Monday, July 13, 2009

Science

Thinking Harder

Forces of Darkness Make Pitch to Congress to Fight Light Pollution

June 20, 2008 05:19 PM ET | Ben Harder | Permanent Link | Print
The Milky Way glitters over Cherry Springs State Park in Pennsylvania. This month, the park received a special designation from the International Dark-Sky Association because it has little light pollution.
Cherry Springs State Park, Pa., received a special designation from the International Dark-Sky Association because it has little light pollution.

This afternoon, I attended a briefing on Capitol Hill about light pollution, a subject that has filled many of my notebooks. A representative of a major utility company, a conservation scientist, a medical researcher, and other experts addressed a roomful of congressional staffers in an effort to move the federal legislature to take action against wasteful artificial lighting. Several states, including Texas, and hundreds of towns across the country, including Homer Glen, Ill., have taken measures to control how much light gets cast into the sky rather than onto targets on the ground. But the federal government has not made rules aimed at limiting light pollution.

One presenter, biologist Travis Longcore of the Urban Wildlands Group in Los Angeles, ran through a litany of species that are harmed by misdirected illumination, such as migratory birds, which can become disoriented and crash fatally into lighted towers, and sea turtle hatchlings, which can be lured away from the sea—and to their inevitable death—by illuminated roadways. Another presenter, David Blask of the Bassett Research Institute in Cooperstown, N.Y., focused on explaining why nocturnal illumination is linked to health problems in one important species in particular: humans.

I've covered the harmful effects of artificial light elsewhere, so I won't rehash them here. But it's worth mentioning that the June 18 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute describes yet another scientific advance in our understanding of why women who work in lighted conditions during the night have elevated rates of breast cancer. Eva Schernhammer of Harvard Medical School and her colleagues report that postmenopausal women who have low levels of melatonin, a hormone that the body makes primarily when it's dark, are more likely to develop breast cancer.

Schernhammer previously led a study that found that women who work at night, such as nurses who work the graveyard shift, are at high risk of breast cancer. That finding, published in 2001, was among the first scientific hints that frequent exposure to light at night can lead to health problems. Since then, shift work has been labeled a probably human carcinogen by a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tags: cancer | environment | pollution | light pollution | artificial light

Tools: Share | | Comments (9) | Print

Reader Comments

Get Real

Have any of you actually worked shift work? At what point will we quit giving animals, birds, and insects more rights than humans? Everything causes cancer. This shouldn't even be an item of discussion. Tax payer dollars are being wasted in this type of research. Why not search for alternative fuels, energy, transportation, and the like? Light pollution, get real.

"Experts"?

The connotation of "expert" is that the person has a deep knowledge of the subject involved. Yet, put several in a room and you will have several "expert" opinions. Obviously, some are wrong, if not all, and those with the wrong view or understanding are not really "expert" in the field since what they claim is their knowledge is not knowledge but an erroneous view. Saying 2 plus 2 is 5 is not knowledge. It's likely that there is no such thing as an "expert", only those who have given the subject considerable study and have developed their conclusions. Much of what has been taught in the "101" classes and beyond as knowledge is eventually discarded by new conclusions...thus it was never real knowledge...and those who taught it were not "experts".

"Experts"?

The connotation of "expert" is that the person has a deep knowledge of the subject involved. Yet, put several in a room and you will have several "expert" opinions. Obviously, some are wrong and those with the wrong view or understanding are not really "expert" in the field since what they claim is their knowledge is not knowledge but an erroneous view. Saying 2 plus 2 is 5 is not knowledge. It's likely that there is no such thing as an "expert", only those who have given the subject considerable study and have developed their conclusions, which may be right or wrong. Much of what has been taught in the "101" classes and beyond as knowledge is eventually discarded by new conclusions...thus it was never real knowledge.

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

Thinking Harder

This blog is the public workshop of U.S. News writer and editor Ben Harder. In articles published in the magazine, he has covered a range of sciences, including medicine, human behavior, prehistory, and evolution. Here, he can explore those and other scientific fields more fully and more informally than is possible in print. He'll share whatever seems noteworthy or potentially useful, and he invites readers to do the same.

WTOP Audio

On Feb. 24, 2008, Ben discussed the link between artificial light and cancer on WTOP radio. Listen to the interview at WTOP News. He again talked about light pollution on WTOP on March 22, exploring its environmental effects.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

People who read this also read ...


Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Make USNews.com your home page.