- This topic has 48 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Buglife, the insect charity, has a very interesting item by David Smith on COP14 and the recent report on the effects of light pollution on migratory species.
https://www.buglife.org.uk/blog/how-can-the-convention-on-the-conservation-of-migratory-species-help-reverse-invertebrate-declines/This is an interesting academic paper by a team from Exeter, which reports on a digital lighting simulation methodology in relation to the availability of dark corridors for light averse organisms. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2023.0555
If I understand correctly, the LED better/worse? assessment is complicated depending upon geography of the environment under study. Apparently, the more even spread of LED luminaires (compared with HPS) provides fewer dark corridors. This is good for people but not so good for wildlife. Perhaps the rapid and widespread uptake of LED technology should not have taken place until the overall impacts were thoroughly understood?Steve Tonkin has been interviewed by the Journal of Biophilic Design (a very interesting publication). Subjects included Steve’s background, the dark sky reserves in the UK, the core mantra “Right Light, Right Place, Right Time”, the rarity of truly dark and clear skies, and the impact on wildlife and human health. Steve makes two very important points towards the end about light and social justice and the need for lighting to make people, particularly women, to feel safe. It is a masterclass in dark sky advocacy.
Right Light, Right Place, Right Time — Journal of Biophilic DesignIt is good to see this report in the Scotsman newspaper by an expert on the impact of satellites.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/space-race-why-we-need-to-be-custodians-of-the-cosmos-as-scotland-takes-giant-leap-4561675Many amateur astronomers are also interested in wildlife, plants and biosciences. Threats to biodiversity are perhaps the most worrisome aspect of light encroachment.
This item about moths from New Scientist shows how artificial light is forcing rapid evolution in short timeframes. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2421950-city-moths-may-have-evolved-smaller-wings-due-to-light-pollution/Just in case you thought light pollution is harmless this item links it to increased risk of stroke.
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/03/25/bright-outdoor-light-at-night-may-increase-stroke-riskIn case you’ve not seen this important paper on increasing levels of light pollution. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7781
From the DSI AGM presentation I learned that it is reckoned that LP is doubling every eight years on a worldwide basis.This is a different approach to monitoring lighting.
https://lichter.nachtlicht-buehne.de/#l=12/52.33797/13.06382Thanks Howard. The claimed mechanism affecting chance of stroke to quote is: “Continuous exposure to artificial light at night can suppress production of melatonin, a hormone that promotes sleep. People with poor sleep, compared to good sleepers, are more likely to experience worse cardiovascular health over time”.
Am not sure the researchers have been able to prove a causative link. Their argument is a multi-step one with some doubt that one can link each of the steps directly. People who are exposed to a lot more light at night are leading a very different lifestyle to someone who lives the saying, “Early to bed, early to rise makes you healthy, wealthy…”
Richard
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.