27 replies to this topic

[jupiter122]

I have been doing local outreach about the light pollution issue locally and have received some encouraging signs,  but then, boom, yesterday my private neighborhood road association ( I think) slapped up this street light right across the street from my house, in an area of the neighborhood that was pretty dark before (the house is in Bortle 3-4 skies). It casts a super bright white, harsh light as much as 180 feet away, including across my driveway and more than 40 feet across my front lawn. I want to bring this up and a road association meeting this weekend but to gather as much info I can about the light as  I can, in advance. 

 

It does not look like it like it has any shielding but I want to get other's thoughts on that. Anyone know what this style of light is, and does the LED 40 on it tell anything about how bright it is?

 

 

But note my biggest question is whether I am correct that there is not shielding on it?

Attached Files

•  street light.pdf   268.02KB   260 downloads

Edited by jupiter122, 01 August 2024 - 03:45 PM.

[Keith Rivich]

This one looks similar;

https://www.orientel...reet-light-40w-

[MisterDan]

It's a Cooper Lighting XNV.

https://www.cooperli.../831386/xnv-led

 

Xtra-Noying-and-Vexing.

[bobzeq25]

"LED40" is a common type of street light bulb, used in many street light fixtures. Here are some.

https://duckduckgo.c..._light_bulb.jpg

3K means the light temperature is 3000K, as opposed to 4000K, etc. 3000K is actually less harsh than higher K.

Edited by bobzeq25, 01 August 2024 - 02:29 PM.

[GeorgeLiv]

... I want to bring this up and a road association meeting this weekend but to gather as much info I can about the light as  I can, in advance.

Hi, without answering "what was there before?", I'm afraid you can't approach the association with any coherent dialogue. Google streetview your own street if you've never photographed or looked at your previous light. Do you see any tags?

It does not look like it like it has any shielding but I want to get other's thoughts on that. Anyone know what this style of light is, and does the LED 40 on it tell anything about how bright it is?

You basically know it's Full-Cutoff, 40watts, with about 4800 Lumens initial output (~120Lm/W x 40W) at 3000° Kelvin LED, but without knowing the prior installation, it's pretty much meaningless as most "street" lights are actually retrofitting previous installations.

Edited by GeorgeLiv, 01 August 2024 - 03:47 PM.

[jupiter122]

  Hi, without answering "what was there before?", I'm afraid you can't approach the association with any coherent dialogue. Google streetview your own street if you've never photographed or looked at your previous light. Do you see any tags?



You basically know it's 40watts, about 4800 Lumens initial output (~120Lm/W x 40W) at 3000° Kelvin LED, but without knowing the prior installation, it's pretty much meaningless as most "street"-lights are actually retrofitting previous installations.

There was no street light of any kind there before.

[GeorgeLiv]

 

There was no street light of any kind there before.

Thank you! Do you know WHY it was installed?

[jupiter122]

I don’t. That’s one of the questions I’m going to be asking.

[GeorgeLiv]

Your case presents an opportunity to rant, legitimately. There was probably no reason for installing that much light when there was none before. Any new 40 watts LED will be a heck of a lot of light compared to none. About 21 to 25 watts from a FCO LED light would've been more than sufficient in such a case (no light previously).

 

This probably presents the only situation for a strong argument to move it from infringing on your property and your right to a night-sky. Additionally, the opportunity can be used to rectify the watts from 40 to about 21. You should make available (even purchase yourself) a low watt street-light to present at any meeting and ask for it to be moved much further away.

 

Let me know if I can help with a purchase. I actually have one but it's inappropriate at 35w & 4000K. At the very least I can show you links to purchase a low-cost programmable photo-cell with timer (say off at ~10pm, on at ~4am).

[CharLakeAstro]

Indeed.

 

OP...

(1) there is no shielding installed 

(2) there is a perimeter fence shield available ...see link below

Perhaps the association can be induced into adding a PFS

 

https://www.cooperli...Shield-PFS-.pdf

It's a Cooper Lighting XNV.

https://www.cooperli.../831386/xnv-led

 

Xtra-Noying-and-Vexing.

