My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:29 AM
Creation date
8/19/2005 3:26:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Information Sheet 139 (July 1998) <br /> <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />wasted. Collectively, for a municipality with a population of 100,000, from <br />$300,000 to $500,000 is being lost to the sky every year. <br /> <br />This results in not only the loss ofthe stars, but an avoidable economic loss to the <br />community as well. Uncontrolled lighting often creates a garish landscape, with a <br />confusing tangle of lights that shine into citizens' eyes rather than onto the ground, <br />where it is needed. The term for this obtrusive light is "veiling glare", and we are <br />paying extra for it, each and every night the fixture is in use. We can do better! <br /> <br />This inability to see well in our already over-lit nightscapes due to glare leads to <br />ever more lighting. The eye is designed to function effectively both day and night. <br />But in our cities, our eyes have to run the gauntlet from lit areas that are intensely <br />illuminated to areas of dark shadows caused by those glary lights. The eye will <br />naturally adjust to the brightest portion of a given scene, often leaving quite <br />adequately lit areas nearby looking dark. <br /> <br />Glare and over illumination are thus counterproductive. The more light we use in <br />one area, the more we need everywhere else because the iris in the eye stops <br />down, letting less light in. Adjacent areas (including streets) with formerly <br />adequate illumination now look relatively dim as we ratchet up the light levels in <br />one particular location. Interestingly, a lower illumination level provided by a <br />white light source in a fully-shielded fixture would allow the eye to naturally <br />adapt to the lower light level, and we could adequately illuminate parking lots <br />with less than one footcandle of illumination. <br /> <br />A disturbing new trend seen in some national chains of convenience stores and <br />gas stations has been to ratchet up the light level under the canopy to very high <br />levels (10,000 times as much illumination as provided by a full moon!) in an <br />effort to attract customers and provide "a safer, more secure" environment for <br />their employees. For their patronage, customers now can have the delightful <br />experience of trying to blindly navigate their vehicle for a few seconds onto the <br />much darker streets while their eyes readapt. No one wins these escalating "light <br />wars" and our aesthetic environment deteriorates by the year. Rather than improve <br />safety, these "ratcheteers" have in fact compromised safety. <br /> <br />It is time to halt this unnecessary and counterproductive escalation in lighting that <br />affects us all whether we own the lighting system or just live near it. After all, it's <br />not rocket science -- it's good lighting science. Outdoor lighting should be <br />regulated for the public good, just like signs, billboards, and noise pollution are. <br /> <br />Fully shielding all outdoor fixtures can eliminate light trespass as well as waste. <br /> <br />http://www.darksky .org/infoshts/is 139 .html <br /> <br />6/20/2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.