Actually they can tell the differences of designs, they know very well about lighting pollution, they are just exaggerating the real truth that MV is not the problem. They just want to get rid of old lights.....but they DO know the design. I actually agree there are issues with light pollution....but mercury ban is not going to help.....
They do know.....trust me....
Plus this tear drop fixture actually has the lamp more recessed than the yard blasters....the yardblasters has the lamp totally exposed on the bucket refractor...SPREADING lights like crazy....while the teardrop are more recess putting more light down....
And please no hate words to any form of groups....not a good idea. You can only say opinions....but I know what they are doing.....
that's what they are actually doing...but they just want to do MORE.....they are just becoming extremest that's all...
But I have to admit when I was visiting Arizona, I saw more stars and the stars did look nice....but banning MV wasn't the reason, it was light control....they just went overboard....I mean in Vermont there's a LOT of MV still there and there's a LOT of stars there too! They just had less lights in Vermont.
I know each individual of IDA members have their own opinions, some actually like MV and some goals weren't to elinminate MV...but to reduce glare or to have less lights around or have better control.....
There would have been NO IDA if yardblasters never came up....and because the fact the FIRST and MOST common yardblaster fixtures were MV...that's why they are attacking it, to eliminate the existing yardblasters. But they actually are allowing any MV that was installed in 1949 or before to stay!
I fully support the fundamental purpose of the DSA. I fully agree that light should not be carelessly "wasted" and glare should be minimized. I support the idea of using the most effective fixture for the situation. Luckily, plenty of vintage, antique, unique, and interesting fixtures meet these requirements. I've seen many nice old floodlights that are FCO or close to it. When using incandescent, you have to make every watt count! You can't afford to waste light. Same with early mercury lights that have good optics. They don't waste much light. So, if you really consider the issues, the DSA should be on our side. We should get along with them well.
Yeah banning MV really doesn't solve the problem, now that MV is banned they just put out CFL, MH, HPS yardlights instead. Maybe someone will even make a LED yardlight.
If they really wanted to reduce light pollution just ban those cheap yardlights that spray light all over the place instead of touching MV.
If you want to control glare (one of DSA's goals, at least where I live), banning MV is counter-productive. I tend to see more glare from newer MH, CFL, and LED fixtures than from MV fixtures. Newer technologies, especially MH and LED are more intense, so are worse for glare. Mercury vapor seems to do quite well in that regard.
I should add that where I live, the DSA is helping to provide reflectors for existing mercury NEMA heads to replace the original refractors. Cities that still are lit with mercury NEMA lights have taken advantage of this with good results. It keeps old lights going while improving light quality and reducing skyglow. Our local DSA doesn't have anything against mercury!
Login
They do know.....trust me....
Plus this tear drop fixture actually has the lamp more recessed than the yard blasters....the yardblasters has the lamp totally exposed on the bucket refractor...SPREADING lights like crazy....while the teardrop are more recess putting more light down....
And please no hate words to any form of groups....not a good idea. You can only say opinions....but I know what they are doing.....
But I have to admit when I was visiting Arizona, I saw more stars and the stars did look nice....but banning MV wasn't the reason, it was light control....they just went overboard....I mean in Vermont there's a LOT of MV still there and there's a LOT of stars there too! They just had less lights in Vermont.
I know each individual of IDA members have their own opinions, some actually like MV and some goals weren't to elinminate MV...but to reduce glare or to have less lights around or have better control.....
There would have been NO IDA if yardblasters never came up....and because the fact the FIRST and MOST common yardblaster fixtures were MV...that's why they are attacking it, to eliminate the existing yardblasters. But they actually are allowing any MV that was installed in 1949 or before to stay!
If they really wanted to reduce light pollution just ban those cheap yardlights that spray light all over the place instead of touching MV.