[Overtime]

I have the same issue but I have never seen any tags on my light. It's directly across the street. Right in my line of view most nights. Just one of many obstacles I have to deal with. On the plus side it helps keep the large group of kids away that use to gather there till all hours of the night that were usually up to no good. Good luck if your task.

[tcifani]

Call your town or city and/or power company to install a shield. It will make a difference.

 

https://www.cloudyni...mp-improvement/

[jupiter122]

Indeed.

 

OP...

(1) there is no shielding installed 

(2) there is a perimeter fence shield available ...see link below

Perhaps the association can be induced into adding a PFS

 

https://www.cooperli...Shield-PFS-.pdf

Thanks CharLake, this is super helpful.  I had a chance to raise this issue, and the wider issue of light pollution, at the Road Association meeting in early August.  I never got the full story but it seems the light was installed, possibly at the wrong location, by Central Maine Power, at the request of the Road Association.  But after raising holy heck at the meeting, the Association requested re-location of the light to what was it apparently its intended location about 3/4 of a mile way, and CMP finally did that just this week.  I'd have preferred it just be removed but I'll count it as a small victory.  Also,  I have repeatedly requested that shielding be added to all the street lights within the association and mostly received unresponsive answers, but one was that CMP said shields aren't available.  I suspected that that was BS, and now I know it. So I will look a bit further into the light shield you refer to, let the dust settle a bit, and then raise the issue again.  

 

Thanks again!

 

Tim

Edited by jupiter122, 12 October 2024 - 11:28 AM.

[jupiter122]

It's a Cooper Lighting XNV.

https://www.cooperli.../831386/xnv-led

 

Xtra-Noying-and-Vexing.

Thanks MisterDan. Super helpful. See my other further post above.

 

Tim

Edited by jupiter122, 12 October 2024 - 11:00 AM.

[GeorgeLiv]

Thanks CharLake, this is super helpful.  I had a chance to raise this issue, and the wider issue of light pollution, at the Road Association meeting in early August.  I never got the full story but it seems the light was installed, possibly at the wrong location, by Central Maine Power, at the request of the Road Association.  But after raising holy heck at the meeting, the Association requested re-location of the light to what was it apparently its intended location about 3/4 of a mile way, and CMP finally did that just this week.  I'd have preferred it just be removed but I'll count it as a small victory.  Also,  I have repeatedly requested that shielding be added to all the street lights within the association and mostly received unresponsive answers, but one was that CMP said shields aren't available.  I suspected that that was BS, and now I know it. So I will look a bit further into the light shield you refer to, let the dust settle a bit, and then raise the issue again.  

 

Thanks again!

 

Tim

Hi, I hadn't had a chance to properly reply to this issue,..doing so now since I have the time. I'm going to be bold & brief because I'm actually surprised at the outcome. Please don't take offense.

 

What you have done is stereotypical of what everyone is doing on this doomed planet: "Not in my back yard" or "It's not my problem let someone else deal with it". Assuming that the same watt street-light was moved to its new location, you literally have done nothing to correct any LP issue.

 

The missed opportunity to reduce the watts in the first place is my main point. 50 LED watts is huge in a rural & otherwise unlit road. A maximum of 25 watts would've been above adequate if this light was indeed required. Next point: All LED street-lights today are full-cutoff so there's no need to "correct" for up-light with shields, however, there can be trespass issues on private properties. This is why shields exist for almost all LED street-lights, including for your light as indicated above. Was this your main pursuit? If so, no one will alter what they believed to be initially correct, unless you whine.

 

I believe all astronomers are namby-pambies, in that they lack courage, organizational skills & above all self-confidence to actually confront their most offending foes: these are the lighting companies, installers, power-utility providers & municipal/county workers. Most if not all the people working for these corporations are idiots collecting salaries. When astronomers finally take pride to put in effect/practice the wealth of information they posses, then we might see a reduction in sky-glow.

