Why We Need Darkness

Another quick break from this month's spooky posts.

Part of the reason the name of my blog is The Inconsequential Blogger is because I was feeling a little frustrated back in April when I started the blog. I felt that things that I cared deeply about were inconsequential to everyone else.

Part of my frustrations stemmed from the planning commission in my little town. I had recently attended a meeting in which they would be deciding on whether or not to install nighttime lighting on two of the baseball fields in the park next to my house. Living right next to the park of course I don’t want the lights, so I went to the meeting to voice my opinion and concerns. Among my concerns were light pollution, and the effects of artificial nighttime lighting on the wildlife in the area.

I was cut off in the middle of describing the wildlife in the park. It made me feel kind of foolish. Like I was some sort of nut or something. The lights were approved, so now little-leaguers can stay up late playing ball.

Today I felt a little bit better about my concerns and that maybe they aren’t so inconsequential, when I looked at the November issue of National Geographic that came in the mail. On the cover the “dazzling Chicago nightscape lights up the clouds but obscures the stars” in a striking photo by Jim Richardson. In large words on the cover it says, “The End Of Night - Why We Need Darkness.”

One of the concerns raised in the article was about the increasing light pollution worldwide and its very real effect on wildlife. And something else that the article brought up was that “at least one new study has suggested a direct correlation between higher rates of breast cancer in women and the nighttime brightness of their neighborhoods.”

We need darkness because we are diurnal creatures. Artificial nighttime lighting interferes with our natural circadian rhythms, and the natural feeding, reproductive, and migratory rhythms of the creatures which share our world. The article states that of all the types of pollution, light pollution is the easiest to combat through better lighting design and light curfews.

I’m sure the National Geographic article won’t sway the planning board in my little town. In fact I’m sure they don’t even remember the kooky lady who they had to cut off mid-sentence because they didn’t want to hear about wildlife in a park made for little-leaguers and soccer players. I, however, feel a little teensy bit vindicated. But I’m still sad about the lights.

First Post

Hello. This is my first blog post. Welcome! If there actually is anyone out there who stumbles across my blog - wow!

I decided to start a blog because I've found that the things that are important to me seem to be inconsequential to most other people. I've started feeling like a non-entity, so in order not to go crazy, I decided to start a blog. Here I can write about things and if someone happens to stumble across it and likes it, well hey, then maybe I'm not alone after all.

The picture below is my dog heading towards home between two ball fields in the park next to our house. The tallest tree in the distance to the left of the dog is in my backyard. This picture was taken a month or so ago.

Okay. First off, I'd like to tell you about something that happened the other night. I live right next to a very nice park (see above). Half of it consists of numerous soccer fields. The other half consists of little league baseball fields and a pond. The parks department in my nice little city is planning on putting in lighting for the two baseball fields furthest from the houses that abut the park (those fields would be located behind the picture-taker in the above photo). My neighbor and I don't really want this to happen because we think that it will adversely impact the enjoyment of our yards on a summer evening.

We went before the planning board when the issue came up the other night to voice our concerns with the project. My house lies 560 feet from the closest ball field that will be lit. They assured us that spill-out light from the field will reach acceptable levels 425 feet from the field, so they are well within regulations. Wow! A cushion of 135 feet!

That's fine, I know that the lights won't be shining directly into my yard or windows, I'm really just concerned with the general glow and light pollution which will wash the stars from the night sky. I like the stars, but lots of other people don't really care about them, so it's not really something that was looked into. I will miss them terribly. Terribly.

The noise, too, that will come along with the games, which will last until 11:00 pm, six to seven nights a week during the season, was a concern. That and the fact that right now the park closes at dusk. With the advent of the lights, people will be able to roam around, right by the houses, after dark. That's a little creepy, but I guess not creepy enough to be of concern to the parks people, or the planning board.

I also enjoy the wildlife in the park. I asked if they knew what kind of an impact the artificial nighttime lighting would have on the migratory red-winged blackbirds which nest all along one side of the ball fields, and the killdeer which nest in an open field on another side. And what, if any, the effect would be on the other night denizens of the park. I tried to bring up the fact that the wildlife that could be found in, over, and around our park was on par with what could be found in a neighboring National Park - including bald eagles - and so we shouldn't ignore any impact to the habitat that the lights may incur. But I was interrupted and asked if I had any data about all of that. No I didn't, but I reiterated that maybe these things should be looked into.

I know that these things aren't as important to other people as they are to me, but it was worth a try. I guess. But really I just feel pretty foolish about the whole thing. Maybe I came off as nutty. I don't know.

The lighting was approved. My neighbor is putting her house up for sale.