Light pollution has a bigger effect then expected

[ecoli]

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060318/bob10.asp

 

Can light pollution from our urban centers be effected the environment more than we originally realised? A series of photographs, taken by Chad Moore, suggests that light from cities is penetrating further into 'nature' then we realized. This causes a potential for concern due to the high sensitivity of nocturnal animals to light. This excess light may cause changes in the cyclic patterns of nature's wildlife, effectively altering the ecosystem.

 

In some places, the effect of light pollution are so dramatic, especially near large cities such as Los Angelos, that the stars are being completely obscured, even in areas away from the city.

 

It is not certain the exact effect the light will have on species, but there have been several species whose endargerment has been suggested to be caused by the light pollution. More research is needed to determine the truth in that, however.

[herpguy]

I saw a documentary recently about light pollution. It's very sad. Not only for the animals, but also for people like you and me. About five years ago, I would go out and look at the stars in hopes of seeing a meteorite or something like that. Now, the city I live in has grown so rapidly that I can scarcely see the even the brightest stars from my backyard.

[starbug1]

I daresay this will have both an adverse affect on nocturnal species population and be cause for a new evolutionary adaptation as well, if nothing is done to remedy the problem. Far as I know, urbanization is continuing to grow even into remote areas of the wilderness, but that comes given with the growing population, so the light polution problem seemed bound to happen from the start.

 

Where I live, we have light polution glow from cities up to fifty miles away, and even in the less populated places, street lights and house lights, even if there are only a few, make it almost impossible to see all but the brightest stars.

[drochaid]

I'm having a bit of trouble with this one, I can't see anything new in the article. This stuff has been pretty well known and researched for at least the past 20 years now.

[ecoli]

I'm having a bit of trouble with this one, I can't see anything new in the article. This stuff has been pretty well known and researched for at least the past 20 years now.

 

Nothing new, per se. Just new evidence and observations. The types of pictures that were taken show light pollution in places that were even further penetrating nature then most people expected it would.

[starbug1]

I'm having a bit of trouble with this one, I can't see anything new in the article. This stuff has been pretty well known and researched for at least the past 20 years now.

 

Regardless, the problem is growing, and it's more of a problem than it was 20 years ago. That's what the article was trying to show.

[ecoli]

especially because people don't really think of light as a form of pollution. Things like thermal and light pollution aren't taken seriously because they are not chemicals, when in actuality they can be effecting the environment in severe ways.

[starbug1]

especially because people don't really think of light as a form of pollution. Things like thermal and light pollution aren't taken seriously because they are not chemicals, when in actuality they can be effecting the environment in severe ways.

 

With global warming, I hope that people can start to see an effect by now.

[herpguy]

With global warming, I hope that people can start to see an effect by now.

I hope people can start to see an effect with every problem we've caused, instead of waiting until it gets so bad that nothing can be done about it.

[ecoli]

With global warming, I hope that people can start to see an effect by now.

 

Thermal pollution doesn't really mean global warming. Thermal pollution is a point-source (usually) pollution. Things like power plants that use water as a coolant dump the heated water back into rivers and oceans, where it effects the habitat of those dwelling in said river.

[starbug1]

Thermal pollution doesn't really mean global warming. Thermal pollution is a point-source (usually) pollution. Things like power plants that use water as a coolant dump the heated water back into rivers and oceans, where it effects the habitat of those dwelling in said river.

 

On a tangent, those sources for thermal pollution are emitting gaseous pollution into the air, which has a negative effect on the atmosphere, which is, in part, cause for global warming. It's all relative.