I am an amateur astronomer using a 4.5 inch telescope in my back garden. I am not alone in my interest, many people in this area are keen "sky watchers" and it is with dismay that we record increasing difficulty in seeing not only the beautiful auraborialis but also faint objects like comets with naked eye observation alone. The bright orange glow from Teeside, over 20 miles distance, is of an unacceptable level. I chose to live in this area for the dark night skies 27 years ago and can see a lot less now. Even a brilliant and spectacular meteoric body passing overhead with a sonic boom and ending in the sea just past Hartlepool disappeared, for me, into an infuriating orange gloom!

  I am a member of CaDAS and we have a Planetarium next to our Observatory. We are able to relay current observations to a seated audience. We have also made it available for schools to visit because the Solar System is now included in the GCSE Science Curriculum and there are a lot of schools in the area. Because of increased light pollution from Teeside the children are able to see less and have to rely more on pre-recorded programs, which is a real shame. I remember travelling miles to the South Shields Planetarium with a small group of cubs, who were so disappointed when light pollution exposed a worse view of the sky there than they could see from their own homes in the Northallerton area! Southampton University has published an interesting study of urban light pollution.

  When town lighting was in its infancy the available lamps were not as bright as they are now. Advances in security surveillance systems have changed completely the need for energy wasting whitelight. Instead of nightwatchmen patrolling every half hour around business premises they sit by screens and monitor the entire site with the aid of infra-red camera systems. These alternatives should be suggested and enforced at the planning application level. Most planning guidelines do not include them yet.

  Houses in our small village with overly bright lights have been approached by our parish council and asked to fit timers, down-shade and use only the necessary brightness. North Yorkshire Council is aware of the light pollution issue. I have found it is very educational to approach as many businesses and planning bodies as possible, requesting a statement of their company policy on the subject of Light Pollution. If they didn't know they needed to think about it before they certainly do after being asked to provide the answer in a letter.

  I have included with the e-mailed version of this letter a website list of designs of all aspects of lighting (not printed). The Google Searchengine has provided a wide range of information that you will be most interested to peruse before the committee starts its discussions. This is a global issue and Italy seems to lead the European interest and will host the next conference, details enclosed on a separate sheet (not printed).

  I should point out that there is the possibility you may be able to add the remit of potential light pollution to the existing work of the Environment Agency. Because they vet planning applications for other reasons already. Barbara Young, who heads the Environment Agency, has explained to me in a letter that at present light pollution is not under the remit of the Agency. She also added that in her personal life she had had cause to pay special attention to controlling the lighting of her home area, so you may well find she would be interested to talk to you.

  I agree that outdoor lighting has become a necessary and integral part of society. Light pollution is a by-product of outdoor lighting. Light pollution can be reduced by lighting only what is actually needed, when it is needed, and to the appropriate level. Since the advent of popularity of industrial whitelight floodlighting, huge advances have been made and now suitable and effective security surveillance systems are both available and cost effective in other wavelengths and should be introduced at the primary planning permission application stage.

  This letter includes not only the accepted discussion on the three elements of light pollution, which are sky glow, light trespass and glare, but points out that very little research has been done on health hazards to this present time. A recently published study of night working females showed an alarming increase in the incidence of breast cancer, which was put down to exposure to artificial light, perhaps you will agree that this is certainly, "food for thought" and cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant issue without more research?

  We light our outdoor night environment to meet certain societal goals, such as increasing safety and security, and to enhancing economic development, as well as highlighting historic areas or landmarks of cities or towns. Our society has become a 24-hour society, and lighting has become a necessity to facilitate using our roads.

  Light pollution is a by-product of lighting at night, especially when we use inefficient lamps and when we light to excessive levels. We can minimise our impact on light pollution by lighting more efficiently. When we choose efficient lamps, fewer lamps are required to meet the lighting objectives, resulting in less wasted light emitted into areas where the light is not needed. Light pollution is an unwanted consequence of outdoor lighting and includes such effects as sky glow, light trespass, and glare.

  Sky glow is a brightening of the sky caused by both natural and human-made factors. The key factor of sky glow that contributes to light pollution is outdoor lighting.

  Light trespass is light being cast where it is not wanted or not needed, such as light from a streetlight or a floodlight that illuminates a neighbour's bedroom at night making it difficult to sleep.

  Glare can be thought of as objectionable brightness. It can be disabling or discomforting. There are several kinds of glare, the worst of which is disability glare, because it causes a loss of visibility from stray light being scattered within the eye. Discomfort glare is the sensation of annoyance or even pain induced by overly bright sources. Think of driving along a dark road when an oncoming car with bright headlights suddenly appears. The sudden bright light can be uncomfortable and make it difficult to see. Discomfort and even disability glare can also be caused by streetlights, parking lot lights, floodlights, signs, sports field lighting, and decorative and landscape lights.

  The fact is that a good percentage of light in unshielded or partly shielded, outdoor lamps goes outward and upward. This is totally useless, and proper reflectors in full-cutoff fixtures should allow substantial reduction in the lumen outputs of the lamps. This is common sense and represents huge potential savings of energy and money!

  Shielding lights that direct the light properly and uniformly onto the ground can produce huge savings. The addition of a cut off device obviously helps enormously too. By the intelligent utilization of low and high-pressure-sodium (LPS and HPS) and metal-halide lamps, with a wattage of 50 or less, most streetlights provide very satisfactory illumination. There is a movement nowadays, away from the older mercury and incandescent outdoor lamps to metal-halide, HPS, and LPS, and sometimes even fluorescent lamps, these newer lamps are all much more energy efficient than the older mercury and incandescent lights. The problem is that utility companies want to keep their income at the same level, so unless told otherwise, they will install (for example) an HPS lamp of the same wattage as the older mercury or incandescent lights, creating two to four (or more) times as much light! In general, taking out a 150-watt mercury lamp and replacing it with a 35-watt LPS or 50-watt HPS lamp will give the same amount of light and cut the cost of lighting substantially at the same time.

  People are generally unaware of how expensive street lighting is, or how much of a drain it is on our un-renewable energy resources. Sadly many towns would appear to be influenced by power suppliers who do not mind making money from taxpayers.

  The problem is that many such power-utility officials are not well educated on outdoor lighting, and this is where the public must help them do their jobs properly.

27 April 2003