[jupiter122]

Hi, I hadn't had a chance to properly reply to this issue,..doing so now since I have the time. I'm going to be bold & brief because I'm actually surprised at the outcome. Please don't take offense.

 

What you have done is stereotypical of what everyone is doing on this doomed planet: "Not in my back yard" or "It's not my problem let someone else deal with it". Assuming that the same watt street-light was moved to its new location, you literally have done nothing to correct any LP issue.

 

The missed opportunity to reduce the watts in the first place is my main point. 50 LED watts is huge in a rural & otherwise unlit road. A maximum of 25 watts would've been above adequate if this light was indeed required. Next point: All LED street-lights today are full-cutoff so there's no need to "correct" for up-light with shields, however, there can be trespass issues on private properties. This is why shields exist for almost all LED street-lights, including for your light as indicated above. Was this your main pursuit? If so, no one will alter what they believed to be initially correct, unless you whine.

 

I believe all astronomers are namby-pambies, in that they lack courage, organizational skills & above all self-confidence to actually confront their most offending foes: these are the lighting companies, installers, power-utility providers & municipal/county workers. Most if not all the people working for these corporations are idiots collecting salaries. When astronomers finally take pride to put in effect/practice the wealth of information they posses, then we might see a reduction in sky-glow.

Well, you ask that I not take offense but I have a hard time accepting the sincerity of that preface when you follow by accusing me of doing something "stereotypical", taking the "not in my backyard" approach, and "accomplishing nothing" and then cast even wider aspersions by calling "all astronomers" "namby-pambies."  So let me be equally bold: your post was offensive.

 

I complained about the streetlight not only because of the general light pollution issue but because, as I said in my original post,  it resulted in extreme light trespass across our front lawn, and also into our bedroom window. Despite that, I specifically requested that the road association remove the light without success.  I also asked that all streetlights in the neighborhood be  fully shielded, replaced with lower watt and warmer bulbs, and placed lower to the ground so as to not cast such a wide light pattern. So, I did not, as you state, take the "not in my backyard approach." And while it would have been far better if the light had been removed instead of being relocated--which is exactly what I requested from the road association, in the location to which it has been moved, it does not result in anywhere near as severe light trespass on anyone's property.  And in the process, I was able to bring the issue of light pollution to the attention of the road association and several dozen neighbors.  I'll count that as a good thing, and not just for me.

 

(Just a parenthetical note here: You say, "all LED street-lights today are full-cutoff so there's no need to 'correct' for up-light with shields." You are mistaken. "Full cut off" means only that the lights don't cast light straight up. But without shields they still cast light horizontally, resulting in a much wider light pattern, well beyond the target area (180 feet in my case), and the bulb itself can be seen from a long way away.)

 

I'll also say this.  As I wrote in my original post, I have been for several months doing local outreach about light pollution.  Maybe you missed that. I also wrote about those efforts in another recent cloudynights post (https://www.cloudyni...-story-sort-of/). I am not patting myself on the back here and I am not suggesting that I am changing the world. But I am doing more than whining and complaining about our "doomed planet."

 

I see that you have a website about light pollution. It's nice work and it's great that you do that. But perhaps you could try not to belittle what others do. Your own efforts might make more headway if you try to be a bit more diplomatic and less accusatory.

 

Tim

Edited by jupiter122, 27 October 2024 - 09:17 AM.

[GeorgeLiv]

Hi Tim, I'm empathetic you got distressed by my direct reply, but I'm not sympathetic. Perhaps a general reply would have appeared gentler, like this reply. And to think that I chose my words carefully so as to not offend. I don't care who or what you are, I haven't attacked you, I used your case to show other amateurs how NOT to approach such a problem. I see that I could edit my post but I'll let it stand.

 

The moved 50 watt light is now someone else's problem, that was my point. Personally I would have kept it in my own back yard and rectified it. The outcome would have been one less light to pollute the night, cause bird confusion, yada yada. And I still think that all astronomers are spineless (pardon the harsh word), and that's why there are in the state they're in. I could go on but I have better things to do than lament about someone else's livelihood.

