I have been an amateur astronomer since the mid 1960's and have lived in the same locality, Romney Marsh in Kent, during this period. I can confirm that light pollution has had a significant detrimental effect on the night sky.

  I am a member of the British Astronomical Association. I understand that a comprehensive document will be sent to the committee by the BAA regarding this subject, so I do not propose to needlessly repeat its contents, but to bring to your attention some of my own observations.

  When I began to take an interest in astronomy it was then possible to see the Zodiacal Light, the faint glow from sunlight reflecting off minute particles in the plane of the solar system—but this is alas no longer the case. I use this as an indicator as many fellow astronomers that I know and who have come to the subject since then have never seen this phenomenon.

  Amateur astronomers around the globe undertake much scientifically valuable work. Professional astronomers have to bid for time on big telescopes and there is little or no chance that serendipitous discoveries will be made by these instruments. The monitoring of variable stars, changes in solar system objects and supernova discoveries in distant galaxies are examples where UK amateur astronomers make a significant contribution to science.

  Whilst some of these activities require expensive equipment such as CCD cameras, much useful work is undertaken by nothing more complex than the naked eye in the case of meteor activity reporting, or with relatively inexpensive telescopes and binoculars. However, light pollution does indeed impinge on these activities. I have had personal experience of initially enthusiastic newcomers to amateur astronomy who have quickly become disillusioned because of light pollution.

  I mentioned above that I belong to the BAA. My wife and I also belong to a recently formed astronomy society based at the former Royal Greenwich Observatory. The society has formed an observing group to encourage and educate members in practical astronomy. To view the night sky in something like dark conditions, the observing group have to travel many miles to escape the light pollution emanating from London.

  This obviously creates difficulties for those without transport, and definitely discourages some members to the extent that they give up the pursuit altogether. Many of the members are teachers who wish to learn something about astronomy as this is now included in the National Curriculum. These individuals are unlikely to be able to enthuse their students if they have had negative experiences themselves.

  The effects of light pollution have gradually increased over the years to the extent that non-astronomers have probably not noticed its effects.

  Thirty-five years ago street lighting, where it existed at all locally, was usually in the form of simple domestic style tungsten filament lamps of about 150 watts. The use of sodium discharge type lighting was then only just beginning to be adopted. Domestic outside lighting was not much in evidence and I believe people then were generally more frugal with regard to the use of energy. In common with most things, the price of electricity was then much higher in real terms compared to today's value.

  Where lighting was provided it was normally done so for the illumination of one's path, rather than to discourage the unwelcome attentions of criminals. DIY was then a fairly novel concept, so it would then have been common practice to engage a tradesman for the installation of outside lighting. The cost of this would have been enough to dissuade all but the wealthiest from doing so. The types of high output lamps commonly installed today were simply not available then.

  Domestic security lighting is a fairly recent concept. I get the impression that high-powered lamps are installed such that it is difficult to look directly at them without some actual discomfort. I believe that the property owner derives from this some sense that they are conveying an aggressive "keep out" message to the unwelcome.

  The fact that such lighting is wasteful, ineffectual, anti social and possibly dangerous to road users is probably not even considered. There are industry and local government guidelines for such installations but this seems not to be conveyed effectively.

  Many people are moved to floodlight the exterior of buildings for aesthetic considerations, usually by uplighting—the Houses of Parliament are floodlit in this manner. I understand that in theatrical circles, it is common practice to use uplighting to make a character look more sinister!

  There does exist a growing body of evidence that light pollution has detrimental effects on human health, from psychological problems to increased incidence of breast cancer. Many forms of wild life are adversely affected by light pollution, for instance migrating birds.

  Perhaps I could conclude by asking the committee to consider this; if light pollution were to be visible during the day, would we really allow the blue daytime sky to be turned orange?