdoors, by a city street. NOISE.

In the city, you can't hear the noise of a car a half-block away.

I was impressed one time when I was a teenager by how quiet
our small town happened to be that evening -- As we took a break
from cruising around, we could hear the start up and acceleration
and gear-shifting of another car that was probably a half mile away.
(That was unusually quiet even for our small town.)

> And if you live in the sea of light that city people
>do, you don't know what darkness is.

--
Rich Ulrich

Rich Ulrich wrote:

>> I once read an article by an astronomer. He was excited because he had
>> discovered a new star (or soemthing else). He decided to celebrate it by
>> going to the cinema and watch a movie - knowing that it would make work
>> impossible for a week.
>
> ? I don't understand, 'make work impossible for a week.'
> Is this like camp guards who are not supposed to look at the
> campfire because their eyes will lose their dark-adaption?

Yes.

> Surely the sun, every day, is far brighter than the cinema.

He avoided the sun and lived in a remote spot.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 12/10/2023 18:13, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> He avoided the sun and lived in a remote spot.

Ha! Where would that have been - the dark side of the moon?

Bertel, you have made a couple of howler statements in this thread alone.

Here is the other one:

> Bertel wrote:

> Switch all motors and machines off, and the air pollution is gone.

Denmark must be a wondrous place.

On 2023-10-12 16:49:11 +0000, occam said:

> On 12/10/2023 18:13, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
>> He avoided the sun and lived in a remote spot.
>
>
> Ha! Where would that have been - the dark side of the moon?
>
> Bertel, you have made a couple of howler statements in this thread alone.
>
> Here is the other one:
>
>> Bertel wrote:
>
>> Switch all motors and machines off, and the air pollution is gone.
>
> Denmark must be a wondrous place.

So hot in winter that they never need to burn anything to keep warm.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 12-Oct-23 11:11, occam wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is it
> really 'pollution'?
>
> Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with pollution?
> Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone. Doesn't sound right.

If we must have pollution, I prefer light to heavy.

--
Sam Plusnet

Peter T. Daniels <petertdaniels@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:52:59?AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
>
> > > Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> > > it really 'pollution'?
> > > Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> > > pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> > > Doesn't sound right.
> >
> > As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> > astronomers.
> >
> > I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> > suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> > more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
>
> IIRC it's something like 6000 stars down to 6th magnitude --
> probably for the whole sky, so each of us gets about 3000
> at once.

Correct. The Southern hemisphere is better off,
because most of the galaxy is there.
That's why most of those big new telescopes are built there,
(in Chili)

Jan

> Planetariums wow us every time.

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 3:55:31 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:52:59?AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:

> > > > Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> > > > it really 'pollution'?
> > > > Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> > > > pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> > > > Doesn't sound right.
> > > As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> > > astronomers.
> > > I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> > > suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> > > more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
> > IIRC it's something like 6000 stars down to 6th magnitude --
> > probably for the whole sky, so each of us gets about 3000
> > at once.
>
> Correct. The Southern hemisphere is better off,
> because most of the galaxy is there.
> That's why most of those big new telescopes are built there,
> (in Chili)

The Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds don't count in the 3000.

These days, they're mostly looking beyond our parochial little
galaxy, so that doesn't much matter.

> > Planetariums wow us every time.

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> > it really 'pollution'?
> >
> > Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> > pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> > Doesn't sound right.
>
> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> astronomers.

I often hear owls protesting loudly, throughout the night.
What else could they be complaining about?

Jan

Peter T. Daniels <petertdaniels@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 3:55:31?PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:52:59?AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
>
> > > > > Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> > > > > it really 'pollution'?
> > > > > Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> > > > > pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> > > > > Doesn't sound right.
> > > > As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> > > > astronomers.
> > > > I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> > > > suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> > > > more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
> > > IIRC it's something like 6000 stars down to 6th magnitude --
> > > probably for the whole sky, so each of us gets about 3000
> > > at once.
> >
> > Correct. The Southern hemisphere is better off,
> > because most of the galaxy is there.
> > That's why most of those big new telescopes are built there,
> > (in Chili)
>
> The Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds don't count in the 3000.

Of course not, who said so?
Nevertheless, looking in the direction towards the Galactic Centre
gives you more visible stars than looking away from it.
(it happens to be at about 30 degrees south,
so it can pass right overhead, for those shiny new telescopes)

> These days, they're mostly looking beyond our parochial little
> galaxy, so that doesn't much matter.

Astronomy is your new research interest?

Jan

> > > Planetariums wow us every time.

On 13/10/23 06:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <petertdaniels@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:52:59?AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'.
>>>> But is it really 'pollution'? Is there not some temporal (long
>>>> term) effect associated with pollution? Switch the light(s)
>>>> off, and the pollution is gone. Doesn't sound right.
>>>
>>> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution
>>> come from astronomers.
>>>
>>> I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city,
>>> I suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly
>>> millions -- more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
>>
>> IIRC it's something like 6000 stars down to 6th magnitude --
>> probably for the whole sky, so each of us gets about 3000 at once.
>
> Correct. The Southern hemisphere is better off, because most of the
> galaxy is there. That's why most of those big new telescopes are
> built there, (in Chili)

You should also count the Milky Way, though. When you look towards the
centre of the galaxy you see patches of light that are obviously lots of
stars too small to see individually, but combining in effect to form a
continuum. Those stars are too small to count, of course, but you can
still tell that they are there.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 13/10/23 02:55, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> I was impressed one time when I was a teenager by how quiet our small
> town happened to be that evening -- As we took a break from cruising
> around, we could hear the start up and acceleration and gear-shifting
> of another car that was probably a half mile away. (That was
> unusually quiet even for our small town.)