[CharLakeAstro]

"All astronomers" That is an quite a statement, it displays total ignorance.

"I have better things to do" As expected, not just ignorant but also arrogant. 

 

And you are giving advice on how to approach a LP problem?

Your posts are examples of how NOT to win respect.

 

Hi Tim, I'm empathetic you got distressed by my direct reply, but I'm not sympathetic. Perhaps a general reply would have appeared gentler, like this reply. And to think that I chose my words carefully so as to not offend. I don't care who or what you are, I haven't attacked you, I used your case to show other amateurs how NOT to approach such a problem. I see that I could edit my post but I'll let it stand.

 

The moved 50 watt light is now someone else's problem, that was my point. Personally I would have kept it in my own back yard and rectified it. The outcome would have been one less light to pollute the night, cause bird confusion, yada yada. And I still think that all astronomers are spineless (pardon the harsh word), and that's why there are in the state they're in. I could go on but I have better things to do than lament about someone else's livelihood.

[GeorgeLiv]

Obviously I'm giving my opinions for how things should be done. If anyone takes these viewpoints personally, then I'm beginning to think that a lot of amateurs are ehm, .(mumble)..have lots of time on their hands. I'm old enough to be thick-skinned. You can blast away any epithet at me, but I still think that ALL astronomers are spineless. Never thought that until a few years ago after new barriers emerged in pursuing any ground based astronomical endeavor. What else will materialize?? Clearly no astronomical body (group, organization, team of lawyers) will do anything. Isn't it time they wake up? Pardon the off-topic turn.

[CharLakeAstro]

There are many astronomy clubs whose members have been working on LP abatement for years. My local club has a light pollution abatement committee whom are engaged with policy makers. We have one professional astronomer as part of our team, along with a retired municipal planner. We have succeeded in educating our local council, with lighting standards now in force through modified bylaws. Our engagement has been professional, planned, organized, respectful and successful. We would not have achieved these wins by deriding stakeholders.

 

Blanket derogatory statements against all astronomers, coupled with an amateurish website missing even a security certificate, are each examples of an ineffective and unprofessional approach, without any clear path to substantive action.

 

Do carry on alienating others if it brings you personal joy, but do not expect any results in reducing light pollution from that dead-end approach.

 

Obviously I'm giving my opinions for how things should be done. If anyone takes these viewpoints personally, then I'm beginning to think that a lot of amateurs are ehm, .(mumble)..have lots of time on their hands. I'm old enough to be thick-skinned. You can blast away any epithet at me, but I still think that ALL astronomers are spineless. Never thought that until a few years ago after new barriers emerged in pursuing any ground based astronomical endeavor. What else will materialize?? Clearly no astronomical body (group, organization, team of lawyers) will do anything. Isn't it time they wake up? Pardon the off-topic turn.

[GeorgeLiv]

Whether my methods & arguments are ineffective due to my arrogance is a matter of perception. But its immaterial regarding the topics herein. Done my best to be polite. I'm not a professional & don't know or care for what's a "security certificate". I'm an amateur of many varied crafts.

 

What I know is that for over 50 years I've seen ground-based astronomy becoming impossible from an expanding swathe around urban/suburban areas. Then in just a few short years, it has become unworkable at remote sites, or at best an excruciating spectacle to view at times. I honestly believe the same old tactics, i.e., educating the masses, the municipally employed, elected officials, etc., JUST DOESN'T WORK! You need to stop ****-footing around the fact that numerous profit motivated companies are destroying (or severely handicapping) the livelihoods of countless spineless professional astronomers. Yes, they need to organize, but not to educate anymore. This has been done perpetually and unsuccessfully (although I concede that there have been some successes). Perhaps instead they should hire some smart lawyers, send stop orders, subpoena testimonies (for feasibility), or simply go after their polluters to bankrupt them.