In our small town I could listen to the trains going by -- I could hear
them from when they were well outside the town until they were well
outside on the other side. The railway line was a mile from our house at
its closest point, but there were no other competing sounds.

In my present home I'm in an outer suburb of Newcastle, so the traffic
noises are not as extreme as they are in the inner city. Right now, the
main noises I can hear are a number of different kinds of bird calls,
plus the fan in one of my computers.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 21:55:25 +0200
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Peter T. Daniels <petertdaniels@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:52:59?AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
> >
> > > > Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
> > > > it really 'pollution'?
> > > > Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
> > > > pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
> > > > Doesn't sound right.
> > >
> > > As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> > > astronomers.
> > >
> > > I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> > > suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> > > more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
> >
> > IIRC it's something like 6000 stars down to 6th magnitude --
> > probably for the whole sky, so each of us gets about 3000
> > at once.
>
> Correct. The Southern hemisphere is better off,
> because most of the galaxy is there.
> That's why most of those big new telescopes are built there,
> (in Chili)
>
Chili/Chilli is the name given to b**dy hot peppers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper

Chile is a country in South America that managed to get a rugby team into
the recent world cup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile

HTH.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 12/10/2023 13:52, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
>> it really 'pollution'?
>>
>> Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
>> pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
>> Doesn't sound right.
>
> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
> astronomers.

....and environmentalist who worry about nocturnal animals and their life
patterns. (Do they count Jazz musicians amongst this ecosystem? Poor
things.)

>
> I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
> suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
> more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
>

A game we used to play with my children when they were little was - just
before their bedtime, we would sit on the balcony and watch the sky.
(This was possible on holiday only, as the city was too light-polluted.)
The aim was to score points by pointing out moving light sources e.g.
airplanes (1 point), satellites (10 points) and UFOs (1000 points) etc.

I remember how they were always so wowed to see so many more stars in
the mountain skies than they could in the city. These days they use
Google Earth (turned outwards) to do their sky gazing.

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/10/23 06:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <petertdaniels@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:52:59?AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'.
> >>>> But is it really 'pollution'? Is there not some temporal (long
> >>>> term) effect associated with pollution? Switch the light(s)
> >>>> off, and the pollution is gone. Doesn't sound right.
> >>>
> >>> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution
> >>> come from astronomers.
> >>>
> >>> I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city,
> >>> I suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly
> >>> millions -- more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
> >>
> >> IIRC it's something like 6000 stars down to 6th magnitude --
> >> probably for the whole sky, so each of us gets about 3000 at once.
> >
> > Correct. The Southern hemisphere is better off, because most of the
> > galaxy is there. That's why most of those big new telescopes are
> > built there, (in Chili)
>
> You should also count the Milky Way, though. When you look towards the
> centre of the galaxy you see patches of light that are obviously lots of
> stars too small to see individually, but combining in effect to form a
> continuum. Those stars are too small to count, of course, but you can
> still tell that they are there.

Disagree. Nobody could tell that those stars were there
until Galileo pointe his telescope at the Milky Way,
to actually see them for the first time,

Jan

On 2023-10-13 07:54:44 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 21:55:25 +0200
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
>> Peter T. Daniels <petertdaniels@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:52:59?AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/23 21:11, occam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Don't get me wrong, I like the expression 'light pollution'. But is
>>>>> it really 'pollution'?
>>>>> Is there not some temporal (long term) effect associated with
>>>>> pollution? Switch the light(s) off, and the pollution is gone.
>>>>> Doesn't sound right.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the main complaints about light pollution come from
>>>> astronomers.
>>>>
>>>> I understand their annoyance, though. When I get outside a city, I
>>>> suddenly realise that there are thousands -- or possibly millions --
>>>> more visible stars than can be seen from the city.
>>>
>>> IIRC it's something like 6000 stars down to 6th magnitude --
>>> probably for the whole sky, so each of us gets about 3000
>>> at once.
>>
>> Correct. The Southern hemisphere is better off,
>> because most of the galaxy is there.
>> That's why most of those big new telescopes are built there,
>> (in Chili)
>>
> Chili/Chilli is the name given to b**dy hot peppers.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper

It is also the name of the country in French -- maybe in Dutch as well.

> Chile is a country in South America that managed to get a rugby team into
> the recent world cup.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile

More "current" than "recent", but Chile's performance is best not talked about.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 12/10/2023 19:21, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-10-12 16:49:11 +0000, occam said:
>
>> On 12/10/2023 18:13, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> He avoided the sun and lived in a remote spot.
>>
>>
>> Ha! Where would that have been - the dark side of the moon?
>>
>> Bertel, you have made a couple of howler statements in this thread alone.
>>
>> Here is the other one:
>>
>>> Bertel wrote:
>>
>>> Switch all motors and machines off, and the air pollution is gone.
>>
>> Denmark must be a wondrous place.
>
> So hot in winter that they never need to burn anything to keep warm.
>
>
It is the immediacy of the disappearing of pollution (in Denmark) I was
more jealous of.