 

And stop sending me personal replies. I have enough spam to contend with. Reply here.

[CharLakeAstro]

Who is sending you personal replies? I have not sent you any personal replies.

Implying that I have sent you a personal reply is a complete fabrication and lie.

 

Your calling all astronomers spineless is worth calling out, as is your insinuation that I have sent you a personal reply.

Your posts and bashing of all other astronomers is a dis-service to those who are actively and successfully working to reduce light pollution.

 

Further, calling out your false statements is completely material to the topic being discussed. You are providing people with "how things should be done" (your words).

In fact, your methods are precisely how it should NOT be done. Denigrating others with ignorant blanket and false statements does not work, that is not conjecture. 

 

Are the people in my club's LPAC who have lobbied successfully for lighting standards also spineless? The difference between them and you is that they base their presentations on fact, and they are respectful. 

 

Free lesson... 100% of any computers that have their security settings correct, will be unable to see your website.

If the website is anything like your posts on this forum, nobody is missing much worth reading.

 

Whether my methods & arguments are ineffective due to my arrogance is a matter of perception. But its immaterial regarding the topics herein. Done my best to be polite. I'm not a professional & don't know or care for what's a "security certificate". I'm an amateur of many varied crafts.

 

What I know is that for over 50 years I've seen ground-based astronomy becoming impossible from an expanding swathe around urban/suburban areas. Then in just a few short years, it has become unworkable at remote sites, or at best an excruciating spectacle to view at times. I honestly believe the same old tactics, i.e., educating the masses, the municipally employed, elected officials, etc., JUST DOESN'T WORK! You need to stop ****-footing around the fact that numerous profit motivated companies are destroying (or severely handicapping) the livelihoods of countless spineless professional astronomers. Yes, they need to organize, but not to educate anymore. This has been done perpetually and unsuccessfully (although I concede that there have been some successes). Perhaps instead they should hire some smart lawyers, send stop orders, subpoena testimonies (for feasibility), or simply go after their polluters to bankrupt them.

 

And stop sending me personal replies. I have enough spam to contend with. Reply here.

[MJB87]

 I believe all astronomers are namby-pambies, in that they lack courage, organizational skills & above all self-confidence to actually confront their most offending foes...

I'm an (amateur) astronomer. Just want to confirm that you think I am, quite specifically, one of those "namby-pambies, [who] lack[s] courage, organizational skills & above all self-confidence."  Not to mention "spineless."

 

Want to be clear if this is what you think I am. May I suggest you consider your response carefully?

[csa/montana]

Ok, seems some have not read what CN is founded on; respectful to others; this sort of bickering does not belong here.

[GeorgeLiv]

I used to admire astronomers, as a teen & into my twenties. Then came the 1990s with HPS lighting (horrific spectrum). I couldn't believe nor understood how an entire body of a professional discipline, a segment directly impacted by the consequences of outdoor illumination, essentially sitting back and accepting the result. Sure they coped, modifying their procedures for their particular study, but what about the rest of the world? Were amateurs supposed to pick up the slack, make light-pollution studies/assessments, lobby councils/municipalities for appropriate & less impactful lighting?

 

I knew some astronomers and talked with them about LP. To me they seemed uncaring and resigned to whatever the lighting industry could throw at them (or us). And they sure did...Metal-halide, ceramic-metal-halide, plasma & sulfur excited lamps, finally settling on phosphor based diodes. In reality, many astronomers had no clue about the technological leaps in lighting innovations emerging around the new millennium.

 

But we're lucky. I concede that there have been a small segment of pro astronomers diligently working WITH the lighting industry (not against) to effect change. Economically or astronomically, we've all benefited from full-cutoff lights today, probably due to the sole efforts of a soft spoken & kind David Crawford. But I believe a lot more could've been done & could be done by many more astronomers, more confrontational, more astute.

 

Finally, I take exception when someone reading this takes it personally, as if my opinion matters or my opinion is the end-all. No, it's just my judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. And you too can believe whatever you wish to believe in.